Recent posts

#21

Process Lasso / Re: Rules Editor requests

Last post by Jeremy Collake - August 12, 2026, 10:11:25 AM

1) I LOVE the ability to batch edit on the Active Processes and All Processes tabs. Is there a reason this functionality isn't available in the Edit Rules window?  This would be a wonderful feature!

I think we can make this happen . There are some complexities with using the in-place edit controls to batch edit all selected rows, but they aren't insurmountable. We'll consider the best way to enable that.

For completeness, I'll note that you can currently copy and paste rules from one process to multiple others, but it is non-selective in that it copies all rules, and I understand that isn't the request.

2) Could we have the ability to use the Edit Rules window for profiles that are NOT the active profile?  There's times I want to be tweaking rules, but really don't want the changes to be propagating in real-time / in the current profile.

Yes, that's a great idea! It's a little more work than the other request, due to the architecture, but doable and worth doing.

I've ticketed both these suggestions and will reply again on news.

Thanks for the feedback!

#22

ProcWatch / ProcWatch keeps showing alerts...

Last post by mattcowell - August 12, 2026, 06:18:46 AM

I've been using ProcWatch for a few weeks now and generally find it really useful for catching processes that slowly start consuming more memory or handles than they should. I'm currently running it on Windows 11 24H2, with ProcWatch 1.0.0.0, and I've noticed a strange issue with the alert history. I set up a rule to warn me when a process goes above 2 GB private memory or 50,000 handles. Everything works normally while the process is running. For example, Chrome triggered the memory warning after several hours, and ProcWatch correctly identified the process and showed the alert. The problem starts after I close the application. Even after confirming in Task Manager that all of its processes have disappeared, the old ProcWatch alert sometimes remains active in the monitoring window. If I start Chrome again, ProcWatch can then show another entry for Chrome, so I end up with what looks like a duplicate/stale entry for the same application. I've also noticed this with a couple of other applications, although it doesn't happen every time. It seems more likely when the application has several child processes and they terminate at slightly different times. Waiting several minutes doesn't always clear the old entry. Has anyone else experienced stale process entries or alerts remaining after the process has terminated? Is there a setting I'm missing for how ProcWatch handles terminated processes, or is this potentially a bug in the process monitoring/alert cleanup?

#23

Process Lasso / Re: Rules Editor requests

Last post by austinlau92 - August 12, 2026, 04:30:26 AM

I agree with both suggestions, especially being able to edit inactive profiles without affecting the current setup, as that would make configuring and testing different rule sets much easier.

#24

Process Lasso / Rules Editor requests

Last post by LownSlow - August 11, 2026, 09:25:21 PM

I have a couple of suggestions related to the Edit Rules window.  I'm doing a lot of configuring in the moment, in multiple profiles, so I'm spending a lot of time in this window.

1) I LOVE the ability to batch edit on the Active Processes and All Processes tabs. Is there a reason this functionality isn't available in the Edit Rules window?  This would be a wonderful feature!

2) Could we have the ability to use the Edit Rules window for profiles that are NOT the active profile?  There's times I want to be tweaking rules, but really don't want the changes to be propagating in real-time / in the current profile.

Thanks for considering these suggestions!

#25

Process Lasso / Re: Creating an inverse / rese...

Last post by LownSlow - August 11, 2026, 09:14:55 PM

We'll also consider blanking the value on a rule when it's "all cores", but that would make it less apparent when such rules are set.

Wanted to mention that the program currently treats this inconsistently.  If you set to "all cores" in the Edit Rules window, it will list the rule as "0-[last core number]" in the Rules column of All Processes and Active Process tabs.  However, if you right-click the process in the one of processes tabs and choose "None"--which is essentially the same action--the Rules column will be blank for affinity (which is essentially what I'm requesting).

Incidentally, I also noticed that if you only have one rule configured, and then set that rule back to default (like None for Affinity), the processes will either be completely deleted from the Edit Rules view, or the process will be still listed, but with all the columns blank.  For instance, CPU Affinity, CPU Sets, GPU Pref, Boost, and Efficiency set to default will cause the process to be deleted in Rules view.  All the remaining options will leave the Process in the window.

I'm assuming the intended behavior is to delete the process from the rules view entirely, as this is what happens when you choose the "Remove All Rules" from the right-click menu.

#26

Process Lasso / Re: How do you change which Co...

Last post by LownSlow - August 11, 2026, 08:07:04 PM

Thanks for considering this request. I would certainly find it useful to be able to swap the default profile.  For instance, when I'm in a season where I'm using a particular game or application more frequently, and don't want to need to manually change the profile after reboot or PL restart.  Or when I want a "clean PL boot" profile, which is just a profile with no PL rules at all.

The only way to change which config profile is the default is to rename it and replace its rules with the desired profile.

I'm not sure I understand this.  What is the benefit/change induced by the renaming of the profile?  I understand the effect of replacing the rules for the profile that's already the default one, but don't understand the need or the reason for the change of name.


Thanks!

#27

Process Lasso / Re: Creating an inverse / rese...

Last post by LownSlow - August 11, 2026, 07:36:34 PM

That sounds great.  Thanks so much!

#28

Process Lasso / New load-based power profile s...

Last post by Nudge - August 11, 2026, 12:06:42 PM

The Experimental Profile Switcher moved from Park Control to Process Lasso in v18.2.0.50 (previous Park Control forum [topic=37678]).

Having upgraded to the this new way (Process Lasso v18.2.3.42 & Park Control v5.5.4.4) I have a few questions as the experimental version seemed to work better for my requirements:


1)  The Experimental Park Control version had a most useful option which is no longer present:

    "Check load of individual core" which was perfect for boosting single threaded apps on high core processors.

    Is there a technical reason why this option is no longer available & if there is none can it be restored please ?


2)  New option "Smoothing windows (samples)"

     How is this connected with the "Minimum time in power plan" please ?  (I understand there likely is a connection but better understanding may aid usage).


Kind regards

Nudge

#29

Process Lasso / Re: How do you change which Co...

Last post by Jeremy Collake - August 10, 2026, 11:56:39 AM

The design of the application is such that there is always at least one config profile, and that is earmarked as "(default)".

The only way to change which config profile is the default is to rename it and replace its rules with the desired profile.

Going the other way (simply marking a profile as default) is something we could allow. It just hasn't come up before. We'll take a look at doing that and I'll reply again upon any news.

#30

Process Lasso / Re: Creating an inverse / rese...

Last post by Jeremy Collake - August 10, 2026, 11:51:33 AM

As you've discovered, there isn't currently a way to easily achieve an automatic undo of rules applied by a config profile.

We maybe can add something along those lines. I've ticketed it and will get back to you.

We'll also consider blanking the value on a rule when it's "all cores", but that would make it less apparent when such rules are set.