NOTICE: This forum is mostly an archive, though new posts are allowed. Registration may require manual admin activation. After registering visit https://bitsum.com/contact/ to request account activation.
Started by bertie97, March 29, 2012, 04:13:33 PM
Quote from: bertie97 on July 21, 2012, 07:45:11 AMNow at beta x.53 & things are working. & I would say generally this build feels less "clunky" in how it's working behind the scenes. Don't know why people get angry about beta errors, that is what a beta is about - fault finding & an opportunity to share in the creative process.I don't mind a few bugs if it means I get to see a better product at the end. Writing code isn't the easiest thing in the world & logic rarely wins against some of the bug I've seen over the years.
Quote from: BenYeeHua on July 21, 2012, 10:13:53 AMYa, found a bug in beta is better than found a bug in stable build And improving the produce is more harder, a little change will cause more problem coming to developers.
Quote from: bertie97 on July 25, 2012, 06:40:50 AMIf only all developers agreed with you. Very many buggy products released with endless & huge patches in the game industry for example. Guess you just have to learn to be patient...
Quote from: bitsum.support on July 25, 2012, 06:43:09 AMFWIW, PC environments are complex and chaotic. Users have installed all sorts of software on all sorts of editions of Windows on all sorts of hardware. It is like a jungle ;p. Some minidumps I've analyzed had 10 different third-party DLLs injected into my processes! (note: Process Lasso NEVER injects DLLs).
Quote from: bitsum.support on July 26, 2012, 01:52:45 AMShowing 100% of the minimum cores that must remain unparked, you mean?ProBalance's setting to optionally disable CPU Parking is hopefully working correctly, but please report if not. I did test it and it seemed to be fine. The *one area* where I have concern is on hardware that does not support CPU parking. In these cases, there is nothing to disable, and nothing to enable - thus the user may be confused as to why it doesn't get 'enabled' by ParkControl. Detecting these situations is on the agenda for the future, though they will become less common by then - ironically. Most who would want to disable core parking surely have it .
Quote from: bitsum.support on July 28, 2012, 05:01:32 PMDo you have any media player active by chance? I apologize if I already asked this.
29-07-2012 18:42:44.017,B-PC,B,tired.exe,8012,Entering 'Prevent Display Sleep' mode,This process is configured to prevent the display(s) from sleeping.,"C:\Program Files (x86)\tired\tired.exe" 29-07-2012 18:42:48.089,B-PC,B,tired.exe,8012,Sleep prevention continues,A sleep preventing process ended? but other sleep preventing processes are still running.,"C:\Program Files (x86)\tired\tired.exe" 29-07-2012 18:43:06.340,B-PC,B,tired.exe,6056,Sleep prevention continues,A sleep preventing process ended? but other sleep preventing processes are still running.,"C:\Program Files (x86)\tired\tired.exe" 29-07-2012 18:43:06.356,B-PC,B,tired.exe,6900,Leaving no sleep mode,The PC is now allowed to sleep when set to.,"C:\Program Files (x86)\tired\tired.exe"
Quote from: bertie97 on August 01, 2012, 08:54:35 AMOriginally I had wanted to prevent the PC from sleeping whilst running some processes Win7 didn't think were important enough to stay awake for; When you added this function I wondered if would be possible to keep the box awake but let the monitor(s) sleep. You implemented this & I had my perfect PM setup.
QuoteSomewhere along the line the allow monitor to sleep but keep the box awake has switched to keep monitors awake even if box is asleep. Which as you rightly say is something of a questionable option.
Quote from: bitsum.support on August 05, 2012, 08:16:58 AMNote during code review I fixed a bug in this last beta pointed out by Ed - the dialog could save the type of sleep wrong. This will be fixed in the final I'm about to issue.
Quote from: bertie97 on August 05, 2012, 09:54:39 AMCurrently (.73) the GUI still likes to juggle the setting but now it's only the dialog which seems to displays a wrong text value, the actual ini remains ok & RC shows the 'check' in the correct position.
QuoteI have read this thread from the beginning, but I don't get it.
Quote from: bertie97 on May 28, 2013, 05:55:29 AMNow on 220.127.116.11b - no change - system will sleep but monitor ill not respond to the monitor only sleep instruction.The whole system stays awake when selected processes are running. So it's positive but no cigar. I see you changed the tags on the settings drop-down. Nearly had me confused ...