New user of Process Lasso - some observations

[pdxesto]

I'm running v3.80.3 (x32) on Windows XP. First, let me say that I really like what I see! The amount of information displayed, the way it is displayed, and the amount of control given to the user is fabulous!

I have a couple of observations:

1. I have seen child window positioning errors in v3.80.3. In one case, the "middle" pane went missing; it was there a minute ago, I don't know what caused it to disappear. Doing a 'reset window positions' cleared up the problem. I had the "Active processes" tab active in the middle pane, if that's any clue. (How do I include a screen shot here? Sorry, but I'm not a frequent forum poster, in general.)

2. I have "Manage processes of all users" checked, but the "All processes" list shows all processes being owned by me (i.e. the User column shows all users as being me).

3. It would be very nice if the list of processes in the "Active processes" tab was able to be ordered by clicking on a column header, just like in the "All processes" tab. I suspect they are simply ordered by process name currently.

4. The "Active processes" list does not show processes that Task Manager shows as being active. Could the "Active processes" list be missing system processes (when All Users is checked)? There also seems to be some "intertia" associated with items in the "Active processes" list; it seems to take a while for items to show up in the list.

Thanks for listening!
That's it for now - I'm still exploring.

[Jeremy Collake]

1. I have seen child window positioning errors in v3.80.3. In one case, the "middle" pane went missing; it was there a minute ago, I don't know what caused it to disappear. Doing a 'reset window positions' cleared up the problem. I had the "Active processes" tab active in the middle pane, if that's any clue. (How do I include a screen shot here? Sorry, but I'm not a frequent forum poster, in general.)

That is troubling to hear, I thought I had them all cleared up. I have been 'fiddling' with the user interface for a while here, and don't know precisely how this is occurring. Do you tend to use the 'hide graph' button at all? If you notice precise steps to replicate the problem, please let me know. Until then, I'll definitely be looking into it as a top priority.

UPDATE: You may want to re-download v3.80.3, because I just performed a silent update to fix a lack of remembrance of the pane positions if the Action pane was less than 70 pixels (some people want it even smaller). The updated build, dated 2/3/10, has a few other tweaks that could affect the child window positioning behavior on your system.

2. I have "Manage processes of all users" checked, but the "All processes" list shows all processes being owned by me (i.e. the User column shows all users as being me).

I believe what you are seeing, as a user of Windows XP, is actually the failure to properly resolve the user name of system processes. In other words, ALL the processes are listed, but system processes are mis-named as 'Administrator'. Under some circumstances, the necessary terminal services service doesn't get started until you do a 'fast user switch', where you login as another user while still logged in as administrator. Its not until this point that user names of system processes are properly resolved. The 'bug' is a side-effect of the architecture of Windows.. so its not just some simple error in the code. This has been a known issue for a long time now, but its been a low priority since it only applies to single-user XP systems, where the difference between the current administrative user and system processes is negligible. Further, it is running the software in an unrecommended configuration, and therefore the priority of the bug was lowered a bit more. I will make a note to revisit the issue, but I do believe that is what you are seeing. Anyway, I'll see what I can do for v3.82

3. It would be very nice if the list of processes in the "Active processes" tab was able to be ordered by clicking on a column header, just like in the "All processes" tab. I suspect they are simply ordered by process name currently.

Yes, this is something that will be supported in a subsequent minor update. v3.82 should have it for sure.

4. The "Active processes" list does not show processes that Task Manager shows as being active. Could the "Active processes" list be missing system processes (when All Users is checked)? There also seems to be some "intertia" associated with items in the "Active processes" list; it seems to take a while for items to show up in the list.

The refresh speed of the active processes list is kept low to reduce GUI overhead. Its refresh speed is 1/2 the main processes list. This longer interval between refreshes causes the CPU utilization of processes to be averaged out over a longer period, thus possibly omitting results shown in the task manager (due to the difference in CPU usage calculation). If this isn't what you are seeing, then something else may be going on.. Please let me know if you believe this to be the case.

I'm glad you the like the software, and I appreciate your feedback. Rest assured that I am working hard here to ensure a quality product, though must admit to occasionally being overwhelmed. For little missing conveniences like the sort on the 'active processes' tab, just give it a few versions. The way I develop is highly incremental. I release a version with new features X, Y, and Z. I then proceed to polish those features over the next few minor updates. I find this to be relatively efficient, though it does result in a lot of minor updates. It allows the latest and greatest code to be out there, while minimizing errata, and easily identifying any errata that does appear since the code changes are so carefully tracked. Releasing any new major version is always a balance between having the capabilities finished, and having them polished well enough to be presented. I try to make only reasonable compromises, though the lack of sort in the 'Active processes' tab has been a common complaint. I honestly didn't think anyone would miss it since the list is not usually populated with all that many processes. I assumed wrong ;(

[Jeremy Collake]

As life would have it, I discovered another scenario where user interface corruption in v3.80 could occur. Its actually quite simple to manifest, but I didn't see it in my tests for two reasons #1: I would have never expected it, and #2 I minimize to the system tray instead of the task bar. That's right, if you minimize to the task bar (instead of the system tray), then restore the main window while the graph is not hidden, corruption of child window positions can occur. As upsetting and annoying as these little GUI problems may be, I'm pressing forward and fixing this right now.

[pdxesto]

You beat me to it Yes, minimizing to the taskbar is what causes the window corruption for me. Glad to see that you're on it.

Regarding the other points you responded to:

2.

I believe what you are seeing, as a user of Windows XP, is actually the failure to properly resolve the user name of system processes.

Where and how does Windows' Task Manager get users like "LOCAL SERVICE", "NETWORK SERVICE", and "SYSTEM" from? Could you use that facility also?

4.

This longer interval between refreshes causes the CPU utilization of processes to be averaged out over a longer period, thus possibly omitting results shown in the task manager (due to the difference in CPU usage calculation). If this isn't what you are seeing, then something else may be going on.. Please let me know if you believe this to be the case.

I think you're right on this one. I bumped up the refresh speed and started seeing more processes in the "Active processes" list.

... though the lack of sort in the 'Active processes' tab has been a common complaint. I honestly didn't think anyone would miss it since the list is not usually populated with all that many processes. I assumed wrong

I wonder if there are other Linux users who run 'top' with the 'i' option who were also wanting to see the "Active processes" list ordered by CPU use.


Anyways, thanks for responding, and keep up the great work!

[Jeremy Collake]

You beat me to it Yes, minimizing to the taskbar is what causes the window corruption for me. Glad to see that you're on it.

Yea, I fixed it now. I'm doing an early launch of v3.80.4. Hopefully this will be the last of GUI problems caused by the v3.80 rewrite. I almost shot myself when I realized how simple it was to manifest this errata in the v3.80.3 update. I guess I should have stuck with my 'safe' code in v3.80.2, though I wanted to preserve pane positions. There is something terribly ironic about the GUI code causing the most headaches, with it arguably being the least important portion of the code. I should probably switch to using at least an abstraction library to make GUI chores a little easier.

Where and how does Windows' Task Manager get users like "LOCAL SERVICE", "NETWORK SERVICE", and "SYSTEM" from? Could you use that facility also?

The info isn't unobtainable, that's for certain. Its just that going through the normal channels (API) of resolving a process's session ID to a user doesn't work in the situation you're seeing (a single user XP system prior to any fast user switching). I actually have two different methods of doing it, one NT Native code and the other normal win32 API (which of course itself just uses the NT native API). Neither method works in this scenario. I therefore have to go through non-standard channels to get this info, hence the perpetually delayed fix.

Technically speaking, the task manager in XP has its own little hack to work around this. I'm not sure the exact mechanism it uses off hand. I will work on it .. I too often put XP last in my priority list, but the reality is that the majority of Process Lasso users are probably running XP.

Thanks

[Jeremy Collake]

I thought about this last night, after finally having a free minute away from annoying GUI troubles that causes severe headaches.

Its been a while since I heavily used a single-user XP system, but I would say that the task manager is inferring the user context of system services. There's not going to be any API in the OS itself that returns 'LOCAL SERVICE' and 'NETWORK SERVICE'. Its much like Lasso's labeling of svchost.exe instances. Of course, the reason the session ID can't be resolved to a user is because on a single-user XP system prior to a fast user switch, there is only one session - and the currently logged in user 'owns' it.

I am sure I can make Lasso operate just like the task manager with a few simple tweaks. I'll do so in v3.8x.