Why do you use Process Lasso? - VOTE

Jeremy Collake · February 03, 2011, 10:45:03 PM

Why do you use Process Lasso? I'm just curious what the majority of the user base feels is most important. Thanks

Hotrod · February 03, 2011, 10:50:48 PM

Because it does exactly what I came here looking for in the first place...and MORE.

And this software has the very best support I have seen in over 20 years on the world wide web.

Jeremy Collake · February 03, 2011, 11:00:56 PM

Quote from: Hotrod on February 03, 2011, 10:50:48 PM
Because it does exactly what I came here looking for in the first place...and MORE. And this software has the very best support I have seen in over 20 years on the world wide web.

Thanks

. I'm getting increasing pressure to 'dumb down' the product. I guess I will provide at least such an option, but it bothers me that consumers are always treated like they are idiots. I mean, is there nobody who caters to smart people, lol?

hanemach_gt · February 05, 2011, 03:53:21 AM

I use Process Lasso as a performance monitor and professional process manager

Mr. Bubbles · February 05, 2011, 10:03:32 AM

I voted for #1 & 2.

Process Lasso (PL) does a much better job at handling multiple core CPUs while balancing the load of software priorities than Windows XP can ever dream of doing (my box uses XP). My computer is much more responsive as a result of Process Lasso.

I've been using computers for decades... I'm computer savvy -- so dumbing down PL would not be a good option for me, because I like the ability to play with all of the variables (tweaking) and to "see" what's going on.

I guess one could insert a toggle function in PL i.e. for beginner or advance mode... but, I wouldn't use beginner mode anyway.... so for me, I'd say, keep as is. My 2 cents worth!

Thanks Jeremy....

Jeremy Collake · February 05, 2011, 08:22:03 PM

Thanks

. You know, the one thing I know is that I know nothing, lol. I am just going to follow the market. So long as people buy the software, I'm going to keep doing it 'as I have been', although maybe providing more options to reach different markets at the same time. Truthfully, the global consumer is being treated as if they have no brains by most companies. I just refuse to believe that. I mean, it doesn't take a computer programmer to understand the basics of what a process is, and the basics of how Process Lasso can tune your system. It just takes a little learning.. now if only I were a better teacher, lol. The 'your UI is ugly' comments I get, while annoying, are certainly true -- but you know, I adhere to the Windows Theming guidelines, and you can theme your system out however you want, or even take it further with Stardock WindowBlinds. If every app becomes a psuedo-game, then we're going to end up with one confusing and non-standard user interface (for all apps) ;o.

Hotrod · February 05, 2011, 08:32:07 PM

I agree many of us are power users and know what we are doing or can learn with a little patience, but I have run into a few people who just want the KISS version (Keep It Simple Stupid). I think 2 things will make this easy for either genre. First of all, a very detailed and dumbed down documentation for the global user would help get them up to speed. Second, Maybe an option in the main menu for basic/advanced interface toggling with basic being the default for new users. Beyond that I don't think there is much you haven't already done to try to cater to all markets. Keep up the good work.

Mr. Bubbles · February 06, 2011, 12:46:52 AM

I don't think the Process Lasso GUI is ugly at all... In fact, I think it's easy on the eyes and logical to navigate through.. Quite functional I'd say. Don't listen to Paris Hilton if she wants it in pink.... that's just not a good idea! lol

Jeremy Collake · February 06, 2011, 02:59:18 AM

Quote from: Mr. Bubbles on February 06, 2011, 12:46:52 AM
I don't think the Process Lasso GUI is ugly at all... In fact, I think it's easy on the eyes and logical to navigate through.. Quite functional I'd say. Don't listen to Paris Hilton if she wants it in pink.... that's just not a good idea! lol

You never know, maybe there is an untapped girlie market

. My wife, I swear, buys technological gadgets based solely on their color. It astounds me. I mean, it is a device, not a fashion accessory. Well, anyway

.

The thing is that Process Lasso already is simplified in that the user need not touch anything and ProBalance will help out. The problem is when the user opens the interface and discovers all these strange terms they don't know the meaning of. So, this is where the simplification will take place. What I'm going to do is add a third status bar, one that has a simplified interface and overview of ProBalance and more. The other tabs can be hidden as needed. This should suffice well. Further, allowance to move the Log status column up to the top will help to create vertical space for the prettiest, and easiest interface I can think of

. I need to get 'on it', but there is version 5. I may go ahead and allow the Log to be moved, as that would be handy (to me).

Hotrod · February 06, 2011, 05:38:06 AM

The one other thing I think would make this much easier to use would be the ability to add processes to the exclusions, priority adjustments, etc. from the log viewer. Too many times I have found a problem process with 20 or 30 priority adjustments in the log, but it is no longer running in the active processes and therefore difficult to adjust it's settings. Especially if you want to use a complete path for it's rule. Is there some way this can be accomplished?

Jeremy Collake · February 06, 2011, 09:23:52 PM

Quote from: Hotrod on February 06, 2011, 05:38:06 AM
The one other thing I think would make this much easier to use would be the ability to add processes to the exclusions, priority adjustments, etc. from the log viewer. Too many times I have found a problem process with 20 or 30 priority adjustments in the log, but it is no longer running in the active processes and therefore difficult to adjust it's settings. Especially if you want to use a complete path for it's rule. Is there some way this can be accomplished?

Already started on it

. The newer betas have the ability to right-click a log entry and exclude that process from ProBalance restraint. Not much, but a start in that direction. Sadly, I pulled the betas temporarily as I work on the core engine. Process defaults (priorities and affinities) weren't being applied under some circumstances, so I'm having to do a massive code and change review to see what has happened here. The logic of the core engine is designed around optimality, which makes it harder to work with at times. However, it is well worth it in the end.

Neo · March 12, 2011, 07:35:00 PM

Quote from: jeremy.collake on February 06, 2011, 02:59:18 AM
You never know, maybe there is an untapped girlie market . My wife, I swear, buys technological gadgets based solely on their color. It astounds me. I mean, it is a device, not a fashion accessory. Well, anyway .

Don't knock it. I've seen women win $$ in football pools, basing their decisions on uniform colors and designs. How does that work?? That being said...

I vote "no" for dumb-downs of any kind or for any thing. That includes education AND software. Let those folks buy coporate carbon copies and overpay; they're not going to understand why you have the best solution anyway. Barring that, you could always let 'em install a "set-it-and-forget-it" version of PL with an option to display a full interface with a preference setting or however you want to implement it.

Jeremy Collake · March 12, 2011, 07:49:30 PM

Quote from: Neo on March 12, 2011, 07:35:00 PM
I vote "no" for dumb-downs of any kind or for any thing. That includes education AND software. Let those folks buy coporate carbon copies and overpay; they're not going to understand why you have the best solution anyway. Barring that, you could always let 'em install a "set-it-and-forget-it" version of PL with an option to display a full interface with a preference setting or however you want to implement it.

I am actually working on just that, to be given away freely. It will literally have nothing but an ON/OFF switch, some basic system stats, and an exclusion list. It will be given away freely to the public, though may contain ads for Process Lasso Pro (hey, I gotta get someone to buy at some point else I'm outta a job ;o).

I am actually growing concerned for end users of some of the newer software that tries to mimmick my features. Some are doing so more wrecklessly than they realize. It isn't their fault, or intentional, just certain lessons learned after so many years of real-world use. That sort of experience can't be duplicated, ya know

. I've gotten lots of mysterious prodding about my algorithm, so more corporate carbon copies are coming. What I hate most about these unnamed Micro ISVs is you don't know who you are doing business with. I know one company that has the WORST software imaginable, a mean they FAKE things, literally.. do nothing software they sell as wonder cures for all sorts of ailments. They operate under several different names, or have franchises under several different names.

Of course, seeing how having my real name 'out there' can have its drawbacks, I do understand those who wish to be private. Still, to do good, honest business on the internet perhaps a requirement is that your real name be clear, and the origin of the software be clear. Some people pay an outsourced company in whatever country to develop software for them. This software is often of terrible quality, as software is something that needs maintained... like a bridge would I suppose. That's at the very least, not to mention continued improvements. I dunno, for the rich, they can pay and have software developed.. but they'll always be a difference between the software of someone who cares and someone who doesn't. That isn't to say I'm perfect, far from it, but I sure do try... and actually love improving my product. That sort of love is hard to fake.