Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Updates Multiple Sysinternals Tools
wiedzmin writes "A couple of very useful updates have just been released by Microsoft for the ever so popular Sysinternals tool set. The most notable one is ProcessMonitor v2.0 which will now include 'real-time TCP and UDP monitoring.' Another one, released earlier this year — Desktops 1.0, provides a very unique multi-thread way to get multiple desktops running on your Windows box."
How about making it so ProcessMonitor actually fully unloads when you quit. Nothing is more aggravating then having to reboot because a lot of games consider it a hacking tool and refuse to run.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Team Slashdot may not like Windows very much; but when you have to get your hands dirty with Windows, having the sysinternals tools makes your life less unpleasant.
Plus, Mark was the one who discovered and publicised the Sony rootkit, when all the professional AV guys were too incompetent or traitorous to say anything. That ought to give him enough karma to go unflamed on Slashdot once or twice.
On the upside of that, if an app crashes on one desktop, it won't bring explorer down on the others.
Oh no's, conspiracy! Consider Vista / Win2k8 compatibility was added to a number of these tools, as well new features and functionalities HAVE been added to many of them.
(subject line done in illiterate speak to fit)
I didn't get the impression that this was a DRM issue. I took it more as an anti-cheat measure for on-line play. Given that there are huge numbers of players who think it's neat to win by loading up some warez that gives your game an unfair advantage against other on-line players, it's not too unreasonable to have code that detects some of the more common cheats. Unfortunately, when monitoring software starts hooking itself in places where it's not expected, it can look a lot like the cheating software.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
If you look around, I think you will find that most people don't care about virtual desktops. And I don't mean just Windows users. Mac users generally don't care, and Linux users generally don't care, either. Perhaps, if more people had been crying to have the feature, Microsoft would have implemented it sooner. Because you are right: it isn't rocket science. Still, I think Microsoft made the right choice in playing catch up in other races, first: stability, support for Internet protocols and standard, security, multi-user support, etc. etc. I'd say these are all more important than virtual desktops.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
Windows has always been about multi-monitor support rather than virtual desktops. However, I doubt most users care about or use either.
We've had decent process monitors on virtually all variants of UNIX since the 1970s. We've had X virtual desktops since the late 1980s. It has always baffled me why these essential features were never implemented for Windows, and why it's only recently that they've become available as add-ons.
This is interesting to me even though I don't run Windows on my own computer, because sometimes other people use Windows, and since I am an IT professional that means I occasionally encounter it. YMMV.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
You're a college sophomore, right? Almost nobody else reads Dawkins's books, and those who do are disappointed. Look up the word 'tautology'. That's what Dawkins's argument is, at 300 circular, rambling pages.
> just ask any Buddhist. He or she will be happy to explain to you that you don't need any god(s)...
Ask a REAL buddhist (not an American buddhist-lite) and he or she will tell you buddhists have nothing in common with atheists.
Oh contraire mon frere.
It makes the system heap smaller, and flushes out LRU crap from the OS. Something that it should have had in a feature all along. It works increibley well on a Terminal server. Excellent. Increases stability, speed, usability, capacity.
Marks solution? Buy a laptop with 4GB of ram, and get your company give you a superdome to play with.
Mark? Can I have your Superdome?