Microsoft Updates Multiple Sysinternals Tools 179
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."
Desktops (Score:1, Informative)
With XP home on a machine with 4G of RAM (only 3.something recognized) I got an error saying something about not enough memory to create a new desktop. That was while I was trying to create the fourth desktop. Digging around in the forums that are linked to the app I found that certain apps won't work on anything but the primary desktop. Keystroke bindings tend to get a little wonky. All in all behavior I seem to recall while trying to use that desktop app that NVidia had out for a while. Not worth using.
Is Desktops-1.0 any better than powertoy version? (Score:4, Informative)
For instance, popups for an application on another desktop would show up on another desktop, even with application sharing off. I would get modal dialog boxes that would pop up, lose focus and fall under my current window. Then when I'd go to check on that application, I couldn't interact with it until I found which desktop an orphaned dialog box was hidden on (it wouldn't get a taskbar slot since it was the child of a process on another desktop). Thunderbird was one of the worst offenders when I'd have to re-enter my password.
Also, firefox would some times 'shift' when I'd change windows too many times, and I found that the CPU bug would trip off easier. The deal breaker, for me, was that switching desktops would screw up Office 2000 applications (shifting the internal frames, some times leaving an app unresponsive, etc.), and at work I have to deal with an internal Access application.
Nothing like starting up the editor on one desktop, documentation on another, firefox with google at the ready on another, and the application/database window on the fourth desktop. Access or the application would crash/move itself if I switched back and fourth too quickly too often, and I was constantly waiting on Firefox to restart after causing the CPU bug to trip and take so many cycles that I couldn't switch desktops to the one with the task manager open. The net gain was a complete loss in productivity, as compared to compiz where I find myself about twice as productive.
At home on my 'doze box, I've got dual screens, but it would be nice to have dual screens with a functioning multiple desktop setup. Does anyone have any hints for this, or think Desktops-1.0 will improve upon the situation?
If I could afford it (broke software development major - my rig is always a generation behind what is 'standard', and two behind bleeding edge), I'd probably just get a third screen and be done with it, but multiple desktops is my only viable solution until I have some cash that isn't earmarked for more important hardware.
Re:How about . . . (Score:5, Informative)
Process Monitor loads a kernel driver in order to hook in and read everything the system is doing. Making a kernel driver unload while the system is running is hard, and in some cases, impossible to do without risking the stability of the kernel.
If I ever come across software that treats the best damn troubleshooting toolset available for Windows as as being unfit to run alongside, then that software will come across an express ride to the Recycle Bin.
Re:R U sure that you know what U are talking about (Score:4, Informative)
I know of at least one piece of anti-copying software which specifically checks for filemon (as it was at the time, this was before process monitor appeared).
Re:Hang on to your old versions... (Score:2, Informative)
Why did the size of so many Sysinternals utilities increase in size from 1-200K to over 1MB for no change in functionality?
They added a EULA and a call to iexplore http://www.live.com./ [www.live.com] In Redmond, that's about 800k.
Great, but what about Protection Manager? (Score:5, Informative)
They may be updating the Sysinternals tools (after changing the EULA's on them all), but what about Protection Manager? That looked like a great product (and one we were planning to buy), but was conveniently buried the second Microsoft acquired Winternals & Sysinternals.
Protection Manager was launched in March 2006, and removed from the market by Microsoft in November that same year. It was the first thing I looked for when Microsoft acquired Winternals and while I wasn't surprised to see it removed, I've been waiting ever since in the hope that it would be re-launched. That has never happened, and my belief now is that Microsoft deliberately buried it, thinking it would hurt Vista sales.
Protection Manager was a program that gave system administrators a simple and effective way to whitelist the applications that could be run on their network. The idea was that you ran it for a few weeks to generate a baseline list of allowed applications, then turned on protection, after which non authorised programs would be stopped until approved by an administrator. It also allowed you to run individual applications with admin rights, making the management of legacy software far simpler.
Most of the literature regarding the program has gone now, but this is a handy guide:
http://www.inuit.se/?page=130 [inuit.se]
A few choice quotes from MS:
"the decision was made to withdrawal Winternals Recovery Manager, Defrag Manager and Protection Manager in their current form from the market effective November 17th 2006"
Q. What is the future of Protection Manager?
A. Winternals Protection Manager has been withdrawn from the product line. Many Protection Manager usage scenarios are addressed by the new User Account Control feature of Windows Vista."
source: http://www.microsoft.com/systemcenter/wifaq.mspx [microsoft.com]
Personally, I don't see that UAC offerse half the features Protection Manager did, and we have no desire to move over to Vista anyway. To me, it looks like Microsoft removed from the market a program that would have been genuinely useful to many of their customers, once again putting sales & marketing ahead of security and their customers.
Re:Just wow. (Score:3, Informative)
Virtual desktops have been around a lot longer than since 1996. Stan Switzer wrote a virtual desktop ("recursive window manager") called "winwin [google.com]" in PostScript for the NeWS [wikipedia.org] window system in 1989.
At Sun in the early 90's, we wrote a combined X11/NeWS window manager that supported scrolling over a big virtual desktop space as well as separate rooms, and it seamlessly managed both X11 windows and NeWS windows, supporting customizable window frames with tabs and pie menus for window management commands. It consisted of about 9000 lines of PostScript [google.com]. Because it ran in the same address space as the window system itself (like "AJAX" architecture, handling input events locally, avoiding client/server round trips, context switching, race conditions and network overhead), it performed much better than external window managers like OLWM.
-Don
Re:R U sure that you know what U are talking about (Score:4, Informative)
Hello,
'Process Explorer' has dumping capabilities as well as registry monitor / file monitor capabilities. This could be used to trace the behavior of SecuROM.
Therefore, we do not allow the game to start when this software is active.
We have no immediate plans to allow this software in the future.
Best regards,
SecuROM Support Team
SecuROM on the web: http://www.securom.com/ [securom.com]
or via e-mail: support@securom.com
They have always been this idiotic, it's nothing to do with cheating.
They also blacklist software capable of mounting ISOs as virtual discs, as I found out a few years ago. Except in that case, the choice was "Uninstall the software or do not play the games you bought." Fucking blow me Sony. There's cracks everywhere and we both know it, so let me play the damn game.
Re:How about . . . (Score:4, Informative)
Can Linux avoid this problem?
Linux lets you do the retarded thing and forcibly remove kernel modules, or lets you mark them as removed and only really remove them after anything currently using them has finished.
Re:R U sure that you know what U are talking about (Score:4, Informative)
They're not mutually exclusive, and neither perspective is more important than the other, let alone worthy of the arrogant frothing-at-the-mouth tone you took.
I didn't mean to come off as frothing in support of my take on it. My beef is only with SecuROM. Sorry if it seemed like I was giving the parent a doing over. He said:
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.
And I don't agree. We're talking intent here: SecuROM doesn't do any sort of checking for cheats, and they already stated that they detect it solely to trip up crackers. That a dumper/debugger can be used to find methods of cheating is incidental, so I don't see that position as being well supported.
And if you ask a software developer or system admin about the tools, you'll get the equivalent of asking a locksmith about lock picking tools.
Well SecuROM made the lock and they are the software developer. They're bastards, but they're pretty upfront about what the prevention is for, and it's not cheat prevention or detection.