TRUEIMAGEMONITOR in REGISTRY

ATI 8 Build 800 TRIAL VERSION / WIN98SE

There is a registry entry which loads Trueimagemonitor.exe
when Windows starts up. What is it's purpose ?
Can it be disabled ? I prefer to have as few background
tasks running as possible.

 

Dont disable it as Acronis will not function correctly then in the windows environment. It does have a small footprint so dont worry to much!

Cheers!

 

A major flaw of TI: unnecessary startup processes.

TrueImageMonitor.exe
schedul2.exe
schedhlp.exe

schedul2.exe and schedhlp.exe are necessary to make an image. If they don't run, Acronis TI doesn't start them, it just generates an error message.

To clean things up:

- make a folder called "Acronis TI startup tweak" in the Acronis TI program folder
- create a batchfile "start acronis true image.bat" (see below) in this folder
- close the 3 processes (TrueImageMonitor.exe, schedul2.exe, schedhlp.exe) from the task manager
- run the batchfile and make a disk image. if this works:
- open the services control panel (type 'services.msc' into start/run) and set Acronis Scheduler2 Service to 'manual'
- delete the Acronis TI startup items from the registry (location: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run)
- Right-click the .bat file, click 'create shortcut', and put the shortcut in your start menu, desktop, quicklaunch bar or wherever you want it.
- optional: right-click this shortcut and change the icon, e.g. use the icon in TrueImage.exe

Here's the batch file:


START /B C:\Progra~1\Common~1\Acronis\Schedule2\schedhlp.exe
CALL "C:\Program Files\Acronis TrueImage\TrueImage.exe"
NET STOP "Acronis Scheduler2 Service"
pskill.exe schedhlp.exe
EXIT


You'll need to edit drive letters and paths to match your setup. If you don't have XP Pro, you also need to download a copy of pskill.exe from http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/pskill.shtml .

Good luck!

 

The supposedly flawed architecture of ATI is not such. The flaw is your understanding of how the memory manager works in XP.
What do you care about processes that are mapped to the pagefile anyways? Your task manager might give you a faulty reading that they are indeed using physical memory, but that's only because those processes are marked as valid, but in reality they are patiently waiting in VM for them to be fetched by the pager when they are needed.

I suggest you use perfmon to see how this works, and the fact that those processes have no impact whatsoever in performance or depletion of RAM.

 

sandokan wrote: "What do you care about processes that are mapped to the pagefile anyways?"


What makes you think we all have paging enabled?

Anyway, even if all those startup processes are paged...

Imagine what happens if every programmer thinks that way. 'It's just a small process, and you won't notice it because it's paged anyway.' You'd have your office suites, DVD burner, graphics programs, media players, email apps, games, instant messengers, video editors and every other piece of software on your computer start unnecessary components to fill your RAM and then your page file.

TI should only start things by itself if you schedule things like automatic image creation. Without scheduled tasks, those processes not be running.

'They're just small tiny little processes that go to your page file' is not an acceptable excuse for lazy programming.

 

Because you CANNOT disable paging at all. You may choose not to have a pagefile, but that is just one of the places where code gets written to in standby mode until it is requested by the pager. The rest of your post is invalidated by the mere fact that you don't know much about the role of VM, and the OS memory manager.

It is not lazy programming. It is called using the modern OS architecture to its fullest. Sorry no offense intended, but you know too little about this topic for me to waste my time going into details. Read up on some bona fide sites that explain how VM, paging, and XP's memory manager actually work instead of posting FUD such as "paging could be disabled". It will only confuse newbies who might think that those processes will actually hurt performance, when actually they are doing nothing of the sort, they are simply ready to be used when needed, otherwise they occupy a virtual address that takes no resources or RAM.

 

Hi Sandokan-

While you are correct about the "modern OS to it's fullest" as regards practical impact on the system, I nonetheless side with 666 on this one.

A program that I use a few minutes per week, completely compartmentalized with no scheduled tasks (the way I use it), simply shouldn't start processes on my computer until they are needed. And as regards the taks scheduling, why can't it use the Windows Task Scheduler... that's what it's there for. The last thing I want is lots of little schedulers running around, even if they only use 1 MB and 0 processor time. Who knows what conflicts will creep up.

My point is that it annoys me when software vendors assume it's OK to use up system resources... even VM, when not strictly necessary. I want my computer to do what I tell it to do, nothing more, and if software wants to go beyond that, I want it to give me options.

Call me old school, but it annoys me that my car leaves the lights on after I turn them off. Some detroit (or Osaka) genius figured it would be a neat feature to leave them on for a minute when you turn off the car, to illuminate your way to your front door. That's nice, but I don't care for that future. I actually would rather turn them off as I pull into the driveway so the bright lights don't wake up my family when I come home from a trip after midnight. There's no way I can do it, because the engineers made some overly-broad assumptions. Sigh. At least I can turn off the annoying "honk when remotely locking" feature.

And, I sometimes run without VM. I've got 1.5 GB RAM, and I rarely run at more than 500MB committed. What do I need VM for? The exception is when I run virtual machines, then sure I might need a gig or two, and I'm quite glad that it is there when I need it. I'm not a luddite... just prefer to have control, is all.

For the record, one reason I dumped Ghost was because it kept a 20 MB process going on in the background. I don't know exactly what it did, but the program OK without it. I set it to manual and the only problem was that it took a few seconds for Ghost to refresh the drives list when I started the program. But Ghost had enough other problems, and hosed my partition table, so away it went.

Marc

 

This is totally impossible. VM ALWAYS functions. You may have disabled the pagefile, so that code will not be written to it, however (as I wrote on my previous post) the PF is just one of the various places where code is paged out. As for the rest of your "siding" with 666, I see no point in attempting to convince you or anyone that having those processes in Task Manager does NOT mean they are actually taking either cycles nor RAM. Your car analogy is quite flawed BTW, since in that case there would definitely be a drain of power, whereas with code in standby there is absolutely none.