Process Hacker: NEW & BEST!

Just though i'd chime in, v1.5 Portable has been faultless on XP since installing.

Many thanks wj32 great app, really appreciate the portable option also. Since reformatting, i've tried to stick with portables where possible to keep the OS, Registry etc as clean as possible.

I actually like this better than Process Explorer.

 

I'm starting to really like this program. I have it installed already and considering the portable version for my 'usb swiss army knife'.
My question is, how portable is it. Where does it save its settings?
Portable Freeware site has a "stealth" definition which states

Does PH leave anything, and if it does, is it settings?

 

Ok i just tried it and it seems to save its settings in
Application Data\wj32\ProcessHacker.exe_Url_<some random number>\1.5.0.0\user.config
Any way we could change it so i can use PH on different computers with the same settings?

TIA for any input.

 

Unfortunately, no. Since this has been requested by a few people already, we'll make it a high priority target for the next release.

 

PH doesn't (intentionally) write to the registry. PE keeps its settings in the registry, so you could say it's as portable as PH (not very).

 

wj32, thank you for your reply and decision. It will make PH even more useful!

 

I see 1.7 may bring what i hoped for
BTW, dang AVG is detecting 1.6 as PSW.Banker5.ZOY.
pita@work

 

Maybe you could write an email to them about that? If that doesn't work, I'll sue them for spreading false information about PH .

 

I used the context menu in the quarantine. The problem seems fixed, although it could be a simple whitelist entry of sorts (leaving the door open for 1.7). Not sure.

Can you confirm that 1.7 will be "stealth", saving the settings to a file in PH's folder?

 

Of course not. That's the main reason why so many programs fail on Vista - they write to their program folder. PH, like normal programs, writes its settings to AppData\Roaming(\Process Hacker). You can change this behaviour by using "ProcessHacker.exe -settings filename".

 

I believe Pedro is asking if a user/tech placed a folder containing PH on the desktop, could it run self contained and not write anything to the PC other than an MRU? Programs can do this on Vista or any other Windows version that they are coded for. AFAIK, Vista's behavior is limited to only the Program Files folder??


**EDIT**

If this allows PH to run from the installation folder only, what is the recommended "settings filename"?

 

Yes, i was referring to the portable version - so i can carry it on a usb drive and use the same settings, leaving nothing behind.

 

That's not the point. Do you want me to change PH's behaviour just for when the executable is located in a place where PH can write to? That would be both stupid and inconsistent.

The path is relative to PH's executable directory. So use "ProcessHacker.exe -settings settings.xml" if you want to save it where PH is located.

There is no "portable version". There are two pre-compiled downloads - the installer version and the zipped version. There is no difference between them, except for the fact that installer can automate some tasks for you.

I don't know what you people are complaining about - PE saves its settings to the registry, and no one complains about that.

 

I'm sorry. I'm not complaining. Really! I truly appreciate all your efforts! I'm just curious if PH can run solely from a single folder.

If I understand, based on your response, it apparently can if we follow a specific command line format when we run PH. From my own perspective, if it leaves a few registry traces (MRUs and such), I don't care. The part that interests me is if it stores no part of the program or settings anywhere except the one, single folder.

As to PE, while it holds it's own charms, it's clear that Russinovich and Cogswell don't care to make it portable and that will never change. Which makes your program all that more attractive if it can. (It's not life or death if it can't. I'm just curious if it can.)

For me (and I believe a growing number of fellow like minded users), portability is a very positive attribute. But please don't take my queries as a criticism. They're just queries...

 

No, criticism is good and I like hearing criticism about PH. I just get frustrated with a certain group of computer users - so-called power users (no I am not talking about you or anyone else specifically). These users seem to spend a lot of time worrying about security, portableness, registry cleaning, etc. My response to these people is always this: you could get so much more done if you actually used your computer instead of tweaking it.

PH is not a general purpose tool - it is mainly a researching tool. Users of PH need to understand that PH is just like a debugger - you obviously don't care if they use more than 20MB of memory or save their settings on the local computer, do you? That's why saving settings to a file relative to PH's directory is a feature - people won't be using it that much.

 

wj32, like HAN said, i'm merely asking if it will be possible. Just information.
Thank you for the reply.