RSS| Input Overload | Nov 22, 2011 | 5.1.0.21 |  5 out of 5 |
Keeps on improving, well worth buying even for a mulitcore CPU with heaps of RAM. great program. It was noticeable by it's absence when I accidentally removed it in services last week. |
| Tallpaultn | Nov 21, 2011 | 5.1.0.21 | 5 out of 5 |
Process Lasso does a great job for me on WinVista SP2. Cheers!!--keep up the good work!! |
| anomoly | Oct 25, 2011 | 5.1.0.8 Beta |  3 out of 5 |
Unfortunately after running it a couple days, every time it started, it had a nag screen it forced you to close first. Plus other than the controlling of priority, it does nothing else for free and behaves uselessly coupled with a lean and controlled pc to begin with. Maybe someone can figure out it's free benefit. I can't. Bill2's actually has some nice usefulness I've discovered being able to kill processes that have no ability to do so themselves. |
| anomoly | Sep 30, 2011 | 5.0.0.49 | 5 out of 5 |
I remember when this truly was crippleware, and now this latest free version has things which never expire. It works so well for free that I'd pay the price just for further development. Thanks for losing the crippleware and making it useable. This allows you to 'tame' processes that don't need much resources and control the others that do. With many different combinations of aps this can be quite useful indeed regardless of your hardware. I am now using this in combo with bill2's process mgr. Lasso has ability to set i/o priority and class separately, while bill2 only sets the class but it does have other options such as shutting down a process after a period of inactivity or starting another after one is closed which I suppose you will get if you pay for lasso. The nag is just a small buy now button in the bottom right corner which is fine. |
| Input Overload | Aug 4, 2011 | 5.0.0.38 | 5 out of 5 |
GerritWittesaele, & if your PC is top notch, this program still offers real benefits even on Windows 7 with a 100 Megabit Fibre connection. GerritWittesaele@ remember - Brain in gear typing before um typing. BTW It's well under £20, are you that skint? |
| GerritWittesaele | Jul 1, 2011 | 5.0.0.30 |  1 out of 5 |
Free version = worthless, and for this price you could just as well update your CPU and get *REAL* benefits. |
| Input Overload | Jun 4, 2011 | 5.0.0.23 | 5 out of 5 |
I believe this is the final. but I've run all the Beta's without problems. IMHO it's worth buying, one of my better purchases. |
| Input Overload | May 23, 2011 | 5.0.0.6 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
No problems so far with this beta, although I didn't expect any. Still a good 5 stars. |
| Tallpaultn | Feb 16, 2011 | 4.09.25 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
Good program. Have been using it for a long time now without any problems worthy of mentioning. I'm running WinVista SP 2 & Process Lasso does exactly what it was designed to do for me. I highly recommend Process Lasso & think it's a great program. Please keep up the good work & thanks for a great program. Cheers!! p.s. I load & use the latest beta versions of Process Lasso on an ongoing basis without any issues worthy of mention which speaks loudly & highly for the developer(s) in my opinion. |
| Input Overload | Jan 27, 2011 | 4.09.12 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
I agree with you Cris 100%. Worth every penny, dime or whatever. |
| Cris3 | Dec 30, 2010 | 4.09.08 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
The paid version is even better, worth the money. |
| ballyhairs | Dec 2, 2010 | 4.00.23 | 3 out of 5 |
Not portable :( |
| Input Overload | Dec 1, 2010 | 4.00.23 | 5 out of 5 |
Well worth the small purchase price for all features. if you use it's well worth updating to the 'pay' edition. Great program & thanks & keep up the good work. |
| Input Overload | Nov 20, 2010 | 4.00.17 | 5 out of 5 |
I used the quick update app & have 4.00.18 installed. Nice program, wouldn't be without it. Never caused any issues I know of. |
| jcollake | Nov 19, 2010 | 4.00.17 | 5 out of 5 |
This version is just as free as the last. As before, it keeps working forever. Some advanced features are disabled over time (none of the critical ones like ProBalance and default priorities and affinities). I call it Shareware so I'm not assaulted by those who prefer Freeware labels only be put on something that is free in every way, and in every feature. It has been labelled Shareware here for 2 years now, so nothing new ;). For you free users, this one is just as free. For the paid users, this one offers even more advantages if you do upgrade to the Pro version. Thanks to those users who have supported my small company and bought a license. |
| Plumber | Nov 11, 2010 | 4.00.10 RC1 | 5 out of 5 |
Improving all the time. I appreciate the author's dedication and hard work. I'm giving this shareware a high rating, therefore I must be the author's cousin, living in his basement and sharing his refrigerator. |
| Plumber | Oct 25, 2010 | 4.00.06 RC1 | 5 out of 5 |
Uh, duh, yeah free is always "nicer" for the recipient. What about the creator? Oh yeah--that. Free doesn't pay the bills. Freeware is usually something an author creates in their spare time, which is why it often sucks. |
| Cris3 | Sep 1, 2010 | 3.99.15 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
I got it free today from http://www.giveawayoftheday.com/. Loaded it and immediately felt a boost in responsiveness. Haven't really configured it yet for my use but it made a believer out of me. It's not just another process explorer. |
| war593122 | Aug 27, 2010 | 3.99.15 Beta |  4 out of 5 |
Free was nicer.. :p |
| jcollake | Aug 27, 2010 | 3.99.15 Beta | 4 out of 5 |
@SteveJohnSteele: You'll be happy to know that with this new version, you can over-ride the exclusion on explorer.exe ;). I know you don't need this software any more, but I figured I'd mention this improvement. DISCLAIMER: I am the author. I am rating my own program a '4' to not skew the ratings. |
| SteveJohnSteele | Jul 25, 2010 | 3.99.6 Alpha | 4 out of 5 |
Since changing from Windows Vista to Windows 7 (on same hardware) I haven't needed this software. When I did have it on Windows Vista it did a good job but there where a few situations when it didn't do so well - like when copying a file. Process Lasso tells me that explorer.exe is not one of the programs that can be limited so while the copy goes as fast as Windows can manage... everything else grinds to a halt while the file copies. |
| Plumber | Jun 2, 2010 | 3.89.0 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
Ah, the people who write reviews without even knowing what the software is for, let alone having actually tried it. It's not worth further mention. I love the new "Disable ProBalance when user is away..." option. Nice addition. I'm sure the "Emergency Stall Recovery" feature will help me out once it's done. There have been many times in the past when I could have used it. Thanks, Jeremy! |
| jcollake | Jun 2, 2010 | 3.89.0 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
Hi guys, it is me, the author ;). As always, I thank everyone who uses my software, and appreciate those that continually help to clear up misunderstandings and doubts by new users. I wanted to say a few notes about this new beta ... This new beta series is actually the start of the v4 code. Already, there are many new features (some still half-baked at this stage) and *lots* of improvements. I've added this process CPU and MEM usage Watchdog (e.g. restart or terminate process if it exceeds quota). Additionally, I've added a Emergency Stall Recovery system that goes into effect regardless of ProBalance settings. For instance, if you have a foreground process that is bringing your system to a stall, but ProBalance is ignoring foreground processes.. this feature will step in (but only after there is no other choice). This feature still needs more work, admittedly. Overall, MUCH work remains, and some of this beta is not polished. However, I am determined to make v4 the best release ever, and this is the base of it. To any skeptics (understandable given all the snake oil in this market), I've also improved the CPU Eater demo application which can be freely downloaded from my server. You can specify just how many background threads (of NORMAL priority) to create, and at what CPU affinities. Therefore, you can see just what it takes to bring your system responsiveness down to a virtual stall (when Process Lasso's ProBalance isn't active). On most systems, you will be surprised how little it takes. Note the default thread count is a little heavy handed, to cover certain high-end CPU types that are less susceptible to a stall. It typically takes *far* fewer threads than the default CPU Eater setting. Also, *remember*, these are background threads, not foreground threads in the test. Foreground threads can do MUCH more harm due to the longer time slices. I'm going to next add to the CPU Eater the ability to also create a foreground CPU consuming thread, to demonstrate the new Emergency Stall Recovery (which won't require you to click to another window like ProBalance would, since ProBalance ignores foreground processes by default, and ESR ignores nothing). Well, I need food and rest. I've been working hard on this new version. Its still early in development, but I hope users enjoy it. Amd, yes, these new features are available in the FREE version. |
| TomWibbaert | May 28, 2010 | 3.85.2 Beta | 1 out of 5 |
Does exactly what it says it does. Nothing. |
| rezidue | May 23, 2010 | 3.84.3 | 5 out of 5 |
I like this programme so much my review is more like a pitch - lol An invaluable utility to keep your PC running smoothly. Install it and forget it or tweak to your hearts desire, Process Lasso's ProBalance algorithm carefully adjusts running processes to maximise your PC's speed and stability while barely using any system resources itself. If an unruly programme hogs your CPU, grinding your PC to a halt, Process Lasso will help whip it into shape thus allowing you keep computing. Especially useful on older systems (but certainly not limited to them), a free version is available (with the odd reminder that there is a pro version available at minimal cost). In other words "it's bloody amazing!" - Damian J Spooner |
| Plumber | May 21, 2010 | 3.84.3 | 5 out of 5 |
It's no "placebo effect" when (1) I'm running a program that makes everything slow, then (2) I try running some other application that even under the best conditions takes several seconds to load, (3) I get aggravated after waiting and waiting, then (4) I run the Process Lasso core, and (5) the program starts immediately thereafter. When you've seen that sort of thing happen again and again (and again...), you know what's going on--Process Lasso is managing CPU-hogging applications to make the system run smoother. If you think Process Lasso is a "placebo", you must be on some drug that isn't. |
| Raton | May 5, 2010 | 3.84.2 | 1 out of 5 |
In my experience it did NOTHING to improve "system performance, responsiveness, and stability". Other features are mere conveniences and duplicated by various freeware applets. A 'placebo effect' is at work here. The Computer Rodent |
| guru_v | Apr 27, 2010 | 3.84.1 | 4 out of 5 |
Program works well, though I believe that the updates are a bit too frequent, with not enough changes between them. Also, with this version, the beginning nag states that the program must be purchased in 29 days - there is nothing mentioned about free usage whatsoever. |
| Unbreakable_ | Feb 2, 2010 | 3.80.3 | 5 out of 5 |
I've always preferred Process Tamer to Process Lasso... But I just tried version 3.80 and I can say it has improved a lot lately. Love the new additions (Game Mode) and the noticeable better system responsiveness (especially on my older PC). |
| Plumber | Jan 25, 2010 | 3.80.1 | 5 out of 5 |
Great utility. My old system would be unbearable to use without it! |
| umi81 | Jan 18, 2010 | 3.80 | 4 out of 5 |
Steadily improving version after version, and as mobile user I like the power scheme restore is in now the tray. |
| emanresU deriseD | Jan 11, 2010 | 3.79.18 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
GROUP HUG!!! :) |
| DKDude | Dec 29, 2009 | 3.79.12 Beta | 4 out of 5 |
@jcollake Nahh you did nothing wrong, I can be an ass, sry for my bad behavior. I'll get of your back, and wish you and your family a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. 4 stars, don't want to skew the score, more than I already has done. Once again, please accept my sincere apology. |
| jcollake | Dec 28, 2009 | 3.79.12 Beta | 4 out of 5 |
[developer] Although I swore to never check reviews again because I take negative ones too personally, I just had to come and see how the new features were being accepted. It looks generally positive. Great! I am hoping to finalize v3.80 ASAP. I am going to rate my software a '4' (the current average) so I do not skew the rating. Thanks to those who gave positive reviews, and I'm sorry my software did not meet the needs of those with negative reviews. Also, DKDude, thanks for deleting whatever comment you wrote. If I did something to you in the past, I apologize. I am not perfect, and I ask for your forgiveness (if its true I wronged you in some way). I promise I'm not creating fake accounts or anything, so I hope we can just 'move on'. @Altec: Same to you. If I wronged you, did a bad review of your software, or something else.. please forgive me. I just don't understand. The 'review' you gave is just negative stuff that doesn't really make sense. Process Lasso couldn't possibly consume less resources, and so I suspect its retaliation. As for the number of betas, I release incremental builds sort of like nightly builds of other software. Its certainly no guessing game, lol. So, please forgive me, call it even, and let's move on with life? There ARE software developers who DO create fake accounts to inflate ratings, and I wish you guys were as vigilant with them ;). They are usually pretty obvious. They are the ones with resellers, and I think its those resellers that go and create fake reviews in some cases. If I could post WITHOUT rating, I would. Since I can't, I must rate it something. I'll use a '4' for now, in hopes that alleviates concerns of ratings inflation. I'm not sure Betanews even counts the author's ratings. I really don't think they do.. but maybe I'm wrong. I'm not posting to inflate ratings, I'm posting to respond to user comments. I wish everyone the best, and I pray that I can continue to deliver good software to solve common PC problems. I think we are going to start seeing a lot of new competitors to Process Lasso this year, so I'm hoping to stay ahead of the curve. I do have a rather large head start, and intend to keep it that way. In that spirit, I've tried to reduce nag annoyance lately, making Process Lasso more free. I won't check back here for several months, so please no responses. UPDATE: @DkDude - No problem at all. Thanks and Merry Christmas to you too ;). |
| Tallpaultn | Dec 28, 2009 | 3.79.12 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
Alalec, why do you keep loading & using Process Lasso if you think it's so terrible & slows down your pc? I beg to differ with you - I'm a typical, average computer user & have been using Process Lasso for a long time now (I download it each time it's updated) - it is definitely a helpful program, makes a difference in the way my computer performs & helps me manage the processes running on my computer. I'm sure Process Lasso performs differently on different computer setups, but I've experimented with the settings in Process Lasso per recommendation of the developer & have determined which settings provide the best performance on my computer & the rest is history. Have never had any real problems with Process Lasso. I love Process Lasso & am sorry it has not been helpful to you. Kudos & cheers to the developer(s)!!!!! Keep up the great work & thanks for a very helpful program. Happy New Year!! |
| emanresU deriseD | Dec 28, 2009 | 3.79.12 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
An application that has had "too many" betas is to be considered "a parasite"? This makes no sense whatsoever. I also guess it's inconceivable that someone who actually appreciated a certain software title would come back with each release and post a review. But if you have a vendetta against the software author, it's perfectly sensible that you'd drop in (and create multiple accounts) to slam it/him constantly. Does this make sense to anyone? Sometimes, I boot without running all my usual startup applications. In such instances, Process Lasso's background engine doesn't get run. I become aware of its absence when my system grinds to a near-halt because some out-of-control application has pegged the CPU. So then I start the Process Lasso governor, and the application is quickly reined in, and I have my system back. |
| DKDude | Dec 19, 2009 | 3.79.9 Beta | 1 out of 5 |
-deleted- |
| charlesn56 | Dec 17, 2009 | 3.79.9 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
Alalec- The only, and I mean only thing you are right about is this 5 star plus evaluation. I am a real Process Lasso user (not a slave name ) that has been using the free and pro versions for years. I can not a say enough good things about this program and the developer that has put so much time and effort in this software. I have a older computer and it has been a life-saver for me and I am sure others as well. Go pick on some other program that realy is a dud. |
| alalec | Dec 17, 2009 | 3.79.9 Beta | 1 out of 5 |
This program has nothing but fake capabilities. Like other fake tools it colonizes your PC and sucks its resources. It is parasite software. After my last evaluation over 6 months ago I thought it might be amusing to give a look at the new beta. Not to mention that meanwhile there has been no less than 200 betas since Avril 2009 from version 3.59.2 Beta to version 3.79.9 Beta (that is over 20x10 = 200 Betas in few months … a parasite). This program has a record number of betas in the given time span. After backing up my test PC and installing the software, I run the program while using different workloads for testing purposes. The program did nothing but slowing down my PC. The program developer has a set of names on Betnews Fileforum and has some slave names which he uses to give himself 5 start evaluations. In particular jcollake : about 20 five star evaluations emanresU derised : over a dozen of 5 star evaluations After my new evolution certainly some name will jump out with 5 star evaluation. In conclusion I repeat hereafter my previous evaluation: This is absolutely useless piece of software. It simply consumes your PC resources without any real benefit. Installing it on a heavily loaded PC would cripple it. While installing it on a lightly loaded PC might let you think that it is a useful tool if you don’t know how to audit your PC performance. It is Windows which still optimizes the workload even after installing this software. One of the last improvements documented in the release 3.59.2 Beta is the following: “Added CPU throttling (both persistent and temporary). This applies a hard limit on the CPU time a process can consume. This is not meant to replace ProBalance and should be used only in certain, appropriate situations”. Usual blah blah blah. For long time now, every other day there is a new beta release of this software. Either this software is a guessing development or it is like some other software authors who try to keep downloading busy. In some cases it appears that the marketing model/paradigm used is to issue a new beta release every other day. It helps as publicity. In some other cases, frequent downloading is used to generate little revenue or to force installing additional unwanted adware during the installation process. One star, only because there is no lower rating! |
| AutoBot | Dec 7, 2009 | 3.79.5 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
This is one of those things you always needed but didn't know it, I use this on three PC's and it works rather well on a core 2 duo, a P4, and a Atom netbook. If you don't game, render, encode video or something that spins the processor up you won't notice it really....but if you do you will understand that this is worth the money. Its the first thing I install on a fresh format now, and I highly recommend it. Now I'm ready for a linux version. |
| nugro | Dec 7, 2009 | 3.79.5 Beta | 4 out of 5 |
Hmm at first I too was skeptic if this work, tried it, felt no real change and uninstalled it. THEN I finally noticed that it indeed work after a few days without it, it mostly useful under stressful condition, for example while i'm encoding video, it make me able to do other task without noticeable lag and I'm using Phenom II 720 X3 @ 3.2GHz, so it's not exactly slow. now if only that nag screen will go away... maybe I'll buy this, what to do.... |
| asaenz | Dec 2, 2009 | 3.79.4 Alpha | 3 out of 5 |
Sorry but I've tried this program on 2 different computers and it seems to actually slow them down rather than improve performance ... too bad ... seems like a good idea ... I'm not sure why it has that effect on my computers but after I uninstall PL they run better. I'll keep trying future versions but, for now, I can't recommend it. |
| Somnambulator | Nov 30, 2009 | 3.79.3 Alpha | 1 out of 5 |
i used it for a month and didnt notice anything different at all. in fact, it interfered with many games, causing them to crash. it took me weeks to figure out the cause when i read that PL doesnt play nice with many games. no thanks... maybe on an ancient single-core system this would work but my CPU is hardly ever at 100%...Q6700 @ 3.6ghz,w/ 8GB RAM |
| emanresU deriseD | Nov 19, 2009 | 3.79.1 Alpha | 5 out of 5 |
Hah, yeah, it's a placebo, except that, uhh, it isn't. When my CPU is cranked and PL kicks in and puts the offending application in its place, it's not my imagination that tells me I can use my computer whereas without PL I wouldn't have been able to--it's my intelligence. |
| charlesn56 | Nov 19, 2009 | 3.79.1 Alpha | 5 out of 5 |
Great software !! Once you use it, you will never take it off your computer. And you will be checking for update often, as the developer is always improving the program with updates that are always timely. |
| Juhandra | Nov 18, 2009 | 3.70.2 | 1 out of 5 |
This application is just like registry cleaners, the digital placebo industry. |
| Zoroaster | Oct 22, 2009 | 3.70 | 5 out of 5 |
Does it work? This is the question people ask me. The answer is : Yes I have an old system here, I provide it with 3 helps: For Web : cFosSpeed For RAM : Cleanmem For CPU : Process Lasso Overall is obvious. |
| emanresU deriseD | Oct 21, 2009 | 3.70 | 5 out of 5 |
This is a great version. Process Lasso is like computer crack--once you install it, you need it. |
| radiomaffia | Oct 20, 2009 | 3.69.9 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
Plus:- *There is a Game option build-in so that maximal use to play a game is possible caus this ask all of the cpu in most cases then that cannot be lowered as Process Lasso usualy does. *It takes care of the cpu available on the pc so that even if you are converting/ripping a dvd and the cpu goes to a 100% you can still use other programs (Probalance Enabled) Minus:- Starts up with window in Windows, a bit annoying. Gives a nag nag screen when not registred to Pro. Very recommended, I use 2400 mhz and 2GB RAM on XP and can work now on the pc when heavy progz doiing their job what without Process Lasso wouldnt be possible. |
| emanresU deriseD | Oct 20, 2009 | 3.69.9 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
If your suspicions get your panties in THAT much of a twist, DKDude, then why don't you just ask the Betanews admins to compare the IP addresses of all these user names? I have nothing to hide you ratbag. Oh, I know... They won't find anything, and then you'll just say I'm using Tor or some ridiculous thing. Whatever. Like I said in another comment: Seek therapy. |
| finnlayer | Oct 7, 2009 | 3.65.3 Beta | 4 out of 5 |
Better than the stupid TASK MANAGER , half the time it never loads up and when you need it the most you carn't end any taks, why this app comes into play, you can end tasks you don't need running. virtual memory trim' is very good at freeing memory, i wish there was a button that i could press so it would be easy then going into options. I don't no about all the settings very teck, so i just install app and leave it.. For adding a free memory button, i would give a 5. |
| CyberDoc999 | Oct 7, 2009 | 3.65.3 Beta | 4 out of 5 |
It is a program that you need buy.... I noticed that when the trial runs out the program nags you all of the time... so just buy it ..... it is a low price..... |
| Scoobs72 | Oct 6, 2009 | 3.65.3 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
Process Lasso makes a very significant difference (improvement in responsiveness) on one of my PCs (short of memory, slow HD, older CPU), but not much on my newer system. Still, it is doing exactly what it is meant to and works well for me. I'll refrain from commenting further to avoid feeding the troll. |
| DKDude | Oct 4, 2009 | 3.65.2 Beta | 1 out of 5 |
Another new profile. Roadstar's Profile Member since October 4, 2009 Pathetic. |
| Roadstar | Oct 4, 2009 | 3.65.2 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
This software is one of the best in it's class by far.People who complain are just cheap bas****s!!..it's worth every penny.Go to http://www.fleisoft.com/ProcessPriorityObserver/ and just look at the asking price.....Process lasso offers much more for much less!! Keep up the good work. |
| embers | Aug 21, 2009 | 3.64.1 | 5 out of 5 |
I just upgraded to the latest revision and it still runs great as ever. I have actually noticed a slight FPS increase while using Gaming Mode or whatever. I am still addicted to watching the graphs and numbers. I have seen a responsiveness improvement on my work computer, which is magnitudes slower than my home computer. |
| emanresU deriseD | Jul 28, 2009 | 3.62.2 | 5 out of 5 |
I don't know who "you" is, DKDude. I have only one profile. J. Collake is a man of integrity, and I'd be VERY surprised if he had more than one profile. jcollake, you're right in that there is no point in fighting the nonsense. Not here in any case. I know you have solid facts to throw back at detractors, but there's no point. Small people do not come back and say "You're right; I'm convinced. I was wrong." What they do is come back again and again, repeating the same nonsense. All your retorts will do is encourage more and more backlash from the minority of drolls who post their nonsense here. I would retort (because I'm not built in such a manner as to ignore ridicule or the ridiculous), but I'd do it on my own turf. In any case, put aside the meaningless whining, and you have an indispensable utility in this. Even if Gaming Mode doesn't work well. :) |
| DKDude | Jul 22, 2009 | 3.62.1 | 1 out of 5 |
How many profiles do you have? |
| embers | Jul 21, 2009 | 3.62.1 | 5 out of 5 |
I started using this program a few releases back with the thought that it was be utterly pointless. So far, its actually been really nice. I am big on numbers and graphs and keeping tabs on my system usage, its sort of an OCD thing. I am still not entirely sure this program has helped my computer run any *better*, however, it certainly has not caused it to run any worse, so no complaints. |
| emanresU deriseD | Jul 21, 2009 | 3.62.1 | 5 out of 5 |
Apparently, "correct" is the new "retarded"... |
| Tallpaultn | Jul 21, 2009 | 3.62.1 | 5 out of 5 |
I've been using Process Lasso for some time now on WinVista Home Premium. I download each new update & overall it has been very helpful to me & caused no problems. I experiment with different settings within the program from time to time which has proved helpful. Thank you for a useful program & for updating it on an ongoing basis. Kudos to you & please keep up the good work!! |
| some guy | Jul 17, 2009 | 3.62 | 1 out of 5 |
DKDude you are correct |
| NoHarm | Jul 15, 2009 | 3.62 | 5 out of 5 |
Great program! The only freeware program i bought a lifetime license! Still getting better and better.If you don,t know what the program is doing....don,t rate it.If you don,t like the author.....don,t use the program. If you don,t know what to do or if you are boring...do something useful in your life.If you want a good running computer with a quick response use Process Lasso.p.s i,m not related to mr Collake EDIT: En DKDUde je bent echt gefrustreerd,groeten uit the Netherlands |
| jcollake | Jul 15, 2009 | 3.62 | 4 out of 5 |
DKDude: I often rate competitors well, as I appreciate competition. The thing about PCBoost is that it's fraudulent. Its graph is an animation.. it doesn't represent anything. I mean, wtf. Perhaps I should not have said anything about it, but consumer fraud hurts this entire industry. I figured I'd stand up to it. EDIT: I deleted an extensive review here where I defend against DKDude, and his insulting accusations. After I thought about it, there is no point in even addressing him. Thanks to all those loyal users of Process Lasso. |
| DKDude | Jul 14, 2009 | 3.62 | 1 out of 5 |
@jcollake It's ridiculous that you rate your own program 5stars every time you write something, with the amount of your own "reviews" I'd say that the rating isn't showing the real picture. I wish FileForum would disable rating for those who made the programs. I vote 1star every single time a new version is released, b/c This is absolutely useless piece of software. It simply consumes your PC resources without any real benefit. Installing it on a heavily loaded PC. EDIT. NoHarm's Profile Member since July 15, 2009 jcollake you are making a fool of yourself by making all those fake users, really sad to see. |
| jcollake | Jun 30, 2009 | 3.61.0 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
The start menu shortcut working directory fix was only for a couple facilitating shortcuts that are very rarely used -- not for the main program shortcuts. They broke for a couple builds, and the rarity of their use caused them to be overlooked. Anyway, I shouldn't bother correcting that.. after all, it was a review of the change log, lol. |
| Wilfried | Jun 15, 2009 | 3.60.5 | 1 out of 5 |
If it's still in the need to fix "Fixed working directory of start menu shortcuts" ..... I wonder how much of the app itself actually works.... |
| Zoroaster | May 29, 2009 | 3.60 | 5 out of 5 |
Nirvana |
| embers | May 28, 2009 | 3.60 | 4 out of 5 |
I'm liking this program so far. Detailed provision of information for that curious ocd side. I haven't seen a whole lot of improvement yet, but I do see a lot of utility. I have not seen any degradation in performance, which is a plus in and of itself. |
| tin_yeuk | May 6, 2009 | 3.59.5 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
This is the only software that I will look for an update every single day. This software is just amazing, and finally the feature I had been waiting for long time Jeremy has finally implemented, which is excluding a process from foreground boosting (this is really a crucial feature, more important than CPU affinity i guess). I can give you an example why this feature is needed, ICQ 2003 beta from my memory, will be freezed upon foreground thread priority boost, same as the Chinese Sina UC chat program. This process also makes my computer possible to install 3 or more antiviruses on a single CPU chip, without losing too much computer speed !!! Definitely can install 4+ antiviruses on dual core CPUs. Jeremy, you don't really need to listen to other people like saying that your software is a bloatware, because they obviously don't know what they are doing. In order to understand whether this program works, one would really need to play around this program and play around the settings. |
| emanresU deriseD | May 3, 2009 | 3.59.5 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
The ProBalance feature works. Calling this utility "useless" is baffling to me. If you have a system where no process EVER uses more CPU time than you would like it to, you must not do a hell of a lot with your PC. Whining about beta updates is even more idiotic. Don't fix bugs and implement new features, and some cretin whines about the lack of updates. Fix bugs and implement new features, and some other cretin whines that you release too many updates. Hey, here's an idea! It's a big one, so get 9 hours of sleep and a couple cups of coffee first... Ready? OK, here goes: DON'T DOWNLOAD THE DAMNED BETAS IF YOU DON'T WANT THEM! Phew! Wow, just typing that made me tired. Sounds more like a whiny little boy who can't stand the new licensing scheme. Oh well. |
| jcollake | May 2, 2009 | 3.59.5 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
The benefits of ProBalance are quite real, and quite proven. I provide both evidence, and proof of concept. This has been a problem with the Windows NT scheduler ever since its creation - that 'out-of-control' background threads running at normal priority can consume an inappropriately large portion of available CPU cycles, bringing the system to a crawl. If anyone really doubts that ProBalance works, here is a proof of concept experiment you can try yourself: http://www.bitsum.com/do...how_does_lasso_work.htm . In addition, there are several other utilities similar to ProBalance, as well as research (white papers, etc.) that can be found on the internet. Process Lasso is VERY light on its feet, so to say that it takes up any substantial amount of system resources is simply not true. And, of course, there is no adware involved. I know people are tired of seeing updates, but these updates are only because I am so actively developing the software. That said, I am working to reduce the update frequency. |
| alalec | Apr 28, 2009 | 3.59.2 Beta | 1 out of 5 |
This is absolutely useless piece of software. It simply consumes your PC resources without any real benefit. Installing it on a heavily loaded PC would cripple it. While installing it on a lightly loaded PC might let you think that it is a useful tool if you don’t know how to audit your PC performance. It is Windows which optimize the load after installing this software. One of the last improvements documented in the release 3.59.2 Beta is the following: “Added CPU throttling (both persistent and temporary). This applies a hard limit on the CPU time a process can consume. This is not meant to replace ProBalance and should be used only in certain, appropriate situations”. Blah blah blah. For long time now, every other day there is a new beta release of this software. Either this software is a guessing development or it is like some other software authors who try to keep downloading busy. In some cases it appears that the marketing model/paradigm used is to issue a new beta release every other day. Frequent downloading is used to generate little revenue or to force installing additional unwanted adware during the installation process. One star, only because there is no lower rating! |
| freeafrog | Apr 23, 2009 | 3.55.5 Beta | 3 out of 5 |
No longer freeware. Is now shareware. |
| JWvanLohuizen | Apr 22, 2009 | 3.55.5 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
emanresU deriseD, You will be quite surprised to to find out that I am not any of the things you said. I have actually been working with Jeremy to help him past this crisis in ways that will benefit everyone. And no I am not one of "the same ones who use your time, use your bandwidth, and won't EVER donate or register." I admit that I was very harsh, but I meant the gist of everything I said. OK, I could have left out a some of the bombs, but I am still ademit, freeware should remain free without restriction unless a change of direction is required. But you don't do it by making a count down window demanding people to upgrade when it was and still is stated that no upgrade is required. Yes, Jeremy has a cash flow problem but kindly yet insistently making that point is a far cry from what happened. Now for the change. I have already made a number of polite and conversational suggestions on how to change direction to hopefully insure financial reward will continue to come in and hopefully to increase over time. Some of the changes he already implemented today to stop the anger, but he is beginning to formulate a plan to move that direction without angering people but still getting what he needs to insure that this program survives. That is what all this is about and Jeremy is doing everything in his power to accomplish that my hat goes off to him. I am not going to going into my situation right now, but like I told Jeremy, I have on a number of occasions rewarded nice, diligent software developers with purchase and financial donations to continue their sincere efforts to produce great software. I can't always do that and certainly can't now, but I am giving and will continue in the future giving technical support help with ideas and feedback to fix, improve and further the development of the same great software so others can fulfill that role. I know that if Jeremy and others like him can't get the finances to continue their work then it either severely slows their efforts or ends it. I just am very sensitive to make the entire process a pleasant effort for both sides, not what looks like a land grab (greedy developers) or a circumvention of the reasonable right of remuneration (users that don't support or steal). |
| jcollake | Apr 22, 2009 | 3.55.5 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
To be a nice guy, I have taken some action to reduce nag annoyance. See this blog posting for details: http://processlasso.blogspot.com/ . There are still nags, but as time passes, I will work to make them increasingly tolerable. To be fair, they certainly aren't as bad as the nags on some software. I have also stated clearly on my web site that nags will be shown in the free build. I will be adjusting product descriptions on download sites as time passes. I do not want anyone to be surprised by these nags. It is not my intention to annoy or ambush users. I will make it clear that if you can't pay for the software, and are also unwilling to tolerate the occasional nag, then I can not offer any solution for you. Please remember that I am living in poverty, trying to find ways to get more users to make the upgrade to the Pro version. I am simply trying to finance development, not get rich. The is no greed involved. I won't be checking comments here again for some time, as sometimes I find the comments a little harsh -- a demotivating factor. |
| JWvanLohuizen | Apr 20, 2009 | 3.54.7 | 1 out of 5 |
This used to be great software, but now they have gone the way of other great software: Greedy Bribeware. Now what is supposed to be free has a wait dialog that comes up demanding you PAY for the PRO version or they will keep putting up a longer and longer count down timer. THIS IS BRIBERY and is a crime in most states. The product is either FREE with NO limitations, FREE with prior notification of limitations or it cost money. Make up your mind. Putting up nag windows which have increasing wait times DEMANDING payment for an upgrade only upsets loyal users. If I had the money and wanted to pay the money I would pay to nice respectful developers (which I have from time to time), not those that who make demands. Come up with a different approach that is not making demands. Again that is extortion. Times are hard for everyone. Humble appeals go much farther that draconian measures. Until changes are made I am uninstalling this "?ware" and I urge everyone to either do the same or just pass. |
| jcollake | Apr 16, 2009 | 3.54.7 | 5 out of 5 |
There are only a couple rarely used features that were moved to the Pro build. This was done to give people some reward for purchasing the product. The free build is still completely functional and differs only slightly from the Pro build. There are some nags that will appear after the product has been installed a while, and I (as the author) personally apologize for them. These were necessary steps for the product to survive. I strive to develop quality software, and I strive to fulfill the needs of my users. I understand the criticism now that the nags make it seem less than free, but please understand them. The alternative would be a time limited trial. I think most people would prefer the nag that allows you to continue using the product. In the end, I want as many people using my software as possible. However, I must also be able to afford to continue its development. I hope I've struck a good balance. |
| SteveJohnSteele | Apr 14, 2009 | 3.54.7 | 5 out of 5 |
I wish people would give a score to the program and the functions of the program The biggest 'nag' here is the people nagging about the nag - make a donation if you don't like it that much. On my system the 'nag' is actually a small polite balloon that only appears when I restart my PC (about once a month) :-) This program still does what it does very well I'm still happy with it (nag or no nag) oh and the new 'game mode' really helps |
| KuHGl | Apr 14, 2009 | 3.54.7 | 3 out of 5 |
I don't intent to write against the application itself - it's fantastic. BUT why is it named 'open source'? If one install it, some 'features' delivered 'in' it are not free and there is no distribution/version without these features, so STOP calling it 'Freeware'. Although it might be open source (I don't know... where are the source files, btw?), it is SHAREWARE. |
| Hall9000 | Apr 13, 2009 | 3.54.7 | 1 out of 5 |
EmanresU deriseD, the point is that now they have even added a popup that has you waiting 10 seconds(or what ever) before you can kill it. And add to that the damn tray balloon asking for money. I have a very simplye idea. Let's call that thing exactly what it is. NAGWARE. They've pissed me off enough for me to get rid of it, even if I liked it enough to give it a rating of 4 back in January. Now, I'd be so happy to give it a minus 5. |
| emanresU deriseD | Apr 4, 2009 | 3.54.2 | 5 out of 5 |
It's funny how people rave about a piece of software when it's free, and then slam it all the way to hell when it sorta, kinda--well no, not really--goes shareware. As if the product got WORSE. Well, no, actually it has improved. But some people have an immense sense of entitlement. Mr. Collake pours his soul into his work, and I respect the hell out of that. |
| mfaccone | Apr 2, 2009 | 3.54.2 |  2 out of 5 |
2 stars for the NAG! If it is supposed to be free... let it be free of NAGS as well. If you want a PRO version, offer it with something that would make it inviting to buy. I've used the 64 bit version for a while... and until they started the NAG version, it did fairly well what it was designed to do. But now I have uninstalled it permanently. I wouldn't have even minded paying for it... but not this way. Either let it go for free with a pro version, or don't let it go free at all. |
| us3r | Mar 25, 2009 | 3.53.8 Beta | 2 out of 5 |
Annoyin nagware. I understand to remaind a user that this product needs support once a week or once a month, but not every time when application is lunched. Especially this supposted to be a free build. |
| radiomaffia | Mar 17, 2009 | 3.53.4 Beta | 4 out of 5 |
Looking forward to the next update tommorow and the update after that just a coulpe of hours later...but I do not border about all those updates, I just don't update and finally gave up and feeling better allready! But it is working fine in the background to controll those apps that otherwise would block any other process (so I use : Probalance Enabled ) |
| guru_v | Mar 17, 2009 | 3.53.4 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
I'm using 3.52.1 and the funny thing is that the changes.txt file states that there were changes to the FREE version. So there is still one, as of the stated version, but, I'm not sure when, I think 2 revisions ago, it started the balloons nagging about upgrading. Still not bad for something so nice - I am going to pay for it, but I also understand those who are very annoyed with the nag baloon. |
| Sammo | Mar 17, 2009 | 3.53.4 Beta | 3 out of 5 |
I used to use this until they implemented the DAILY NAG. |
| KuHGl | Mar 17, 2009 | 3.53.4 Beta | 3 out of 5 |
This app is made very well, works stable and reliable... and is NO Open Source, but SHAREWARE, for ALL users! As application - for it's clean style and it's reliability and functionality (and the effort the developers - which is enhancing this program constantly) I would rate a clear * * * * *, 5 Stars, BUT... I DISLIKE the manner, bitsum changed the license in the darkness of night from freeware into shareware - so my rating is only * * *, 3 Stars. Judge on you own! |
| Dox | Mar 3, 2009 | 3.48.4 | 4 out of 5 |
This app is getting update and update and updating again? but why so many times? why just not update once a 3 months for instance instead of every week ( maybe a little less but it feels that way..). [3] |
| renanrrinaldi | Mar 1, 2009 | 3.48.1 | 4 out of 5 |
This app is getting update and update and updating again? but why so many times? why just not update once a 3 months for instance instead of every week ( maybe a little less but it feels that way..). [2] |
| radiomaffia | Feb 20, 2009 | 3.47.3 Beta | 4 out of 5 |
This app is getting update and update and updating again? but why so many times? why just not update once a 3 months for instance instead of every week ( maybe a little less but it feels that way..). With probalance enabled it gives me the chance to do something else on the pc when it is ripping a dvd or converting a videofile, without this app i could do nothing cause 100% CPU went to the ripping/converting. I do nothing else with this app, just let it run in the systray, i know it is doing a fine job! For gamers it can slow down the pc with probalance enabled and that is not what you want when playing a game, maybe a feature in every rightclickmenu of every program to disable picasso for this tool/game? Would be nice update at least! |
| Zebbie79 | Feb 20, 2009 | 3.47.3 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
Very good program. Had some problems with programs hanging and slowing my computer. Process Lasso solved it or at least got it better until I get a better computer. |
| Ryusennin | Feb 14, 2009 | 3.47.2 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
@us3r: you can't even spell your nickname right. Who's the tard? |
| JCookes | Feb 14, 2009 | 3.47.2 Beta | 1 out of 5 |
The tool itself wastes more cpu cycles than it will get you from restricting others. |
| anomoly | Feb 11, 2009 | 3.47.1 Beta | 2 out of 5 |
That in a nutshell along with a misleading gui is what kills this "free" ap. I can not think of a single piece of software that I would consider using that has both a free and a paid version in an alln'one gui. It's all or nothing. With that said, all I wanted it to do was kill ati hot key poller executable after pc boots. Aside from the scrolling bs banner that by rights should not be there considering I told it I was just some guy at home, It told me that that was a pro feature. Interesting is the techy with his sprawling processes. At least someone has found it useful. Even so the devs should separate the free from the pro and keep the gui for the free one nice, clean, and honest. The nags and the crippled aspects kill this ap, at least for me. |
| Cekay | Feb 10, 2009 | 3.47.0 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
I like it a lot, I use it with Windows XP + Intel Quad 6600, I payd for 1 year to support the developement and as I see there is people working and working to make it better. |
| rdmtech | Feb 6, 2009 | 3.46.2 | 5 out of 5 |
Well......this retard bought 15 seats of Process Lasso. If you are an IT professional this is an application that will save you time and your company money. It will pay for itself many times over. Process Lasso saves me several hours of admin time per week. Let's just say that it equates to thousands of dollars of savings per year. I have PL managing numerous 'trouble' processes that for one reason or another will spiral out of control. I also love the process instance limitation, scheduling virtual memory trimmings and selecting multiple processes for termination. The development process is extremely professional and responsive to user needs. New features and fixes are rarely more than a week or two away. If you are experiencing issues with the application all you need to do is jump on to the forum and post your issue. |
| us3r | Feb 6, 2009 | 3.46.2 | 3 out of 5 |
@Ryusennin: The only retard I see here is you. |
| Ryusennin | Feb 6, 2009 | 3.46.2 | 5 out of 5 |
Well, the global rating speaks for itself: ret***s should really stay clear of this app. |
| us3r | Feb 4, 2009 | 3.45.4 Beta | 2 out of 5 |
This program doesn't offer much more than similar tools which are completely free, yet author want almost 20$ for a copy whether you are commercial user or home user or student. The life time license doesn't speak to me since I remember the development of these application stopped like for two years around version 2.0. |
| anomoly | Jan 31, 2009 | 3.44.1 | 1 out of 5 |
This is the second time I have tried this and I must say this time is no better. Nags you about pro featureseven after you install it for "home" use and it leaves a nag screen scrolling about buying it for commercial use within 30 days blah blah blah meanwhile it has features that lead to a "only in the pro version" don't waste my time. Only a retard would actually buy this for commercial use instead of doing the intelligent thing and staying within his hrdwre parameters or, better yet, upgrading his s***. Nice try but this is just the thing to create havoc in a working environment. |
| radiomaffia | Jan 22, 2009 | 3.43 Beta | 4 out of 5 |
Yet another version? That goes really really fast....that makes me wonder why...but, ok, I use it for the 'ProBalance enabled' feature and if I am converting a dvd for example it doesn't uses 100% sources as before, slow 's the converting a little but and I am still be able to use the pc for something else instead of walking away from it..4 stars cause it is has nag nag logo FREE BUILD |
| Ryusennin | Jan 22, 2009 | 3.43 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
@ Bart WTF are you talking about. Stop da crack, yo. |
| Bart Welson | Jan 17, 2009 | 3.42 | 2 out of 5 |
This is a really buggy app, and way too many releases. Please stop adding new version numbers for every byte you change. |
| Boreth | Jan 7, 2009 | 3.38 | 2 out of 5 |
The program throttles down CPU heavy rendering software till the program crashes, reports a responsiveness between 2-8% with a CPU load of 15-25%. Tried to contact support, no rely aka no sale. Nice idea but no support. |
| cgoetz | Jan 3, 2009 | 3.36.1 | 5 out of 5 |
I've been using this program for a while now and find it very useful. I recommend it enthusiastically. Moreover, the developer is constantly improving it. |
| Hall9000 | Jan 2, 2009 | 3.36.1 | 4 out of 5 |
From their website. I guess that it means that it's free fror private use? Process Lasso is free for private home and academic use. It will never expire or nag you. However, home and academic users are strongly encouraged to purchase the Pro version so that this project can be self-sustaining. By making a purchase, you'll obtain an account in our user services area where you can download the latest, and any previous, version of Process Lasso Pro. You will have access to future updates to Process Lasso for the term of your subscription (see below). |
| HydrantHunter | Jan 2, 2009 | 3.36.1 | 5 out of 5 |
@NotSoSkilledUser: If you haven't tried it already: uninstall your version and cleanly install the version linked here (don't upgrade/crossgrade). The current free version shows the words "Free Build" in the lower left of the performance graph. Hope that helps. ----- Running on both x86 and x64 systems. It definitely helps keep a system more responsive, even during malware scans. I've only had one app go south and start spooling the CPU since install and Process Lasso got it. Glad to have it on my side. |
| NotSoSkilledUser | Jan 2, 2009 | 3.36.1 | 1 out of 5 |
It's ___NOT ANY MORE___ a piece of free software. It clearly states that "Your evaluation period of Process Lasso has ended!" and refuses to start. If this is freeware... |
| Undesired Username | Jan 1, 2009 | 3.36.1 | 5 out of 5 |
It's still freeware, but some advanced features are being moved to the Pro build. The whiners with a grossly-misplaced sense of entitlement will cry their eyes out, but this is what happens when not enough people donate. |
| NotSoSkilledUser | Dec 19, 2008 | 3.30.1 | 4 out of 5 |
This program is no more freeware. He told me that "Your evaluation period of Process Lasso has ended!" |
| Ryusennin | Dec 13, 2008 | 3.30.1 | 5 out of 5 |
@ Sorlag If you don't see the point of balanced multithreading, then you don't need a computer. |
| sorlag | Dec 12, 2008 | 3.30.1 | 4 out of 5 |
@Ryusennin: windows already balances threads and processes on different cores/cpu's. there is no need to cripple it and bind it to a specific core... to be better than windows, an app needs more information about the work of a thread, so it can group the best threads together... the only use would be on a server, to kill or slow down buggy apps... |
| radiomaffia | Nov 25, 2008 | 3.26 | 4 out of 5 |
You should allways install this file and enable the feature 'Probalance enabled' when you convert videos&audio files for instance and still want to use the pc for browsing or something else! (For gaming disable or configured first cause it will slow down your game otherwise..) But why enable this feature? When you are converting it mostly runs to 100% and then you can do prakticly nothing other then to wait when it is finished converting, with Probalance enabled it smartly brings back the converter to 80-85% and you have some CPU left to other things! Recommended for me, maybe also for you? The only little bit anoying thing is that there a small sentence: [Freebuild Home-users Get The Pro Build For Any Amount] but is keeps running for free.. |
| 02clams | Nov 25, 2008 | 3.26 | 3 out of 5 |
IMO: I really believe in this product and have used nearly every version since 1.5x. However, it consistently interferes with burning CDs/DVDs and playing a DVD movie causes problems. Media Player Classic (Home Cinema Edition) seems to freeze almost upon starting the application ... probably because it tries to set its own priorities. I've also have problems with 16 bit apps running under NTVDM in that they actually run slower no matter how I set the exclusion lists in ProcessLasso. I'm still hoping that this product fully lives up to its name. However, for now it just slows things down for me or only provides a slight performance enhancement. Finally, please be aware I'm running this app on older hardware, not screeming multi-core cpu's. |
| Undesired Username | Nov 25, 2008 | 3.26 | 5 out of 5 |
Actually, Process Lasso is great to use when you're running 3D games (which is what I assume the previous reviewer is referring to). It can be a big help, because it helps keep other processes from slowing the game down. But there's a caveat. You should exclude the game's executable from restraint. (Although I believe that by default, the game's priority won't be changed, since while you're playing it, the game is the "foreground window".) I've found many games that benefit from being forced to high priority. Some games, though, get totally screwed up if set to high priority (this may be because of priority inversion, I'm not sure). But avoiding Process Lasso just because you run games is not necessary or even advisable. |
| Bad Prit | Nov 25, 2008 | 3.26 | 2 out of 5 |
You should NEVER install this tool when you're planning to ever play a game.... |
| tannenwheel | Nov 20, 2008 | 3.23 Beta 2 | 4 out of 5 |
this can interfere with applications in unwanted ways. i believe, it's mostly the feature that toggles priority for foreground windows. a year ago fastone image viewer turned out to be unusable, when lasso was running. it got stuck with 100 % cpu for like 10 seconds on each mouse click (selection). i bugged the faststone author with a bug report. later noticed that the lasso core was to blame. recently picasa 3 crashed all the time. i thougt it was because of a beta update, but when i killed lasso, it stoped from crashing. i have not done all tests to proove the connection in this case. anyway, .. lasso is allways the last thing i would think of, when something goes wrong in any application. especially when i dont have the GUI running at all. when it should be the first thing to think of. you may blame the authors of picasa or faststone for not thinking of how soemething like lasso could interfere ("hack") with their programs, but that does not change the situation. so maybe lasso should come with a warning, or maybe the bad feature (which one?) should be off by default.... i wont install it again. have no need on my system. media converters used to be the only need, but the ones i use now run on low priority by default. |
| Ryusennin | Nov 19, 2008 | 3.23 Beta 2 | 5 out of 5 |
Reminds me of Executive on AmigaOS. A MUST HAVE. |
| radiomaffia | Nov 19, 2008 | 3.23 Beta 2 | 4 out of 5 |
I am using it now it for the first time and it is very handy that programs (videoconverters for instance) that are using to much CPU now can be lowered by this app automaticly by its smart engine and you finally can do something else on your pc and do not have to wait before converting is ready...handy and a keeper,period! |
| JustinGoodwins | Nov 17, 2008 | 3.23 Beta 1 | 5 out of 5 |
One thing I immediately loved when I first encountered this program was the fact that it comes in both an (x32) and (x64) version. The second thing I liked was it’s super small file size. The entire file was only 411.4 Kb, and took about 10 seconds to download. Finally, as a freeware program I wasn’t assaulted with a Please Register countdown, any annoying adware, or any attempts to install services or toolbars I didn’t want. The author does include a small unobtrusive message that reports “Home users: Get the PRO build for a donation of any amount.” n all, Process Lasso does what the author claims. It is a great program for showing you exactly what is running on your system, and what resources those processes take. It creates a fluid and efficient scheme for creating a system profile that you can control, or allow Process Lasso to control from startup. It effortlessly controls processes, switching between them like a champ, improving your system performance and making hangs and crashes less likely. It is easy to use, with a simple interface, low overhead, and a handy addition for any level of computer user. I know I am adding it to my tech toolbox. Please anyone who would like comment take a look at my blog for a full review of Process Lasso give an opinion. It is located at: http://blog.mybadcompute...ftware/windows-software/ |
| zeeZee | Nov 16, 2008 | 3.23 Beta 1 | 5 out of 5 |
great for slow cpu. ie control with big flash sites is nice. flash used to spike cpu badly and bog system, with this it is much improved. |
| Diam0nd | Nov 16, 2008 | 3.23 Beta 1 | 5 out of 5 |
Great proggy. Somebody ban that ****in' spammer newbeta! |
| Undesired Username | Nov 15, 2008 | 3.23 Beta 1 | 4 out of 5 |
Let's narrow in on this term, "loyal users". I've supported PL much more than most people who have mindlessly cheerleaded for it, by testing, suggesting, reporting bugs, and donating. Let's also distinguish between "does exactly what it says it does" on your system versus on my system. I do very much appreciate Mr. Collakes responsiveness and attitude. |
| armpit | Nov 8, 2008 | 3.22 | 5 out of 5 |
Fantastic program. A must have for anyone. |
| poundsmack | Nov 7, 2008 | 3.22 | 5 out of 5 |
@jcollake we loyal users will defend it as long as you continue to do such a good job in making it. 5 stars for a good program that does exactly what is says it will and doesnt use to much ram in the process. aditionaly, its worth a donation. |
| jcollake | Oct 27, 2008 | 3.18.2 | 4 out of 5 |
@undresirable: I am sorry I was not able to reproduce and fix the troubles you personally had. I work hard to ensure Process Lasso is a quality product, and even after you left the forum I continued to try to imagine scenarios where what you saw could happen. It might very well be that newer versions resolve the issue(s) you had. Believe me when I say that if there were widespread problems I would not only notice them myself, but also be informed by Process Lasso users. I will make you this deal: If you will give the latest version a try, currently v3.19b2, and it doesn't behave exactly like you expect it to, I will spend 100% of my available time figuring out why. I have debug builds I can send you that may tell us what is happening on your system. Lastly, thanks to those users who have defended Process Lasso here ;). It is very refreshing to see. I rate my own software a 4 so that I don't appear arrogant. |
| Undesired Username | Oct 27, 2008 | 3.18.2 | 3 out of 5 |
SteveJohnSteele, my "bug report" isn't a bug report at all. I'm not here to provide a detailed bug report to you or anyone else. I have good reasons for this, not the least of which is that I have no desire for authors to know who I am, in cases where I've reported the same bugs to them or in their forums. I didn't say PL was all bad. It's not. But it's simply not reliable enough for me. And I still think all the people who say "runs perfectly here" and all that crap just don't watch things as closely--or as often--as I do. Blame Process Explorer for the problems I see? Yeah, right. Too bad these problems happen even without PE running. |
| hunterb | Oct 14, 2008 | 3.16 | 5 out of 5 |
As a programmer, i find this utility excellent - to keep my experiments under control. I've had no problems with it. My only criticism is that it should also display memory usage and summary breakdown as per Task Manager. When i want to use the ever so valuable Memory Trim function, (to control SQL server's usage) I want to check the memory before and after. The program is mainly about CPU usage rather than memory, but as they provide the useful memory trimming, i'd like to see the memory status and maybe a graph of it's usage as well. Then it would be perfect! |
| some guy | Oct 3, 2008 | 3.12 | 5 out of 5 |
works fine here free and works awsome |
| SteveJohnSteele | Sep 30, 2008 | 3.10.3 | 5 out of 5 |
Excellent and keeps getting better. @Undesired Username Your 'bug report' seem to be lacking detail "It's not like you can click here and watch something happen, or click there and make it crash." then a bug cannot be recreated and therefore would be almost impossible to track down. And since you cant "click here and watch something happen" how can you be so sure that the problem is with ProcessLasso and not some other software, or interaction between the two. You mention that you have ProcessExplorer installed. Even you admit that you "I prefer Process Lasso" so it cant be all bad. |
| Undesired Username | Sep 30, 2008 | 3.10.3 | 3 out of 5 |
Well gee... How to recreate the bugs I see here... This isn't the easiest application to do that with. It's not like you can click here and watch something happen, or click there and make it crash. No, what I've seen on numerous occasion is for Process Lasso to reduce the priority of an application whose priority is NOT supposed to be reduced (because it is excluded), or reduce the priority of an application appropriately, but then LEAVE it that way permanently. I've never had these things happen with Process Tamer. Which is too bad, because I prefer Process Lasso in other respects. I notice these things because I check Process Explorer very frequently... If you just install Process Lasso and take a nap, you won't know what is going on behind the scenes. Oh, and I could NOT possibly care less who doesn't believe or agree with my review or problem reports. |
| SteveJohnSteele | Sep 24, 2008 | 3.08 | 5 out of 5 |
I have been using this program for almost a year - without any issues. Lets see someone, who says there is a bug, tell us all how to recreate that bug. |
| Undesired Username | Sep 24, 2008 | 3.08 | 2 out of 5 |
Ah yes! I definitely just THINK this program is buggy, yet it's perfect! I caused my own problems by daring to change the preferences! I see now! Uh, no, it definitely has bugs. Saying it isn't is the same as saying "I'm too clueless to find or notice the bugs". |
| Bad Pritt | Sep 15, 2008 | 3.06.1 | 1 out of 5 |
It crashes here too, using windows XP. |
| Zoroaster | Sep 15, 2008 | 3.06.1 | 5 out of 5 |
Works very well here on XP Home, not at all buggy; in fact this latest version 3.06.1 has been still improved, polished up. Of course, don't start messing up the default values unless you know what you're doing, don't go on High Priority for whatever processes like others fantasize. If you follow the rules the result is astonishing. |
| ltsnow | Sep 14, 2008 | 3.06.1 | 4 out of 5 |
Works well for me with XP Pro. I give it a four because I really don't know enough about how it works. |
| Undesired Username | Sep 13, 2008 | 3.06.1 | 2 out of 5 |
Buggy. Let's see if someone comes along and claims it works well for him, then admits he doesn't know how it works. |
| Hardenne | Sep 13, 2008 | 3.06.1 | 1 out of 5 |
Crashes on startup. |
| Letterman | Jul 22, 2008 | 3.00.2 | 5 out of 5 |
"I wish the author would do fewer new releases and instead do occasional big updates instead, but as long as it keeps getting better I won't complain." x2 |
| Rafel | Jun 11, 2008 | 2.92.4 | 5 out of 5 |
Sometime ago i wrote a bad review of this program, but now i must to say it's a must have. It's very lighter and effective. I have had testing some versions, and every new version it's better. Simply the best. PD A translation to catalan or spanish would be awsome,hehehe. |
| some guy | May 18, 2008 | 2.88 | 5 out of 5 |
nkcuong did you download from Kazza no virus http://www.virustotal.co...42c825c69fa277e30e0b12f |
| rhensley | May 15, 2008 | 2.86 | 5 out of 5 |
I really like Process Lasso. It does exactly what I wanted, to stop hung-up processes from making my computer slow. I wish the author would do fewer new releases and instead do occasional big updates instead, but as long as it keeps getting better I won't complain. Overall, great app, and thanks to the author for making it free! |
| jcollake | Apr 10, 2008 | 2.68 | 4 out of 5 |
As you may have guessed, that was a false alarm. These anti-virus software are getting worse and worse with false alarms. The problem should now be resolved. If its not, then CA needs to be notified. CA products are particularly bad with false alarms. Note: I rate my own product a 4 here to reflect the current average user rating. |
| nkcuong | Mar 18, 2008 | 2.64 | 2 out of 5 |
Trying latest version 2.681 on Vista and got Virus Warning by CA eTrust: "The Win32/VMalum.CDIT was detected in C:\PROGRAM FILES\PROCESS LASSO\TWEAKSCHEDULER.EXE" |
| jcollake | Mar 11, 2008 | 2.64 | 5 out of 5 |
If I had to guess, I would say the lack of restraint in some cases was due to the new exclusion of foreground processes from OOC restraint *OR* exclusion from restraint of non-normal priority processes. The former option may have been forced on even if you had it turned off due to a bug in the configuration system. The foreground exclusion option is now defaulted to OFF and the value of that setting is properly saved, as of v2.66. Sometimes clicking away from a high-usage application takes too long to actually occur, so that could have been the cause even if you were aware of the foreground exclusion possibility (that's why its defaulted to OFF now). Thanks for the feedback. |
| comeoffit | Mar 10, 2008 | 2.64 | 2 out of 5 |
Likewise. I have no grudge, no agenda. I am just annoyed that I took all the time to configure and set up Process Lasso, and it doesn't work at all under some circumstances for me. |
| DKDude | Mar 10, 2008 | 2.64 | 1 out of 5 |
@jcollake I only have one profile, and telling what I think has nothing to do with trolling, I've tried your software and found it not as good as ProcessTamer. Sorry dude, I did'nt like it. |
| jcollake | Mar 7, 2008 | 2.62 | 5 out of 5 |
Some of these more recent comments are a bit trollish. I can't help but think a single person is behind them. Perhaps I pissed someone off, that's a shame. I mean, no rational person would rate this free, non-adware software a 0 or 1. Just the fact it installs and uninstalls without complications gets it above a 1 rating ;) So, somebody has a problem.. too bad they are so angry. I mean, wowza. The default settings were changed for better handling of multi-processor systems and multi-threaded applications, not because it doesn't work. Anyway, you can configure it however you like. Some of the update checker problems have been fixed in recent versions, I apologize to users who experienced annoyance with previous versions. I am friends with the author of Process Tamer and encourage users to try it. For some people maybe its the better solution. Anyway, its free software. If you don't like it, you haven't lost anything. Thanks to all those who support this free software. |
| why hello there | Feb 22, 2008 | 2.62 | 1 out of 5 |
The fact that the default percentage of CPU where "restraint" would kick in was changed from 95% to 75% should tell you something. Process Lasso might work under certain circumstances, but it just is not very reliable for me--sometimes it simply does nothing, even when CPU-killing processes are running amok. Piece of garbage IOW. |
| DKDude | Feb 22, 2008 | 2.62 | 1 out of 5 |
Now I've tested ProcessLasso for some time, I'm not impressed, if it works I really can't say, I prefere ProcessTamer. I have to give 1star b/c it's not possible to vote zerostars. |
| armpit | Feb 18, 2008 | 2.58 | 5 out of 5 |
Works great. No update checking problems, firewall does not register any attempt to access the net so far. |
| comeoffit | Feb 18, 2008 | 2.58 | 2 out of 5 |
Still doesn't do "what it says on the tin" for me. |
| madmike | Feb 18, 2008 | 2.58 | 5 out of 5 |
Does what it says on the tin, noticed great speedups on Win XP, very impressive can only get better:) |
| comeoffit | Feb 15, 2008 | 2.56 | 2 out of 5 |
Regarding the update functionality problems: What if, as a temporary measure, you went into the Process Lasso install directory, and renamed both of the updatechecker*.dll files (for example, by adding the .disabled file extension)? Anyway, I've made up my mind on Process Lasso vs. Process Tamer: And the latter wins. I was running NeroVision Express, and found that with PL running, clicking away from the NeroVision window seemed to have no effect. Even after several seconds, the entire system was at a crawl. With PT, clicking away resulted in a "tamed" NeroVision--and a responsive system--within a couple seconds. I tried various PL settings, and also the defaults, so don't try telling me that I had something misconfigured. PL just fails me, that's all there is to it. |
| lotherius | Feb 15, 2008 | 2.56 | 3 out of 5 |
Agree with the reviewers who say its update checker is borked. It checks CONSTANTLY and refuses to stop the popups for updates even when you click for it NOT to check for updates. VERY ANNOYING, and makes the program completely unusable in my opinion. |
| madmike | Feb 14, 2008 | 2.56 | 5 out of 5 |
Installed this, thought it might be ok.. what a differance!! fantastic change in win xp (to hell with Vista;) I noticed the response time was a lot quicker on programs. Highly Recommended:) |
| bufftbone | Feb 14, 2008 | 2.56 | 4 out of 5 |
Good program does what it says it does. Gives good control over the process. The bad thing about it, it automatically checks for newer versions which is normally ok but it comes up everyday and even when you check it and tell it to stop checking or do it w/o asking, it still pops up. |
| shdwstar | Feb 14, 2008 | 2.56 | 5 out of 5 |
this is my new favorite program. provided they don't start pouring adware into it. keep up the good work devs! |
| SteveJohnSteele | Feb 14, 2008 | 2.56 | 5 out of 5 |
works very well :-) |
| comeoffit | Feb 12, 2008 | 2.52 | 4 out of 5 |
@tvadakia: To exclude a particular process, find it in the Process Lasso main window (in the list of running processes), then right click it and select Exclude from out-of-control restraint. Or, you can select Options > Edit exclusions from out-of-control restraint, and add a program from there. Or, you can select Options > Out-of-control restraing settings, then click the Edit restraint exclusions button, and add a program from there. :) Each of these methods accomplishes exactly the same thing. That should do it. |
| tvadakia | Feb 12, 2008 | 2.52 | 5 out of 5 |
Works rather well, but I stopped using it just because my Symantec Endpoint Protection software did like it fooling with it's CPU usage. I couldn't find any way to un-restrict an app or to leave it alone inside PL. It's probably minor in that most virus protection software doesn't check for that... |
| why hello there | Feb 11, 2008 | 2.52 | 4 out of 5 |
Newi? I think you mean "newbie", and I hate it when people use that term as if it can always be used to categorize people who use a certain program or type of program. Which one of PT or PL you use is simply a matter of preference--and actually, PT is more complicated to use, if you look at its settings (e.g. "CPU Usage Measurement Smoothing Over Time", "Min. Change Interval", etc.). Also, PL has only two main EXEs, and only one of them (ProcessGovernor.exe) really needs to be running. You cannot tell which application is "lighter" by the number of EXEs anyway--that's like saying that Azureus is "lighter" than PL because PL uses two EXEs, while Azureus uses just one. (Anyone who has used Azureus knows it's not exactly like calc.exe on the system.) Try one or both, and use what you feel comfortable with. Both are free, both work well. |
| Rafel | Feb 11, 2008 | 2.52 | 5 out of 5 |
I think Process Lasoo is more usefull for advanced users because has got more options and setting, but for newis or average users Process Tamwer is more intuitive, usefull and very important, lighter in resources. Process tamer has got only a process in background, and it's lighter, but PL, i tested it, and if i am not wrong, has got 3 processes. If you are a power user, you must use PL, but if you are newi or averagem, and you use settings by default, Pt is your program. If PL became lghter in resources like PT, i'll use it. I rate 5 because i think is very good program, but i can'tt use it because i'm newi and i prefer a lighter program(PT) |
| why hello there | Feb 4, 2008 | 2.48 | 3 out of 5 |
I agree 100% with cricri_pingouin (whose nick I have never been able to figure out the meaning of). I prefer Process Tamer and find Process Lasso more (unnecessarily) complicated. This isn't to say that Process Lasso can't do a fine job. |
| jcollake | Jan 27, 2008 | 2.42 | 5 out of 5 |
Process Lasso has come a long way in the last few weeks and will continue to evolve. I invite all users to give this free product a new try. |
| cricri_pingouin | Dec 18, 2007 | 2.31 | 3 out of 5 |
It does the job, but I much prefer Process Tamer, maybe because of its no-frills, straight to the point approach. I can't explain why, but I do find Process Lasso somewhat more intricate to work with. |
| negate101 | Jan 24, 2006 | 2.13 | 5 out of 5 |
Process Lasso works fine for me. I love it. I will not use my computer without it. |
| crunchie | Dec 20, 2005 | 2.12 | 3 out of 5 |
Process Governor/Process Lassoo makes the first Net access take four or more seconds on my XP Pro/SP2 machine. Took some time to figure which program was causing the trouble. I don't get any problem with Process Tamer. I also use Sys Int's Process viewer but I can't see how that would do the same job as some posts here might be suggesting. |
| pyridox | Jul 9, 2005 | 2.05 RC4 | 3 out of 5 |
This program gave an error during setup. I get a Microsoft error/debug window, however the program does seem to run. The previous version, gave a different error during setup. This still has some issues that need to be worked out. |
| mousermanager | Jul 8, 2005 | 2.05 RC4 | 5 out of 5 |
good program. |
| jcollake | Jul 8, 2005 | 2.05 RC4 | 5 out of 5 |
Cool. |
| negate101 | Jul 5, 2005 | 2.05 RC3 | 5 out of 5 |
I love this program, especially now that it is free! Process Tamer is ok, but I like Lasso much better. Keep up the good work! |
| jcollake | Jul 3, 2005 | 2.05 RC2 | 5 out of 5 |
The crash at start-up has been fixed; RC3 is now available. A necessary component was left out of the install in the last build, causing a crash. Please let me know of any more issues. Thanks to all. Regarding the exclude list, poster below: Perhaps you are clicking 'Ok' before hitting 'Add'. I need to change this, it gets me all the time. Also, you can exclude processes from restraint by right-clicking on the process. |
| AlexisJiron | Jul 3, 2005 | 2.05 RC2 | 3 out of 5 |
RC3 loads ok now but I was unable to add anything to the exclude list. |
| isochar | Jul 3, 2005 | 2.05 RC2 | 4 out of 5 |
Just installed 2.05 RC2 and it immediately came back with "error instantiating process handle...". I rebooted and got the error message again, but the second time I tried it in the Windows session the program came up without a hitch. I like the idea of automatic process priority control! When this app becomes rock-solid the author can be sure that he'll have my $20 to $30, if it's a lifetime subscription. |
| TuxmanXP | Jul 3, 2005 | 2.05 RC2 | 1 out of 5 |
Process Lasso seems to be a quite useful tool for users who often work with large programs - but in fact, it crashed directly after installing it. It seems that CPUidle ain't right compatible with it yet... |
| ghammer | Jul 3, 2005 | 2.05 RC2 | 5 out of 5 |
Ok, the flaws I saw earlier are gone in the past two builds. RC3 took care of the crash on startup. And, there is now a free version and a Pro version. Most people will find the free version to be quite suitable. Very nicely done tool. |
| Stevefarrell | Jul 3, 2005 | 2.05 RC2 | 4 out of 5 |
love this program but i give it a 4 because of the lousy 7 day trial and i was going to pay for it but i dont have a credit card and dont know anyone with a credit card. great program otherwise |
| UTAKER | May 4, 2005 | 2.00 Beta B | 5 out of 5 |
nice piece of software for the purpose it is meant for |
| Apr 27, 2005 | 2.00 Beta A | 3 out of 5 |
" It is not a task manager replacement, but does have task manager like capabilties only as a compliment to its core functions." Um actually if people just read the description, they'll notice the developer does not claim it to be a "Task Manager Replacement". |
|
| httpd.confused | Apr 25, 2005 | 1.69 Beta G | 1 out of 5 |
Well, I'm not giving it a break, beta or not. I don't understand why anyone would. They post a beta, they link to a beta, but I should review it as if it were a final product? And I somehow qualify my review by saying something like "The beta worked awfully for me, but I'll assume that it will eventually be pretty good, so if I take the '1' the beta deserves, and the '4' the final product deserves, then add them together and divide by the day of the month, I arrive at the rating you see here." ...? Won't do it. Post a beta, review a beta. |
| ghammer | Apr 18, 2005 | 1.69 Beta F | 4 out of 5 |
Since it is a beta, I give it a break. Some tasks can stay in the "too much CPU" state even when they have crashed. The popup was annoying after while and though I'm sure it was configurable, I didn't see the option. All in all I am happier with Priority Master 2005. But this app has potential. Take a look for the trial period. |
| jcollake | Apr 18, 2005 | 1.69 Beta F | 5 out of 5 |
[author] ProcessTamer is written by a friend of mine, mouser. It is indeed a good little utility that does much of what Process Supervisor/Lasso does. I encourage people to check out both. Older version of Process Supervisor have been inadequate, that is for sure. I was on too many drugs when I originally wrote it. Newer versions are much more efficient and work much better. As time goes by it will get better and better. |
| httpd.confused | Apr 15, 2005 | 1.69 Beta E | 1 out of 5 |
It could be renamed to Joe's Happy Slappy Bunny Humper, and it wouldn't change the fact that it doesn't work properly. I wasted my time on this thing, and I won't do it again. But thanks to the poster below, I've now tried Process Tamer, which is not only free, it worked properly from the moment I ran it. |
| jcollake | Apr 15, 2005 | 1.69 Beta D | 5 out of 5 |
This application must be renamed, it is causing too much misunderstanding. It is NOT a task manager replacement. Its purpose is to AUTOMATICALLY reduce the priority of processes that are hogging the CPU. It can also terminate undesired processes and much more. It is NOT a task manager replacement, sysinternal's utility does NOT perform the same tasks that Process Supervisor is intended to do. Its process list window is simply to compliment its core functions. I can understand how people have gotten confused about this, it is easy to do. |
| Paul Lush | Apr 15, 2005 | 1.69 Beta D | 2 out of 5 |
You can get a much better product as sysinternals.com for free. |
| asaenz | Jan 20, 2004 | 1.36 | 3 out of 5 |
Another alternative is Priority Master 2004. |
| phrentec | Jan 20, 2004 | 1.34 | 3 out of 5 |
are there any alternatives to this software, besides sysinternals process explorer(which btw does not dynamically lower process priorities)? Maybe someone should suggest this feature to microsoft for the next version of windows or maybe as a powertoys etc. well I'm still looking for alternative process priority monitors. |
| scodan | Jan 12, 2004 | 1.3.2 Beta | 1 out of 5 |
I just tried this latest beta version, and I still cannot get Process Supervisor to automatically reduce application priorities. It isn't a matter of the Process Governor being active; I made sure it was, just as I did when I reviewed prior versions (I pay more attention than that oversight would have required). I've tried all sorts of settings, including really loose settings that should pick up even moderately CPU-hungry applications. It just won't work. I give up. |
| jcollake | Jan 3, 2004 | 1.20 | 5 out of 5 |
I believe I've discovered the cause of process rules not being applied. The core engine (processgovernor), when installed as a system service, was not being correctly invoked under certain conditions starting a couple versions ago. You may click the red circle in the GUI toolbar to turn the engine on. This issue will be fixed in the next build, v1.30. |
| CapZap | Dec 22, 2003 | 1.20 | 4 out of 5 |
I like the program for it's process information presentation. With the default settings of 70% cpu for 1500 ms, the program did not interfere with or throttle back my Climate Prediction distributed computing proggy -- and I didn't want it to. But, it's failure to do so may indicate it won't throttle other processes either. I need to play with it some. Otherwise, it's very nice. |
| scodan | Dec 21, 2003 | 1.20 | 2 out of 5 |
I tried all sorts of settings--I lowered the percentage to 50% at one point, and the time requirement to 1000ms. The applications I was testing with were definitely *very* CPU hungry--that's why I chose them for testing. It gets so bad my cursor movement is affected. I really wanted Process Supervisor to work, so this was very disappointing. Since I still love the novel idea you have with this utility, and think it could be very beneficial, I may be contacting you to see if we can square this issue away. Thanks. |
| jcollake | Nov 30, 2003 | 0.76 Beta | 5 out of 5 |
I'm afraid you've missed the point of Process Supervisor. It automatically (re: not manually) performs changes to system processes based on rules the user configures. So if a process is eating up all available CPU cycles, for instance, it will be automatically restrained. Process Explorer doesn't do this, nor do any other programs I am aware of. In summary, Process Supervisor's process manager GUI is not the point of the program, just a handy interface. Hope this clears up the confusion. |
| chaos945 | Nov 30, 2003 | 0.76 Beta | 4 out of 5 |
Process Explorer by Sysinternals is not bad. http://www.sysinternals..../freeware/procexp.shtml |
