any freeware to kill stuck processes in win 98??

[-½cut]

Look at the header. He said "processes". Not "a stuck process".

Actually he said

Any freeware to kill stuck process in win 98?

I read it as a process singular. If I read it right, then PrcView will
help. If it's a total meltdown then nothing will start up anyway and the
question is academic.

 

[R.L]

get Y Kill.. see for youself.. you'll change your opinion
once it saves a reeeboot, and loss of work... Not sure how
it was programmed, but the way it runs, it blasts through
any freezing

Ykill is pretty good on this. It works for me most of the time
when I got stucked, even sometimes quite badly. Yet, after I
break free everytime, I would still reboot for a problem-free
run-on, though.

 

[DC]

You have a bag of m&ms. Two crushed ones doesn't mean every piece of
candy in the bag is broken.

Unless they were two of those yummy RED ones, in which case they all might as
well be. };O)

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Blinky the Shark wrote:

Unless they were two of those yummy RED ones, in which case they all might as
well be. };O)

Yeah, and the green ones make you pregnant.

 

[POKO]

Hi John..

IYHO nothing works if CTRL ALT DEL doesn't..

get Y Kill.. see for youself.. you'll change your
snip

Now I'm really confused. If your system is frozen how do you get YKill to
start up? Does it run in the background? Can you provide the url?
Best,
POKO

--
POKO SAID THAT ...........
reply to (e-mail address removed) don't use VIAGARA
Pat Keenan - Webmaster, Keenan Consulting
http://www.keenanconsulting.on.ca
silly portal: www.keenanconsulting.on.ca/portal.html

 

[POKO]

snip

Okay - found it on Moochers and have it running. Tanks guys,
POKO
--
POKO SAID THAT ...........
reply to (e-mail address removed) don't use VIAGARA
Pat Keenan - Webmaster, Keenan Consulting
http://www.keenanconsulting.on.ca
silly portal: www.keenanconsulting.on.ca/portal.html

 

[rir3760]

It was a dark and stormy night when Blinky the Shark

Because they attempt to close it in manners that are different
than how the three-finger attempts to close it.

Do you have any link/reference to support such claim?
And don't get me wrong, I think you are correct but, so far, I have
not found any document/application that show the API calls used.

With more force, sometimes, if you will. IIRC there are three
levels of termination, differing by severity. Don't hold me to
that number.

ExitProcess & TerminateProcess:

<Quote from Win32 programmer's reference>
----
The ExitProcess function ends a process and all its threads.

Remarks
ExitProcess is the preferred method of ending a process. This
function provides a clean process shutdown. This includes calling the
entry-point function of all attached dynamic-link libraries (DLLs)
with a value indicating that the process is detaching from the DLL.
If a process terminates by calling TerminateProcess, the DLLs that
the process is attached to are not notified of the process
termination.

----
The TerminateProcess function terminates the specified process and
all of its threads.

Remarks
The TerminateProcess function is used to unconditionally cause a
process to exit. Use it only in extreme circumstances. The state of
global data maintained by dynamic-link libraries (DLLs) may be
compromised if TerminateProcess is used rather than ExitProcess.

TerminateProcess causes all threads within a process to terminate,
and causes a process to exit, but DLLs attached to the process are
not notified that the process is terminating.
</Quote>

The above applies to Windows 9x & NT, for newer MS OSes you can check
MSDN.

Regards

 

[Blinky the Shark]

It was a dark and stormy night when Blinky the Shark

Do you have any link/reference to support such claim?
And don't get me wrong, I think you are correct but, so far, I have
not found any document/application that show the API calls used.

I think the documentation (and/or user dialogs) for EndItAll show this;
possibly the docs/UI for NetLaunch, as well. Maybe Y-Kill, too. For
obvious reasons, I haven't used them in a while, so I'm a little rusty;
that's not the same as making stuff up, however.

ExitProcess & TerminateProcess:

<Quote from Win32 programmer's reference>

Remarks
ExitProcess is the preferred method of ending a process. This
function provides a clean process shutdown. This includes calling the
entry-point function of all attached dynamic-link libraries (DLLs)
with a value indicating that the process is detaching from the DLL.
If a process terminates by calling TerminateProcess, the DLLs that
the process is attached to are not notified of the process
termination.

Remarks
The TerminateProcess function is used to unconditionally cause a
process to exit. Use it only in extreme circumstances. The state of
global data maintained by dynamic-link libraries (DLLs) may be
compromised if TerminateProcess is used rather than ExitProcess.

TerminateProcess causes all threads within a process to terminate,
and causes a process to exit, but DLLs attached to the process are
not notified that the process is terminating.
</Quote>

The above applies to Windows 9x & NT, for newer MS OSes you can check
MSDN.

Well, yeah -- there's a couple levels. As for more than two, you might
want to check the apps I mentioned.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

Ctrl-Alt-Del will send a message to an application to close itself
gracefully. The app may not respond properly to this because it is
"hung". These other process killers attempt to end it more forceably, at
a lower level, so often have a better chance of doing so than using
Ctrl-Alt-Del. I've had several problem apps that have misbehaved in this
manner in the past, and process killers have worked where Ctrl-Alt-Del
has failed.

I find that Ctrl-Alt-Del seems to work okay for me. As long as
everything isn't frozen. Then a repeat Ctrl-Alt-Del might/might not
close down the system.

Wonder why that doesn't work for you ? Maybe you aren't giving
things enough time ? I find that I often have to wait a while for the
"close" window to appear. Sometimes maybe 20-30 seconds.

BTW, did you ever ask yourself why such process killers were
written in the first place, when Ctrl-Alt-Del was available?

Yes, it occurred to me that not every version of windows has the
Ctrl-Alt-Del option. Are you saying that it is available in every
version ? I didn't think it was. Also, some people simply prefer a
different way of doing things. That is why I have been asking
people why they prefer *their* way over the Ctrl-Alt-Del one.

Regards, John.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

Because they attempt to close it in manners that are different than how
the three-finger attempts to close it. With more force, sometimes, if
you will. IIRC there are three levels of termination, differing by
severity.

Well, as Ctrl-Alt-Del closes programs without saving data then I
expect it is already set to the most severe level.

Never heard of three levels before. Where is info on those from ?

Don't hold me to that number. But at least one process killer
offers you those choices, which makes their presence pretty obvious.

I am not sure that I have needed "more force". Ctrl-Alt-Del seems to
work fairly well for me. How do you get Another Task Manager to run
if your whole system is frozen ?


Regards, John.

 

[John Fitzsimons]

Hi Larry.

IYHO nothing works if CTRL ALT DEL doesn't..

That's what I was thinking. Saying "run this program" if one is unable
to run any programs doesn't seem very sensible to me.

get Y Kill.. see for youself.. you'll change your opinion once it saves a
reeeboot, and loss of work... Not sure how it was programmed, but the way it
runs, it blasts through any freezing..

Great ! That's exactly what I wanted to hear.

Instead of claiming NOTHING works,

I didn't say nothing would work. I was suggesting that it was probable
that nothing would work. There is a difference. I was hoping someone
would say "this works even when my processes are all stuck in '98".

get it, install it, memorize the activate
skull key, and wait for a freeze.. try your CTRL ALT DEL and if it don't
work, try the Y-KILL, and start believing. I tell you it works MANY times
over for me with the old Win 98 machine

Thanks for your comments. Now I am (almost) looking forward to my
system processes being stuck !

Regards, John.

--
****************************************************
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.aspects.org.au/index.htm
v http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/

 

[Blinky the Shark]

On 1 Aug 2003 01:51:29 GMT, Blinky the Shark <[email protected]>
wrote:

Well, as Ctrl-Alt-Del closes programs without saving data then I
expect it is already set to the most severe level.

Never heard of three levels before. Where is info on those from ?

I just posted some possible place to someone else. You may have seen
that post, by now.

I am not sure that I have needed "more force". Ctrl-Alt-Del seems to
work fairly well for me. How do you get Another Task Manager to run
if your whole system is frozen ?

Why do people (or maybe it's just been you, more than once - I'm not
sure) keep bringing up entire frozen systems when that wasn't
the original scenario -- just to try and prove that these programs
aren't useful in that *different* scenario?

 

[Blinky the Shark]

On 1 Aug 2003 01:55:08 GMT, Blinky the Shark <[email protected]>
wrote:

< snip >

Nobody is talking about "a process" (until your apparent assumption).
The header says "processes". Presumably he is talking about the entire
system being locked up. If he wanted to have software to kill * a *
process then I expect he would have asked for it.

I think you overpresume. Two processes are "processes". Three
processes are "processes". But, see, two or three processes are not
*the whole system*, if you have, say, 47 processes running. And it's not
like that's a small number of processes to be running. And no, I'm not
going to play, "well, what if you only have 42 processes running".
"Processes" are not necessarily "the whole system".

 

[Alan]

I think you overpresume. Two processes are "processes". Three
processes are "processes". But, see, two or three processes are not
*the whole system*, if you have, say, 47 processes running. And it's
not like that's a small number of processes to be running. And no,
I'm not going to play, "well, what if you only have 42 processes
running". "Processes" are not necessarily "the whole system".

It's like trying to punch information into an MS-basher. There is a
fixed agenda there and a preordained conclusion, and no manner of logic
or rational argument is ever gonna get the facts through. Then, as you
say, there are the feeble hypothetical pedantries, thrown in out of
desperation, to deal with. Head -> brick wall stuff.

 

[DC]

It's like trying to punch information into an MS-basher. There is a
fixed agenda there and a preordained conclusion, and no manner of logic
or rational argument is ever gonna get the facts through. Then, as you
say, there are the feeble hypothetical pedantries, thrown in out of
desperation, to deal with. Head -> brick wall stuff.

Alan, if you are bothered by an MS-Basher's agenda, you have a strangely
warped set of criteria by which you judge something to be threatening to
frank and open dialogue.

You like facts so much? Here's some factual reading, complete with
references: http://aaxnet.com/editor/edit029.html#mspath

 

[Guy]

I use Enditall (version 2) a PC Magazine utility...very very good!

Here's the link: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,697,00.asp

Guy

http://www.colba.net/~gcormi/menu.html
http://www.bestimports.dropshipsite.com

 

[Alan]

Alan, if you are bothered by an MS-Basher's agenda, you have a
strangely warped set of criteria by which you judge something to be
threatening to frank and open dialogue.

Sorry, I don't really see the connection. Frank & open dialogue is fine
with me, but I was speaking of the difficulties of trying to communicate
simple *facts* to somebody with a predetermined outcome fixed in their
mind. Your typical MS-basher provides a good example of somebody with
such a mindset IMO.

You like facts so much?

I like opinion too, but I dislike the dissemenation of incorrect
information and unsupported claims born of a "let's hate tall poppies"
pathology and/or hysteria.

Here's some factual reading, complete with
references: http://aaxnet.com/editor/edit029.html#mspath

Thanks. Looks like a good read and a sanely balanced article
(particularly for a site with such an obvious agenda ).

 

[John Fitzsimons]

John Fitzsimons wrote:

Why do people (or maybe it's just been you, more than once - I'm not
sure) keep bringing up entire frozen systems when that wasn't
the original scenario -- just to try and prove that these programs
aren't useful in that *different* scenario?

Why do people (or maybe it's just been you, more than once - I'm not
sure) keep bringing up individual frozen processes when that wasn't
the original scenario -- just to try and prove that they know of a
task killer program ?

The header says "stuck processes". When my system is frozen it is a
case of "stuck processes".

IF he had asked how to counter a "stuck process" then your answer
would have been more appropriate.

Regards, John.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

On 2 Aug 2003 03:06:24 GMT, Blinky the Shark <[email protected]>
wrote:

< snip >

Why do people (or maybe it's just been you, more than once - I'm not
sure) keep bringing up individual frozen processes when that wasn't
the original scenario -- just to try and prove that they know of a
task killer program ?

Because of some really simple math, John. process 1 + process 2 =
processes. Even in your country, I suspect that plurals can mean more
than one and less than infinity.

 

[Blinky the Shark]

I agree. Some people are so eager to show people that they know of a
process killer that they ignore the fact that the OP said "processes"
and that task killers are generally useless where all ones processes
are stuck.

Show us where OP said -=ALL=- (my emphasis) processes, for ****'s sake,
you blithering idiot.