Send Your Feedback for Advanced SystemCare 10

[Acigan]

Hi Acigan,

 

Would you mind to describe the issue in detail again or give us the link you posted before, which can help me understand the issue?

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

Sure. No problem. First the basics.

My Testing Box is a Lenovo G50 laptop with an external display attached for dual monitors, laptop display and the external...the displays are logically linked via windows extended desktop. laptop display is monitor 1, the primary, and the external monitor is Monitor 2, the extended display. The physical layout is Monitor 2 above Monitor 1. Items are dragged up off the laptop display and placed on the external monitor for easy viewing (glancing up from laptop). Laptop display is then used normally for test purposes as any user would. M2 allows monitoring and debug panels to be open and viewable with just a glance upwards.

 

Windows version running is Windows 10 Anniversary Edition. All known and advanced MS patches applied. (Im a MSDN member and receive advanced patches to test also).

Disk drive is a Western Digital 1 terabyte drive and it supports SMART information fetching and reporting. Any search at Lenovo.com on "G50" will give the full hardware specs. The box is factory with the addition of an external usb drive I have apps loaded on I use everyday. (aka a usb harddrive used instead of a flash drive)

 

***

 

There are two issues with MONITOR.exe, the Performance Monitor app. First is the fetching and displaying of the S.M.A.R.T. data from known SMART devices such as the temps, fan speeds. When the Performance Monitor is expanded, there is a double down-facing arrow to further expand into the SMART data information. There was a prior bug in earlier versions of MONITOR.exe that when the SMART info was expanded, it would fail and a link was there to report the fail, and a response message saying ioBit would examine and correct. That issue was resolved at some point in the ASC 9x and SMART info was being fetched and reported. In the v10 Beta, that issue of failed info being fetched is back. I saw a post above regarding the SDK for win 10 and that may be the issue with that piece of logic.

 

***

 

The second issue with MONITOR.exe is the proper placement of the panel on the Windows Extended Desktop. Again, referring to the test box physical setup, Monitor 2 the external display is physically located above the laptop display. Extended Desktop allows objects to be dragged and dropped upwards onto the display. (ie, 2 over 1) and the Windows Desktop is logically seen as a Portrait format and the two monitors cut the portrait format into two logical Landscapes layouts. The Extended Desktop feature of Windows doest have issues with the layout. Things can be dragged up onto M2 with no problems. However, MONITOR.exe will not allow the panel to be grabbed and moved upwards past pixel row 0 and will be caged onto the laptop only display (M1).

 

As a developer myself, I would examine the logic with the evaluation of the mouse location during the grab to relocate the panel. The logical pixel would be going negative due to being moved up above row 0 and into the M2 pixel mapping. Just off the top of my head, it appears to me that MONITOR.exe responds to Physical Pixels and X/Y coords for panel placement and not not the Logical Pixels (which may be negative or larger values then physical displays) of the Extended Windows Desktop.

 

Since that initial post, I have found that if MONITOR.exe is grabbed on Monitor 1 and first moved to physical pixel location 0,0, the panel is then able to slip thru the pixel lock and be relocated up to the external display (M2)..... it can not be properly placed onto any position on M2, but it does slide up with the X of the X/Y logical pixel always being locked to zero. This results in the panel only to be placed along the left hand side of Monitor and not moved anywhere else within the Extended Desktop of M2. That leads me to conclude the pixels are using physical coords of the X/Y since one X/Y-coord is locked to zero and the other X/Y-coord is evaluating the proper logical value from the mouse location within the extended desktop.

 

I realize some of that explaination may sound tech-deep, but to the guys/gals that are in the code and looking at the variables and know that stuff..... they will understand the text.

 

Most developers that use Windows Extended Desktop will place displays physically Side by Side and the X/Y coords rarely go into the negative, and even if placed over.under, Monitor 1 will be above Monitor 2. This also masks the values of the logical negative pixel rows. But by placing M2 over M1, the extended desktop logically maps into the negative values for Rows, since objects can be dragged up off of M1, past X/Y coord of 0,0 and into the negatives since M2 logically maps the desktop above pixel row zero. The end results are logical pixel values of -1024/-640 for example when objects are dragged onto M2 above row zero of M1.

 

A simple way of examining the actual X/Y coords of the configuration is to use a dev tool to display current desktop pixel location of the mouse. Moving the mouse up and into M2 will result in values not normally expected by developers or logic, but is fully supported by Windows and the Extended Desktop feature. So coding for the Logical values returning from the SDK calls and not the Physical screen coords should always be used since users can place multiple monitors anywhere where physically able to, and in extended desktop configuration, define which ones are M1, M2, M3...ect. Row/Column 0,0 as the upper left hand absolute coordinate and no negative values allowed.....is no longer acceptable anymore from a code point of view.

 

Hope this all helps.

 

***

 

I saw the response-post also about also using the thread for future suggestions. I will hold my comments back about it even though in my view its way past that point in LifeCycle. But I understand.

 

 

[Acigan]

I have also loaded the Beta onto an older machine. One running XP. (dont laugh, youd be surprised how many users still have them in their homes and need support) Because of this I keep one around and fired it up and uninstalled its production version of ASC and loaded up v10 Beta onto it. So far so good. Everything is functioning as expected. No crashes. The Beta even found some deeper things to fix on the XP box then the version is was running (a 9.x version). Mostly in the area of Performance.

 

[Cicely]

Hello Andyalex997,

 

Thanks for testing ASC 10 Beta 1.0 and reporting the issues you found. I'd like to answer your questions as below:

 

1. Yes, it is a known bug and we are working on it now.

 

2. The calculation method of Perfomance Monitor may be a bit different from Windows. A little difference is allowed. If there is a big difference, feel free to let us know the details.

 

3. As for the issues 3,4,5,6, 7, pleae describe the issue in detail and provide us with the issue or error message you received so that we can see the issue clearly.

 

Guide for taking a screenshot: http://www.take-a-screenshot.org/

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

 

Hello again, it s been a while since i run asc 10 on my laptop, and i found several bugs so far:

-temperature don t work on w10

-performance monitor, don t corelate with task manager, and frankly i don t know which one is good

-software updater don t work corectly

-sometimes just crash

-sometimes performance monitor dosen t start up

-startup manager don t really work sometimes, i mean not at all, but after a restart it s all better

That s all, have a nice day, cheers!

 

 

[Cicely]

Hi Acigan,

 

Thanks for taking your time to give us the explanation.

 

Yes, the first issue is with SDK for Win10 and the fix is still being tested.

 

For the second issue, according to your description, you have three montiors in total which Peformance Monitors do not support right now. But we will take this issue into consideration for further improvements.

 

Cheers.

 

 

 

Sure. No problem. First the basics.

My Testing Box is a Lenovo G50 laptop with an external display attached for dual monitors, laptop display and the external...the displays are logically linked via windows extended desktop. laptop display is monitor 1, the primary, and the external monitor is Monitor 2, the extended display. The physical layout is Monitor 2 above Monitor 1. Items are dragged up off the laptop display and placed on the external monitor for easy viewing (glancing up from laptop). Laptop display is then used normally for test purposes as any user would. M2 allows monitoring and debug panels to be open and viewable with just a glance upwards.

 

Windows version running is Windows 10 Anniversary Edition. All known and advanced MS patches applied. (Im a MSDN member and receive advanced patches to test also).

Disk drive is a Western Digital 1 terabyte drive and it supports SMART information fetching and reporting. Any search at Lenovo.com on "G50" will give the full hardware specs. The box is factory with the addition of an external usb drive I have apps loaded on I use everyday. (aka a usb harddrive used instead of a flash drive)

 

***

 

There are two issues with MONITOR.exe, the Performance Monitor app. First is the fetching and displaying of the S.M.A.R.T. data from known SMART devices such as the temps, fan speeds. When the Performance Monitor is expanded, there is a double down-facing arrow to further expand into the SMART data information. There was a prior bug in earlier versions of MONITOR.exe that when the SMART info was expanded, it would fail and a link was there to report the fail, and a response message saying ioBit would examine and correct. That issue was resolved at some point in the ASC 9x and SMART info was being fetched and reported. In the v10 Beta, that issue of failed info being fetched is back. I saw a post above regarding the SDK for win 10 and that may be the issue with that piece of logic.

 

***

 

The second issue with MONITOR.exe is the proper placement of the panel on the Windows Extended Desktop. Again, referring to the test box physical setup, Monitor 2 the external display is physically located above the laptop display. Extended Desktop allows objects to be dragged and dropped upwards onto the display. (ie, 2 over 1) and the Windows Desktop is logically seen as a Portrait format and the two monitors cut the portrait format into two logical Landscapes layouts. The Extended Desktop feature of Windows doest have issues with the layout. Things can be dragged up onto M2 with no problems. However, MONITOR.exe will not allow the panel to be grabbed and moved upwards past pixel row 0 and will be caged onto the laptop only display (M1).

 

As a developer myself, I would examine the logic with the evaluation of the mouse location during the grab to relocate the panel. The logical pixel would be going negative due to being moved up above row 0 and into the M2 pixel mapping. Just off the top of my head, it appears to me that MONITOR.exe responds to Physical Pixels and X/Y coords for panel placement and not not the Logical Pixels (which may be negative or larger values then physical displays) of the Extended Windows Desktop.

 

Since that initial post, I have found that if MONITOR.exe is grabbed on Monitor 1 and first moved to physical pixel location 0,0, the panel is then able to slip thru the pixel lock and be relocated up to the external display (M2)..... it can not be properly placed onto any position on M2, but it does slide up with the X of the X/Y logical pixel always being locked to zero. This results in the panel only to be placed along the left hand side of Monitor and not moved anywhere else within the Extended Desktop of M2. That leads me to conclude the pixels are using physical coords of the X/Y since one X/Y-coord is locked to zero and the other X/Y-coord is evaluating the proper logical value from the mouse location within the extended desktop.

 

I realize some of that explaination may sound tech-deep, but to the guys/gals that are in the code and looking at the variables and know that stuff..... they will understand the text.

 

Most developers that use Windows Extended Desktop will place displays physically Side by Side and the X/Y coords rarely go into the negative, and even if placed over.under, Monitor 1 will be above Monitor 2. This also masks the values of the logical negative pixel rows. But by placing M2 over M1, the extended desktop logically maps into the negative values for Rows, since objects can be dragged up off of M1, past X/Y coord of 0,0 and into the negatives since M2 logically maps the desktop above pixel row zero. The end results are logical pixel values of -1024/-640 for example when objects are dragged onto M2 above row zero of M1.

 

A simple way of examining the actual X/Y coords of the configuration is to use a dev tool to display current desktop pixel location of the mouse. Moving the mouse up and into M2 will result in values not normally expected by developers or logic, but is fully supported by Windows and the Extended Desktop feature. So coding for the Logical values returning from the SDK calls and not the Physical screen coords should always be used since users can place multiple monitors anywhere where physically able to, and in extended desktop configuration, define which ones are M1, M2, M3...ect. Row/Column 0,0 as the upper left hand absolute coordinate and no negative values allowed.....is no longer acceptable anymore from a code point of view.

 

Hope this all helps.

 

***

 

I saw the response-post also about also using the thread for future suggestions. I will hold my comments back about it even though in my view its way past that point in LifeCycle. But I understand.

 

 

[Acigan]

I can explain some of the differences in reported values. You can see them in action if you fire up TaskMgr.exe, MS Performance Monitor MMC plugin, and the ioBit Performance Monitor, MONITOR.exe. If you place all three side by side and just watch the CPU usage values for example, there will be differences at times. Heres the reasons for them:

 

Both Task Manager, and MS Performance Monitor MMC plugin are native Microsoft applications. In being that, one would expect they would show the same values as they execute but that is not the case. Within the box may be a single core, dual cores or quad cores of the actual processor. When more then one core is involved, the gathered information will be fetched a CPU core at a time and then averaged. To us humans, the processes appear to be running all at the same time but in the reality of the nano and pico-seconds, tasks are being threaded one by one into the cores. So in our three monitor tasks running example, there is a first, a second and a third task waiting in line. Sometimes, depending on the number of cores like a quad core CPU, all three end up in 3 of the 4 cores at the same time, each looking at the other cores and evaluating what they are processing at the moment, and NOT always including themselves in the evaluations. So MMC.exe in core 0 sees core 1, 2 and 3 and evaluates values, MONITOR.exe in core 1 sees core 0, 2 and 3 and evaluates its results and TaskMgr.exe running in core 2 sees core 0, 1 and 3 and evaluates its results.

 

Since the three apps in question are written differently and even different code-token sizes being executed withing the cores, they all three evaluate different results even within the same CPU clock tick cycle. Even differences of if the EXE module is compiled using x32 or x64 token sizes makes a difference. An x32 app running on a x64 core will bring in 2x the tokens per tick then the larger x64 based code token produced by the compilers when the EXE is created.

 

Now keep in mind that ioBit apps run on both x32 and x64 based processors and the logic is more then likely x32 bit for both. (am I correct in that assumption, ioBit?) because we dont click seperate links for x32 and x64 when we bring the logic to our boxes. So now there is a new factor in the differences mix..... x32 code running on x64 cores. On an x64 OS, Microsoft has optimized their native applications for the x64 bit cores and MMC.exe and TaskMgr.exe can be different then their x32 counterpart EXE files. So on x64 boxes, run the MONITOR.exe (x32) and it produces some slight differences in results because it is either processing x2 faster as two blocks of code are moved to and from cpu for execution, or its running x2 slower then the x64 MMC.exe and TaskMgr.exe, because of extra paging needing to be performed to bring in code into the CPUs.

 

There is also the factor of the Software Development Kit (SDK) overhead of MONITOR.exe verses native MMC.exe and TaskMgr.exe that is written native for the operating system and may not even go thru the logic bloat layers of the SDK. So again, MMC and TaskMgr would evaluate faster results then MONITOR.

 

Now we get to the MMC plug in verses native code of TaskMgr verses SDK layer of MONITOR. The MMC.exe version of Performance Monitor is a plug in to MMC.exe and not a fully compiled App. This means that it also has an extra layer of cycles and processing deep in the cores to fetch the logic compiled in the DLL files of the Plugin. MMC.exe is the basic general logic all the plugins use. Each plugin has its own unique logic in the plugin logic that is not common to any other plugin. So MMC.exe has some extra logic cycles to fetch and execute the code-blocks from the DLLs that other performance monitor apps would not have. This shows up in the other apps as MMC.exe using more CPU cycles then the others, just to show the same results.

 

All these factors and even more not explained here are why monitoring is always averaged. If you want more exact monitoring, use MMC and set up monitors on each of the CPU cores individually and dont use the ioBit MONITOR.exe at all. Its a high level monitor geared to general users and not exacting techie types that examine every cpu cycle tick. It even averages the CPUs on multi-core machines to present a single value in the panel. Its used to show a generalized usage and reporting values. If something doesnt look kosher then, fire up MMC or TaskMgr and examine in more detail.

 

As Cicely said above in general terms, some differences are normal. I hope Ive explained some of the reasons for the normalities in further detail. There are many many more subtle things that are also occurring within the CPUs and I only touched on but a few that can produce slight variations in results.

 

With all that being said, the ioBit modules are not reporting incorrect results, they are just reporting the results from a timeslice that is nano or pico seconds ahead or behind other monitor applications also running at the same time. Same time to us humans, Hours, Minutes, Seconds, are lifetimes to the CPUs in their time scales. They are not processing things at the same time, they are processing them in a defined timely order, defined by oscillating clocks in the mega and gigahertz range ..... in other words.... single file into one or more cores on the processor chip, all timed and orderly...., just very very fast to us.

Think of it as Cars at a traffic intersection. the light turns green and x number of cars go thru, some faster or slower then the green light before or even the one to follow. But if you sit and count them over say a time cycle of a hour, then sum up the number of cars per hour, and divide by 24 hours, ..... you will have that average number of cars (logic block tokens) flowing thru the intersections (the cores). Do that for a month and produce the results for review. Thats what monitor applications are actually doing.....very very very fast. So there will be differences between apps that do that since they dont always even include their own logic blocks executing in every pass. Doing so skews the results. But the others saw the blocks and skewed their own values by not including their own blocks of code. They cant, they evaluate a logic block of their own if that block is the the one that does the evaluations. Its not in core yet to execute the results.

 

See how freaky it is inside the cores? Now you know why Developers are freaky kinds of people.

 

I hope Ive explained things and given you things to ponder on or to further understand the box thats before you in how it performs the tasks you ask of it.

 

 

 

 

 

[Acigan]

TO CICELY.

 

Id like to point out a nomenclature item in the pop out panel of Performance Monitor. The popout Im referring to is when you press the <- button in the panel title and the expanded popout replaces the main panel.

 

The popout then shows RAM, CPU and DISK usages in larger circle graph formats and "Processes with high RAM/CPU/DISK usage" listed under the circle graphs.

 

Heres the nomenclature issue. Performance Monitor no longer makes sense (Im in Designer/Developer mode here, not User mode), since the definition of a monitoring application should not be allowed to "manage" whats being presented. Management of the tasks is being allowed via the X buttons and the END TASK larger button below if one checkmark-highlights a task.

 

So the proper nomenclature for that popout panel should be Performance Manager and not Performance Monitor. If its to be a strict monitoring application (as I think it should remain being) the functions to cancel tasks should not be presented.

 

If its to become a high level task manager application, then the nomenclature of Performance Monitor no longer should apply.

 

I know this may sound silly to most, but when I have my Designer/Developer hat on and reviewing things, stuff like this catches my eye and stands out. A monitoring app doesnt manage and a management app doesnt monitor. Its two distinct functions in the Computer Sciences realm. One watches, the other performs actions. Its the difference of READ verses WRITE of data. Read only looks at data, the Write acts upon it.

 

A possible solution would be to have that popout panel's title be modified when the arrow is pressed to say Performance Manager instead of retaining the Performance Monitor nomenclature. The User would be using that panel anyways to manage excessive tasks that are listed.

 

I also think the return arrow is misplaced. Its on the right in the title bar. It should be on the left where the ASC icon logo is. That position has become a defacto standard in title bars both on PC platforms and on tablets. Since ioBit also has tablet apps (yes I use them also) the Return arrow then becomes standard placement on all platforms. This shows Unity of Applications across all the platforms ioBIt supports and develops for. Use an Android version of Performance Monitor on a tablet would look and feel the same as the PC version. Only the logic it was written in would be different, but that, a user never sees.

 

On the same panel, the phrasing of "processes" seems non-intutive also. "Tasks" would be a better column heading phrasing since its used more to represent high level EXE logic executing then processes. Tasks are to Applications as are Processes are to Threads.

 

Something for the Futures List on that panel would be a Settings button, where one could define the baseline values of running tasks that would then trip the user defined baseline to appear on the list. Reason I say that is i see tasks being listed as using High DIsk Usage but are not actually in excess of what their function actually is. Your own apps even show up there, SmartDefrag for example shows as High Disk Usage, but its very nature is just that. Moving data around.

 

Maybe even a Baselines setting and an Ignore List Setting like other apps of ioBit have. So a user could enter tasks that are ignored and not ever displayed, SmartDefrag for example could be entered and ignored under disk usage since we know it will result in very high disk I/O by nature of its function. SmartRam and Malware Fighter are also doing the same thing in the RAM usage display. Again, their very nature would be high Ram usage. One is cleaning ram and the other is scanning ram bit by bit as bytes move thru the chips. They could be set to ignore by a user.

 

For the Baseline setting, have a user define the amount a task must exceed first, in order to be listed. Reason being, Im currently looking at an idle box at the moment (not this one Im using) and the panel is reporting that the Windows Logon Application that uses 2.92MB of RAM is High Usage. Its not. Thats is normal usage values and that task only becomes active and wanting more then that when a User Logs into Windows, once logged in its mostly waiting for log out and the 2MB or so it uses is just logic in wait states and doing repeated checking for logins or log outs. Setting a BaseLine setting option one could set it something like 25MB or higher and all the small apps in resident mode and just waiting would not show up. If for some reason they flake out and begin to run amok, they would exceed the normal ram and trip the baseline value setting....thus be listed then as in actual HIGH Usage.

 

 

Im not picking on MONITOR.exe per say...... Its just an app that is before me day in and day out so I see it all the time on my desktop. I have other comments regarding the other modules that make up ASC but they are mostly minor things like why the hell does ioBIt change panels around with every Release....but thats must me. Sometimes I like the changes and other times not, throughout all the prior versions and other times I think, hmmm, someone there really likes panel designing and what-ifs. I do like the new format of the button shapes in the Beta. Different. the angled buttons make a statement that these applications are different then your normal run of the mill oval buttons. Nice. The rearrangement of the SCAN items order did make me look at that panel somewhat. For so man versions the order didnt change and one got used to watching the Scans process thru each step in a set order. The underlying function is the same but the order of scanning did stand out to me. Maybe Im too old school in my Design thinking and follow the rule of logic that says....if it works, dont modify it unless its broken. Even something as reordering a process at times can have unknown effects in logic paths and cause hard to locate bugs. Then again, I know of Developers that ensure their Careers in just such a way....

 

Let me know your alls thoughts on the panel stated above. Id like to hear the feedback from you all about it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Acigan]

BETA v2 installed.

 

Item 1.

This time Im posting regarding the Facial Rec module. First off, Nice. It Echos back to a few years ago when Lenovo used the feature for Log Ins on their PCs. Before the days of Bio devices. For those users that do not have Bio Devices on their boxes, and only cameras, the feature gives them a layer of security that is not otherwise available to them. Good Job. Now Im taking off the User hat and putting on the Designer/Developer hat.

 

In the setup options for the Facial Rec, FaceID panel, under the SETTINGS tab, there is the first setting option called EXCLUDE PERIOD. As a Developer, I understand NOT-Logic very well, but the normal Layman and User will find the description and explanations somewhat confusing. The reason for this is that human mind prefers positive interactions over negative interactions in the way it processes and thinks. When Developers create options and logic, they are totally comfortable with both Logic and NOT-Logic. ie, Exclusions. Everyday Users are not. So with that in mind for a more understandable setting as to when the application actually does it processing, here is what I would suggest as to how to go about describing and presenting that setting.

 

Change the viewpoint from being EXCLUDED PERIOD (negative and NOT-Logic(al) to be INCLUSIVE (positive and processes in the mind in the normal flow of human thinking) Instead of reading as

 

"FadeID will not identify intruders when they use your computer during the excluded periods you add"

This being a double-negative in phrasing with the words NOT and EXCLUDE in the same phrase, in other words a Positive phrase using double-negative wording.

 

Change the phrasing and wording to be in the actual positive manor the underlying logic is actually doing:

"Enter the start and end times you wish FaceID to monitor your computer."

Now the double-negative phasing is gone and the description is more straight forward and understandable to the common user as to enter times they want FaceID to look for someone accessing their PC.

The mind now processes the phrasing faster and with more comprehension then when using the double-negative wording that makes one sit and really think in a manor they are not used to using, being that not everyone processes NOT-Logic quickly and understandably as some Developers do.

 

The setting is basically informing the FaceID app as to when to watch over the PC. Not when a User is sitting and using it.

 

Item 2

The BETA 2 downloaded and installed with two of the setting values already predefined in that Exclude Period setting. When you understand the concept of NOT-Logic, the shipped setting will actually allow users to access and use a PC during those time frames. The settings indicate to exclude monitoring violations during the time frame when PCs (think businesses and work) are not actually in use. From a Security standpoint, THIS IS THE TIME we want to monitor for violations. The normal user of that PC is has gone home and the PC is in a office or cubical unattended. This is when the FaceID would be running to capture who is attempting access. Since the double-Negative is in use there, Excluding these time periods would be logically flowing thru code to be the times to NOT to process, when it should be stating the times as to actually process and capture violations. Understand?

 

Shipping the two settings places a users PC in a mode NEVER to capture. The user is using the PC during normal work hours and NOT using it during the shipped settings time. But since these are EXCLUSION TIMES.....the end result is that FaceID will never capture any violations when installed.

 

The Release version should not contain any settings at all. Let the user define it as part of the steps of activating the FaceID module for the first time. This can be done at triggering the settings to be presented when the slider button is first activated to the ON position in the previous panel.

 

Then the user defines to the app, the times of day they want monitoring to occur in the settings.

 

Change from the Double-Negative thinking to a single Positive manor for the settings. It will save a lot of Help Desk calls in the future on that module and even some future bugs being introduced in later versions because the NOT-Logic developer left ioBit for greener pastures and now a new developer is has to modify the logic and the new guy hasnt a clue on the understanding of NOT-Logic principles. He would eff it up royally in logic..... and the End User would get buggy code or a feature that never works exactly right. They would stop using it after time.

[enoskype]

Hi Acigan, welcome to IObit Forum! :-)

 

Great posts with a lot of knowledge. Thank you!

 

You have given a hard homework to Cicely. 8:)

 

I wish, all the coders of the ASC program could read those directly without Cicely's conversions.

 

FYI, translating ASC 10 to my language, I have changed the name of the Performance Monitor of the mini window for the resources as "Resource Manager", as the button on the Performance Monitor is defined as Resource Manager which opens the concerned mini window for resources.

 

Cheers.

[Acigan]

awe, thx, but homework isnt my intent for CIcely. Infact quite the opposite and trying to explain technical things in a format general users will grasp.

 

I fully understand the task of producing a Software Product being that its my profession also. Just trying to take off some of the explanation load from ya all so your focus can be on the Release, not explanations to users as to how things work or why. Keep up the good work. Ive used and loved ASC since its inception. It gets better and more feature loaded with every release.

 

My favorite feature in the BETA so far is the FaceID enhancement. Im glad you all have brought a new security feature to older boxes that are not equipped with Bio Devices and only a camera. I think many users will use that feature for an added layer of protection.

[Acigan]

• 
  FYI, translating ASC 10 to my language, I have changed the name of the Performance Monitor of the mini window for the resources as "Resource Manager", as the button on the Performance Monitor is defined as Resource Manager which opens the concerned mini window for resources.
  
  
  
  
  
  

that was exactly my point. The previous panel even says "Manager" in the button. The resulting panel that was then opened allows "management" actions but the overall title bar indicates monitoring functions are still the focus to the user.

 

***

 

When the human mind views display screens, we are taught from childhood that the top of the thing we are reading is the Subject Matter Overall. Then Indexes (aka tab buttons) to jump quickly to the subject that is desired the most,..... then we start the actual detailed process of eye movement and reading. If a Heading or title bar is not labeled correctly from the start of that habitual process, it can cause disconnects in the way the person interpolates what they are physically seeing with eyeballs and what they are seeing in their minds-eye. We see the title bars everyday but we dont always pay physically attention to them. But the Minds-eye does.

 

It is the bases of even tricks used in advertising and getting you to buy things without you even knowing why. Think of the right-hand spammed banners on web pages. You physically ignore them but the eye did see them and the Minds-Eye did process them. Now when you sleep later that night, the mind begins it sorting process and filing all it captured that day (memories and dreams) and for some reason when you wake up the next day you have an desire to go buy a partictular product. Thats an extreme example of the topic presented but it is commonly used on web pages and it does produce sales results. So design care mus always be given to panels to ensure they do not misdirect, misread or misinform a user. Leave that kinda stuff to the Ad Spammers. Is why we hate them to begin with.

 

When we are at computer screens we are relaxed in that type of misdirection that can happen which is why it is used by the Spammers so much. Were not on guard. So to make a Software Product feel solid and reliable to a user, one must ensure there is proper direction and action when presented to them like on a Panel. Sometimes even the simplest typos made when a panel is first created can result in actions never intended by the creators.

 

***

 

I personally dont even like the idea of a bridge panel between a monitoring function into Management functions. As an Admin, if Ive locked up a user from accessing task manager because the user cancels running background tasks needed for a network, so their Lunchtime game runs faster, there was a reason for not allowing that user access to cancle tasks. Now I would have to take away Perfromance Monitor from him also, since that user could circumvent the lock and use that popout panel to also cancel jobs. This is why the two functions should never be bridged. Monitoring is READ ONLY. Management is WRITE ENABLED. That bridge the popout now allows gives users Admin Access to Tasks when before there was none.

 

[Cicely]

Hi,

 

Yes, your assumption is absolutely correct.

 

Thanks for your detailed explaination of differences. There are a lot of knowlodge. I am also learning a lot when I see your message.

 

Cheers.

 

I can explain some of the differences in reported values. You can see them in action if you fire up TaskMgr.exe, MS Performance Monitor MMC plugin, and the ioBit Performance Monitor, MONITOR.exe. If you place all three side by side and just watch the CPU usage values for example, there will be differences at times. Heres the reasons for them:

 

Both Task Manager, and MS Performance Monitor MMC plugin are native Microsoft applications. In being that, one would expect they would show the same values as they execute but that is not the case. Within the box may be a single core, dual cores or quad cores of the actual processor. When more then one core is involved, the gathered information will be fetched a CPU core at a time and then averaged. To us humans, the processes appear to be running all at the same time but in the reality of the nano and pico-seconds, tasks are being threaded one by one into the cores. So in our three monitor tasks running example, there is a first, a second and a third task waiting in line. Sometimes, depending on the number of cores like a quad core CPU, all three end up in 3 of the 4 cores at the same time, each looking at the other cores and evaluating what they are processing at the moment, and NOT always including themselves in the evaluations. So MMC.exe in core 0 sees core 1, 2 and 3 and evaluates values, MONITOR.exe in core 1 sees core 0, 2 and 3 and evaluates its results and TaskMgr.exe running in core 2 sees core 0, 1 and 3 and evaluates its results.

 

Since the three apps in question are written differently and even different code-token sizes being executed withing the cores, they all three evaluate different results even within the same CPU clock tick cycle. Even differences of if the EXE module is compiled using x32 or x64 token sizes makes a difference. An x32 app running on a x64 core will bring in 2x the tokens per tick then the larger x64 based code token produced by the compilers when the EXE is created.

 

Now keep in mind that ioBit apps run on both x32 and x64 based processors and the logic is more then likely x32 bit for both. (am I correct in that assumption, ioBit?) because we dont click seperate links for x32 and x64 when we bring the logic to our boxes. So now there is a new factor in the differences mix..... x32 code running on x64 cores. On an x64 OS, Microsoft has optimized their native applications for the x64 bit cores and MMC.exe and TaskMgr.exe can be different then their x32 counterpart EXE files. So on x64 boxes, run the MONITOR.exe (x32) and it produces some slight differences in results because it is either processing x2 faster as two blocks of code are moved to and from cpu for execution, or its running x2 slower then the x64 MMC.exe and TaskMgr.exe, because of extra paging needing to be performed to bring in code into the CPUs.

 

There is also the factor of the Software Development Kit (SDK) overhead of MONITOR.exe verses native MMC.exe and TaskMgr.exe that is written native for the operating system and may not even go thru the logic bloat layers of the SDK. So again, MMC and TaskMgr would evaluate faster results then MONITOR.

 

Now we get to the MMC plug in verses native code of TaskMgr verses SDK layer of MONITOR. The MMC.exe version of Performance Monitor is a plug in to MMC.exe and not a fully compiled App. This means that it also has an extra layer of cycles and processing deep in the cores to fetch the logic compiled in the DLL files of the Plugin. MMC.exe is the basic general logic all the plugins use. Each plugin has its own unique logic in the plugin logic that is not common to any other plugin. So MMC.exe has some extra logic cycles to fetch and execute the code-blocks from the DLLs that other performance monitor apps would not have. This shows up in the other apps as MMC.exe using more CPU cycles then the others, just to show the same results.

 

All these factors and even more not explained here are why monitoring is always averaged. If you want more exact monitoring, use MMC and set up monitors on each of the CPU cores individually and dont use the ioBit MONITOR.exe at all. Its a high level monitor geared to general users and not exacting techie types that examine every cpu cycle tick. It even averages the CPUs on multi-core machines to present a single value in the panel. Its used to show a generalized usage and reporting values. If something doesnt look kosher then, fire up MMC or TaskMgr and examine in more detail.

 

As Cicely said above in general terms, some differences are normal. I hope Ive explained some of the reasons for the normalities in further detail. There are many many more subtle things that are also occurring within the CPUs and I only touched on but a few that can produce slight variations in results.

 

With all that being said, the ioBit modules are not reporting incorrect results, they are just reporting the results from a timeslice that is nano or pico seconds ahead or behind other monitor applications also running at the same time. Same time to us humans, Hours, Minutes, Seconds, are lifetimes to the CPUs in their time scales. They are not processing things at the same time, they are processing them in a defined timely order, defined by oscillating clocks in the mega and gigahertz range ..... in other words.... single file into one or more cores on the processor chip, all timed and orderly...., just very very fast to us.

Think of it as Cars at a traffic intersection. the light turns green and x number of cars go thru, some faster or slower then the green light before or even the one to follow. But if you sit and count them over say a time cycle of a hour, then sum up the number of cars per hour, and divide by 24 hours, ..... you will have that average number of cars (logic block tokens) flowing thru the intersections (the cores). Do that for a month and produce the results for review. Thats what monitor applications are actually doing.....very very very fast. So there will be differences between apps that do that since they dont always even include their own logic blocks executing in every pass. Doing so skews the results. But the others saw the blocks and skewed their own values by not including their own blocks of code. They cant, they evaluate a logic block of their own if that block is the the one that does the evaluations. Its not in core yet to execute the results.

 

See how freaky it is inside the cores? Now you know why Developers are freaky kinds of people.

 

I hope Ive explained things and given you things to ponder on or to further understand the box thats before you in how it performs the tasks you ask of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Cicely]

Hi Acigan,

 

Thanks for the feedback and your valuable ideas on ASC 10 Beta. I personally admire your professional and unique perspectives.

 

I have forwarded them all to our Product Team. They will defenitely take them into consideration.

 

Thank you.

 

 

[Acigan]

You're welcome. Let them all know to keep up the good work on those products.

[jimmypop]

Downloaded ASC10 because i'm a fan of ASC 9 (have the pro version)

Just 2 questions:

 

Can i use ASC 10 next to ASC 9 or will it give problems ?

Will it be possible to upgrade from ASC 9 to ASC 10 ?

 

Thnx

 

BTW 10 looks good !!

[Acigan]

i would suggest that you go into ASC 9 SETTINGS and unclick the option to load at startup. Both will fire up when Windows starts up and will run concurrently. I haven't noticed any conflicts per say, but both ASCs will be active sharing some settings and at other times having separate copy of settings. Mostly in the area of what to clean up. With both ASCs running you are taxing system resources. Normally this would not occur since the Production versions uninstall the prior installs, but because this is BETA, it is loading off to the side of the Production.

 

I have Beta loaded onto two different machines. One has the v9 still installed and the other v9 was uninstalled manually prior to beta install. The one with v9 still installed was running both versions at Windows Startup so I turn off the setting to load automatically. It does not appear to effect the Beta logic on either of the two boxes whether Production is there or not other then the dual concurrent running of the ASC Production and Beta. The beta is even loading into its own folder under Program Files.

 

Just turn off the setting so the Production doesn't start up. That way when Beta testing is complete it can be uninstalled, the setting turned back on; and your box is back the way it was in preparation for the actual v10 Production release.

 

Hope this Helps

[Jby1956]

I am very disapointed. I have used versions 8 and 9 of Advanced Systemcare and was pleased with their performance. So i loaded Adva ced Systemcare 10 beta on my machine which currently has windows 10 installed. my machine has locked up at the point where you are supposed to choose the keyboard. It will not accept any keyboard input from me. If it is expecting touch screen input I am truely screwed. I saw no disclaimers about special equipment being required at the site where I downloaded your beta software. If there is any trick required to get past that point kindly let me know.

jby1956@yahoo.com

[Cicely]

Hi jimmypop,

 

You can use ASC 10 beta version and ASC 9 together, or only use any one of them. For more information, please refer to Acigan's answer.

 

Have a good time!

 

Downloaded ASC10 because i'm a fan of ASC 9 (have the pro version)

Just 2 questions:

 

Can i use ASC 10 next to ASC 9 or will it give problems ?

Will it be possible to upgrade from ASC 9 to ASC 10 ?

 

Thnx

 

BTW 10 looks good !!

 

 

[Cicely]

Hi Acigan,

 

Thanks for your timely and professional assistance to jimmypop.Thumbs up

 

Cheers!

 

i would suggest that you go into ASC 9 SETTINGS and unclick the option to load at startup. Both will fire up when Windows starts up and will run concurrently. I haven't noticed any conflicts per say, but both ASCs will be active sharing some settings and at other times having separate copy of settings. Mostly in the area of what to clean up. With both ASCs running you are taxing system resources. Normally this would not occur since the Production versions uninstall the prior installs, but because this is BETA, it is loading off to the side of the Production.

 

I have Beta loaded onto two different machines. One has the v9 still installed and the other v9 was uninstalled manually prior to beta install. The one with v9 still installed was running both versions at Windows Startup so I turn off the setting to load automatically. It does not appear to effect the Beta logic on either of the two boxes whether Production is there or not other then the dual concurrent running of the ASC Production and Beta. The beta is even loading into its own folder under Program Files.

 

Just turn off the setting so the Production doesn't start up. That way when Beta testing is complete it can be uninstalled, the setting turned back on; and your box is back the way it was in preparation for the actual v10 Production release.

 

Hope this Helps

 

 

[Cicely]

Hi Jby1956,

 

Welcome to IObit Forum!:-)

 

Sorry for it. Please provide us with the following information so that we can further look into it.

 

1.Please tell us what actions you took and which module of Advanced SystemCare you ran, then the trouble came out.

 

2.Is there any error message? If yes, please take some screenshots and send them to us. Guide for taking screenshots: http://graphicssoft.about.com/cs/general/ht/winscreenshot.htm

 

3. Download the tool from http://testdemo.iobit.com/InfoHelper.exe. Then double click to run this tool on the PC with problem and click "Save report". After it finishes, you will get a pop up window to tell you where the report file IObit_Debug_Info.zip is saved. Click "OK" button to open that saved folder. Please send the zipped file to us.

 

Thanks.

 

I am very disapointed. I have used versions 8 and 9 of Advanced Systemcare and was pleased with their performance. So i loaded Adva ced Systemcare 10 beta on my machine which currently has windows 10 installed. my machine has locked up at the point where you are supposed to choose the keyboard. It will not accept any keyboard input from me. If it is expecting touch screen input I am truely screwed. I saw no disclaimers about special equipment being required at the site where I downloaded your beta software. If there is any trick required to get past that point kindly let me know.

jby1956@yahoo.com

 

 

[Acigan]

TO Jby1956:

 

I run the BETA on a Win10 box. It does not act in the manor you describe. Your issue sounds more Windows related then ioBit related.

 

Check all your current Windows 10 Patches. Verify you are on WIndows 10 Anniversary Edition by this time. If not, get it for free from the Microsoft Store. There is also a service patch as of this week to the Anniversary Edition.

 

Your issue may also be outdated Drivers. if you dont have it already, fetch the latest version of ioBit's Driver Booster 3. In the settings option, unclick the option that looks only a drivers offered thru the Windows Update and look for drivers that are newer, like from the manufacture themselves. The setting Im referring to is on the GENERAL tab, scroll down and says "ONLY DISPLAY DRIVERS THAT PASS WHQL TESTS" --- Uncheck that option, rerun a driver scan and update drivers that it finds. Reboot cold not warm, meaning, a complete power down, wait at least a minute or more for capacitors to discharge their loads to ground, then power the box back up.

 

It sounds to me like you have both a drivers problem and Win10 Patch problem. Once youre back up, double check your Windows Settings to make sure that Win10 is fetching and applying patches automatically. Microsoft releases their OS patches once a week, on Tuesdays for all the supported OS versions thru the Windows Update function. But if the user does not use the automatic apply feature, the patches dont ever come to the box and have to be fetched and applied manually.

 

[Acigan]

TO Jby1956:

 

another trick to try if the keyboard driver is locked up and wont allow typing, but you have mouse actions, would be to right-click START BAR, select the TOUCH KEYBOARD BUTTON and turn it on.

This will give you an icon on the start bar for virtual keyboard that you can click with the mouse to circumvent the locked up physical keyboard. Then go make sure you have the Win10 patches and the other stuff I said above.

[edrak]

I love the new UI and also like the new tools. I have subbed to IOBit since ASC 5 and hope to get a free code

[kamilli0n]

• Beta 1 has been working great for me but the new Beta 2 is messing up a couple of my games on Steam. Golf With Friends and Ghost In A Shell: First Assault both break after installing and running ASC 10 beta 2. I'm also getting a disk read error in Steam when trying to update those two games with beta 2 installed.
  
  
  
  
  
  

 

[swans2525]

hi asc people i must say i use asc all versions on different computers along time now and i found the first versions a bit slow.like 1 and 2 from version 3 it started to get a bit better and faster,and it inproved every version i updated.now i had version 9 and i wanted to delete it cause i had version 10 beta downloaded.but what happend i got 3 months free if i kept the version 9,lol so now ive got both of them,haha i love asc i use both versions and i go further with 10 after the proversion of 9 is over.but i feel kinda bad to delete one cause you given me so much peace of mind over the years.so i really want to thank you people for all those years of protection and often i won free pro around christmas or eastern,lol.i keep using this for ever you got a true fan of your product my friends i want to call you.i often tell to everyone who can hear to start using asc and alot of my friends are doing it now.i will ask them to say something on here too.keep up the good work friends and again thank you so much for years of feeling protecteed by you.swans2525,holland.Thumbs up8:)

[parkd1]

TO Jby1956:

 

Do what Cicely and Acigan said and make sure you have the latest beta. the version is 10.0.1.256 beta 2. I am using it and it works great on my Windows 7 destop and my wife's Windows 10 laptop. Both are updated to the currect version with all patches. I think you will like Version 10 once you can get it to run on your computer.