Battle Process Explorer vs Process Hacker

Status
Not open for further replies.

McLovin

Level 76
Verified
Honorary Member
Malware Hunter
Apr 17, 2011
9,222
I would have to say Process Explorer. For me gives the information that I like and need to know, but once again it's up to personal choice.
 
D

Deleted member 178

Process Hacker if i must choose between both of them, but i prefer Killswitch (it is Process Hacker on steroid ^^)
 

samit

Level 12
Verified
Nov 4, 2011
830
i prefer process explorer.....but i also like kill switch.....only thing i hate about kill switch is that it takes long time to start up....
 

jamescv7

Level 85
Verified
Honorary Member
Mar 15, 2011
13,070
For me I think both of them were good to be alternative task manager, since they can provide accurate information.
 
V

Vextor

Both ok, but KillSwitch. It is Process Hacker, but modified so it has in-built virus definitions, signature support etc.
 

woomera

Level 7
Verified
Jan 15, 2012
594
process explorer but process hacker is good too. killswitch is slow, uses alot of ram and even have memory leak bug which can take up to 4gig of ram if left running.
 

ranget

New Member
Dec 8, 2011
232
some viruses target PE

so process hacker can show the running processes

i like PE more than Process Hacker but sometime i use it :/ just to be sure
 

Ink

Administrator
Verified
Staff Member
Well-known
Jan 8, 2011
22,361
I prefer PE. Even though PH has a cleaner UI and a few more features than PE. I'd suggest trying out both and seeing which one you like.

As for other saying KillSwitch (part of Comodo Cleaning Essentials), it's not really an option since it's considered more part of CCE (ie. malware removal).

Thanks :D
 

jasonX

Level 9
Apr 13, 2012
421
I am using Process Hacker and it's quite good. I can also terminate certain processes through it but not all like KMPlayer, I can't seem to terminate it there. I hear Killswitch consumes more ram...true?
 

HeffeD

Level 1
Feb 28, 2011
1,690
bbbbweb said:
Both ok, but KillSwitch. It is Process Hacker, but modified so it has in-built virus definitions, signature support etc.

Killswitch is similar to Process Hacker, but it isn't a modified version of Process Hacker. The first releases were based on Process Hacker, but that hasn't been the case for several releases now.
 

Gnosis

Level 5
Apr 26, 2011
2,779
I had both for a long time. I settled with Process Hacker. It is easier to interpret at a quick glance. They are both very similar in my opinion. I have XueTr on guard as well. It is a great complement to Process Hacker.
 
D

Deleted member 178

jasonX said:
I hear Killswitch consumes more ram...true?

Yes a lot, it is one reason, i dont use it as a full-time replacement of the Windows in-build task manager.
the Ram consumption is the field Comodo should focus on.
 

Ink

Administrator
Verified
Staff Member
Well-known
Jan 8, 2011
22,361
HeffeD said:
Killswitch is similar to Process Hacker, but it isn't a modified version of Process Hacker. The first releases were based on Process Hacker, but that hasn't been the case for several releases now.

Even if so not based on PH, could we agree on that the code was copied, and re-branded.
 

Littlebits

Retired Staff
May 3, 2011
3,893
HeffeD said:
Earth said:
Even if so not based on PH, could we agree on that the code was copied, and re-branded.

No, the new version was rewritten from scratch.

I believe it makes no difference if the code was rewritten, copy or even developed from scratch by Comodo, as the end result Killswitch is almost identical to Process Hacker in every way except for GUI and some added features. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the similarities.

From a developers point of view, I don't believe Comodo wrote Killswitch from scratch, if they did then you would see more differences than similarities.

If you compare other tools to Killswitch like System Explorer, Auslogics Task Manager, Microsoft Process Explorer, Glarysoft Security Process Explorer, IObit Process Manager, WinUtilities Process Security, Toolwiz Care Process Manager, AnVir Task Manager, etc. you won't see as many similarities as what you will see compared to Process Hacker. Most of us already know about the dispute between Process Hacker developer and Comodo because Comodo failed to give credits to the open-source developers. Most of know Killswitch was originally developed from Process Hacker and still looks as if it still is on the current version (supposedly written from scratch).

Back to the poll, Process Hacker is better at killing run away processes or non-responsive processes, but I like the GUI of Process Explorer better.

I will have to agree with TechSupport Alert, System Explorer has all of the features lacking in the other tools, runs very lite and has the largest process library on the web. Integrated Security Scan which is very fast, is in constant development, I love the tray icon info in the taskbar (none of the others have this feature). To me there is no comparison to System Explorer. It is a must have. It's like having Process Hacker + NirSoft CurrProcess, Microsoft Autoruns, Microsoft TCPView + NirSoft CurrPorts, NirSoft MyUninstaller and WMI Browser all in one program. System Explorer is definitely an original program.

Thanks.:D
 

HeffeD

Level 1
Feb 28, 2011
1,690
Littlebits said:
Most of us already know about the dispute between Process Hacker developer and Comodo because Comodo failed to give credits to the open-source developers.

No, this is not the case at all. wj32 was given complete credit, and even a link to Process Hacker was provided. (there was a forum-limited beta release that didn't have this, but the public release did) The problem that wj32 had was that he didn't like the way Comodo was doing its malware checking through a .dll that wasn't covered in the license.

Littlebits said:
Most of know Killswitch was originally developed from Process Hacker and still looks as if it still is on the current version (supposedly written from scratch).

Yep. If something looks similar, the code must be a ripoff. :rolleyes:

To use your terminology, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that there are only so many ways to accomplish certain tasks in computer programming. Programming is a pretty strict discipline, so unless you're an incredibly sloppy coder, if you are writing a simple, no nonsense utility, the code is going to end up looking very similar to another simple, no nonsense utility that does the very same thing.

wj32 hasn't complained about the new KillSwitch release. I would think that should lay any rumors of stolen code to rest, but some people obviously feel differently...
 

Littlebits

Retired Staff
May 3, 2011
3,893
HeffeD said:
Littlebits said:
Most of us already know about the dispute between Process Hacker developer and Comodo because Comodo failed to give credits to the open-source developers.

No, this is not the case at all. wj32 was given complete credit, and even a link to Process Hacker was provided. (there was a forum-limited beta release that didn't have this, but the public release did) The problem that wj32 had was that he didn't like the way Comodo was doing its malware checking through a .dll that wasn't covered in the license.

Littlebits said:
Most of know Killswitch was originally developed from Process Hacker and still looks as if it still is on the current version (supposedly written from scratch).

Yep. If something looks similar, the code must be a ripoff. :rolleyes:

To use your terminology, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that there are only so many ways to accomplish certain tasks in computer programming. Programming is a pretty strict discipline, so unless you're an incredibly sloppy coder, if you are writing a simple, no nonsense utility, the code is going to end up looking very similar to another simple, no nonsense utility that does the very same thing.

wj32 hasn't complained about the new KillSwitch release. I would think that should lay any rumors of stolen code to rest, but some people obviously feel differently...

Let's use a little logic, it is apparent that Comodo used Process Hacker code in the early releases. If Comodo was able to wrote their own code then why did they use PH to begin with? Its oblivious that they at least use PH as a guide to wrote their code. It was not written from scratch or Comodo would have did that from the beginning instead of using an open-source projects code. Then out of all the similar process manager, Killswitch still looks exactly like Process Hacker? Just happened by chance?
At least Comodo could have changed some things on it besides the GUI to make it look different. Just about anyone who has used Killswitch, can't help to notice that it looks just like PH in a Comodo jacket.

It is really simple to add the loose ends up, if Comodo did write their own code, they had PH code in front of them using it as a guide (which is legal) as long as parts of the original code don't exists in the final product.

In programming now days, nothing is really written from scratch. Info is copied, borrowed, stolen, reversed-engineered or reconstructed from another code. That is the way technology advances, sometimes it is impossible to find the original source from which a program was developed from. But when it comes to Killswitch, it is obvious.

It is extremely rare to find any program that is written from scratch and for Comodo to say that makes a joke of them to people who know better.

That isn't anything against Comodo, Killswitch is an example of technology advancing. It has added features that may be useful to some users. Somewhere in the future another developer may use Killswitch to make another program (with or without Comodo's permission) to even improve technology more. Hopefully they will be smart enough to not say "written from scratch".

When a program is written from scratch, it is very unique and different. It will not look identical to another program.

HeffeD, surely you don't believe this, unless you have been brainwashed.

Good day.:D
 

HeffeD

Level 1
Feb 28, 2011
1,690
Littlebits said:
HeffeD, surely you don't believe this, unless you have been brainwashed.

Nope, not brainwashed. But I do believe it.

Why? Here is my logic.

Why was it originally based on Process Hacker instead of writing their own code to begin with? Because that advances the development cycle by several weeks. Why start from scratch if you can hit the ground running?

That's why so many applications use common .dll's. Why bother to take the time to write a function call or subroutine, when someone has already made a pre-written library available? Even if it's something simple, you're obviously going to speed things up if you don't need to code absolutely everything. It's not that the programmers who use the .dll's couldn't write the same functions, it's just a time saver.

Lets use a little more logic...

Do you really think the Comodo developers would be stupid enough to say they rewrote the code, when they did not? They knew it was going to be questioned by basically everybody after previously basing their application on Process Hacker!

There is simply too much at stake for them to lie about this. They're a computer security company and a certificate authority! They know it would be trivial for wj32, (or for that matter, Microsoft/SysInternals, as people have also accused them of stealing code from Process Explorer) to examine the code. Why would they put their reputation on the line for something like that?

But as it stands, nobody that 'knows better' has come forward to say otherwise!

So I guess we need to ask ourselves which is more logical? To accept the fact that nobody with any stake in the issue has said there is any truth to the rumors, or to assume Comodo are idiots and jump on the conspiracy theory train that accuses Comodo of code theft? :rolleyes:

Yep. The GUI looks similar. I guess they figured, why change a format that people are comfortable with?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

About us

  • MalwareTips is a community-driven platform providing the latest information and resources on malware and cyber threats. Our team of experienced professionals and passionate volunteers work to keep the internet safe and secure. We provide accurate, up-to-date information and strive to build a strong and supportive community dedicated to cybersecurity.

User Menu

Follow us

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter to know first about the latest cybersecurity incidents and malware threats.

Top