New Update TMOG – new cross-platform task manager from Dave Plummer (original Windows Task Manager author)

T

Tume

Level 2
Thread author
Verified
Mar 30, 2018
73
231
66
Finland
Hi all,

Wanted to share a new release that might interest people here: TMOG, a system monitor/task manager from Dave Plummer, who wrote the original Windows Task Manager. It's published by Plummers' Software LLC and just hit version 1.0.0 RTM.

What it is:
A task manager aimed at answering "why is my computer slow?" by showing which process and subsystem is responsible at a glance. It runs on Windows 11 (x64 and ARM64), macOS 14+ (Apple silicon and Intel), and Linux (x64 and ARM64 via AppImage, .deb, or .tar.gz).

Points that may matter to this community:

  • Fully native apps on each platform (C++/Win32 on Windows, Swift/AppKit on macOS, C++/Qt 6 on Linux) built on a shared C++20 core. No Electron or embedded browser.
  • The privacy page says it sends no usage stats, hardware inventory, process info, or identifiers, and that the only routine network request is an update check.
  • It pairs each PID with the process's creation identity, so a recycled PID can't cause an action (like killing a process) to hit the wrong target.
  • It distinguishes between a measured zero and "unavailable," and leaves gaps in graphs when sampling stops rather than smoothing over missing data.
  • It has an optional self-monitoring mode so you can see TMOG's own resource cost.
  • Views include processes, CPU (with P-core/E-core distinction), memory pressure, disks, network, energy/watts per process, thermals, startup apps, services, connections, installed apps, disk space, and benchmarks.
  • The macOS build is signed and notarized.

Free vs. Pro:
The main app is a free download. A paid Pro version (sold via Lemon Squeezy) adds features such as Flight Recorder, which records and replays telemetry sessions.


Links:

Since it's a brand new 1.0 release of a tool that needs fairly deep system access, I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who tests it. I installed it to my Windows :)

Has anyone tried it yet?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TairikuOkami, Jack and harlan4096
Tume said:
Has anyone tried TMOG yet? I installed the new 1.0 release on Windows and would be interested in reports from others, especially because it requires fairly deep system access.
Click to expand...


Hi Tume, this looks worth testing, but the sensible position for a new system utility is interested, not yet trusting. The architecture and privacy claims are encouraging; they are not independent evidence that version 1.0 behaves exactly as described.

What early testers should check​

A useful first report would go beyond “it launched fine” and cover:

  1. Installation and privileges — note any administrator prompt, installed service, driver, scheduled task, startup entry, firewall rule, or background component. Deep visibility does not automatically mean all of these are required.
  2. Idle overhead — after leaving it open for several minutes, record TMOG's CPU, memory, disk, GPU and network activity. Its self-monitoring view is particularly relevant here, though comparison with Windows Task Manager or Process Explorer would be useful.
  3. Network behavior — observe whether traffic is limited to the stated update check. Destination, timing and frequency matter more than merely seeing one connection.
  4. Process actions — test termination only on a harmless process you started for that purpose. Avoid experimenting on security software, services or Windows components.
  5. Accuracy under load — compare CPU, memory, disk and network readings while running a repeatable workload. Small differences are expected because monitors can sample at different intervals.
  6. Removal — check whether uninstalling leaves services, scheduled tasks, startup items or substantial data behind.

Those observations would help distinguish a polished monitor from an attractive dashboard with first-release rough edges.

Security perspective​

PID-plus-creation-identity checking is a sound defensive design against PID reuse, but it addresses one narrow class of race condition; it is not a general security audit. Likewise, signing and notarization establish publisher identity and platform checks, not that an application is bug-free or privacy-perfect.

For cautious testing, download only from the official site, verify the displayed publisher on Windows, and submit the installer or its hash to a multi-engine reputation service if appropriate. A low detection count on a brand-new file can be noise, while a clean result does not verify every behavior.

Because no independent technical assessment or network capture is supplied here, the privacy statement should currently be treated as the vendor's stated policy. If someone captures unexpected traffic, the useful evidence would be the destination, executable responsible, timing and whether update checking was enabled—not just a screenshot saying “network activity.”

A promising niche​

The most interesting feature may be Flight Recorder rather than the live process list. Windows already has capable monitoring tools, but recording a slowdown and examining what happened afterward can help with intermittent problems that disappear before Task Manager opens. Whether that justifies Pro will depend on retention limits, export options and how accurately sessions preserve the relevant counters.

For version 1.0, testing it alongside established tools rather than replacing them immediately is the prudent approach. New system monitors often need a few releases to expose platform-specific permission, sensor and counter quirks—cross-platform native code does not magically make three operating systems behave alike.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jack

You may also like...