Existing users, 
 Renicer - 1.1.5Graphical tool to automatically set process priorities |
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||
Feedback Summary:
| Version 1.1.5: | |||||
| Overall Rating: |   (3.6) |
Features: | Not rated (0.0) | Support: | Not rated (0.0) |
| Ease of Use: | Not rated (0.0) | Quality / Stability: | Not rated (0.0) | Price: | Not rated (0.0) |
Key to Types of Feedback:
Reviews 
Troubleshooting 
Usage Tips 
Developer Notes 
Commentary 
Featured Reviews
Mainly good ... - Version: 1.2.9, 4/27/2005 03:10AM PST
(3 of 5 users found this comment useful)
stickman67
Most Recent Replies: View All 1 Replies
- Corrections
Password field problem - Version: 1.2.7, 7/2/2004 11:43PM PST
(1 of 2 users found this comment useful)
John Sawyer
The password entry window for this app isn't a standard OS X password request window, since it won't accept "no password" (just a click on the "Okay" button), though most other apps will--I don't use a password since I don't need one. Would be nice if this was fixed so I didn't have to conform to the password-protected world.
Cute idea - Version: 1.2.6, 10/22/2003 10:04AM PST
(1 of 1 users found this comment useful)
Amras
Obvuously a lot of work went into this, but I don't like the way it automatically renices stuff. A better idea would be to explain to the user what a 'nice' value is, and let them choose the app's priority with a slider or something (a little more intuitive than straight values). Most people, like me, who understand what /usr/bin/renice is will do it in the terminal since it's much faster than using this GUI, IMHO.
And from the speed with which MS Word just opened tonight, when I gave the latest version of Renicer a try after using DBoost for a while (OK, I'm indecisive!), I think I'll be sticking with this app for now. There was definitely a bit of a zing happening.
A couple of minor gripes. First, I really think developers would be doing themselves a favour if they posted on VT what's changed in their latest version. It's not here, it doesn't seem to be on the developer's website, and it certainly ain't in the manual (still dated 2002 -- gripe no. 2!).
Otherwise, this seems to be a pretty solid little package. And according to my 60-second observation test using Cunning Fox (no, not very scientific, but what do you want for nothing?), Renicer uses only around 18 MB RAM, and between 0 and 4.1% CPU in the background, according to Cunning Fox. By comparison, DBoost uses 27 MB of RAM and up to 5.5% CPU in the background, and seems more busy in terms of CPU activity overall. OK, not huge differences, but differences nonetheless.