Talk:Process Explorer

==Notability Concerning non-notable:  While this is not a notable consumer product like Microsoft Word, it is a important tools used by those who develop windows software. Those that don't know about the tool would wish they did. --Unsigned by: Concavelenz
 * yep, it's a great and very useful tool :), on the controversy side it was bought by MS, so not sure what will be the future of it. --HappyInGeneral 15:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The version history
Ugh, I'm really not a big fan of version histories in Wikipedia in the first place, and especially not in this form where many versions have unknown details or speak of "various changes". I wonder if we can't just remove the version history altogether? Isn't that kind of detail best left to a visitor of the home page, for example in the external links section? It's one of those things that usually risk being woefully out of date too. It for example doesn't cover the current version and I don't feel too inclined to keep piling on to that list. &mdash; Northgrove 02:39, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do not delete version history information! This is supposed to be an encyclopedia.  History is the core of an encyc -- much more important than the latest news/changes.-172.133.74.97 (talk) 21:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, this information is related to seeing what Microsoft have done to the project, and therefore should be kept, although having it as a written paragraph "Post Acquisition" to state the anti competitive measures instead of a version history in its current format might be acceptable.--NeF (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur with Nef. Moreover it can be useful to users if the version history gives info about compatibility, etc. For instance I've just updated the page about PE not seemingly working on Windows 98SE.--Clive4332 (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning section
The "warning" section is not about the Process Explorer per se, and probably should be removed, but I'm not sufficiently sure to remove it myself. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say that is Original Research as stated in WP:OR. --HappyInGeneral (talk) 18:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Process Explorer 11.20 works in NT 4.0
Hey, I just tried Process explorer 11.20 in NT 4.0, and it works. So I think any version after 11.13 will work in Windows NT 4.0, but it's not supported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thlump (talk • contribs) 00:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What encyclopedic value does this hold???
Does this application really deserves a place here? What would happen to wikipedia if anybody would be putting their application pages here? I would justify only world-wide known, killer apps here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ulterior19802005 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Process explorer is a very valuable and critical application for windows. This is not just any application that people are trying to promote shamelessly.  I think, however, that the article needs to detail more critical functions rather than just "Features"   --Corkbob (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes sure the article could do with improvement but that's not a reason to delete it. Plenty of relevant policy regarding inclusion criteria for this, which I can't be bothered citing right now. I've removed the spam, importance, unencyclopaedic templates. ··gracefool&#9786; 22:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Processinstallation
I have bing.com, facebook.com, amazon.com and internet explorer Microsoft. What can you now doing with "PROCESSINSTALLATION"? I have anytime a bluescreen and this text 192.121.232.253 (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Please make better
Full development build history for each version.

To show which version was the last build for CPU SSE computers.

185.216.49.49 (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)