Is there Unlocker type of program for Windows 10?

http://www.emptyloop.com/unlocker/ only goes up to v7.

Thank you in advance.
--
Quote of the Week: "When many work together for a goal, great things may
be accomplished. It is said a lion cub was killed by a single colony of
ants." --Saskya Pandita
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
/ /\ /\ \ Ant's Quality Foraged Links: http://aqfl.net
| |o o| |
\ _ / Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail privately. If credit-
( ) ing, then please kindly use Ant nickname and AQFL URL/link.

Ant wrote:
http://www.emptyloop.com/unlocker/ only goes up to v7.

Thank you in advance.

Actually, the OS has its own Unlocker.

You notice at shutdown, the spinning circle
and the "don't shut off the power" ? The OS
keeps track of PendingDeletes, and it messes
around with files at shutdown, and also does
something at startup.

If a developer were to tap into that system,
a "difficult" file could simply be put in the
list for the "spinning circle" to reap.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_l...ocker_software

"On Windows systems, if a file is locked, it's possible to
schedule its moving or deletion to be performed on the
next reboot. This approach is typically used by installers
to replace locked system files."

I've not heard anyone casually mention a replacement
for Unlocker... Maybe the New Windows is sooo
easy to work with, it's not needed.

Paul

On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 18:44:46 -0400, Paul wrote:

====snip====


I've not heard anyone casually mention a replacement for Unlocker...
Maybe the New Windows is sooo easy to work with, it's not needed.


That was an example of "sarcasm", right?

:-)

--
Johnny B Good

Johnny B Good wrote:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 18:44:46 -0400, Paul wrote:

====snip====

I've not heard anyone casually mention a replacement for Unlocker...
Maybe the New Windows is sooo easy to work with, it's not needed.


That was an example of "sarcasm", right?

:-)

I think so. Let me check...

There's a certain interest in the user population,
in turning everything into Win98. And the same thought
process would exist, if these users entered the Linux camp.
Soon, it would be sudo chmod 666 this and sudo chmod 777 that.
The "atom smasher" crowd, feel a need to collect tools
towards that end.

A puzzling thing, is why I've never needed a copy of Unlocker.
Why is that ? I cannot figure it out. Am I lucky or something ?
Maybe not adventurous enough ? The situation just doesn't
seem to arise, where some other solution won't work in
its place.

For example, I can open a command prompt window as
user SYSTEM, and deal with things with odd permissions.
It's not a good idea to get carried away with this.
The psexec is available on Sysinternals.com .

psexec -i -s cmd.exe

Something with an actual file lock on it (a feature
of the file system), you boot your Windows maintenance
OS and deal with it. On my typing machine, it's
a dual boot Win2K/WinXP setup. I boot to Win2K, any
time the WinXP OS need service. And deal with it
there.

I don't think I even have a working copy of Unlocker.
I have the download, yes, but it is supposed to be boobytrapped
with Adware, so I've never used it.

Paul

On 23/08/2016 20:17, Paul wrote:


A puzzling thing, is why I've never needed a copy of Unlocker.
Why is that ? I cannot figure it out. Am I lucky or something ?
Maybe not adventurous enough ? The situation just doesn't
seem to arise, where some other solution won't work in
its place.


Have you really never tried to "Safely remove a USB device" only to be
told that it cannot be removed because it's in use - even though you've
shut down all applications which may have been using it?

Frequently happens to me in W7 - whereupon Unlocker gets called in to
sort it.

I don 't use W10 - but I'd be surprised if it didn't suffer from the
same problem.

Of course, you could ignore the message and just remove the device
anyway - and probably nothing bad would happen - but it's always a
slight worry.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

Roger Mills wrote:
On 23/08/2016 20:17, Paul wrote:


A puzzling thing, is why I've never needed a copy of Unlocker.
Why is that ? I cannot figure it out. Am I lucky or something ?
Maybe not adventurous enough ? The situation just doesn't
seem to arise, where some other solution won't work in
its place.


Have you really never tried to "Safely remove a USB device" only to be
told that it cannot be removed because it's in use - even though you've
shut down all applications which may have been using it?

Frequently happens to me in W7 - whereupon Unlocker gets called in to
sort it.

I don 't use W10 - but I'd be surprised if it didn't suffer from the
same problem.

Of course, you could ignore the message and just remove the device
anyway - and probably nothing bad would happen - but it's always a
slight worry.

There is an application called (something like) USB Safely Remove.

One trick for removing a pesky volume, is go to Disk Management
and flip the device in there to "Offline". That works for NTFS
partitions blocked by TXF (Transactional NTFS) activity.
Then you can try the task bar Safely Remove again.

But that won't cure arbitrary USB stick problems.

You can then reach for Sysinternals Handle or use
Process Explorer (which has Handle available from the menu,
occupying the lower pane of the window). What that can
do for you, is tell you what process owns a file
on the device.

There are cases which are inexplicable. Like when something
system-like is the owner, doesn't have a PID, in which case
you're screwed. Just about anything is possible in the
"Ain't Gonna Do It" department :-)

But at least you can waste countless hours fiddling
with it. And what better way to spend your time...

Paul

On 23/08/2016 23:37, Paul wrote:
Roger Mills wrote:
On 23/08/2016 20:17, Paul wrote:


A puzzling thing, is why I've never needed a copy of Unlocker.
Why is that ? I cannot figure it out. Am I lucky or something ?
Maybe not adventurous enough ? The situation just doesn't
seem to arise, where some other solution won't work in
its place.


Have you really never tried to "Safely remove a USB device" only to be
told that it cannot be removed because it's in use - even though
you've shut down all applications which may have been using it?

Frequently happens to me in W7 - whereupon Unlocker gets called in to
sort it.

I don 't use W10 - but I'd be surprised if it didn't suffer from the
same problem.

Of course, you could ignore the message and just remove the device
anyway - and probably nothing bad would happen - but it's always a
slight worry.

There is an application called (something like) USB Safely Remove.

One trick for removing a pesky volume, is go to Disk Management
and flip the device in there to "Offline". That works for NTFS
partitions blocked by TXF (Transactional NTFS) activity.
Then you can try the task bar Safely Remove again.

But that won't cure arbitrary USB stick problems.

You can then reach for Sysinternals Handle or use
Process Explorer (which has Handle available from the menu,
occupying the lower pane of the window). What that can
do for you, is tell you what process owns a file
on the device.

There are cases which are inexplicable. Like when something
system-like is the owner, doesn't have a PID, in which case
you're screwed. Just about anything is possible in the
"Ain't Gonna Do It" department :-)

But at least you can waste countless hours fiddling
with it. And what better way to spend your time...

Paul

Quite! Unlocker is a lot quicker.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 20:30:50 +0100, Roger Mills wrote:

On 23/08/2016 20:17, Paul wrote:


A puzzling thing, is why I've never needed a copy of Unlocker. Why is
that ? I cannot figure it out. Am I lucky or something ?
Maybe not adventurous enough ? The situation just doesn't seem to
arise, where some other solution won't work in its place.


Have you really never tried to "Safely remove a USB device" only to be
told that it cannot be removed because it's in use - even though you've
shut down all applications which may have been using it?

So, it isn't just win2k that generates such annoyances?


Frequently happens to me in W7 - whereupon Unlocker gets called in to
sort it.

Nah, never used a tool like that, as Paul says, there's always a way to
solve such problems without needing a tool like Unlocker.


I don 't use W10 - but I'd be surprised if it didn't suffer from the
same problem.

Nor I. And, if it didn't, just look at the price being paid for such
'problems' to be sorted.


Of course, you could ignore the message and just remove the device
anyway - and probably nothing bad would happen - but it's always a
slight worry.

Never bothered me in the slightest whenever I "Just unplug a drive
regardless of windows bleatings" when I know "The Business" is done and
dusted with no signs of further disk activity.

And, if windows is still struggling to deal with something, "Tough Titty
windows, you had your chance! Go diddle with something else and try not
to get your fingers trapped *this* time.", to anthropomorphise my
attitude to such reactions by the OS. Life is too short to waste on
rebooting the machine so as to pry its sticky fingers off the drive via
the "A process is still running" dialogue boxes and remove said drive
'safely' during the next POST period.

Then there is the opposite effect where you plug in a drive that windows
claims it has just installed drivers for and could you please reboot for
the changes to take effect (even though it's a drive that windows has
already seen before). In this case, I gently curse windows for being the
moron it is and promptly ignore such fatuous advice. It's very hard to
resist anthropomorphising when you see such inconsistent responses from
the OS.

The fact that such inconsistent 'nonsense behaviour' is still present 3
versions of windows later makes me feel a little more smug in not falling
for MSFT's line about the newer versions being so much better. I always
knew I was going to lose more useful features than I was going to 'gain'
out of such a foolhardy 'upgrade'. :-)

--
Johnny B Good

On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 18:37:19 -0400, Paul wrote:

Roger Mills wrote:
On 23/08/2016 20:17, Paul wrote:


A puzzling thing, is why I've never needed a copy of Unlocker. Why is
that ? I cannot figure it out. Am I lucky or something ?
Maybe not adventurous enough ? The situation just doesn't seem to
arise, where some other solution won't work in its place.


Have you really never tried to "Safely remove a USB device" only to be
told that it cannot be removed because it's in use - even though you've
shut down all applications which may have been using it?

Frequently happens to me in W7 - whereupon Unlocker gets called in to
sort it.

I don 't use W10 - but I'd be surprised if it didn't suffer from the
same problem.

Of course, you could ignore the message and just remove the device
anyway - and probably nothing bad would happen - but it's always a
slight worry.

There is an application called (something like) USB Safely Remove.

One trick for removing a pesky volume, is go to Disk Management and flip
the device in there to "Offline". That works for NTFS partitions blocked
by TXF (Transactional NTFS) activity.
Then you can try the task bar Safely Remove again.

But that won't cure arbitrary USB stick problems.

You can then reach for Sysinternals Handle or use Process Explorer
(which has Handle available from the menu, occupying the lower pane of
the window). What that can do for you, is tell you what process owns a
file on the device.

There are cases which are inexplicable. Like when something system-like
is the owner, doesn't have a PID, in which case you're screwed. Just
about anything is possible in the "Ain't Gonna Do It" department :-)

But at least you can waste countless hours fiddling with it. And what
better way to spend your time...

I'd rather chance having to spend those extra hours running CHKDSK /R
(or fsck) on it if the "quick 'n' dirty unplug the drive anyway" method
does cause any consequences. There is a risk but, ime, it's been a very
low risk well worth taking when you're pretty sure you didn't
specifically task "The OS" with starting a protracted process that could
have dire consequences if interrupted (which for me is usually the case).

To be fair, this sticky fingeredness behaviour with external disk drives
isn't limited to windows OSes alone. I'm pretty certain I've experienced
this sort of nonsense with Linux Mint on rare occasions too. And, as
before, I've taken the same cavalier attitude developed over my 11 years
of win2k experience to resolving the problem.

On those rare occasions when the stuck drive is storing the one and only
copy of priceless data (these days, typically photos or home movie
footage), I'll shut the PC down, forcing any hung up processes to
terminate as necessary to allow the shutdown sequence to complete so I
can unplug said drive 'cold'.

There's still a possibility of FS corruption but this would have been
unavoidable due to a critical process becoming hung up over which there
was no safer way to terminate it other than via the shutdown dialogue
boxes.

Shutting the system down this way in such a circumstance gives you the
best chance of minimising any FS and/or data corruption, hopefully to the
point where you can use FS repair or data retrieval tools if needs be
with a greater chance of success as a result of minimising the damage by
taking this action.

It's a remedy I rarely resort to and one that has been taken only to
avoid a major inconvenience rather than a total disaster as far as I can
recall over the past decade or so. The only actions I'll apply to an
external drive which contains the only copy or copies in existence of
unique and irreplaceable data are read only actions or move actions where
the deletion can *only* take place *after* successfully creating the new
copy in the destination folder.

I know this 'move' process *does* carry some tiny risk but since the
original data is never actually erased or overwritten *during* the move
operation, I know that 'unerase' or data recovery tools will have valid
data to work on, even in the case of Linux file systems which are far
less forgiving of accidental deletions than Microsoft ones, let alone the
FAT32 formatted SD cards I'm usually working with. If something goes
wrong with the move operation, I'm pretty confident I'll be facing
nothing worse than a major inconvenience rather than a total disaster.

Every action carries an inescapable risk of failure in the real world
and moving a file is no exception but I know, in Microsoft's world at
least, that such operations have been designed specifically to hold such
risks to the absolute minimum (manipulating data was, after all *the*
sole reason for an "Operating System"'s very existence - the D in DOS was
simply the shorthand for "File Management System" condensed into the one
word "Disk" which was what all 'modern' computer systems used for data
storage organised into files).

In short my cavalier attitude is driven by my respect for the lower
level data manipulation processes and my contempt for the higher level
**** that's been heaped on top as the "Value Added" bloatware which makes
up the vast majority of what constitutes a "Modern Windowed OS" today.

--
Johnny B Good

On Wed, 24 Aug 2016 09:48:09 +0100, Roger Mills wrote:

On 23/08/2016 23:37, Paul wrote:

====snip====


There are cases which are inexplicable. Like when something system-like
is the owner, doesn't have a PID, in which case you're screwed. Just
about anything is possible in the "Ain't Gonna Do It" department :-)

But at least you can waste countless hours fiddling with it. And what
better way to spend your time...

Paul

Quite! Unlocker is a lot quicker.

If you feel the convenience of (I presume) IObit's Unlocker utility is
so desirable, that rather suggests there is something seriously amiss
with your system.

The only times I've ever wished for such a convenience has been when
dealing with malware afflicted customers machines. However, the closest
I've come to employing such a facility is when using ComboFix to detect
and remove locked malware files.

There has to be an underlying root cause for all those locked files you
keep having to deal with. I'd be looking for the root cause rather than
play a game of Whack-a-Mole trying to bludgeon them out of existence. :-)

--
Johnny B Good