 |
DESCRIPTION
Peek-a-Boo is a utility to monitor and manage processes, has been described by one long-time user as "the utility I didn't realize I needed, until I'd used it."
Peek-a-Boo focuses on two things: clarity and flexibility. From the moment you first launch Peek-a-Boo, it will be clear what is happening with processes on your Mac.
Use Peek-a-Boo to twirl into process-comprehension nirvana.
Peek-a-Boo is the only utility of its kind to show process information for all types of processes: Classic applications, Darwin processes, and OS X native applications.
WHAT'S NEW
Version 2.8.2:
- Fixed an (embarrassing) oversight where Peek-a-Boo failed on some Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger systems.
- Other minor bug fixes in Process Throb.
REQUIREMENTS
Mac OS X 10.4 or later.
| SCREENSHOT
|
|
 |
|  |
 | |  |
| Peek-a-Boo User Reviews (9 posts) | Write A Review |
 | Jul 7 2008 |
BSOPLINGER Its nice I guess to see a picture/graphical representation of CPU usage. Personally I like the combo of Memory Cell for individual program info and iStat menus for overall info (although MenuMeters would work for this also). These sit on the menu bar which is where I like info to be, accessible at any time without needing to find a program window.
(Version 2.7.6) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| May 30 2008 |
RICHARD HALLAS It's a very nice utility, but why the change of icon? I really liked the old one, derived from the Mac OS 'face' logo, and it made it clear what the utility was for. The new icon is awful, though! Not only does it convey a lot less (the Mac OS connection has been lost), but I dislike the blue-green colour scheme and the face on the top looks like an evil Halloween pumpkin. Ugh! Has Apple kicked up a fuss about adapting the Mac OS face for use here? If not, I'd like to see the old icon brought back, as it was miles better than the ugly new monstrosity. I see no reason for the change, and it's certainly not an improvement in any obvious way.
(Version 2.7.5) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Oct 10 2007 |
LEE123 This seems to be a very useful app. Already in the first five minutes of use i have compared the memory usage of launchbar, butler and quicksilver. Very nice and should be used by all developers.
(Version 2.6.9) | |
| [ 2 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Oct 10 2007 |
LEE123 opps, I mean cpu usage not memory.
(Version 2.6.9) | |
| Oct 10 2007 |
FAHLMAN Save yourself $20 and use Activity Monitor.app. It's in your Utilities folder.
(Version 2.6.9) | |
| Jun 18 2007 |
DARYLF2 Peek-a-Boo 2.6.5 doesn't work at all for me... I run it and it just beachballs... This is on a Mac Pro 3.0GHz Quad Xeon with 4GB RAM running Mac OS X 10.4.9.
(Version 2.6.5) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Jun 18 2007 |
DARYLF2 I figured it out... I add the '' (option-f) character to my folder names (an old convention from my Mac OS System 4.2 days...). Apparently, Peek-a-Boo doesn't properly support Unicode paths. Changing '' to "folder" fixes the beachball problem.
(Version 2.6.5) | |
 | Apr 23 2007 |
CLARKWOODSOFTWARE Ishan, a note from the developer... Sorry to hear about the overzealous nagging you're seeing. For a full description of the nagging issue with some suggestions, see: http://clarkwood.com/articles/harsh_business_realities/#naggingproblems My first suggestion would be to verify that you're using Peek-a-Boo 2.6 or later by checking the "About Peek-a-Boo" menu item. (If you accidentally run an older version of Peek-a-Boo, you may see the overzealous nagging that you've described.) These occasional reports of overzealous nagging are a thorn in our side, because we've had trouble reproducing the problem. If you see it again could you drop us a note at: http://www.clarkwood.com/contact/ | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Apr 4 2007 |
ISHAN This is a rather attractive alternative to Process Viewer, but...the constant "PAY" in 192 point type which completely obscures the window is simply put, obnoxious. And to make matters worse, their web page feedback mechanism is broken. Would it be that much to ask to have an unrestricted 14-day trial period before the application has to be purchased to be used? Why alienate potential customers with nag messages which destroy the entire flow of a well-crafted interface? $20 is not a lot of money, but I'm not spending it on an app which I can't even use for a minute or two without being interrupted by a nag screen which obscures the data that I need to use while working on software. Ishan Bhattacharya, MD
(Version 2.6.2) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Nov 11 2006 |
TUISHIMI This reminds me (at least in appearance) of the ProcessController application on BeOS. Does it run in the menubar, out of the way until you need it?
(Version 2.5.5) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jan 21 2005 |
ANONYMOUS *shrug* it's nothing you can't see or do in terminal pretty easily.
(Version 2.2.1) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Feb 22 2005 |
MACMAN While I disagree with the pricing, I also have to wonder what someone like you (The Terminal commenter) is doing here since, in most cases, almost all 3rd party software relies upon SOME portion of the system to run! The point being that most 3rd party software strives to introduce either new functionality from the system's functionality, or improve either existing system functionality, improve access to that functionality, or both. So, are you here to give Terminal lessons, or are you just a closet 3rd party software junky?
(Version 2.2.2) | |
| Jun 27 2004 |
UMAROMC How's this really differ (in functionality) over Apple's Process Viewer?
(Version 2.0.1) | |
| [ 2 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Jun 27 2004 |
FRINGEWOOD Peek-a-boo in default mode looks very much like Process Viewer. However, if you look at all of the extras available in the menus, you'll realize that it provides monitoring way beyond anything that Apple offers. My one wish is that the RAM usage bar was broken into essential/active/inactive with VM.
(Version 2.0.1) | |
| Jun 27 2004 |
ANONYMOUS It claims to list classic processes. I don't think Process Viewer or Activity Monitor do that.
(Version 2.0.1) | |
|
| |
|
