You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In the ancestor processhacker, I routinely could filter per running process by just enterring "run" or running.
It seems that now the scope of the little search box is a lot more restricted, is that design or oversight? or is there a closed or open issue our it. I made a search and a similar issue but different motivation or specificity of the question is
Allow searching for exact string and/or in certain column #1876 #1876 (comment)
Here I am merely asking for what was there before. If it needs to be more complex, and join that issue, perhaps column hearder could be made target keywords, but I do enjoy the pan column search.. I wonder how it worked, though. Or if I am confused about having see that. Perhaps it had hidden values for small categorical columns, and "running" was dissected. Otherwise now to think of it, it would also have given the service names containing "run*". I hope not (that i dreamt this), but I don,t mind being told so. sorry to barge in then. but otherwise my question or prefernece to get that back stands. Thank you.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In the ancestor processhacker, I routinely could filter per running process by just enterring "run" or running.
It seems that now the scope of the little search box is a lot more restricted, is that design or oversight? or is there a closed or open issue our it. I made a search and a similar issue but different motivation or specificity of the question is
Allow searching for exact string and/or in certain column #1876
#1876 (comment)
Here I am merely asking for what was there before. If it needs to be more complex, and join that issue, perhaps column hearder could be made target keywords, but I do enjoy the pan column search.. I wonder how it worked, though. Or if I am confused about having see that. Perhaps it had hidden values for small categorical columns, and "running" was dissected. Otherwise now to think of it, it would also have given the service names containing "run*". I hope not (that i dreamt this), but I don,t mind being told so. sorry to barge in then. but otherwise my question or prefernece to get that back stands. Thank you.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: