Unlocker vs LockHunter
Bear Bottoms
http://dottech.org/freeware-reviews/10534
Unlocker vs LockHunter: which one should you get for your “file
unlocking” needs?
Most of us know, or have heard about, Unlocker. On the other hand
relative few of us have heard of LockHunter. Yet, both are excellent
"file unlockers". So, which one is better to have, and why it is better?
Lets find out.
Before I delve into the discussion on Unlocker and LockHunter
respectively, let me explain really quickly what I mean by "file
unlocker" for those that are confused. Have you ever tried to move,
delete, rename, or modify a file (or folder) and were slapped on the
wrist by Windows because either the file (or folder) "is in use by a
program", you are "denied access" (even though you have administrator
access to the computer), or something similar? I know I have run into
this problem many times. Most of the times whenever this problem happens,
it seems like even if you close all possible open programs you can think
of, you are still unable to move, delete, rename, or modify that bloody
file. Windows can be nasty like that (often times there is useless
activity, that you are not aware of, related to handles, DLLs, blah, blah
going on in the background even after you stop using a program). So to
combat this problem, "file unlockers" were created. A file unlocker, in
layman's terms, terminates all open connections/links to the file in
question and allows you to do what you want with the file. Now if you
continually and repeatedly get an error when trying to move, delete,
rename, or modify files, you most likely have malware installed on your
computer and a file unlocker will not solve all your problems (it can
still help though). However for the every now and then stubborn file,
file unlockers can be very useful.
Now onto the core part of this article: Unlocker vs LockHunter. The first
thing you should know about these two utilities is Unlocker is somewhat
of a "veteran" while LockHunter is the "new kid on the block" (in fact
LockHunter is still in Beta). However, in LockHunter's defense, has been
actively developed in 2009 than Unlocker (Unlocker's last release was in
2008). That being said, Unlocker and LockHunter both can do the
following:
Detect and display all processes, DLLs, files, programs, etc. currently
locking the file (or folder) you want to unlock
Unlock the file (or folder) in one click
Selectively close detected processes (or close them all)
Delete the file (or folder) once unlocked
Additionally, both Unlocker and LockHunter create right-click context
menu entries so you can easily unlock files (or folders).
As you can see, the core features of Unlocker and LockHunter are the
same; both will give you the similar ability to unlock files or folders.
There is only one major difference between the two...
LockHunter officially supports Windows 2000/XP/2003/Vista/Win7 and works
on 32-bit and 64-bit.
Unlocker officially supports Windows 2000/XP/2003/Vista (although it
seems to work fine on Win7) but only works on 32-bit.
...and a few minor differences:
When LockHunter deletes a file, it deletes it to Recycle Bin so you have
a chance of recovering it if you decide later on deleting it was a
mistake or whatever. Comparitvely, Unlocker deletes it to... well I don't
know; wherever prema-deleted files go to I guess. What I am trying to say
is, files deleted with Unlocker do not go to Recycle Bin.
LockHunter has a much more aesthetically pleasing and organized interface
than Unlocker.
Unlocker has some sort of "assistant" that is supposed to you do
something, which I was unable to test because it doesn't work in Vista or
Win7, while LockHunter doesn't.
Unlocker allows you to rename or move files from within the program (in
addition to deleting them) while LockHunter does not (however you can
always rename or move files using native Windows commands after you
unlock them).
Unlocker does not have much of an interface outside of initiating it via
the context-menu whereas you can always launch LockHunter separately or
via context-menu.
Unlocker is a 255 KB download while LockHunter is ~1.2 MB.
One potential pro Unlocker may have over LockHunter is Unlocker is able
to complete any task after a reboot if it is unable to perform the task
right then and there. I don't know if LockHunter is able to do this or
not because the developer does not specifically state the feature nor
have I run into an issue (yet) where LockHunter told me to reboot my
computer.
So, in conclusion, both Unlocker and LockHunter are very similar, and
very useful programs. What will be the ultimate factor in a decision of
Unlocker vs LockHunter is "which one works on my computer". Personally,
since I run 32-bit user and have a choice of both, I like LockHunter's
superior interface (why not have eye candy when it is available) and
therefore prefer it over Unlocker.
--
Bear Bottoms
Owner of Freeware website: http://bearware.info
Yuhler G
On article <Xns9DD5604C8C282b...@news.albasani.net>,
Bear Bottoms wrote:
[...]
>
> So, in conclusion, both Unlocker and LockHunter are very similar, and
> very useful programs. What will be the ultimate factor in a decision of
> Unlocker vs LockHunter is "which one works on my computer". Personally,
> since I run 32-bit user and have a choice of both, I like LockHunter's
> superior interface (why not have eye candy when it is available) and
> therefore prefer it over Unlocker.
I'll keep Unlocker. Don't know why people make such a fuss about it.
It's free, it's tiny, and it works. Don't like the installer, get the
portable.
--
Best,
Yuhler G.
Reply-To: partially ROT13, invalid=com
Due to spam I'm filtering-out GoogleGroups. Sorry. :(
Bear Bottoms
news:MPG.26d1f25c1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> On article <Xns9DD5604C8C282b...@news.albasani.net>,
> Bear Bottoms wrote:
>
> [...]
>>
>> So, in conclusion, both Unlocker and LockHunter are very similar, and
>> very useful programs. What will be the ultimate factor in a decision
>> of Unlocker vs LockHunter is "which one works on my computer".
>> Personally, since I run 32-bit user and have a choice of both, I like
>> LockHunter's superior interface (why not have eye candy when it is
>> available) and therefore prefer it over Unlocker.
>
> I'll keep Unlocker. Don't know why people make such a fuss about it.
> It's free, it's tiny, and it works. Don't like the installer, get the
> portable.
>
I agree.
Craig
>
> On article<Xns9DD5604C8C282b...@news.albasani.net>,
> Bear Bottoms wrote:
>
> [...]
>>
>> So, in conclusion, both Unlocker and LockHunter are very similar, and
>> very useful programs. What will be the ultimate factor in a decision of
>> Unlocker vs LockHunter is "which one works on my computer". Personally,
>> since I run 32-bit user and have a choice of both, I like LockHunter's
>> superior interface (why not have eye candy when it is available) and
>> therefore prefer it over Unlocker.
>
> I'll keep Unlocker. Don't know why people make such a fuss about it.
> It's free, it's tiny, and it works. Don't like the installer, get the
> portable.
I took the discussion as an fyi. The installer's behavior had changed.
Sure, some people got worked up over it but they delivered a fair
amount of light along w/the heat.
ymmv,
--
-Craig
Yuhler G
Indeed. I don't like installers. I'll always take a portable version
if available. If not, I'll try Universal Extractor. If latter fails,
I'll be extra careful and use something like Sandboxie. So, there are
many ways to overcome a minor inconvenience.
The way I see, Unlocker is a killer application, best of its kind. If
I need to take extra steps to use it I will but I'll not complain on
anything that is within author's rights to do. Same stands for
Avira's free version nag screen and many others. When I don't like
the way author's do things, I move on, but Cedric did nothing
different most -- if not all -- freeware developers are doing
nowadays.
John Corliss
>(clipped)
> The way I see, Unlocker is a killer application, best of its kind. If
> I need to take extra steps to use it I will but I'll not complain on
> anything that is within author's rights to do. Same stands for
> Avira's free version nag screen and many others. When I don't like
> the way author's do things, I move on, but Cedric did nothing
> different most -- if not all -- freeware developers are doing
> nowadays.
No no no no no. Why it happened is still open to conjecture, but the end
result was that Unlocker 1.9.0 ignored my deselecting the installation
of all the bundled crap and installed it anyway. That *is* a big deal
and I certainly hope that other freeware developers aren't going to
start doing such a thing intentionally. If that happens, it will mean
that whole new can of worms has been opened.
--
John Corliss BS206. Because of all the Googlespam, I block all posts
sent through Google Groups. I also block as many posts from anonymous
remailers (for example, usenet4all.se, x-privat.org, dizum.com,
tioat.net, frell.theremailer.net) as possible due to forgeries posted
through them.
No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, share, spy, time-limited,
trial or web wares OR warez for me, please.
Yuhler G
On article <L7adnavjiJnxPvXR...@posted.ccountrynet>,
John Corliss wrote:
[...]
>
> No no no no no. Why it happened is still open to conjecture, but the end
> result was that Unlocker 1.9.0 ignored my deselecting the installation
> of all the bundled crap and installed it anyway. That *is* a big deal
> and I certainly hope that other freeware developers aren't going to
> start doing such a thing intentionally. If that happens, it will mean
> that whole new can of worms has been opened.
Alright, take your point. I'm sure Cedrick will have Unlocker's
installer fixed anytime soon. Meanwhile, use the portable version
like I do. If you need it on Explorer's context menu, just register
UnlockerCOM.dll
John Corliss
>
> On article<L7adnavjiJnxPvXR...@posted.ccountrynet>,
> John Corliss wrote:
>
> [...]
>>
>> No no no no no. Why it happened is still open to conjecture, but the end
>> result was that Unlocker 1.9.0 ignored my deselecting the installation
>> of all the bundled crap and installed it anyway. That *is* a big deal
>> and I certainly hope that other freeware developers aren't going to
>> start doing such a thing intentionally. If that happens, it will mean
>> that whole new can of worms has been opened.
>
> Alright, take your point. I'm sure Cedrick will have Unlocker's
> installer fixed anytime soon. Meanwhile, use the portable version
> like I do. If you need it on Explorer's context menu, just register
> UnlockerCOM.dll
Frankly, I'm really giving serious thought to going back to ver. 1.8.7.
It didn't have any bundled stuff, worked without pausing. "Don't fix it
if it ain't broken" kinda thing.
Yuhler G
On article <2MednVyQKZFyLPTR...@posted.ccountrynet>,
John Corliss wrote:
>
> Frankly, I'm really giving serious thought to going back to ver. 1.8.7.
> It didn't have any bundled stuff, worked without pausing. "Don't fix it
> if it ain't broken" kinda thing.
There are several bug fixes in v1.89 and a minor bug fixed on v1.88
so I think you should take the prior. Installer is "safe" on v1.89.
Yes, there's bundled junk but it won't install if you say so.
One thing about these installers is that if you choose not to install
something it'll show other "sub-options" greyed but checked. I
noticed once those checked-greyed options were NOT set OFF. So, I use
to uncheck ALL options from the bottom up for extra safety. I know
it's weird but I'm a long time paranoid.
Anyway, after installing a "safe" copy all you need is to copy newer
files from portable version or extract them from install package
using a tool like Universal Extractor.