Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

6
  • 1
    ProcessExplorer (from Microsoft) can do this as well. It even have a handy tree view.
    – billc.cn
    Commented Jan 7, 2016 at 20:37
  • @Ƭᴇcʜιᴇ007 This question does not mention a running program, just a program that was launched, which may have long ended before one had a chance to look at a list of running processes in their favorite utility. As such, I don't see the reason to mark it as a duplicate.
    – dxiv
    Commented Jan 8, 2016 at 3:35
  • @dxiv You should edit your question to make that clear. At the moment it doesn't mention you requirement to know about a program that has already ended (which by the way invalidates my answer). If you don't update the question it probably won't get reopened.
    – DavidPostill
    Commented Jan 8, 2016 at 9:21
  • @DavidPostill It's obviously not my question (though I edited the title to better match the contents). It is true that the question does not mention the program having ended, but it also doesn't mention it having not ended (and, as it happens, there do exist quick ffmpeg tasks that can take a fraction of a second to complete). Marking the question outright as a duplicate relies on the additional assumption that the program is still running, which is simply not present in the question as asked. A request to clarify, or flag for insufficient information, would have been more appropriate.
    – dxiv
    Commented Jan 9, 2016 at 1:31
  • @dxiv Apologies, I mistook you for the OP. In that case if the OP thinks it is not a duplicate it is up to him to edit his question, say why it is not a duplicate for him, and it will go into the reopen queue.
    – DavidPostill
    Commented Jan 9, 2016 at 9:08