X64dbg is (probably) the most user-friendly x64 debugger right now. It's pretty, it's open-source and it usually works. But I find it very hard to switch from WinDbg to x64dbg for several reasons. Some of them are purely emotional (don't worry, I'm not going to bore you to death explaining those) but most of them are technical and related to the way x64dbg is being developed.

So, here goes slightly exaggerated but still serious list of my grievances. Smile Insane system requirements Both DNSpy and x64dbg suffer from this disease. Samsung Healthy Living Blood Pressure Monitor Manual. They love to use the 'latest and greatest' of technologies, meaning Visual Studio 2017,.NET 4.6 and what not. That's perfectly fine when you're writing normal software. But debugger is not a normal software.

Windows 7 x64 & OllyDbg 1.10 I just start to learn debugging technology, and try to debug a demo programm called 'crack_me.exe' using OllyDbg. But I meet with a. OllyDBG for 64-bit Windows 7 - posted in Programming: Hi, I installed Olly-Debugger OllyDbg v1.10 and this program suppose to debug.exe file, but it would not open.

If I have a customer with a software crashing on his production servers, I can't tell him 'You need to install Windows 7 SP2 and 3 different VS redistributables and reboot your machine twice just for me to run my debugger'. No, I really can't. Debugger must run on any and all systems out-of-the box. Olly does that.

WinDbg does that. And it wouldn't be hard to link x64bdg with static VS runtime libs and. But for some reason it's not done that way.

Updated 30-Sep-2016: Mr. EXoDia that now x64dbg is distributed together with the necessary runtime DLLs. We can remove this grievance off of my list.

Midas Civil 2011 Full Crack 32bit. Smile Uncertain direction and feature bloat Antoine de Saint Exupery said: Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away These are really wise words and Olly is designed that way. It does all the basic stuff and has stable SDK that enables plugin authors to implement all the extras.

On the contrary, Mr. EXoDia is adding features left and right and the direction of x64dbg development looks more like this: For example, why does a debugger need 3 (yes, three!) different assembler engines?

Want another example? Let's just look at the.

How about this. Change to the info box. Basically the pointer values in the instruction were not resolved (so if the instruction contained qword ptr ds:[rsp+30] it would not show the value of rsp+30). Philips Blu Ray Remote Control Codes.

Personally this is quite useless Yes, Mr. EXoDia, you're right. It is useless for everyone but few people. And how about: The commands plugload and plugunload have been added.

This is useful for plugin developers who want to test plugins without having to restart x64dbg all the time. How many people in the entire world will actually benefit from that? So, why add such bloat? Once you add something, that something must be maintained. And it's very hard to remove stuff later, as it might break something else. So, please don't. Broken features When I am on a job and need to debug something, last thing I want to spend my time on, is fighting with debugger bugs.