Jump to content


Experienced Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

550 profile views
  1. V1.30.730 I am a bit disappointed this has not been resolved. It has been going on with every version of Speccy since I built this system in Oct 2015. Speccy reports: +3.3V 2.028 V +5V 3.367 V +12V 0.048 V CMOS BATTERY 1.524 V If my PSU was outputting those voltages, this computer would not be running. Note HWiNFO reports: +3.3V 3.305 V +5V 5.010 V +12V 12.168 V VBAT 3.048V Those voltages are right in line with my multimeter readings. Since other HW monitors report correct voltages, it is not the sensors. I must be Speccy. And note I have seen this on several computers. And sadly, I have seen where forum posters, concerned about those voltages, have wasted their money buying new power supplies that were not needed. It is for this voltage reading alone that I often recommend other hardware monitors/system information programs to people instead of Speccy even though Speccy otherwise, is a great program.
  2. Unchecking Recently Typed URLs under IE (my default browser) fixed it. Thanks. BTW, I tried to thank you by clicking the Like This button but it said I have reached my quota for the day. Interesting since I have given none.
  3. Thanks for your reply. I used the URLs. For example, https://www.wellsfargo.com. CC wants me to close IE to clean so I will post back.
  4. I have the Address Toolbar enabled in the Windows 10 taskbar. I like to keep links to several sites I visit frequently in the Address Toolbar but they are gone after a reboot after cleaning with CCleaner. I have added the links to the Exclude list but that does not work. What controls the links in the Address Bar? That is, is there a setting under Cleaner > Windows I can uncheck to keep those entries? Currently, none of the Advanced options are checked. Under system, only Recycle bin, Temp files, Clipboard, Dumps, Chkdsk, and Windows Log files are checked. It would be great if we can add urls to the Exclude feature.
  5. I just ran Speccy 1.27 (with no problems) for the first time in several months then realized it had been awhile since I checked for an update. I saw an update was there so I downloaded and installed 1.28. When I ran it I almost immediately got my first BSOD ever with Windows 10 Pro 64-bit. It also reported the same error with CPU-Z as others here have noted. A quick Google search led me to this thread where I decided to add my "ditto". I am glad to see that Piriform is aware of the problem and, based on past experience with Piriform, I am sure an update with the fix will be released soon. Wow. So running only the latest version of "Speccy" causes a BSOD with "CPU-Z" - two programs that are NOT made by Microsoft, no other BSODs in "years" indicating all other programs run just fine, yet Microsoft is to blame for creating this problem? ??? FTR, I did not have any BSODs with 1.27. Only after upgrading to and running Speccy 1.28 did I receive BSODs with W10 - my only BSODs with W10. Running V1.27, HWMonitor, HWInfo64, CoreTemp, Belarc Advisor, Windows System Information and CPUz - not to mention all my other programs too - do not and have not caused any BSODs. I'm all for bashing Microsoft when bashing is due - and certainly they've done plenty that deserves bashing. But when running only the latest version of one (non-Microsoft) program out of dozens (100s? 1000s?) in "years" causes such a specific BSOD, you cannot blame Microsoft. Even IF this problem surfaced only after installing a recent Windows Update for W10, the fact only Speccy reports this specific problem strongly suggests that only the latest version of Speccy is making a call (setting a hook or whatever the programming term is) it shouldn't. Especially since similar hardware monitoring/system information programs (including CPU-Z) (programs that generally get their data from the same sensors and data sources) work fine.
  6. Not happy at all. It looks like it was designed by a grade schooler. Example - look at the alignment of the tabs. They look like they were stuck there by some little kid wearing gloves. The product may work well, but it now looks totally unrefined. And considering all the animosity out there for registry cleaners, it should look totally professional. It is now far from it.
  7. My apologies for dredging up an old post, but my question seems applicable. Many of my colleagues are unhappy that CCleaner free attempts to foist unwanted add-ons on our systems if users do not select the custom install option. I personally don't have a problem with that AS LONG AS users have the option to opt-out - and CCleaner provides that opportunity (without having to wait for the Slim version). I understand and accept that developers need to feed and shelter their families too so if I have to uncheck a couple options to prevent unwanted stuff foisted on my system in order to get a "quality" program like CCleaner for FREE, then I have no problem overlooking the minor inconvenience. And besides, EVERYONE should ALWAYS select the custom install option whenever installing ANY program, not just CCleaner as some add-ons by some unscrupulous and/or greedy people are malicious. Anyway - my question is this: Does CCleaner Pro attempt to foist any extra add-ons on to our systems? Or is that one more area where the Free and Pro versions differ?
  8. I have been helping (rather, trying to help) someone with a similar problem trying to delete Chrome history with CCleaner not working. If you don't mind being a Guinea Pig, please see if this works. Start Chrome, Click on the "Customize and control Google Chrome" button (the 3 line button at the top-right), Click on "Settings", Click on "Show advanced settings...", Scroll down and near the bottom under "System", uncheck "Continue running background apps when Google Chrome is closed", Exit Chrome. Now see if CCleaner cleans all of Chrome's crap. And please, post back with the results.
  9. As a regular volunteer helper on many tech support forums, I often recommend CCleaner for cleaning the clutter from our systems. I use it all the time myself. It is the ONLY registry cleaner I ever recommend because (1) it is conservative, and (2) it prompts to back up the Registry. By conservative I mean it does not try to glean every last bit, but rather just the clutter. Sadly, some dedicated registry cleaner are so arrogant they don't even provide the option to back up first. Systems that have been running for a couple years may have been through a couple hardware changes, should have had many OS and program updates, and may have had many new programs installed and some uninstalled. Registry cleaning that is too aggressive often results in broken applications, non-functional hardware, or Windows itself breaks. CCleaner's registry cleaner, because is not overly aggressive, effectively cleans out the clutter (orphaned entries, missing shortcuts, etc.) without breaking anything in the process. Do NOT Change that philosophy! Even so, some well known sites prohibit mentioning CCleaner because they lump it in with the more aggressive Registry cleaners, simply because there is always a risk more harm than good will come from cleaning the registry. Other sites tolerate it because CCleaner's focus is hard disk cleanup, not registry. My point is CCleaner sells itself for what it does so well. To that point, I would ask your marketing folks to stick to facts and not use technically incorrect "fluff descriptors" - it is a turn-off for the technically inclined, and misleading for those who aren't. Specifically, CCleaner does NOT perform "system optimization" - it does not "tweak" anything - and that is GOOD! Don't add any bloat! What CCleaner does is free up disk space and clear the path for an "optimized" defragging. It speeds up anti-malware scanning, and it lets you manage your Cookies. It does not optimize the system. In fact, after you run CCleaner, your next reboot is likely to take longer, and your performance may actually go down until any reset prefetching is re-determined.
  10. You mean you don't like various menu options scattered across and buried within multiple menus and submenus? lol I agree. There is plenty of room next to Analyze, Defrag, and Stop buttons to add the other options. That's a good idea. Do note most of the options are available with the right-click context menu - but again, some are nestled in a sub-menu. Having said that, in terms of beta testing, all the buttons do work - so that is good.
  11. It must be noted automatic defragging would require a "real-time" presence. That is, some chunk of code would have to be loaded at every boot. I personally am concerned with all the programs that attempt to load up components at start, consuming even more precious RAM. With bad guys forcing us to load a full arsenal of anti-malware tools, and with anti-malware makers forcing bloated unneeded features on us every time we turn around, it is no wonder 1Gb of RAM is not enough anymore. It used be considered "more than we'll ever need!" And the challenge with running in the background (BTW, this option is already there - were you looking for something different?) is the other programs running will be adding, changing, and deleting files at the same time, which disrupts the defragging process and can cause other defrag programs to constantly start over. This is another reason to run in Safe Mode, but is also the reason I start the defrag program, then walk away. Perhaps scheduled defragging? I also note, in spite of what many defrag program makers would have us believe, the vast majority of users do NOT need to defrag frequently. This is particularly true today with monster drives formatted with NTFS and lots of free space. Folks that need more frequent defragging are those with drives running low on free space, and for folks that frequently install, then later uninstall lots of programs. I duly note that you said "Options" - and so if I can disable them, then that would be fine with me. That's an excellent idea! The time remaining would be nice, but I am not sure how they could do that along with your suggestion to be able to run in the background as everything you do in the foreground will affect available resources for the background process. Defrag Freespace (allow fragmentation) is an option already. Did you mean something different?
  12. Huh? I did not disagree about speed - I said defragging in normal mode is not as efficient. You having to uncheck files simply proves my point as now those files will remain fragmented. On a crowded drive, fragmented files can contribute to more fragmentation. And the fact that XP's own rudimentary defragger was able to defrag the same image in less than an hour in Safe Mode surely suggests that Safe Mode is not the problem you would have others think. I am not looking for Defraggler to be the fasted defragger around, but it should be comparable. Huh? It appears you have difficulty understanding what you read, or you are just not reading what is said. I never disagreed about speed and I never said I save temp files! Do NOT put words in my mouth!! Not only did I not say anything about wanting to save temp files, I made it a point to mention changing the default "48 hour" setting in CCleaner to rid the system of even more temp files. The facts are if you, or anybody surfs the Internet for a day or two you will have a bunch (often many 1000s) of small temporary files and cookies all over your drive (unless you changed the defaults and have your browser delete all temp files upon exit). It is counterproductive to defrag a hard drive full of tiny temporary Internet files. That's just a fact. It is also a fact that most open files cannot be moved and so cannot be defragged. Therefore defragging the boot drive in Safe Mode offers the best environment for the most thorough and efficient defragging (outside of pulling the boot drive and defragging with another machine - not very convenient). Other drives, as long as nothing is running from them, can be defragged just fine with a normal boot. That's good. But it proves only that Defraggler ran fine on that machine. That does not mean the "beta" is ready for release as clearly it is not; Defraggler does not run fine other machines. Now you can defend Defraggler all you want, that's your choice. But understand that is not the point of beta testing! But hey, whatever makes your boat float - as long as you comment on what is actually said and don't make stuff up or twist folk's words around, I don't care. I'm doing beta testing (on many machines - not just a couple, and with 4 different operating systems and 2 file systems), and reporting our findings. That's the job of a beta tester - disputing the testing methods of other testers is not! Hmmm, if I were running this beta program, that would be something I would want to know about. There might be something in common with those 6 files that might help the developers - I don't see where you posted findings about 6 files causing the program to hang. 1 compacted file, but not 6. That's too bad since according to the Defraggler home page here, Defraggler's claim is as a "file" defragger and not really a drive defragger - note it says, Granted, I am no expert on drive file systems, fragmentation, or defragmentation, but the link in my sig would suggest I've been around the IT Hardware block a couple times - enough to know when something works correctly, and when it doesn't. Defraggler is getting there, and based on my experience with other Piriform products, it will get there. But it is not there yet. It is our job as testers to help them do that.
  13. Nope - sorry Arther but that is not a big mistake - in fact, Safe Mode is the ONLY way to ensure the maximum number of files can be defragged - for the boot drive anyway. If I have to boot normally, when all kinds of additional drivers and applets are running (with open files), that means an inefficient defrag and another problem with Defraggler.
  14. I am still very disappointed with the performance of Defraggler. I was encouraged when the Change Log for v1.01.073 listed the following: - Completely new Defrag algorithm, which is faster and better designed. - Defrag freespace now a separate option. - Updated UI. - Minor bug fixes. However, it is worse than before. I tested it on my 100Gb WD HD that has ONLY 8.4Gb of space used - that is, there is still a whopping 90+Gb of free space available. To ensure there would be minimal interference, I booted into Safe Mode, then used CCleaner (with "older than 48 hours" unchecked) first to avoid defragging with tons of tiny temp files. After 5 hours!!!!, I terminated Defraggler out of frustration. XP's own defragger took 40 minutes with the same image. I think Piriform needs to head back to drawing board. I do like the UI. However, the Drive Map Legend is way too big - taking up way too much room for those that like to watch what is happening. Why is there not an option to defrag both files and free space at the same time as there was with previous versions? If that is how this version was supposed to become faster, it failed. That said, this is a Beta - I look forward to trying out the next version as I think it shows promise.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.