Augeas
-
Posts
4,542 -
Joined
Posts posted by Augeas
-
-
I would stand back a moment. You don't know why your pc is half-dead but you are proposing to blitz the registry. Now a 'clean' registry is very self-satisfying but 72 issues is not a large list, the registry is loaded into ram anyway when you boot up your pc, removing those issues probably won't speed your pc up a noticable amount, and it may well reduce your pc from half-dead to being broken for spares in China.
There are a zillion ways to speed up your pc. I would start by reducing your startup applications to a minimum, then run Task Manager/Processes, show Memory Usage and Page Faults in View/Select Columns, and see what's eating your pc. I can't give any more tuning tips than that, use Google and choose wisely.
-
The only other thing I can think of to check is whether or not the file clusters are overwritten, and you are in fact seeing preview images from another location. This does not, as far as I can see, resolve the unfindable path problem, but it might be some further info. I have no other bright ideas unfortunately.
-
In normal scan the only un-named files I see are zero length with c:\?\ path. If I select show undeleted files I do get a few un-named files which are greater than zero length, but if I try to recover these I get an Access Denied message.
Did you delete the folder to the recycler? Is the recycler clear? What size is shown for these files?
-
The only thing I can think of is to type 1.jpg|2.jpg|3.jpg etc in the search box, which will give you all jpgs ending in a numeric. It's best to type this in Notepad or something and then copy/paste it into the search field.
I can't think of a fancy variation to give you all four numerics, perhaps some bright spark will be along later.
-
Something to do with the US spelling. The UK Behaviour Blocking renders fine. Well, on my pc here in the UK. Possibly our US members will see the reverse?
PS I do not claim to be a webmaster anywhere.
-
No doubt this is due to the nature of the different applications. Are you concerned?
-
I know of no way with Recuva. By the way, can you recover any other files on that drive?
You might have better luck with another file recovery application, but I can't advise on that.
-
Most peculiar, and I haven't a clue. The only unnamed files I have are zero byte long in no folder. No pm's or emails, please, stick to the forum.
-
Hi Ident,
I'm sure that in the early days one of the devs stated that wfs was one pass, but for the life of me I can't find the reference. Yes, CC does report that the varoius deletion methods are used on WFS (I'm testing on a small flash drive, no way am I going to run it on my hd). My assumption that only one pass is used is also based on practicalities. If 35 pass is used, and you're wiping say 100 gb of a disk (and that is not an excessive amount) then you would be writing 3.5 terabytes of data. Now that is an excessive amount, especially if you have absolute faith in Piriform and believe that each write is flushed out of cache to disk before the next pass. I am not yet convinced that the secure overwrite message is specific to wfs, rather than generic to all deletes.
I don't know why Piriform doesn't clarify this. I have asked for clarification several times, to no avail. My tests on a ridiculously small amount of data indicate that there is no difference in elasped time, nor does the flash drive indicator light flash any more frequently, when running normal wfs or 35-pass wfs. Still, speculation is interesting. No?
I've just chosen one of the small deleted files on my flash drive and secureley overwritten it using Gutmann. Indicator light flashes when doing a wfs with Gutmann, 8 or 9 times, elaspsed time under 1 sec. No of flashes when securely deleting one file with Gutmann, 45 ish, elapsed time 11.5 sec. I'm convincing myself that it's one pass.
-
Windows renames files sent to the recycler as $Innnnn.ext and $Rnnnnnn.ext. The data is on the $R file, info in the $I file. Look for these files in normal scan mode first.
I don't know why you can't recover these files, if you have admin permission.
-
Did you enable Wipe Free Space? If so, there is a current thread on this here ... http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=29751
If you did, you might have a very large file called something like 3590F75ABA9E485486C100C1A9D4FF06DJZWDIEROCZBHXWZ on your c drive. Delete it.
-
The cruel irony, for the original poster anyway, is that CC's Gutmann applies to secure file deletion, not wipe free space.
-
The concept is invalid. Data is remapped on the disk by the disk controller, not by any defragger.
-
Well, blow me down with whatever. I've just ticked the Hide Warning Messages and attempted to clean some data and the warning message still appears. So no, I've no idea what this option does.
-
According to the documentation, Hide Warning Messages is 'Useful if you want to run CCleaner in silent or batch mode.' So maybe it applies only to data removal. I've no idea if you could remove startup entries in silent mode as I've never tried it, and it doesn't seem to be the sort of thing I'd want to try.
-
Ahah! In Media Player Tools/Settings/performance I turned Video Acceleration down from Full to None. Now it plays fine. Well, apart from the aspect ratio that is.
-
I never do this sort of stuff, so I'm a real amateur here.
I forgot to record a tv program (as instructed) so I thought I'd download it from the BBC's iPlayer pages. I chose download, and the 600 mb wmv file duly downloaded overnight.
I first tried to play it with VLC, but it is just a mass of moving blocks of colour. I then tried Windows Media Player. I was asked to dpwnload the DRM code, so i did, and then the licence from the BBC. So far so average. The video now plays with sound, but the colours seem to be reversed, or completely swapped over. Any clues?
-
I think that the point is that when clusters are remapped to a new position the old cluster - if not overwritten - would contain the original file data and thus could conceiveably be a security risk. I'm not sure how WFS could frag existing files.
Personally I wouldn't like to see this in defgragger. I like to see an application just do what it says it does. WFS is part of CC.
-
You can nearly do this by drag/dropping into a folder that is in the Include list. I think it's about the same amount of mousework.
-
And your $20 can find a home here http://www.piriform.com/about
-
What I mean by 'More results' is that Recuva's list will include files from all available drives if you use the wizard, whether they're flagged as recoverable or not (it won't show zero-byte files). So the difference between running Recuva with the ext drive attached and not attached is that more files are listed with it attached - as you'd expect. The list will show which drive the files come from.
I thought you had already run WFS/WMFT on the ext drive. Of course it's entirely up to you whether you do or not. You will still get the same number of results from a scan but the MFT names should be gibberish. Or should I say carefully selected by experts at Piriform.
You'll also find that you can recover unrecoverable files (it's not an accurate name for them but it will do). However the data, probably binary zeroes after a WFS, is of no use to anyone.
-
Its wrong for a privacy cleaner to remove possible privacy issues by default????
Bit of a stupid statement if i ever did see one.
Bit of a tetchy statement if I ever did see one.
It may be a difference in opinion, or a different interpretation of what CC should do, but still a valid comment. Remember Lately.....
-
It's years since I've run the wizard. However, if you take the defaults it will indeed scan all of your drives. The additional external drive will just deliver more results, and will not affect Recuva's operation.
You seem to be asking why Recuva shows so many file when you've wiped the disk and MFT. At a guess (assuming you ran WFS/WMFT on all drives) you're seeing filenames from the MFT. Wipe MFT will overwrite entries in the MFT, not remove them, and Recuva in normal scan mode looks at the entries in the MFT. Or several MFTs in your case. The MFT never reduces the number of entries it holds, so you will always see what appears to be a fair number - thousands - of files.
-
I believe that there are two aspects here.
Imacri is apparently seeing the prefetch defrag. In the prefetch folder is a text file called Layout.ini, which is a simple composite list of all the files that the other entries in the prefetch folder (the .pf files) are referencing. At three-day intervals, when the pc has been idle for at least 10 minutes, Windows invokes its defragger to defrag the files listed in Layout.ini, presumably with the intention of grouping all those files into one contiguous lump on the disk. This is all done by default, although it could be disabled if one should so wish.
Aethec's link pointed me to something I wasn't aware of, that Windows XP onwards does a boot-time defrag as well as and separate from the prefetch defrag. I've looked, and it's enabled on my box and has been doing its stuff for years without me noticing. Although I haven't found a definitive statement, I believe that the boot-time defrag only defrags those files referenced in the NTOSBOOT-B00DFAAD.PF prefetch file and not all those application files found in Layout.ini. That would be sensible.
My instinct says that the boot files would be not changed very often, or in my case hardly at all, as I don't modify my machine's boot behaviour at all, or very rarely. NTOSBOOT-B00DFAAD.PF is included in Layout.ini, so it gets defragged every three days anyway. So one could turn off the boot-time defrag and perhaps speed up boot time a fraction. On the other hand, does defragger look at the files at boot-time, discover that they are already defragged, and ignore the command, in which case stopping it would have negligible time gain. All these questions.
SSD drive support...
in Defraggler Suggestions
Posted
Where do you get this information from, Mr Don? Microsoft says:
'Flash blocks and cells need to be erased before new bytes can be written to them. As a result, newly purchased devices (with all flash blocks pre-erased) can perform notably better at purchase time than after considerable use. While we?ve observed this performance degradation ourselves, we do not consider this to be a show stopper. In fact .... we don?t expect users to notice the drop during normal use.'
And the same article goes on to say that:
'Windows 7 will disable disk defragmentation on SSD system drives. Because SSDs perform extremely well on random read operations, defragmenting files isn?t helpful enough to warrant the added disk writing defragmentation produces.
Be default, Windows 7 will disable Superfetch, ReadyBoost, as well as boot and application launch prefetching on SSDs with good random read, random write and flush performance. These technologies were all designed to improve performance on traditional HDDs, where random read performance could easily be a major bottleneck.'
What does Intel say?
'SSD devices, unlike traditional HDDs, see no performance benefit from traditional HDD defragmentation tools. Using these tools simply adds unnecessary wear to the SSD. It is recommended that you disable any automatic or scheduled defragmentation utilities for your Intel SSD.'
And does Win7 wear out SSDs? Toshiba says:
'Toshiba compared the daily write volume for PC-class SSDs... For a 128GB SLC NAND drive, the daily write volume (is) approximately 500GB per day over a 5-year life, while the 256GB and 512GB drives could support write volumes of 1 and 2 Terabytes per day, respectively.'
In other words you could write say 100 gb every single day to a 128 gb SSD and its life expectancy would be 25 years.
Personally, if M/S and SSD manufacturers say don't defrag, then I wouldn't defrag. I'n rather intrigued that Defraggler 1.10.143 'Added detection of Solid State Drives.' I wonder what that means.
(Info from http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx and Intel and Toshiba websites.)