Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums


Experienced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by titanium

  1. Most people seem to be much more forgiving and trusting than I am. Or perhaps less risk-averse. I've used several Piriform products for years, and paid for CCleaner Professional a couple years ago, but I'm done. I did not realize until very recently that new settings had been added that have been compromising my privacy behind my back. All I did was run the updater; no notice was given. When you also consider the CCleaner update malware compromise from awhile back, you hopefully realize that this software should not be used. Excuses and promises don't cut it. I will never use another Avast/AVG/Piriform product again. Other users should understand that all these negative things that have happened are a reflection of the priorities of upper management. Security and privacy are obviously not concerns. Pretending that this will truly change now is foolhardy.
  2. I take this to read "Why do you care? Why do you think it matters?" Yeah, it matters. According to various sources, you should overwrite more than once. How can you do that with zeroes? Clearly, you cannot. To me, it only makes sense to overwrite with random data. I have a 4-TB drive that has developed bad sectors, and is going back on warranty. I wish I could just destroy it, but I cannot. So, I have to overwrite the whole damned thing, which takes days. I've already done a format /p:n, before some self-appointed tech wizard tries making a fool of me by pointing that option out. CCleaner is clearly not a serious utility for this purpose, so I will not be using it. They could not even be bothered saying whether they write zeroes or random data. FYI -- I will never be checking back on this thread.
  3. Does the "Simple Overwrite (1 pass)" overwrite method for Drive Wiper involve writing 0s, or does it use random data? The docs don't say, though I'm not sure why. I'll be able to answer my own question before long, but I'd rather know going in.
  4. But CCleaner didn't change permissions; it simply deleted certain items. Oh, I get it--CCleaner should not have been able to delete that stuff and ruin the shell and modern apps... Totally agreed. Very annoying issue. Probably going to have to restore an old Win8 image and re-upgrade... I mean re-update.
  5. Running CCleaner Pro 5.09.5343 on Win10. I ran CCleaner and it made my Start menu and all modern apps COMPLETELY stop working. The "My Account" link ( http://support.piriform.com/ ) is not working at all for me right now. Is there a fix, of is this just one of those "Too bad!" scenarios?
  6. Everyone cares about UI. Some people just have low standards, and/or don't realize that the UI is an issue until ... it is. Take the font I mentioned for example. Not everyone is 13 years old with great vision. A simple font change can make the UI a nightmare to use for some people. There is a reason that big companies hire UI professionals (who make very nice 6-figure incomes). This is because UI matters. If customers can't find what they need easily enough, they will move on. If UI doesn't matter, than why don't we all just edit the INI file and use a CLI version instead? Why not use text-based web browsers while we're at it? Only a bloody fool doesn't think UI matters.
  7. You misspelled "my eyes". Unless you somehow magically speak for all humanity.
  8. I agree that the UI change is a bad one. It's too flat and too damned bright. Some parts of it (e.g. under Options > Settings and Options > Monitoring) reminds me of how older versions of Windows used to look after the OS had run out of GUI memory space. It's flat, lifeless, boring, and ugly. However, I could live with the new UI, becuase usability has not suffered materially because of the simple UI changes. My issue is that the new font is terrible. I am referring to the font change in the Include/Exclude lists, cookie lists, etc. This is not mere preference; it really is harder for me to use. This font is hard on my eyes. I hate it. In this respect, usability, for me, has most definitely suffered.
  9. No one is asking for highly detailed inner workings! My own question--the same as what I understand the OP was after--is just a basic, high-level description. The same sort of thing, by the way, that SHOULD be in the documentation already! The answer I got from Piriform was as follows, and it is entirely satisfactory to me: The hilarious thing is that I've already switched to a competing product, because I just cannot wait days for Defraggler to defrag my HDDs. By the way, what I can only assume is another angry, rude reply from that other person (not you, mta) ... was not read by me, and never will be. Nor will I be checking back on this thread--EVER.
  10. This was not an "idle" (i.e. worthless) question. It's a valid question that deserves an answer--an answer, by the way, that should already be documented. And I'm tired of people acting like developers are god-like individuals who cannot possibly be expected to act remotely human, and customers are worthless lowlives who should dare not expect even a fleeting moment of their divine attention. (This is coming from a former software engineer who is now an analyst. The best part of my job is helping my customers. But maybe I'm crazy or just not godly enough.) It is not obvious that optimization would not perform a standard defrag, nor that they consider it safe. Developers are humans (strange but true) who make mistakes and odd design choices. Because I'm a paid customer, I've submitted a support request to find the answer to this question. I will probably reply to this thread with the answer I get.
  11. There is no additional risk in simultaneous defrags. As mta mentions, other defraggers do it, including the native one. I know inexplicable and bad things happen, but I've run simultaneous-defrag-capable software for years with no problems... Until upgrading to Windows 8. I can only assume that the reason Defraggler doesn't do it is because they don't want multiple partitions on the same physical disk being defragged simultaneously, but then again, if this was the case, they could easily prevent that from happening. I see no reason not to allow simultaneious defrags of drives on different physical drives. I have two separate 4-TB disks that are each ~1/2 full, and I've never used a third-party defragger on them. As it turns out, the native defragger totally sucks, and it's taking eons for the first one to finish. It's aggravatingly stupid that I have to wait for it to finish before I start defragging a totally separate disk. No, Defraggler does not allow multiple instances of itself to be run, so that's no workaround (without sandboxing or some other nuttery that I'm not going to engage in).
  12. I find it strange that I cannot defragment multiple drives at the same time. I have 4 physically distinct drives, and a system vastly more than capable enough of handling any overhead that Defraggler will dish out. Why must I defragment my drives serially? Please consider making it possible to defragment in parallel, even if it not the default, and even if it requires a manual registry/INI hack.
  13. You don't need to make it big or read, because I read what people post. It's not a question of how Windows optimizes SSDs, nor whether Defraggler uses the Windows APIs. We know the answers to these questions. It's possible for Defraggler to use the defrag APIs on an SSD, and perform a standard defrag. But is it running a standard defrag API on SSDs? Or is it using an SSD-oriented API, presumably doing a TRIM? Once more, this is the question--what is it doing? Since Defraggler has separate "defrag" and "optimize" functions for SSDs, it seems to me that "optimize" has to be doing a TRIM... But again, I'd like confirmation. Incidentally, when I first adopted Win8 almost a year ago, it had a bug whereby my SSD would be defragmented as if it were a standard HDD. They fixed that bug.
  14. I've created many tasks to skip UAC. I am running Win8.1, but I think it's very similar for Win7. Create a task and select "Run with highest privileges". I always change "Configure for" to my OS version, because for some stupid reason, it defaults to ancient versions. It probably doesn't matter for most tasks, though. Under the Settings tab of the "Create Task" window, I uncheck the option to "Stop the task if it runs longer than" because I don't want my process killed in the event I run it and then leave it running. Of course, on the Actions tab, you have to supply the path and any parameters. Give the task a sensible name, then create a shortcut to it with a path similar to the following: %SystemRoot%\System32\schtasks.exe /run /tn "\Skip UAC\My Process Skip UAC" Where "\Skip UAC\" is any path under the "Task Scheduler Library" (I put all mine under a "Skip UAC" folder), and of course "My Process Skip UAC" is the name of the task itself.
  15. Two replies, and no one seems to have bothered to actually read the main question. I would also like to know the answer, and I don't see it anywhere else on the site. Here is the question again, a bit harder to ignore, and spelling corrected*: What does Piriform's 'Optimization' do to a SSD? I also have an SSD, and Defraggler clearly shows a different function for SSD drives than it does for mechanical disk drives. On the latter, it offers "Defrag" and "Quick Defrag" options. On SSD drives, it offers "Defrag", "Quick Defrag", and an "Optimize" function, which is the default. I'm guessing that "Optimize" forces a trim command to be sent, but I don't like guessing. * Just kidding.
  16. WinXP Pro SP3 VLC Media Player 1.1.4 CCleaner 2.36.1233 I have VLC installed to "C:\Program Files\VLC". VLC Media Player does not appear anywhere in CCleaner.
  17. An obvious suggestion, but I don't see it listed here, and I was surprised that Recuva 1.04 doesn't do it already. There aren't many options, but it would still be nice for Recuva to remember what few there are.
  • Create New...