TechHarmony
-
Posts
51 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by TechHarmony
-
-
Thx for the info.
"ccleaner.exe /export [folder path]" is especially helpful for me.
-
I've been exploring issues surrounding the Windows Log files and realized that I should make a formal suggestion request for this: Please have CCleaner default to NOT Remove ("clean") the Windows Log Files.
This is one of the settings that I always turn OFF/Un-tick on every CCleaner setup, both for my own machines and for the machines that I work on. (and have been un-selecting/un-tickmarking this option for years.)
(ref another post, I agree with 'taxshack' that CCleaner should not, by default, ever remove Windows Log files.)
With relatively few exceptions these files take very little space (one exception being Datastore.edb, which is 100 MB in my machine, and which I seems to be already excluded by CCleaner).
And, in my opinion as an independent tech support worker, these Windows log files should be retained in order to know what Windows components have been updated on the machine.
I WISH WISH WISH that the default was to LEAVE THEM ALONE.
FYI, on my machine, where I have manually removed some of the more ancient windows updates and their corresponding log files, the CCleaner Analyze results shows:
System - Windows Log Files 24,366 KB 111 files
These are 24 MB that I am glad to have on the machine.
I also un-tick the cleaning/removal of the Memory Dumps, as i use them to help track down causes of Blue Screens. I think they should default to un-tick as well, but some may see this as a more specialized case.
Thank you for considering.
-
(I realize this may be too late for original poster, but still relevant)
I found this MVP page with information about Windows Updates History: http://www.winvistat...ed-t270704.html
One thing that page suggested, is that some AV scanners occasionally corrupt the Datastore.edb and related Windows Update History file(s). So CCleaner is not the only possible 'culprit' if your Windows Update history content goes missing.
Also, I agree with 'taxshack' that CCleaner should not, by default, ever remove Windows Log files.
With few exceptions (one being the Datastore.edb, which is 100 MB in my machine) these files take very little space.
And, in my opinion as an independent tech support worker, these files should be retained in order to know what Windows components have been updated on the machine.
So for me on my machine and the machines I work on I ALWAYS un-tick the Cleaner/System/Windows Log Files.
And I WISH WISH WISH that the default was to LEAVE THEM ALONE.
I guess I need to post this as a new/separate entry in the Suggestion sub forum...
-
I have similar observation but it is expected, at least in my case. I will explain.
I also use Firefox (FF) as my main browser, and have CC using the 24-hour requirement before deleting temp file.
When I go to my temp directory , it usually has many MBs of temporary BMP files that seem to come from the way Firefox works with some web site page images. So I typically delete these myself on a daily basis when I start up my machine.
Usually saves me anywhere from 10 to 100 MB+.
Just depends on where FF was...
If you use your Windows Explorer/whatever file manager to examine your Temp directory (s) you might find a bunch of stuff there, some of which may be just falling frequently into that category of not-really-needed,-but-not-yet-24-hours-old.
Perhaps this applies to your situation.
I do not consider this to be a bug or flaw in CCleaner.
-
Just FYI,
In 'olden days' of XP and low amounts of RAM, the recommendation was usually to set Pagefile to 1.0 or 1.5x of your system RAM.
So if you had 512 MB RAM, your pagefile would ideally be 512 + 256 = 768 MB. But that was for older systems.
And this guideline still applies, if you have an older XP system with a limited amount of RAM.
also, having a fixed size (at the larger side of your range) -- and preferably contiguous -- Pagefile definitely helps on such XP limited RAM systems.
But one question I have, seeing as I have XP, with 2GB RAM and 2GB Page file,
I thought there were some programs that needed a pagefile, even if you had plenty of RAM. Not so much for performance enhancement, but because program was designed such that it needed some pagefile space. Maybe I am remembering from too far back.
Anyway, because of this, I never set and do not recommend folks to have 0 Pagefile size, at least with standard HDs.
But maybe this does not apply for newest systems with SSD. yes? no?
-
I would like to have a Defraggler feature that would allow me to specify to move certain files and/or folders to the back end (slower zone) of the HD.
For example, I'd like to move the Restore Point files, PC Health folder, SoftwareDistribution folder, and other seldom used files & folders to be placed at back of drive, so that they don't just by chance, end up taking valuable space in the prime 'hot' disk access zone.
This would be somewhat in the same fashion as there is the Exclude list option, and also similar to current option to 'Move large files to end of drive-- but this would be a move certain files/folders but without regard to their size.
This is probably a 'medium' level request. Not an emergency and currently does not impair the product function.
But would be a nice 'extra' to have, to improve the general performance of my primary system disk.
Thanks.
[ Defraggler 2.07.346, Windows XP Pro SP3 ]
-
I had just typed a very similar suggestion into my suggestions-file and was going to post this myself.
Yes, please add some sort of (sounds weird) exception-to-the-exclusions ability
Here is how I had typed my suggestion request (and screen snapped an example):
I have created a general exclusion of *.png and *.jpg, as most of the time I really don't care if those files are fragmented a bit or not. As well as some other exclusions.
However, there are some occasions when I wish to defrag a few, or a folder of excluded files.
What I would like is to be able to select those files in the normal FileList view, highlight or checkmark them and just click the Defrag button to get them defragmented.
Currently, with them in my exclusion list, Defraggler just --unhelpfully-- tells me: "All selected files have been excluded from the defragmentation." (which I already know I have them in the list, but I really DO want to defrag them this time...
)So some kind of Force-Defrag or Defrag-Anyway-even-though-they-are-in-my-exclude-list button feature would be SUPER!
Thanks.
[ Defragler 2.07.346 / Windows XP Pro SP3 ]
-
HI,
I am using Defraggler v2.7.0.346. [Windows XP Pro SP3, 2 GB RAM, 2 int HD: 160G + 60G. Various ext HD.]
I find that using the Explorer right-click to analyze and defragment a folder is not designed well.
If I right click a folder, I can choose to Check Fragmentation, or to Defragment.
If I choose Check Fragmentation, when it finishes and tells me the files fragmented, I no longer have a way to tell it to actually defragment. Only choice is to 'Close' or 'Open Defraggler'.
If I open Defraggler, I must go through the entire drive to analyze and choose what to do next.
But what I really want is to defragment the folder I just checked.
To do that, I must "Close" the information window. Now go back to folder in Explorer, and right-click the folder again and this time choose 'Defragment'.
This is NOT a good way to do it.
There should be a THIRD BUTTON choice to DEFRAGMENT this NOW.
(obviously, not in all caps...
)sample of the resulting Check Fragmentation (analyze) right-click choice attached (with my text notes, now redundant). The folder I am testing in this example is on the primary C HD, if that makes any difference.
Thank you.
It really is a nice and useful program for the most part.
-
Just a bit more info, FWIW [For what it's worth]
The automatic setting of System Restore points is, as pointed out, limited by the amount of space the computer has been set for. I have seen some systems with as little as 5% allocated, some with as much as 20%.
When this protected (and hidden as 'System Volume Information' in the Explorer directory list) space gets filled up with Windows automatic Restore Points, it will deleted/remove the oldest one(s) in order to make room for the new one to be created. So it is a rolling history. It does not count days, per se, but keeps only as many of the most recent as its allocated space allows. And it will generally create one per day, or per startup. And some program updates and installs will force a Restore Point.
Re. suggestion to use ERUNT - Yes, I also recommend this, especially for Windows XP users.
But, as the ERUNT docs point out, because of differences in Vista/W7, you have to lower the UAC protection level to get ERUNT to work properly. See their FAQ for details ERUNT FAQ link.
So the end point from me is:
A) if you have enough free hard drive space, increase your Restore Point storage to some amount which gives you the length of history you wish. Make small changes only and then check. And in general, do not allocate more than 20%.
B ) Note that you should always be maintaining at least about 15% free disk space. So if your Restore Point storage is small because you have too little hard drive free space, Best to move some user data files off and create more free space.
C) note that, once the old points have rolled off, they really are gone.
D) unless you are a technically knowledgeable user, there may be value in keeping UAC at its default middle value. As turning it off defeats the protection that Microsoft believes you need. You have to make your own choice on that one.
Hope this helps. Admittedly, Restore Point discussion is a bit arcane, especially for the non technical.
-
Can you update to the 2.03 version & see if the issue still exists?
Hi,
I have updated to Defraggler 2.03.282.
It does now seem to be marginally faster, but it is still slower when running on my external USB2 Lacie Quadra Samsung 1TB than it is when defragging my external USB2 Seagate Freeagent 640GB.
(Note if it was not clear before, these are both 3.5" full size, 7200 rpm drives in wall-powered external cases using certified USB2 'HighSpeed' cables to plug into the mobo USB ports on the back of my Sony Vaio minitower.)
Some improvement.
But still noticeably slower than my other external drive.
I will try to get some time to plug in and test my portable (2.5") drives and see if there is any variability there. Though, none of them are larger than 500 GB capacity, so I am not expecting to notice anything other than fact that 2.5" 5400 rpm portable drives will probably be slower than my full size drives.
Thanks.
P.S. What I have now gotten into the habit of doing is to only defrag the items I consider 'high importance'. That is, the "[folder]" directory entries, so that windows can find and access files fast, and to defrag the files that I access most frequently, and the most used program and program support files. I am thinking that it is less important to defrag every little file that I might only look at once a month. As long as there is lots of GB of free space, that is...
-
Hi john, thanks for the reply.
When I got the LaCie external 1TB, I used either the LaCie Setup Assistant or Windows to format to standard NTFS. The drive requires either one or the other before first use.
In any event, it is using standard Windows NTFS parameters of 4K sectors.
And I compared the values to my external Seagate FreeAgent and both seem the same (listed below).
So at this point, it seems to be physical volume size of 1TB, or else Defraggler does not like the Samsung branded disk, but I think that is not likely relevant.
I have one other LaCie Quadra, but it is formatted to HFS+ for my Mac, and so would not be good to have Defraggler try to optimize it, as I think that Defraggler probably does not know about the Macintosh way of using two physical file 'forks' for each logical file (the standard format for Mac OS Extended/HFS+ hard drives).
Details on formats of my two primary external HDs.
Though, as I noted, my file copy speeds, as reported to me by TeraCopy show that the LaCie copies files slightly faster than the Seagate. EG: file writes to Lacie at 17-22 MBps over USB, and file writes to Seagate at 15-20 MBps over USB. on average.
While the Seagate Defragglering is fast, and the Lacie Defragglering slow.
So cannot fault the drive transfer speed as culprit in slow Defraggler defragmenting.
---info as reported by Easus Partition Master 5.5.1---
LaCie Quadra 1TB NTFS - Samsung HD103SI 1000.2GB
1 volume partition
Total Physical sectors 953867.2 MB / 931.51 GB
Bytes per sector 512
Bytes per cluster 4096 (4K) this is the NTFS default
First MFT Cluster 786432
File Record size 1024
NTFS Version 3.01
262 GB Used, 669 GB Unused
------------------
FreeAgent 640 NTFS - Seagate ST3640323AS 640.1 GB
1 volume partition
Total Physical sectors 610477.8 MB / 596.17 GB
Bytes per sector 512
Bytes per cluster 4096 (4K) this is the NTFS default
First MFT Cluster 786432
File Record size 1024
NTFS Version 3.01
487 GB Used, 108 GB Unused
--------------------------------------------
-
just fyi,
true that 30 hours is way too long.
in my experience, Defraggler (v2.0.2) is fast on all my internal and external disks, EXCEPT for my 1 TB external USB.
It is about 3 or 4 times (or more) slower on it than any other of my disks -- all my other HD drives are less than 1TB.
So my guess is that Defraggler is slow on 1 TB sized disks.
There might well be some other factors, but that seems to be the main differentiator in my experience.
I have posted a separate help topic on this, but so far, no answer back from anyone.
-
I have encountered a rather strange issue.
Defraggler 2.02.253 is slow on one drive (only), good otherwise on other drives.
I have several drives on my Windows XP Pro SP3 system:
two internal: Seagate 160GB main, Samsung 60GB data;
two external USB: Seagate 640GB Freeagent, LaCie 1TB Quadra with Samsung HD103SI drive.
All are NTFS format, and are "Basic" and "Healthy" in Windows Computer Mgmt/Disk Mgmt.
And all are decent/good in the SMART reports from either HDDHealth or CrystalDiskInfo.
On the first three drives Defraggler works well and seems relatively zippy - on both the two internals and the Seagate USB external.
That is, to defragment a "[folder]" directory takes usually less than a second, to defrag a file of 50-100MB or so, takes a few seconds.
But on the LaCie External, (USB2 connection, Samsung mechanism), it takes a very long time for Defraggler. About 10-15 seconds per [folder] directory defrag, and perhaps 20 to 40 seconds for a single file that is in the 20-200 MB range.
The LaCie Samsung drive is 1 TB capacity, 27% used, thus 73% (685GB) free, I have run Windows Chkdsk/scandisk/Tools-error-checking on the drive regularly. Even ran the Defraggler error check with good report: "Verify complete. No major problems were detected."
And, other defraggers seem to operate at normal speed on it -- MyDefrag, AuslogicDefrag. It is just that Defraggler runs slowly on it.
Compression and Indexing and Quotas are Disabled on the LaCie, so no slowness from those.
Note that file transfers, reads, writes seem to operate at expected speeds on the LaCie. That is, using Teracopy (or Windows) I get same or better speeds than on my external Seagate 640. So the drive spinning and data transfer seem OK. It is just Defraggler which is so very sloooooooooow on that drive.
Any thoughts on why that might be so?
Thx.
-
Hi,
Was running the new version of Speccy, v1.04, and was reminded by the constant 'kerchunking' noise from my non-operational floppy disk drive, that for whatever reason, Speccy keeps testing, checking the drive about every 3 to 5 seconds. It does stop the kerchunking once I quit Speccy.
It may be because this is an older machine, and the floppy stopped functioning a long while back - perhaps it is looking for a valid return state code?
May I suggest that, at least for floppy drive, if it does not get a satisfactory status code after x number of tries, it be allowed to give up, so that it doesn't keep kerchunking the drive? (maybe after 5 or 10 tries maximum)
Not a show stopper, just a suggestion for future release.
FYI: Windows XP SP3, Sony Vaio PCV RS 530G, 2 GB RAM.
Thank you.
-
Hi,
Thank you for your Speccy and other products.
I would like to suggest that you use a different name form than current for your portable products.
Currently, all your portable app versions have "setup" in the file name - yet none of the portables are truly Microsoft Windows style 'setup' installers.
So rather than calling them "setup" files, I would like to suggest a new name form, perhaps some sort of 'port' or 'portable' or other name part which is more accurate of what the zip file contents are - a folder containing the instantly runnable, stand-alone exe (and whatever support files needed).
Example 1, the Speccy portable is called: "spsetup104.zip". Yet, it is not a Microsoft 'setup' program - it is a self-running exe in a folder, zipped.
Same for your other apps -- example 2: Recuva portable is called "rcsetup138.zip", but again, it is not a setup app. Which in the case of Recuva it is very disconcerting to see "setup", as if you are trying to recover lost files, you definitely don't want to be running a 'setup' installer which will potentially overwrite data files.
I know it is just a little thing, but since I often want to get the portable version to put onto my flash drive, I am periodically reminded that the names are just not right for what they are (since they do not run installer setup processes). (So I end up posting it here, in Speccy topic, but it applies as well to Recuva, Ccleaner and Defraggler.)
Thank you.
Again, great tools and helper apps from you folks.
-
Running Speccy 1.03 (162) new today (Jul 15), Windows XP SP3, Vaio minitower:
Speccy does not show my external 640 GB HD Seagate Freeagent Desk in the Hard Drives list. It does show my two internal HD, and my external Firewire connected 500 GB Maxtor, but does not show the Seagate 640.
When I look under USB peripherals, below the mouse, below my Kingston Flash drive, there is listed the 640 GB Seagate external HD.
While it is good that it shows up somewhere,
SUGGESTION: is it possible to have external USB Hard Drive display in the Hard Drives section, since that is what it really is? even though it is connected via USB cable. Note that Windows Explorer considers it a Hard Drive, not a removable storage device.
P.S.:
When the ext (USB attached) Hard Drive is shown only in the USB peripherals list, it also does not reveal any information about the size of the HD, nor its drive (Seagate etc) model number. Another reason why it would be better to display in the Hard Drives section.
Just a suggestion to make the Speccy info more immediately useful, especially to people who are less inclined to scroll through a list of USB specs looking for a hard drive.
Thank you.
-
Love the addition of Compact Databases in Firefox added to the 2.2x, 2.3x series.
I'd like to suggest to show a new line on the 'Cleaning Complete' status display to show the before and after sizes and space saved when the Compact Databases of Firefox is run.
That way, we (I) can see how effective it is, and sort of keep track of the size saved vs time used info.
Thanks!
-
Please put your bug reports and suggestions for Speccy here. Thanks - MrG
Thank you for what looks promising new product.
I have just taken a quick whirl through Speccy v1.0.0.57. Running on Sony Vaio minitower Windows XP SP3.
A few suggestions/ideas:
1) please allow for a dark text on light (or light-ish) background. Having spent too many years on CRTs with only white, green or yellow text, my eyes seem to not like the current fad of light letters on dark background. I will say though, that your light letters on dark gray is less strenuous than those apps or sites that go for total black background. But my preference is for, like the forum pages here, dark text on light-ish background. Maybe a user preference for one or t'other?
2) I would suggest to put the memory type into the summary page. So instead of "2.0GB Micron Technology Single Channel DDR @ 200MHz (3-3-3-8)" which is not really that useful to me from a quick look point of view, and rather,
Summarize it as: "2.0 GB DDR PC3200" or "2 x 1 GB DDR PC3200". Since memory purchase is usually by the type and spec# (DDR, PC3200) and not so much by the MHz or GHz speed or cycle/latencyrating.
* the one interesting tidbit I found from this is that one of my DIMMs is from Micron, which I knew, but the other is from 'Melco'. And here I thought I had two both from Micron...
3) As suggested by others, a way to export in human readable form, either text, rtf or html would be WONDERFUL.
For me, with that kind of export as a new feature, Speccy may have a chance to take over from my use of Belarc Advisor, which has a nice html formatted export.
And while it is true that there are a number of system info tools, I've found that some are just too much detail (for me), and some (like my experience with SIW) are too heavy on the computer resources, sometimes crashing on older, less capable machines.
So I had settled on Belarc since it provided decent info and good output I could refer back to.
Speccy looks to provide a good bit MORE tech info than Belarc, yet without going into the TMI (too-much-information) zone.
SO in my mind, Speccy is on a good path of balance.
As always, my suggestions are just my opinion, as a longtime computer user and person doing technical support off and on over the years. Thanks again. Best,
-
THanks for the info.
And I did a bit of experimenting and saw that one could use the Options/Settings/Language to select a different language after time of installation. So that explains to me why they are all installed.
I should probably have looked a bit more ...
Ahh, OK, thank you for pointing out the numbers come from a microsoft list...
Having worked for many big organizations, some of which developed their own internal lists, and then working in international data exchange I have come to the opinion (yes, I admit it is just my opinion), that in the long run, an ISO type of standardized coding will generally be more widely embraced.
But totally understandable that a windows app would use the MS lists...
Thanks for the info update. Cheers.
-
Thank you for the info.
I too try to delete the unused language files from apps .
I would like to suggest to Piriform to either:
[a] publish and inlclude a list of what numbered file corresponds to what language, so that folks could remove the unused ones or ,
use standard ISO abbreviations for country coding so that we have a chance of identifying.
And if it is true that only the language chosen during install is installed to the interface, then what purpose is served by having all language files written to that directory?
Thank you.
-
HI,
(first, Thank you for the CCleaner program tool)
I just discovered, to my {chagrin|consternation|disappointment}, that along with the expected temporary and work files, CCleaner also has been deleting almost all of my Avira Antivir scan results log files.
This removal of Antivirus scan result logs is definitely NOT a recommended procedure in my IT best-practices book (well, its not so much a physical book per-se...
.I was trying to get some results of false positives over time to forward to the vendor (Avira Antivir). That is when I discovered that I only have 24 hours of log files in my c:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\Avira|AntiVir Desktop\LOGFILES directory (it uses the caps...)
Ccleaner does keep the .avl files, which is why I had not noticed the log files missing... since when I look inside Avira application, it does show the dates and times and summary numbers for each scan and update event. So I figured all was OK. But when I click on the item to display the detail report - nothing, no actual details on what was found except for within last 24 hours, because the actual report file (xxxxxxx.log) files are gone!
PLEASE Change default behavior to PRESERVE Antivirus log files. Or at least, some way to clearly show the user some date range, or change the default to 30 days or older, rather than the 1 (or 2) days age it now uses as cut-off.
Now that I have discovered this unwanted CCleaner default behavior, I have Unchecked the Antivir Desktop from the Cleaner/Applicatinos/Utilities group. But obviously, that does not get back any of the historical files I wanted to forward to Avira.
Plus, I now need to uncheck the antivirus clean box from the other folks computers whom I have blithely set up ccleaner on in my "helpfulness."
Just FYI, I already uncheck browser cookies, history and form values, since I want that info preserved,
PS, I looked at some other related posts, and saw one purporting to clean only safe antivir log files, but it looks like it does even MORE drastic cleaning, purging just about everything... (maybe I just don't understand your scripting language, but looks like it specifies to delete even more than current default. <forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=21026&hl=antivir>).
Thank you.
-
HI, Thanks for CCleaner!
(1) I found a minor bug in the CCleaner 2.19.901 version, Tools / System Restore list.
It lists the restore points by date and time, but the time seems to be by numeric order only, without regard to the AM or PM. THus, in my list, 5/7/2009 at 4:28:23 PM comes before 5/7/2009 at 7:49:38 AM. Whereas, the 4:28 PM point should come after the 7:49 AM point.
(2) Oh, one more on this.
I tried removing one of the restore points via CCleaner 2.19.900 (prior version), because my Antivir reported a virus in one of the files (which individual file I let it delete). And after I used CCleaner to remove that restore point, my folder for System Volume Information still listed that particular RPxx folder as existing. So I am not sure that the CC remove of a particular restore point is working. And I was not eager to retest on another RP until I had posted about it.
OTherwise, I love this new feature.
Thanks.
[sony Vaio RS530G minitower, Win XP Pro, SP3, 2.5 GB RAM]
-
HI, thank you for great tool.
I have noticed with CCleaner version 2.14.750 that it seems to not remember my save folder location.
I do not recall earlier versions failing to remember - they seemed to pop up the last-used location when the Registry Clean function asks if I want to make a backup of the changes before I commit to the fix.
But with v 2.14, when I save the pre-clean registry backup, it just always goes to My Documents, and does not remember the two folder levels down under that which I manually keep sending it to. (just fyi, that location is: \My Documents\Tech Backup, Log Files\Registry Backups).
Just wanted to let you know.
Not a critical issue, just something to check on at some point.
P.s.: Dell Vostro 200 minitower, Win XP Pro, SP3.
Thanks. Best.
-
Hi,
I have just been comparing results of running CCleaner (latest 2.00.495) vs. the relatively new MS Windows free online live safety Clean Up process. (the online free version of their new Live OneCare product).
File Clean Up Phase:
I run the MS Windows Live Online Safety Cleaning routine ("Clean up") and it says it finds 18.8 MB AFTER I have run the CCleaner. I did check and make sure that the Recycle Trash was empty before I started the Windows Clean up, so it is not that. I wonder what they found?
Unfortunately, they do not actually tell you what they found, only that stuff was found, stuff was compressed and now all clean. They do not say what. And even more weird, since they apparently compress those files, they don't tell you what name is or where they put them..... guess that is the MS way.
Registry Clean Phase:
THis one is probably tobe expected, as my guess is that every 'brand' of registry cleaner will find different results:
I ran CCleaner, two passes (my usual process, as a second pass often (not always) finds things that the errors discovered in first pass effectively 'hide' till they are cleaned out). I let it correct all in both passes -- about 55 items first pass, about 20 items second pass.
Then I ran the online Windows Live Safety Clean up, and it found 123 registry items to fix.
As above, they dont tell you what was wrong, its either do it all or exit out of both tempfiles and regclean process and do not let it clean anything.
Any comments about how the MS online cleaner finds so much after CCleaner runs?
Thank you. Great Program. I recommend it to all my PC friends.
)
Too few junk files (temp?) deleted
in CCleaner
Posted
Yes, I know, that is why I typed it that way.
Because, as I read and understand the ccleaner online documentation, the default is to not remove Temp files which are newer/younger than 48 hours. And so setting the '24 hours' makes it remove a little bit more, but nothing created within last 24 hours.
Are you indicating that perhaps I am understanding that wrong?
If so, a tooltip and/or explanation of what it actually means to set/tick or un-set/un-tick the Advanced/24hour option would help.