Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums


Experienced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About thm

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  1. thm

    Defragging the MFT

    Ah, well it appears that you have to explicitly name the metafiles in order for contig to do its work, e.g. .... contig $Mft Wildcards just do not seem to work with metafiles [here]. If you just type "config" on its own it will give you a list of metafiles that it can [supposedly] defrag, but I find that [with Vista] a number of them don't work. I knocked up a trivial batch script to use contig to defrag metafiles on a nominated drive [or drives], and have commented out those that appear not to work [access denied]. [Yes: I did run it in admin mode !] - thm
  2. I was recently most intrigued to see that Mark Russinovich has updated his "contig.exe" command line defragging tool to be able to defrag a number of metadata files, including the MFT. => See here: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/default.aspx Oddly enough, whilst this is mentioned [at the moment] on the Sysinternals home page, it isn't on contig's own webpage. Anyway, I downloaded it and tried it out, it did indeed defrag the MFT of one of my drives. I must admit, I always thought that this was infeasible [except possibly at boot time]. Anyway, I also
  3. thm

    Defraggler v1.16

    Good news re v1.16, but I note that v1.16 is not available yet on the alternative builds page [i like to put the Portable version on a USB Flash drive]. OK, I realise that now you have both 32 and 64 bit versions, you would need to distinguish these either within one archive or have separate archives for the portable version(s). Nevertheless, portable versions would be welcome (thanks) !
  4. ...I could be mistaken, but I think that the "problem" with the System Restore Files not being defragmented in Windows Vista is fundamentally a Vista issue, not an application issue. As I understand it, the access permissions on these files preclude them from being altered by defraggers. I don't know why Microsoft have done this, but I can hazard a guess at at least one of the reasons.... Their own Vista defragger will not normally defrag chunks of files bigger than 64MB, whereas System Restore files will typically be very much larger than this. I suppose in theory that one could cha
  5. ...Good news indeed, for those for whom 1.03.094 was slow [thanks due to MrRon &Piriform]. I am intrigued, though, that that version only appears to have been slow for some people [possibly a minority?] and not for others. I for one used this version on both a Pentium 4 machine with XP SP2 and a mere 40G disk, and an Athlon 64 x2 with Vista Home Premium and twin 280GB disks and found it to be just as fast as before, if not more so on both machines. So, now that a fix has been found, the problem must have been identified; was it something that can be explained on the forum [please
  6. thm

    Feature request

    ...there isn't really any point in defragging a USB Flash drive, since it doesn't improve the performance and can only wear it out more quickly, as Flash drives have a limited number of write cycles. The main reason for defragging a hard disk is to bring the data close together in order to minimise the latencies introduced by having to move the read/write head (known as "seek time"). But Flash drives are all solid state: there are no moving parts to move, hence no associated latencies, hence defragging won't improve performance. As it happens, most Flash drives use a technique
  7. ...Yes, I concur: this is one of the main reasons that I too favour "portable apps". However, the window positions, sizes etc. may well need to be set per machine basis anyway, and Defraggler defaults to English [which I presume is your first language], so the only [slightly] significant things to consider are the update options. I can easily live with that! But [also] yes: it is nice when a "portable" app means *zero* use of the registry for maintaining information. It just feels clean and fresh ! Long live the .ini !
  8. ...True, although the only information stored in the registry relates to window position/size etc., whether to check for updates and how often, and what language to use. Very little information, and nothing that I would lose any sleep over: it's hardly sensitive information !
  9. Thanks for new features, especially the scheduler: that will be useful to many [but I've yet to get it to work at all under Vista...] There is just one [simple?] change that I would like to see made, and that is with respect to the "Defrag progress window that is displayed when defragging files (as opposed to whole drives or folders). The problem with this window is that it "locks" the GUI, such that the only thing that one can do with Defraggler when this window is shown is to Pause or Stop the defrag. This can be frustrating because one cannot minimise the main Defraggler window u
  10. I certainly do have ideas! Even better, an explanation...It all depends upon how you use it. Defragging files with Defraggler is very quick, much quicker than most of the competition. But it can do much more than that: it can defrag folders and whole disks too, and rearrange them to consolidate the freespace. Now that *does* take a lot of time if your disk is well fragmented, as it implies moving vast quantities of data. Auslogics' Defragger *only* defrags files. That's it. And to be fair, that is all you need to do most of the time if you defrag reasonably often. Now, a few words
  11. @sb2k You certainly *do* have a problem there. I wish you the best of luck in trying to fix it, but it looks like you might be out of luck, given the lack of available support. But I do have some advice for the future: no doubt you will still need to use encryption (for your stated reasons), so why not use TrueCrypt ? [ http://www.truecrypt.org/ ] ...This is widely respected open source freeware, and can be used in a number of ways, for example... 1) You can encrypt the entire hard disk (as you did with Safeboot) 2) You could reserve some space on your hard drive for a vir
  12. ...well, when it's called portable, I think they just mean that it needs no installer. AFAIK all the "portable" versions still write to the registry. However, this is pretty minimal stuff (like window position etc.). As for the GUI mockups and suggestions, well yes; I recall quite a few good suggestions (including at least one from you) in the following threads:- V1.02.077 RC1 http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=16186 v1.02.078 RC2 http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=16319 Let's hope that they're not forgotten -thm
  13. Well spotted ! Tried this under XP Pro, with same results [as expected].
  14. I cannot see any reason why you would need to uninstall the old one first, but I ask the development team [or anyone else who may know better] to confirm/deny this. The reason I believe this is that the standard installer can actually be opened as an archive by 7-Zip, and if you do so, you will find inside the "defraggler.exe" and "df.exe" executables that are installed if/when you run the installer. These files are identical to the "portable" version that Piriform have packaged here... http://www.defraggler.com/download/builds/downloading-zip So...given that these are identical, I do no
  15. Hmm. Thanks for that. Presumable then, the reg files in the attached zip file could be used to enable or disable the automatic background updates feature... Updates.zip Updates.zip
  • Create New...