Alan_B

Versions of Firefox and Thunderbird might be useful to those who can help you.

That is little comfort to the O.C.D. (Obsessive Compulsive Defraggers)

I use the Portable variant which is the second item down on http://www.piriform....ccleaner/builds For each and ever application that I use I always prefer the "Portable" variant which I can place on a separate drive, and when Windows self-destructs (an ever present danger) it normally does not damage the other drives, so I only have to reinstate Windows and do not need to reload the Portable applications.

Strange that you understand Windows better than the Piriform developers, and know exactly what the Microsoft restrictions are, and the method that Piriform avoids them and why that method is flawed.

How slow is too slow ?

Sorry, but my eyes glaze over when there is far more white space than text.

Vitachick - Welcome to the forum. Please do not "hijack" a topic which belongs to someone else with your own problem - it only causes confusion - it even confuses moderators I suggest you start your own topic.

Yes, I shoukld have said 1440 * 900

But under the same Screen Resolution Derek also saw the 1440 * 9000 setting as something that could be enabled, but it was not something that was available under Desktop Properties. Windows is naturally perverse and mischievous, and I would consider it quite natural for it to allow both Dereck and yourself a screen Resolution of 1440 * 9000 and say it is recommended, and if either of you choose that setting then it may allow you to proceed with what Speccy considers to be Unsafe, BUT Windows may secretly know for itself that the setting is Unsafe, and the only hint it will give is that if you have NOT enabled an Unsafe option under Screen Resolution, then it will NOT be listed along with the safe options under Desktop Properties etc of "1600x900, 1280x768, and 1024x768"

How do you know that ? Are you reading that from the manufacturers literature claims, or is it promised to be valid when you follow Dereck's method and Do you see "1440x900" as another valid option ?

Have you even looked at your own screen shot ? I did before I ever posted, and even now I cannot see any evidence to support your new claim concerning even the "2 out of 8 items checked" All I can see in the screen shot is that you have checked 8 out of 9 Firefox Entries, and you have not even clicked "Analyze" or "Run Cleaner" to show what CCleaner proposes to do about your Firefox.. Perhaps you made the fundamental mistake of not looking at your first post. There is only a SINGLE screenshot under what was predicted to be SEVERAL by the heading "Attached Thumbnails"

I have now copied the contents of my Sony Flash drive F:\ to HDD W:\#Sony\. I deleted all files from F:\ I used Portable Teracopy 2.27 to copy from W:\#Sony\ to F:\ After copying all the files Teracopy spent 74 Seconds reading and computing the hash checksums of F:\ and comparing with what had been computed as it read from the source. It would seem that either the cache is NOT updated with the contents of Flash when Teracopy writes to the Flash, or that somehow TeraCopy is able to access the reality of the contents on Flash instead of the optimistic memory in the cache. . I feel a question to TeraCopy support is coming on, followed by a complaint / suggestion to Nirsoft. I wish you had told me that before I found out the hard way

You have no documentation for the PC from this builder. Would this builder happen to also be the repair man who is blaming CCleaner

I fully concur with dvdbane. It is YOUR responsibility to provide entries in the same format that everyone else uses. Sorry but this results in maximum effort and minimum benefit, and wins my vote for the most stupid file comparator of the year. The latest official Winapp2.ini commences with Your file commences with It is obvious that you have the modified the first "Beta" released version with 1362 entries intended for v4.00 CCleaner.exe and you are asking that we compare it with the latest version with 1534 entries. There are probably over 200 entries that have been added, and perhaps several dozen removed because CCleaner.exe now includes within built in rules, so you expect us to recognise which of 200 hundred differences are not from you ? I actually tried to see how bad diffchecker was. It was really bad. Your DiffChecker gave me a display list with consecutive line numbers from 1 through to 11917 I have never seen a more useless File comparator.

Windows has a very dangerous short-cut in the memory cache(s). I have just copied a 947 MB file from an HDD to an old and slow 948 MB Flash Drive, and it took 3 minutes to write. To confirm that the copy was good I then used HashMyFiles from Nirsoft to compute and compare the hash checksums of source and destination files. I was dismayed that the Flash Hash was computed as quickly as the HDD Hash - exactly 17 seconds - because I know Flash don't run that fast, so therefore Nirsoft was computing what the cache remembered as being written and sent through USB2 connection corruption to the possibly worn out Flash Drive. I Safely Removed the Flash drive to flush bad memories from the cache, and reinserted the Flash, and then HashMyFiles took a more believable 67 seconds to compute the hash, (which I am pleased to say matched the HDD checksum.) I am horrified at the thought that for years I have validated a file copy without first flushing the caches with a shut-down and reboot.

I would object because :- 1) It is far too late to tame the product if it has already deleted the critical system file ; 2) It is tampering with the evidence of who and what has sabotaged my system.

Unresolved because it is a bug with Firefox, since CCleaner works O.K. with chrome. You have not identified even one item that CCleaner should have removed.

Your complaint is without meaning - you have not specified in what way it cleans less. Are you judging by the quantity of files it deletes, or the total size that it deletes, or by your precise knowledge of what SHOULD be cleaned but is allowed to remain ? Is that really your Firefox version ? CCleaner has gone through several series, 3, 2, and probably 1. If you are using Winapp.ini that was developed for an earlier version of CCleaner there may be many incompatibilities with the latest version of CCleaner, Firefox is now changing. If you go to FileHippo you can get your earlier version of CCleaner and you may find that this also is cleaning less of Firefox than in the past.

Chkdsk has many options with various consequences. Any change that it implements may either help or hinder. It is the last thing that I would use if I had lost any files. Windows once booted up in stupid mode and lost all the partitions and files on my secondary HDD. The first thing I did was to use Windows Disk Management and select that HDD which still had the status "online", and I changed the status to "offline", and this write protected the contents of its sectors from any damage whilst I downloaded and tested unknown data recovery utilities which might have helped or hindered. I had to search for how to turn it "offline" and cannot now remember how. It may vary depending on your version of Windows. I understand that "offline" protection is NOT written to the drive itself but in the Windows Registry. This protection persists through restart / reboot. If you connect the drive to a different computer it will become "online" and unprotected. I was able to recover all my files.

This works for me on Windows 7 REM CD /D H:\UTILS\CCleaner\ START /WAIT CCLEANER64.EXE /DEBUG REM CCleaner has now closed and debug output file is ready for access It works for the option /DEBUG and for the other option switches also, The magic bit is probably keeping it simple without the complication of preceding the /WAIT with the complication of /d "c:\Program Files\CCleaner\" or in my special case of a different Portable path /d "H:\UTILS\CCleaner\" As a first step I started the script with CD /D H:\UTILS\CCleaner\ hence there was no need for the ugly /d "H:\UTILS\CCleaner\" Once my script was placed on the path H:\UTILS\CCleaner\ there was no need for CD /D H:\UTILS\CCleaner\ because the desktop shortcut already set up the path which held both the BAT script and the CCleaner64.exe

Welcome to the forum. You would not have installed Recuva if your system was working perfectly. I would suggest that either corruption of your Windows system or possibly malware caused the loss of two folders, and possibly the same cause then struck the entire drive whilst Recuva was innocently scanning. You refer to 13 GB that you are unable to copy. What else can you tell us about the 13 GB, e.g. Number of Files and Folders Names of Files and Folders Alan

Building your outhouse privy on-top of the roof is a good way to protect your toilet rolls from tramps in the woods

I think that /WAIT works but not the way you think This is different between XP and Windows 7, and no doubt Windows 8 is worse, but in Windows 7 I see two conditional IFs No - I do speak Geek but not well enough to explain that Additional - and possibly very relevant :- My memory of this is that if you launch Windows Task manager and select Processes TAB, when you run launch your BAT script then Processes will show a new instance of CMD.EXE which is executing your script commands, and the "/I" option will launch an extra instance of CMD.EXE to run CCleaner64.exe through to completion, and the first instance of CMD.EXE has completed its responsibility when it launches the second instance, so the first instance does not WAIT any longer - NB there is no way for the second instance to tell the first instance when it has finished. I think you will get different and more understandable results if you remove the "/I" option.

Another possibility might be START "C:\Program Files\CCleaner\CCleaner64.exe" /AUTO If that fails then launch CMD.EXE and invoke START /? That will probably show you two screens of extra options to try.

Welcome to the forum. That is totally false. They coexist but are fundamentally different. Windows 7 is Software, as is Linux. An SSD is Hardware, as is an HDD You can have Windows running in an SSD or an HDD You can have Linux running in an SSD or an HDD You can also have both multiple SSD's and HDD's in a computer. It is advisable to NOT defrag an SSD, only defrag an HDD. In your case HP now supply Windows 8 on 7200 rpm HDD, so it is unlikely that the earlier model would have an SSD. http://www8.hp.com/uk/en/products/desktops/product-detail.html?oid=5359021#!tab=models It will do absolutely no harm to launch Defraggler WITHOUT clicking on any buttons to Defrag or even Analyze., and then look at the top of the display which will list all the partition letters, and in the second column it should indicate either SSD or HDD. Do not Defrag any SSD