Alan_B

Actually the screenshot shows an analysis of 167.1 MB Why was only 18 MB cleaned. Since you have not updated CCleaner for 5 months there must be a change in your system. Perhaps a new anti-malware system that interferes with CCleaner actions Perhaps a virus infection that is restricting performance - and also doing far worse things than slowing down CCleaner.

I always use M/S/ articles as an ultimate last resort, they only reveal to me my ignorance and leave me more confused than when I started. I think one or more partitions can occupy a single physical drive, and each partition is allocated exclusive use of contiguous sectors which are reserved for it. Windows Disk Management under Windows 7 Ultimate + SP1, will allow me to select unallocated space on a physical drive and shows the options New Simple Volume New Spanned Volume New Striped Volume New Mirrored Volume New RAID-5 Volume Properties Help Only the 3 emphasised options are usable on my system. I think a Simple Volume is identical to a partition, and a partition is identical to a Simple Volume. The 4 greyed out things do something special, and I think include the ability for an individual volume to span multiple physical drives for monstrously large capacity. My very first P.C. had a single 20 MB HDD and the ability for a daily BSOD. So far as I am concerned a Simple Volume is more than large enough for Windows to fumble with and drop.

I do not know if CCleaner can deal with 4 TB capacity drives, or anything but FAT32 or NTFS. Although unlikely, perhaps there may be something special about your system that could prevent success. Is your Outboard drive formatted FAT32 or NTFS, or something else that Linux uses. How is it connected USB2 / USB3 / eSATA etc. What size is it. It may be worth testing your outboard drive with Recuva. Simply delete a few files and test whether Recuva can detect and recover them. This will prove some compatibility between your system and the drive. Then you can decide whether to format or Overwrite/Erase etc. After which you can use Recuva to observe what secrets can be discovered by the person who receives your drive, and if it finds anything you can reconsider and try again. It is quite easy to recover files that had been Single Pass OverWritten/Wiped / Erased from ancient Winchester drives, and for that reason Guttman devised many different multi-pass procedures. More recent drives in this century are far more difficult for file recovery, hence multi-pass is less important, but CCleaner provides a Guttman subset of 1, 3, 7, and 35 pass for those who fear loss of privacy. A quick format removes no data and Recuva would have a very high success rate at recovery. A Full Format will probably achieve the equivalent of a single pass overwrite.

I only answered the question on potential benefit. I have far more important things than Google Glass to spend $1500 on. I agree with you. I would not like to see a Google Glass wearer approaching me. He might know more than my name, he could know whether to :- mug me for the cash I carry; or kidnap me for ransom.

How about an instant image database search and display on the H.U.D. overlay of the name of the person who has just come round the corner. Google Glass would have been so useful to me last week, when I walked down the road from my home and saw a young lady come around the corner towards me. She got within 4 yards of me before I realised that was my daughter walking home.

If Apple can obtain a patent for round corners on a Tablet, Then sure as God made little apples, Microsoft will patent information that is provided by the BIOS

Sorry. I take note of the topic starter. But after several weeks I forget all the individual posts on previous pages.

It would be exceptionally wasteful for the computer to be supplied with 8 GB of RAM in a 32 bit system. Even Windows 7 could not use the top half. You have a friend here that is willing to find a good home for your spare RAM :D Is it possible that you were supplied with 64 bit hardware and possibly 64 bit Windows 7, but for some reason your installed Windows XP is only 32 bit ?

I have just tested v1.44 and recovered a file that was presented as being last modified 16/02/2013 21:38 Windows Explorer shows the recovered file as having the file properties Created ‎16 ‎February ‎2013, ‏‎21:38:40 Modified ‎16 ‎February ‎2013, ‏‎21:38:40 Accessed 16 ‎March ‎2013, ‏‎21:58:11 It is probable that the latest version of Recuva will also force Windows to use the original time stamps on the restored file and not the current date and time.

I believe the original IBM PC and its Basic Input Output System (BIOS) and M.S. DOS preceded Linux Distros. I would guess that the BIOS might have been given initial authority of the Numlock status so that user configuration changes could benefit :- subsequent control of other BIOS configurations and also BOOT Devices selection; and Operating System (DOS and subsequently Windows) could start-up in a BIOS configurable state. I believe UNIX preceded the IBM PC and knew nothing of the IBM BIOS and does not run on IBM PC's, and Microsoft has taken its best ideas from UNIX and Open Source in general, and Linux distros originate from UNIX but adapted to run on IBM PC's and its descendants. Perhaps Linux Distros have yet to recognise the benefit of using the Numlock status as predefined by the BIOS. - or perhaps they fear that Bill Gates has a legal team waiting to pounce with a raft of ancient/unknown patents if they do. http://arstechnica.c...x-based-device/ http://www.geek.com/...patent-2009073/

I agree that Win 7 is still updated as before, but it occurred to me that "feature creep" when Win 8 and IE 10 were developed, might have resulted in the expectation of the need for "Roaming folder of the users/app data", and perhaps IE 10 prepares the ground even if it takes no part in the installation of Flash.

Many people do not have a problem. If half a dozen people posted system specifications then common factors might become obvious for the developers to investigate, e.g. :- Operating System; x86 / x64; System Drive / Secondary Drive / External drive; Make of HDD. Hint, Hint

I believe IE 10 was created for Windows 8 which has adopted FLASH as something that Microsoft will administer. Perhaps IE 10 and FLASH became deeply integrated. When Windows 7 users accepted IE 10 they may have accepted a Trojan Horse that is primed for FLASH updates - not from Adobe but via Microsoft Updates.

I would expect these ~*.doc files to be "Work In Progress" whilst Word is running, and upon closing Word they should be automatically deleted. Is it possible that Defraggler and Word were both running at the same time and Word lost sole control of these files hence they were not deleted ? I have a suspicion that Microsoft might have considered the possibility that a third party defragger might attempt to process ~*.doc files whilst Word was still running, and a VERY STRONG suspicion that they would have decided this was not their problem.

When it's released I will have hopes and fears. Only after Installation will I know. Before there was the Internet I learnt to count chickens after they were hatched

Read http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=37347 Every version is a full version.

If you did the recovery back to the video camera that would have corrupted many of the deleted files. If so be careful not to do that again. Those with more knowledge than I can help you further but they will probably want to know more about your version of Windows and the make of camera, and maybe more. You can wait for specific questions or save yourself some time by answering the above.

Before you had a new SSD I guess you may have been using Windows on an HDD. Any application that is "installed" when Windows runs on an HDD will not remain properly installed and configured when Windows is installed on the SSD. The chances are that even so Chrome may be working O.K. - but I would not take such chances when Shopping on the Internet or conducting banking transactions.

I found this feature on DF v2.11 and it remains on v2.13.670 (64 bit) I was disappointed by a limitation in v2.11 and it remains in v2.13 Basically it will only find files that are 613 bytes or bigger. I would really like to specify the name of a file and know if it exists - even if it is small enough to fit in the MFT - even if it is zero bytes. Please note that to search with defraggler you simply launch and select a partition. There is no need to Analyze or Defrag Then you click on Search TAB Then you tick TWO boxes "Filename contains:" "Include non-fragmented files" Then type the filename and click the Search BUTTON. My bug report is at http://forum.pirifor...showtopic=38192 You are welcome to "Like" it and bump it up. Alan

When CCleaner was installed it had no knowledge of, or authority over, Winapp2.ini, therefore that file would have been left within the parent folder. Even if you removed CCleaner by the official UN-installation mechanism and it had attempted to removed the parent folder, the presence of a file within the folder could well have prevented removal and WinApp2.ini would have survived. YES, it is safe for you to remove WinApp2.ini. This two year old version may now be conflicting with the latest CCleaner.exe. Things will NOT get better whilst this situation remains.

Do you use Winapp2.ini or any other enhancement ?

More feasible but far more wrong. Just because because a file was created a year ago when you installed an application does not mean the application will continue to run if you now delete the file. If an application DECIDES to CREATE a file that does not prove that it will notice if the file is deleted, but if it decides to READ the file it will notice and may malfunction after removal.

I agree that Nirsoft is better - if you want to time the boiling of an Egg SearchMyFies took 15 Seconds to search for CMD.EXE in partition C:\, and it reported the same 4 items that Locate32 reported. Defraggler is 6 times faster - it took 2.5 seconds to report the two GENUINE files that actually exist and consume Hard Drive space. I will however concede that it takes an extra 0.5 seconds to click on the Filename header to sort in name order so that both cmd.exe appear together between appcmd.exe.mui and cmd.exe.mui O.K. - it is 5 times faster. Defraggler walks where angels fear to tread I have just searched for "tracking.log" in partition C:\. The search was completed in two seconds, finding one instance within C:\System Volume Information\ SearchMyFiles scanned C:\ for 13 Seconds and found nothing at all - it could not penetrate Access Control Level exclusion. I accept that SearchMyFies has many more options that can be configured if you wish to spend the time optimising it, BUT for a quick detection Defraggler searches 6 times faster and does NOT repeat the lies of File Searchers such as SearchMyFiles that believe Hard Links are real files. I value truth, and would prefer to wait twice as long for a true fact rather than a comfortable fiction, and I am exuberant that in fact the truth comes 6 times faster than the peddling of Microsoft Fiction Regards Alan

I know for sure that Defraggler is intended to defragment ALL genuine files, and not some form of reparse point or Hard Link. Unless of course you know different Therefore when Locate32 or Windows Explorer or any other sort for File Finder can find on a path something that LOOKS like a file but is not seen by Defraggler I can only assume it to be some form of reparse point or Hard Link. Alan

I have investigated WinSXS some more and report my findings at http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=38203 I knew WinSXS was bad but now I am appalled. Some experts claim the real things are in WinSXS and the Hard Links are in System32 and SysWOW64. I find that infact Microsoft changed the rules with every executable that it created.