Jump to content


Experienced Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Alan_B

  1. A Quick format will NOT prevent Recuva from recovering all the files. I do not know how effective a slow format might be. Windows will NOT ALLOW its own partition C:\ to be Wiped or formatted
  2. Who doesn't check the bathwater to before the baby goes down to the sewers. To do otherwise is insanity.
  3. This may be applicable to both the topic and to Havoc's anomaly of whether a file being both present and absent. WARNING :- DO NOT TRUST WHAT YOU SEE ON NTFS. You may be looking at the effect of some sort of Reparse Point / Junction / Hard Link. It is a "smoke and mirrors" type of illusion. When you think you are deleting a redundant duplicate, you actually be deleting the only instance. Hopefully any "Duplicate File Finder", whether by Piriform or some other supplier, will be aware of Reparse Illusions and avoid deleting the real thing. If the developer gets it wrong - At least you get some more free space released It may be worth using Defarggler to ANALYZE - NOT Optimze, drive K:\ and on the Search TAB check "Include non-fragmented files" and "Filename Contains" and type the name of a file which appears to Windows Explorer to be on two paths. You may find that only one instance exists. Windows Explorer tells me that different sizes of CMD.EXE exist at C:\Windows\System32 and C:\Windows\SysWow64 Defraggler shows me that they exist at C:\Windows\System32 and C:\Windows\winsxs\wow64_microsoft-windowscommandprompt_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.17514_none_f387767e655cd5ab\ With FAT32 then "What You See You Got". You can use CMD.EXE to run this command for a quick list of Junctions and Symlinks on partition C:\ dir /AL /S C:\ This is good for showing you what Reparse Points etc. exist, and also allows you to create and delete them :- http://www.rekenwonder.com/linkmagic.htm Good alternative tools could be :- http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/ntfs_links_view.html and JUNCTION from http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896768 This has just spent 13 minutes analyzing my Windows 7 System C:\ partition. ListLinks downloaded from http://www.uwe-sieber.de/filetools_e.html It produced a 4 MByte report detailing all the phantoms, and this is the summary at the end :- summary * 66 reparse points: + 65 mount points: - 0 volume mount points - 65 directory junction points + 1 symbolic link + 0 of other types * 18659 hard link groups N.B. That massive infestation of "Hard Link Groups" is situated in C:\Windows\winsxs\ Regards Alan
  4. You have correctly read the advice "You may ignore these errors" which was given on a topic specific to Windows 2000, and which refers to a Service Pack 1 for Windows 2000. Advice for Win2000 is not safe for your WinXP, and their service packs are totally different animals. The only advice I can offer is that Disk Cleanup will CAUSE "Windows File Protection (WFP)" problems on XP, and require Installation Disks if it is allowed to compress system files. It happened to me and the only cure for me was to restore a Partition Image backup. It is bizarre that Microsoft expects users to trust their once in a life-time photos and documents to "Disk Cleanup", and yet Microsoft does not trust its own utility to avoid corrupting Windows System Files. Windows XP was pre-installed and I had no Disks, but I started with Acronis backups and then advanced to Macrium, hence I avoided the need to obtain Installation Disks.
  5. Either you are badly mistaken, or your version of CCleaner is broken. The Search button IS ALWAYS AVAILABLE if any one or more of the TOPMOST four boxes are checked. I NEVER told you to uncheck any of those. I suggested that you uncheck "Read Only","Hidden","System", which are grouped together in the Ignore section below the top four boxes.
  6. 24 different tests of all permutations/combinations is not needed. Did you try it with ALL the four boxes cleared.
  7. Actually hash checksums are a red herring in this situation. Expert informed opinion is that :- no one should assume that an apparently duplicate is really a duplicate and safe to delete unless the checksums are identical ; and CCleaner File Finder can be dangerous because it shows as identical files those which are actually different, because it does not yet included hash checksums. This is a TOTALLY different situation File Finder is NOT finding these files to be duplicate even though it does not reject on the basis of different checksums. There are several perfectly valid reasons for File Finder to ignore these duplicates :- 1) Your own settings - you have chosen to avoid considering files that are "Read Only" or "Hidden" or "System", in which case you need to cancel those "Ignore" settings. 2) "File Ownership" and "Access Control Levels", I am happy to use Cacls or iCacls (depending on version of Windows) to observe such characteristics, but NOT confident that the outcome of such powerful tools would be good for you - unless you enjoy having to reinstall Windows
  8. That was a VERY BAD move. Pulling a caravan is not going to help a car go faster up a hill. Similarly when using Winapp2.ini or any other enhancer is only giving CCleaner more work to do.
  9. Very good idea for the future. You may be able to shrink your existing partition down to 20 GB, leaving 480 GB unallocated Space remaining. Data will still be available for reading unless you wipe free space before shrinking, or create and then wipe another 480 GB partition.
  10. I remember it like yesterday. File Manager was so much more user friendly than Windows Explorer, I really miss it. With a single File Manager window I could easily and instantly drag-drop-copy a file from one folder INTO 3 other folders. I now need FOUR instances of Windows Explorer to do the same thing. The nearest approach with a single instance of Windows Explorer is to drop a file ONTO a small folder icon, which needs far greater precision with the mouse.
  11. Sorry, but your opinion is not, in my opinion, solid evidence that the files are identical. Screenshots of the properties of each of two alleged identical files will show if there is any difference in the quantity of bytes, and also show if they have different time stamps "Created" and "Modified". ALTERNATIVELY we could consider the possibility that two files are fully identical BUT, possibly related to being moved from a camera to your P.C. (possibly at different times and in different ways), they have different "ownership" properties and perhaps different ACL's (Access Control Levels), and that "File Finder" is thereby prohibited from accessing one or both files. To investigate this might involve the use of Cacls or iCacls, depending on your unknown version of Windows. If you do the wrong things with either Cacls or iCacls then you could lose your own access to those files, so I will take this no further.
  12. Above this topic is a BOLD button "Reply to this topic" Above that BOLD button is a faint button "Follow this Topic" which you can click and it then allows you to choose notification mode. File Finder ought to have checksum validation to minimize false positives. Perhaps version 4.13 now has checksum validation included but not yet documented, and now rejects files with dissimilar hashes. I refuse to consider 3 different files and 4 different settings - far too many combinations and permutations. Please post screenshots of the properties of just two files so that we can see the exact sizes and all three timestamps for each file, and also post the checksums for those two files. N.B. This is portable software and computes and compares hash checksums http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/hash_my_files.html
  13. I suggest that you employ the options in your browser to specify the download destination as %TEMP%\Downloads. Then CC will automatically clear them when the "24 hours ?" timeout expires.
  14. Alan_B

    My experience

    Personally I do not suggest you test an earlier version. I will back out now and leave advising to others with more experience of Defraggler.
  15. Welcome to the forum I suggest that you post the complete full length path and file name of two specific files which you consider to be duplicates. Also a screen shot showing the File Finder settings you have selected, and also is there anything specified under the EXCLUDE Tab.
  16. Alan_B

    My experience

    Welcome to the forum Please state versions of Windows and whether 32 bit or 64 bit. Also, what version of Defraggler, and do older versions have the same problems ?
  17. My memory may be wrong, BUT what I remember from when I used XP was that NotePad could not use RTF files, I but WordPad could.
  18. The difference between VISTA and XP are so tremendous, that If CCleaner thinks you have XP it will ATTEMPT to clean the paths that would be used in XP. Just possibly VISTA has faked some equivalence that may result in some relevant cleaning actions. Just possibly the VISTA faking will not mislead CCleaner and cause vital User Documents or essential System Files to be deleted, BUT I WOULD NOT BET my life or the well being of My Computer, I would revert to a previous CCleaner that knows it is on VISTA.
  19. Welcome to the forum. Most people do NOT want to overwrite but NEED to recover files. It would be needlessly cruel to make it so easy for the novice user to destroy all hope of ever recovering by presenting an open door into disaster. Not every user is calm and relaxed and reads all the documentation before launching new software. If the user makes a mistake and clicks Recover instead of Overwrite he loses a few seconds by aborting the Recovery Destination choice, With a mistaken Overwrite instead of Recover he loses a lifetime of precious images and documents. I would however be happy if there was an on-screen message to the user about how to enter an over-write mode. That would have saved me the effort of reading the documentation for myself when I wanted a clean start. Once I knew how to overwrite I was more than happy to right click.
  20. I recently restored a Macrium image backup of a 10 GB partition image to both a 10 GB partition and a 2 GB partition. (I had my reasons). All 800 MByte of the "Normal" files were accurately and identically restored to both. For the 2 GB partition, Macrium shifted all the "Normal" files into the 2 GB partition, and corrected the MFT records of the sector clusters that hold those files, but did NOT bother to correct MFT records for the DELETED files Recuva could detect in the MFT many previously deleted files in both partitions. Many of those in the 2 GB partition were obviously reported at their original locations outside of the 2 GB boundaries, and were classified as "Invalid clusters range". Perhaps your files were in a 1 TB partition on the 1 TB HDD, and now Recuva perceives this as a smaller partition (e.g. 900 MB), and it is unable to access the files which are in the last 100 MB. The solution to that might be a Quick Format to the maximum size of 1 TB, but that might be inappropriate and could cause further problems. A screenshot of Windows Disk Management would give a better idea of the situation and of what might be appropriate.
  21. Typical examples are BC92Ed01 and BC92Em01. Typically the sizes range from 35 bytes to 10 kByte. I have far more of these files than any other files in some partitions. I find them especially in an Acronis Disk Management User data folder which Acronis neglected to remove when I uninstalled it. They also appear in a portable CrystalDiskInfo application and they have identical date/time stamps to when I unzipped that application. They also appear in my Palemoon browser cache. Is this "Flotsam and Jetsam" that comes in with the Internet Regards Alan
  22. Thanks Dennis That worked for me. I needed some assurance of the right way to do things because a few years ago I used CCleaner to fully wipe a flash drive, and having selected the flash drive when I moved the mouse to launch the erase, the selection display shifted and the selected drive was out of sight (the display window was far too small. Unfortunately I trusted that CC had noted my selection - but instead it wiped the last partition on my hard drive. I am pleased to see that NOW when a drive is selected a corresponding box is ticked and that works. It was however a little disconcerting that after the warning was shown about permanent loss of files if I proceed, there was no reminder of what I had selected - or even more importantly - what CC thought I had selected Regards Alan
  23. I think you are wrong. When you need a file a fragment WILL NOT DO - you need all the fragments collected. When you a collection of files in a folder you are unlikely to be using them simultaneously. You will probably only listen to or watch one media file at a time. If you are copying the contents of a folder you will only be copying one file at a time.
  24. Very UNsafe. Something went wrong if you were not able to download from Piriform.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.