Alan_B
-
Posts
4,274 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Alan_B
-
-
Actually, MD5 checksums can be faked without too much trouble - something to do with collisions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MD5
I think that SHA1 is much more difficult to fake and that IS provided and built into the Digital Signature,
so nothing that you need to view and compare.
I am using the 64 bit Portable version of Recuva and when I right click for its properties,
there are 6 TABS, which include Digital Signatures and this has a DETAILS button which gives a pop-up,
which under General Details states "The digital signature is O.K."
and under advanced says SHA1.
Some time ago I used a Hex Editor to tweak the executable of some application,
and then it no longer said "The digital signature is O.K."
( I cannot remember what it did say - some things are not worth remembering .)
-
Pleased you found a solution
Alan
-
How about calling it :-
No more disastrous system killing "Windows Updates"
-
However a deep scan can only identify the first extent of a file (as subsequent extents have no file signatures). If the files are fragmented, as they most likely are in large files, then recovering a playable file is impossible.
That depends upon the Recovery software.
I had an HDD with several partitions that became Unallocated Space and RAW Data.
After trying many freeware utilities I tried Commercial recovery software costing $69 which recovered all my files.
These files included several 6 GB Macrium Partition Image backup files,
But the Macrium Application check-summed them and found they were all corrupt and unusable.
I continued looking for Freeware and eventually had perfect success with
http://www.lazesoft.com/download.html
Lazesoft Recovery Suite 3.5 Home Edition (Free)
The original 6 GB files each had about one dozen fragments or extents before they went missing.
Lazesoft found each fragment and joined them up in the correct order.
The Commercial software recovery attempts were each the same size as the Lazesoft successes,
so either the fragments were put together in the wrong order,
or more probably it started with the correct Logical Block Address for the first fragment,
and having saved that it "saved" the contents of all the sectors immediately afterwards, reading the contents of fragments of unrelated files.
I do not know how Lazesoft does its magic, but I am thankful for it.
It may work for you.
N.B.
Data Recovery => File Recovery is faster
Data Recovery => Partition Recovery is more thorough but takes longer.
Regards
Alan
P.S.
I see that until you pay for it R Studio is restricted to recovery of 64 kByte files,
and anything larger will ONLY be viewable in DEMO mode with no opportunity to discover that all the fragments in your 22 GB ISO's are out of sequence and unusable.
There is no cost and no restrictions on
Lazesoft Recovery Suite 3.5 Home Edition (Free)
-
Are you recovering to a different drive ?
If not then you risk over-writing what you wish to recover
-
A long time ago I unzipped CCleaner into the same folder,
but eventually it appeared that by retaining the existing INI file there were new default improvements in later versions that were NOT added to the INI,
hence I developed the habit of always unzipping to a fresh folder.
I think that either CCleaner series 1 or 2 may have been when I gave up trying to run two instances,
but I have just checked and both series 3 and series 4 do now allow simultaneous multiple instance.
Regards
Alan
-
You are a braver man than I.
Are you happy to assume that CCleaner will correctly understand what you meant by things such as
D:\appserver\*cache*\*.*
or
D:\appserver*\*cache*\*.*
or would you want it to await confirmation for each target that it discover as being eligible for wiping ?
-
Welcome to the forum.
What is your operating system ?
Does this HDD have a small O.S. partition, and are you trying to Recuva all files that are in a large compressed partition ?
Are you now accessing this HDD as an external drive or as an internal secondary or internal Primary drive ?
Please post a screen shot of Windows Disk Management showing all details of this drive.
-
Yes, running two instances of Recuva can be quite handy, if you want to use different options or hold on to a scan.
I should (and do) open Recuva in Advanced mode Alan, then the off-screen mini-windows won't appear. Advanced mode is for grown-ups.
Is there any chance of Defraggler and CCleaner being allowed to hold onto a scan whilst another instance is launched ?
Until today I had not progressed beyond Recuva version 1.47, which I had configured for Advanced mode.
Today I encountered the "bug" with which I started the topic,
so I downloaded and unzipped the latest portable version to check that the bug was present before posting,
and unfortunately Piriform chose to deal with me as a child and gave me the Wizard again,
and I had not got around to disabling the Wizard.
Regards
Alan
-
Thanks
It was not obvious to me that clicking Enter would close that wretched Options box.
Incidentally, I now observe that having closed the Options box,
with most of the main Recuva Window off to the left, so that its screen centre does not appear on-screen,
I can click its just visible top right corner and close Recuva, and processes terminate - but it retains its memory of coordinates.
When I launch Recuva again it does not appear - I do not believe it and assume a mouse malfunction,
I launch again, and again, and again.
Then I notice that the Recuva icon plus shadows is on the task bar.
I hover over the icon and see 4 instances of "Recuva Wizard".
I can click on each and not see an result.
Obviously these are all little wizards sitting 6 inches off to the left of my monitor because they are centered on the previous Recuva Scan coordinates.
If I right click on the icon and select Recuva then even more hidden wizards
appearare created.If I right click on the icon and select Close all Windows then 6 instances of the main Recuva Scan window appear on the left,
all using the same coordinates (sitting exactly on top of one another).
I am surprised to see that Recuva allows Multiple instances of itself to be running at the same time.
There are times when I wish to Analyze and compare two different drives with Defraggler or CCleaner,
and found that this was not allowed.
Regards
Alan
-
This is a problem with ALL versions that I have tested - specifically 64 bit 1.47 and 1.51 under Windows 7.
When I view SCAN results and do not see what I want,
I "Switch to Advanced mode" and then click "Options..."
That is a bad move, I can no longer move the main scan results window and it is obscuring a desktop short-cut.
I close the "Options..." pop-up and shift the main Recuva Windows to the extreme left so the "Options..." button is still visible.
I click the "Options..." button and the "Options" pop-up does NOT appear - it is probably 6 inches to the left of my monitor.
I cannot see the Options pop-up,
I cannot close the Options pop-up, and the top-right corner of Recuva is unable to close Recuva whilst the invisible pop-up remains.
Right now as I type this Recuva is locked in position but concealed by my Browser.
I go to the Task Bar and Right click on the Recuva icon and select "Close Window",
and all that happens is that the right edge of the Recuva Window appears on the left side of the browser,
and this exposes the top-right corner of Recuva with its unusable "Close" button.
I have to launch Windows Task Manager and select Recuva to "End Task"
I suggest that either the main top right corner of Recuva should always be able to close Recuva,
or any subsidiary pop-ups that usurp authority should NOT be locked to the center of the main Recuva window, but always be accessible.
Regards
Alan
-
I did a recovery on my documents that were erased from my c drive in an unexpected shut down.
You are theoretically wrong, and hopefully wrong in practice.
An unexpected shut down does not erase files (to erase means to over-write)
With a bit of luck your files may be in some state of limbo.
Just because Windows cannot see your files does not mean that they were deleted,
and just possibly they MIGHT be what Recuva calls "non-deleted".
Hopefully Recuva will work for you if you tick the box "Scan for non-deleted files", which you can get to via
switch to Advanced mode
Options...
Actions
Regards
Alan
-
At my last school, I had a 1gbps connection. It was truly magnificient
Was that 1 Gbps per student ?
Or were you hogging the entire resources of the whole school, and making all the other students hate you ?
-
There is no reason to be judgmental. SMalik did a very good job at finding more system files that are useless. Winapp2 hasn't had many new system file updates lately.
I am looking at the Peerblock entry and for some reason, it's not being detected on my system, meaning the entry isn't showing up in the cleaner.
[Peerblock*]
LangSecRef=3024
DetectFile=%ProgramFiles%\Peerblock
FileKey1=%ProgramFiles%\Peerblock|*.log;History.db;*.bak;cache.p2b
My path directory is located in ProgramFiles (not x86) then under PeerBlock. I did not find any registry keys or appdata in relation to Peerblock. Anyone have any idea why it's not being detected on my system?
The normal rules are that "C:\Program Files (x86)" is only used by 32 bit applications on a 64 bit system,
and "C:\Program Files" is used by 32 bit Windows and 64 bit applications on 64 bit Windows.
But rules is rules and they are there to be broken
-
This was not an "idle" (i.e. worthless) question. It's a valid question that deserves an answer--an answer, by the way, that should already be documented.
This topic started as an "idle" request for an answer to the ill defined question "Is it safe to use this frequently?"
The answers appeared to satisfy Geothom. He had no followup questions.
It is reasonable to ask about the intended benefit of Optimization.
It is unreasonable to demand what MAY be proprietary intellectual property about how a design is implemented.
It is not obvious that optimization would not perform a standard defrag, nor that they consider it safe.
It is obvious to me that there is a difference, and that they consider it safe.
Is your standard of safety the same as theirs ?
Developers are humans (strange but true) who make mistakes
CCleaner is updated about once a month.
Several months ago a new release was found defective and instantly withdrawn, and then quickly replaced.
It is very insulting of you to suggest that Piriform developers would make an unsafe mistake and refrain from quickly correcting it.
Because I'm a paid customer, I've submitted a support request to find the answer to this question. I will probably reply to this thread with the answer I get.
I am pleased to note that you may have heeded my advice on paying for support as the best route for obtaining an answer to your own satisfaction.
I look forward to seeing what extra information you can obtain
Regards
Alan
-
There are MANY straight answers, e.g.
Never switch on your P.C. and then it has the longest possible life ;
Never connect to the Internet and then you are safe from malware (safe from the deliberately malicious and also the most pernicious malware to ever hit me - Microsoft Updates)
When you use a Microsoft API, regardless of whether it is used for Defragging or Secure Deletion/Over-writing,
you are GAMBLING in the hope of improving your system,
BUT risking a problem from an error in either the application software or in the latest Microsoft update that may have degraded your system.
It is a SAFE GAMBLE if you have validated partition image backups and Boot Rescue CD's to restore the backups
(and safer still if you have duplicated backups and Boot Rescue CD's that still function)
The only people to have precise knowledge of what Defraggler is supposed to do are the developers,
and they have far better things to do than answer idle questions,
and their answers could become incorrect for any computer that is suffering from a bad Microsoft Update.
It is obvious that "Optimization" of an SSD would not make use of a "standard defrag" API because the developers know far better;
they have in the past prevented SSD's from being defragged.
It is obvious that they consider it safe to use "Optimization" or they would not have developed it.
Whether it is "safe to use this frequently" depends upon how frequently you do it, how hard you drive your computer, and the quality of your SSD.
Personally I would like to know more about the theoretical benefits of SSD "Optimization",
But will only KNOW how useful it is to myself and my system if I measure and compare the performance of my system before and after.
Unfortunately I have better things to do with my time.
-
Sorry, my bad
-
The piriform.com entry that's installed there has an asterisk, which implies that it is supported
Totally wrong.
The asterisk means AT your own RISK.
It appears against every item which is NOT part of the Piriform product but is an extra prune caused by using Winapp2.ini.
-
Archives are here :-
http://www.filehippo.com/download_ccleaner/history/5/
CCleaner version 3.00 Requirements: Windows 2000 / XP / Vista / Windows7 / XP64 / Vista64 / Windows7 64 / Windows8 / Windows8 64
http://www.filehippo.com/download_ccleaner/tech/8617/
CCleaner version 2.36 Requirements: Windows (All Versions)
http://www.filehippo.com/download_ccleaner/tech/8417/
I guess that any Series 1 or series 2 will work on Win95.
-
"When you say you removed reg remnants I assume you had the slim or normal build installed at some time?"
No...Very first install...Used Revo Pro to remove all remnants..
"I converted from the .exe to the portable version about half a dozen versions ago and can not repeat your problem."
And was that with the very latest version and on WinXP SP3??
If this was the first install then Revo Pro should NOT have found any remnants to remove.
Perhaps Revo Pro made a mistake and removed a vital XP system file.
-
Is this problem repeatable ?
Does it take half an hour to restart itself,
or does it appear quicker if you use task Manager immediately after you close it ?
Or were you waiting for an answer before you try it again ?
Perhaps you actually minimized Defraggler.
I have NEVER EVER experienced or even heard of Defraggler remaining open when it has been closed,
Other possibilities might be that it was automatically resurrected by Windows Tasks, perhaps via Defraggler Options/Schedule,
or that what you actually downloaded was infested with malware that identified itself as Defraggler but could resist all efforts to close.
Where did you download it from ?
I have never known a Piriform process to resist a Task Manager "End Process" action.
-
Unless the drive gets a letter assigned to it, Recuva won't see it.
WRONG
NOT TRUE
FALSE
My apologies for shouting - I was excited by finding a way around the generally accepted restriction of needing a letter.
I have just plugged in a 1 GB Flash Drive D:\, FAT format.
Using Windows Disk Management I removed its drive letter D:\.
My Flash Drive is now in a worse condition than the Kindle - Windows Explorer cannot even see my Flash Drive.
I now use Windows Disk Management to "Change Drive letter and paths..." option "Add"
and then click "Mount in the following empty NTFS folder" and then the "Browse" button,
I then browse to I:\Test and click the "New Folder" button and create "Drive_D" click OK then OK
Now I can launch Recuva, use "All Files" and Next
select "In a specifc location" and then browse to C:\Test\Drive_D
and now Recuva can retrieve the files on my "letterless" flash drive.
This works on a normal Flash Drive
If Kindle has no drive letter but CAN be seen by Windows Explorer,
then Windows Disk Management should also be aware of it,
and MIGHT have the capability of adding a drive letter,
failing which it MIGHT have the capability of "Mount in the following empty NTFS folder".
When you have finished ( or failed ) recovery I suggest that you undo changes to your system thus :-
Close Recuva (and anything else that might be using C:\Test\Drive_D)
Use Windows Disk Management to "Change Drive letter and paths..." option "Remove"
Use Windows Disk Management to "EJECT" the Kindle
Unplug the Kindle
Use Windows Explorer to delete the residual short-cut folder "Drive_D" located at C:\Test\
Regards
Alan
-
In my experience Windows is NOT a proper multitasking operating system - there are race hazards and things go belly-up.
I have had a 600 GB GPT Disk with 500 GB of files converted into an MBR Disk full of RAW DATA and Unallocated Space because SATA Drive number allocation is a matter of luck.
I have sent pairs of messages to a file which normally captures both, but had a 1 % chance of capturing only one or even neither.
I guess it MIGHT be possible for Windows API's to multitask and simultaneously defrag multiple drives,
but a 1% chance of something going wrong would not suit me.
-
Your image shows that partition 0 is invalid,
and the next 4 partitions are not "fixed MBR"
I deduce that DiskPart has either determined that 1 to 4 are removable drives, or are GPT style.
Perhaps you could consider initializing your SSD as an MBR so that DiskPart can make something active.
Used Recuva to recover .wav files that were deleted by accident
in Recuva
Posted
Have you tried renaming $IB4309V.WAV back to the original Audio$IB4309V.WAV ?
I am quite sure that no recovery program would compress the files that it restores.
I do KNOW that Windows can compress files to occupy a smaller number of sector clusters than you start with,
AND that when you read that compressed file, Windows will decompress it so that you read exactly what you originally wrote,
because Windows has the knowledge that the file was compressed.
I think that once a file has been deleted and Windows has lost track of it,
then any data recovery program that finds the deleted file is unlikely to know that it is compressed and requires decompression.