Willy2

Agree. ERUNT has save my "computer bacon" many times as well. But Registry Backup is simply better, has a better GUI.

@Alan: Does ERUNT backup all 13 hives in Win 7 ? At least, I know Registry Backup does.

ERUNT sucks. I prefer Tweaking's Registry Backup. http://www.tweaking.com/

Just deleted 21 SRPs and the time between hitting the "Remove" button and CC greying out (& blocking) that button was about 1 to 1.5 minutes. Then the user can/will get confused and can decide to hit that button again. But then the message "All selected SRPs will be deleted. Are you sure to continue ?" shows up again. Very confusing !!! Must be solved in the next CC version. And yes, now I consider this to be a bug. Sorry, for posting in the wrong subforum (I am creating A LOT OF SRPs lately because I am busy testing a program that makes changes to the Windows Registry).

- Perhaps DF overlooked one or two files that prevented DF from defragmenting the pagefile. - Try "Pagedefrag" (Sysinternals) - Install CLEANMEM. It (dramatically) reduces program memory usage and as a result it reduces the need for Windows to access the pagefile. http://www.pcwintech.com/about-cleanmem - The problem seems to be those meta date files/folders, e.g. "C:\$Extend" because you deleted a lot of files. Use the MS Defragmentation program, it can e.g. defragment/re-arrange these meta data files as well.

Installed CC v4.04 but the "bug" wasn't fixed.

Oops. Indeed, I need to install CC v4.04. Didn't know it was released. I don't know if I want to call this a bug. If this is considered to be a bug, well, then move it to a different subforum.

CC (v4.03) can be improved: I used CC to delete 15+ System Restore Points (SRPs) "in one stroke" from my Win 7 laptop. But when I hit the button "Remove" the text on that button remained in black characters for a while (10, 15 ?, 20 ? seconds (I don't remember, it's a guess, an estimate)) before being greyed out. I thought CC wasn't aware I had hit that button and therefore I did hit that button again. Then I noticed that my HDD led (system tray icon) remained solidly red/lit at the same time. Then CC started to show "it was still alive" and started to remove those SRPs. After that I removed another SRP and kept an close eye on how CC behaved and again, I clearly noticed that the was a short but noticable delay between hitting the "Remove" button and CC greying out the button. Solution: CC must grey out that "Remove" button as soon as (!!!) the user hits that button. This "flaw" becomes obvious when the user deletes more than one SRP.

Those language files are in a special format and therefore can't be opened with e.g. a text editor. Send MrT a personal note. He's part of the development team and handles the translations. MrT will explain what the procedure is to get those texts translated into Azerbaijani.

Yes. But using the "wipe free space" option can take a long time, especially when you have a (very) large disk.

- What do you mean by "VSS or Shadow copies" ? Because the VSS Service creates those "Shadow copies". When Windows creates a System Restore Point (SRP) then Windows uses (starting in Vista ? XP ?) the VSS Service to create that SRP. - Yes, when you delete a SRP with CC(leaner) then only a part of that SRP is deleted. There's a MSDOS command (VSSADMIN) that can wipe one or more complete SRPs but I would advice against using it, unless you're very well aware of what you're doing. - I wouldn't be too concerned about having more than one (partial) SRP. It gives you more flexibility to go back to a previous state. I actually increased the amount of space that Windows can use for those SRPs. - If you really want to safely wipe all SRPs then you should use the CC option "Wipe Free Space" and let it run until it's finished. Deleting those SRPs is not done intentionally by CC but it's a result of how Windows manages disk space. When you're running low on diskspace then Windows starts deleting one or more SRPs in order to create more diskspace.

For those who like to play a game (on their smartphones): http://www.tweaking.com/content/page/letter_avalanche.html Post your comments, bug reports, questions and other requests on the Tweaking.com forum website http://www.tweaking.com/forums/

Follow the instructions in post #4. The program "Windows Repair" executes the same commands.

Don't they give the old users a warning first that their account is about to be given away ?

Out of curiosity I re-installed MSSE and tried to stop that Service using that command. But even with Administrator rights I can't stop or disable that Service. Seems permission settings won't allow me to stop (net stop ....) or disable (sc config .....) that Service. I can't find any other explanation.

Interesting video: Bill Binney: "East Germany would have loved to have this kind of technology". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ThinThread Bill Binney set up a program called "Thinthread" but it was too cheap, only ~ $ 10 million. So, they installed a much more expensive program called Trailblazer, costing billions of USD. But it was never used and eventually scrapped. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Spy-data-system-a-boondoggle-After-6-years-2505694.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trailblazer_Project Two long audioclips with two NSA whistleblowers (Binney & Drake) http://www.peterbcollins.com/2013/04/18/blockbuster-part-1-on-the-nsa-4-with-whistleblower-bill-binney-and-journalist-tim-shorrock/ http://www.peterbcollins.com/2013/04/19/blockbuster-part-2-tom-drake-got-unprecedented-retaliation-from-nsa-for-disclosures-to-media-that-he-did-not-make/

Don't know what to think of it. Alex Jones certainly has some things right but he sees too many conspiracies.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/06/government-built-spy-access-into-most-popular-consumer-program-before-911/ And this happened BEFORE "9/11".

Do the Piriform programs contain that much buggy/faulty program code ?

DF can be configured to automatically check for new versions. Then it will - according to my info - check every 10 days whether or not there's a new version available. But here's something I absolutely DO NOT like. When DF checks for a new update and it notices that there's no internet connection then DF generates an error. "No internet connection available". Personally, I would like to see that DF surpresses that message and simply moves on. Because then DF will - as far as I know - simply try the next time again.

Recently I added 4 GB memory to my Win 7 laptop. When I had only 4 GB then Windows would fill the entire 4 GB with data of some kind. In normal situations CM would limit memory usage to between ~ 20% and ~ 35% and the remainder of the memory was (after say 30 minutes) ALWAYS marked as "Stand By" memory. After adding 4 GB, I watched my laptop (with 8 GB of memory) for a while to see how Windows & CM would behave. I gave IE9 more space (CM now curtails a IE9 process only when it goes above 100 MB). File cache is cleaned only when > 80 MB. Every 30 minutes CM cleans the entire memory except for IE9 and about 4 to 5 other programs. With these parameters CM keeps memory usage (IE9 running) at 19 to 22%. Total memory usage (incl. "Stand-by") always exceeds 4 GB and regularly goes above 5 GB and approaches 6 GB. But Windows never fills the entire memory (8 GB) any more. Only in rare occasions and after long sessions memory usage approaches the 8GB mark. On balance, I am glad I added more memory. PcWinTech.com was right when it stated: "More memory is always better".

I tested the 32 bit & 64 bit version and I saw something similar. And yes, it makes a difference in performance/speed when the user curtails DF's memory usage. (think CLEANMEM !). It's not a difference of night and day, but it's significant enough to be noticed. Of course, "throwing more RAM at it" increases one's computer speed ! Two weeks ago I increased the amount of memory form 4 GB to 8 GB. Previously, Win 7 always filled nearly the entire memory, not used by processes, with data of some kind and called that "Stand-By" memory. Now with 8 GB, after having used my laptop for say 1 hour, it's not unusually to see the amount of "Stand-by" memory grow to 4 & 5 GB and in some (rare ?) occasions even to over 6 GB. Switching between tasks/processes is always faster when all the info/data needed is in the memory than reading it from harddisk.

@George G: Run (Piriform's) Defraggler (DF) and see how many files DF can find in the folder "c:\system volume information". That's where the System restore points (SRP) are located. Did you run CC with the option "wipe free space" active/ticked ? If so, then you can kiss your SRPs goodbye. Don't worry, you create new SRPs manually.

1. Excellent idea. Should have thought of that before. 2. Downloaded and installed v2.08 on my Win 7 (64 bit) system. But to no avail. Both versions (v2.08 & v2.14) install two programs (Defraggler64.exe & Defraggler.exe) but when I run these two programs, they both say they're a 64 bit version. Yet both programs are different in size. Shouldn't one program (Defraggler.exe) say "32 bit" and the other program ("Defraggler64.exe") say "64 bit" (click on "help", "about") ?? 3. When I run Defraggler.exe or Defraggler64.exe then in both cases both programs show up in Task Manager under the process "Defraggler64.exe". Seems DF automatically starts the 64 bit version when it detects its installed on a 64 bit version. 4. Tried all versions (v2.08, v2.14) & (Defraggler.exe & Defraggler64.exe) but no version reduced memory usage after the initial analysis. Seems DF determines that there's (more) than enough free memory available and then it simply doesn't reduce the amount of memory it occupies.

I came across something odd. Yesterday I ran DF v2.08 on a Win XP machine with 1 GB of memory. And at the same time I watched what happened with DF's memory usage. It went up from ~15 Mb to ~ 45 Mb when DF was analyzing a 11 Gb drive. Right after it was finished analyzing, memory usage went back down to ~ 25 Mb. And that behaviour of that DF version contrasted with how DF v2.12 behaved on my Win 7 laptop with 8 Gb memory. I ran DF and memory usage went from about 4 Mb (direct after DF's start) to ~ 175 Mb when it had finished analyzing my 500 Gb harddisk. The big surprise was that DF's memory usage didn't go down after DF had analyzed that drive. It remained at ~175 Mb. Question: does DF take the size of the total amount of (remaining free) memory into account whether or not to reduce its memory "footprint". ? Or has this part of the program code been removed ? Perhaps one of the moderators can pass on this question to one of the developers ?