Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums

Willy2

Experienced Members
  • Content Count

    1,621
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Willy2

  1. I came across something odd. I use the option "Defrag freespace" (very) regular. I noticed that this function (always ??) skips files that are fragmented. I have made a picture of the situation (see attachment). There was a file in 10 fragments (in bright green and bright red). When I used the "Defrag freespace" option the last fragment of that file (in bright green) remained where it was placed. It looks like it could have been moved closer to the last files. (The new place were this fragment (in bright green) could have been moved to is marked by the black squares). This would have reduced the number of freespace-fragments and that's precisely what the option "Defrag freespace" is supposed to do. On top of that one would expect that this function would fill more free fragments/free space(s), that it would fill more "gaps". Keep in mind: I am talking about the "Defrag freespace" option, not the "Defrag freespace (allow fragmentation)" option.
  2. Today I have installed the latest version (v1.12) and must say I that do like this version better than v1.11 and I therefore have switched from v1.10 to v1.12. In this version there's still a bug. I live in the Netherlands and I therefore use the dutch language version of this program. In the column "Fragmentation" the english word "Unknown" in the dutch language version isn't replaced by the proper dutch word ("Onbekend"). This is clearly a programming error because in the column "File System" the english word "Unknown" in the dutch language version is properly replaced by the dutch word "Onbekend". And this bug doesn't occur in the dutch version only but it occurs in every language version. That particular word "Unknown" isn't "translated"/replaced the moment one switches to another language. I hope its clear what I am refering to because this bug already existed in version v1.10 and isn't/wasn't fixed in versions v1.11 and v1.12.
  3. I have version v1.10 installed. I think v1.11 just simply ""sucks"". Although that version has an improved ""large fragments defraggler"" capability, I de-installed this version and re-installed v1.10. The reason I dislike v1.11 is the same as why I disliked v1.08 and v1.09 but liked v1.07. See my comments on this particular topic in this thread.
  4. The Search-feature seems to work not too well in v1.10. I have 3 files which contain "mish" but the Search function found two files and the program failed to find the third file.
  5. I have additional suggestions how to improve Defraggler v1.10. A. The "Search" function in v1.10. I think this function should behave something like this: 1. The "Search" tab should be replaced by a "Search" button under the filelist. 2. Click on the "Search" button and a separate new window opens on top of the filelist and or drivemap (and not in the filelist like in v1.10). Here one can specify with which parameters the search should be performed. 3. Click on the "Search" or "OK" ( or another) button in the newly opened window to start the search. After or before the files have been found that new window should close. 4. The results should - in my opinion - be displayed in the filelist under the "Filelist" tab. And that's why the "Filelist" tab should be activated. 5. When the user wants to perform a new "Search" then he/she should click on the "Search" button again. Of course, the previous settings of a "Search" should be preserved. The programmers should think well and hard which types of files are allowed to show up in the filelist as well. A whole bunch of weird files like "Pagefile.sys", "$MFT", "$...." and "....Zone identifier" etc. show up in the "Search" list. I don't know whether the Windows system allows all/some of these special system files to be moved, whether moving these system files will result in a break down of the Windows system. I think files like directory files (which contain the content of a particular directory) and the system file "thumbs.db" should be the only ones to be allowed to show up, all others shouldn't be displayed or they shouldn't be allowed to be defragmented. C. I think the information of a drive shouldn't be displayed in the tab called "Drive ...." but in a separate window which opens on top of the drivemap and/or filelist and this information should be displayed only the first time a drive is analyzed. Just like the way it's programmed in v1.10. I think it would be better that instead of using the tab "Drive ...", there should be a button behind each row of drive information in the drivelist (which shows all the detected drives like A:, C:, D:, .... etc.). By clicking on that button the user can obtain information which otherwise would be available under the "Drive ...." tab.
  6. By using Reshack I have improved the dutch language file. See the attachment. It solves the "%" problem as mentioned above. The problem was in the stringtable at 19, 1033.
  7. In version v1.10 there're two minor language related errors. I use the dutch version but I have no problem using the english or german language version. And that's why I have spotted those errors. 1. When the user hasn't analyzed a drive yet, the word "Unknown" is displayed in the column "Fragmentation" and this word shows up irrespective of the language selected. This is clearly a programming error because in the dutch language version in the column "File System" the english word "Unknown" is correctly replaced by the dutch word "Onbekend". 2. A translation related error. In the "File" tab, under the "Analysis results" there's an entry where the fragmentation percentage is displayed. In a number of languages two characters "%" show up. E.g. in the german and the english language version only one "%" is displayed but in the dutch version two characters are displayed.
  8. Currently I have installed v1.10 and I like this version more than v1.08 and v1.09. The tab "Search" can be improved and it has some odd things. 1. One can tick a box called "Include non-fragmented files". When this box is ticked and a number of defragmented files is selected manually, these defragmented files can not be moved by Defraggler towards the beginning of the disk. These files are skipped by Defraggler. It would be useful to add another function in this program. Add a feature which enables the user to move manually selected files (after using the Search File function) both defragmented and fragmented, towards the end of the disk or to the beginning of the disk. The way to enable the user would be to either by adding a "Move towards end of disk" button or by abling the user to tick a box withe the same name. I think either the "Include Defragmented files" should be omitted or give the user the ability to move defragmented files. 2. Not only files but (sub-)directory files show up as well. However, in the tab called "Filelist" directory files don't show up. Is this done intentionally ? 3. If one selects a (fragmented) directory file and one clicks on "Defrag ......." all the files in that directory are defragmented as well. One would expect that only the directory file is defragmented and not the entire content of the selected directory. Again, is this done intentionally ??? I think that if the user wants to defragment the entire directory he/she should use the "Highlight folder" feature.
  9. Defraggler v1.09 has feature where one can look for defragmented files which are smaller or larger than a certain size. I think it bloats the program. It should be omitted. The program has the possibility to defrag selected files and these selected files are moved towards the begin of the the disk. But perhaps it's possible to add a button as well with which one can defrag selected files towards the end of the disk. I don't like the new versions v1.08 and v1.09. In version 1.07 the program automatically detects where the fragments of a defragmented file are located. They show up on the diskmap. Once this file is moved to another directory the file no longer shows up in the map once this file is re-highlighted. In fact, the program rereads the filetable. This feature I DO like very much. But this feature is removed from versions v1.08 and v1.09. In these latest versions the program seem to say the file fragments still are located in the original directory.
  10. I have installed Defraggler v1.05 but it seems a number of features in this version doesn't work, doesn't function. e.g. the only language available is english and the option "move files to the end of the disk" also doesn't seem to work. Does anyone else have similar experiences with version v1.05 of Defraggler ? Willy2
  11. I installed the latest version (v1.05) today (december 6th) and tried the "Move large files to end of disk" feature but when looking at the drivemap, it seemed it didn't work at all ! Are there specific pre-conditions under which this option will work ? I have specified filetypes and ticked a number of boxes but all to no avail ! More over in this version one is supposed to be able to choose some other language besides English but that wasn't possible either. Did anyone else have similar experiences ?
  12. Another suggestion: A "move files towards the end of the drive" option. This could come in the form of a check box option in the filelist. This would enable moving all or selected files towards the end of the drive when defragging manually individual selected files
  13. 1) Defrag the MFT and directories. Or does Defraggler defrag directories too ? Like CONTIG from Sysinternals does ? 2) Anyone who asks for a option to defrag the registry is unaware that the registry consists of more than one file. These files have names like "software", "system", "security", "sam" and "NTUSER.DAT" and regularly show up in the filelist of Defraggler. The reason why these files show up is that Windows backups these files when a socalled "Recovery point" is created. When all these individual files are defragmented, the entire registry is defragmented as well !! Or defragging the entire "C:\windows" (Windows XP) directory does the trick as well. 3) Add a (simple) "Compact" mode/option: I'll explain below. Situation before compacting: AAAA . . . BBBB . . . CCCCCCC . . DDDD . . . . (A, B, C, D represent occupied diskclusters with clusters from files named A, B, C and D. A dot (.) represents a free cluster) Situation after compacting: AAAA BBBB CCCCCCC DDDD . . . . . . . . . . . . or AAAA BBBB DDDD CCCCCCC . . . . . . . . . . . . 4) I thought the option "Defrag free space" would compact the disk like suggested under 3) but it has different algorithm / a logic of its own. So, perhaps "Defrag free space" and/or "Defrag free space (allow fragmentation)" option could be replaced with a "compact" option ? 5) In order to give Windows more space to operate: Leave always the first free, say 20 MB, 30 MB, 40 MB or 0.5% or 1% diskspace free. I do sometimes get the impression that Windows after a run with Defraggler, Windows is running more slowly, less fast. 6)An option that allows the user to decide whether a filename is to disappear from the filelist with defragmented files after it has been defragmented.
  14. I came across something weird. I think I have further proof that the option(s) "Defrag freespace" must be recoded/re-programmed. The following happened: Before I used the option "Defrag freespace" (without "allow fragmentation" !!) I had no fragmented files on my drive, but after I used this option I had three (!!) defragmented files. Then I manually defragmented these three files. Two files were defragmented without any strange behaviour. But the third file showed some weird behaviour. It was moved from spot X to a place with plenty free space and was defragmented. But apparently the program was satisfied and - according to the drivemap - moved the file back to that very same spot X, this time the filelist said that it was defragmented. It probably wasn't the very same spot were it was "pulled" from but it certainly looked like it.
  15. I came across something weird. I think I have further proof that the option(s) "Defrag freespace" must be recoded/re-programed. The following happened: 1. Before I used the option "Defrag freespace" I had no fragmented files on my drive. but after I used this option I had three (!!) defragmented files. 2. I then manually defragmented these three files. Two files were defragmented without any strange behaviour. But the third file showed some weird behaviour. It was moved from spot X to a place with plenty free space and was defragmented. But apparently the program was satisfied and - according to the drivemap - moved the file back to that very same spot X, this time the filelist said that it was defragmented. It probably wasn't the very same spot were it was "pulled" from but it certainly looked like it.
  16. This is a follow up on post #18 of this thread. Below in the attachment a zipped file containing a picture which makes it clear what went wrong with the "Defrag free space" options. During execution of one (or both) option(s) some (a lot of (??)) files are skipped. Perhaps these files are designated Hidden, System or Write Protected by Windows XP and therefore skipped by Defraggler ? After I used one (or both) "Defrag free space" option(s), I manually defragged one particular file (in dark blue in the picture). It's clear there's a empty gap right in front of that file. And that is proof files are skipped by "Defrag free space".
  17. In Defraggler 1.02.085 there's something odd. In the drivemap one can not see where the file called Pagefile is located. On my computer drive C: has a size of 11 GB and the Pagefile occupies (at least) approx. 300 MB, so it should be visible somewhere in the drivemap. Perhaps it's the intention of the programmakers to NOT show this pagefile in the drivemap any more ? Then of course, the socalled "Drive map legend" should be modified accordingly.
  18. Is the loss of free space due to the fact that you have indexed that drive ??
  19. Yep, this DEBUG mode is indeed useful because when looking at the map in Defraggler I do get the impression the program doesn't always defrags ALL the the free space. There are two "Defrag freespace" options. 1) "Defrag free space". 2) "Defrag free space (allow fragmentation)". Option 1) defrags the drive WITH (some) additional defragmentation of files. And I do get the impression that it also skips files. Or are these files which are write protected, hidden, system files by the WINDOWS system and therefore skipped by DEFRAGGLE ? This becomes apparent when after one manually defrags individual files. By looking at the map, one can make a guess where defragged files will be placed but sometimes the program seems to have a different opinion and places the files in a different spot. I have added a logfile containing the following actions: 1. "Defrag freespace". 2. "Defrag freespace (allow fragmentation)". 3. Defragged a number of individual files.
  20. Suggestions for improvements for Defraggler RC2: 1. Add a color (gray ??) to the columnheader of the filelist in order to indicate on which column the filelist is sorted. On filename, filesize, number of fragments, etc. Omit the color when the files aren't sorted at all. 2. Add to the columnheader of the "Filelist" an arrow pointing down or up to indicate how the defragmented file are sorted (if and when sorted). This in order to indicate an ascending or a descending sorting order. 3. Omit the ""Status" tab. The information on both the number of defragmented files and the number of fragments can be displayed on the right hand side of the 4 buttons ("Analyze","Defrag", etc.). The piegraph depicting the amount of free and used space is simply a waste of programming lines and bloates the program. 4. Create a clear black line or a small divide between the map of the currently active drive and the file list. This line should serve as an indicator where to put the computer mousepointer in order to resize both the drivemap and the filelist. In the current program that's more or less a matter of guesswork.
×
×
  • Create New...