Jump to content


Experienced Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Willy2

  1. Perhaps it's possible to introduce a ""Wipe Pagefile.sys"" option in CC ?? I mean that it shouldn't kill this file but merely clean its contents.


    Sources on the internet suggest that this requires a (small) change in the Windows registry because it only can be done right before one shuts down one's computer ??? And I certainly DO NOT want to mess with the Windows registry.

  2. Interesting story, but I am still not convinced for the full 100% that a direct access to or extracting information from the MFT is impossible. But I don't want to continue that discussion.


    I have read the information from the website of Microsoft on the topic MFT. (GOOGLE the words ""support, Microsoft, NTFS, MFT""). Very interesting, but it doesn't give a clear answer to the question whether accessing the MFT directly is possible or impossible. I also believe Microsoft is deliberately hiding (parts of) the real truth. e.g. Microsoft states that the MFT can not shrink and will grow only in order to accommodate a growing number of files on a disk. But my experience (thanks to Piriform's Defraggler !!!) says that this is rubbish. The MFT can - IMO - both shrink and grow and that interferes with one or two features in Piriform's Defraggler.



    I DO think the MFT can be wiped independently of the ""Wipe Free Space"" (WFS) feature.


    Everytime CC scans a drive/drives for files to be wiped it reads a lot of and perhaps all directory files on one or more drives. And then, without a shadow of doubt, it comes across (a lot of) files that are simply marked ""deleted"" but have not been ""wiped"". When a user has enabled the ""Secure file deletion (slower)"" option or the WFS option then an additional option could order CC to ""wipe"" all these files, who were marked as ""deleted"", as well, on every drive CC has scanned. The advantage of this is that this thorough cleaning prevents the MFT from growing too much and occupying a lot of/too much diskspace.


    In order to accomplish this particular task in both and/or either in the ""Secure Deletion"" and/or in the ""Wipe Free Space"" an additional option (called e.g. ""Wipe MFT"") could be introduced.


    In the WFS entry, I think CC should give the user the opportunity to choose between a thorough cleaning of the MFT (like it has been programmed in v2.29) or a ""Quick and dirty"" option (as described above). By ""Quick and dirty"" I mean that only MFT entries of files that have been deleted with a ""normal deletion"" are ""wiped"".


    I hope it's clear what I mean.


    As mentioned before , I hope the folks at Piriform - at least - will look into this matter and make a decision whether to incorporate or not any suggestions made in this thread.

  3. Augeas, prepare yourself for more steam coming out of your ears. ;)



    I don't advocate circumventing the NTFS and poking directly in the MFT or onto one's harddisk. It's simply too risky. The entire NTFS could break down and take down Windows with it.


    Did you run the Wipe MFT Free Space (WMFS) option yourself ? Because the behaviour of this option contradicts your opinion. CC knows how much entries the MFT contains. It looks like it wipes all MFT free entries including the related pointers in the MFT.


    Selective overwriting of the MFT impossible ? I am not so sure.

    1. There's a counter on the screen (in %) that clearly indicates that CC knows which entries of the MFT are to be skipped. It indicates that on a computerdisk of mine the first approx. 27% and the last approx. 30% of the MFT entries are occupied. (How odd !!).

    2. Aren't there in Windows (a lot of) carefully predefined entry points that allow programmers to use a lot of the features of the Windows NTFS system. (like writing/reading/deleting files/directories/MFTs, extracting information). If so, then perhaps one is also able to access and extract (more) information concerning the MFT entries (occupied/wiped/free). The behaviour of CC - at least - seems to indicate just that.


    There's a program called Clean Disk Security that also wipes free disk space and MFTs. This program does a similar job like CC. Although perhaps it does its job less thorough I prefer that program over CC's ""Wipe (MFT) free space"" options because it's significantly faster.



    I hope, the folks from Piriform - at least - are willing to look into to suggestions made in this thread and incorporate any of the suggestions in a future version of CC (v2.30 ???).

  4. @Gronxx



    The GUI of Wipe Free Space (WFS) and Wipe MFT free space (WMFS) certainly can be improved.


    1. When using these option, I think, e.g. the screen shouldn't be cleaned when CC moves on the next operation (e.g WMFS of drive D: to WMFS of drive E: and/or e.g WFS of drive C: to WFS of drive D:). I think all the information should be remain on the screen as long as possible.


    2. A progress bar also would be welcomed.


    In another thread I made some recommendations to improve both WMFS and WFS.



    PS.: Are Gronxx and Groonx two usernames of one person ?

  5. When Augeas, JDPower and/or the Piriform folks read this post, then I think steam will come out of their ears ;-) but I'll post these thoughts anyway. After all, a discussion always stimulates the braincells. We'll see whether the proposed changes will be implemented or not in a next version of CC (v2.30 ???). The suggestoins below are MFT related.


    1. Change the behaviour of the ""Cancel"" button during the Wipe Free Space (WFS) operation (Settings screen).

    When one has selected ""Wipe MFT Free Space"" (WMFS) and two drives (e.g. C:, D:) then 4 separate operations will occur:

    1. WMFS of drive C:

    2. WMFS of drive D:

    3. WFS of drive C:

    4. WFS of drive D:

    I think that clicking on the ""Cancel"" button should force CC to cancel the current operation and move on to the next operation (e.g from #2 to #3), provided there's a next one in a/this sequence. Currently CC v2.29 aborts the entire operation when the user clicks on ""Cancel"".


    2. Isn't there a way of establishing whether an entry in the MFT has been wiped/cleaned (entirely) before ? Perhaps this could be determined by looking at the filename in that particular MFT entry (deleted/overwritten/zero bytes) ? If CC was able to establish this then CC could skip all previously wiped MFT entries and this would speed up the cleaning of the MFT significantly.

    But then CC must also wipe/overwrite/clean the entire entry in the MFT as well when a ""secure deletion"" option has been selected.


    3. Another way to speed up the cleaning of the MFT is cleaning of the filenames in every MFT entry only and not wipe an entire MFT entry.

  6. Thanks for the replies and the suggestions.


    I did what JDPower did and Augeas had suggested. In order to enable WMFS one certainly needs to select:

    1. the WFS option in the main screen.

    2. at least one drive from the WFS menu.


    But then I think the folks from Piriform should modify or add one or more things to eliminate any remaining confusion concerning this topic. e.g.

    1. add the text ""(this option is ignored when no drive is selected)"" to the WMFS option in the ""Settings"" screen, and/or

    2. add the text (see above) to the webpage


    3a. or make it impossible for the user to enable the WMFS option when no drive has been selected in the WFS menu and

    3b. automatically disable the WMFS option when one deselects the last remaining selected drive in the WFS menu.


    The issue with the zero length files is that:

    1. a lot of these files hide in folders with attributes ""hidden"" and/or ""system"" set and CC ignores these folders/directories.

    2. a lot of these files have (extremely) randomly generated filenames.

    That's why it's (nearly) impossible to specify names and wild cards in the ""Include"" section.


    I certainly hope the folks from Piriform read this discussion and will - at least - look into this matter in order to see if perhaps some changes/modifications in the program are necessary.

  7. I noticed the online CC manual has been rewritten. A new version appeared on sunday march 14, 2010. The new manual clearly suggests that cleaning the MFT is independent of the ""Wipe free space"" (WFS) option.



    But then I think that the ""Wipe MFT free space"" (WMFS) option should be removed from the WFS entry and should become a separate entry in the ""Settings"" menu. This new entry should be placed above the WFS entry.


    There's another thing that - IMO - should be adressed and is related to the things mentioned above. The user can select in the main screen an option called ""Wipe free space"". I think that if one hasn't selected this option then one simply shouldn't be allowed to access the options in the WFS entry in the ""Settings"" menu. This also would eliminate any remaining confusion concerning the WMFS option/entry.

  8. Augeas,


    Are you familiar with the technical details of the NTFS ?


    If both the directory file and the MFT contain a copy of the name of a particular file then CC certainly is forced to wipe/overwrite in both the file directory and the MFT the name of that particular file when a secure deletion option is enabled. Are you sure CC does precisely that ? And this is not limited to zero length files (as you suggest in your previous post) but it applies to every file ?



    CC v2.29 creates an interesting situation. Because it looks like one can wipe the free/obsolete MFT entries only without wiping the free space on drives. It's less thorough but it would speed up the cleaning process significantly. Has this been done intentionally ?

    When this is the case then it would be - IMO - comparatively easy to apply this option (""Wipe MFT Free Space"") for every file that's deleted with secure deletion enabled as well.

    But this also creates an additional problem. One e.g. could choose both ""Normal Deletion"" and ""Wipe MFT Free Space"" and then this perhaps could lead to a breakdown of the file system.


    I still would like to see a separate option to be able to search for and delete zero length files, with or without a secured deletion option enabled.

  9. Augeas,


    Yes, your answer makes sense.


    A directory file contains filenames (e.g. a file called "Hello"") and a pointer to the first entry in the MFT related to this file called "Hello"".

    The entries in the MFT tell Windows where to find the all fragments of a file on a drive, where all the fragments are located.


    I would like to see that zero length files entries can be deleted from the directory file and overwritten (provided one selects a ""Secure deletion"" option). Of course, when a file has a length of zero bytes then I would think there's no or only one entry in the MFT and then it certainly occupies no disk space.

  10. Ruediger a.k.a. Jungner,


    DO NOT DELETE "C:\Windows\$hf-mig$ !!!!!


    According to my information: If you do delete that folder then your computer WILL breakdown !!!! Then you have to re-install the entire Windows system software again and all your data stored on your computer disk is lost !!!

  11. I have two suggestions to improve CCleaner v2.29.


    1. Add an option to search and wipe zero length files (when not locked by a program). Especially in the ""Temporary internet"" directories I always find a lot of zero length files.



    2. After having read




    it's still not quite clear how the option ""Wipe MFT Free Space"" in the Settings-menu really works. When this option is selected, does CCleaner always wipe the MFT entry of a wiped file independent of the option ""Wipe free space drives" ?


    If so, then I think the text of this option and the (check-)box should be moved to the left and placed above the "Wipe free space drives"" option, in order to make it clear that this is a separate option which works independent of the ""Wipe free space drives"" option. This would eliminate any confusion. In the current situation it suggests it's subordinate to/it's a part of ""Wipe free space drives"".


    Is there anyone out there with an answer ?

  12. CCleaner has an option to specify which files or folders/directories are to be cleaned as well. One can program which files or folders are to be cleaned. It's already in the program (v2.29) !!!! Search and you'll find the options.

  13. @Nations114,


    There's already a possibility to clean all the ""thumbs.db"" files in CCleaner v2.29. In CCleaner the user can specify a list of files which should be wiped as well. And that includes some systemfiles like ""thumbs.db"" as well. All it takes is a little extra effort.



    The story below refers to the english language version of CCleaner (v2.29). (Change your language !!)


    Click on "Options", "Settings", "Include". Here one can specify which files are to be cleaned. e.g. ""Thumbs.db"". Just follow the instructions and reply to every question/option which is being asked/displayed and then you'll see that when one orders CCleaner to start cleaning these specified files (like ""thiumbs.db") are cleaned as well.


    Good luck !!!

  14. There's still a significant amount of work to be done by the programmers and the official translaters of the Vietnamese(#1), Catalan(#2), Croatian(#3), Lithuanian(#4), Norwegian(#5) versions to improve v1.17. And all is language/translation related. When one change the language then some text isn't translated. All errors/omissions mentioned below (except #3) are occurring in the ""Settings""-menu.


    1. The text ""Show Cleanup drive prompt before defrag"" is never translated into any other language, this text always remains in english. This error already occured in v1.15 and v1.16. Isn't there a language string available in one of the language DLLs ?? Or is this text ""hardcoded"" ??


    The other omissions are related to, can be found in the language DLLs.


    2. The text ""Show folder index entries in file list"" isn't translated in languages #1, 2, 4 and 5. (see above). This string (string table group 24-1033) is missing in the DLL file for these languages DLLs and then the program uses the english string text instead.

    3. The word ""Unknown"" in the column ""fragmentation"" in the main screen isn't translated in languages #3, 4,and 5. (string table group 20-1033 in the DLL files).

    4. The text ""Use drive custom drive colors"" isn't translated in languages #4 and 5. (string table group 23-1033)

    5. Tab ""Quick Defrag"": The translation DLLs for languages #2, 4 and 5 the DLL still needs an additional amount of translation strings. All text remains in english.

    6. Tab ""Exclude"": The translation DLLs (languages #4 and 5) still needs an additional amount of translation strings. All text in those languages is in english.

    7. Tab ""Quick Defrag"": the text "?se custom rules"" in Vietnamese isn't translated due to a missing string in that language DLL file.


    My mother tongue is not english, dutch is. So, if something's not clear in the story above, send me an email/message using the email function of this forum.

  15. ? have installed v1.16 today and the program has the same two bugs as v1.15. In post #325 I detailed what those two bugs were (#1 and #3). Or perhaps the programmers hadn't time yet to improve the program the way I suggested ?


    I think the option to give the user the ability to change the colors of the drive map, in the section "General", simply bloats the program. In this particular case I would use the word "KISS": i.e. "Keep It Simple St**id".

  16. I like to use CCleaner and Defraggler although I use JKDefrag once in a while as well. It's my experience that large files open faster when they're (less) defragmented. So, in general I defragment large files (> ~ 500 kb) only and that's why I appreciate the possibility of manually defragmenting individual files in Defraggler.


    In v1.15 I came across three minor errors/weird things.


    1. Click on "Settings", "General". The last option in the section "Advanced" ("Show cleanup drive prompt before defrag") isn't automatically translated when one changes the language. I can change the language from Dutch to English, German or Spanish but this particular text remains in English. This is clearly a programming error.


    2. I used the "Defrag Freespace" option but according to the drivemap this option refused to move a number of files which were located at the end of a drive, more towards the beginning of the drive, in spite of the fact that there was enough room for them to be moved to. I tried to use that option a number of times and the "Defrag freespace (allow fragmentation)" option as well but to no avail. The files simply refused to be moved.

    However, when I placed the mouse cursor on those particular files the message "No files are in the block" appeared. And clicking on the "Analyze" button didn't change this situation either.


    Perhaps I am the only one with this problem ??

    Perhaps these files are system files (e.g. $MFT) which can't be moved ? But then I would suggest that these files should be marked as such, in a special and different colour.


    See attachment for a picture of the situation



    3. When I use Defraggler I always start with the dutch language version. Before analyzing any drive in the column "Fragmentation" the correct words always show up (that's e.g. "Onbekend" in the dutch version, or "Unknown" in the english version).

    But EVERY time I change the language (e.g from Dutch to German, or Spanish), using the "Settings" menu either with or without clicking "OK", every word in the main screen and in that menu is automatically translated/changed except the words (if there are any !!) in the column "Fragmentation". So, when changing the language the column "Fragmentation" is simply ignored. The only way to persuade the program to translate one word in that column for a selected drive is to (re-)analyze that particular selected drive.

    The program also simply refuses to translate a word in the column "Fragmentation" when one analyzes a drive and that particular drive is empty (e.g. a 3.5"" floppy drive station) and an error is generated.

  17. @ bobac:


    The Windows register consists of a number of separate files. In Windows XP these files all are in the C:\Windows directory. So, when one defrags that entire directory then the register is defragmented as well.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  • Create New...

Important Information

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