mr don

They have 64 bit XP as well. After the UXtheme file is patched, it allows you to beautify it to look as good or better than Vista or 7. I had the displeasure of using a W7 64 bit laptop with a dualcore 2.1 GHZ processor recently, & despite all the hype, it still doesn't float. XP trounced the newcomer in every way. The only good thing about W7 is that it is more stable than Vista with fewer bugs, but is still much slower & less usable than XP is. I will not be buying W7 anytime soon.

While this would work, the downside is that the services you disable in one user profile would remain disabled when the user logged into other accounts. I believe he is referring to a method that he can disable then re-enable services. Check theorica website for a free product called gamexp & be sure to backup your current settings before you begin so you can undo them later.

Backup your work, then run System Restore to the date you know it was there. It may not work for things in the My Documents folder as these are excluded from restore points as a "safe harbor" for files.

CCleaner works great, but I was using it not long back & it caused me to lose thumbnail view on windows explorer for pictures. I am running XP Pro, P4 3,200 MHZ dual core with 1 GB ram & 128 MB intel video accel. It was working fine, but after running ccleaner registry cleaner, I noticed I was unable to view thumbnails. I was able to restore it back, but what caused it is this: CCleaner Registry Scanner, when you have it checked to scan for Unused File Extensions will scan for those no longer being used or necessary. The problem with this, is if you install another program that becomes the default for viewing .JPG files, then when it is removed, it may not re-associate default windows image viewer back to .JPG. This causes a severe problem, because CCleaner then sees it as "not being used" so that it is safe to remove. There either needs to be a whitelist of extensions that will never be removed because they are critical, or this section of registry cleaning needs to be skipped altogether. It does a good job, generally, but this is one of the most dangerous keys to mess with that CCleaner Registry Cleaner cleans. I have had problems before with this, as others I know have too. I would like to see this fixed in future versions, because there are just too many things that can go wrong with cleaning this key, & many times you don't really realize what just happened till later. There are some who claimed that CCleaner caused them to not be able to use .EXE files after doing a reg cleaning. I am not sure on that, but I am pretty sure that if they did, it would have to have occurred because of the scan for "Unused File Extensions". Since this is an area that is so difficult for software to really tell if it is needed or not, can I beg the authors to please remove this section of cleaning? It is just dangerous! 98% of problems that I have found with people cleaning their registry with CCleaner has come from the top 3 checkmark boxes, & of those, 85% or more have been from the file extension checkmark box alone. Anyone else agree with me that it should be removed since it causes more harm than good to scan for "unused" file extensions? Thanks!

I agree with that. Shorcut removal/shortcut to removal on new shortcuts/icon cache fix, etc! Actually, maybe next Piriform will have a Tweakie with Speccy built in as a function! A simple program that would enable you to select whether you wanted to tweak XP/Vista/Win 7. Next, have tweaks to speed up XP, re-enable task manager fix (from where malware blocks use of task manager), re-enable thumbnail view, register editor fix, etc, same for vista & 7!

There is a freeware registry cleaner + defragger now on sourceforge. It is called Little Registry Cleaner. After cleaning the registry, it compacts it & schedules it to be replaced on reboot.

I also would love the full screen view.

Try using diskcleaner available on sourceforge if you have trouble using CCleaner. It is also a simple, easy to use product. Thanks!

The real issue here are mainly these, from what I can see. Going open source sounds nice, but here are some worries: - Donations may be more limited. Although free, isn't it nice to donate to people who spend time fixing things? - There may be less control over what goes on in the programs they produce. - Global developers may contribute quality coding, but it may increase time to review these codes for possible malware style behavior before approval. It is definitely interesting, & it would be so neat to see where an "open source" clone could go with this, if they were granted permission. It would be really interesting to see who had the superior product in the end, Piriform, or Open Source developers.

Right click My Computer/properties & click System Restore tab. Disable System Restore, run defraggler, then re-anable. It may be different if you are not using windows XP.

I would imagine that it could be listed right above or below the system restore button under tools. Perform similarly to Sys Restore & allow users to select which ones they want to deleted or keep, while retaining the last copy just like it does with system restore...

- Try system restore. Files in My Documents are exempt from restore point restorations, so they will not come back. - Try Handy Recovery. They may have a trial you can use, & if you cannot get it back with that, it probably cannot be gotten back - Check the file name. They do sometimes change upon deletion!

I would use this method first, if you knew the problem was caused by CCleaner as it would be 100% safe to merge it. If this failed, then I would try Hazelnut's suggestion secondly. I have used the association fix in time past, & it sort of worked, while causing other things to act a little strangely if you know what I mean!

Don't get me started. Not only that, but the fact that Vista has Anti-Copy mechanisms in it for true digital copies, built around DRM technology, invades your privacy & purchase with criminal-like WGA activation schemes. Let's face it. Windows is a scam/sham/crook! There, I said what everyone else is afraid to! But it is true. Now, that being said, the best way to run defraggler is this: - Enable Super User account as described above - Disable system restore - Disable all unnecessary startup items & run CCleaner on all user accounts - Logout of all user accounts, then restart & log into the Super User account you created in safe mode - Run defraggler It is also lots less wear on your drive to go ahead when you are formatting your drive next time, delete the partition & repartition it as 2 drives. Format the first one & use it for Windows. Use your second partition for your multimedia & create folders, for example: Audio/Documents/Pictures/Games/Videos Now, whenever you have to defrag windows, scan for malware/viruses, your scan times are dramatically reduced while your other data is safe from most viruses on another partition, since most viruses will attack just things on the C: drive. Next time windows goes belly up, you can format the windows partition & not lose your data on the other partition. Your harddisk/mem/software will work so much less harder, so much faster, & be under far less stress. Think of all the time you will save! Now, for the biggie... Windows uses percentages for recycle bin use as well as system restore point creation. Default is 10% for each drive for recycle bin to use, & 12% for restore... On drives that are 2,000 GB (2 TB) this is 20 GB just for the minimum 1% size! If you have multiple partitions, a minimum of 20 GB is being wasted on each partition! You can, of course, turn these features off, but then you have no way to restore in the event of a disaster. Me? I think harddisks are big enough now... I think MS should include a second option of specifying say for example, no more than 2 GB for recycle bin. By including percent by default, & the secondary size selector, MS can be sure the recycle bin is large enough on older computers while users can be sure that they don't waste space on newer systems. Me? I think MS should just say there is a minimum 20 GB harddisk. 5 GB for windows install, 2 GB for recycle with option to set it higher or lower GB, & 4 GB for restore. Some programs would gain mimimal return for vastly faster CPU usage, so all MS programs should have a set recommended clock in them of say, if MS Calc did not require over 2 MHZ, that was all it was allocated! Same for all other programs, while if a program requests more, it is sent more. Make a windows that will be stingy with mem, & allow programs that really need faster CPU or GPU use is, such as video encoding/transcoding/ripping!

I don't know why everyone is trying to complicate this & make it harder than it should be. You want CCleaner to remove all user account temp files in 1 go. That may be hard to do if a user is password protected. Although, I am sure if Handy Recovery could access password protected user accounts, CCleaner could also if they chose. Rather than to that, this is much simpler than they way others suggest here of adding it to task scheduler for each user, or editing GPO to "roll things out". Do it this way, & you only have to set it 1 time. - Open C:\Program Files\CCleaner folder, then open CCleaner - Options & select Settings - Under settings, check the Run CCleaner when the computer starts - Go to Advanced (still under options, above the about button) - Check hide warning messages & Save all settings to .ini file - Close CCleaner & right click the just created INI file & select properties - Change this to read only Congratulations, now CCleaner should automatically run for all user accounts. The settings are stored in the program file INI, so it should be global for all users when you select run when computer starts. Marking it read only prevents other user accounts from being able to change CCleaner settings. This is simple, easy, & you only have to do it 1 time. I am surprised no-one else up here thought about this!

I am not saying that all people have this problem, or even most. But I have seen reports on the web & also on here indicating that some people do lose 30 GB or more due to windows creating volume shadow copies during a defrag. It turns out that the solution has always been the Volume Shadow Copies. Go to google & type in defrag lose free space to bring up links to see what I mean. I have also seen some computers where the search box on XP would not show up due to file corruption. What makes you think this is impossible to trigger/cause unintended things on Vista? I have seen weird things on computers, & I work on a lot of them!

You don't need to know where it is installed if it is built into defraggler. It would use relative paths. I know about this from making my own portable apps.

For some reason unknown to me, Defraggler works fine on my machine at the moment, but I have seen the occasions on other machines that it will fail to consolidate files + free space, leaving them "defragged" but definitely not consolidated! There are huge gaps, chunks, & total checker board style design of files all over the drive! This is on XP 32 bit/SP2, 1.8 GZ P4 laptop with 768 MB ram & 80 GB drive with 75% free space & the latest Defraggler (1.15, I think)! What can cause this & why? Any guess? It appears to go through defraggler process fine, all the way to 100%, but still leaves files scattered all over the drive, just in a non fragmented state? I did think it was supposed to consolidate files & free space, am I correct? In addition, I checked to be sure that that the default options are checked, not move large files to the end of the drive.... What gives?

I wonder if you guys can add Vista shadow copy support to CCleaner? I have not yet tested Windows 7 to see if it causes the same problem, but I do know that System Restore & Shadow copies appear to be 2 separate things. Any chance to add to CCleaner the option to remove the shadow copies just like you have support built in for System Restore Point control & removal? It appears that many users report losing 30 GB or more, just to shadow copies, which, I believe, can happen while running Defraggler in Vista, in addition to other things. 30 GB, 50 GB, it is a LOT of wasted space. The average uninformed user just has no idea where it went! Perhaps an option to disable Shadow Copy service (And reclaim free space?) or at least the ability to remove shadow copies! Does anyone else here agree with me? Is shadow copy support (ability to control & remove 30 + GB garbage on Vista) important to anyone else here?

I am confused. Can't you just use CCleaner & use the system restore control to get the free space back? (delete all but the most recent restore point) Additionally, you can turn off system restore in Vista till you get done defragging... Can't you? Won't that rid you of the shadow copies as well? P.S. If it won't, try the disk cleanup tool to remove the shadow copies. Disable shadow copy service in windows running services if you need to.

It would be nice, though... A lot of users have CPU with untapped onboard cache mem, dying to be used. The celeron processors are slower than P4 chips because they only have 512 kb onboard cache compared to 4 x larger on P4 machines with a 2 MB onchip cache. If it makes that much difference, why let it go unused, especially on a dual core or quad core machine? Imagine the performance boost in changing your machine from a celeron/netbook-like machine, to a number crunching zombie!

35 passes is included, in the event that they want to securely erase the data with multiple over-writes. True, a 0 is a 0, but it has been said that just having a single overwrite can be bypassed with good data recovery programs, whereas 35 passes makes it extremely difficult to recover, if it would be possible at all!

You are running Windows 7 64 bit, correct? I am not for certain on this, but it could be due to how the 64 bit OS handles 32 bit coded software. I am sure 32 bit versions probably do not have this problem. I am sure that Mr. Ron is probably aware of this & working on better 64 bit support, even as we speak. Although I am not 100% certain this is coming from the 64 bit problems, I do know that 64 bit OS can have trouble running software coded for 32 bit, for whatever reason, even though it is supposed to run it. It also is a known that 64 bit OS trying to emulate or run 32 bit software can go much slower than say, a 64 bit version. It will be interesting to see how this is handled, and if he will be releasing a 64 bit version + 32 bit version, or integrate both versions into a single .exe & implement a check to see if the OS is 32 or 64 bit, then launch the appropriate version! I would rather see the integrated approach myself, so if I were running it portably, I would not have to select between 64 or 32 bit. I am not 100% certain on this, but I am thinking this is where the problem is that you are having.

This is where things may get interesting. Some people use BETA or MSDN versions of windows XP. It would be interesting to know if yours is a Home, Pro, OEM Vendor, or MSDN/Beta version of XP. It may be possible that beta versions have "incomplete" features that could cause this. In addition, if you would post if your XP is 32 or 64 bit (right click your my computer/properties & if it is 64 bit, it will say 64 bit version. If it is not a 64 bit, it will simply just have XP SP2 etc, no mention of a bit type. This is how you can tell if your OS is 32 or 64 bit). And the reason for that is, that there have been reports of 32 bit software hanging on 64 bit OS. I am sure that these 2 bits of information I asked you about would help very much to the developers in trying to troubleshoot where the problem is coming from. Thanks!