Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About cr1t1c

  • Rank
  1. Hi, It's hard to believe nobody mentions this, it's like "not seeing the elephant in the room"... If you look at: All the information that CCleaner used to provide is now GONE!... What's been supposed to be "the log" of cleaning actions is now "a summary"... Then why do CCleaner "still" uses the 'big fat logging area' which it doesn't need anymore? Why don't redesign the interface so that the space will be used wisely and optimum? In short if CCleaner is to follow this new path of logging then it really should consider slimming the unnecessary spaces and elements (shown in question marks). But in reality (believing not to be alone) I really miss "verbose logging" and believe it should still be an option of settings page instead of obligatorily forcing user to choose between new "summary" versions and old "verbose" versions... Since I comment on both sides, it would be swell to learn the POV of creators about the subject. Don't you think?...
  2. Hi, Yesterday I run CCleaner to get more free space than I expected. When I checked the CCleaner log: It showed a gig is "cleaned" yet I don't remember what were deleted. I'm sure they're unnecessary yet it would be nice if CCleaner to provide an option for displaying "Detailed Log of Emptied Recycle Bin Items" like it does with option for IE or FF (in advanced options)... I really couldn't believe such "obvious" feature is really missing in CCleaner. Hope this is to be corrected in the next minor version... Bye...
  3. Hi, Searching for a good file recovery software I've tried many top ten listings, editor's picks and etc.. After many disappointments the most rated (according to the sites I've visited) "RecoverMyFiles" does indeed did a good job in recovery... But after trying Recuva, RecoverMyFiles seemed somewhat bloated and pricey since Recuva does a better job and it's free many thanks to Piriform... Yet another try; "Pandora Recovery" has beaten both 'Recuva > RecoverMyFiles' with great significance. I now have both Pandora and Recuva installed on my system (uninstalled other) for "if one fail to recover other may be" approach... I might say quite surprisingly not so good rated (below Recuva) Pandora does a freaking good recovery where in cases Recuva simply refuses to display 'seconds ago deleted' files because it believes they're overwritten and 0 bytes in size. With cases like these Pandora also reports 0 bytes in size (which may to be proven false) yet gives you an option to recover the files anyway unlike Recuva does... For a test; I've backed up some video files and deleted them. Afterwards I've added/deleted smaller files to induce overwrite over deleted videos. Luckily I'd got the situation I've explained above. Pandora somewhat recovered those videos even if both software claim they're overwritten by new smaller files and 0 in bytes. After checking the files against hashes of backed up copies, ~70% of these files are recovered successfully as is with the same hash. Also the hash fail ~30% was still playable (videos)... As a result; after seeing Pandora recovering most of the files where Recuva even denied to show for recovery, I must sadly say Recuva has a hopefully not so long way to go before claiming to be one of the best recovery software. Being a fanatic of Defraggler and an appreciative user of CCleaner, I have to admit I'm a little disappointed with the current version of the Recuva. I strongly believe the author(s) should definitely try out competitive software (like Pandora) against deletion recovery tests versus Recuva to pinpoint what's there to be improved... Also for recovery users I strongly suggest to do your own research and recovery tests (Recuva or Pandora might not work for you at all) before just relying on industrial reviews which may prove to be wrong... Bye ;-)...
  4. Hi, I first experienced Defraggler while trying to search for a counterpart for my commercial defragger. A counterpart which can do the things the other(s) can't. As time passess Defraggler unquestionably becomes my second hand for everyday fragmentation. Like many others complaining here for Defraggler to become a FREEWARE Diskeeper or PerfectDisk(my other hand), I'm totally opposed to see Defraggler becoming a CLONE-BLOAT Defragger with many many features yet less effective... Like most can't do their jobs without "both" hands, now I can't manage defragging using PerfectDisk "in conjunction" with Defraggler knowing their weaknesses and powers, using one on another to eliminate all weaknesses in defragmentation. Although seems impossible to use two together, I have different partitions for different needs and I use Perfectdisk for one, I use Defraggler on other and both on another. Results are more satisfactory using either product alone if you know how to use them properly. Because on the hands of an noob, the two defraggers algorithm differences can really mess up any hard drive being PerfectDisk an Optimizer and Defraggler a Defragger... For all those trying to drive Defraggler to become next freeware Diskeeper by their "suggestions": *) If you like background set-&-forget defragging; buy Diskeeper (or clone) and leave Defraggler alone... *) If you like optimized layout weekly-monthly defragging; buy PerfectDisk (or clone) like I do and leave Defraggler alone... *) If you like to sort/order whatever your files to your "needs"; buy UltimateDefrag (no clone) and leave Defraggler alone... *) If you like FREEWARE defragger with "optimizations" in multi-passes; use JKDefrag + many easier Front-ends and leave Defraggler alone... *) AND if you like Defraggler and defrag ONLY those file in need; please continue to use Defraggler and don't let it become another clone!... Don't get me wrong, I like and use Piriform products but I must add if Defraggler to become a commercial defragger CLONE, one should prefer a Defragger from a company who specializes in disk related technologies rather than Piriform, because the more they invested R&D in their defragging technologies the more they perfected their algorithms and such. Being a NKOTB, Piriform can't go that far without being a commercial non-freeware program. I might be wrong but during past decade I don't see much freeware beating their commercial brothers. Once they do they'd been acquired to become commercial. Sad but true... Now my suggestions that I'd like to add or emphasize: *) Shift/duplicate "Menu", "Right-click-menu" approach to buttons or so on the UI since it's annoying and RSI-inducing making more clicks than you really need to do (Menu=2 clicks, Button=1 click). Meaning "Defrag Drive/Folder/File", "Options", "Priority" and etc. all can be integrated to the empty spaces in UI saving many clicks... *) Shift Options, Choice lists and like to a new "tab" after "Drive/File List/???" tab-control on UI... *) Use proper keyboard tab-jumping (mouseless usage) which jumps among controls but not on filelist... *) Include basic "Help" for the noob defining basics and Defraggler's approach in its modes of defragmentation... *) Replace whatever non-standard filelist control that you're using to program to a better one since current filelist columns can't be switched with one another like normally can... (I don't like check/filename/fragments/size/path order but check/fragments/size/filename/path customization better) *) Adjustable colors of "Map Legend" for color blinds and customized choices... *) An option to defragment chosen file to a "single fragment with cost of fragmenting others" can be good. No need for optimization yet moving out the files (even with fragmenting) occupying the space required for single fragment should be sufficient... *) And lastly; "average fragment size" is somewhat a must in filelist columns. Average fragment size=Size (of file which is in columns) / # of fragments (of file which is also in columns). IMHO average fragment size is much more crucial than the total # of fragments per file. As this has been suggested before, I'd like express it one more time with another example: Say you've got a DVD to fill and burn or something similar. Then say you have to fill 4400mb(approx) with 100mb per file (say video clips) 20 fragment per file which results in 5mb average fragment size resulting a total of 880 fragments to burn. The burn will mostly go smoothly even when you're are multi-tasking since average chunk size is sufficient enough... 880 chunk = 4400 dvd / (100 mb / 20 frag) On the other hand say this time you have many quality wallpapers to burn, 4400mb per DVD, 1mb average per file and 2 fragment per file which results in 0.5mb average fragment size resulting a total of 8800 fragments to burn. This is 10 times smaller fragments per file BUT 10 times greater # of chunks to burn. The burn will probably be susceptible to speed losses, lossless re-linking, no multi-tasking and such... 8800 chunk = 4400 dvd / (1 mb / 2 frag) If current numbers are working for you, a scenario where more fragments to burn with least per file fragmentation won't burn can be found. In short one should realize that: Importance of Average fragment size > Importance of # of fragments And all I ask is another column in filelist view showing this critical number per file... And for the pro-con of the past comments on suggestions: @Derick Defraggler is defraggler & Diskeeper is diskeeper. Different products for "different" needs unless you want Diskeeper for free... @Recoil Boot time defragging is included in optimization based defragger which is somewhat beyond defraggler scope... (refer:davey's comment, or davey's comment) @genusis, Ruyfe, Jenzz, MarcusVR, Viclick, Spectro +1 for minimize (not necessarily tray) (or at least non-modal)... @Viggen Defraggler is defraggler & you can choose other prototype defraggers using that approach rather than Defraggler. Don't demand Defraggler=Diskeeper or so. Also UI is as sleek as it is now IMHO... @arch0nmyc0n, xavi, Steve(spt), Skywalker1, adoc, Garetiem, Ng LC, Astrial, joexoxeoj, Nismo, blonddan, xaeroevo, Adicted +1 for shutdown... @Basilisk +1 for observations & +1 for no-no condition. Yet refer "Davey's Comments" (up 4) where Defraggler seems a Defragger but not necessarily an "Optimizer". For the flash drives; simply move (fragged) flash content to hard disk and then back to flash again. Unless using 3rd party file manager/copier, you'll see files become "less fragmented" only in 1 lifecycle... @ Arthemax You're looking for an "Optimizer" (refer "Davey's Comments" (up 5)) and also unless you're using the "right" software, most programs simply opens a file and rewrites it somewhere else rather than "appending" like you expected where also other defraggers fail to optimize. @1031982, xray, colorplane +1 for resize problems @catweazle_23 In theory maybe. There are three; 1) Like you said to leave inactive (no/least defragging) where after some time disk head will have to be more active jumping among fragments (contradictory) and overall speed will be affected. 2) Use an "Optimizer" defragger which causes most wear where after done linear disk reads cause least wear compared to previous jump also speed increases. 3) Defraggler approach: See what file is fragmented to what degree and "ONLY" defrag those truly in need which ensures balance among previous approachs... @vorob +1 for all drives yet why not "simultaneous defragging" for partitions located in "different" disks? @seraphim +1 for file dates column in file list yet again another "optimizer" request, please refer "Davey's Comments" (up 9)... @mlyons +1x3 for all your suggestions; total files, percentage ... @cyo As you have partially observed, multiple passes can (not must) decrease further fragmentation. Mostly don't if you're using the way I do. Defraggler is defraggler and JKDefrag is JKDefrag which is well known for its capabilities and "Multiple Passes" please use "that" so. Yet IMHO multiple passes is useless in between "Optimization" (PerfectDisk) and Defragging (Defraggler) approaches because you are to spend much time and wear as "optimization" yet obtain "close to" optimized disk... @Willy2 For all those who'd love/like to pinpoint/control where their files should be: use UltimateDefrag. No other defragger does the job so close up to now and leave Defraggler alone. Defraggler is defraggler and UltimateDefrag is ultimatedefrag... ( I lost the count I reversed this ;-)) @nick_white +1 for select folder to defrag all files/subfolders which is available on right-click... @Tem, Dillon -1 for delete. "Open containing folder" option presented in Defraggler is good enough for this... @lnminente, yuri +100 because "average fragment size per file"-column will be more useful than "total # of fragments"... @anonymous_user +1 for portable (ini) approach yet if Defraggler is like CCleaner, it may insert many CLSID's in the registry.. @Willy2 +1 for nonlisting defragged filenames yet another "optimizer" request. Referring "Davey's Comments" (up page) and seeing the way Defraggler works, it "aims" "MINIMIZING" fragmentation in shortest time, which is somewhat the opposite approach of "Optimizing" file places which takes much longer time. Defraggler is defraggler and Optimizers are optimizers. Go use one another instead or in conjunction with defraggler... @ZzDr.Fred -1 for wanting Defraggler=Diskeeper. Defraggler is defraggler & Diskeeper is diskeeper. If you "love" that than "use that" and don't demand a price-free Diskeeper out of Defraggler. If you're set, write a defragger for your needs since basic defragging instructions of NTFS are from Micro$oft. Also -1 for most of your comments. If you loved Diskeeper that means you've used it long enough to love which means you either bought it or used it illegally. If you "own" it than use it & leave Defraggler alone, or if you're a Warez user than don't try to judge others actions, that's just hyp..... Also don't talk about before Google'ing or Wiki'ing about what you're talking about; different users have different usage patterns so different needs from a defragger(s). Optimizers are useful than you imagined yet this isn't the place for that (also those milliseconds "adds up" unlike you grasp (also @JDPower))... @Dillon, Neil Parks, Quatermass, StOrMw1nD, malikor -1 for registry defrag for now until Defraggler becomes best of what it can be (hopefully not another Diskeeper, Perfectdisk of JKDefrag)... @xray, Wooltown, Nismo, Jaelani, wchil, Rotzooi, GlowSplint, Shresht +1 for exclusion/ignore list depending on name, extension, date, size, folder etc... @Wooltown +1 for inclusion list depending on filename list columns parameters... @luik, Jaelani, ne1scott, rumcajs, m@tt, nazgand, galileo, canorro, CactuS, hairbutt Leave Defraggler alone and get an optimizer defragger (if not for free then spare some bucks) (refer Davey's comments up page)... @Neil Parks, yuri Comment at once yet not in sequential "fragments"??? @equazcion, eremit, Phonomania(+), ladiko(+), Nismo(+), khokkanen +1 multi-threading in multi-core yet on different disk simultaneous partition defragging ;-)... @YoKenny +1 for @StOrMw1nD, Nismo +1 for priorities which is already on the latest Defraggler... @Lilt +1 for distributing a non-recently-used big file among fragmentation gaps yet this is the job for a Optimizer where we're talking about Defraggler... @Lilt -1 for secure defragging???. Defraggler is defraggler & Drive Scrubber is drive scrubber. Simply find & use a drive scrubber (with government wipes) which perfectly fits your needs... @ChromeBeauty +1 for "always analyze before defrag" option... @softwareadvisor... +1 for UI suggestions... @yuri +1 for @Nismo +1 for almost all but reorder and optimizer requests. Defraggler is defraggler & UltimateDefrag is ultimatedefrag, please use that (or Diskeeper) and leave Defraggler alone and dkafyr... @Brian49 +1000 for seeing "The Light" in Defraggler where other "clone" defraggers don't possess... Quote is for all who wants price-free Diskeeper out of Defraggler... @BlazingGeek +1 for Explorer Shell integration for selecting individual file defragging... @sammeke288 +1 for Estimated Time of Arrival... For all those who don't like my comments, feel free to do so. It's good to have many different opinions for the progress for Defraggler. ;-)... Bye...
  • Create New...