Jump to content


Experienced Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by thany

  1. It'd be great to wipe the free space ONLY and skip the MFT wipe. The MFT wipe, for me at least, can takes several DAYS to complete. Not sure why, but I'd rather skip this step as in the scenario I'm using it for, it's not very useful in the first place. Why? Virtual machines can be shrunk greatly when unused space is actually zeros, wheras the MFT wipe appears to be some sort of obfuscation pattern only to hide filenames and such. Simple as that, I think. So, in short: please add ticks for "Wipe the MFT" and "Wide the disk surface" when doing a free space wipe on an NTFS disk.
  2. Understood, but that's not the problem. The problem is that when having the slim version installed, it should only say there's a new version if there's a new *slim* version, because that's the one installed. And "Click to download!" is still (version 4.11) not the truth. It clicks, but doesn't download.
  3. I've installed CCleaner 4.10 slim build on Windows 7 x64. Today it says there's a new version, so when I click it, I have to click "no thanks" and "builds page" only to find there isn't a new version. There's a new version of the full build, but not the slim build, which I've got installed. Oops? Secondary suggestion: please let the "new version!" link in the program link directly to the download. It does say "click to download" after all, so that's what it should do. Otherwise change the link text to "click for a upselling offer".
  4. Not just local disks. Currently, it only allows wiping local disks, thankfully including removable drives. But why not also allow wiping a network drive? This would imply creating a file (let's call it "wipe") and writing random or data or zeros to it. Of course, the MFT cannot be wiped on a network drive, but we'll have to take that as a given then. Currently when I need to wipe a network drive, I just create a truecrypt container on it that fills up the available space perfectly, and then delete it. But this is not wat truecrpyt is meant for, of course.
  5. I'm not sure if this is a bug or a missing feature or anything, but I've been seeing this problem on a couple of computers now. Every time I run CCleaner, the Windows 7 Start Panel list gets emptied as well, even though all options that could potentially do that, are unchecked. In the "Windows Explorer" section, the only checked option is "Thumbnail Cache". In Options->Advanced, the option "Enable Windows Jump List Tasks" is checked. I'm not sure what this option is for, though. Does the word "Enable" mean to clean it, or to NOT clean it? The wording does not clearly reflect what it does either way. Anyway, I would like to keep my Start Panel menu intact when doing the cleaning, please. I know this is possible - I have seen systems on which it does work. Same version, same everything, as far as I can tell. Running CCleaner 4.01.4093, Windows 7 x64 SP1.
  6. How about detecting support for modern CPU features: VT-x, VT-d, AES-NI, TXT, XD, Turbo Boost, vPro, Speed Step. I'm sure the AMD front has other features that are (or should be) detectable. (although "Virtualization" is in the list, it only says enabled (or disabled). It doesn't seem to differentiate between VT-x and VT-d) Also, on Intel platforms since Core 2 (iirc), there is no discrete "bus speed". There's a DMI (Direct Meda Interface) that has a certain bandwidth expressed in GT/s. Just like HyperTransport in AMD systems.
  7. It'd be nice if the Drive Wiper could wipe a physical drive entirely, and not just a partition. I was a bit surprized when I needed this feature, to find that a drive-to-be-wiped must have a partition. And not just a partition, but a readable partition: unformatted/RAW isn't good enough. I'd like to see CCleaner to wipe the *entire* disk surface, which would also destroy the partitions, the partition table (useful if you need to move a drive to a machine that doesn't support GPT partitions...) and even the MBR. But for that to be possible, selecting a drive letter won't cut it, because drives don't have letters - partitions have letters. And sometimes not even, for example when they're mounted in a folder. On a semi-related note: why is the Drive Wiper stuck on "formatting" with absolutely no disk activity? On a semi-semi-related note: what is the best (meaning good enough) method for when you want to sell a harddisk as a second hand to someone you don't know?
  8. I don't mean to be rude, but this *is* my topic (i.e. I started it) and is *is* related, since this old problem still persists in the latest version.
  9. Sorry to bump this old topic, but the problem persists in the latest version 3.02. The option "enable windows jump list tasks" doesn't appear to fix this issue.
  10. Yes it's the recently used part of your screenshot. No I haven't tried your suggestion, because that would ultimately clean out the start panel again, and I don't want that And I'm not using the reg cleaner to produce this problem.
  11. This is the area i'm talking about: @Disk4mat: You are probably referring to something else. I think "pinned items" are items that stay at the top, regardless of the most opened items. I don't use pinned items, as you can see.
  12. I don't know what it's called, but I was referring to the big white area with programs (and their documents). It's the part above "all programs".
  13. Unfortunately it doesn't help. The only suggestion is to uncheck "taskbar jump lists" and that doesn't help.
  14. I've been using CCleaner for a long time. And I've never run into any real problems, until recently. I can't seem to figure out which option causes the Windows 7 start panel to be cleared. It's very annoying that I have to be rid of those items every time I give CCleaner another chance at NOT cleaning it. I've unchecked most options that could be responsible, but after cleaning and clicking just one item in the start panel, it's cleared! What do I do to NOT clean out the start panel?? Keep up the good work, btw. Other than this prob, CCleaner is great and I use it at every machine I use
  15. Does your solution defrag the contents of the directory, or the directory entry itself?
  16. I'd like to see "average fragment size" in the file list. That way I can choose to defrag only those files for which the fragment size is under the size of my choice. After all, a 100MB file with 5000 fragments is much slower to read than a 10MB file with only 3 fragments. Another suggestion: Support for SSD drives, preferrably automatic The reason for this is that on an SSD it's ok to leave a few fragments in large files, and it's pretty much useless to move contiguous files around at all, since SSD's don't have disk-heads to move, and more importantly, SSD's have a wear-levelling algorithm which makes the drive "fragmented" internally anyway. Therefor defragging the FS is only good for reducing the already miniscule seektimes and lowering CPU load a little from heavily fragmented files. Also, and this may be the greatest performance gean for SSD's: would it be possible for Defraggler to send the TRIM command to a disk for each piece of freespace? That way, an SSD would optimize it's wear-levelling and reduce performance degradation. Atm, only the OCZ Vertex supports this (and perhaps the Intel X25-M, not sure though), but I'm sure more will follow.
  17. Defraggler doesn't seem sum up fragmented directory-entries on the "file list" tab after an analysis. I almost always use that because a full defrag is a waste of time since it easily takes 10 times longer. Anyway, directories don't show up there, so it's not possible to defragment them the manual way. It seems that directories get defragged only when doing a full defrag... And since I have a few directories that are constantly being fed with thousands of (contiguous) files, I'd like to defrag them like I can with regular files... Can this please be added someday?
  18. Also, if you close Defraggler while minimized, the result is even worse... upon restarting, there's completely no window to be found, just a button on the taskbar. Right-clicking it and selecting maximize is the only way I know of to fix it.
  19. This is happening with Defraggler 1.08 on Vista x64. I sometimes end up with a volume that still shows some red in the block view, but no fragmented files are reported. Not even after another analysis. If I click one of of those red blocks, one of three different things may happen: I see the $MFT file (or another $-file) being fragmented. This is normal, but I guess Defraggler cannot defragment such files. I see a fragmented directory (that's the directory-entry on the FS, not files inside such a directory). I know Defraggler can technically defragment directories, but it seems that it doesn't (completely/correctly) happen. No fragmented files under a red block. That is just too weird. I also took the time to do a "chkdsk /v" on this volume, but it came out totally clean. Any ideas why this may be happening? Perhaps bugs?
  20. I'm using Defraggler 1.08 on a 32-bit Windows 2003 server, and I've seen this weird behavior where Defraggler tends to cause contiguous files to end up fragmented. This only happens when I simply hit the Defrag button on the volume in question. This volume does have enough contiguus freespace to allow for defragmentation, altough not very much (~10% is freespace, out of 10GB total). The volume has no fragmented files, and yet when I hit Defrag to sort of fill the small freespace gaps, some files get fragmented again. If I then do an analyse and defragment those fragmented files "manually", everything ends up ok. How come this is happening? Any ideas?
  21. In some cases I noticed Defraggler eating 100% cpu (on one core, that is) while analyzing or defragging. On my boot disk it uses about 12% (48% on one core) while analyzing but on my (much larger) data disk it's doing 100% on one core. It has a C2Q Q9450 cpu and is running Vista Ultimate x64 SP1. On my laptop, which has a low-power C2D U7700 cpu, it's always doing full cpu load (except when idle). Laptop runs Vista Business x64 SP1. Is this normal?
  22. You can always install a similar environment inside a VM on VirtualBox and test from there. No need for a second server
  23. I think in practise, they both allow fragmentation. The ones with "(allow fragmentation)" should read more like "(by any means neccesary)" I think it's a bug or misunderstanding.
  24. Or a USB stick that has a physical readonly-switch (yeah, they're quite rare, but I found one). Very handy for fixing someone's pc without having to be afarid of a virus infecting my stick
  25. Are those files - by any chance - sparse or compressed? Because then they would fragment whenever they are written to, even when their size remains the same. Other than that, I don't know how such files could become fragmented...
  • Create New...

Important Information

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