lmacri

Hi DennisD: Partial success. I performed a clean re-install of v. 2.14.706 (uninstall from Control Panel, re-boot, re-install with a new installation file downloaded from the FileHippo mirror site). The disk analysis seemed to run faster, but my restore points were still in the list of fragmented files and Defraggler reported that my C: drive was 31% fragmented. I then followed your instructions and added the C:\System Volume Information\ folder to my list of exclusions (thanks for the hint about disabling the "Hide protected system files" checkbox). This solved part of the problem, since my restore points no longer appear in my list of fragmented files after a disk analysis. However, Defraggler still reports that my C: drive is 31% fragmented (see new .JPG). I'll try Alan_B's idea to try the portable version of Defraggler tomorrow unless someone has any further suggestions. Edit: Sorry, attached the wrong image. The correct .JPG is now posted below. ------------ MS Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit SP2 * Firefox 20.0.1 * IE 9.0 * NIS 2013 v. 20.3.1.22 * Defraggler 2.14.706 HP Pavilion dv6835ca, Intel Core2Duo CPU T5550 @ 1.83 GHz, 3.0 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS

Hi DennisD: I updated to v. 2.14.706 (installed over old v. 2.14.705) and I don't notice any difference - the disk analysis runs very slowly and my restore points still appear in the list of unfragmented files (i.e., disk 30% fragmentation). I confirmed that "Exclude restore point file" is still enabled in my advanced settings. ------------ MS Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit SP2 * Firefox 20.0.1 * IE 9.0 * NIS 2013 v. 20.3.1.22 * Defraggler 2.14.706 HP Pavilion dv6835ca, Intel Core2Duo CPU T5550 @ 1.83 GHz, 3.0 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS

Hi DennisD: Just to follow up to switchs' original question, I have "Exclude restore point files" enabled under my advanced settings. If I understand the online help file here, this means that the restore points will not be defragged during a disk defrag. However, is there some setting that will force Defraggler to ignore the restore points when the total % fragmentation of a drive is calculated during a drive analysis? When I updated to v. 2.13.670 on 18-Feb-2013, the disk analysis did not include my restore points in my list of fragmented files and Defraggler reported that my C: drive was only 1% fragmented. I assumed was a feature improvement for v. 2.13, since I'd never seen previous versions of Defraggler ignore my restore points during the initial disk analysis. When I updated to v. 2.14.705 on 18-Apr-2013, my restore points were back in the list of fragmented files and Defraggler reported that my C: drive was 30% fragmented (see attached .JPG). I updated to v. 2.14.706 today and I'm still at 30% fragmentation. ------------ MS Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit SP2 * Firefox 20.0.1 * IE 9.0 * NIS 2013 v. 20.3.1.22 * Defraggler 2.14.706 HP Pavilion dv6835ca, Intel Core2Duo CPU T5550 @ 1.83 GHz, 3.0 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS

Does anyone know what bug fixes / feature improvements were made to today's update for Defraggler v. 2.14.706 (released 23-Apr-2013)? The change log for v. 2.14.706 is posted here but it looks like they removed the change log for v. 2.14.705 (released 18-Apr-2013). ------------ MS Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit SP2 * Firefox 20.0.1 * IE 9.0 * NIS 2013 v. 20.3.1.22 * Defraggler 2.14.705 HP Pavilion dv6835ca, Intel Core2Duo CPU T5550 @ 1.83 GHz, 3.0 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS

I also wanted to mention that my Norton Internet Security (NIS) Insight Optimizer is disabled (Settings | Miscellaneous Settings | Idle Time Optimizer | Off - see attached .jpg), so it's unlikely that NIS is the source of any of my idle-time defrags. I'm not certain if NIS still uses the old Norton Speed Disk technology or if it calls the native Windows Disk Defragmenter (WDD), but if you have security software on your computer it could also be running idle-time defrags in addition to the background WDD boot optimization defrags I described in message #29. -------- Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit SP2 * NIS 2011 * CCleaner 3.08.1475 * Defraggler 2.06.328 HP Pavilion dv6835ca, Intel Core2Duo CPU T5550 @ 1.83 GHz, 3.0 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS

Tunerz / Winamp2.ini / Andavari: I was thinking about your posts regarding background boot optimization defrags and think I may have to revise comments I made in messages #11 and #14. I just want to confirm first that these boot optimization defrags you're talking about are the idle-time defrags that run after every boot-up and defrag important Windows boot files to minimize start-up times, cannot be disabled from Task Scheduler (at least in XP and Vista - I'm not sure about Win 7) and can only be disabled with a registry edit (see the MSDN article here and the Vista tutorial here). As far as I know there are three registry keys related to the optimization of boot files: HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Dfrg\BootOptimizeFunction HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\OptimalLayout HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Prefetcher I recently came across an article by TweakHound here titled "Bad Tweaks" describing how these registry keys can be disabled in XP, and a sidebar in that article states that these boot optimization defrags start 10 minutes after the system goes into idle. I'm beginning to wonder now if the Windows Disk Defragmenter (WDD) defrags I'm seeing that seem to pop up randomly during system idles are actually just an interrupted background boot optimization defrag trying to run to completion. If that's the case then I don't know why these boot optimization defrags would run during idle for up to an hour at a time (at least on my system) or why they would indiscriminantly defrag everything except for large shadow copies (i.e., system restore points which are excluded from full WDD defrags anyway), but maybe these "silent" idle-time WDD defrags I frequently see are just a boot optimization defrag gone wild. ------- Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit SP2 * NIS 2011 * CCleaner 3.08.1475 * Defraggler 2.06.328 HP Pavilion dv6835ca, Intel Core2Duo CPU T5550 @ 1.83 GHz, 3.0 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS

Hi Alan_B: Thanks for the recommendation. I've downloaded the PDF-XChange Viewer installation file and user manual and I'll give it test run. I actually tried this PDF reader a few years ago, but back then users couldn't add/edit bookmarks and the free version automatically added annoying "DEMO" watermarks to pages whenever you saved a PDF document. I noticed both these problems have been resolved (watermarks now appear to be an optional feature you can disable during installation) so I'm going to give it another shot. In the mean time I'd like to try Nergal's revised code for cleaning Foxit Reader files. This whole idea about customizing CCleaner INI files is a new concept for me and I'd like to see how it works. _________________ Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit SP2 * CCleaner v 3.08.1475 * Foxit Reader v. 5.0.2.0718

Hi Nergal: This is brilliant. I had no idea that users can customize their CCleaner INI file to clean third-party applications that aren't normally cleaned by the CCleaner application. When I posted my question about Firefox Reader v. 5.0, the most I was hoping for was a simple "yes" or "no" answer, but you've actually gone the extra step to provide and test the customized code. Your effort is greatly appreciated - ditto to Robert (Winapp2.ini) for his input as well. I've downloaded the latest winapp2.ini file (wow!) and I'm also going to check out your link to the CCleaner documentation to learn more about this INI customization. I suspect that one of the reasons that the CCleaner developers haven't added cleaning of later versions of Foxit Reader to their base product is because Foxit has started changing the path to their registry entries in HKCU every time they release a major software update. I'm actually unhappy about many of the changes that were made to the latest release of Foxit Reader 5.x and I may eventually end up installing a different PDF reader. Foxit Reader use to be a light, secure and easy-to-use PDF reader but lately it's become just as bloated and buggy as Adobe Reader. -------- Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit SP2 * CCleaner v 3.08.1475 * Foxit Reader v. 5.0.2.0718

Is CCleaner able to clean Foxit PDF Reader recently used/history lists? I currently have CCleaner v 3.08 and Foxit Reader 5.0 installed on my Vista 32-bit laptop. When I look on the Applications tab Foxit Reader is missing from my application list, but various posts in this forum would indicate that CCleaner should be able to clean Foxit Reader. I have Revo Uninstaller and could perform an advanced uninstall and clean re-install of CCleaner when I upgrade to v. 3.09 but I'd prefer to avoid doing this since I have some important cookies in my "Cookies to Keep" exclusion list and don't want to risk losing my current settings. ------ Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit SP2 * CCleaner v 3.08.1475 * Foxit Reader v. 5.0.2.0718

Hi Andavari: It doesn't look like my Vista OS has an Indexing Service that can be disabled in the Windows Services, and I can't see a way to disable indexing from the Indexing Options in my Control Panel, but according to an article here in My Digital Life, the best way to stop all indexing services in Vista is to disable the Windows Search service. Even if this solution works for Vista users, I'd hate to have to sacrifice my search performance just to reduce the frequency of these "silent" idle time defrags. ------- Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit SP2 * NIS 2011 * CCleaner 3.08.1475 * Defraggler 2.06.328 HP Pavilion dv6835ca, Intel Core2Duo CPU T5550 @ 1.83 GHz, 3.0 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS

There's a post in the Tech Support Guy forum here that reports that idle time defrags by dfrgntfs.exe can be stopped in Windows XP by disabling the Windows Indexing Service. I haven't tried it yet on my Vista machine so I don't know if this just decreases the number of idle time defrags or actually stops them altogether. Thanks to coyote2, who posted this link in the Norton support forum here in a similar discussion about unexpected defrags. Has anyone figured out what the new Replace Windows Disk Defragmenter option does in Defraggler? Piriform still hasn't updated their Defraggler documenation to include this information. -- Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit SP2 * NIS 2011 * CCleaner 3.08.1475 * Defraggler 2.06.328 HP Pavilion dv6835ca, Intel Core2Duo CPU T5550 @ 1.83 GHz, 3.0 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS

I updated to Defraggler v. 2.06 today (08-Jul-2011) and noticed that the setup wizard now gives users the option to "Replace Windows Disk Defragmenter" (see attached .jpg). This option can also be changed in the Advanced options settings of Defraggler after installation. The FileHippo website has a complete change log for v. 2.06 here. Does anyone know exactly what this "Replace Windows Disk Defragmenter" option does, and whether it is designed to prevent these "silent" defrags by WDD during system idles? _____________ Edit: I just found a new thread in the Defraggler forum here about this option, but no one has posted a definitive answer yet. -- Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit SP2 * NIS 2011 * CCleaner 3.08.1475 * Defraggler 2.06.328 HP Pavilion dv6835ca, Intel Core2Duo CPU T5550 @ 1.83 GHz, 3.0 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS

Just a follow-up to my last post. I happened to catch one of these "silent" defrags with Windows Disk Defragmenter (dfrgntfs.exe) while my system was idle, so I'm attaching the screen shot from Norton Internet Security 2011. I also attached a screen shot of my Windows Disk Defragmenter which shows that I do not have WDD set to run on a schedule. When I checked my Task Scheduler, my last manual defrag with WDD was run months ago on 01-Mar-2011 and my last scheduled defrag task (disabled more than 2 years ago) was run 28-Aug-2008, so this can't be an interrupted WDD defrag trying to run to completion. I checked the Services in Windows Vista, and unlike Win 7 Ultimate, I can't see any service named "Disk Defragmenter" or "Windows Disk Defragmenter" where I can change the start-up. And I might be mistaken, but I recall reading that turning off the auto-defrag in Win XP with Tweak-UI only disables the WDD task in the Task Scheduler and doesn't prevent these "silent" defrags. -- Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit SP2 * NIS 2011 * CCleaner 3.08.1475 * Defraggler 2.05.315 HP Pavilion dv6835ca, Intel Core2Duo CPU T5550 @ 1.83 GHz, 3.0 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS

Augeas: The Windows OS runs a "silent" defrag that cannot be turned off without a registry edit (see my post here for more info). I only discovered this because I have Norton Internet Security 2011, and if I look in the Norton Tasks I can see that the Windows Disk Defragger dfrgntfs.exe occasionally runs during system idle. This defrag cannot be turned off with the Windows Task Scheduler. I'm not 100% certain if this applies to Win 7, but Windows Vista and XP both have this silent defrag. I originally thought this was a boot-time defrag that only defragged Windows OS files, but I've watched it run for several minutes during system idles and it appears to defrag third-party software in addition to Windows files. I have Piriform's Defraggler on my system, and my list of fragmented files can drop from 300+ to 5 or 6 after one of these "silent" system idle defrags with dfrgntfs.exe, so it must be similar to a Quick Defrag in Defraggler. -- Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit SP2 * NIS 2011 * CCleaner 3.08.1475 * Defraggler 2.05.315 HP Pavilion dv6835ca, Intel Core2Duo CPU T5550 @ 1.83 GHz, 3.0 GB RAM, NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS

Thanks to everyone for the excellent feedback. I followed up on the replies to my original post and found an article in the MSDN library (see Disabling Disk Defragmentation) that indicates that there are at least two registry changes required to disable "silent" idle-time Windows defrags (at least in XP): HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Dfrg\BootOptimizeFunction (Enable = N, type is REG_SZ) HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\OptimalLayout (EnableAutoLayout = 0, type is REG_DWORD) According to this article, the disk defragmentation service rearranges data on the disk to create contiguous sections of data, while the the auto-layout service moves the most-used data closer to the center of the disk to expedite boot time. A second article on the Microsoft TechNet (see Disk Defragmenter Tools and Settings) has more detailed information about the BootOptimizeFunction key and states that "Windows automatically optimizes the file location for boot optimization. This optimization occurs automatically if the system is idle for 10 minutes. Boot optimization improves startup time by locating startup files in contiguous clusters on the volume, reducing the movement of the disk head when reading the volume." After checking the link in Aethec's post I looked at my Windows registry and, like Augeas, the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Dfrg\BootOptimizeFunction key is enabled on my Vista machine by default. There is no value named EnableAutoLayout for the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\OptimalLayout in my Vista registry, but I gather that this value could be created manually. This ties in nicely with Andavari's post, because I've been told that if the "Optimize hard disk when idle" feature is disabled in Tweak UI (available here for Windows XP and Server 2003), then Tweak UI will actually create a new EnableAutoLayout value in the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\OptimalLayout key and set the value to 0 (zero). Too bad that Microsoft SysInternals never released a Tweak UI for Vista or Windows 7. ________ It sounds to me like this "silent" Windows idle-time defrag is designed to reduce boot times, so I'm not going to do any registry hacks until I get a definitive answer from Piriform. Given that this background Windows defrag by dfrgntfs.exe occasionally thrashes my hard drive for more than 30 minutes, I'm concerned that Defraggler and Windows use different algorithms to optimize the location of boot-up files and constantly shuffle these files around my hard drive drive.

I am running Piriform Defraggler v. 1.21.209 on a 32-bit Windows Vista Home Premium SP2 PC. I recently discovered that the Windows Disk Defragmenter (dfrgntfs.exe) sometimes runs when my system is idle and causes my hard drive to thrash for long periods of time. I did not expect that Windows Disk Defragmenter (WDD) would be the culprit since scheduled WDD defrags are disabled on my machine [i.e., the "Run on a schedule" check box of the WDD GUI is disabled and the Windows Task Scheduler shows that the ScheduledDefrag task (Start | Administrative Tools | Task Scheduler | Task Scheduler Library | Microsoft | Windows | Defrag) is disabled and has not run for the past two years]. I am also certain that there is no partially completed manual WDD defrag running on my system that could be re-starting during idle. Does Windows Vista automatically perform some sort of system files optimization routine after boot-up that would cause WDD's dfrgntfs.exe to run during idle? I'm not certain, but this idle-time WDD defrag seems to runs for longer periods after I perform a full disk defrag with Defraggler and I'm wondering if this "silent" WDD defrag is relocating of some of the system files on my hard disk after Defraggler finishes its full disk defrag.

Just addding my thanks to all the posters on this thread. I was having the same problem clearing my cookies with CCleaner v. 2.19.901 and IE8 v. 8.0.6001.18702, and enabling the Adobe Flash Player check box on the Applications tab cleared all the cookies in the Cookies to Delete list (Options). There is an excellent article on these "hidden" flash cookies at http://blog.itsecurityexpert.co.uk/2007/12...sh-cookies.html that has a link to the Adobe Flash Player Settings Manager (http://www.macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/settings_manager07.html). As far as I can tell, disabling the "Allow third-party Flash content to store data on your computer" check box on the Global Storage Settings Panel will prevent any of these flash cookies from being saved on your PC in the first place, but I haven't tested this to see if this causes any unexpected problems.