Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums

Gronxx

Experienced Members
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Gronxx

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 20/07/1946

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Vancouver, Canada
  1. I'm adding my computer to this list of wrong SSD detects. I run XP 64 on a system I built myself, AMD Phenom II with 8 GB of RAM and about 5 TB of hard drive storage. Two external 3 TB hard drives are detected normally. Defraggler misidentifies 4 internal drives, perfectly normal Seagate 500 GB each, as SSDs. It looks pretty silly, as these are about as standard/plain-Jane as you can get; nothing at all exotic about them. The idea that a defragger wouldn't be able to properly distinguish the very drives it's defragging is unnerving. I used to have much more confidence in Defraggler
  2. Thanks a lot to the devs. My new 2.28.1091 has this suggestion implemented. EXCELLENT!
  3. It is hard to believe that anyone could do so good a job. CCleaner was a good program years ago. Then it became excellent. Then it became excellenter. Then it became even excellenter than that, and began approaching excellentest to the max. The trouble with CCleaner is that it shows up so many other programs, but we won't go into that. I mean, when other apps don't do things just exactly perfectly, I find myself growling under my breath and muttering, "Why can't they do things as smartly as CCleaner?" And when I'm teaching people how to use their computers, I use CCleaner as my fir
  4. Hi, The Wipe Free Space feature is excellent. People have already asked for more info display. Let me expand just a bit: 1. Where is CCleaner now? If you have a lot of partitions, I've suggested elsewhere to use Alex Nolan's Drive Manager freeware to roughly compare byte sizes to figure out CCleaner's work in progress. Piriform People, please give us a display so we know where we are amongst half a dozen or a dozen partitions being processed. 2. #1 is not really a new suggestion. I included it here (sorry for the redundancy) mainly as a point of reference for the following idea:
  5. Hi, For what it's worth. Suggestions mainly for users who have multi hard drives and multi partitions: 1. My impression (could be wrong) is that it is a good idea to wipe free space before using Defraggler. Testing it out, it seems to me that Defraggler is then doing a more comprehensive job, maybe because the cluster tips have been freed up?? Not sure. Run a few test comparisons, and see if you agree. 2. Advanced > Wipe Free Space ? We need a reminder for subsequent runs. It is all too easy to forget that we wiped the free space on some huge partition, and then to have CClea
  6. Now that we have the Piriformation of 4 Piriformance applications, we really need a new Piriformix forum section that deals with their integrated or sequenced use. For example, SEQUENCING. Users might wish to discuss whether to run CCleaner WIPE FREE SPACE in ADVANCE of running Defraggler —which, yes, does seem to do the job much better; or else it simply re-sets the GUI for a more accurate display of specs. But at the moment, discussions about sequencing Piriform programs have no place to be posted. —Likely there would be some good suggestions for the GUI of one program that
  7. Yes, it would be VERY useful. Here is a typical real-life use of Defraggler: ?After a heavy day of computer use, the user cleans up a few things and goes to bed. ?But first he sets Defraggler to clean a SEQUENCE of partitions: say, Drives C, D, E, H, K, L, M ?If he gets up and checks things later, he would like to see Work in Progress. Or, next morning he would like to see Finished. Ideally he would see the drives specified, viz: Defrag completed C, D, E, H Defragging Drive K In Queue Drives L, M Piriform People, Please Note: This applies just the same for CCleaner's invaluab
  8. Gronxx

    Piriformance

    Dear Piriform People, If you would like to talk about Piriformance, the word is yours. It's a so-called Portmanteau word, if you'd like to read about such things in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmanteau Anyway, I do a lot of things with words, so I thought I'd pass this one on to you if you like it. Carson
  9. Gronxx

    Memory issue

    Uses 230? MB on my 4-HDD xp64 system. I have 8 GB of RAM total. Other big users include K-Meleon and AVG. I don't have any problem with Defraggler's memory demands, as I would expect a defrag app to take a lot. Other defraggers I've used were more intrusive than Defraggler (especially OO) and, to me, Defraggler seems light and quick. (I wish I could say the same for Nero, which I like but which is really demanding and sensitive on my box.) I agree that programs such as defraggers will serve best by using lots of memory if it is available. You want scans like this to work fast. If t
  10. First try on this evening's new version 1.16.165, I have run it only once but I get the feeling it is working better and it SEEMS to be working faster. Speed was no problem before, but it is just flying now! Maybe my imagination, but it seems so. I was afraid to use the previous version on my xp64 boot drive (E), because the GUI Used Space and Free Space bytes display would go into a kind of endless loop which effectively froze the program and disabled my entire system session. (New readers: note that my boot drive is not the same as my system drive; and that I have 2 boot drives on th
  11. Thanks. I do a lot of defragging. What I'm doing now is using the GUI for all my drives/partitions C through Q with the exception of E. For Drive E (XP-64 boot partition) I'm using df.exe. No GUI, no problem. The workaround works. But I'd like to be able to use the GUI for this partition too. ?I have done it so many times now that the glitch is definitely there. Never a problem using df.exe; always a problem before and after using the GUI. ?As I said previously, the defrag program is doing its job, and the difficulty is in the GUI itself. For any other xp64 users: please test this
  12. Your old system may have had some power issues. For example, if the computer had only so much RAM and so fast a CPU, it could be running close to its limits while you were defragging. That would easily cause a crash. Not only that, but your old system could have been clogged up with fragmented files, so defragmentation had become a task requiring a lot of energy. Your new computer is hopefully faster and more powerful. That is one reason why you'd buy a new computer, isn't it? So it should be able to handle defragging. You could even consider it a bit of a test. (I'd be astonished
  13. 1. You really should call this the Piriforum, you know. 2. I am now using 3 out of 4 of the Piriform programs. I just haven't lost anything yet, so Recuva hasn't yet been required. However, with Piriform doing so well, I am wondering when I can expect to get my new PiriWindows and my new PiriBrowser. No doubt they will both look great on my PiriPod. 3. Thanks a lot for your excellent software.
  14. 1. Re-installed Defraggler 2. Ran via df.exe using /debug3 log 3. The defrag itself ran perfectly, as (E) was already defragged 4. BUT in using this technique I was going around the GUI, and I think the problem may actually be with the GUI display??? In any case, my debug3 textfile = 42 MB: oops. So I re-ran defrag with plainjane /debug log. here is the log (attached) Thank you. _____________________________ EDIT, a few hours later: ?I have now tried df.exe E: several times, and it always works perfectly. I don't know much about these things, but I am getting a distinct i
  15. On xp64, I have 4 HDDs with about 4 partitions each. Defraggler works just fine on the entire system—EXCEPT it has a glitch on the boot drive (E). This is understandable to some extent. Because XP is on (E), asking Defraggler to work with (E) is asking a lot. But it can do it, as any defrag program can. But before and after it defrags that drive, I usually see a bad case of the MB data "trembling" or "vibrating". At first glance it looks like a defrag is in progress. However, it is really more like a freeze. The drive defrag may report "Complete", but the hourglass remains on. Just onc
×
×
  • Create New...