Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums


Experienced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Gronxx

  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, but I'm not staying with this version or ANY version. The defragging process itself would be unrelated to the drive ID, but something here is very wrong. If the algorithms established as acceptable don't know what kind of drive is being defragged, how can I assume the algorithms for carrying out intricate work on these same drives will be okay?


    It is kind of creepy, because this is not a Beta version, and it's behaving like an Alpha. Someone in Piriform has been way, way overconfident. He's damaging Piriform's reputation.


    No, no thanks to using Defraggler on my system any more. These drives and their content are very important to me. I'm continuing with CCleaner for the time being, but I'm watching it carefully. I notice it is now split into a $$$ version and a free version. I do hope Piriform hasn't gone the way of Aljazeera.


    Sorry; it's a shame, really. Thanks very much anyway.

  2. 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 first example. CCleaner is an ideal app, so you can start a beginner on it. It installs beautifully. Only you can't learn too much on CCleaner, because it won't do anything WRONG. No worries: there are a hundred other apps that will mess up for you and you can practice on them as your skills improve.


    I notice that CCleaner does the job very well, AND I notice that the Piriformechanics who develop CCleaner are excellent listeners. They read what people suggest, and obviously they listen to the suggestions.


    Well, you guys are the best. Thanks a lot for setting the standard. Believe me, your work is appreciated.


    Er?when is the Piriform OS coming out?


  3. Hi,


    The Wipe Free Space feature is excellent. People have already asked for more info display. Let me expand just a bit:



    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.



    #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:

    In Wipe MFT Free Space, we are really blind. There is just no way to know what is happening, other than noting that larger partitions take longer to process. I think a GUI line letting us know which partition's MFT Free Space is currently being wiped would be very helpful indeed.


    Piriform People, your good work is better than ever! These suggestions are made with real appreciation for your excellent work. My computer's Piriformance has never been so good! Thank you.

  4. Hi,


    For what it's worth. Suggestions mainly for users who have multi hard drives and multi partitions:



    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.



    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 CCleaner start it all over again next time. (I'll put that in Suggestions.)

    ? Notes: If you uncheck the main Wipe Free Space box, that's good enough to prevent a re-run. You can leave the specified partition boxes (Drives C, G, H, for example) checked, and it won't run them.




    ? CCleaner does its standard assignments, then wipes your free space for every specified partition, and then comes back and wipes your MFT free space. Note that it does ALL the MFT free space requested AFTER it does ALL the free space on all the requested partitions.



    Wipe Free Space: which partition is in progress?

    ? At the moment, the best way I've discovered to know this is to run Alex Nolan's Drive Manager, and to compare the byte size. This is sloppy, but it works if you are wiping, say, Drives C, D, E, H, M, and Q, and you want to know where CCleaner is at the moment.

    Drive Manager is freeware from http://www.alexnolan.net/software/driveman.htm (I highly recommend it for quite a few purposes.)



    Wipe MFT Free Space

    ? What it Does: In the New Technology File System (NTFS) used on Windows NT thru Windows 7, files or directories are described in the Master File Table. There is some discussion regarding wiping MFT free space with versus without a system restart, and traditionally the restart method was considered the better way to do things. Maybe that is dated with the new CCleaner system. In any case, I get the idea that wiping MFT free space may be the most delicate part of the operation. (But, heck, if you haven't wiped behind your ears, you're still not clean, so I give CCleaner the go-ahead. Live dangerously.)

    ? Keeping track of work in progress: At the moment, you can't. If you are processing a number of partitions, your progress in wiping MFT free space is blind. Of course, it takes longer to wipe MFT free space in a bigger partition, but that is your only clue. (I'll add that to my Suggestions, too.)




    Hope that helps. Maybe it raises more questions than it answers. I'm just feeling my way, so feel free to comment.

  5. 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



    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 would equally apply to another program. I ran into this when I posted a suggestion for Defraggler which applied exactly the same to Wipe Free Space.


    The whole is greater than the sum of its parts, it would seem.

  6. 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 invaluable new WIPE FREE SPACE function.

  7. 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 the system were crashing or seizing up because the memory usage were crippling it, THEN I would be concerned. On my box, Defrag completes the defrag of any selected drive and then Task Man drops Defraggler from the chart altogether, so I'm assuming that means that Defraggler has quit upon finishing and is now consuming nada.

  8. 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 this box.)


    This new version showed the same fluttery bytes display at first, but this time I was able to use my mouse to get out of it and then return. [um?I think quite a few users would NOT be successful in persuading Defraggler to work by using my rather rough technique.] The bytes (Used Space and Free Space) still seemed to be a dishonest reporting, because despite the very high speed of the display, I was able to establish that the very same figures were alternating (quite a few times per second), whereas a genuine reporting would show continuously different figures.


    Even so, the program got a hold on itself and completed the defrag of (E). It worked its way down to a good 0% frag end result. BUT on completion it continued to flutter the bytes display.


    Okay, so that "fluttery display" begins the moment that my Drive (E) is first selected, BEFORE Defraggler has been given the Go Ahead to begin defragging, AND ALSO the same "fluttery display" continues AFTER the defrag is totally finished.


    On no other drives or partitions does this happen. They all work perfectly.


    The improvements I saw tonight on this first test were:

    (1) I can actually get a successful defrag on the boot drive?although I would still prefer to continue using the line command for that drive

    (2) Defraggler appears to be working faster


    It's a big step in the right direction, but I think the bug in the GUI is still there. Less debilitating that before, but still there.


    Thanks to Piriform for excellent work.




    EDIT, a day or two later:


    Subsequent tests show Drive (E) to be steady as it should be?no problems at all.


    I don't know why the first test returned those results, unless there was still some element of the former build in operation.


    At the moment, everything looks perfect.

  9. 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 out if you have multi drives/partitions.

    I highly recommend Defraggler regardless of this glitch.


  10. 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 if anything went wrong, however.)


    ?You should realize that a crash is not a bad thing in itself. At worst it should be considered a nuisance. A blue screen actually provides helpful information. But even a black screen crash lets you know that you probably need to modify something. It definitely alerts you to the general maintenance requirements, such as CCleaner and, if you use it, TuneUp Utilities. Do you have the freeware SpywareBlaster? You should. You have a good anti-virus? You can use the freeware AVG or any of half a dozen others. And, of course, is your system defragmented?


    Apart from that, there are more settings you can learn in the BIOS. Take a look at your computer manual. If you don't have a copy, look up your make and model and download a .PDF of your manual; then take a look through the section about the BIOS. You don't have to do much there, but occasionally there are tweaks that make your computer operate with greater stability.


    And, always, run a strong RAM. If your new computer came with 1 GB of RAM, can it take 2 GB? That might cost you the better part of $100, but it is a good investment. RAM "thinks on its feet" and is exactly what your computer needs to be able to handle a maximum work load all at the same time. It is analogous to your own "working memory" or "short-term memory". Your old computer was very likely hungry for RAM.


    Especially with crashes, get away from the common fear of these things. Instead, read computer forums and learn to understand what is happening. A car can let you down on the highway, but your computer is not going to do that. It's not going to blow up, and it won't suddenly lose all your files. (Er?especially if they are backed up!) So don't panic; don't be afraid of the machine. Your whole computer is dedicated to working FOR you, so adjust your own perspective to accommodate it with greater understanding. I think you are already off to a good start because you've discovered these Piriform products, which are very good; and you might also look at other freeware on FileHippo, which can be trusted. In the upper right corner of FileHippo, you can adjust the setting to "only freeware", by the way. (No, I don't represent either of them.) Good luck.

  11. 1.

    You really should call this the Piriforum, you know.




    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.




    Thanks a lot for your excellent software.

  12. 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 impression that the glitch is in the GUI, rather than in the defrag program itself. I think the GUI goes as far as acknowledging the operation is complete, but then the GUI fails to extricate itself.


    Meanwhile I can use df.exe when I want to defrag this partition.


    I wonder if there are any other xp64 users trying this, and if so, if they have trouble with their boot partition(s).


    (By the way, my system partition is C:. I usually multiboot 2-4 OSs, but I never run an OS on the system partition.)


    Thanks again.


  13. 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 once I was able to bring Defraggler back to life. However, 4 times now I have had to use Task Manager to kill the Defraggler process. And that isn't enough: as soon as I've retried it, the shaky numbers have resumed. Finally, for every one of those 4 instances, I had to uninstall Defraggler altogether.


    I have no special settings. In fact, I'm using it out of the box while I troubleshoot this.


    And, yes, I have been able to get it to successfully defrag Drive (E), which is healthy in every way. Nothing strange about it. But immediately before (when I first select Drive (E)) or after the successful defrag (ONLY with Drive (E), which does have the active xp64 on it) I get this quasi-hang.


    I'm very close to dumping Defraggler. I wonder if it really is just right for 64-bit XP. I've seen other software, such as Heidi's Eraser, which can't really perform exactly right on xp64 even though it is supposed to. But Defraggler is my favourite of all defraggers ever, and I've used some of the big ones like OO. Never ever seen anything like this before. So I'd love to see Defraggler make peace with my boot drive.


    Thank you.

  14. Congratulations for a very nice "Wipe Free Space" feature, which is surprisingly fast.


    In the CCleaner window, during this operation, we read


    Wipe Free Space

    % [MB of MB]


    It would be very convenient for the user if this box also indicated the Drive or Partition being processed at the moment, so:


    Wipe Free Space - Drive (H)

    % [MB of MB]


    Thank you very much to the Piriform people

  15. Yes, it would be my prerogative if it were an option, so that is why I suggested it. After some years and a lot of scans, you become more strict about some things and more casual about others. However, I would not demand that you folks do things my way. I'd just like to do it that way myself.


    CCleaner could even place a caution—maybe not Living On the Edge, but perhaps Not Recommended or whatever CCleaner felt the danger zone might be. I think it is Spybot that refers to a couple of settings that you can find if you know how to find them, and maybe CCleaner might try that approach.


    I suppose all of you folks do use NTREGOPT and know how to start your computer from an XP with the ERDNT backup, because it looks like you prefer much more safety than I do. You know, I've only ever had to do that once. I usually run several OSs from my main box plus I run two other computers—XP x32, XP x64, Vista x32—plus I spend a lot of time doing repairs and fixups for other people. I run CCleaner about three times an HOUR most days, year in and year out. As I said in my original post, it takes me 1? seconds to run it, and I just keep working, so why not?


    But the registry clean takes me longer than that. Plus although I don't modify the results as a rule, I very often watch them.


    The very worst CCleaner problem I've ever seen involved some innocuous-seeming Word 2000 registry settings, which looked totally as though they just WOULD NOT matter—but they DID matter. Word had an interesting safeguard that presupposed that ANY registry change—affecting ANY Word files in the manner of the CCleaner change—would represent a safety risk; and the MS response to that was to default a lot of Word settings for safety. And THAT basically made a few thousand Word users wonder what on earth was wrong with their Normal.dot file. (In other words, CCleaner was triggering a precautionary reset-to-default built in to Word, when CCleaner cleaned these supposedly "innocuous" files.) It took me 2 or 3 YEARS to figure that one out, but, yes, that was CCleaner doing the damage. In CCleaner, you could simply make Word (Office) an exception and then easily re-test the results; they were easily reproducible. Interesting.


    CCleaner can take out your Google cookie settings for your browsing preferences, but again, you can set your preferred exceptions so that your Google cookie follows you everywhere and duly files away your brand of toothpaste. That cookie is merely a nuisance to people, but the old WORD problem was serious grief all over the internet.


    Even so, apart from that, I've not had the experiences you guys suggest. I'm happy with your being as cautious as you wish. No problem at all. My suggestion is for those who would like to take their chances. I want speed and I run pretty lean and mean systems that don't have many iffy settings. I do a ton of software testing, and so I am adding and removing programs all the time—that would average, say, 3 to 10 programs per day; occasionally more. And I do like to keep things on the hard edge of strong. If CCleaner DID cause me harm—I repeat that it never has—I would first blame myself, and see what I might have set up or taken apart badly.


    Ha ha! —And, very long ago, when we built delicate wooden model airplanes—lovely, intricately detailed, all-by-hand creations, that took forever to put together—we always dropped them on the floor as soon as they were finished. Just to be sure that they could sustain that kind of treatment. Then we'd repair the damage, if any, and we'd try the "drop test" again.


    Cheers. CCleaner, please consider a Registry /AUTO, like RegSeeker has. Thank you very much.

  16. I've used CCleaner since way back in the Crappy Old Days, and I've used some good registry cleaners for years, too. I have 4 very handy janitorial-type apps listed as 1, 2, 3, 4 on my permanent XP taskbar submenu under TLC. As fast as I can hit the selections 1, 2, 3, 4, they all commence their tasks at once.


    CCleaner /AUTO is in the number 1 position.


    But I also have a more careful and watchul category, where I can invoke CCleaner as a more careful app, and there I go to clean the registry via CCleaner's Registry option.


    But it works too well.


    I have been doing this a long time. I have never run into any problems at all. So now I'd like to move CCleaner's Registry-Clean function to take up a new position on my rapid-fire 1, 2, 3, 4 list.


    But I can't. What I need is an option allowing a line command to set up JUST the CCleaner Regstry function to run silently and independently. Then I can set that as my number 2 or my number 5 shortcut (i.e. 5 ~ CCleaner ? Registry ; that is what my taskbar TLC menu entries look like). And, like my other quick fixers, the job would be done pronto.


    This system works so well that I run CCleaner every time I complete a surfing session on the web. Why not? It takes me 1? seconds to trigger CCleaner and I can immediately continue with my other work.


    So, yes, I want to give CCleaner free reign to go for the registry clean. It is not going to hurt anything. That I know from experience. (I do it routinely with RegSeeker, too, on a 4x no-backup no-exceptions scan. Never any trouble at all, as long as I stay with XP x32. RegSeeker causes some grief with XP x64.)


    Thank you.

  • Create New...