Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums

Paul B.

Experienced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Paul B.

  • Rank
  1. I'm using ver. on Vista 32, and have been seeing this for several versions. I use CCleaner to shut down the computer each night, and despite the the Opera / visited links option being clear, they are purged. The actually History is left intact, as it should be. I don't have Opera set to purge history on closing.
  2. This is not the first time this has happened. I have no special options checked under Defrag. Nothing else is happening with the C drive. I have a fairly robust tower, Vista 32bit, with 4 GB of RAM, and a decent SATA drive with plenty of free space. And yet to defrag 1.5GB Defraggler is estimating 20 hours. This isn't always the case. Last time Defraggler worked expeditiously. Not sure what's going on.
  3. Wow, very impressed with the development of Defraggler while I wasn't paying attention. I thought all those thousandths-place update numbers were inconsequential. Hardly! Now to the problem. I've got this nice concise SMART chart, and have a rough idea what most of the parameters mean, but I don't know what Real Value v Current v Worst as against Threshold really means. Is there a concise explanation around here, or anywhere? Most of what I've come up with is very verbose and misses the mark. Thanks, p.
  4. Ok, the batch file definitely pauses and waits until each called process terminates. I've got ccleaner working well with the /auto switch, after which it self-terminates. Everything should be good, but the problem is df.exe doesn't do anything. I've got a bug report in over on the other subforum. p.
  5. In working on a batch file so that I can chain ccleaner with defraggler, I discovered that df.exe is not working here. Here's the command line I've tried: C:\systools\Defraggler\Df.exe c:\ Under Win XP, the CMD window quickly - a matter of two seconds, max - populated with "Defragmenting (0%)", up to 100%, and when I added the Shutdown switch, that worked, but as far as actual defrag, a check showed that nothing was done at all. Version is
  6. Alan, this is interesting. I thought that processes initiated by the batch were external to its own processing unless the start /wait switch was used, and even with that switch I thought the called process would have to end before the batch picked up again. But I just tried a simple: c:\systools\ccleaner\ccleaner.exe /auto c:\utilities\metapad\metapad.exe as a test and it seemed to work. I can't tell for sure until I allow Chrome to amass a larger cache, but CC seemed to invoke, work a minute, and then close, allowing metapad to open. Ok, I just tested ccleaner /auto, and it indeed shuts itself down upon finishing. So that leg of the problem is solved. Now, the other leg, the batch keeping processing flow internal, is also solved, but I don't know why. But in any case, this should work, with Defraggler with its shutdown switch set. Thanks, I'll confirm tomorrow whether it worked. p.
  7. Hi, I've discovered that the best way to deal with Chrome's profligate ways is to use CCleaner to clean and then shutdown the system automatically at day's end. It's working beautifully, and with the right settings, once the routine settles in it doesn't take much time at all to complete. I was thinking that it would be nice to be able to chain CC with Defraggler, and then allow Defraggler the shutdown rights. I think this could be done manually with a .bat file if CCleaner could be set to shut itself down after completion, so the .bat file could wait for CC to close and then pick up again and fire DF. But I'm not aware of that CC option. So what I'm thinking about is some way to do this via the CC interface, either to merely shut itself down or to actually fire DF. Separately, please consider providing a direct link to this helpful forum on the site's front page. Thanks much for some very helpful software. Be blessed, p.
  8. Thanks, Aethec. I set PageDefrag to run at each boot, and on the second try it did completely defrage pagefile.sys. I'm pretty optimized now, but I'll definitely hold on to this trick. p.
  9. No, it's pagesys - not sure I spelled that correctly - the page file, which I believe is in the root folder. I hard-set it to 2.4G, and Defraggler is reporting it to be 2.3, which I guess is close enough. And now I've just rechecked after a morning boot, and the problem is much better. Though disk fragmentation is still at 7%, there are now 254 fragmented files, comprised of 1854 fragments - much more than before - yet the diskmap has cleaned itself up immensely. I have no idea why that would happen. I'm attaching another screen shot.
  10. On a WinXP desktop, I'm trying to clean the drive as much as possible, and have tried several things in defraggler, including full defrag, defrag freespace with or without permitting defragmentation (really not sure what that's about, but...). I also manually set the page file to a large fixed number., and then used sysinternals page defrag to defrag the page flie (it took three fragments and made them two). So now I'm looking at defraggler's diskmap after a ful defragmentation, and while it says the only file in pieces is pagesys, and the disk's reported 7% fragmentation level roughly corresponds to that (2.3G / 38.5G in use = 6%), the diskmap is riddled with red squares. And a couple of tries now have not gotten rid of them. So I'm not sure what's going on here. I'll attach a screen grab.
  11. Happy to report that v2.30 picks up Chrome fine here, on WinXP. Great job, guys. p.
  12. I don't know if it was working previously, as I'm fairly new to CC. It would be interesting to poll the others here to see which Chrome track they are on.
  13. I have no idea if this matters, but I'll throw it out, since there has to be something hidden going on. Google has three tracks for Chrome: gold, beta, development. I'm on the development track, which has almost daily updates. Is CC using a process ID somewhere that might be different among the Chrome versions?
  14. Yes, you are absolutely correct. That Run command takes me to the right place (nice way to test some of these variables). So evidently that's not the problem. Be well, p.
  • Create New...