Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums

GLykos

Members
  • Content Count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About GLykos

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Install cc545 on top of existing cc544 where Enable system monitoring and Enable Active Monitoring are not selected. Then running cc545, icon now appears in System tray: Enable System monitoring is not checked and Enable Active Monitoring is checked. Uncheck EAM, but am unable to close System tray icon, and on next restart (because there's no simple way to kill cc545), cc545 reappears in the tray with Esm not checked and EAM checked. Seems there was a similar problem with cc544, but at least there, you could on the Options page select Esm, then deselect both Esm and EAM and it would st
  2. Further to above, the following is a log file that accompanies screen captures for each pass component graphically illustrating the descriptions, some dozen files in all. I attempted to upload them here but after the first two the forum page stopped working. They are ~120KB each, and the forum page says total allowed file size is 1.7MB. If someone at Piriform wishes to contact me by e-mail, I can zip the set and send them as an attachment. There definitely appear to be basic and repeatable issues with Defraggler, and the data set is offered as a contribution by an interested user in your c
  3. This is to "move" the captioned posting from the general Defraggler forum to this one. Reported issues are as follows: 1) Sequential defragmenting results in distorted pattern on second drive. When the operation is repeated on the second drive directly, the defragmentation pattern cleans up. On this same general subject, realized that a repeat defragment on the same drive without restarting the program results in a distorted operation. Closing and restarting the program resolves the odd behavior. If I had to guess, there is an issue with housekeeping cleanup after one operation l
  4. Just received an e-mail reply from Piriform Support suggesting that I would be hearing in parallel from a forum moderator, which has not yet happened, and that there was nothing untoward in the program behaviors that I described above. To me, there are two very clear issues which are not being recognized. Regarding defrag behavior varying with the situation: I defraggled two identical USB drives with almost identical content sequentially; the second drive showed a dramatically different pattern than the first. The second drive was then defraggled individually; it now showed a pattern
  5. Would like to apologize to the development team and the forum readers for my moment of pique - the negative tone was unwarranted. Part of my initial reaction was due to disappointment in the nature of the unexpected and unsubtle issues encountered; part was due to wondering if the Piriform products, long an industry standard, are perhaps tending to become over-embellished at the expense of their traditional efficient, effective, reliable core functionality and ease of use. Any perceived issues are my problem and no one else's - sorry. Availability of the product suite absolutely continues
  6. Separately reported inconsistency in the handling of similar drives queued for defragging in sequence. The defrag pattern on the second drive is hugely different than the first. Repeating the same operation on the second drive, this time by itself, yields the expected results very similar to the first of the two drives, and very different from the second drive when second in consecutive processing order. Why? Estimated time to complete, which appears to be a relatively new addition to Defraggler, is erratic. For grins, turned Defraggler loose on a WD 4TB passport drive. Estimated tim
  7. Am using Defraggler 2.21.993 on several Garmin GPSs set to MFT mode (i.e. normal file-system access) connected to the same Dell laptop (Win 7). When I have two such devices connected, Defraggler recognizes both and allows me to select them and then start defragging - first one is processed, then the next. What I'm consistently seeing is that the defrag results in the second device processed (Defraggler's choice) is distinctly different (and from appearances, inferior) than when that device is selected as the only device to be defragged. My recovery is to re-run the second device defrag by i
×
×
  • Create New...