Jump to content


Experienced Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


0 Neutral

About Faziri

  • Birthday 10/02/1994

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Antwerp, Belgium

Contact Methods

  • Skype
  1. Debating aside, something tells me a lot of you have really poor eyes. I have none of the issues you guys list with flat coloring - not knowing which window has focus, where borders are, reading text, etc. There's also a big difference between general flat UI and the failure of a UI that came with Ccleaner 5, which indeed has very unclear coloring and such. http://puu.sh/dO0M7/72f8d28e14.png <- a properly done flat UI
  2. *Metro, not all of Win8. This is 8: I use a hotkey->keyword launcher as I've always found the start menu to be an annoying way to find programs anyway. My custom start menu only has the stuff I need it to have.
  3. Nobody reads terms & conditions.... It's always a bunch of lawyerspeak to state the overly obvious nobody needs to hear. If we had to read those things every time we had to, we'd die of old age before getting anything done. If only they'd include basic "translations" that only contain the essential stuff in words we could all understand... Like what Creative Commons does with their licenses.
  4. Insults aside, one argument in favor of the apparently much-hated flat style of today is that it's "calmer" and easier on the eyes. I've always felt fancy 3D effects, glass, etc to make my desktop look very busy and stressful, while the flat style is less intrusive. Secondly, the flat style reminds me of pictograms, the point of which is to be simple to understand, universal and obvious. Once again, I'm only speaking about the flat style here, not the fact that the new UI has custom element and window decoration. Things like buttons and windows should always be rendered according to the host OS, not with some custom style. People using Win7 then get their glossy stuff and people with Win8 get their flat style. Everyone happy and less work for the devs. If you want your glossy stuff, then stick to Win7, you're not missing anything. 8 is just 7 with new visuals. Stop bashing something you don't need to care about. If Piriform hadn't gone down the path of using custom UI skins, none of us would be here. They should just stick to standards and let the OS draw the UI as per its own settings, then everyone gets what they want.
  5. Because there's no point wasting that power on unnecessary bloat. And there are people who prefer a flat style over all that glossy stuff.
  6. This guy gets it. Please remember though that while most people are nagging about the UI because it's now flat and they don't like flat, there are also those who oppose the new UI because of its awful window frame and custom decoration of control elements. On Win7, a single program using the flat style isn't gonna do a thing about performance (the performance boost depends on how exactly the new look is achieved anyway) and only sticks out like a sore thumb. Win8 already has the flat style natively, overriding it with their own custom one is just wrong on so many levels. Note that styling the content of a window in terms of background colors, edge lines, etc is a very different thing from styling control elements and window borders. The former is (somewhat) acceptable, the latter is most definitely not. The window's contents are a program's playground, the window itself is not.
  7. Not to undermine your point, but let's not generalize all Win8 users as Metro users. I love Win8 because of the flatter colors and icons, but I also think Metro is awful (and I say that being a long-time dedicated programmer with experience in and knowledge of a lot of digital stuff). The funny thing is that many people don't seem to realize win8 also has a normal desktop with normal windows, and that I for example haven't seen Tiles, Charms or Metro windows since... ever. It's just like using Win7. I had a friend who'd rather die than use Win8, but when he told me his reasons I debunked every single one of them and made him try anyway. He admitted he had been absolutely lazy in searching for settings and replacement programs and that it really isn't all that different after all if you know how to tell the crappy features to get lost and stay gone. The way you're ranting now is very much unlike rational criticism and more just "it's different and I'm too lazy to learn how to apply my old habits to this stuff". But yeah, Metro by itself is ugly enough, I don't want to imagine how ugly a Metro window looks under Win7.
  8. Am I the only one who also just cares about the technical side of things? The UI isn't terrible because it looks terrible (I kinda prefer the flat color style even), but because they went and used custom skinning on standardized supposed-to-be-native UI elements: scrollbars, buttons, the title bar, the window buttons, etc are all custom. That's just an awful idea, programs are meant to ask the OS to draw those because the OS knows what the user wants in terms of colors and such, and the user can have customizations and window management tools installed that won't work with custom windows. My Windows is themed gray and so all of my windows look gray... All except ccleaner. They can keep the new flat style, but leave out the control element and window decoration. Window skins are for toys or programs that need to override OS graphics for technical reasons, like Steam has to do to be able to show its in-game UI. Ccleaner is neither of those. Skins make programs look alien, out-of-place, ugly and childishly attention-seeking.
  9. Not to mention that custom window decoration also breaks mods like RBTray, Xtrabuttons, Windowblinds, etc for no good reason. Interoperability through standardization is more important than fancy looks and an identity.
  10. I personally prefer the flat look, I switched from 7 to 8.1 just to get rid of all that silly 3D/glass/shiny effect in 7 and am loving it. Of course I had to make 8.1 behave like 7 as much as possible, but that part went well. I love the straight corners, flat colors, etc that I have now. Feels much more efficient and technical, less like a toy. But Metro =/= flat look. The modern flat look is nice, the Metro appearance absolutely isn't. Metro is awful. This is what I mean with the flat look: http://puu.sh/d8ii2/1e3e06b56c.png (note that the red X button visually doesn't touch the corner, but it is actually there - clicking the corner actually hits the button) Window decoration should be left up to the OS as it is intended to be. Making your own skin = walking on thin ice. Leaving the decoration up to the OS ensures your program won't look out of place, it's less work and people generally prefer it. I hate programs like Steam and since recently Malwarebytes for using custom decoration, if I had any alternatives I would uninstall them without a second thought just because they have custom UIs. I just downgraded Ccleaner to v4 like everyone else here. If I want my programs to look like Metro, I'll run them via Metro. If I run a program on my desktop, I want it to look like a desktop program and look like every other desktop program. Custom skins are a complete waste and a huge annoyance, they make your entire program look terribly out of place and custom buttons/behavior are extremely annoying. For comparison, this http://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2013/01/04/Foreman_12897468_5073_mbam1_540x412.png looks WAY better and much more professional than this http://cache.filehippo.com/img/ex/3124__malwarebytes1_260614.png Good (mostly): http://puu.sh/d8ii2/1e3e06b56c.png awful: http://puu.sh/d8hza/fd2ccab8f3.png TL:DR leave window decoration (window border AND interface elements) up to the OS
  11. I've been doing some more experimenting and it turns out this is more a bad formulation in the settings: on the Defrag tab, there's an option to "only move files of specified types" (for moving them to the end of the drive). You'd think that if you uncheck this, it'll move all files of >x MB to the end, but instead it just doesn't move them to the end of the drive at all and stacks them up between the rest of the files. I checked the option and set some more extensions, then let it run and now it moved my files correctly... Untill i paused it, stopped it and restarted it (after checking the same things in english to make sure it's not just a bad translation) anyway, after that it somehow continued with the bad behavior when it comes to moving files to the end of the drive... Seriously, Defraggler's acting randomly with the moving and it even skips files, i never get it to defrag all my files (no, they are not in use by anything). Please have a look at the way Defraggler handles the "large" files!
  12. Problem: in v1.5 (the last before the new v2), if you defragged your drive and had the option "move files of more than x MB to the end of the drive" enabled, you'd see Defraggler defragment all your files and additionally move non-fragmented files of >x MB towards the end as well. So if you had, say, set x = 128, then all your files would be defragmented and all files of >128MB would be stacked onto the end of the drive. V2 no longer does this, it only moves files of >128MB towards the end if it has to defragment them. Non-fragged files of >128MB just stay where they are as long as they don't interfere with the defragging of other files. And yes, of course i've tried looking for a solution in the settings and it just wasn't there. If you read further, you'll also understand why i can say that the previous version (v1,5) was effectively 80% more efficient than v2 in the case of some power-users and why i say that doing a Fast Defrag with filesize set to a minimum of x (128) MB doesn't work, which is a bug if you ask me (it simply ignores one setting and listens to another setting it's not supposed to listen to). A Free Space Defrag ignores the "move to end" option as well. What i'd like to ask: to include an option that says "move 'big files' (as specified on the 'Defragment' tab) towards the end of the drive even if they are not fragmented." or to make the Free Space Defrag and Fast Defrag respect the "move to end" option instead of just piling up the files at the start. Why? Because i have set up a placement system on my drive to speed up defrags and games by a lot, and Defraggler was a key component in it. DF had the ability to get large, rarely (never) edited files out of the way of the rest, at the end of the drive, so i just have to defrag the rest of the files, saving quite a few dozens of gigabytes and an hour of waiting. V2 just leaves them where they are as long as they're not fragmented. Lemme explain: let's say you have ~100GB of files on your drive. Half of them are small ones (as defined on the 'Defragment' tab) and the other half are big ones. Those big ones rarely change, it's only the small files that really end up getting fragmented and shotgun-blasted all over your drive in a million pieces. Most defraggers just pile all the files up into a single stack of files. Now imagine the small files fragment all over the place and you run a defragmentation. What happens is that your defragger ends up "defragging" the full 100GB to effectively defrag only a handful as it needs to move ALL the files to consolidate them all into that huge block again. Add Defraggler to the mix: you move all the large files towards the end of the drive once. After some time, the small ones get fragmented, and maybe a few of the big ones too, depending on what they are and how you use them. You run DF and what happens is that it defrags all the small files and moves the unfragged small ones to consolidate the whole. What's the difference? All the big files just stay where they are, at the end of the drive, where you placed them months ago and from where they still haven't moved, effectively reducing the defrag job by half of your harddrive's content and sky-rocketing the efficiency (since it no longer unnecessarily moves the large files around). ~edit: removed a load of text that was just a detailed example and an explanation of the irritating and unsolvable "swiss cheese" situation i'm facing with my own files right now~ I would like to add another thing though, which i cut out from above... The situation explained above becomes extra tough if you had a huge stack of large files at the end of the drive and then deleted a lot of them. The result is that you have this huge "swiss cheese" structure which, like i typed above, can't be gotten rid of since DF doesn't touch any of them if they're not fragmented. http://i487.photobucket.com/albums/rr233/Faziri_at_pardus/Other%20Stuff/DF.jpg Please bring back that level of control to DF, it was really the only thing that made DF stand out from the rest and it literally increased the defrag efficiency by over 50%! I could write a massive text about the why and how behind it, but it wouldn't be fair since i just can't explain it decently and you'd write me off as some noob because of it, followed by ignoring my request, just because of a bad explanation of a tough situation.
  13. I don't really know what you're saying there, but i just meant that perhaps someone from Piriform could send you a mail or something with instructions for the French translation and one to me for the Dutch translation... I wanna help out a bit, got time enough on my hands and i wanna do something for Piriform as a thank-you for the great software. Piriform guys, could you send the two of us (and any other translaters) a mail with instructions please? Our fingers are itching to write some translations
  14. I can do a Dutch translation for you (=the Piriform team, not mr. Owned here...) And don't worry, seeing how much i hate bad translations in other programs, i'll make sure to do a good job on it Just say how
  15. I don't know if this has been suggested, but since Speccy makes an accurate analysis of everything (apparently including my drivers), perhaps it could also scan for updates? That'd be a very appreciated feature since i've tried at least 6 different driver updaters and none were reliable. Either they simply looked extremely unprofessional (like cartoon characters on the buttons), weren't free (*points at Driver Detective*), did everything behind the screens and showed no info whatsoever, ... The other thing is that they ALL gave me different updates of different drivers, which is sorta odd. I mean, program A says my nvidia is out of date, B says it's my sound and mouse, C says it's my built-in recovery program, D says my motherboard driver is too old, etc. It'd be great if Speccy could do a driver update check, simply because -Piriform is the only software company i really trust (really, you guys are just the best i know. Your software does what it has to do, nothing more or less) -Speccy already does a pretty accurate scan, so it might be able to check for compatibility too (i dunno) -there's no decent driver updater as of yet -the websites aren't always easy to use for a manual check. Also, nvidia's (and probably others' too) own online driver check doesn't work and some sites are so f****** badly built you just can't read them or they don't give enough info to know if the driver is compatible and whatnot Thanks for Speccy, hope you can do something like an update feature
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.