Super Fast

You are right. That is very fast. But sometimes you do need to do a complete defrag. Example: You are looking at a computer that a user never cleaned out & has 45,000 + fragments. After you clean out the PC, they have 30% in use instead of 95%. The files are spread all over the drive, however. The files need to be consolidated so the free space is contiguous, because with most of the free space blocks having some kind of data in it, the computer speed will suffer. I realize perhaps you do not suffer from this, but there are those that do, so while that does work to mostly do file defrag, keep in mind that when free space is badly fragged, that is something a file defrag cannot fix! Thanks!

Oh, I do realize that. I am not suggesting that the apps be merged together, but stay individual. My suggestion was to create an EXE (perhaps name it tabber?) that you can drop into a folder. Then, you can drop other executables into the same folder as Tabber. When you run Tabber, it picks up the names of all the exe files you dropped into the folder with it, & names each tab based on the name of the executables it finds. Example: You clicked Tabber. Tabber launches. CCleaner, Defraggler, & Recuva are in the same folder as Tabber. So Tabber launches with 3 tabs called CCleaner | Defraggler | Recuva Users could then just launch one file called Tabber, that would load all the other apps in tabs. This way, a tab could be made, say for Backup | Clean | Updates etc... The files would still be individual, but Tabber could add any app in the same folder as it is in. Users could then create a single SFX app with WinRar to run them all from a single interface. By doing it this way, users would have the option of only using what they want, kind of like you put things together with legos. Tabber would be the "building block" & could shrink or grow automatically depending on what users dropped into the same folder.

Well, to be honest, I don't really enjoy that part. Sometimes it isn't too bad, depending on the tree type, size, height, whether they have poisonous vines, briars, etc on the tree. We try to get what we can from the truck, but seems a lot of people chicken out on climbing. Even those that do, some of them chicken out after about the 30 to 40 ft height mark. Very hard to actually get climbers to go near the tops of taller trees when they are 120 to 150 ft or higher. I think there are about 4 or 5 of us where we work that actually do that. It definitely can be scary to look down, & climbing monster trees is no fun because it is harder to get your safety around the tree. It is a job though. At least with those towers, you don't have to worry so much about the size of the tree, so hooking your line would be much easier. I would have 2 lines if I were doing that though, so if I slipped while attaching one, the other would catch me. Additionally, because of the fact that people can sometimes black out, or have something happen. Had one guy years back who had just started up a tree & momentarily passed out a few seconds before coming back too. Luckily, he was tied in though. Height wise, those structures are much higher than the trees we climb, but they look a lot easier to skinny up. For the right pay, it might be worth it. I wouldn't do it for fun, but if they paid me well enough, I would do it.

If I had a parachute, I would check that it is properly packed & is in working condition PERSONALLY. Too late to have a malfunctioning parachute once you are up there! That is your only lifeline! I remember working at a grocery store when trucks would come in. Occasionally, we'd get boxes or bottles that were completely empty, although they were in brand new unopened containers! Yes, I'd have to check that parachute!

Sadly, this is something that could happen to us as well. We have a number of power plants like Japans, & if an earthquake hit us, we could be faced with the same. Let us hope we will be brave like them & be able to be as strong as they. It is time the leaders of all countries put aside the differences, & let us all embrace the unity of the world as we realize the fact that we are all one family. The human family. Why can't we all just love each other & do away with borders?

I am not so sure about that. Some say that you can't make flash drives bootable either. But I have made mine bootable. Works great! Additionally, sandisk cruzer drives sometimes have "read only" sectors where the data stored within is treated like a cd/dvd drive such that you cannot alter the contents once added to it save for adding or removing it via sandisk's special utility. I read with interest a while back concerning modifying the image used so that a user could expand the content & use whatever they wanted on it. It was complex, but rather than do it that way, I used the sandisk utility to erase the U3 partition, & I believe I do have a few tricks to make it read only. Came across it just the other day. I don't like to say never! Although these may not be totally perfect, there are several areas I may be looking into: - USB write blocker apps. By activating a certain registry key, all writes to USB drives are blocked, but reading is still possible. - Mark the files as System + Read only. This will give files special priviledges normally reserved only for Windows files. - Create empty Autorun inf file (that does nothing) & is also marked as System + Read only. If malware tried to overwrite it, it would be blocked. - Dump apps I know will never be changed into a folder & use WinRar to give the folder the following features: ..No compression folder so nothing has to be extracted, but can be directly run from the container. This will be faster & extend flash drive life. ..Set to open folder via Rar SFX relative path command when double clicked (after password is correctly entered). The will stop malware from modifying encrypted files. ..System Drive icon. Mainly to give the illusion of another partition on the flash drive, & to help understand what folder contents are at a glance. * It may be possible to edit U3 area of a flash drive, but I don't like to use a technology that doesn't exist on all flash drives. So, no on that. If you can think of other suggestions that would be beneficial, have at it! Who knows? Maybe if there were a way to store the files in a Read Only iso container marked System as well, & get it to be recognized as a cd/dvd drive! There are many options. Let me know what you have been thinking!

Would love the ability to group registry problems together by: - Type - Location The groups would have icons, just like CCleaner has icons for the groups under it's cleanup list. Why can't Registry Cleaner have it too? * CCleaner does have a 1 click sorting list at the top. No, no, not talking about that kind of grouping! Just like CCleaner groups the trash it cleans so you can have less on a page, see easily where the most trash is, ONLY view the trash for certain locations, can we have this for the registry cleaner too? Please? Haha! Thanks!

Perhaps consider moving to SP3. ---> SP3 has problems. On certain AMD configurations, it causes endless reboot problems or blue screens. It also causes wifi on certain systems to mess up, because it blocks the packets streaming in due to thinking the system is under attack. Microsoft is full of information concerning this & other issues with SP3. I know SP3 is supposed to be 10% faster, & I did consider your suggestion, but does it make sense to "update" to a downdate that does worse & ruins things? Have you ever considered that? Or not? I know the information has been out a long time, so I guess you forgot about it. You probably use Windows 7 or Vista. Fine. I use XP at the moment. Some programs, such as Ribbon Printer that prints to balloon ribbons do NOT have a working Vista/7 driver on their website that will let you print ribbons using the driver. Cannot install in Vista OR 7, even under compatibility mode for XP SP2, neither can driver be forcibly installed (errors out) leaving the ONLY working solution to use XP. I did consider it, Hazel, but it simply will NOT work on my system. I am NOT going to try to repeatedly install SP3 only to have my wifi crash because of it, or to have my system bluescreen because of it. SP2 is stable. The biggest hole I have seen, & you can verify by looking at the buffer overflow & other type patches that MS introduces to try to fix problems that are caused by IE. IE has active X scripting, which allows anyone to run anything on your computer without your permission if you visit a maliciously crafted website. I don't use Opera because the interface is wonky, & it suffers from needle thin tabs when you open lots of them. Google chrome suffers from the same, & ad block + just hides (doesn't block) ads in chrome. At least, unless they changed from how they USED to do. Internet Explorer CAUSES malware infestations simply by visiting maliciously crafted websites, so it is dangerous to even use. Firefox has been stable for me, & I have not had a single infection since switching to firefox from web surfing. Any virus attacks I have had since changing browsers has always been because I installed a toolbar with a program, or was testing a program that had it bundled with it. I have systems that are fully patched, yes, with all the updates, & windows 7 with SP1, but no amount of patching will fix installing rogue software. All Windows systems are vulnerable from the time they are compromised, & they can all be compromised by rogue installations, which is why it is so important to: - Have a good firewall - Have a good Antivirus - Use care when installing programs you are unfamiliar with I cannot use SP3 on my system because the ribbon printer & some business system software will NOT run with it, & it causes havoc with my wifi, & it blue screens this system. SP3 is NOT an option, because it won't work on this one! This isn't an "hey, I would like to be more secure!" discussion, because SP3 cannot work on my system. I like your suggestion, but it bluescreens this system, so therefore it is not possible to use your suggestion on this particular system. Plain fact is SP2 is out of date and stopped being supported in July 2010. ---> I am not concerned with whether Microsoft supports something. Look at Internet Explorer. They know the dangers of Active-X exploits, yet they always have it turned on by default in IE. Having rules is not an option, because McAfee researchers in China recently found ways to craft an XML page that IE 6, 7, 8 (I assume 9 does it too, but haven't tested it yet) will be caused to import a rules update, therebye whitelisting bad controls. Before you say oh, you need an updates OS to protect you, just remember that there isn't any protection as long as your using IE with Active-X. Active-X means you can visit a website & they can automatically download & install anything on your system silently & behind your back just by visiting the page. Your system will be hosed. Firefox does not have active-x, so while there may be other vulnerabilities, it cannot be compromised in this unsafe manner. Microsoft, despite having years to fix this, chose to ignore it. Therefore, I am not worried about MS declaring it is out of support. If they were truly serious about security, you'd see serious problems like this fixed, instead of patching & calling on users to fix problems that their open-door backdoor browser caused in the first place. By the way, the exploit also successfully circumvented the UAC Vista & 7 controls & the DEP memory randomization protections. You can avoid a lot of the problems, simply by not using IE. P.S. IE crashes on 3 to 20 tabs. Firefox has been used with up to 1611 tabs & could have opened more, but system was slowing a bit. Can never get IE8 much over 20 without crashing.

I updated to the latest version of Defraggler 2.03 At first glance, it seems faster on my XP SP2 machine, however... It shut down after the 2cd or 3rd run, & it will analayze, then run Defraggler, then it mysteriously "shuts down" without warning! Defraggler disappears like a magic hat act. No stop, pause, no nothing! Gone! What could cause this? Defraggler debug log has just been uloaded. Previous Defraggler 2.02 seemed to work fine. Just the 2.03 causing problems. Thanks! Post can be removed. I found out the problem. It appears to be in another program, & not Defraggler itself. I tried out Auslogics disk cleaner & it seemed to happen right after that. Which, ironically, was when I installed Defraggler 2.03. I tested 2.02 again, & it also closed out. Auslogics cleaner took out something it didn't need to, so I located the source of the problem. Apologies since prior to this, everything was working fine so I thought it was in the new Defraggler. Thank you guys for such great software. P.S. I think the new version seems better at file consolidation, & seems faster overall with good improvements. Feel free to delete this as I have located the cause of the problem, & I am sorry for the mistake. Thank you guys!

I do intend on trying DosBox, & I have 3 flash drives at the moment. Excellent suggestions. Am thinking of making the flash drive read only once finished, so it will be unable to have disconnect errors. If the PC cannot write to the flash drive, it will eliminate all viruses from writing to the drive as well as Windows never having to do a disk check

I agree. Would love to see that in Recuva. + 1 for better granular control, so users can more easily define what to recover & not waste time.

I won't argue with you on which way is "faster" for serial running. But sometimes, I am in great need of having it like that because I don't have the option of serializing it at the moment & have to allow 3 or 4 programs to run overnight. Since defragmentation is a job that can take awhile, it's better that a user can select low priority & 1 core for it, to maximize the other apps so they finish faster. Doesn't hurt to run defraggler in the background. This would really help someone like me. Maybe not you, because, let me guess, you always have time to serialize apps? I did not mean it is faster because of disk I/O, but rather because I don't want to have to be there to wait for one app to run, then run another, then run another "sequentially" if you will. Sorry for the confusion!

That sounds like a great idea. User selectable "fossil" dates... With predefined "suggested" filters. Would be nice to be able to send files that haven't changed in years/months to the front!

That may be true, but I find regularly that malware cases & virus/trojan rates always seem to drop 95% or more after converting users to Firefox or some other more secure browser that doesn't allow any website to install anything they want just because you visit a webpage. Which is caused by Active-X scripting. Sure, sometimes users do still install toolbars, programs with malware, but they at least have to click them now, instead of "driveby" malware doing it simply from visiting a page! I am aware of IE9, but security researchers for McAfee in China found recently that a carefully crafted XML rules list could cause IE to import an "updated" rules list & whitelist bad controls that would allow active-X scripting to run anything all over again. It was found to work in XP, Vista, & 7 for users of IE 6, 7, 8. I assume that it also works on 9, but I haven't verified it yet. I always did say that active-x isn't good because it can't be fixed. Long as that hole remains, there is always a way around it. Why not close that door & be done with it? No active x? P.S. This exploit successfully silently circumvented the UAC controls on Vista & 7 as well as the DEP protections in place. Sure you can patch a system, but no matter how patched they are, active x is always a hole. Why use a hole? Wear protection when you get on the web. You use protection when you are with a partner, so why not use protection on the web? Having the latest patches does NOTHING to stop exploits on a system that is using IE. Seeing the track record for the other releases of IE, I am afraid to trust version 9, since it STILL has active x!

I like how Defraggler offers to defrag on reboot, but was puzzled initially that it only did basic files such as the pagefile & system areas that are normally locked. Any way to add the additional option to do a full system defrag? I would love to be able to run a full defrag before Antivirus/System utils/Etc kick in. Would be so much faster, so much more convenient. Just show a progress bar, & the pause/cancel options so a user can pause/stop/resume/cancel if needed. Other utilities, such as system disk checker, can schedule a full system disk check before loading windows, so why not a full system defrag before loading windows? Users with SLOW systems, especially, would greatly benefit! I know, because I saw one user with 45,000 + fragments & over 27% fragmentation with some blocks severely fragmented. This was after running CCleaner, & I know they never defragged the drive before! Thank you!

Yes, that is a great idea also! Not just having simultaneous multi-disk defrag, but simultaneous multi disk analyze! + 1 from me, because it would be useful & get more done in less time!

I think it would be better to have the option to select an optimized filter on Defraggler. Such as if you apply the "optimized" filter, it will do the following: __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ - Move the page file to the beginning of the drive, with 3x the space needed (allow for ram updates etc) - Move Windows/Program Files/Documents & Settings folder to the beginning of the drive (in that order) - System Restore points - Recycler __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ * Windows folder changes, but not as much as the other 2 * Program Files folder changes a lot, but perhaps not as much as Documents & Settings does __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Allow slack for each area. Users should be able to select (& save) how much space they want to allow as slack (MB & GB increments) For instance, in the filter list, it would be similar to: Windows (Drop down selector box for space to allow) Program files (same box type) Documents & Settings or Users (Same selector type box) System Restore (same box) Recycler (same box) __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ This would be great, because even though files do frag over time, at least if the areas that fragment less are placed at the beginning of the drive first, it will take a lot longer for Windows to slow down The pattern would be optimized, because the ones that change the most would be oriented closer to the free space, while the lesser changed stay in a single location most of the time. Recycler would be closest to the free space area since it can easily get large numbers of files, with system restore right behind it since it can use several GB too over time, but not as rapidly as recycler is capable of. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I would consider this to be very optimized, because everyone knows that the most commonly changed folders are not usually the Windows ones, but the user ones such as program files/documents/restore/recycler. So why not put the least changed first, and the most changed last? I would love to know what you all think!

I would much rather have a Standby option. Hibernate works finicky & even causes some systems to lock up trying to come out of it! Plus, it takes as long or longer than a reboot, on some systems! Why use hibernate if rebooting is just as quick, & it causes crashes? I much rather have a Standby option. Standby is very reliable, is a low power sleep state (not quite as low as hibernate, but still really good!) Standby never seems to crash a computer. Standby resumes very fast. Usually 2 or 3 seconds. Would love to add a low power state after defrag, but make it standby please, or if you have to include hibernate, at least include standby too! Thanks! + 1 to the idea!

Thanks! I didn't know this before. Definitely would be an improvement. + your idea!

Thanks for the help! Can you guys please post additional info on your website about the recovery capabilities of Recuva? What I mean is, I have to have low level access sometimes & I do have one that can read drives that sometimes get scrambled MFT records & show RAW "This drive is not formatted. Would you like to format it now?" when viewed from Windows Explorer. It can also read from protected user accounts. Sometimes if windows fails & you lose your password protected account because the security ID changes when you do a recovery re-install of windows, you cannot access the folder & Windows Explorer shows 0 KB (blank) folder, & says "Access Denied" I know this is false, because the one I use can recover files from the user account anyway, so it must be doing low level access or something, bypassing the Windows native way of viewing. Just wondering, does Recuva support the following? - Raw Mode drives - Old password protected user accounts that you got locked out of during a repair install I know it is possible, because the one I use sometimes does it, but I found no mention on Recuva website about if it supported that to my knowledge. Haven't had time to test it yet on one of my disks, because I simply do not have a corrupted disk at the moment. Do you think it is possible to list if it supports that, & maybe if it doesn't add it as a feature? I think Recuva is wonderful & very easy to use. The only reason I wouldn't use it more, is I know at one time, it did not support RAW drives, which is a must. I can't afford to "lose" several gigs of backups! Thanks, guys! You all rock!

Ok, here is something I wonder here. What is the BEST way to organize flash drives? What I mean is, you have Windows 98 (definitely needs cleaning with ccleaner sometimes), then you have 32 bit versions of XP/Vista/7 as well as the 64 bit (& other windows distros not listed here because they are just not used as much) I set up my flash drive as a bootable flash drive so I can re-install my 7 I bought with it. Then I marked all the setup files hidden so I can use it for storage. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Primary uses are: Backup/Optimize/Update Backup: Drivers/Computers/Files Optimize: Clean/Defragment/Malware Update: CD-DVD/Internet/System -> CD-DVD = burning apps|Internet has Browser/Plugins folder that has Firefox/Internet Explorer/Chrome/Ad Block+ | System has Media Player/Service Packs/Tweaks etc... Seems pretty simple. Each has icons from the system32 shell so it loads when you plug it in (ease of use). From that 1 flash drive, I can backup drivers, update windows, or run malware/antivirus scans + re-install windows I am going to make the flash drive read only eventually, so no viruses can write to it. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Anyway, here is one of my dilemma's and I wanna see how you guys think I should handle it? 2.36 is the last version of CCleaner to support Win98. So that, along with a good zip program & a good image viewer & a slightly older Opera release + Windows Media Player 11 skin for MP9 on W98/ME works good. But I am going to burn all the 95/98/ME utils to CD since you cannot run them from a flash drive without installing usb drivers first! Since they have to be installed via internet or CD/DVD, might as well just burn them to CD & use that! But then, I have CCleaner 32 & 64 bit versions: Is it better to simply run a single CCleaner (32 bit) for 32 & 64 bit systems? Is there really any difference in trash cleaned? Or should I have in the cleanup folder --> 32 Bit & 64 Bit so I can run them on any system? __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Let me know what suggestions you all have, & if you have better ideas. Some of you may wonder why I still use Windows 98 sometimes, since it is very buggy. Well, I have an older racing game that has a steering wheel + gas & brake pedals for it. Works great in 98/ME, but under XP, even with compatibility mode, still no go. Won't do the audio OR the steering wheel in the game. It has to be because XP broke away from true direct access to audio hardware & started using HAL to access it with software emulation. I am thinking of trying it later with DOS Box to see if it will work in a newer OS with DOS Box. I'd love for it to work so I can kick the remaining thing holding me to 98! I am open to suggestions here, as well as ideas you all have. I thought of using a portable start menu, but that is out, because if you do your folders right, you have no more than 3 folder layers to any utility you wish. Running a launcher is simply more to load on your drive. Additionally, new programs would have to be manually added. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Let me know your thoughts! P.S. Be sure to let me know if you think I should use 32 Bit CCleaner/Defraggler/Recuva for 32 bit & 64 Bit systems (simpler, less files to use) or 32 bit for 32 bit systems, & 64 Bit for 64. As far as I can tell, CCleaner/Defraggler/Recuva work identically on a 64 bit system with the 32 bit versions, except for certain tweaks or support for 64 Bit cleaning, right? Or does say, Recuva have to be 64 Bit on 64 Bit systems to recover files properly? Thank you for all your ideas/input & I look forward to reading your replies. I have tinkered with 64 Bit, but I am afraid to go full time because of the following: - 98% or more of software is 32 Bits, with some older ones even being 16 bits! There is a growing amount of 64 bit software recently, & drivers may be no problem, BUT... Sometimes 32 Bit software fails under a 64 Bits system, or just gives a cryptic error message that this isn't compatible with 64 Bits! - So much software, in fact, is 32 Bits, it may be hell trying to update all the programs businesses use to 64 Bit versions. A lot of 32 Bit will work on 64 Bit. But NOT all. Thanks for your inputs, & I love if you post your answer(s)/solutions!

Well, that is bad, to be sure! But surely, something can be done about it! I mean, it IS possible to delete shortcuts, else uninstaller programs would not be able to do so. Surely, there must be a way to treat a shortcut in a similar manner to how an uninstaller does? Just a simple text file with the location to delete, & delete the shortcut? Surely, if CCleaner functionality were "altered" slightly, it could be made to simply write the actual folder/files dropped onto it, rather than seek the file(s)/folder referenced by the shortcut? If deleting shortcuts is truly impossible, how do simple un-installers do it with their text file detailing shortcut locations, then they remove only what is listed, be it shortcut/file/folder? Maybe I am missing something here, & I do understand what you are saying, but it just seems unlogical to just blame it entirely on windows & say deleting shortcuts is impossible. If that were the case, how do uninstallers remove shortcuts, since they should (theoretically) remove the files/folders instead because of the reparse points? Hope you can shed more light on this. Thank you!

I am told that there are 2 copies of the MFT in NTFS file systems. Any way to take advantage of that & create more reliable recoveries? Because I have a system I was recovering files off of (documents) & only 2 or 3 of the documents actually worked after recovering! Was wondering if you can use the 2cd recovery record to make it recover otherwise "unrecoverable" media by interpolating the "missing" or "incomplete" data! Just wondering... Was using it on XP SP2 system & the very latest greatest recuva 1.39 or so.

In CCleaner, the add files/folders to the includes option does not properly work when running Vista or 7. In XP, it works great, but attempting to add a shortcut results in the actual folder or file it references back to being included, instead of the shortcut! Drag & drop no longer works under Vista/7. I brought this back up, because I was thinking about what someone said earlier, blaming it on how Windows handles things. But uninstallers work fine in Vista & also 7. So, if they have no trouble deleting shortcuts, why should CCleaner have that problem? Anyone got an answer? Surely the whiz bang geniuses can give us a solution! I got faith in you guys! I have folders I need to periodically empty, but I cannot add them in 7! Now I feel like a dummy! LOL! Please fix this, please, please, please! You guys are awesome! Thanks!

I always wondered How do you freeze a drive in a ziplock bag? I mean, do you have to like vacuum seal it? Wrap it with a dry paper towel first? Or do you just dump it into a bag, close it, and freeze?