Hi all, I've just paid for recuva only to find that I've wasted my money. The software is finding less than a quarter of the files found by easeus. I opted for recuva because of the price difference thinking it would find the same files. It doesn't though. I've run deep scan too and still get the lowest number of files. Am I doing something wrong or is there such a big difference in price due to the difference in performance?
Cheers Ady
As none of us knows what Recuva or Easeus actually does then we can only speculate. The default settings of Recuva exclude files in hidden system directories, zero-byte files, and securely overwritten files, so this might explain some of the discrepancy. A normal scan reads the MFT (assuming NTFS) and selects deleted records, which is a relatively simple process. The MFT is the same whatever software is used, so it's difficult to see how one software would produce results that are significantly different from another. Recuva doesn't include live files by default, maybe Easeus does.
A deep scan looks for a specific set of file headers in the clusters. There could be a variation in the file types covered, Recuva's list seems to cover most of the popular file types, perhaps Easus has more.
I'm not really sure where recovery software could 'look' to find more files.
Thanks for your reply. I'm going to have to request a refund from recuva and pay for easeus. Which is more expensive for UK customers than US despite being a download?
Cheers Ady