5 replies to this topic

[jlowell]

Here is a post I made at SpywareWarrior.com regarding my new experience with CCleaner. It speaks for itself:

Quote

And I thought I had reasonably sound maintenance principles in place here!

After reading this thread, I thought I might give CCleaner a try. For many years on my Windows partitions I've depended on Symantec applications to keep me protected and running efficiently, that despite their penchant to purposely obsolete their software about ever two years forcing you to by licenses for replacements. Mainly I've used their SystemWorks suite, and, more recently, their Internet Security program to help with spam processing and the like. Their One Button Cleanup, a recent revision which more-or-less obsoletes the Fast and Safe Cleanup available through SystemWorks' Clean Sweep program, I've liked because it was conservative enough not to wreak havok every time I've run it. But this conservative? Oy! Running CCleaner, I moved off better than 37 megs of cruft and that after doing weekly maintenance! And the issues it identified, so many it's embarrasing. To make sure I was safe before installing CCleaner and employing it, I ran a clone of the partition involved to another box on the network. If I can't identify any problems within a short time, next time we come up for the bi-annual Symantec fleecing, I'll be looking for free replacements for everything offered by SystemWorks. Although I know there are good alternative defraggers/optimisers and anti-virus applications, I haven't been able to locate a good replacement for Norton Disk Doctor other than the standard Windows error checking utility. Anyone's help with a recommendation in this connection would be appreciated.

You live and learn.

jlowell

I'm pleased to have tried this very fine disk cleaner.

jlowell

[DjLizard]

If I may throw my two cents into the bucket,
Norton Disk Doctor should be replaced by a combination: first, use Spinrite for hard disk surface integrity [it's worth more than the $89 USD that is requested for it], and [as funny as it sounds,] Windows' own chkdsk (using the /R parameter) for file system integrity. FAT32 should be avoided, as NTFS is more fault tolerant (it is journaled).

[Tarun]

DjLizard, on Jun 16 2005, 09:57 PM, said:

NTFS is more fault tolerant (it is journaled).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And secure too.

[TwistedMetal]

Here is another insider, if everything is added in the next version of CCleaner. It should double your usually cleaning size.

That is if everything is added that I think will be added.

[jlowell]

DJLizard,

Thanks for the reply and your recommendation of Spinrite for disk surface integrity checking. I'd been aware, of course of the availability of C:\> CHKDSK /F /R for file system checking.

Interesting that you'd suggest NTFS. I have here what is probably a fairly rare arrangement these days, Windows 2000 Pro with two FAT32 partitions, one for personal the other business computing. The installation program recommends that in case where more than one partition using Windows 2000 will be used on a disk that they both be FAT32. Don't ask me why, I just follow instructions.

Just curious, any suggestions as to a decent freeware defragger to replace Norton Speed Disk?

jlowell

[DjLizard]

FAT32 doesn't have any security -- therefore any access via Windows 2000 will be granted (whereas NTFS might possibly restrict one copy of the operating system from viewing certain files residing on the partition belonging to another copy of the operating system -- especially sections such as \Documents and Settings\*)

At any rate, as far as I know, there are no viable freeware defragmenters. You can use Sysinternals 'contig' program to optimize individual files, their 'pagedefrag' to optimize the MFT, paging file, and swap file, and windows defragmenter (which is actually Diskkeeper ultra-lite (see Help>About while in dfrg.msc)) and you should be fine.

As far as commercial defragmenters, I love Raxco (.com) Perfectdisk 7.