Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums

jfj

Experienced Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jfj

  • Rank
    Member
  1. mrron, does this mean you dont want any more logs for this issue?
  2. ahhh very good points there davey. certainly shed some light to me, maybe it will do the same for others who stumble across it.
  3. thanks for following up davey. to reply to your suggestions for the next persons who read this: page defrag is necessary if you allow your pagefile to grow as windows feels necessary. this actually serves to slow your entire machine down, so you should go into your virtual memory settings for your windows box. it suggests a reccommended pagefile and you should set that as the minimum and maximum values. no more need to defrag your page file. http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php you say you defraggle before you cclean but maybe you should actually cclean first. then you wont have to defraggle the files that get deleted. you say you let windows do any disk optimizations. i assume you are running vista? otherwise windows doesnt do anything... which is why we need programs like defraggler. a tip for anyone interested: i dont actually use the defraggler program. its not necessary. the command line program (df.exe) provided in the defraggler directory works faster and better than the gui. what ive ended up doing is created a scheduled task to run df c: nightly at 2am. i leave my computer on 24/7 so its nice and optimized by morning. this does a full drive defrag. if you would like to use the command line to run the equalivent of what youve done you would do df c:\ /s this will analyze and defrag the fragmented files. you could also easily set this as a system task or make a shortcut to do it on one click.
  4. what is the difference between how df.exe behaves when drive defragging vs individual file defragging: df c: df c:\ /s
  5. jfj

    August Desktops

    brown that thing in the top right is slick as hell.... im guessing its a winamp thing? care to disclose?
  6. true enough, but isnt this the lounge one last point. think about the desktop like this: why is the recycle bin icon the only one you cant easily get rid of? if you only/primarily use your desktop to hold/launch shortcuts, why would you ever need an easy means to drag and drop them into the trash. doesnt make sense does it. anyway, if you want, give it a try. p.s. siorry about the huge thumbnails, i pasted the wrong code from imageshack. not used to it.
  7. yea but... just because the thing installs a desktop shortcut doesnt mean its the best use. i honestly suspect the whole desktop shortcut thing is a some marketing convention. like: "what better way to make sure our product gets precedence and use as to put a big iconic symbol on the desktop of everyone's machine! instant universal advertising space!" just drag/drop the shortcut to your start button and then delete it. its simply a better way to launch programs. both the start menu and tray have been around since windows 95. but that 60 day desktop cleanup is a relatively recent creation to aid people to clean up all the crap, same as the xp feature to hide your system tray crap. you know its true i dunno, all im saying is that the computer/os is a tool, and has been designed with specific ways to help you interact with it. teams of usability and interaction designers as well as test groups designed and refined the start menu... maybe its worth a second look. rather than accept the conventions of what 3rd party software does to scream "look at me!" try to think about how windows was actually designed. give it a try. not sure how vista works though, xp you can also do the classic start menu style. i find xp style better.
  8. im not sure this is the place to discuss organization schemes, but my school of thought is that desktop shortcuts are the least effective. the desktop is actually designed to be a workspace, not a program launcher, so you should treat it as such and use the other means for launching programs. i feel like most people who have 30 desktop shortcuts dont even use use 10 of them regularly and those 10 can usually be served a better way. simple examples: CCleaner. why have a desktop shortcut when you can simply right click the recycle bin and run/open the cleaner. its a better method and you can use it anywhere the recycle bin appears. isnt it more logical that way anyway? why have my computer/my documents desktop shortcut when windows explorer from the quicklaunch can go right there (or to any directory for that matter since it starts with a file tree)? defraggler? just run a scheduled task to defrag overnight and never open it again. foxit reader: when does anyone ever open foxit reader alone? no. they click pdfs which open in foxit reader. you can usually whittle most all of it away. for the stuff you cant get rid of, use the most under utilized feature of every single xp system: the start menu. now, im not talking the programs menu which is a submenu of the start menu. im talking that immediate menu once you click start. take your shortcut and drag it onto the start button, or if you are in the program menu, right click > pin to start menu. now you have access to all of your shortcuts in one click, from any screen on your computer no matter how many windows are open or maximized. you also have keyboard only access by pressing the windows and arrows keys. whats more you can do things like dragging a file from a maximized explorer window, to the start menu, to the program of your choice which you drop it on and then it will open in it (provided you dont want to right click > open with). you can make your start menu shortcuts large or small, and you can customize it a few different ways depending on your preference. btw, its a feature on xp that works lousy but the start menu populates itself with the items you use most.... its practically nudging you by saying "hey use me, this is what im designed for." so if you dont know you can simply customize that menu's default from 7 to 0 and then they never appear... leaving you full regin to populate the start menu with your own shortcuts. as for the desktop, use the desktop for its purpose: a temporary work area. plus now that most all of your shortcuts are in better more effective places, you can put a big old picture up and can ooh and ahhh it without having your view be obstructed by tons of icons with text. i personally prefer black trust me you'll never go back.
  9. clutter free is the way to be... KISS (keep it simple stupid)... cleanliness is next to godliness...
  10. it seems to me that defraggling in safe mode is far slower than defraggling in regular mode. i always had assumed it would be faster since theres less ram overhead, more files free from lockage, etc... but running df.exe (which is a great addition btw) on my drive seems to crawl. questions to the powers that be or anyone in the know: - anyone else notice this seemingly obvious slow down in safe mode? - is there a reason why it runs better in regular mode? - am i getting a better defrag by running in safe mode? thanks for any responses
×
×
  • Create New...