corp

Thanks Augeas and Robbie for your time and thoughts as well. I am not sure there is really a way for any of us to determine the answer to my original question. Maybe in fact the language used to write the two programs was different as suggested earlier by Alan (C++ vs C+). But I did, in response to your question - eliminate the variables. I ran both programs - Eraser and CCleaner at 7 wipes, cluster tips included. And yes - Eraser spends a lot of time on Cluster tips. It just seems from the literature that Eraser is more sophisticated - and therefore, my assumption, better (?) at wiping for finality. I do not use the Pseudo random setting 1 pass thing - as I read in several places once that that apporach could be less ecure than multiple passes. And yes I know there is some controversy and strong opinions on both sides. So - thanks again for your time. I'll probably just end up using BOTH to wipe!!! (Now there's a waste of life, huh?) Take care.

Alan: Very nice job on the detailed response. Good of you to take the time. I understand your logic. I read in a variety of places at one time that all disk erasers are not created equally - and that even those that all claim to use Guttmann for example, may not be equally effective in the application of Guttmann. I do not have enough technical knowledge to understand the specifics behind that statement however - nor have I read any actual explanations. I even read some place that while CCleaner is very user friendly, etc., it may not be as "strong" as other erasers out there. I do not doubt that Recova will likely NOT be able to recover both efforts conducted side by side - that is the Eraser vs. The CCleaner - and both programs will show that they have accomplished the task. Your last points though hit on the answer though - that there are sophisticated approaches to data recovery that cannot be defeated. Was that your point? And therefore, if someone truly wants to read what was on my hard drive - they can get it - even if I use Guttmann (with the 35 passes)? If the answer is "yes", than that's really it - I can only take a "consumer-level-approach" to try and protect my data - but only expect that the average idiot thief will be defeated - and not sophisticated techies with money and hardware examination tools. Or....is there really some software out there that does in fact make it impossible for ANYONE to recover data? I think I am answering my own question! In any case, thank you for your thoughtful and detailed response. With appreciation and regards from the "Colonies"....Corp.

Thanks for the reply Nergal. Yes - Recuva may reveal something. But what I would be concerned about is if a professional thief and hacker gets their hands on my hard drive - would in fact I be better protected with Eraser. Again - why would Eraser take 24 hours to do the same job that is apparently done by CCleaner in only 1 hour? Is this the proof that Eraser is in fact more thorough? Again yes - the large type size was an error!!! Good point. Never again!

I am a user of both Eraser (http://www.heidi.ie/node/6) and CCleaner for several years. Both are free (and I have donated to both!). Eraser is considered exceptionally strong - recommended by many tech types. This may be demonstrated by the fact that running Eraser to wipe free disk space takes a full day on my computer - while CCleaner gets the same job done in less than an hour! Both are set of course at the SAME number of passes / over-writes. So...if CCleaner is JUST AS EFFECTIVE in wiping free disk space as Eraser, how can it possibly achieve the SAME OUTCOME in only 1/24 of the time? Why would this occur? What I am seeking is the the PROOF that CCleaner is protecting me as effectively as ANY software (in this case "ERASER") could protect me in wiping free disk space. I'll take anyone's ideas - including Piriform Support. Thank you all for your time.