Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums

M_Lyons10

Experienced Members
  • Content Count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About M_Lyons10

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Defraggler is really great, and the ability to exclude files is really nice. I have noticed two things though with the exclude list that could be improved though. 1) The items should be a check list so that you can uncheck them rather than have to delete them. This way you can do a defrag of these items on occasion if you want to. 2) If you select a file in the file list that is "excluded" you should still be able to defrag this file. Right now it doesn't let you. If you manually find and select the file it should be able to be defragged. 3) The same should work to move the files to the end of the drive. In fact, there should be a way of ONLY defragging and moving the files to the end of the drive that you've selected. This would be really handy actually. Thanks again for an amazing application (They're all great).
  2. I like the File Exclude option, but it needs a *little* tweaking. 1) If you select the file to defrag it from the file list, you should still be able to defrag it. Maybe a warning? 2) When you have a file extension in the list of files to move to the end of the drive, after defragging that file from the file list, it should move it to the end of the drive. 3) Even if they're skipped by defrag, these files should be shown in the list. It is kind of confusing that they don't. 4) Some sectors show as fragmented, when there doesn't appear to be anything to defragment? I can't figure this out. It seems to have worsened with the last release... 5) Piriform was developing on .NET for a while, and I can understand the benefits of moving away from that, but there were many benefits with .NET as well. Not least of which is the fact that applications are sandboxed... It would be really nice if Defraggler was run in such a way that it was sandboxed and couldn't crash Windows. I've just had such a crash, and this is not the first or fifth time... Otherwise I love the product. Thanks again for the phenomenal work.
  3. Well, that's a Windows Permissions problem. The only real way I can think of to do this is to run the application as an Administrator, but you would need to be able to log into that account. Unfortunately I don't think you'll be able to run the application on your work machine (As well as many other programs really). I would contact your network administrator and see if they would be interested in putting Defraggler on their machines.
  4. Alright, we'll chalk it up to a language barrier, but it's not common to end sentences with exclamation marks just for the sake of doing so. Exclamation marks, similar to question marks and other forms of punctuation are used to convey meaning. The meaning conveyed by your statement, paired with your exclamation mark, was not a good one. Just take it as a friendly suggestion (If you wish to do so) that when using forums (Where users can only determine meaning from what YOU write {And punctuate}), it's best to limit use of exclamation marks as they generally convey argumentative, inflammatory, or angry statements. It will keep you from being misunderstood. I apologize if that was the case here and I jumped on you a bit. Back to the exclude list, I can't find a mention of this now, and that makes me sad... I sincerely hope that this feature gets included in an upcoming release, as it would be VERY handy... You definitely don't want to defrag a .vhd when it's in use... It sucks... lol
  5. Well, I was pretty sure that it was in the release notes for one of the recent releases, maybe I was wrong. It is a necessary feature however. Clearly you do not have large files, such as .vhd's, that you wouldn't want to move around constantly. Also, perhaps you're not familiar with forum etiquette, but exclamation points are considered rude. Thanks for your response however, even though you don't seem to understand the feature.
  6. I just wanted to follow up on this. Does anyone happen to know? Thanks Again,
  7. That would be a handy feature for some things I guess. I don't think that Defraggler would be able to move the pagefile.sys or hiberfile.sys though, as they would likely be in use by Windows (Hence the inability of Defraggler to Defrag them). Other files though this should work for. Not the Volume Information either, but you would probably want this at the end of the drive rather than the front...
  8. Are you an administrator? If you go to the directory that the update was installed on and right click on the folder and view the properties, is it read only? What operating system are you running?
  9. Yeah, I would like this feature. I actually made this same suggestion in the Defraggler Suggestions thread a bit ago... Hopefully someone's reading that and can implement that feature as I think it would be really nice. Defraggler is a great program, but there is some room for improvement. I think this is one of those features.
  10. Hm... Does it confuse early adopters? All of the defragging tools I have used (Including the Windows tool AFAIR - haven't used it since they destroyed it in Vista) count files in one piece as being in one fragment. If it isn't in two or more fragments then it is in one 'part' and as such is not fragmented. This has really become a pretty complex discussion because technically a fragment IS a part of a larger whole. Regardless though, the rest of the industry uses these conventions (One fragment means the file is in one piece), so I think that it makes sense to stick with this convention. It's been in place for a very long time and isn't going to change at this point. Whether it's technically incorrect or not is a side issue, as it is how it's always been conveyed, and the users should be used to that at this point. I don't think many people will be confused. It's not a great leap to come to the conclusion that a file in one fragment is not fragmented. If it were fragmented there would have to be more than one 'part'... Contrary, I believe that changing it to 0 fragments would add confusion for users (And possibly fear), as they would see that as the file not existing. I can see it now: "What did Defraggler do to all of my files, they're all gone..."
  11. Hi everyone, I saw that in the last release Defraggler added the much requested "Exclude this file" list. I can't figure out how to exclude a file though. Anyone interested in directing this nitwit to a feature that I'm really excited about? Pleeeeeeeease? Thanks,
  12. Well, I'm not sure how it would impact speed (Though I imagine there would be a noticeable impact), but changing that often might be a bit too fast for people to see / read. Especially for smaller files and such. That's just my thought here, but the file name display would likely be blazingly brief... *Is "blazingly" a word? Well, I'm making it one... It means really, really fast... HAHA*
  13. Oh, haha... My bad... That'll teach me to multi-task... Thanks,
  14. As far as I know that can't be done at the moment, but that's not a bad suggestion. I would support such an option. It would be helpful particularly for newer users that are getting used to the application. Might aid in adoption...
  15. I haven't set anything. Out of the box Vista turns the machine off when you shut it down, but it acts more as a hibernate. It saves state and restores at startup. Nothing was changed. I can manually shut it down by selecting that option from the Shut Down Menu, but the main shut down option hibernates... :? When I first received the computer I researched this a bit and it seemed like a standard feature of Vista to speed up startup.
×
×
  • Create New...