Jump to content

Bethrezen

Members
  • Posts

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

0 Neutral
  1. hi Andavari I've already done that I also disabled the active monitoring as well but for some reason the latest version of CCleaner still keeps trying to establish a connection to the net without my permission so I'd like some from Piriform to explain them selves and I'd like them to tell me how to put a stop to this unauthorized attempt to phone home every time I start the application because as I've already said I don't like being spied on if as trium suggests it is just collecting data for statistical purposes that's fine but Piriform should come clean tell users exactly what they are collecting and why and give users the ability to opt out that is the reputable and responsible thing to do doing otherwise can seriously damage there reputation and cause some serious trust issues and as it stands I've already dumped applications from a number of different vendors for acting in this sort of a disreputable and untrustworthy manor and I'd hate to have to do the same here because CCleaner is a good application which I've used for a long time to help protect my privacy.
  2. hi all like many I also dislike the GUI changes these changes are in my opinion a step backwards please put the GUI back the way it was I don't know about anyone else but I don't care about fancy and flashy I'm more concerned with simplicity and usability and the latest version is not usable due to the GUI changes which causes me visual stress I can't look at it for more then a few minutes before my eyes start to hurt. This is not a request made out of personal preference this is a request made on accessibility grounds being dyslexic part of my issue is that certain combos of colour cause me visual stress and makes life very difficult as letters blur together icons become unclear and I become unable to use the application etc as my eyes are simply unable to focus correctly and before you say it no this isn't an issue with my eye sight my eye sight is fine but it is a well documented and common problem for dyslexics and if you don't believe me look it up for your self
  3. hi all I'm curious why is the latest version of CCleaner attempting to connect to the net when active monitoring and auto update are switched off ? While this may well be entirely benign given all the stuff that's being going round as of late with exposure of the NSA/GCHQ and there illegal surveillance I tent to be very touchy about applications or indeed anything else that tries to access the net without my permission since I value my privacy and I don't like being spied on. so I'd like someone to explain to me why CCleaner is trying to connect to the net and what data it's trying send. I'd also like to know how to put a stop to this phoning home behaviour since I explicitly forbid net access to all applications unless it's for a legitimate purpose like checking for updates and even then auto updates are usually switched off and I'll just check manually my other question is what is with the horrible GUI changes the GUI was just fine the way it was and I don't know about anyone else but I find the new GUI causes me visual stress I cant look at it for more then an few minutes before my eyes start to hurt. please put the GUI back the way it was and remove this irritating and undesirable phoning home behaviour
  4. the latest one The piriform website Possible but unlikely the updater shouldn’t need to trigger ping.exe the only purpose of the ping.exe is to check for a connection so I’m not sure why the installer would be calling it nope since its the free version Maybe I do wish companies would stop bundling there apps with unwanted garbage if I wanted the tool bar I’d download it I guess at the end of the day its not a big issue just makes me a little suspicious when programs are doing things there not supposed to be because I found the Auslogics disk defrag app bundled with what my anti malware scanner identified as a Trojan horse the other day very disappointing to see reputable companies disseminating malware / PUPs (Potentially unwanted Programs)
  5. hi all I’m curious why is the Defraggler installer triggering the Ping.exe and trying to phone home.
  6. hi all one of the things that has always impeded a successful de-fragmentation of a disk is the fact that most defrag software requires windows to be loaded before the de-fragmentation can occur the only program I've ever seen that was not restricted in this way was the Norton Utilities Disk De-fragmenter because that was able to load and run with out loading the OS much the same way that live distros of Linux work it just loads the whole thing in to memory so there is no or minimal disk involvement I've seen other apps that do things like this as well a good example is the boot disk that Acronis disk director or true image can make that allows you to run the program with full graphical GUI with out the need for windows to be running thus allowing you to conduct operations which are just not possible otherwise and I'm wondering if it would be possible to add such a function to Defraggler? The effect of this is two fold first off it allows to do a full disk defrag and optimisation of all files including ones which are normally locked with out the interference of the OS because the program is simply being loaded in to memory in a virtual OS thus eliminating the need for windows to be running just the same way live distros of Linux are or the same way Acronis disk director/True Image can load with full graphical GUI with out the need for windows. the second effect of this is that its much faster because only the application and enough of the virtual environment to allow the programme to run is loaded so you don't have to deal with all the over head for the OS one thing I've always wonders actually is would it be possible to run Defraggler from a live distros so that I can do a full disk defrag and optimisation of all files including ones which are normally locked ?
  7. hi all in a previous posting on this subject I highlighted a pretty nasty performance issue I was seeing with Defraggler in that even on a relatively empty and relatively un-fragmented drive Defraggler was wanting hours to complete a job that should have in reality taken no more than 20 to 30 mins now I see from reading the change logs for subsequent versions that you have tried to address this issue and I have seen a slight increase in performance sadly however Defraggler is still running extremely slowly on my system I've been pondering over why that might be because when using say Auslogics Disk Defrag I see quiet good performance and even in a heavily fragmented disk something on the order of 50% Auslogics Disk Defrag never seems to take more than an hour or so to get the job done and that’s doing a full defrag and optimise including moving system files to the start of the drive for faster operation and it’s got my puzzled as to why Defraggler is so slow in comparison. Thinking about it the though occurs that it might be something to do with the way the 2 to apps process files Defraggler seems to try and process entire files at once which on a high powered system isn't a problem my system however only has 1gb or ram and therefore when processing very large files such as though found the World of Warcraft folder the whole thing chokes and Defraggler moves with all the speed of a glassier where as Auslogics Disk Defrag seems to process files cluster by cluster which makes for much better performance on low powered system because the Ram isn't being overloaded with more data than it has capacity to handle. I'm no programmer so I could be wrong admittedly these are only visual observation from watching the two programmes operate but if you want to improve the speed of Defraggler further and actually get it to operate and somewhere near a reasonable level for all system regardless of there hardware then it might be a good idea to have a look at the way Defraggler operates as there might be a better more efficient way to do thing ie processing smaller chunks of data sequentially rather then trying to process entire files at one time that's fine for small files but not for large multi gigabyte files not on a lower end system.
  8. I don't normally use my defrag either it’s just that in this case I couldn't get defraggler to do the job in a timely fashion which is unusually because normally it’s a fairly zippy application when the drive is only lightly fragmented even on full defrag. what I don't understand is why it’s taking like 4 or 5 hours to do a full defrag when it should only take around an hour or so, 4 or 5 hours or more if the drive was heavily fragmented or quiet full maybe but not in this case not when there is so little data on the drive and not when the drive is only lightly fragmented strange ?!?! oh well no matter hopfully somome will track down the cause of the problem and put it right and get Defraggler running at a decent speed again.
  9. yeah and that's slow as well, as a comparison I just ran Mydefrag on C:\ using System Disk Monthly which fully defrag's and optimizes your disk and that took like an hour or so to do the job when I tried to do that with defraggler it's was coming out at like 5 hours to do the job. which further leads me to conclude that there is something wrong with defragglers code it could be something as simple as an error that's causing unnecessary processing loops that would be consistent with the behaviour I'm seeing, I've seen this problem before in other program and scripts and it can bring even the fastest application to it's knees.
  10. hi all I'm running win XP Home SP3 and like many I have been noticing that the latest version of Defraggler v2.09.391 seems to be running very slowly, at this point it's slower then windows built in defragmenter. My drive is 160gb and is split in to 2 partitions, the main partition which is about 80gb has the OS on and the second partition which is about 70gb is for file storage so that if the OS messes up I can reinstall with out loosing my files. Now the main partition that has the OS on has just had a fresh install of XP put on it so there is only about 30gb of date on that partition and only about 2.5gb of that date is actually fragmented meaning that it should take no more than about 15 minutes to defragment, if that, yet i've had this running for hours and it's still not done yet. It seems to make no odds if I use fast defrag or normal defrag both run extremely slowly and it's taking an age to move even small files which ordinarily would be moved immediately so obviously something is wrong because Defraggler shouldn't be running that slow, granted defraging can be a slow process if the drive is heavily fragmented or quite full or both but neither of these things apply in this cast so i'd like to know what's going on because some how I doubt very much that this is a problem with my system as I'm not the only one who is seeing this issue. Something else I've noticed as well is that the time remaining seems to be woefully inaccurate and and not even close to reality I've had it project a time remaining of 30 minutes only to still be waiting for Defraggler to finish 4 or 5 hours later. I don't know what you have changed but what ever it is it's had a badly detrimental effect on the speed of the application and if i where you i'd get your programmers to go over the code with a fine tooth comb becaue somthing oviously isn't working as it should be. If you need any info or what have you feel free to ask and i'll try my best to answer.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.