Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums
rayjo

Help Users to not Break Their Recovery Solution

Recommended Posts

The typical use is:

1.  User deletes a file.

2.  User decides to recover file.

3.  User searches on-line to find a solution.

4.  User finds Recuva, downloads, installs and attempts to recovery.

 

On the front page, the user should be warned that down loading and executing will likely destroy their ability to recover the subject files.

 

In the rush to 'sell', the requirement to protect the user from actions you know will destroy their data, has been ... neglected.

 

After warning the user of this folly, the next statement should be exactly what they need to do to best support their immediate need - not your need to sell.

 

Ray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

by the time the user gets the warning from Piriform that downloading Recuva may decrease your recovery chances, the mere fact the PC in question is in use and searching the web is already reducing your chances.

not to mention the myriad of background process in use that are potentially accessing the drive.

but some things cannot be avoided.

 

I couldn't see anywhere on the Piriform site, from general browsing their products available, to each specific page for a particular product, to the download pages, where the Free version wasn't promoted first and the Pro version offered right next to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where I see in some of the posts on this topic, the paid version is used.  

 

The user downloads the free version and breaks their ability to recovery.

 

They pay for what they hope is a better tool and break it some more.

 

The users should be protected from themselves.

 

Piriform knows the problem and chooses not to be informative.

 

Yes, there are many ways a user can allow their system to further fracture; that is not an excuse to continue neglecting to provide the appropriate information up front.

 

It can happen today.  Inform the users up front.

 

Ray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The users should be protected from themselves.

 

Amen to that Brother.

But sadly the stupidity gene is proving hard to breed out. :)

 

Can you find on the Piriform website where it states that the Pro version gives better data recovery than the Free version?

Then I  can pass that knowledge on to the Admins for correction.

 

I found this; http://www.piriform.com/recuva which states the Pro has more features, but the same data recovery chances.

 

And what is this problem that Piriform know about but chooses not to be informative of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem - which exists for any recovery software - is explained here http://www.piriform.com/docs/recuva/recuva-quick-start/your-best-chance-for-recovering-files

 

Unfortunately by the time the user has reached step 4 (in the original post) the damage has already been done, as Piriform explains. Searching for a recovery method involves many pages of hits on Google, looking at various reviews, how-to's and comments, and probably browsing forums such as this. So by the time the use choses Recuva - or any recovery software - he or she has overwritten several hundred or more entries in the MFT and just as many or even more clusters.

 

Whilst recovery software could say that for the best chance of recovery download and install the software to another drive, by the time you get there you've already done the damage, especially if the recovery is on the system drive, where most of the hits take place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it's a good idea to give user an option to remount target drive as read-only? It will prevent further destructions.
If it isn't C: drive, but not sure it's even possible in Windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this would be really nice to know before hand. If the program will destroy chances of recovery, i would not do it. Perhaps trying another recovery program has already ruined it. Some of the programs indicate that the user should make an image of the drive - of course, that is quite impossible because the system does not recognize the drive at all, let alone image it.

I have made the apparently erroneous assumption that the program only reads the data and takes information into memory until it is convinced that the data is there, then rewrites the indices etc. It would make more sense to leave the drive unmodified. Show the user what data it has and ask the user to identify whether or not the data is correct. In other words, if a file is located and it is unknown if it is the right one, ask the user, allow the user to recover it and try it to determine whether it has actually been recovered.

Assume that undeleted files are the files that are desired unless expressly told differently. That is, perhaps interrogation of the user before starting and a little info about what the decision that has to be made will entail for each possible choice is appropriate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...