Duplicate file finder recommendation?

I've already looked on line and tried three of the recommended duplicate
file utilities without success:

1. Duplicate Cleaner found a large number of duplicates but stopped
responding when I tried to delete files.

2. Easy Duplicate Finder found a large number of duplicates but then
appeared to do nothing. When I tried to End Task, it reported that the
program was waiting for input from me, but there was no sign of a prompt.

3. Auslogics Duplicate File Finder found a large number of duplicates,
but when I tried to delete all but one of each set it deleted only three
files, total.

Can anybody recommend something that they have found to work?

Perce

 

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message news:j4j00i$5t4$...

I've already looked on line and tried three of the recommended duplicate
file utilities without success:

1. Duplicate Cleaner found a large number of duplicates but stopped
responding when I tried to delete files.

2. Easy Duplicate Finder found a large number of duplicates but then
appeared to do nothing. When I tried to End Task, it reported that the
program was waiting for input from me, but there was no sign of a prompt.

3. Auslogics Duplicate File Finder found a large number of duplicates,
but when I tried to delete all but one of each set it deleted only three
files, total.

Can anybody recommend something that they have found to work?

Perce

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Duplicate Cleaner works for me with no problems. Finds everything and
deletes all as instructed.

One thing I did find with it though, it does tend to go dormant for a while
if you try to delete a lot of files to the Recycle Bin. For a while could be
up to an hour!!! Disable this feature, so long as you are happy with not
having the ability to recover them, and all should be OK.

jim

 

On 11/09/2011 6:09 PM, jbm wrote:
> Duplicate Cleaner works for me with no problems. Finds everything and
> deletes all as instructed.
>
> One thing I did find with it though, it does tend to go dormant for a
> while if you try to delete a lot of files to the Recycle Bin. For a
> while could be up to an hour!!! Disable this feature, so long as you are
> happy with not having the ability to recover them, and all should be OK.

Hey, this Duplicate Cleaner rocks! I've been using an out-of-date app
called Duplicate Detector all of these years, it hasn't been updated
since the XP days, and it requires special XP compatibility modes to
work in Win 7, but it is the only thing that had all of the features I
was looking for. Now this Dupe Cleaner does even better than this.

Yousuf Khan

 

On 09/11/11 06:09 pm, jbm wrote:
> "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message news:j4j00i$5t4$...
>
> I've already looked on line and tried three of the recommended duplicate
> file utilities without success:
>
> 1. Duplicate Cleaner found a large number of duplicates but stopped
> responding when I tried to delete files.
>
> 2. Easy Duplicate Finder found a large number of duplicates but then
> appeared to do nothing. When I tried to End Task, it reported that the
> program was waiting for input from me, but there was no sign of a prompt.
>
> 3. Auslogics Duplicate File Finder found a large number of duplicates,
> but when I tried to delete all but one of each set it deleted only three
> files, total.
>
> Can anybody recommend something that they have found to work?
>
> Perce
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Duplicate Cleaner works for me with no problems. Finds everything and
> deletes all as instructed.
>
> One thing I did find with it though, it does tend to go dormant for a
> while if you try to delete a lot of files to the Recycle Bin. For a
> while could be up to an hour!!! Disable this feature, so long as you are
> happy with not having the ability to recover them, and all should be OK.

Duplicate Cleaner doesn't merely *seem to* quit; three times now I have
got the official "Duplicate Cleaner has stopped responding" message; if
I click Debug rather than Close, it quits anyway.

Perce

 

In news:j4j00i$5t4$,
Percival P. Cassidy <> typed:
> I've already looked on line and tried three of the
> recommended duplicate file utilities without success:
>
> 1. Duplicate Cleaner found a large number of duplicates
> but stopped responding when I tried to delete files.
>
> 2. Easy Duplicate Finder found a large number of
> duplicates but then appeared to do nothing. When I tried
> to End Task, it reported that the program was waiting for
> input from me, but there was no sign of a prompt.
> 3. Auslogics Duplicate File Finder found a large number
> of duplicates, but when I tried to delete all but one of
> each set it deleted only three files, total.
>
> Can anybody recommend something that they have found to
> work?
> Perce

I use one from here that works very well:
http://dff.nazrashid.com/

 

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message news:j4jp3j$umf$...

Duplicate Cleaner doesn't merely *seem to* quit; three times now I have
got the official "Duplicate Cleaner has stopped responding" message; if
I click Debug rather than Close, it quits anyway.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Blah-Blah has stopped responding" is nothing to do with "Blah-Blah". It's a
crap operating system called Window 7 64-bit. It regularly comes up with
this message for any 32-bit installed programs.

jim

 

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message news:j4jp3j$umf$...

Duplicate Cleaner doesn't merely *seem to* quit; three times now I have
got the official "Duplicate Cleaner has stopped responding" message; if
I click Debug rather than Close, it quits anyway.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Blah-Blah has stopped responding" is nothing to do with "Blah-Blah". It's a
crap operating system called Window 7 64-bit. It regularly comes up with
this message for any 32-bit installed programs.

jim

 

On 09/12/11 06:02 pm, jbm wrote:

> Duplicate Cleaner doesn't merely *seem to* quit; three times now I have
> got the official "Duplicate Cleaner has stopped responding" message; if
> I click Debug rather than Close, it quits anyway.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> "Blah-Blah has stopped responding" is nothing to do with "Blah-Blah".
> It's a crap operating system called Window 7 64-bit. It regularly comes
> up with this message for any 32-bit installed programs.

I'm using 32-bit Win7Pro.

Perce

 

On 11/09/2011 9:21 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
> On 11/09/2011 6:09 PM, jbm wrote:
>> Duplicate Cleaner works for me with no problems. Finds everything and
>> deletes all as instructed.
>>
>> One thing I did find with it though, it does tend to go dormant for a
>> while if you try to delete a lot of files to the Recycle Bin. For a
>> while could be up to an hour!!! Disable this feature, so long as you are
>> happy with not having the ability to recover them, and all should be OK.
>
> Hey, this Duplicate Cleaner rocks! I've been using an out-of-date app
> called Duplicate Detector all of these years, it hasn't been updated
> since the XP days, and it requires special XP compatibility modes to
> work in Win 7, but it is the only thing that had all of the features I
> was looking for. Now this Dupe Cleaner does even better than this.

The more I use this Duplicate Cleaner, the more I like it! It's
definitely going to replace my old XP-era dupe-finder program, Duplic8.

One of the things that's really amazing about this program is that it
has more options than just simply deleting the duplicate files. You can
also rename the dupe files (to something like "duplicate_*"). Or even
more impressively, you can replace the dupes with symbolic links.
Symbolic links are like the Windows shortcuts on steroids; unlike
shortcuts, applications can't tell the difference between symbolic links
and the original file, however files that are symbolic links all just
point to one main file, so they don't take up any additional space on
the disk. Only problem with it is that it only works with NTFS, not with
FAT32.

Yousuf Khan

 

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> On 11/09/2011 9:21 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> On 11/09/2011 6:09 PM, jbm wrote:
>>> Duplicate Cleaner works for me with no problems. Finds everything and
>>> deletes all as instructed.
>>>
>>> One thing I did find with it though, it does tend to go dormant for a
>>> while if you try to delete a lot of files to the Recycle Bin. For a
>>> while could be up to an hour!!! Disable this feature, so long as you are
>>> happy with not having the ability to recover them, and all should be OK.
>>
>> Hey, this Duplicate Cleaner rocks! I've been using an out-of-date app
>> called Duplicate Detector all of these years, it hasn't been updated
>> since the XP days, and it requires special XP compatibility modes to
>> work in Win 7, but it is the only thing that had all of the features I
>> was looking for. Now this Dupe Cleaner does even better than this.
>
> The more I use this Duplicate Cleaner, the more I like it! It's
> definitely going to replace my old XP-era dupe-finder program, Duplic8.
>
> One of the things that's really amazing about this program is that it
> has more options than just simply deleting the duplicate files. You can
> also rename the dupe files (to something like "duplicate_*"). Or even
> more impressively, you can replace the dupes with symbolic links.
> Symbolic links are like the Windows shortcuts on steroids; unlike
> shortcuts, applications can't tell the difference between symbolic links
> and the original file, however files that are symbolic links all just
> point to one main file, so they don't take up any additional space on
> the disk. Only problem with it is that it only works with NTFS, not with
> FAT32.
>
> Yousuf Khan

It's possible that is a hard link. The OS files in Windows 7 are hard linked
to files in the store, in an effort to save data storage space. Some of the
files have four pointers to the same data. The existence of hard links,
makes it harder to figure out how much storage space your OS is using (like
doing properties on individual folders and adding the numbers together).
To study hard links first seen in Windows 7, I used my trusty Linux LiveCD,
as the files have reference counts that are easier to see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_link

The other kinds of options are mentioned in here. Too many options...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_link

If I was de-duping, and had the options of...

1) Delete the spare copy.
2) Use hard link.
3) Use symbolic link.
4) Use shortcut.

I'd choose (1) purely for the simplicity. As it stands now, I know
my document folders contain nothing but ordinary files, which means
I have reasonable assurance they can be moved or maintained without
thinking about it. I can move any folder in my document tree to
any other folder, without having to think about it. And I can also
use any copy utility I want, as copying ordinary files doesn't
require any intelligence on the part of the utility.

Paul

 

On 15/09/2011 12:41 AM, Paul wrote:
> It's possible that is a hard link. The OS files in Windows 7 are hard
> linked
> to files in the store, in an effort to save data storage space. Some of the
> files have four pointers to the same data. The existence of hard links,
> makes it harder to figure out how much storage space your OS is using (like
> doing properties on individual folders and adding the numbers together).
> To study hard links first seen in Windows 7, I used my trusty Linux LiveCD,
> as the files have reference counts that are easier to see.

Yes, actually they are hard links. I tend to use "symbolic link"
generically, and I refer to the subcategories "hard link" and "soft
link" more specifically. I know some people tend to equate symbolic
links with soft links.

> If I was de-duping, and had the options of...
>
> 1) Delete the spare copy.
> 2) Use hard link.
> 3) Use symbolic link.
> 4) Use shortcut.
>
> I'd choose (1) purely for the simplicity. As it stands now, I know
> my document folders contain nothing but ordinary files, which means
> I have reasonable assurance they can be moved or maintained without
> thinking about it. I can move any folder in my document tree to
> any other folder, without having to think about it. And I can also
> use any copy utility I want, as copying ordinary files doesn't
> require any intelligence on the part of the utility.

I can think of many good reasons to use links rather than simply
deleting a file. I'll give a toyish example, if you got a music library
subdivided into folders for each artist. Let's say you got one folder
for Led Zepplin and another for AC/DC, most of the time it's not a
problem, where you want to put your songs. But sometimes if those
artists collaborated on a song, then you might want to have the song
available in both directories. You can either copy the song into both
directories and you'll have a duplicate, or you put it into one folder
and link it to the other folder. It doesn't matter which one you put it
into as it's really pointing to the same physical file in the same
physical location.

As for concerns about deleting the files, that's taken care of by the
file system. If you have a file with 4 links, then when you delete one
of the links, then the link count just goes down to 3, and then deleting
another goes down to 2, and then down to 1, and when you finally reach
0, that's the only time that the file will finally be physically deleted.

Yousuf Khan

 

Yousuf Khan wrote:

>
> I can think of many good reasons to use links rather than simply
> deleting a file. I'll give a toyish example, if you got a music library
> subdivided into folders for each artist. Let's say you got one folder
> for Led Zepplin and another for AC/DC, most of the time it's not a
> problem, where you want to put your songs. But sometimes if those
> artists collaborated on a song, then you might want to have the song
> available in both directories. You can either copy the song into both
> directories and you'll have a duplicate, or you put it into one folder
> and link it to the other folder. It doesn't matter which one you put it
> into as it's really pointing to the same physical file in the same
> physical location.
>

I guess I should qualify my statement. I don't sort things into bins.
I append terms to the file name, and rely on "search" to find things.
Files and folders are only grouped, as a "housecleaning" thing. Once
the main directory slows down, I throw all the PDFs in a PDF folder,
all the images into an image folder, so that the main directory
becomes a bit faster again.

And that's why I don't need links. All my linkages are defined by
means of "tags".

Paul

 

Duplicate file finder

Try to check this one - Duplicate Checker
Works with images and songs mostly.
Be aware - has some restrictions in trial version for copy/move/delete.

 

The most complete duplicate finder and deleter

The most complete duplicate finder and deleter I have found is "Duplicate Files Deleter".

You can download it from here: http://duplicatefilesdeleter.com/

I have found that, not only is it one of the fastest duplicate finders/deleters, but also is by far the most accurate one because of the way it's search engine uses MD5 info.

 

deleting duplicate files

I am also facing the same issue of duplicate files. i got the solution when i used a utility http://duplicatefilesdeleter.com/ and it worked for me.

 

i use DuplicateFilesDeleter and i don''t face any type of issue.

 

DuplicateFilesDeleter is a simple, but effective tool to locate duplicate files in one or more selected search paths. It scans the files and compares them based on Byte for Byte Comparison, which ensures 100% accuracy. You can then choose to delete the selected duplicate or original files. The program is multi-threaded and performs scans quickly.

 

I use Duplicate Files Deleter as it is very effective. It is 100% accurate and performs the scan quickly.

 

• Hello Good day, I use a software called Duplicate Files Deleter, it's very easy to use and after it finds the duplicate files it lets you chose what you want to do with them (copy/delete/move). You can even check network files and you can check multiple paths in the same scan. This helps me alot. I hope you too.
  

 

I thought this was gonna be an interesting work but it ended up a bit frustrating for me. Can anyone suggest me any quick and simple way to do this please?