levitiquetus,

Check all types on "Select type(s)" area, will find out all duplicates in any type.

Hope this helps.

TSS

Peter,

WinExt = Windows Extensions, it includes a "Duplicates" module, just is "Duplicate File Finder Plus 17.1".

But WinExt has other 9 utilities except "Duplicates".

P.S. WinExt is upgraded to 18.1 now.

Hope this helps.

TSS

PaulF,

You pasted the official site of Duplicate Photo Finder Plus, today's giveaway is Duplicate File Finder Plus.
https://duplicatefilefinder4pc.com/duplicate-file-finder-plus.htm
TSS

TSS Support, Oups... Sorry for that!

Radu,

As JohnL's comment, you can easily let it do full comparing for any size of files.

Hope this helps.

TSS

TSS Support, A program should not malfunction and offer a "solution" where a user has to help crippled software. Your suggestion is a joke!

Kory Peters,

Thanks for your suggestion :)

TSS

TSS Support, the version I got then did not allow me to chose the algorithm.

JohnL,
Thank you for useful info

JohnL,

Please note that most duplicates are images, documents, installers audio, etc. For these files, 16 MB is big.
So we do sampling comparing for 16 MB+ files by default. But, the users can easily set do full comparing for all files (as you said).

Hope this helps.

TSS

TSS Support, if you are a photographer , like me, photographing (and editing) in RAW then 37Mb is the norm for a photograph and HDR considerably more !

Benjamin Cooper,

Yes, so we make two parameters to process this, one is start size, one is comparison method.

Just adjust the start size to meet your need.

Hope this helps.

TSS

TSS Support,

Why not make the default a 2-pass operation: first the "sampliing" method to quickly identify likely "candidate" duplicates, then a full-content byte-for-byte comparison of the files in that smaller "candidate" list?

That would positively identify only true duplicates as expected, and (hopefully) be much quicker than only a full-content byte-for-byte comparison of every file.

(Actually, as you no doubt know -- and maybe already perform -- the very first should be a simple file size comparison regardless of file name, date(s) or other attributes. If that's not the same between two files they're already not true/exact duplicates.)

Otherwise, to be clear, if using the speedy sampling-only method (default or not) those results should include the terms "likely" or "possible" duplicates, or maybe "similar" files.

CJ Cotter,
I agree. In my hard drive I have many duplicate files - for a reason.

CJ Cotter, just for fun and personal use I collect all kind of art from painters like jullie Bell, Boris Valleo, Luis Royo and others.
Every now and then I remove duplicates and try to keep the best quality (most of the time the largest in dimensions) and in that case I use programs like this.
I agree that you should not use this to remove every duplicate because a lot of them are necessary for good functioning of your system !

CJ Cotter, I agree in part. That is why I only use these programs to find music and image duplicates. Even so, it still requires manual work to ensure the program and myself are not being overzealous with 'cleaning' files, as even some of these duplicates are necessary. I have cleaned a few gigs of media files using dupe programs, but it is key to have good naming conventions for file storage and use strong filters when searching to help avoid losing good "copies" or edits of files.

Jonda, and even with duplicate music... it is nice to have a random file and also have a complete album, and sometimes there are albums with one or more duplicates ....so... be careful :-)

CJ Cotter,
I find programs like this very useful for photos and videos. Between having several computers backing up to external drives, and past computers backed up to external drives, external drives filling up, and lack of a consistent naming convention I had/have lots of duplicates. I have digital pictures dating back to 1995, which are probably older than some of you. Congratulations to those of you who are organized enough you never have duplicates. I am not trying to sound condescending, just trying to give one example of a person who does find these programs helpful. And yes, I am very careful with what I delete.

CJ Cotter, this sort of software derives from time when system storage was tiny in comparison to todays systems... Practically speaking having multiple duplicates of files around drives and folder is a good thing as it provides the first layer of backups and if they are not in your documents or other conventional locations it is possible that they may even be overlooked by ransomware toolz...
I agree with your sentiments.
TK

CJ Cotter, A good example would be for photo's and backups. I found I had a collection of family photos that were in 13 different folders across 3 drives. It's not a fear of backups, it's simplifying inventory to save room. Along with computers leaving, kind of a bookmark for each one so when it's opened it opens rapidly. That drains performance that many don't think about, and surprisingly many don't run cleaners to get rid of these "bookmarks". I always keep a separate removable drive for picture backups, and don't need the same picture throughout the computer, these kinds of things help find those useless backups that aren't needed, and honestly, you should never keep the duplicates on the computer. In case of a crash, you can lose the original and all the duplicates. If you're keeping all your duplicates on the main computer, I would have a bit more fear of losing it all.

CJ , nobody is saying anything about duplicates being dangerous, or that they should be completely eradicated. The value (or not) of this tool, and others like it, can depend on how a user chooses to manage their files, or whether storage space is a major concern, or a number of other things. If your duplicates serve your purpose, then obviously this tool is not for you.

levitiquetus, many of your assertions are simply not true, backups procedures should be modeled on caches for rapid recovery of data in that the first level of backups should be ON the machine itself so if you make a mistake editing you can go back one stage to the previous state, that is called UNDO within a program, where you have saved changes and had second thoughts and lost all the UNDO backup points you need a copy or the original file to reload from, second level of backup data... you may also have a virtual copy of the file in previous versions/system restore as well as coppies in other locations on the same machine, this is another level of backups you will appretiate if the first couple of level backups get trashed by some filesystem corruption of ransomware attack. The next layer of backups would be a removable drive with all important files, data and programs on it... ordinarily you should not need to read that removable drive since you'd have on drive backups for most frequent recovery scenarios... then there is the completely offsite backups which should not be in the form of online cloud storage since that would be vulnerable to ransomware overwriting and must be invisible to the operating system so malicious agents cannot deduce where your offsite backups are to attack them. Keeping duplicates on the same system and or shared folders is only a weak form of backup IF that is your ONLY form of backup. But it is better than no backups and for the vast majority of cases it is more convenient to revert to using one of these duplicates if you forgot to create a copy to edit, resize or crop or forgot to Save As and just saved the edit results over your original. It would be a right pain and way too slow to have to keep pluging in various removable storage devices to locate an original of the file you accidentally trashed by a saving error when editing... and that could even result in leaving the removable storage device always plugged in and accessible, to save time, making it part of the online system and just as vulnerable as other duplicates on the various file systems to malicious software damage like ransomware or badware installers that can enumerate the entire filesystems, by mistake, and systematicaly delete all the files it finds. Offline backups are not the backup you should use to recover from day to day mistakes, duplicates, shadow coppies or other quickly accessible backups should be used and available. This is of course ignoring filesystem based redundancy of RAID 1 which is also a type of transparent backup. And RAID 5 a mathematical form of backup in case of partial system failure. Multiple TerraByte drives are relatively cheap saving space should no longer be a consideration in the current era... it is environmentally more damaging to waste electricity performing duplicate searching and validation and removal than just leaving duplicate copies lying around as accisible backups for trivial mistake recovery. In my experience the real space wastage occours when amatur photographers take many photographs and configures their computers to backup imported photos to one or more cloud services by default so make a local copy in Photos, and another in say OneDrive \Photos heirachy of evey photo ever taken and not backup only the GOOD ones worth saving... that can lead to multiple terrabytes of filled storage, not 3 or 4 copies of a birthday party or aniversary photo that will never happen again that this type of program partially addresses.

Robert G.,

You can add the system, programs and their data folders to the excluded list on the Options interface.

Fortunately, it has already add them to the list by default, and you can add more keeping folders to the list.

Hope this helps.

TSS

Correction: "..., it has already added them..."

TSS