DjLizard

Was it during "Compress old files"? If so, that's a known bug in Disk Cleanup. The CPU was working hard to figure out what files to compress and even though it will eventually complete (after hours, maybe days) in the end, compressing files with Disk Cleanup isn't even worth it. So, to disable it, save the following file and double-click it to merge it into your registry: http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/regs_edits...essoldfiles.reg That is, if the hang you're referring to is during "Compress old files".

Sorry about Eldmannen, he's a huge tool. CCleaner has a seemingly endless list of bugs...

zaphirer, that makes no sense at all.

No, we do not condone that you continue pirating software. Not only that, but all McAfee products are pieces of crap.

It wouldn't be a very popular program if it deleted items critical to your system's performance, now would it?

I was just going by the fact that you were using screenshots from two different browsers, confusing the issue. So go turn antialiasing back on: Start > Run > control desk.cpl,,2 Effects > Use the following method to smooth edges of screen fonts: Standard, or Cleartype. Pick whichever looks best to you. I doubt CCleaner changed this.

But that's two different browsers... one is using antialiasing ("AM Browser") and the other is not (Firefox).

His thoughts about Vista are well known, and he was basically trolling my thread. Since hoping that Eld dies in a car accident is not going to change the odds of it happening (or not happening), it was just meant as a joke (a troll for a troll). thread closed.

I don't know what it is either.

Heh, my font registration method wasn't that safe, so I'm going to hold off on that for a while.

Most laptops have a panel on the back where the SODIMMs go. One or two screws at most is all that you have to remove in order to access this panel. It takes less than 30 seconds to put in laptop RAM if a technician like me is doing it.

The case was the same when XP came out. Currently laptops couldn't run it worth a damn. This is pretty normal. Also, your laptop probably can run Vista, but not Aero. You could easily upgrade your RAM to 1 GB if necessary (if you really wanted to run a next-gen OS on a current-gen system). Basically, Vista is being slated for new PCs (just like all previous versions of Windows were) rather than being posed as an upgrade to current ones.

If you're using Windows 2000 Professional or Windows XP (Home, Pro, or Media Center Edition) then check out http://wiki.DjLizard.net/Dial-a-fix_tips#CCleaner

Just playing off Eldmannen's remark.

Yeah, because stupidity is limited to just the US. AmeriKKKa, amirite?

Exactly, Glenn. This is like those people who complain that Firefox is using too much available memory. Does having a lot of free memory make your computer faster? No. Does a program using more memory mean that the program is necessarily going to go faster? No, but the biggest problem with resources now is that they don't get assigned and managed appropriately. People are so thrifty that they'd much rather see their RAM not get used at all. These people have 1 or 2+ GB of RAM and never break more than 500MB used (except with Firefox, and then they just shut the process down, or switch to another browser in disgust). Vista has a lot of services that help manage your resources more efficiently. To upgrade to a new OS with so many new features and not expect the system requirements to reflect such, is in similar thinking to this itnews.com.au article. Oh holy crap, my OS is actually using my RAM... sound the alarm. Also, the system requirements are going to be closer to usable requirements with Vista. With XP, 128MB was supposed to be the minimum. While this is a minimum, it certainly isn't a usable one. 256MB isn't even good enough. XP doesn't start getting good until 512MB. Vista is going to be more appropriately described. My aforementioned computer runs Vista like a dream, so what is the big deal? "A Vista PC should have a DVD-ROM, 1 GB of memory, a 1 GHZ CPU, and a 40GB hard drive with 15GB of available space" is not a statement that should floor you. This seems like quite a modest computer! edit: Those that think the only reason Vista has higher system requirements is the eye candy should get a clue. Vista requires a faster computer whether or not you use Aero (the so-called eye candy). Aside from that, understand that the "eye candy" is doing something never before done in a version of Windows: accelerating screen writes. For the first time in Microsoft history, its operating system is actually using the video card to scale its graphics, paint its windows, and so forth. This incurs no more of a penalty than the requirement of a decent video card (in order to get Aero). If you don't have a video card that supports Aero, then you're missing out on quite a lot of CPU and system RAM relief. Instead of using the CPU and system RAM to paint and hold windows, the video card will finally be able to do this job. This will provide much needed resource relief. Also, for the first time ever, windows are drawn with vsync. I've been bugged for years by the screen-tearing GDI produces because the graphics subsystem isn't vsynched. If you don't have Aero, your system is not going to be as fast as it could with it.

Also, my computer is not crazy, and Vista runs like a dream (including Aero). I'm using the scary ole Beta 2. AMD 2500+ on an ASUS A7N8X-E Deluxe motherboard 1GB of RAM (and it's not even DDR 400 - it's 266!) 120 GB IDE HDD (7200 RPM with 8 MB cache) ATI Radeon 9800XT (256MB of VRAM) It even gets faster as you use it (content indexing, SuperFetcher, automatic defragmenting, and more are responsible for this).

"Microsoft - 112,121,930 problems Linux - maybe 8 or 10 problems Apple - around 15 perhaps problems Unix - 3 or 4 problems" That's some pretty serious exaggeration. Do you have sources for these figures? What do you define as a problem, general bugs? Secuity holes leading to exploits? For some reason, you saw fit to describe, group, and judge me -- and you just got here. For your information, I have quite a lot of experience, and I never went to college. If you are somehow insinuating that because of my age, I cannot possibly have enough experience, well... Let's just say that plenty of age and so-called experience does not always or automatically equal understanding, either. I've known plenty of technicians and engineers that were far older than me, had many years on me, and were somehow completely clueless about the field in which they were supposedly so experienced. And they thought quite the opposite of themselves, of course. It was quite often that I witnessed them purporting opinion as fact, or providing misinformation and conjecture. Hmm very interesting indeed.

C, A, D (#3 will actually be B for large sets, A for small ones)

Use msizap instead (well, MSICUU) as removing MSI packages is probably beyond the scope of CCleaner (i.e., it's complicated).

I hope you get killed in a tragic car accident...

Gee, and I just got this in a Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: Fw: message today. oh snap

http://djlizard.net/2006/06/07/161

No. Use Sysinternals' "sdelete -z" to clean slack space.

It doesn't seem like a bug, it seems more like advanced phishing.