Alan_B

Use the option "Save Settings to INI". Launch and CC and configure WITHOUT protection and then close CC it will preserve the configuration within CCleaner.INI, then copy CCleaner.INI to Normal.INI Launch and CC and configure WITH protection and then close CC it will preserve the configuration within CCleaner.INI, then copy CCleaner.INI to Protect.INI Then copy either Normal.INI or Protect.INI to replace CCleaner.INI before running CCleaner. Configure CC to protect your folders and when you close CC it will preserve the configuration within CCleaner.INI then rename CCleaner.INI to CCleaner.LST

I have the impression this is an obsolete utility, now withdrawn, that was for the support of obsolete OCZ SSD's, and as such I doubt the benefit, and fear potential damage, when run on more recent SSD's from alternative suppliers.

I was not extracting the urine - but guilty of taking you literally. I almost always have UAC disabled because its prompts interfere with my use of the computer. I use and depend upon Comodo Internet Security which has never failed me, and I find to be user friendly. I would however be extremely concerned if UAC allowed an application or malware to appear on screen before it even pauses. If malware can control what is displayed then I guess it has already caused Windows to display the fonts which it has selected, and I seem to remember that some fonts can be used by malware exploits. I have a friend who drove both a BMW and a LandRover. He describes the LandRover as a collection of parts travelling in close formation. Windows has unpredictable race hazards, and I would describe it as A collection of chunks of code proceeding in chaos until completion - or BSOD.

This has to be bug in your computer hardware or software, NOT in the application. If an application appears and is dimmed as Windows UAC prompts you, then UAC it totally responsible for waiting for your response and recognising your NO and putting an end to the application, otherwise UAC is totally powerless to stop malware from executing. On at least 300 occasions you have launched CCleaner and then selected a UAC response NO and as a result can report a 1% rate of execution. I admire patient tireless fault-finding investigations (which I do myself), but that seems a little excessive, Why ?

I am in full agreement with Nergal That is NOT the correct terminology for the correct procedure, and it cannot happen that way. You can download either the Portable ZIP or the Installer version of CC to a SEPARATE download folder, and then you are able to :- Unzip the Portable version over the previous Portable version of CC; or Install the Installer version over the previous version of CC. If you really downloaded over the previous version of CC that would totally corrupt the old version, and if you then unzipped/installed to the same place all settings would be trashed, and starting the 32 bit version before handing over to the 64 bit version would be the least of your troubles, and you really need to fully uninstall/remove the old and then download and start again properly. I only use the portable version of CC, and it is my experience that if I unzip both the 32 bit and 64 bit versions in the same folder, then I can double click the 32 bit version and it immediately recognises that I have a 64 bit computer so it hands over immediately to the 64 bit version. I have to rename CCleaner64.exe as CCleaner64.bin, or delete it, before I can use the 32 bit version to clean the 32 bit part of the system. I do not think the Portable version is likely to have caused an error in the start-target. If you used the Installer version then perhaps that has a bug and thought it was installing under a 32 bit system and so it fixed the start-target wrongly.

What was "mid-20% and mid-40% range" ? Was that the amount used by the CCleaner process by itself? or by everything other than "System Idle Process" ? How many cores do you have ? CCleaner may be restricted to using only one core

Perhaps either malware or malware protection is using up the processor cycles that CCleaner needs. It might be interesting to to launch Windows Task Manager and select the Processes Tab and click on the CPU header so the largest consumers are at the top. I have just done this and for perhaps one minute my malware protection was using 24% of available cycles. If my protection becomes concerned when I launched CCleaner, then the 76% that protection does not consume would be available to the rest of all software as 25% in each of 3 cores in my quad core processor, and only 1% remaining in the core used by protection, and if CCleaner was using the same core it would be 25 times slower in all of its thinking and doing. This presupposes that my protection is not actually pausing every CCleaner action whilst it contemplates the wisdom of allowing that action to complete. I do find that CCleaner is twice as quick if I disable the application activity protection "Defense+" in Comodo Security suite. Another possibility, if all else fails, might be http://forum.pirifor...showtopic=34786

Your link goes nowhere - it is broken. Is this what you meant ? http://msdn.microsof...2(v=vs.85).aspx "Text, without context, is pretext." http://www.fallacyfi...g/quotcont.html It is obvious from the above that PathMakeSystem Folder is responsible for creating a SYSTEM folder and for setting the read-only bit, AND that this does not CAUSE special behaviour but merely signals that this is desired. An alternative is NOT attrib +r but attrib +s It is Desktop.ini that has special behaviour reserved for itself, and there are two more clauses defining creation and properties of a Desktop.ini to create this special behaviour. In no way is it saying that the read-only bit is reserved for customizing a folder's style, and I see no justification for asserting that "read only" does not mean what it says Sorry, but I agree with Nergal

I can hardly believe my innocent comment in a single line has provoked a full screen dump of rage and fury. When you used a QUOTE to contain a mass of technical information, that implies that the information did NOT originate from your own knowledge but from some other authority, and I naturally wondered which authority and the context and the relevance to the subject at hand. You potential plagiarism never occurred to me. Actually, if I may get technical on you, plagiarism is when you copy and paste some other persons work so that it appears to be part of your own work and NOT from another. By planting your thoughts in a QUOTE box you are actually disclaiming responsibility for all your errors and omissions, and that was deceptive by nature, even if not by intent.

In my view either you are wrong in your interpretation of Microsoft's obtuse documentation, or Windows should NOT be doing that. I believe Macrium Reflect creates partition image backups and depends upon VSS to ensure that the entire backup is fully consistent with a snapshot that exactly captures all relevant sectors, and it does so on the basis of actual sector address LBA's and not by file and folder names. The creation of the backup may last for hours. If Windows defrag should move a file, then VSS should NOT remove the shadow copy of where it was until Macrium has accessed the shadow of that relocated data and signalled to VSS that the shadow is no longer needed. I think other third party backups also depend upon VSS. If Macrium etc. is creating a backup and VSS discards the shadows that were created due to its own VSS Aware defragger, then the image backup would be inconsistent. I think it is a common experience that various third party image solutions such as Macrium reflect are more dependable than what is built into Windows.

Defraggler uses API's which are supplied by Microsoft for safely avoiding damage to Windows and its applications. It seems unlikely that any file would be damaged or destroyed if it was being defragged and VSS has to READ (or ReRead) that file for a snapshot. I believe that defragging and or Wiping Free Space has been known to cause the loss of some Restore Points which lurk in System Volume Information, in which also lurks the VSS Shadow region. I believe VSS may displace and thus remove Restore Points if it gets too busy taking snapshots as user files are changed, regardless of whether they are simply being relocated by a defragger, or part of an application suite that is being updated. I would probably trust a quote that included a link to Microsoft. I have no trust at all in a quote without any such link, and when I search for "Third-Party Defrag programs, Windows VSS Services, Volume Shadows, and deleted Restore Points" I get and on the first page I get links to :- PCWorld (not my first choice for technical excellence), and Two off third party Defraggers - links to which probably violate forum rules. The word "Microsoft" appears only once in the first four pages of results, and this takes me to http://support.micro....com/kb/2506576 which blames the user :- Sorry, but I cannot help wondering if this is an innocent topic, or something planted here by a third party defragging competitor with the intention of causing unrest.

Bug Reports have more importance if they relate to the current version, which as of 6 days ago was 4.07

That is because the purpose of registry cleaning is to add a little excitement to the life of the bored

It simply gives a quicker access than Windows Control Panel to whatever un-installer was included with the initial installation. Blame Adobe or whatever the supplier was - they are guilty of failing to do a clean job.

It does not block it for me The article concludes foolish rubbish. Windows 7 is happy running with a Pagefile of only 16 MegaBytes and no Bootfile (I have better uses for my SSD), and I believe I would not notice any shut-down hesitation if I configured Windows to clear it on shut-down.

I think you are very probably wrong. If you totally remove and all its registry settings and then performed a clean install, then you accept the new defaults that the new installation comes with and you need to review all the boxes. If you simply update then your old settings should be the same as before, and all that you need to look for are new boxes that may by default be ticked to enhance cleaning. ( If you do not want to enhance cleaning then why update ) I think your problem could be that Firefox is unstable - it is always being updated according to whims and fancies of developers. Some little while ago Mozilla changed the database file that held something (I think it was related to download history). Perhaps a recent Firefox update has now relocated something else from a database that was not being cleaned to one that is.

You may well be perfectly correct about how to fix the problem. BUT Has anyone performed hash-checksum comparisons between the Beta and the Final Production binaries of the OS 10.9. If the binary code has changed then the actions will change, and without access to the source code it would be difficult to predict which actions will change. About 30 years ago I came across an incident where the Version String was not only used to show the version and date of creation, but had also been depended upon as a data string that governed the actions of a subroutine, and when another developer updated the software it crashed. After reversion tests he found that the version string was critical BUT the original coder had not documented that a function depended upon its data value. Yes, that was extremely bad software development and we all know better now - or do we, or Microsoft, or Apple I would guess that Piriform has a battery of tests that they perform to reduce the chance of issuing software that can damage the user's software installation or documents. Most of my career before retirement was spent in the security industry developing hardware and software for detection of intruder and fire hazards, and rapid communication to either on-site or remote security guards of any intruders or fires etc. Any spurious alarm could initiate the despatch of Armed Guards at a military installation, or Fire Engines to an airport from 3 surrounding counties ( been there, seen that - but not guilty ). Exhaustive testing and documentation was performed before product could be supplied. It has been a severe culture shock to now spend my time with consumer operating systems and applications that use the general public as Beta Testers. Piriform has a reputation as being the safest cleaner for Windows. I hope they will continue to be careful not to use the general public as Beta Testers. For those interested in accelerating development and perhaps even getting access to a Beta product, these links may be useful http://forum.pirifor...847#entry241425 http://forum.pirifor...hp?showforum=27 http://www.formstack...1487-dlnEXLCqSO

Anger is justified if you pay for something that does not work and you are given no refund. How much did you pay ? Anger is justified if installing a product degrades the performance and wastes free space. CCleaner has done you no harm - you only wasted a little time installing and then removing a product. Incidentally, according to Edu28 and Nergal and Whatyouwant, Maverick and OS X 10.9 were officially released 22nd October. That is much more recent than months ago. It would be irresponsible for CCleaner to be designed for and debugged on a Beta product, and then be released within one day of the final changes to and final release of the Apple products. That is a sure way to damage an operating system. It might be feasible to issue CCleaner within one day of the final release of OS X, and use Apple owners as Beta Testers. To identify all the changes to OS X and to adapt the ccleaner code and then exhaustively test and correct might take more than 4 days.

All I can see is a small icon depicting a camera with a diagonal line drawn through it. My guess is that screen shots are being censored. Try replying to this topic and click then click on the "More Reply Options" button which then appears on the bottom right corner, and then just above "Add Reply" is "Attach Files" and you can "Browse" to select a screen-shot to upload direct to this forum. Please note that "dangerous" files such as *.exe are rejected, but you are not told this until I click "Attach This File" I suggest that you use *.png

Almost every one, perhaps even Microsoft Support, knows that Registry Cleaners in general can be hazardous to the health of your computer. Unless he actually gained access to the files on your computer, my second guess would be that he knew you had CCleaner because you told him, and he chose to blame its registry cleaner instead of considering the impact of Microsoft Patch updates and Malware. I never have trouble with Malware - but twice in 6 months last year Microsoft Patch updates destroyed my mature Windows 7 Very recently an update to the immature Windows 8.1 had to be pulled, and I doubt that updates to Windows 8.0 are that much more dependable. N.B. My first guess was that you Googled for Microsoft Support, and got taken to one of those outfits that normally phone you to say that they are from Microsoft and know you have problems and will help you.

This sounds like an excellent suggestion for the Enterprise or Network versions of Cleaner. It does not seem to me relevant to the personal needs of home user.

Why give up at your first attempt. If something went wrong with my Android Tablet I would NOT restrict myself to a Windows forum that is focussed upon a single data recovery tool. I would start a topic in the Piriform Software or Hardware forum because I am already registered here and respect the wide range of expertise, but also look for advice and support from Android forums and the Tablet manufacturer. Why not start with https://motorola-glo...p/30,6720,8112/

Windows uses the word healthy but has no idea what that word means to us humans Your translation is correct You started this topic one month ago with the thought you might have to format the drive and abandon your files. I suggest that you first try this recovery suite which includes both "Data Recovery" and "Partition Recovery" modes http://www.softpedia...uite-Home.shtml

My experience of Firefox Portable was that it "borrowed" the profile of the installed version (and when it closed it restored the profile as it was - if nothing went wrong) Perhaps a corrupted Firefox profile or registry keys would doom the Portable version to the same fate as the installed version.

I was surprised to see this HDD has 3 recovery partitions, and astounded by the "EFI System Partition". Was this a GPT style formatted HDD ? Is it possible to change the drive letter of the RAW partition ? Has this HDD been used with any sort of Apple computer ? I ask because I have read https://www.winabili...disk-partition/ It occurs to me that when partition G:\ was either NTFS or FAT32, then either EFI or Apple could prevent other tools from changing partitions on this HDD, and might even prevent Windows from changing partition G: drive letter, hence when the file system was changed perhaps the drive letter remained frozen at G:\ and could not be removed in the way that Windows would have wished. It may be worth downloading a freeware ISO and burning a bootable Recovery CD for a Linux very of the HDD, http://www.partition...m/download.html N.B. My experience in the past was that this cannot change or even recognise drive letters because it was based on Linux, but at least it will give you a different perspective. Recuva depends on Windows and the assigned drive letter and Windows is obviously NOT working as it should. It is predictable that Windows will not allow a drive letter to be allocated to a RAW partition, and the fact that your Windows is NOT being predictable in its handling of your HDD suggests that when Recuva Searches G:\, Windows could be feeding it data from any location on the drive.