Jump to content


Experienced Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Alan_B

  1. 1) I have difficulty believing your problem as stated. YES, if you RAN CCleaner to clean "unwanted" files, AND if your checked boxes include wherever kybtec buried their registration details, THEN their details will go; YES, if you RAN CCleaner to inspect the Registry Integrity and you chose to fix issues, if you decide to fix their registration in the registry it will go - but it should come back immediately upon request if you allowed the default action of creating a registry file for the purpose of undoing what should not be done !!! NO, simply downloading "ccsetup206.exe" CAN ONLY deactivate kybtec.de if they were stupid enough to store their details in a file with the same name, and place it in a folder where downloaded files are received, e.g. C:\Documents and Settings\Dad\My Documents\My Received Files\ When you INSTALL software, depending upon what is installed, you might get thousands of Registry entries added or possibly altered or even replaced so theoretically it is possible that might replace a kybtec.de key I do not believe CCleaner makes much use of the registry, so INSTALLATION of CCleaner is unlikely to damage kybtec.de registration. I do NOT believe the problem was due to CCleaner installation - but you could try the PORTABLE option in the middle of http://www.CCleaner.com/download/builds Personally I would prefer to believe it was nothing to do with CCleaner, but that at this particular time there was another notorious stealth mode Windows Update - they did it last year so I guess one is overdue !!! 2) The kybtec.de advice is SO HORRIBLY WRONG - worthy of a girl who belongs on a switchboard !!! The second stage advice is obviously correct - simply enter the reg. number - it obviously worked for you. But the first stage is total rubbish - it is so unnecessary to un-install CCleaner. It is HIGHLY PROBABLE that entering their reg. number would recreate the file or registry key that they needed, undoing the damage that was done, regardless of whether the damage was done by 1) You running CCleaner and performing cleaning / fixing operations or; 2) the results of merely downloading and installing CCleaner. The ONLY time when it might be appropriate for kybtec.de to require un-installation of some-one else's product is if that product is an aggressive security product (real-time anti-virus / firewall / etc.) which intercepts any attempt to install any sort of malware - perhaps if World Clock phones home they may often have to advice their customers to dis-able any anti-virus whilst installing. Perhaps I am being over-critical. Is it possible that what you heard as "un-install" commenced, in her mind and her language, as disable. If she thought CCleaner was anti-virus then a brief disablement might be appropriate (after disconnecting from the internet etc., but not to un-install). Alan
  2. Alan_B

    Internet Speed

    Hi My Upload speed is BORING - always 246 to 247 kbps - always the same - so boring I don't want t measure it - it is ONLY measured because it is part of the package deal for measuring the Download speed. Download speed is INTERESTING - I wish it was not. It is consistently in the range 1850 to 1920 kbps - very close to my rated 2200 kbps. or else it erratically bounces around between 300 and 450 kbps. Whatever it is, I am stuck with it for the rest of the day, unless I tell my modem to disconnect and reconnect and then I am into a brand new game. My morning ritual :- Power up computer, Power up Kettle, make coffee, log on, connect to Internet, then :- Start downloading a monster file, and after two Seconds assessing modem diagnostics I abort download. If I assess the download as way faster than 1000 kbps, everything is fine, using a good internet connection; If instead the download stutters and stumbles way below 1000 kbps, modem disconnect and reconnect and try again until my ISP gets it right. After a 2 Second quality test I may spend 30 seconds on a very accurate and informative test from http://myspeed.visualware.com/ The really useful feature is a graph that shows the instantaneous speed and delay between packets during the 8 second duration download. When I have a good connection the delays average 20 mSec, with something (not yet identified) giving a 60 mSec spike at exactly 1100 mSec intervals - intriguing but so what. When I have a bad connection I normally just disconnect and reconnect, but sometimes it may take a dozen attempts before I get a good connection. If this continues for a week I go into "Kick the ISP mode". I spend 2 seconds to confirm it is bad, I then refrain from disconnection, and instead spend 30 seconds at http://myspeed.visualware.com/ for very detailed information - it ALWAYS shows about 700 to 1000 mSec of nothing at all, after which about 200 to 400 mSec in which the packets gradually accelerate, and just as they begin to approach 1700 kbps an instant nothing at all for another large piece of a second - typically I see about 5 or 6 cycles of un-equal and irregular duration with the 8 second period. I then get a link from that web-site and my ISP can then see the same pretty pictures I have just seen. I have never downloaded anything like 1 GByte per month, so I do not qualify for data throttling or traffic management, and my ISP (TalkTalk) denies ever doing it to me, and says it must be B.T. at my local exchange - but usually within a few days of throwing ammunition I find things are much better. Incidentally, when I am really in the mood, I can launch DOS pingers and also Windows pingers simultaneously with this speed test, and these pingers repeat at 50 mSec and 100 mSec intervals, and every ping is acknowledged within 40 mSec, even though at least 6 consecutive pings have been sent and answered within any of the "nothing at all" intervals that last between 700 and 1000 mSec. This proves that for the 1000 mSec when not a single TCP gets through, the ICMP pings have no trouble at all, so it cannot be noise on the line (normal excuse from "First Line" Technical Support) but has to be traffic selective, i.e. traffic management. Conclusion. I always have perfect 246 kbps upload, and generally not much problem getting 1900 kbps download, but sometimes my ISP needs a bit of a shouting at. Recommendation - if you have drastically varying performance, use this speed test as a powerful weapon against your ISP. If you want a good link for my 2 second assessment test from a site that can download faster than 2000 kbps, I am not giving you mine !!! I am member number 19,700, and I think this site might get overloaded and will not work properly for me if 19,699 other people simultaneously try for the same file, So go and find your own !!! I will give you one clue, it is a file I download from Microsoft. Alan
  3. I had the same "virtual address" warning when I ran CCleaner, excepting it did NOT blame CCleaner but run.exe or some-such I think it was blaming the Windows thing that launches a DOS thing that went where it didn't ought to!! This happened with CCleaner v2.06.567. I immediately reverted to v2.03.532 which never did me any harm before, and after a reboot (incase Davey asks !!!) I got the same warning. Before posting a bug report I thought about what I had done. Using xplorer2 (much better than Windows Explorer with multiple tabs), I was viewing the contents of a Firefox Cache, then switched focus to CCleaner which upon command cleaned the aforesaid cache, mean while xplorer2 was still trying to show the files within a folder that was no longer there. I could be wrong, but I choose to believe that access to a folder is only appropriate whilst the folder exists, and when the folder is deleted then access is no longer appropriate. I also decided not to be so inquisitive, and to stop looking at folders that are about to be deleted. I have not had this critical error since this decision. Conclusions upon Critical Errors :- In my case xplorer2 was looking at something when CCleaner took it away; In other cases above, the victims may have been using something other than xplorer2, but same aggravation; Who knows what Windows will do at the best of times, and when it has a Critical Error it may be a matter of luck who or what it blames - anything but itself - Windows 98 blamed me every morning for not shutting down properly, and every evening it would lock up and I HAD to pull the plug !!! Possible solution :- CCleaner might be able to refrain from erasing the cache when ANYTHING is looking at it, but if so it MIGHT be appropriate for CCleaner to issue a warning to try again later, or at least advise that the cache has not been cleaned, just as it refrains if Firefox is still active. This specific solution applies to my specific "feature". A more general solution is to refrain from deleting any folder or any file that might be of interest to anything, but then how much cleaning would get done ? When my mother decided to clean the carpets, it happened, and us kids had to get out of the way!!! Questions :- 1) Can "Critical Errors" occur if CCleaner deletes other folders which are being viewed with other applications; 2) Sometimes when I use xplorer2 and deleted a file, Windows will not allow it because it is in use by something, does CCleaner ignore any such access prohibition regardless, or does Windows allow the deletion because xplorer2 has failed to notify Windows that it is using the folder, and then after Windows has allowed the deletion this xplorer2 or whatever lodges a formal complaint that results in a "Critical Error"; 3) Does it really matter ? Is Windows being paranoid (the one thing I agree with !!!) I note that although it is a "Critical Error", it does not warrant a re-boot, it is just the termination of an application, whilst the really vital and important files are protected and should have copies in C:\WINDOWS\system32\dllcache, and if the needed copy does not exist then Windows starts demanding installation C.D.s etc. I am skilled with real-time embedded software. Windows programming is something different and I can pose questions but not answers. I hope I have thrown useful light on the situation Regards Alan
  4. What is already implemented is fine if I really know that I never want a particular thing to run on start-up, but not so good if I am uncertain or later wish to backtrack. When cleaning the issues from the registry there is the option to create REG files for a subsequent undo. It would be nice if Tools -> Startup did something similar, at least for the HKCU:Run and HKLM:Run items. An even nicer feature in RegSeeker is to disable a start-up. I think this tweaks the registry so the chosen item does not start-up, BUT for a subsequent undo you only have to look in Regseeker and the disabled item is now shown as disabled, and ready to be enabled again WITHOUT having to look in "My Documents" and trying to remember which of the many REG files is what you should not have done last week !!! Regards Alan
  5. I would WORRY !!! I cannot substantiate this, but I have seen claims that China is :- high in the league for spam emails and worse; not to be trusted as a source of security software to protect secrets with commercial value. Then I would investigate. Aim Windows Explorer at the location designated by Tools / Startup. Look at all the files in this folder, and any sub-folders Talk to your friend. Perhaps your friend paid top dollar for wonderful software that he needs for life support, or maybe some-one used this P.C. to visit a dodgy part of the internet and something nasty sneaked in, and perhaps its function is to start-up each morning and phone home with latest passwords and credit card numbers. Action I would take if still worried :- I would seek further help from more appropriate forums, e.g "SPYWARE HELL" below http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showforum=2 Alan
  6. First you need to back-up the registry - BUT reg files will NOT do the job. If you export a reg file you can inspect it with notepad. ALL you will see is text describing keys with their data and values etc. You will NOT see who is "owner", or who is permitted to change or even read it. Before any drastic work you need to export a hive, which includes ownerships and permissions in addition to the names data and values of the keys. With a HIVE you can import it back to totally undo any mistakes you made. With a REG file you can replace any keys / data you accidentally deleted, but it CANNOT remove any items you accidentally inserted. regedit can export HIVE files, BUT my preference is ERUNT, AVAILABLE AT http://www.larshederer.homepage.t-online.de/erunt I had a whole sequence of a key with sub-keys each of which had further subkeys. Altogether there were about 2000 keys nested to a depth of about 7 levels. regedit allowed me to see all the keys, but not see their permissions. regedit allowed me to "take ownership" even though it would not show who the rightful owner was. regedit allowed me to delete a key I had taken ownership - BUT NOT if it contained another key. regedit would have allowed me to work on the bottom level and take ownership of a key and then delete it, and repeat for all keys at that level, then I could go up one level and delete. 2 different actions to perform individually on each of 2000 keys - I agree with you, life is too short for this stuff !!! To modify the registry I prefer Registrar Registry Manager - look for free downloads at http://www.resplendence.com/downloads This is much more powerful than regedit. Instead of performing 2 * 2000 actions with regedit, I used Registrar Registry Manager to select the single key at the top of the chain, and I merely said good-bye to it and all its dependants. Power is danger - which is why ERUNT is a wise precaution. n.b. I rarely venture into the registry, but I have an extra sense of peace by setting ERUNT to automatically create an entire registry HIVE each morning. It runs for only 10 seconds whilst a lot of other things are starting up, and probably adds less than 2 Seconds to the total start-up time of the who system. Alan
  7. I have occasionally lost desk-top icons, and only regained them after a reboot, when some disaster struck, BUT NEVER anything to do with CCleaner. I have most items checked for cleaning. Like you I have Short-cuts and Desktop un-checked. Under "Advanced" I have checked only "Old Prefetch data" and "Custom Files and Folders", the other six items I have NOT checked. Is it possible these are implicated in your problem. n.b. I assume you did not clean the registry - mostly because if something bad happens to the registry it almost never recovers by a simple reboot !!! You may need to post again with relevant information about your computer, i.e. Operating System and service packs anti-virus firewalls etc. Alan
  8. Using XP + SP2, my daughter and I have separate profiles and cannot see one-another's documents. I am administrator and use CCleaner to purge junk. To purge my daughter's junk, she logged in so I could add CCleaner to her Start-up list, and I unchecked almost everything so she only purged her own private Temp files etc. Although I had no intention of asking her to clean the registry, out of curiosity I looked to see what it was prepared to do. I was horrified. Although 10 minutes earlier I had used my account to purge all junk files, and had scanned the registry and found zero issues, using her account the registry scan found :- 15 off "Missing Shared DLLs"; 28 off "Installer". I immediately unchecked these possibilities, just in case she ever accidentally launched a registry scan. She is a User without administrator privileges, so Windows security settings should not allow CCleaner in her profile to damage the Registry, but what do I know, Murphy's Law always kicks in when you are not looking, and doubly so with Windows. After she logged out, I logged in to my profile, and then looked at what CCleaner objected to in her profile. Registry Key HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\SharedDlls 15 off items, all with data designating assorted subfolders and files such as \Working\Shortcuts\Sunset.jpg \Solving\Backup\Flyer.doc \Structure\Searching\Find This File.txt etc. etc. all of these 15 were in one common folder C:\Documents and Settings\Dad\My Documents\Microsoft Press\Microsoft Windows XP SBS\ Registry Key HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Installer\Folders 28 off items, the first designates C:\Documents and Settings\Dad\My Documents\Microsoft Press\ The other 27 items designate each of 27 sub-folder and sub-sub-folders etc of the above. I strongly recommend that you protect against registry damage. Please note that using my daughter's profile :- Windows Explorer can select "C:\Documents and Settings\Dad" - which is myself !!! A double left click fails to open my profile, but gets "Access is denied"; A Right click then properties shows that this folder holds absolute zero, an underestimate by 327 MB !!! I suggest that when CCleaner finds any "Missing Shared DLLs" or "Installer" issues it should NOT select as an "issue" until a further sanity check. CCleaner should check every item in the sub-directory path from the root of the drive to where this "dll" or "installer" should be. If CCleaner proceeds to a level at which "Access is denied" it should back-off - it is looking for something that is not accessible, either because it is venturing into a different user's profile, or because of other strange and wonderful things one gets with Windows !!! Only if CCleaner gets to a level at which the "next" level / item is absent, and it has not passed through any "Access is Denied" red flags, should it then designate this as an issue to fix. n.b. Of these 28 folders, a few hold absolutely nothing, and only one holds a solitary *.exe file, and all the rest hold only a few *.wma and *.jpg and *.doc files - not a single *.dll anywhere. If anyone is interested, this aggravation came via a "default" installation from a "Teach Yourself" type of CD that came with a book called "Microsoft Windows XP Step by Step". They do refer to user accounts. They SHOULD have known better and had the decency to allow ALL users to learn, and installed everything in a common public profile such as "All Users" or "Default User", instead of installing in my private folder and excluding all other users. Sorry but I cannot resist a mini rant. HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\SharedDlls holds over 2100 items, most of which are *.dll or *.exe. Other than these 15 insane "...\Microsoft Press\" items there are absolutely no other *.doc files, and only one of each *.txt and *wma files. For Microsoft Press to dump their peculiar files in my private profile, and then pollute the registry by declaring them to be shared dlls, and to add "installer" references to every folder is a little strange. I am sure there must be a good reason for what they did. Forgive my ignorance but all I can think is :- 1) Future diversification into the Registry Cleaning Tool business, so a clever booby trap to cause existing Registry Cleaners to fail; or 2) Legend has it that a large number of monkeys eventually typed the complete works of Shakespeare. After that I guess some-one had to employ them as software coders !!! End of rant - I do feel better now. Alan
  9. Alan_B

    Registry cleaning

    Davey Normally I use multiple Tabs within a single instance of Firefox, BUT in some situations it is better to have multiple instances of Firefox with one active Tab in each. The benefits are :- 1) I do not have to shift and shuffle the mouse to switch to the other Tab in Firefox, instead I use the keyboard Alt Tab to switch from one application to the other; 2) I now have the ability to independently reduce the size of each application window, and to simultaneously read the display of each without having to Alt Tab switch between them; 3) It is even possible to have several browsers open with different sets of "relevant" information, and to adjust CCleaner (or any other application) whilst reading those browsers, and without having to touch any browser until you need to scroll it down to the next paragraph etc. Many thanks for your link to the Search Engine, Davey. I have now bookmarked it Alan
  10. Alan_B

    Registry cleaning

    Davey You had me up to GOLD STAR. There is no Gold Star, BUT I already have HISTORY 1 cm down and 3 cm in from top left corner. Frantic guess - I am using Firefox so I click on bottom right icon to switch into I.E. imitation mode. Still no Gold Star. Inspired guess - my reason for using Firefox is NOT its accurate imitation of I.E., but that it is safer than I.E. So I launch the real I.E. with all its Active X etc. hazards and NOW I see the Gold Star, and HISTORY does not appear until I hit that Gold star. Now I am up to speed. I am posting this in case others also do not understand what / where / why of the Gold Star. p.s. I now realise that Firefox is not only safer than I.E., but also much easier to use - History is always one immediate click away, and does not need a preceeding Gold Star click Alan
  11. Alan_B


    Do you really need to save Firefox Bookmarks ???? One of the Firefox Addons I use is "Foxmarks", which can synchronise your "HERE AND NOW" bookmarks with an external server supplied / provided by Foxmarks. The idea is to hold an external copy of your latest bookmarks, and if you have multiple computers (e.g. Home and Work) they can all be synchronised to/from that external server. I have only 1 computer, but when I add a bookmark, it gets synchronised to the external server, and if I subsequently decide to restore a previous disc partition image I have then lost those latest bookmarks - but they re-appear immediately I connect to the Internet and am then automatically synchronised to what that eternal server holds. Alan
  12. In principle I like Portable, especially since I have suffered major registry problems when upgrading some software, and had a lot of trash left over after un-installing. My Windows XP has two principle users, my daughter as User without administrator privileges, and myself as administrator. With 35 years experience with computers I have enabled almost every option, and can quickly decide if everything proposed for removal should go, or whether something should be saved for another day. Because CCleaner is unable to clean junk from my daughter's profile when using my access rights, I have added an automatic start-up in her user profile. Because neither of us have the patience for me to give her 35 years training, I cancelled all the options for things I normally access, so she only has her own private junk to remove. After that I was VERY pleasantly surprised that CCleaner still purged for me everything it used to purge. So, I have just tried CCleaner in Portable mode and I like it BUT, upon reflection, I now realise that CCleaner held two different configurations in the registry, and in Portable mode the configuration is held in CCleaner.ini, so I assume only one configuration is possible, BUT PLEASE tell me if I am wrong - it would be nice if I could have two different *.ini files, and if the start-up link could include an argument designating which *.ini file to use. nb I realise I could use two different CCleaner Folders, one for each configuration, BUT my first P.C. had a 20 MByte Hard Drive, and what for your intellect is a mere 1 MByte of extra code is, for my emotions, 5% of my first expensive Hard Drive !!! Alan
  13. Hazelnut Thank you for that link. Before I posted a query I thought it polite to first search that forum, and I have already found what look like very successful solutions. I will return later after I have implemented and evaluated, but it may be a few days because first I have to determine a sequence of USB disconnection/ reconnection / whatever that is guaranteed to always provoke Monitoring of the external drive - otherwise I will not know if a cure is successful or whether it might go wrong when I depend upon it. Many thanks Alan
  14. Some months ago I noticed the junk I am complaining about, and had no idea what it was or where it came from. More recently I remembered Windows telling me something about changing file names, and I vaguely remembered the change might have involved the addition / insertion of the three characters (2) . I also thought this might have been something to do with a System Restore. 1) The reason for this latest System Restore was simply to test whether this was the cause of the ancient junk. I had no problem to recover from - and if I did have a problem I would restore the latest backup of a Disc image. I have now learnt to create a Disc Image before doing/allowing anything that might be dangerous - especially Patch Tuesday updates !!! 2/3) The P.C. is an Acer laptop TravelMate 244LM. Operating System pre-installed by Acer, who also supplied one "System" CD plus two "Recovery" CD's, and purchased through Dixons, a chain of large consumer electrical goods stores. 4) One Internal 30 GByte drive, two partitions, both NTFS - mostly C:\ plus a 16 MByte partition D:\ One external USB connected 300 GByte drive with 2 off NTSF plus 4 off FAT32 partitions System Restore is always set to "Monitoring" Drive C:\ only. and always set to "Turned Off" for all the others. Ohhh *?**!* I have just checked its settings, and yet again it is monitoring every wretched external partition. It does this two or three times a year - I think it is when the USB connected printer does something strange and disrupts the USB external drive connection for a while, and if the external drive reconnects it may also then have monitoring re-enabled. I would greatly appreciate any advice of a registry fix or something that will prevent Windows from spuriously monitoring my external Drives. N.B. Windows Explorer lists all 8 Hard drive partitions under the heading "Hard Disc Drives", and each is called a "Local Drive", and yet a USB connected Flash Drive is under "Devices with Removable Storage" and called a Removable Disk. 5) Several accounts, my daughter and I each have a private profile, and the usual Guest and Administrator etc. 6) I almost never use System Restore in real life - only if a Patch Tuesday Update strikes before I am ready with a fresh disc image - and after a sneaky silent update last year against my express wishes, I no longer allow Windows to "Notify" (which also allowed their sneak attack), and I leave it fully disabled until I am really ready - but whether I should really trust them not to do it again is another matter. My reason for posting was that I feel CCleaner could easily purge this junk - it already purges the Java 6(2).0 etc., and I suspect that some people may use System Restore far more than I, and they could have several Giga Bytes of Cache(xxx) etc just waiting to be purged. I am now retired, but still learning, and any advice will be appreciated. Alan
  15. Vary rare, and NEVER with CCleaner, but sometimes I download something from somewhere, and when the download progress shows 1 second to completion it freezes. A right click on the task bar is too quick, but a prolonged depress may get noticed, and after button release then Windows Task Manager MAY slowly appear. It then ALWAYS shows me WHAT PROCESS is taking 95 to 98% of all CPU cycles. Usually it is my Anti-Virus that is going medieval on the download - in which case I avoid any temptation to close down the Anti-Virus process, and just wait for it to complete, or if I run out of patience I just reboot. After a disaster and reboot, if I want to try again I FIRST launch Windows Task Manager, because once something takes more than 99% CPU the remaining 1% CPU is not sufficient to launch it. I use Windows XP Home edition with SP2, ESET NOD32 Anti-Virus, Comodo Firewall, and Firefox Browser. I do not understand how you can observe CPU usage at 100% without seeing what process is stealing it, unless you merely deduce from a lack of response to keyboard, mouse etc that there is 0% left over for you - if that is the case I suggest you follow my example and get Task Manager running BEFORE you try the download again. I am sure far more relevant advice might be available if you return and identify :- Operating System; Security System(s) - Antivirus, Anti-Spyware, Firewall, etc.; Internet Browser. Alan
  16. Warning Just because Firefox is closed, does NOT mean Firefox is closed !!! Sometimes I close Firefox, and later on I might open it again - normally successfully. When unsuccessful I get a message it cannot be opened because it is running. I launch Windows Task Manager and the Applications TAB shows no evidence of Firefox, it is closed, Then I look at Processes and there it is; I select the Firefox process and click "End Process", then it goes away. Now it REALLY is closed, and now I have no problem re-launching Firefox. I strongly suspect that even if the Firefox Application Window is closed, and this application is no longer running, if the Firefox Process has not terminated that might prevent CCleaner from trying to purge the cache. AND ALSO if a programme (e.g. Firefox) has required Windows to give it exclusive access to a file, nothing else can access that file until that programme has notified Windows to release its control, and if that programme suffers an abnormal termination that file is NOT released and will NEVER be released, even if Task Manager shows no trace of the application nor its process. Nothing can access that file UNTIL you reboot. I have lost count of the number of times I used WORD to edit a document, and something went wrong, and after WORD closed (either an out-right automatic crash collapse, or possibly multiple clicks on a "Close" button), I have not been able to do anything with that document until I reboot the computer. Alan
  17. CCleaner fails to remove 34 MBytes of Restore Point Junk. It would actually be 104 MBytes of unremovable junk had I not suspected this and taken pre-emptive action. Some users may have many GBytes of unremovable junk. I am using Windows XP Home Edition with SP2, but I suspect this is a problem with any flavour of Windows that runs System Restore. Here is the junk; the latest Cache which CCleaner can remove, plus 3 variants of Cache(2)etc. which drew my attention to a problem :- C:\Documents and Settings\Dad\Local Settings\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\jzj1inju.default Date Modified Attributes Size Name 14/03/2008 16:59 ----D---- 96,384 Cache 21/02/2007 11:53 ----D---- 26,478,089 Cache(2) 05/09/2007 10:43 ----D---- 12,564 Cache(2).Trash 27/07/2007 16:49 ----D---- 7,046,255 Cache(3) 04/03/2008 21:42 ---A----- 3,078,856 XPC.mfl 14/03/2008 16:13 ---A----- 1,357,968 XUL.mfl Note especially the first item, 96,384 bytes of Cache Here it is again - exactly the same size and date - just a different name !!!! 14/03/2008 17:22 ----D---- 12,564 Cache 21/02/2007 11:53 ----D---- 26,478,089 Cache(2) 05/09/2007 10:43 ----D---- 12,564 Cache(2).Trash 27/07/2007 16:49 ----D---- 7,046,255 Cache(3) 14/03/2008 16:59 ----D---- 96,384 Cache(4) 04/03/2008 21:42 ---A----- 3,078,856 XPC.mfl 14/03/2008 09:16 ---A----- 1,235,880 XUL.mfl Explanation :- After 14/03/2008 16:59 I launched System Restore to go back a few hours. The CORRECT version of Cache was actually 69 MBytes, but AFTER creating the Restore Point I used CCleaner to purge Cache, and then I briefly ran Firefox again to get 96,384 bytes, before I did the System Restore. What System Restore STUPIDLY did SO WRONGLY was :- 1) FAIL to make a clear distinction between system files to restore and user data to retain; 2) BODGE the files by renaming Cache as Cache(4); 3) STUPIDLY restore the earlier multi-Mbyte version of Cache - TOTAL WASTE OF TIME. After System Restore, Cache should still be 96,384 bytes because it is user data. System Restore not only got it wrong, it failed to restore the 69 MByte version. This Restore Failure is probably because M.S. do not understand Firefox, or that they do what they can to aggravate it. After System Restore aggravation, Firefox was automatically launched on start-up, and probably recognised its Cache had been trashed by M.S., so Firefox re-initialised it. I suspect that Cache(2).Trash is evidence of a more serious Windows Whoops at 05/09/2007 10:43. System Restore goes so distrously wrong with Cache that I think :- it should keep its dirty paws of Cache and EVERYTHING in Mozilla folders, and I doubt that reverting XUL.mfl back to its previous date and size has done me any good at all. Had I not purged 69 MBytes from Cache, but allowed it to reach 70 MBytes before using Restore Point, I would now have Cache(4) = 70 MBytes, hence my initial statement that it could have a total of 104 MBytes that CCleaner will not touch. I look forward to CCleaner being enhanced to fix this System Restore stupidity. n.b. I am bitter about System Restore because of its deliberate unforgiveable aggravation :- It trashes user folders it does not understand; It tells me something like :- ????/Firefox/???? Cache became Cache(4) ????/Java/??? 6.0 became 6(2).0 IT IS SO STUPID - WHAT ON EARTH WAS Cache(4), was it the version of Cache immediately BEFORE System Restore ? or was it version that was archived when Restore Point was created ? Regretably System Restore refused to allow me to launch anything to capture the exact message, and after start-up there is no trace of this message, I looked at 2000 files modified 14/03/2008, and I viewed all system and application events - nothing. n.b. Although CCleaner does not touch Cache(4), or any earlier variants, it does purge ????/Java/????/6(2).0 Incidentally, System Restore makes a pigs ear of Microsoft stuff as well. I found the following by searching for (2) $NtUninstallwmp11$(2) C:\WINDOWS setup_wm(2).exe C:\Program Files\Windows Media Player spuninst(2) C:\WINDOWS\$NtUninstallwmp11$(2) wups(2).dll C:\WINDOWS\system32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\ServiceStartup\wups.dll\7.0.6000.381 Cache(2) C:\Documents and Settings\Dad\Local Settings\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\jzj1inju.default Cache(2).Trash C:\Documents and Settings\Dad\Local Settings\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\jzj1inju.default Trash(2) C:\Documents and Settings\Dad\Local Settings\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\jzj1inju.default\Cache(2).Trash Cache(2) C:\Documents and Settings\Dad\Local Settings\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\jzj1inju.default\Cache(2).Trash\Trash(2) I found and documented this problem several weeks ago, but have delayed reporting because :- 1) I needed time to calm down before defaming Microsoft and their System Restore; 2) I have been fighting with the latest Patch Tuesday update; 3) Extreme aggravation because Windows Disc Cleanup compressed an old unused UN-NAMED system file, and Windows File Protection insisted it was vital and corrupt, and the system was unstable, and I had to give it a CD which it refused to name, and it refused to name the corrupt file to be replaced - and it would NOT let me tell it this P.C. came from Dixons with everything pre-installed and there is no CD. n.b. Although my search found 4 duplicated Microsoft files and folders, I do not suggest their removal - I have had too many years experience of Windows going gaga of its own accord - and if a simple Windows Disc Cleanup compression goes so wrong, we have no chance of surving the consequences if we touch anything in C:\Windows.
  18. Actual numbers. Until 6 months ago, Firefox took TEN Seconds from launch until I could send it to a web-site. Then I fixed it to take ZERO seconds out of my life. Before the fix I launched Windows Task Manager, and then observed the CPU usage whilst Firefox launched and loaded, and found Firefox took almost nothing. Why it should take 10 seconds doing nothing is a mystery, but so is everything in Windows !!! Simple Fix - which you can do to. I added a link to Firefox in my start-up folder :- C:\Documents and Settings\Dad\Start Menu\Programs\Startup Windows takes 30 Seconds from Power On to the Login screen. After I Login Windows takes about 57 Seconds to prepare my Desktop and do all the things it wants to do before it bothers to look at the keyboard again. I repeated this measurement 12 times BEFORE I added the link, and a further 12 times AFTER adding the link. This 57 Seconds was increased by about 1 Second when Firefox was launched on start-up. Obviously Firefox still took 10 Seconds, BUT IT IS CONCURRENT with everything else Windows does before it takes any notice of me. So, if I am sat at the keyboard waiting, I have one extra second to wait because Firefox is part of the start-up. BUT I DO NOT SIT WAITING - After Power On I go to the Kitchen For 30 Seconds I carefully measure a cupful of water into the kettle and switch it on; I return to the keyboard to log on; I return to the kitchen and to my cup add coffee granules etc and then boiling water, and return to the computer and it becomes obedient (if you can say that of Windows) whilst I adjust my chair. This 58 (was 57) second delay is something I have to live with, and the extra second needed to include Firefox in the automatic start-up actually takes ZERO out of my life, because now the computer is waiting for me. Previously after everything else, when I decided to start browsing I then lost 10 seconds of life waiting - and probably cut my life expectancy by 10 minutes with the frustration and stress !!! Alan
  19. Marlin If you manually run CCleaner whilst Firefox is running, then CCleaner will warn "Firefox/Mozilla cache cleaning was skipped." - it just will not happen. This may be good manners by CCleaner not to zap data still in use by other applications, or it may be that Firefox has invoked some sort of Windows Protection until it releases that data. I just don't know how, but it happens. If you do a system shut-down whilst Firefox is still running, you are not forgiven :- 1) When you restart the system, and EVENTUALLY launch Firefox, then Firefox will complain that you interrupted it, and offer you the choice of restart where it left off with re-connections to yesterday's sites, or of a fresh start waiting for you to select what to visit. This all happens even if CCleaner has not been in use. 2) If you restart the system, and then run CCleaner BEFORE EVENTUALLY launching Firefox, THEN were CCleaner to clean the Firefox cache it would probably remove the data needed by Firefox to offer you the choice to reconnect to yesterday's sites, and I would view this removal of needed data as a bug. Your experience suggests that CCleaner does not clean the Firefox cache if Firefox is going to need its data, possibly because CCleaner is very clever and knows in advance what will be needed, and is very good mannered, OR because your shut-down prevented Firefox from releasing its data, and so when the system restarts then Windows remembers that the cache belongs to Firefox, and wont let anything else damage the cache until Firefox has been run and has released it. I never choose to shut-down with Firefox still running. That is rude !!! Sometimes a shut-down is forced upon me (a BSOD, or a system lock-up that may yield to Ctrl/Alt/Del, or might need 5 seconds holding down the Power button), and then I am really glad that upon restart then Firefox is able to automatically remember where I was and to reconnect me - and perhaps I might be a little more cautious what I click on ! I would suggest that applications should be closed before shutting down the system, otherwise it takes longer for the shut-down process to complete, and perhaps a time-out might disrupt what should be and orderly closure. It might be worth inspecting your system event log to see if it has any bad news about loss of data ! I consider it perfect that CCleaner refrains from damaging the Firefox Cache when Firefix has not finished with it, and I would not want it to work any other way. Alan
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.