Alan_B

Would you prefer the alternative - which is that nobody responds unless they have an absolute sure-fire 100% guaranteed answer ?

We see your router's MAC - We know where you live

Parsing of an INI created by some other application may be hazardous to the application if all its Wild and Wacky syntax is not fully understood. For Wild and Wacky syntax I look no further than Winapp2.ini

I was disturbed to find that Microsoft History indicated that I had used a file I did not recognise and that it was held in a Partition P:\ that I knew nothing about. I eventually found out that what I saw was actually ROT13 encoding of a file in C:\. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROT13 I read that Microsoft used ROT13 to obfuscate my data to protect my privacy - would have been better that they not collect my data in the first place. So if you want to search for an item, you may need to search for its ROT13 variant - the joys of computing.

You are unfortunately in a deprived situation. Like you My second TAB is Internet Explorer, but I never trust or use that so it is followed by a Firefox TAB (me feeling smug) That makes 5 Tabs. Perhaps I miscounted 5 as 6 due to the sun reflecting on the screen, or perhaps CCleaner was looking at my Portable Palemoon as well as my installed Palemoon.browser.

By "bunch of txt's" I understood more than one file. I think a "Quick Format" would leave the files available for Recuva to detect, but there are other ways to format than "Quick", and perhaps FAT32 or NTFS has an effect, and perhaps your system was damaged causing you to choose to format, or perhaps your system was so badly damaged that it made it look to you as if it was formatted. Data Recovery is good Data backups are best

difficult for me to believe that. What I can believe is an archive file such as Dream.log.zip (and perhaps the .zip extension is hidden by Windows). Or alternative a folder which had been given a name such as Dream.log (extensions on the names of folders are a little unusual but not particularly rare). Perhaps you will have better luck when using Recuva to look for the *.txt files that had been contained in whatever Dream.log may have been.

Yes we did. I remembered the topic but not the link, so I chose to re-explore and found new horrors that I had not previously seen.

For every item that Windows Explorer and other "File Finders" can discover in WinSXS :- There is a 50 % chance that deleting that item will actually delete a link and merely increase total free space by a few KB, (unless that deleting that link also deletes the multi-megabyte target file from System32 or wherever, as happened in the past when reparse points were deleted); OR there is a 50% chance that you are deleting the real thing and the links in System32, .NET etc. are broken There is a 100% certainty that you either make no space savings at all, or this is another Death of a thousand cuts to Windows. It might be an amusing experiment to totally delete WinSXS and see if you can still boot into Windows and run SFC

What is your version of Defraggler. I am using 64 bit Windows 7 Ultimate and Defraggler v2.14.706 (23 Apr 2013) (Portable version) I think there was a defective earlier version 2.14.??? that was pulled. Both Windows and Defraggler see both the 16 Megabyte absolute minimum pagefile on my Primary SSD without which Windows refused to boot, and the normal 8 GB on pagefile on my Secondary HDD. In my case the secondary 8 GB pagefile is used when 8 GB of RAM is not enough, so W.D.M. has to use it and see it. Perhaps in your case W.D.M. may be content with what you have on C:\ and therefore disregards all others. I suggest you go to the settings which configure Pagefile sizes and locations (Google knows and Hazelnut knows - but I forget how I did this 3 months ago) and see what is established there. Even if W.D.M. does not display them, I think you may find that the settings agree with Defraggler. It is of course possible that the "supplementary" pagefile.sys files are now excluded from use but Windows forgot to delete them so they still exist for Defraggler to display.

I observe that there are 6 different Tabs for 6 different types of Startups. Is your problem restricted to the Windows TAB, or do you have the same problem with the other 5 Tabs as well. Incidentally I also observe an unrelated bug under the "Scheduled Tasks" Tab. "Yes Task CCleanerSkipUAC Piriform Ltd "E:\Tools\Piriform\CC-400\CCleaner64.exe" $(Arg0)" That should NEVER be. I am using the Portable version of CCleaner which should not mess around with the registry, and I am surprised that by default it sets up a scheduled task that is not needed ( I have UAC permanently disabled.)

It would be a significant bug if Defraggler offered to Replace Windows Disk Defragmenter and it lacked the ability to put that into effect. Have you actually observed Windows Disk Defragmenter being launched on schedule ? Your evidence could be interpreted as simple ignorance within and by Windows Disk Defragmenter that it has been replaced from scheduled actions. NB The presence or absence of the SSD is irrelevant to what is used for the defragging non-SSD drives that might be present, even if those drives were removable and not fixed. Even if there are only SSD's and no capability for additional non-SSD, that would be no excuse for Defraggler to be another "Nanny State" imposing restrictions on users.

Close, but not quite. Using Defraggler - BUT NOT to defrag anything, I can Search and specify CMD.EXE in "filename contains:" and check "Include non-fragmented files" and it shows me only 2 instances, each of different sizes, one in System32, and one in SysWOW64 It sees none at all in WinSXS because, as you said, WinSXS are only links. Using Windows explorer these two large file are also shown at C:\Windows\winsxs\amd64_microsoft-windows-commandprompt_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.17514_none_e932cc2c30fc13b0 and C:\Windows\winsxs\wow64_microsoft-windows-commandprompt_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.17514_none_f387767e655cd5ab and Windows Explorer is fooled into seeing these as being the same sizes as the real things, i.e. 337 KB and 296 KB Using Defraggler and Searching for *.exe takes a couple of seconds. When I click on the "Path" Tab a couple of times the results are sorted in reverse sequence, and fourth from the top is vbc.exe which is 1.11 MB (1,169,224 bytes) and is on the path C:\Windows\winsxs\x86_netfx-vb_compiler_b03f5f7f11d50a3a_6.1.7601.17514_none_144b6bd462e4a41b Searching for vbc.exe Defraggler finds instances at the above, plus 2.25 MB (2,361,160 bytes) on path C:\Windows\winsxs\amd64_netfx35linq-vb_compiler_orcas_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.17514_none_f4285a06060032a9 plus 4 more instances of various large sizes under the parent C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\ etc. etc. When I click on Sizes I see that Defraggler finds all 6 items have different sizes ranging from 1 MB to 3 MB Windows Explorer on the other hand sees 10 such items, 8 of which are duplicates and the other 2 are unique. The 2 unique files were modified and created on 30/01/2012 and exist only in .NET Framework but not in WinSXS, the 8 other files all have date stamps of 21/11/2010 Conclusion :- Originally there were 4 off VBC.EXE files of different sizes, Two of which were scattered across .NET etc, and duplication links planted in WinSXS, and two of which were scattered across WindSXS and duplication links planted in .NET etc. Subsequently there were patch updates and SP1 and these added two files that were planted in .NET only, but for some reason no confusing duplication links to/from WinSXS. FINAL CONCLUSIONS :- Windows XP was too good and users were able to understand it and use it and become self-supporting experts, so Microsoft chose to confuse everyone with the needless complication of WinSXS which does nobody any good, and to carefully hide the truth (from anything but Defraggler) as to which was physical and which was the link, and just when a user figures out the truth in one instance the next instance is the other way round. The good news is that by 30/01/2012 the developers became so confused they could no longer cope with WinSXS, hence the latest VBC.EXE files only exist in .NET etc and there are no additional lying deceitful links in WinSXS.

I believe you have a free choice of whether to install a 32 bit version or a 64 bit version of Windows on 64 bit hardware. You have no choice on 32 bit hardware, all you can install is 32 bit Windows (or Linux). I see no point in showing that the CPU is 64 bit capable if the motherboard and memory are only 32 bit. Please remember that 6 GB of 64 bit RAM is twice as large/expensive as 3 GB of 32 bit RAM, and yet both will run out of available RAM for exactly the same set of applications. Even if all the hardware was 64 bit capable, would the user really benefit from confronting the pain that :- His system is in theory (even if not in reality) less effective than it could be ; To maximise effectiveness there is not only extra financial cost, but also the frustration of a fresh installation of Windows followed by reinstalling applications and restoring all the user documents/files that were hopefully backed up.

In Lancashire, England, I save an hour by using the computer. It takes less than 5 seconds total to :- Switch from "Inbox" to "Drafts"; Click on the draft email for all my medications, and make a duplicate copy of the draft. Then however long it takes to delete from the duplicate the medications I still have in hand, and SEND to my local pharmacy. This is so much better than trying to use phonetic spelling of long prescription drug names to a half deaf doctor's receptionist. The pharmacy fax all requests to each patient's doctor, and when the doctor has signed the script the pharmacy collects the script, supplies the medicine, and delivers to my door. I save at least another 59 minutes by not driving to the doctor to collect the script, and taking the script to the pharmacy, and waiting the prescribed 10 minutes whilst they huddle in the back room.

Is "cls" needed for the "priceless warm fuzzy feeling" of clearing the DOS window before closing it

What are these "lots" of plugins ? Are you including in that number the less invasive Extensions ? Do you have full administrator privileges ? What is your Operating System. Is UAC or any malware or registry protection obstructing CCleaner ? I have 64 bit Windows 7 Ultimate and UAC is fully disabled. My browser has only one plugin, Adobe Flash, and a dozen extensions. CCleaner / Tools / Uninstall lists none of the extensions, it only lists Adobe Flash and many non-browser applications. When I select any item in the list, including Adobe Flash, I see on the far right three options Run Uninstaller, Rename Entry, Delete Entry, ALL THREE options are fully active for every item, including Adobe. You and I may have totally different ideas upon the purpose of "Delete". I understand that "Delete Entry" simply hides the item from view, and does not remove or even disturb the functioning of the designated item Your instead probably need "Run Uninstaller" I would guess that if "Run Uninstaller" is greyed out for absolutely everything that is installed, then to protect you from yourself.Windows has severely restricted your capabilities. If it is only greyed out for some things, then perhaps those things have invoked extra protection for themselves, and you may need to contact the individual suppliers of those things to find out how to remove them. The first thing to do is to DISABLE the plugins via the Firefox menus Tools / Addons. That might remove the first level of defence that obstructs Deletion. The next stage may be to visit Softpedia, which I believe is a good place to download a removal tool to purge the Adobe Flash Plugins. You could alternatively visit Adobe themselves, but the last time I did that they refused to allow me the tool, instead all they provided was their own special down-loader to do everything that they determined was good for me - no thank you. If you have other plugins they may be hooked into the operating system like Adobe Flash, and every plugin is likely to be hooked in a different way and each may need its own specific removal tools and techniques.

CC was quicker the second time because it cannot know that nothing has been deleted since the first wipe so the second wipe has to erase all free space again. Is you second machine identical - same hardware, same software, same half-empty 40 GB Drive ?

Have you tried CCleaner ?

Of course the early stages of this new relationship are as innocent as your first approach to your new girlfriend whilst in her father's presence What happens on your third date with Firefox when your only protection is in the details of the Mozilla Privacy Page

I asked because of my experiences with Firefox of new chaos with every new Mozilla bright idea, and this eventually which drove me to switch over to Palemoon, I now fully expect to see user reports of new problems whenever Mozilla release a new version. Having found that file:///D:/Test/td.txt appears as both a bookmark and also in history, it is very easy to believe that Mozilla could accidentally clean the same item from both instead of only one. I am astonished that after dumping all that stuff into one database they were also able to make it work. I guess this is why they need their "nightly" testers. When you were told at the Firefox forum that "code that affects download history definitely has the potential to affect bookmarks", it is possible that forum members were surprised it still worked. Perhaps CCleaner is using the same cleaning techniques for both History and Bookmarks that worked in separate databases, and may need adjusting to the new situation of a common database. It is worth noting that normal bookmarks have an internet location that typically starts "http" and you are concerned with what is to me the most unusual "file:///". In 6 retirement years of experimenting with Windows and exploring what I can get away with (or not), the only times that my browser has displayed a local file was when I double clicked an application report file with a HTM or HTML extension, and I have NEVER bookmarked any such local file or even thought of doing so until today. It is possible that Piriform have also not thought of including such a bookmark when testing - but I am sure they could start thinking of it now. PLEASE PERFORM ONE MORE TEST to facilitate speedy resolution. Test whether CCleaner history cleaning of history performs the same damage to local file bookmarks which are NOT in the toolbar, but are in other regions such as MISC and UNSORTED etc.

Perhaps it is a general convention for Recovery tools that when reporting files for which they have no information, then they will NOT present such files at the start of an alphanumeric sorted list, but put it at the end of the list after all the useful stuff they can retrieve, and ZZZ.Z. etc is a pretty good name for that purpose.

It is 8.1 because they are still holding out on the Start Menu. They are reserving Windows Blue for when they give up and concede to public demand

I am using Palemoon and am uncertain of how Firefox has deviated from Palemoon ( Palemoon is stable and it is Firefox that is now forever inconsistent from one version to the next ) For me the Bookmarks Toolbar is everything that is displayed immediately below the Address Bar plus what is shown when clicking on the extreme right button ">>". I do not know if Firefox is still that way, or if Firefox has other things in that row also. I assume that only 3 items are lost from your "Bookmarks ToolBar", namely "PK" and "VLC Forums" and "Maps - Garmin". I assume that the rows below showing date and "Stuff" are not affected by corruption and are just differences in how you protect your privacy on a public forum I could of course be wrong. One thing that is still the same is the "Menu Bar" which includes "Bookmarks" When I click on the "Bookmarks" I get a drop-down list which includes "Bookmarks ToolBar". When I select "Bookmarks ToolBar" I see another drop-down list which lists all the items which appear on the browser display row below the Address bar Does corruption of your "Bookmarks ToolBar" affect only your browser display ? or is the change to the display merely a consequence of the removal of three items from the drop-down list under BOOKMARKS / BOOKMARKS TOOLBAR ? Is the removal of those three things the only damage that you can see when inspecting the contents of BOOKMARKS / ORGANISE BOOKMARKS ? P.S. You totally failed to answer Nergal's question - What do you mean by "certain local bookmark". I have just taken a wild guess. I typed into the Browser Address bar D:\Test\Td.txt, which is a file as known by Windows Explorer, and the Browser instantly changed that to file:///D:/Test/td.txt and displayed the contents of the text file. Is this your problem - that bookmarks to display files on your hard disks and flash drives etc are deleted with history ? Perhaps that is Mozilla's intention. When I click on Bookmarks and select the "Unsorted Bookmarks" the top item is History Listed under HISTORY / TODAY is /D:/Test/Td.txt located at file:///D:/Test/td.txt Have you tried adding a local file as a Bookmark on your Toolbar and then using Firefox's built in History clearing to see if that removes the bookmark from the toolbar ? I am not testing on Palemoon because :- My browser is not the same as yours ; and I wish to retain some of my history.

Alphabetic What follows looks like a chaotic jumble caused by each member of a committee putting an entry into a hat, and then for fairness the chairman was blindfolded as he pulled each suggestion out of the hat. :- FileKey7=%LocalAppData%\Packages\AdobeSystemsIncorporated.AdobeReader_*\AC\Temp|*.* FileKey5=%LocalAppData%\Packages\AdobeSystemsIncorporated.AdobeReader_*\AC\PRICache|*.* FileKey9=%LocalAppData%\Packages\AdobeSystemsIncorporated.AdobeReader_*\TempState|*.*|RECURSE FileKey8=%LocalAppData%\Packages\AdobeSystemsIncorporated.AdobeReader_*\LocalState|*.*|RECURSE FileKey1=%LocalAppData%\Packages\AdobeSystemsIncorporated.AdobeReader_*\AC\INetCache|*.*|RECURSE FileKey2=%LocalAppData%\Packages\AdobeSystemsIncorporated.AdobeReader_*\AC\INetCookies|*.*|RECURSE