Alan_B

Previously I only looked at WinSXS / System32 hard-link problems I have now looked at duplicates in general. When I deselect all drives other than C:\ the default result is 19 pairs of duplicates on C:\. 15 pairs are very important to Comodo Internet Security suite and hopefully that is self-protecting. 4 pairs are very important to actually booting up Windows 7 :- 1 pair is C:\Boot\...\Boot.sdi 3 pairs are C:\boot\...\fonts\???_boot.ttf It appears to me that removing such duplicates could have significant consequences. Unfortunately some users will blindly trust CCleaner's actions regardless, and will Wipe Free space because they think it will give more free space. By unchecking System and Read Only and Hidden check-boxes another 9 pairs. Many of these appear to be some sort of reparse point, e.g. C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Network\Downloader\qmgr1.dat C:\Users\All Users\Microsoft\Network\Downloader\qmgr1.dat Both instances are seen by Windows EXplorer as 4.00 MB (4,194,304 bytes) Modified 27 March 2013, 11:51:11 I searched C:\ for qmgr1.dat using Defraggler version 2.13. It found the real deal at C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Network\Downloader\qmgr1.dat Quite obviously, depending upon Access Control Levels which Windows can fumble and users can meddle with, deleting either the real deal file or the counterfeit shadow could destroy both reality and illusion. If I additionally uncheck the "File Size Under" box it takes much longer to search and produces many results. It is worth noting that partitions other than C:\ are commonly used for valuable libraries and archives, and are not always protected as being hidden or system or Read Only, therefore if Reparse Points provide alternative Reality and Illusion paths the removal of either duplicate could destroy both. MY CONCLUSIONS :- It is essential that all reparse-points and hard-links be excluded from any list of "duplicates". I agree with other commentators that a checksum must be available to determine if files with the same name are really the same. I think SHA-512 is valuable to defeat skilled malware creators who can infect a download and manipulate its MD5 hash checksum. but SHA-512 could be overkill for simply deciding whether the user has duplicated a download, and perhaps a simple CCRC would suffice. Checksum validation should have a separate check box. If the user can uncheck the "size" box to see if he has more than one quality of an MP4 download, He would also need to avoid hash checksum validation. Regards Alan

File Finder is a definite NONO Explanations in a Bug Report topic not yet completed.

File finder has found 19 pairs of duplicates on C:\. 15 pairs are very important to Comodo Internet Security suite and hopefully that is self-protecting. 4 pairs are very important to actually booting up Windows 7 :- 1 pair is Boot.sdi 3 pairs are C:\boot\...\boot\fonts It would take me about 5 minutes to come back after zapping the duplicates found on C:\, I love the speed of a partition image restore on an SSD after a moment of folly Look out for my bug report in the bug forum - it will take a while EDIT Change of plan - test results in post #7 of http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=38264

No need to guess - Nergal just told you

I thought it would be obvious. You started with I advised The fact is that making use of a drive that has gone to sleep - will EVENTUALLY wake it up and start spinning and THEN it will be ready for use. Obviously when Recuva restores to a sleeping drive it aborts and you see the explanation 'device is not ready' BUT my procedure of simply looking at drive D:\ with Windows Explorer is sufficient to wake up the sleeping disk and after 5 or 10 seconds the progress bar completes and is replaced by the path, and at that time you can then proceed to restore to D:\ the lost files you have selected from F:\ and this time you should NOT be told 'device is not ready'

CCleaner is Freeware that is now restricted to private individual users. This appears to be a situation in which CCleaner has been installed for a user by an agency, possibly for a fee, in which case I believe the Professional Licensed version with developer support should be purchased, and support obtained direct from the developers.

I suggest that when you are ready to restore you first Launch Windows Explorer and view the contents of Drive D:\ You may observe that the Address Bar initially NOT show the path but a blue "progress bar" as the drive spins up and the 'device is not ready'. When the progress is completed the path is shown and the device should then be ready for you to start transferring. I do not know anything about password protected compressed files - but others here can advise.

Interesting write-up by CloudFlare http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=2322

Is this Win7 Rescue CD able to run Windows Disk Management and take a screen shot that you can post, displaying both the partition you can scan for lost files and the drive that you wish to select as target for recovery ? Only a very small minority of portable applications function normally under a Win7 Rescue CD environment. I am accustomed to Macrium Reflect version WinPE which is a small 160 MB ISO burnt on a 700 MB CD. There are many other flavours of Rescue CD but I doubt that they have any significantly greater capability. You may need to hook your dead drive up to a fully functional computer.

So that we may understand your situation, please supply a screen shot of Windows Disk Management showing your drives, and a statement of which drive holds lost files and which is to receive the recovered files.

Me neither - BUT there is probably a very good reason. I have always accepted the default path. The probability is that when a non-default path is stipulated then this will be written to the INI file for future reference.

RUBBISH What is "I think that good reason applies to Windows 2000". If you cannot clearly define that "good reason", Why should we believe your assessment of the difficulty of continuing to support an Operating System that Microsoft abandoned years ago ? If Piriform had stopped updating CCleaner last year then it would not have had the capability to clean Windows 8 or IE10. As you say - it would not have "stopped working" on those - it just would never have "started.working" A good reason for updating CCleaner is to cope with new junk deposited in new folders by new and/or updated browsers and other applications., none of which is likely to apply to a legacy W2K system which has no need for anything new or updated because you claim

Even on a UEFI motherboard ? Dont fix it if it aint broke, and since CC version 3 still works just the same on old systems, why update it ? After all even if version 4 worked on W2K, you would NOT need it to clean the junk created by IE10.

Piriform produce three other products besides CCleaner, and I believe at least one of these, and mayne all three, no longer support W2K. I would have thought that an old W2K computer that is offline does not need to be subject to updated applications, and therefore the junk will not be created in new locations, so the older versions of CCleaner will still know exactly where to find and remove the junk.

Before there was Windows there were DOS tools that could convert a BAT file into an EXE, (and also COM to EXE and EXE to COM) Last year the forum member "Tr3bg0D" contacted me when he was converting TRIM.BAT into TRIM.EXE. This gave him benefits but after a year I cannot remember what they were. Perhaps he published it. Perhaps Drazen11 has done his own conversion. Perhaps it is something related to the "Utility that cannot be named in this forum"

Thanks Mr. T.

Please add header click sorting of the results - not many people want to be given C:\$Recycle.Bin\etc at the top of the list - I might want the list to start with the largest space waster ; Please add a summary of the results showing the total sizes of all :- the duplicates that are currently checked for deletion; the duplicates that COULD be checked for deletion.

Then be thankful that Trim.Bat still works. Trim.exe is something that compiled/packed Trim.bat and may need to be recreated by it's author (not me) to suit the new version of CCleaner.exe. I am surprised to see from the screen shot that you are trying to run it on a 16 bit subsystem.

Some may be safe to remove. Some are NOT. If you have to ask then you really should not

D stands for Dynamic

Desperate Plea to Mr. T. When you add distinction between the link and its contents for the duplicate finder, PLEASE do not make any such distinction for the normal cleaning of junk files. I make extensive use of Reparse points so that things such as my Palemoon (Firefox) browser profiles which really exist in D:\ only APPEAR to be held on C:\. I am very happy that CCleaner still cleans the browser caches as though they were on C:\. I hope it will continue to do so. SUGGESTION Use the "search" capability employed by Defraggler which distinguishes between the source and destination of a hard link. Defraggler knows that there are only TWO instances of CMD.EXE held in C:\Windows cmd.exe 1 345088 C:\Windows\System32\ cmd.exe 1 302592 C:\Windows\winsxs\wow64_microsoft-windows-commandprompt_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.17514_none_f387767e655cd5ab\ Other tools such as Windows Explorer and Locate32 see FOUR instances because they cannot distinguish between the reality and the shadow of a hard link, as I have shown in http://forum.pirifor...showtopic=38203 cmd 337 KB 21/11/2010 03:23 C:\Windows\System32 cmd 337 KB 21/11/2010 03:23 C:\Windows\winsxs\amd64_microsoftwindowscommandprompt_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.17514_none_e932cc2c30fc13b0 cmd 296 KB 21/11/2010 03:24 C:\Windows\SysWOW64 cmd 296 KB 21/11/2010 03:24 C:\Windows\winsxs\wow64_microsoft-windowscommandprompt_31bf3856ad364e35_6.1.7601.17514_none_f387767e655cd5ab

OH THE HORROR Why would you want to destroy WinSXS, System32, and SysWow64 which make extensive use of hard-links. I admit I do not know what you mean by "ability to convert to", but I have seen "power-users" who have taken ownership of WinSXS and done things that they could only undo by a fresh installation of Windows. I have just tested version 4 and am pleased to say that it does NOT make the error of many file finders which report CMD.EXE as being identical files in WinSXS and System32 etc.

My first thought was that 6 days in advance of 1st April the esteemed Winapp2.ini had posted a spoof. "Monitoring" implies continuous real-time observation and consequently a process is always consuming resources The rather late in the day "Announcement" also indicates this with "or you can set it to monitor your entire system in the background and detect when to Clean based on disk space that can be saved!", which suggests that the resource consuming process is an option that can be declined.

It is ironic that an application that removes the residues of other applications should need CCleaner to remove its own residues. https://en.wikipedia...ki/Ad_infinitum

You destroy and put beyond recovery any deleted files that are within a specific partition and are over-written because :- You try to save and recover them to the same partition ; Or normal daily activities are writing updates to that partition. If your deleted files are in Partition C:\ then you need to minimise your use of Windows and any internet browser, and you need to use an alternative recovery destination such as an external (flash) drive or another partition. NB In one hours use this morning :- Windows 7 has written 27 MB to partition C:\ and my browser has written 232 MB to partition E:\ If everything was all in partition C:\ then 2 GB of deleted file space would be overwritten each day.