Alan_B

I am aware that Windows is a false name - it should be called "Smoke 'n Mirrors" due to its endless deception courtesy of reparse points / hard links. I often find that Windows Explorer will ignore the contents of reparse points if it is not on-top of the reparse point, depending upon Access Control Levels. e.g. When I select and right click the folder C:\Users\Alan\AppData\Local\Moonchild Productions\ then W.E. reports a size of 0 bytes 0 Files 0 Folders. but when I select the reparse point that it contains which is C:\Users\Alan\AppData\Local\Moonchild Productions\Pale Moon\ It shows 124 MB (130,570,435 bytes) 739 Files, 650 Folders W.E. has limited "depth perception" when looking from a higher level, BUT even so a standard installed on C:\ version of Palemoon browser still has full access to its cache which I relocated to an HDD partition D:\ and CCleaner has no problem cleaning the Palemoon cache via the normal (non-include) rules. N.B. HDSentinel shows me that when I am busy on the Internet, a typical day results in up to 1 GB of writes to the HDD D:\ and only 100 MB of writes to my SSD C:\. I expect my SSD to have a few more write/erase Lives than a proverbial cat - but I want every Life to count for something. Is it possible that W.E. also has limited "depth perception" when looking down from a higher level onto a folder holding these Hard Links ? Regardless of whether we are talking about 6.2 or 3.1 GB, if that is zapped there will be a big surprise ahead :- Windows will have the intelligence to prohibit removal (I am always surprised when Windows does something intelligent); OR Removal will happen but cannot be measured because Windows don't work no more; OR After you shut-down it will never boot-up again.

Golly Gosh - That halves the burden that Windows 7 places on my SSD. That is the removal of 6.19 GB (6,647,637,591 bytes) held by 42,214 Files, 10,684 Folders I cannot tell you how much faster that make by SSD rotate - 'cause that will never happen

In the past Microsoft were not above using Open Source software. I wonder if they have also borrowed from Firefox the use of the plugin-container,exe.

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." https://en.wikipedia..._and_statistics More extremely abominable and misleading than any of those would be Statistics compiled by CCleaner. I could show that CCleaner has purged 50 GB of junk per month if I bothered to run it and clean my browser caches twice a day, BUT after not running CCleaner for a month the total is less than 300 MB per month because Palemoon automatically limits the size of its cache to 200 MB. I ran CCleaner last night. This morning it is ready to pounce on :- 10 MB of freshly created "Windows - Cached WPF Fonts*" 5 MB of freshly created "Windows Explorer - Thumbnail Cache" Where is the point in zapping Windows caches that get regenerated the moment you close CCleaner. In my view the result of cleaning those caches again this morning will be the loss of one life out of 3000 lives for 15 MB of the Flash Cells in my 56 GB SSD. Cleaning my machine once enough is enough for me. I don't want to needlessly kill bits of my SSD twice a day just to show that my statistics score is bigger than yours

Either you are badly mistaken, or this is another instance of the utter folly of Win 8 On Windows 7 there are no vacant "decline boxes" waiting for you to check. Instead there are pre-checked "INSTALL" boxes that you need to UN-check.

It still looks bad for the 'copter to me. In the bottom left corner is a man with a rifle pointing in the direction of the .copter.

I thought FLASH was bad enough, and long ago I created two custom includes :- Include1=PATH|%APPDATA%\Adobe\Flash Player\AssetCache\|*.*|RECURSE Include2=PATH|%APPDATA%\Macromedia\Flash Player\|*.*|RECURSE I now find I have been stuck with 864 kB of HTML5 stuff in webappsstore.sqlite I guess others suffer far more than me, but even so I now feel another custom include is coming on me I understand that :- Firefox fixed their approach to this back in 2007; PaleMoon uses the same open source code as its base with the same defaults and performance, and the same is likely for other Firefox siblings; 5 MB will grow to 5000 MB after visiting 1000 different sites that each donate 5 MB; I guess a man who opens 1000 Tabs a day could blow through a 2 TB drive in a year I am now thinking about changing these defaults under about:Config dom.storage.default_quota;5120 dom.storage.enabled;true I understand that purging webappsstore.sqlite will lose any site login data that it might hold, but setting dom.storage.enabled:false will make HTML5 sites revert to the use of 4 kB cookies in traditional places. http://forum.palemoo...php?f=26&t=2158

I prefer "StartPage" for the benefit of the information above the results, such as About 123,999,108 results (0.08 seconds) If I see that when looking for something uncommon I recognise that I may have a million pages of result to scan before I find what I want, and then I try a more specific search phrase.

Windows 7 can see Windows 8, and I guess Windows 8 can see Windows 7. If Windows 7 and Windows XP can see one-another then one will destroy the System Restore capability of the other. Is it possible that Windows 7 and 8 are also subject to sibling rivalry of some sort?

Thanks At the moment I regard the BIOS with fear and loathing so it will be a little while before I dabble with the BIOS.

Hi I cannot be sure of my eyes, but what is the icon in the top left corner with the label WinApp2 ? Is it a BUG

I find it strangely reassuring that you are confident with a system that failed on the first 19 deployment patterns. Mine only failed on the first dozen and I had almost given up hope of employing the last 2 GB. No - I do not overclock anything - I am old school. After a 4 years getting an Honours degree in Electrical Engineering, specialising in Electronics, my first 12 years were spent designing electronic instrumentation using worst case analysis and calculating Mean Time Before Failure (MTBF) according to a military standard "Blue Book". All my designs were for continuous operation, often in explosive atmospheres in petrochemical refineries. The next 30 years were spent designing real-time computer hardware and software for continuous monitoring and reporting of fire and intruder detection systems in shopping centres and nuclear and military installations. I always assume the worst and endeavour to always have at least two fall-back procedures in place. The last time I used MemTest was more than 10 years ago on a one week old Windows 95 machine that compiled the same source code as my previous machine, but produced a different output binary. The I.T. department called the supplier who sent a technician who spent a couple of hours testing and reported all was well. I downloaded MemTest and left it running overnight - it scored a result and the supplier swapped the machine for another one that passed MemTest scrutiny. I do not remember doing any wriggling of voltages and timings.with that old MemTest. Is this something the new MemTest will do for me, or are you suggesting I visit the BIOS and face all its fears an bogeymen Regards Alan

Another possibility is to move chips around. When 4 GB was added to my existing 4 GB my P.C. failed to boot several times. It booted after removing the new chips. It booted with only 2 GB added to first 4 GB Failed to Boot with the two new chips in new positions. After playing musical chairs with all new and old chips in different sockets it eventually booted with the full 8 GB accommodated by the motherboard. I have had no memory (chip) problems that I am aware of, and Macrium has always validated the partition image backups that it created on my secondary HDD. I really wish that this topic had NOT been started, I am now wondering how much safety margin exists in the voltage levels and timing of my existing configuration, and am now afraid that MemTest86 may destroy my delusions

Sorry, I was just surprised by the recent spate of sponsored sites that rip off Piriform logos and products.

I used the StartPage Search Engine (which uses Google but protects my privacy) http://ccleaner.soft...CFUbKtAodNWoA6A http://www.downloadi...gn=DICCUK&fwd=1

This is the seventh successive post in this topic without a Desktop image. Is this another record

Your simplest alternatives are to provide the information as requested by Nergal, or revert to the previous version of CCleaner and hope the next version works better for you. BUT, if you want my response to your questions then here goes :- I gave up on Firefox in 2011 and will refrain from giving specific detailed answers that may now be incorrect. You will need to get information from others. I will however state that you can create different Firefox profiles, and select which profile to use as you launch Firefox. I fear you may be confused by the term "profile", which means a lot more than one thing. This is my computer "User Profile" when I login in as Administrator C:\Users\Alan When I launch CMD.EXE and issue the command SET it is shown as USERPROFILE=C:\Users\Alan When I instead login as a USER then "User Profile" is shown as USERPROFILE=C:\Users\User The command SET also shows (depending upon how I logged in) either APPDATA=C:\Users\Alan\AppData\Roaming LOCALAPPDATA=C:\Users\Alan\AppData\Local or APPDATA=C:\Users\User\AppData\Roaming LOCALAPPDATA=C:\Users\Alan\AppData\Local Please note that LOCALAPPDATA is a horrible complication due to changing from Windows XP to Windows 7. I use Palemoon instead of Firefox. Under XP the Firefox profile (and also the Palemoon profile) has a single path. Under Windows 7 they each have a plurality of paths, so when we refer to deleting a profile we actually mean deleting a plurality of paths. It gets worse UNDER MY ADMINISTRATOR AUTHORITY LOGIN :- These are the two paths for Palemoon C:\Users\Alan\AppData\Roaming\Moonchild Productions\Pale Moon\Profiles\4qbu47br.default C:\Users\Alan\AppData\Local\Moonchild Productions\Pale Moon\Profiles\4qbu47br.default I think that before I purged all trace of Firefox its paths were something like C:\Users\Alan\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\FireFox\Profiles\4qbu47br.default C:\Users\Alan\AppData\Local\Mozilla\FireFox\Profiles\4qbu47br.default I think there was a third path also C:\Users\Alan\AppData\LocalLow\Mozilla\FireFox\Profiles\4qbu47br.default UNDER NON-ADMINISTRATOR LOGIN :- All the above excepting each path starts with "C:\Users\User" instead of "C:\Users\Alan\" I switched from Firefox to Palemoon in 2011 because Mozilla became unstable. One day I could view every website as intended by the website owner, and the next day the text was in the wrong place and I could not understand the CCleaner forum topics. Palemoon is based on the same open-source software as Firefox but without the Mozilla frenzy for something new. I was able to install the same Addons into Palemoon that I was familiar with in Firefox, and I because I was using LastPass and Xmarks, when those Addons were added to Palemoon they imported from "the cloud" all my bookmarks and web-site passwords, otherwise I could have used Firefox Synchronise to achieve the same. If you want to try Palemoon the main page is http://www.palemoon.org/a and a very helpful forum is http://forum.palemoon.org/

Firefox has been on rabid release for ages, and profiles that were valid a year ago may need to be deleted and rebuilt from scratch. If you have already used Firefox Sync to give a fresh re-start profile that restores to a clean new profile the features you value, you might consider testing Firefox/CCleaner with a clean and empty profile without restoring those features, or else use the previous version of CCleaner and wait to see if the next version is better for you.

I also observe that for every two new units on offer at $19.99 there are 17 units that users are off-loading at $7.95

I believe that the professional version does update automatically. Little luxuries one pays for

Yes, but it would satisfy my thirst for excitement.

I accept that was the meaning. Unfortunately there are times when a Google result will lead the innocent to a site that PRETENDS to supply CCleaner.exe, There have been several such instances in recent months. It is unfortunate but the rules/syntax are confusing to the innocent - and also to myself, and "forum.piriform.com" looks related to "piriform.com" but the content is quite different, and comes from a different site under different ownership on a different part of the internet ( 6 mSec difference ).

That is not true. This forum site and the download site are related but totally different, as shown below by PING

When hostile drones come over the horizon the first thing they will see will be the concrete bunkers radiating Wi-Fi in all directions. Screened Ether-cable sounds a safer option