Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums


Experienced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Willy2

  1. Mr. Don, Are you using CC v2.30 ?? Because in that version the file ""CCleaner.ini"" can contain an entry/line indicating whether CC needs a confirmation for starting the cleaning process or not. e.g. ""MSG_CONFIRMCLEAN=False"" This setting (False) surpresses the confirmation before starting the actual cleaning. The crucial point is that only AFTER the first time the user has changed this particular setting (by ticking a box in CC called ""Don't show me this message again"" in the confirmation warning message-window, see attachment) that line is added to ""CCleaner.ini"" by CC. If there's no entry called ""MSG_CONFIRMCLEAN=....."" then CC wants a confirmation before starting the actual cleaning. And in order to make CC ask for a cleaning confirmation again, the user must edit ""CCleaner.ini"". Either delete that particular entry or change that entry to ""MSG_CONFIRMCLEAN=True"". Because there's no option available in CC to switch that setting back to ""True"". The story above made a question surface. Perhaps the user should be able to select and unselect this particular confirmation option. And then I think this option should be placed in the ""Advanced"" section (""Options"", ""Advanced""). Mr. Don, there's another thing you should do. Create a file in the application folder called ""portable.dat"". If CC v2.30 detects that file then it doesn't store any settings in the registry any more. ""Note: The portable version of CCleaner 'knows' that it is portable because of the presence of the file portable.dat in the application folder. If CCleaner finds the file portable.dat in the application folder, it will always save its settings to CCleaner.ini. The contents of the portable.dat file do not matter - you can create a dummy file."". Source: http://docs.piriform.com/ccleaner/advanced...rs-ini-files-do Perhaps you need to uninstall CC, clean the registry and re-install CC again, in order to get rid of those (pesky) CC registry entries ? (the underlined sentences were the latest addition to this post)
  2. Indeed, in v1.18 a few translation issues have been fixed. E.g. in the ""Options"" menu (Settings, Options) the program allows the english sentence ""Show cleanup drive prompt before defrag"" to be ""translated"" into e.g. dutch. The official translator for the dutch version has done his job well. But for a number of language versions that particular english sentence and one or more other english sentences keep popping up. So, I think a number of translators still need to update/improve their respective language DLL files. Weren't they aware/notified that there's a new improved version v1.18 in the making ?
  3. Yes, I knew it would work because I downloaded version 5.18 and installed the program. It's truly a great program. But did you install one of the previous versions of IDM ??? Can you give the version number of the highest version number that recognized by CC ?? Because then Piriform forum moderator ""TwistedMetal"" is able to make a decision whether to adapt the file called ""Winnapp2.ini"" or not. I am not quite sure who is responsible for either adding items to or the modifcation of "Winapp2.ini"": ""MrG"" or ""Twisted Metal"" ??
  4. Left4dead, You were experiencing problems making CC recognize Internet Download Manager (IDM). The solution provided above applies to IDM version 5.18. It's not clear which version the IDM entriy in the file ""Winapp2.ini"" refers to. Perhaps you were using version 4.xx before and CC did recognize that version ? I think that the moderator called ""TwistedMetal"" is interested in the answer to this question as well. Then he can decide whether he needs to/must modify or add the/an IDM entry in the file called ""Winapp2.ini"".
  5. Left4Dead, With some digging in the registry I think I found the answer to your problem. It seems the folks who made the program made some changes to the registry entries. The third line of the original text was: ""Detect=HKLM\SOFTWARE\Internet Download Manager"" 1. Omit the word ""Internet"" and all spaces. 2. Change ""HKLM"" into ""HKCU"". And then CC recognizes the entry in "Winapp2.ini". WARNING: I DO NOT guarantee that it will work perfectly for the full 100%. Use it at your own peril !!!
  6. Left4Dead, As mentioned above you have added the text below (in italics) to the file ""Winapp2.ini"". [*Internet Download Manager] LangSecRef=3022 Detect=HKLM\SOFTWARE\Internet Download Manager Default=True FileKey1=%Appdata%\IDM\UrlHistory.txt FileKey2=%Appdata%\IDM\UrlHistory2.txt I could see one reason why it doesn't get detected by CCleaner. The online manual http://docs.piriform.com/ccleaner/advanced...leaner-to-clean states that each line in the .INI file must be separated by at least one blank line. Adding that extra blank line helped CC to detect Real Player Software information in the ""winapp2.INI"" file on my computer.
  7. I noticed that in CC v2.30 there's an useful extra feature in CC. When CC cleans the MFT of a drive then CC now gives an estimate of how much time it will take to ""wipe"" that particular MFT. Although I have asked for a progress bar I think this addition is good enough. No need any more for a progress bar. Thanks !!!
  8. Eusing's registry cleaner is harmless in comparison with - at least - two other programs I tried to clean the registry thoroughly. One of these programs even crashed Windows XP because it wiped too many registry entries. I haven't got a clue which registry entries are to be cleaned or not and why but I never ever experienced any negative impact using Eusing's cleaner. And precisely because I don't have a clue which entries are safe to be wiped or not calls for a registry cleaner like e.g. Eusing's.
  9. Did the folks at Piriform program the registry cleaner all by themselves ? Why do the Piriform folks want to invent the wheel again, in this regard ? Why not ""join forces"" with someone else ? There're a number of free registry cleaner out on the internet and they seem to perform a much more thorough job than the registry cleaner of CC. A very good registry cleaner is - IMO - e.g. Eusing free registry cleaner. http://www.eusing.com/ So, let the folks from Eusing do the job of programming of the Registry cleaner and integrate that registry cleaner in CC and let the folks from Piriform take care of the rest of the Piriform progams.
  10. Augeas, I have read your thoughts but I am simply not convinced. Even if Piriform won't include the suggestion made in post #1 then I think the options in the Include & Exclude menus should/could be rearranged. The menu item B should - IMO - be placed above the menu items A, C, D and F. So that menu items that belong together are grouped together. See the picture in the attachment. I updated/modified the picture from post #1 in this thread. As I have said before: A discussion always stimulates the braincells. We'll have to wait and see whether the CC folks are willing to include my suggestions.
  11. Zorry, Do you know in what files and/or folder(s) the history and those temporary files of ICQ are stored ? Then you could try to use the ""Include"" feature in CC. (""Options"", ""Include""). A good place to start looking for these files is the folder called ""C:\Program Files"" or ""C:\Documents and Settings"" (Windows XP). Perhaps using Piriform's Defraggler could reveal in which folders that information is stored, as well. By using that program I learned a number of useful things about the Windows filing system.
  12. JDPower, A lot of folks are simply too lazy to read the online manual. The manual of CC v2.29 offered (past tense !!!) an explaination of what ""recurse"" meant.
  13. I think I'll get a lot of criticism from Augeas and/or JDPower by posting my thoughts but that won't stop me. A discussion always stimulates the braincells. The letters (A, B, C, .... ) refer to the picture in the attachment. See below. I think Piriform can improve the ""Include"" and ""Exclude"" menus in CC v2.30. 1. In v2.30 the user has to choose between ""Drive or Folder"" (A) and ""File"" (B ). This is - IMO - ridiculous. I think, the user MUST be forced to select a drive and/or a folder FIRST anyway, independent of which files are to be deleted. I think, the user even shouldn't be permitted to have access to all the other options in the menu when no drive and/or folder (A) is selected. Because CC at least must know which folders to include and exclude. So, selecting a drive/folder first must be mandatory. 2. I think the options (B ), (C ) and (D) should be grouped together, placed in the same rectangle, with an appropriate title e.g. ""File selection options"". The user should select one of these three rounded boxes. Suggestions 1 & 2 combined would eliminate a lot of confusion and would improve the logic of the menus. Of course, then the online manual has to be rewritten as well. 3. Perhaps options C and D can be combined into one option ??? 4. When an user has selected a drive and/or folder (A) and an user wants to select a file (B ) then CC can use the information provided in (A) and automatically direct the user to/open that particular folder when an user clicks on ""Browse"" (E).
  14. Yes, indeed. But I after unticking that box I inmediately ticked that box again. Much too dangerous to untick that box.
  15. I am aware of that problem. A number of programs update software by placing (and installing) the new software in a separate new folder and don't remove the old software. (e.g. Java, Adobe Reader, Apple Quicktime). Even some of the update software is placed in a folder and never removed. Does GOOGLE place that (update-)software always in a particular folder and aren't you able to add those\that folder(s) to the list of folders CC wipes ?? Click ""Options"", ""Include"". If CC really skips these files then they probably are marked ""hidden"" and/or ""system"". I certainly would like CC to be able to erase these files as well. But as long CC doesn't include that option I use another program to the job. I looked at the picture and I have a question: How are you able to list hidden files like "Pagefile.sys" ?
  16. ""Recurse subfolders"" means ""Include subfolders"". So, subfolders will be searched as well for that particualr file. i.e. the file called ""thumbs.db"".
  17. The GUI of v1.36 behaves eratic. When I click on the scroll bar on the right hand side (marked by the blue cross) in order to move the screen either up or down, the gridlines and the information on the screen get all mixed up. But when I scroll through the column (marked by the red cross) with the cursorkeys (either up or down) or use the mouse in order to move the the scrollbar (marked by the green cross) up or down then the gridlines and the information on the screen all properly align again. The picture in the attachment gives an impression of the problem. It looks like Recuva uses two separate software routines in order to move the information on the screen. Perhaps Piriform needs to remove the gridlines ? Perhaps Recuva should give the user the opportunity whether he/she wants to see the gridlines or not in the main screen ?
  18. Alan, I think I need to elaborate a little bit. One can not, as Augeas has pointed out, directly access a MFT entry and wipe that entry (although I am still not convinced it's impossible). One has to create a (zero length) file and then delete it. In that way one can guarantee that information in a MFT entry is rendered worthless. And then the problem you're refering to doesn't occur. So, ""wipe a MFT entry"" actually consists of two separate actions and doesn't constitute ""wiping"" in the literal sense of the word. There's - IMO (!!!)- a smart way of knowing how many MFT entries are to be ""wiped"" (notice the quotation marks !!!). Every valid entry (including those marked ""deleted"") in a directory file, contains a pointer, pointing to an entry in the MFT. Reading, sorting and processing these pointers could provide the number of MFT entries that are used and/or empty. Then this information could be used to perform an intelligent ""MFT wipe"" process by limiting the number of ""wipe MFT entry"" operations. This, most definitely, would speed up the ""wiping"" process. And this could be the basis for a ""Quick and dirty"" ""wiping"" of the MFT. Although I recognize that every once in a while one should ""wipe"" the entire MFT as well. These pointers also could provide the basis for a program (like CC or Defraggler ???) to compact the MFT. i.e. move all the used MFT entries closer to the beginning of the MFT. And that would speed up a every future ""cleaning"" of the MFT as well. But this depends on how much information of the NTFS Windows is willing and able to provide to a program (like e.g. CC). Perhaps Piriform already employs that information for CC and Defraggler ?
  19. Alan, I agree, that's certainly something I didn't take into account.
  20. Perhaps it's possible to introduce a ""Wipe Pagefile.sys"" option in CC ?? I mean that it shouldn't kill this file but merely clean its contents. Sources on the internet suggest that this requires a (small) change in the Windows registry because it only can be done right before one shuts down one's computer ??? And I certainly DO NOT want to mess with the Windows registry.
  21. Interesting story, but I am still not convinced for the full 100% that a direct access to or extracting information from the MFT is impossible. But I don't want to continue that discussion. I have read the information from the website of Microsoft on the topic MFT. (GOOGLE the words ""support, Microsoft, NTFS, MFT""). Very interesting, but it doesn't give a clear answer to the question whether accessing the MFT directly is possible or impossible. I also believe Microsoft is deliberately hiding (parts of) the real truth. e.g. Microsoft states that the MFT can not shrink and will grow only in order to accommodate a growing number of files on a disk. But my experience (thanks to Piriform's Defraggler !!!) says that this is rubbish. The MFT can - IMO - both shrink and grow and that interferes with one or two features in Piriform's Defraggler. I DO think the MFT can be wiped independently of the ""Wipe Free Space"" (WFS) feature. Everytime CC scans a drive/drives for files to be wiped it reads a lot of and perhaps all directory files on one or more drives. And then, without a shadow of doubt, it comes across (a lot of) files that are simply marked ""deleted"" but have not been ""wiped"". When a user has enabled the ""Secure file deletion (slower)"" option or the WFS option then an additional option could order CC to ""wipe"" all these files, who were marked as ""deleted"", as well, on every drive CC has scanned. The advantage of this is that this thorough cleaning prevents the MFT from growing too much and occupying a lot of/too much diskspace. In order to accomplish this particular task in both and/or either in the ""Secure Deletion"" and/or in the ""Wipe Free Space"" an additional option (called e.g. ""Wipe MFT"") could be introduced. In the WFS entry, I think CC should give the user the opportunity to choose between a thorough cleaning of the MFT (like it has been programmed in v2.29) or a ""Quick and dirty"" option (as described above). By ""Quick and dirty"" I mean that only MFT entries of files that have been deleted with a ""normal deletion"" are ""wiped"". I hope it's clear what I mean. As mentioned before , I hope the folks at Piriform - at least - will look into this matter and make a decision whether to incorporate or not any suggestions made in this thread.
  22. Augeas, prepare yourself for more steam coming out of your ears. I don't advocate circumventing the NTFS and poking directly in the MFT or onto one's harddisk. It's simply too risky. The entire NTFS could break down and take down Windows with it. Did you run the Wipe MFT Free Space (WMFS) option yourself ? Because the behaviour of this option contradicts your opinion. CC knows how much entries the MFT contains. It looks like it wipes all MFT free entries including the related pointers in the MFT. Selective overwriting of the MFT impossible ? I am not so sure. 1. There's a counter on the screen (in %) that clearly indicates that CC knows which entries of the MFT are to be skipped. It indicates that on a computerdisk of mine the first approx. 27% and the last approx. 30% of the MFT entries are occupied. (How odd !!). 2. Aren't there in Windows (a lot of) carefully predefined entry points that allow programmers to use a lot of the features of the Windows NTFS system. (like writing/reading/deleting files/directories/MFTs, extracting information). If so, then perhaps one is also able to access and extract (more) information concerning the MFT entries (occupied/wiped/free). The behaviour of CC - at least - seems to indicate just that. There's a program called Clean Disk Security that also wipes free disk space and MFTs. This program does a similar job like CC. Although perhaps it does its job less thorough I prefer that program over CC's ""Wipe (MFT) free space"" options because it's significantly faster. http://www.theabsolute.net/sware/clndisk.html I hope, the folks from Piriform - at least - are willing to look into to suggestions made in this thread and incorporate any of the suggestions in a future version of CC (v2.30 ???).
  23. @Gronxx The GUI of Wipe Free Space (WFS) and Wipe MFT free space (WMFS) certainly can be improved. 1. When using these option, I think, e.g. the screen shouldn't be cleaned when CC moves on the next operation (e.g WMFS of drive D: to WMFS of drive E: and/or e.g WFS of drive C: to WFS of drive D:). I think all the information should be remain on the screen as long as possible. 2. A progress bar also would be welcomed. In another thread I made some recommendations to improve both WMFS and WFS. PS.: Are Gronxx and Groonx two usernames of one person ?
  24. When Augeas, JDPower and/or the Piriform folks read this post, then I think steam will come out of their ears ;-) but I'll post these thoughts anyway. After all, a discussion always stimulates the braincells. We'll see whether the proposed changes will be implemented or not in a next version of CC (v2.30 ???). The suggestoins below are MFT related. 1. Change the behaviour of the ""Cancel"" button during the Wipe Free Space (WFS) operation (Settings screen). When one has selected ""Wipe MFT Free Space"" (WMFS) and two drives (e.g. C:, D:) then 4 separate operations will occur: 1. WMFS of drive C: 2. WMFS of drive D: 3. WFS of drive C: 4. WFS of drive D: I think that clicking on the ""Cancel"" button should force CC to cancel the current operation and move on to the next operation (e.g from #2 to #3), provided there's a next one in a/this sequence. Currently CC v2.29 aborts the entire operation when the user clicks on ""Cancel"". 2. Isn't there a way of establishing whether an entry in the MFT has been wiped/cleaned (entirely) before ? Perhaps this could be determined by looking at the filename in that particular MFT entry (deleted/overwritten/zero bytes) ? If CC was able to establish this then CC could skip all previously wiped MFT entries and this would speed up the cleaning of the MFT significantly. But then CC must also wipe/overwrite/clean the entire entry in the MFT as well when a ""secure deletion"" option has been selected. 3. Another way to speed up the cleaning of the MFT is cleaning of the filenames in every MFT entry only and not wipe an entire MFT entry.
  25. Thanks for the replies and the suggestions. I did what JDPower did and Augeas had suggested. In order to enable WMFS one certainly needs to select: 1. the WFS option in the main screen. 2. at least one drive from the WFS menu. But then I think the folks from Piriform should modify or add one or more things to eliminate any remaining confusion concerning this topic. e.g. 1. add the text ""(this option is ignored when no drive is selected)"" to the WMFS option in the ""Settings"" screen, and/or 2. add the text (see above) to the webpage http://docs.piriform.com/ccleaner/ccleaner...leaner-settings 3a. or make it impossible for the user to enable the WMFS option when no drive has been selected in the WFS menu and 3b. automatically disable the WMFS option when one deselects the last remaining selected drive in the WFS menu. The issue with the zero length files is that: 1. a lot of these files hide in folders with attributes ""hidden"" and/or ""system"" set and CC ignores these folders/directories. 2. a lot of these files have (extremely) randomly generated filenames. That's why it's (nearly) impossible to specify names and wild cards in the ""Include"" section. I certainly hope the folks from Piriform read this discussion and will - at least - look into this matter in order to see if perhaps some changes/modifications in the program are necessary.
  • Create New...