Jump to content


Experienced Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Willy2

  1. Alan,


    There?s another issue with the sequence of changing settings as described in post #12.


    Suppose the user has unticked all boxes in both ""Windows"" and ""Applications"" and has added a total of, say 40 lines in both the ""Exclude"" and/or ""Include"" sections. All these settings and information are stored in the registry. When ""Portable.dat"" is created after that, then CC doesn't read the registry anymore. Just imagine the frustration of the user when it appears that CC has forgotten those 40 added lines in the ""Include"" and ""Exclude"" sections and sees that a number of boxes are ticked again without his consent.


    Another thought crossed my mind. CC could offer an option to create a ""Portable"" version, e.g. in the ""Advanced"" section. That would involve two actions 1) Move the settings from the registry to ""Ccleaner.ini"" 2) Create ""Portable.dat"". Then the transition to a ""portable"" version is controlled and without any glitches.


    But - IMO - the best solution for handling the settings issue, is to get rid of ""Portable.dat"" as described in post #10 or #12 of this thread.



    As I have stated before: ""A discussion always stimulates the braincells"" !!!! We'll have to wait and see if CC v2.31 will include any of my/our suggestions.

  2. Alan,


    Yes, I agree, there're a lot of things that can go wrong and that's why it's important to choose the simplest solution.


    The sequence of changes is currently very important.

    If CC detects ""Portable.dat"" the settings in the registry are neither copied to ""Ccleaner.ini", nor wiped. The registry is simply ignored and the information is still there. So, let's assume the setting ""MSG_CONFIRMCLEAN=False"" was generated and written to the registry. Then the user created ""Portable.dat"". After that CC doesn't copy that setting from the registry to ""Ccleaner.ini"", it's simply ignored. The next time CC is forced to read ""Ccleaner.ini"" (and ignores the registry) it doesn't find a ""MSG_CONFIRMCLEAN=....."" line over there. It then reverts to the default value (""True""), although in the registry the value of that setting is still recorded as ""False"". That's an example of how settings are overlooked.


    If CC detects ""Portable.dat"" then the option ""Save settings to INI file"" is automatically ticked and the user can't untick it.


    However, there could be another very simple and straight forward solution: don't use the registry for storing (the majority of) settings but always write (the majority of) them to ""Ccleaner.ini"". Then ""Ccleaner.ini"" is always up to date and then the ""Portable.dat"" and the ""Save settings to INI file"" option can be eliminated. A good example of ""K.I.S.S."" (Keep It Simple, Stu**d).

  3. Alan,


    I hope the story below will clarify a lot of what I have been writing about. The information below is ""According to my information"".


    Information in both posts #2 and #3 is accurate. I'll explain. ""mr. don"" experienced problems with one particular setting because it seems he used a particular sequence of changing settings to configure CC (incl. creating ""Portable.dat""). And then CC can fail to remember e.g. that the setting ""MSG_CONFIRMCLEAN=....."" was changed to ""False"" over and over again and that's what annoyed ""mr don"". That particular sequence of configuring also can make CC ""forget"" a number of other settings.


    To avoid that problem the user must create ""Portable.dat"" first BEFORE changing any CC settings. Then CC doesn't fail to remember the changed settings. But one can't expect every user to know that. So, when the CC installation program would offer the user an option to create a ""Portable"" version right off the bat, then - at least - ""Portable.dat"" and perhaps ""Ccleaner.ini"" could be created automatically, before the user starts to configure CC. Perhaps such a ""Portable"" CC could do without any or only minimal changes to the registry. And that was what I was refering to in post #3.


    The ""Portable CC"" does makes changes in the registry. If the user selects/de-selects ""Run CC on startup"" then CC adds/removes some information to/from the registry in spite of ""Portable.dat"" being present.


    My favourite and - IMO - the simplest and therefore the best solution is to get rid of ""Portable.dat"". CC could focus on detecting ""Ccleaner.ini"" instead. If it exists then CC could read the settings from that file and store all new settings there. If ""Ccleaner.ini"" doesn't exist then CC should read the registry and save the settings there instead.


    That would combine perfectly with the ""Save settings to INI file"" option. Selecting this option in v2.30 copies all relevant registry settings to ""Ccleaner.ini"" and removes them from the registry as well. De-selecting that option copies that information from ""Ccleaner.ini" to the registry and deletes that file. So, then there's no chance anymore of having two sets of contradictory information.


    But I haven't got a clue whether eliminating ""Portable.dat"" would have broader implications for CC. At least, it gives the Piriform folks something to chew on.

  4. Alan,


    It may sound presumptious but I DO think I have found the reason why CC fails to remember a changed setting as decribed above by ""mr don"". I know it could not be confined to that one setting only. I think that in a particular set of circumstances CC, as a result of this bug (!!), even could fail to remember a significant amount of previous changed settings. Yes, it's ""portable.dat"" related. And I already gave a hint where to look for that error.

  5. I want to add a number of things to post #2 of this thread.


    CC v2.30 always makes a number of changes in the Windows registry, even when CC settings are stored in the file ""CCleaner.ini"".


    This leads to another suggestion for CC. Perhaps it's possible to introduce an option in the CC installation program to perform an installation without ANY changes to the registry.


    The ""/AUTO"" option in CC doesn't pose a problem because Windows XP always checks a number of locations in order to see which programs are to be run on startup. e.g.

    1. the registry.

    2. a folder on my (dutch) computer (with Windows XP) called ""C:\Documents and Settings\--Username--\Programma's\Menustart\Opstarten"". Storing a shortcut to CC in that particular folder forces Windows to run CC on startup as well.

  6. 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."".




    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)

  7. 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 ?

  8. 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"" ??

  9. 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"".

  10. 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 !!!

  11. Left4Dead,


    As mentioned above you have added the text below (in italics) to the file ""Winapp2.ini"".


    [*Internet Download Manager]


    Detect=HKLM\SOFTWARE\Internet Download Manager




    I could see one reason why it doesn't get detected by CCleaner. The online manual



    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.

  12. 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 !!!

  13. 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.

  14. 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.



    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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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).

  18. 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" ?

  19. 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 ?

  20. 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 ?

  • Create New...

Important Information

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