marmite

@login123 ... good to get the 'been there, tried that' viewpoint I think you're right that when resources are very tight it's a case of 'every little helps'. There are quite a few things that make a small difference, but not many that make a big one (apart from a RAM upgrade ).

Dunno what processor is in there ... but your biggest performance leap is probably a RAM upgrade! I also note you use McAfee suite ... I'm guessing that's not too light on resources either ... 500k ain't a lot to play with! It may be that since your memory is so low, you would get a proportionally greater performance impact from cleaning things up than other users might. So selectively cleaning, then compacting (NTregOPt compacts but doesn't defrag), then defraging your registry might help to alleviate some of your problems ... it can't make them any worse! BUT ... (from the same stable as NTregOPt) ERUNT is an easy-to-use registry back-up tool which has many followers on here. Use something like that to get a full back-up before making wholesale registry changes. And then follow Nergal's signature advice ... do one step at a time.

Well said. Far too much emphasis (IMHO) is placed on performance gains from registry cleaning. I periodically run a reg-cleaner against certain types of entries to clear out some of the junk ... but this is just taste and fancy and I certainly don't expect any performance gains. I'm not saying there aren't any ... just that I believe they are insignificant. Good comments by BobJam on the second link.

Interesting and informative Abu; thank you. One of the good points made is that a product with good detection capabilities can be very different from one with good removal capabilities!

The thing that did occur to me afterwards was whether the OP had downloaded a kosher version of recuva. And of course the kosher version of recuva isn't 'faulty software'. But it's not unknown for perfectly 'good' software to have DEP compatibility issues ... I'm sure I've encountered it before. It's a case of being sure of the provenance of your software and then not compromising the rest of your system if you choose to make an exception for it. I guess really the issue here is the particular installer the OP is running ... @alcanh ... where did you download it from?

That's interesting; I've never seen anyone post here about DEP issues. If you have a look at this article it tells you how to configure DEP through the boot.ini file and/or through Control Panel / System / Advanced tab / Performance settings. This article is slightly more technical. Just consider that any changes that you make could have wide implications - and I'd be a little concerned that you're getting this problem simply by trying to install recuva. Do you get the same problem deploying the portable version?

Continuing with the hijacked thread (sorry!) ... I use 'Free Download Manager' (excellent open-source download manager) and have it configured to invoke the Avira command-line scanner to auto-scan my downloads. One thing I find slightly disappointing about Avast is that there's no command-line scanner in the free version. Can't have everything I suppose

So why don't I get a DWORD then - I'm jealous. More Microsoft mysteries Glad you're sorted ... even though it was a bit of a circuitous way to get there !!

I wasn't suggesting that ccleaner stored cookies; but it must store the list of cookies to be retained (if it doesn't please tell me how it works!!). In order to implement the OP's suggestion it would potentially have to store a lot more cookie names (a list of 'new' cookies). I've never suggested it can't be done ... just that maybe it shouldn't

Yes, I've posted on that thread I don't find it acceptable that you have such frequent problems with updates. Some times it's fine (and fusebundle is all very well occassionally); but you shouldn't have to worry about it! It may be a free product, but the update mechanism just dosn't match up to that of the other vendors.

Errrm yeah, quite!! Since the Frameworks are independent, that is interesting. Unless the 3.5 install modifies any existing 2.0 version; can't see why it should though. One comment I would make is that it wouldn't hurt to add 3.5. You may not have any dependencies on it now ... but that'll come eventually. All of the framework versions happily sit alongside one another; the components and runtimes are discrete. I have 1.1, 2.0, 3.0 and 3.5 both here and at work ... and can even develop on multiple versions quite literally at the same time. I can understand from the point of view of minimising clutter, but it's only used when required ... idle it's just eating disk space Anyway, glad you have a situation you can live with. These sorts of compromises are annoying aren't they; but it's difficult to avoid them completely.

Hmmmm. In my enthusiasm to assist, I didn't see all the possibilities for reg keys, depending on the combinations of FWK 2.0 an 3.5 and the Service Packs. Additionally, I've just had a look on my own machine (2.0 SP2 and 3.5 SP1) and the right key is there but like you I can't see a DWORD 'Installed' value there; or indeed on any of those KB install keys , although the install date is correct; 14 Oct 09. The key for my update (an SP2 kb974417 variant) doesn't have an ARPLink value either; whereas all of my SP1 updates do. But I'm afraid I don't know if that's significant. I don't think adding that DWORD will make a difference; I think the update was supposed to do that ... except that given that neither of us could find any such values I'm really wondering where that's coming from in the article. Whatever route you take, http://support.microsoft.com/kb/902093 might help with looking in the windows update log for any glitches that have gone on-noticed. One other suggestion - is it worth (can you) upping to 2.0 SP2 - have you been prompted for that before?

I'd be interested too ... I use Avira but I'm getting a little weary of the update difficulties with their servers.

I was thinking yoghurt

Also, you will need to know the program executable (.exe) file that's using that dll ... that's the entry you'll need to add to the firewall. How do you know you have a problem with this dll?

Dennis Have a read through this article. Note the 'installed' registry entry (search for 'KB953300 "Installed" = dword:1', minus single quotes). If you're convinced the install was successful and this is not set, try setting it and see how it goes. I have seen this before on an MS update; a successful installation but no registry flag. The article also suggests alternative patch removal methods if you want to try again. And http://support.microsoft.com/kb/953300 lists the dll versions after a successful patch.

But the 'Delete' list is not maintained by ccleaner ... it's just everything in your browser that's not in your 'Keep' list. My point is that currently the only cookies ccleaner has to hold a list of are those in the 'Keep' panel. If I'm understanding you correctly, your mechanism would require everything that's stored by your browser to go into the 'New' panel by default. So if you do a lot of browsing and don't review your cookies for a month, ccleaner would potentially have to maintain a huge list of 'New' cookies until you get round to deciding whether to 'Keep' or 'Delete'. That's the bit I'm not so keen on ... but as you say not everyone will share that view.

Hi Gulshroff Are you talking about all of the files that ccleaner deals with - or just browser stuff? If you mean 'everything' then I think it's potentially a good thing to want to be able to do, but despite not being particularly technically difficult I'm not sure how practical it would be to implement. For example, if I were to take advantage of such functionality, I'd probably want to keep some log files for a week, but I'd be happy to lose everything else. After all, by definition most of the things ccleaner gets rid of are unwanted. Unless you can specify retention periods on individual items (very awkward and cumbersome to implement elegantly), I think you'd almost always end up with an ill-fitting compromise. So from that point of view, I guess I'm happy with ccleaner as it is. Horses for courses really isn't it ... other people might find it really useful.

Ta hazelnut

Seconded

Well that's still just my opinion, but I do agree with you. Oh and for the Piriform devs, FWIW, I'm on XP Pro SP3.

Sinking the mouse?!! Call the RSPCA!!!

I think it's a bug. Just for the hell of it, I removed recuva and installed it in a non-default location. All of the registry entries showed the correct (non-default) path, but it displayed the default path in the read-only uninstall dialog, as Kim describes. I uninstalled, deleted the 'wrong' directory and reinstalled to the correct one - everything is fine. Any files / entries not stored under the specified directory should have been uninstalled / removed correctly. Deleting the directory removed the rest and then I just reinstalled.

Ahhhhhhh - I think I see where you're coming from - I think it's me that has misunderstood. I thought the OP meant that the new 'New' panel (if you see what I mean ) would be populated manually ... i.e. a sort of temporary 'holding area' until you'd decided whether you really wanted them. But I now think (and probably where you're coming from) the OP meant that all new ones go there automatically, until you've had chance to review them. If that's the case, then I too am against such an automatically populated panel.

Slaytar's suggestions sound good to me ... just an extra panel for those "new" cookies you're undecided about. So the number of cookies wouldn't be much different to what they are now, for any particular user. I also agree with the idea of a 'run now' button for cookies - no reason why you should have to do a complete clean just to get rid of cookies. Not an essential feature by any means ... just another 'nice to have'. But I don't think default 'keep' is a good idea ... otherwise you have to keep revisiting ccleaner every time you visit new sites otherwise you just build up cookies ... surely it's far easier to add just those that you do want to keep. I 'keep' quite a few ... but I very rarely add new ones.