Hav0c

The ability to know what Winapp2.ini does will give the user the ability on how to tailor the file for his/her own pcs needs. If I am not mistaken isn't it why trim.bat was created to norrow the entries down quite considerably to applications used on once system then just manually change even more ?

You may be right, cant you just email ESET and find out ? Depending on where in the world you are you will be routed to the closet ESET support team. You are 100% correct, I thing the tech just click next, next like most users would do. Also I think that the tecks at any AV vendor has to think like a normal pc user, so doing acting like them and making "mistakes".

You are correct in stating that large files make the remaining time look "wonky", I see it with my VMware images that are well over the 12gb a file.

Personely I still see the function of File Finder as a plus point in CCleaner. But then they will have to make it more reliable without a reasonable doubt. The more users CCleaner gets the more people will use this function when they learn about it and yes, the more post about something went wrong as well.

Hey and welcome to the forum, Some of us have discussed the use of File Finder and come to the conclusion that it's still a "beta" function with a lot of bugs. http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=40529&hl= What version of CCleaner are you using ? What do you mean by "..selection i checked disappears" ?

Lets say Google did not change anything and it's still recording sites visited and and searches performed would you still see it as PUP or rather an unsafe application ? Can anyone send send the file to their AVs HQ for analysis and see what is their reply ? EDIT: Got a final reply from ESET:

This is the final quote from ESET I think this matter is done-for seeing ESET has a set way of dealing with unsafe applications, I have been using ESET for a very long time now and CCleaner as well but I just download the Slim version every time. In most cases my detection of unsafe applications is disabled. On a side note ESET doesn't see it as virus it only shows that it's a Potentially unsafe applications see attached image of actions that can be taken.

Still today with X-Ray glasses all I see is bone, disappointment hit a new low again .

Some feedback, after performing another scan via ESET (v 7.0.302.26) WITH detection of unsafe applications enable this time and VirusTotal, both still getting hits. I informed ESET again about this matter and they indicated that they are investigating deeper as they are the only AV that gets hits. This is one feedback from ESET. Note: Point 2, this can be due to the fact that no other AV has seen the danger in the toolbar or something else, I am only speculating here.

Then give him one as well for a job well done.

There is an alternative way: http://9gag.com/gag/aRQ2v85

More like two words: Samsung Galaxy I know of a lot of people that really dislike their iPhones and swapped them for Samsung Galaxys. D'oH Clicked on the wrong button .

Hey, if your BlackBerry still works why not use it ? That being said some people still role with a Nokia 3310 .

Hey, I have been using CCleaner and ESET for a very long time now. You can find the toolbar free version here, Note that the toolbar free version always come out a couple of days after a new release. EDIT: After informing ESET about this, they have fixed the problem, It was a false positive. Just wait for the next signature update. Quote from ESET

Welcome to South Africa news, where we make other peoples lifes a living hell and the president gets away with....a lot of things. Nothing new to us living in SA Edit: After seeing moderators "comment" changed it to something cleaner, hope it's better now ?

Nearly 5Mil people download Telegram as Watsapp Alternative: Link

This statement is true if working with system files. Finding system files in any case is dangerous and even I wouldn't do it but in cases for example images or music backup files wouldn't be necessary to check every individual instance IF all filter criteria are met and THIS will have to include the checksum verification functionality. Couldn't agreed more with you.

Yes, you have stated that in a PM to me and I have indicated this as well in original post about the checksum verification. As of date it can/will give false positives.

I can see your point in this but think of it this way, you have for example 5 pc's, 5 different users with mostly the same taste in music/images or even worked on the same projects. You copy all their data to your system as a backup or they are leaving the company, what ever the reason you just copy the data to your system. So you have 6 folders one for each user contain all their data , including your own on your system. Now over time you want to sort the files by remove duplicates to free up some space on your own system and keeping the most resent. You aren't going manually going folder by folder, file by file looking for duplicates are you ? That why I think they added the File Finder feature.

Reading fast is one thing, understanding what you read is another and remembering it is three different things.

Granted it's scary that they can do it but as Andavari stated "...when it comes down to geolocation they're off...". Even the military has to suffer with this. Granted again that they know with what offset GPSs are program to and counter that, but still they suffer.

Question seeing I don't know Mac, Cant Mac users search for files created the day they ran the WFS function for files bigger then lets say 10gb ? Then just manual delete that file.

First off, the File Finder functionality that is build in CCleaner (using v 4.11.4619 64-bit) is a very good idea for any number of reasons any user can think of. But is it reliable and save ? I have a couple of the exact files and folders that contains music, the one difference is the location of the music and the number of files varies between the folders. After doing an initial default setup scan File Finder shows a lot of hits, all fine and dandy, but it's a swing and a miss result. So I started playing with the Match by settings. The first setup was easy, Withing location A(main) and B(backup) and their subfolders match by files name. Seems easy, but File Finder indicates no results. The second setup. Match by Modified date and Size. Still no hits. But the best thing is there are a lot of duplicate files and folders I can navigate to and manually delete on location B. So this brings me back to my original question is it reliable and save ? Clearly it's not reliable, as in my case, so what can Piriform do to make it more reliable ? Maybe put in checksum verification either MD5 or any of the other verification checksum methords (SHA-1, SHA-256, CRC32 enc) the more the better and saver. So the second part of my question in my opinion will be NO it isn't save as of date. What do you guys think ?

Question, why do you use PeaZip vs 7-Zip that is also open source and has no funny addons ? PeaZip = 6.12mb 7-Zip = 1.38.mb

Maybe he has a couple of TOP secret (photos/ clips/ docs enc) files on his system and really needs to overwrite . Isn't 2 passes better then 1 ? And yes will agree with anyone more then 2 times is overkill, unless you are the NSA, CIA and the rest of the alphabet. After you terminate CCleaner or reboot your pc, one can only delete the massive tmp file that it creates .