Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums
Alan_B

34 MBytes of my junk not removed - others have GBytes

Recommended Posts

CCleaner fails to remove 34 MBytes of Restore Point Junk.

It would actually be 104 MBytes of unremovable junk had I not suspected this and taken pre-emptive action.

Some users may have many GBytes of unremovable junk.

 

I am using Windows XP Home Edition with SP2, but I suspect this is a problem with any flavour of Windows that runs System Restore.

 

Here is the junk; the latest Cache which CCleaner can remove,

plus 3 variants of Cache(2)etc. which drew my attention to a problem :-

 

C:\Documents and Settings\Dad\Local Settings\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\jzj1inju.default

Date Modified Attributes Size Name

14/03/2008 16:59 ----D---- 96,384 Cache

21/02/2007 11:53 ----D---- 26,478,089 Cache(2)

05/09/2007 10:43 ----D---- 12,564 Cache(2).Trash

27/07/2007 16:49 ----D---- 7,046,255 Cache(3)

04/03/2008 21:42 ---A----- 3,078,856 XPC.mfl

14/03/2008 16:13 ---A----- 1,357,968 XUL.mfl

 

Note especially the first item, 96,384 bytes of Cache

Here it is again - exactly the same size and date - just a different name !!!!

 

14/03/2008 17:22 ----D---- 12,564 Cache

21/02/2007 11:53 ----D---- 26,478,089 Cache(2)

05/09/2007 10:43 ----D---- 12,564 Cache(2).Trash

27/07/2007 16:49 ----D---- 7,046,255 Cache(3)

14/03/2008 16:59 ----D---- 96,384 Cache(4)

04/03/2008 21:42 ---A----- 3,078,856 XPC.mfl

14/03/2008 09:16 ---A----- 1,235,880 XUL.mfl

 

Explanation :-

 

After 14/03/2008 16:59 I launched System Restore to go back a few hours.

The CORRECT version of Cache was actually 69 MBytes,

but AFTER creating the Restore Point I used CCleaner to purge Cache,

and then I briefly ran Firefox again to get 96,384 bytes, before I did the System Restore.

What System Restore STUPIDLY did SO WRONGLY was :-

1) FAIL to make a clear distinction between system files to restore and user data to retain;

2) BODGE the files by renaming Cache as Cache(4);

3) STUPIDLY restore the earlier multi-Mbyte version of Cache - TOTAL WASTE OF TIME.

 

After System Restore, Cache should still be 96,384 bytes because it is user data.

System Restore not only got it wrong, it failed to restore the 69 MByte version.

This Restore Failure is probably because M.S. do not understand Firefox,

or that they do what they can to aggravate it.

After System Restore aggravation, Firefox was automatically launched on start-up,

and probably recognised its Cache had been trashed by M.S., so Firefox re-initialised it.

I suspect that Cache(2).Trash is evidence of a more serious Windows Whoops at 05/09/2007 10:43.

System Restore goes so distrously wrong with Cache that I think :-

it should keep its dirty paws of Cache and EVERYTHING in Mozilla folders, and

I doubt that reverting XUL.mfl back to its previous date and size has done me any good at all.

 

Had I not purged 69 MBytes from Cache, but allowed it to reach 70 MBytes before using Restore Point,

I would now have Cache(4) = 70 MBytes,

hence my initial statement that it could have a total of 104 MBytes that CCleaner will not touch.

 

I look forward to CCleaner being enhanced to fix this System Restore stupidity.

 

n.b. I am bitter about System Restore because of its deliberate unforgiveable aggravation :-

It trashes user folders it does not understand;

It tells me something like :-

????/Firefox/???? Cache became Cache(4)

????/Java/??? 6.0 became 6(2).0

IT IS SO STUPID - WHAT ON EARTH WAS Cache(4),

 

 

was it the version of Cache immediately BEFORE System Restore ?

 

or was it version that was archived when Restore Point was created ?

Regretably System Restore refused to allow me to launch anything to capture the exact message,

and after start-up there is no trace of this message,

I looked at 2000 files modified 14/03/2008, and I viewed all system and application events - nothing.

 

n.b. Although CCleaner does not touch Cache(4), or any earlier variants,

it does purge ????/Java/????/6(2).0

 

Incidentally, System Restore makes a pigs ear of Microsoft stuff as well.

I found the following by searching for (2)

$NtUninstallwmp11$(2) C:\WINDOWS

setup_wm(2).exe C:\Program Files\Windows Media Player

spuninst(2) C:\WINDOWS\$NtUninstallwmp11$(2)

wups(2).dll C:\WINDOWS\system32\SoftwareDistribution\Setup\ServiceStartup\wups.dll\7.0.6000.381

Cache(2) C:\Documents and Settings\Dad\Local Settings\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\jzj1inju.default

Cache(2).Trash C:\Documents and Settings\Dad\Local Settings\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\jzj1inju.default

Trash(2) C:\Documents and Settings\Dad\Local Settings\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\jzj1inju.default\Cache(2).Trash

Cache(2) C:\Documents and Settings\Dad\Local Settings\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\jzj1inju.default\Cache(2).Trash\Trash(2)

 

I found and documented this problem several weeks ago, but have delayed reporting because :-

1) I needed time to calm down before defaming Microsoft and their System Restore;

2) I have been fighting with the latest Patch Tuesday update;

3) Extreme aggravation because Windows Disc Cleanup compressed an old unused UN-NAMED system file, and Windows File Protection insisted it was vital and corrupt, and the system was unstable, and I had to give it a CD which it refused to name, and it refused to name the corrupt file to be replaced - and it would NOT let me tell it this P.C. came from Dixons with everything pre-installed and there is no CD.

 

n.b. Although my search found 4 duplicated Microsoft files and folders, I do not suggest their removal - I have had too many years experience of Windows going gaga of its own accord - and if a simple Windows Disc Cleanup compression goes so wrong, we have no chance of surving the consequences if we touch anything in C:\Windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First let me say that I'm more interested in why you chose to do a system restore than the possibility of CCleaner fixing the errors that the restore created.

 

So with that in mind would you be willing to answer some questions please?

 

1. Why did you do a system restore?

2. There was something about the system not coming with a cd. Was this computer a factory system or something that a local shop did for you?

3. If it's a factory type system, what's the brand name?

4. Does this system have multiple partitions?

5. How many user accounts does the machine have?

6. Are you in the habit of doing the system restore often?

 

With this information I / "we" may be able to offer better solutions to you. I will have some suggestions for your backups, especially for Firefox, for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some months ago I noticed the junk I am complaining about, and had no idea what it was or where it came from.

More recently I remembered Windows telling me something about changing file names, and I vaguely remembered the change might have involved the addition / insertion of the three characters (2) . I also thought this might have been something to do with a System Restore.

 

1) The reason for this latest System Restore was simply to test whether this was the cause of the ancient junk. I had no problem to recover from - and if I did have a problem I would restore the latest backup of a Disc image. I have now learnt to create a Disc Image before doing/allowing anything that might be dangerous - especially Patch Tuesday updates !!!

2/3) The P.C. is an Acer laptop TravelMate 244LM. Operating System pre-installed by Acer, who also supplied one "System" CD plus two "Recovery" CD's, and purchased through Dixons, a chain of large consumer electrical goods stores.

4) One Internal 30 GByte drive, two partitions, both NTFS - mostly C:\ plus a 16 MByte partition D:\

One external USB connected 300 GByte drive with 2 off NTSF plus 4 off FAT32 partitions

System Restore is always set to "Monitoring" Drive C:\ only. and always set to "Turned Off" for all the others.

 

Ohhh *?**!* I have just checked its settings, and yet again it is monitoring every wretched external partition. It does this two or three times a year - I think it is when the USB connected printer does something strange and disrupts the USB external drive connection for a while, and if the external drive reconnects it may also then have monitoring re-enabled.

 

I would greatly appreciate any advice of a registry fix or something that will prevent Windows from spuriously monitoring my external Drives. N.B. Windows Explorer lists all 8 Hard drive partitions under the heading

"Hard Disc Drives", and each is called a "Local Drive", and yet a USB connected Flash Drive is under

"Devices with Removable Storage" and called a Removable Disk.

 

5) Several accounts, my daughter and I each have a private profile, and the usual Guest and Administrator etc.

6) I almost never use System Restore in real life - only if a Patch Tuesday Update strikes before I am ready with a fresh disc image - and after a sneaky silent update last year against my express wishes, I no longer allow Windows to "Notify" (which also allowed their sneak attack), and I leave it fully disabled until I am really ready - but whether I should really trust them not to do it again is another matter.

 

My reason for posting was that I feel CCleaner could easily purge this junk - it already purges the Java 6(2).0 etc.,

and I suspect that some people may use System Restore far more than I, and they could have several Giga Bytes of Cache(xxx) etc just waiting to be purged.

 

I am now retired, but still learning, and any advice will be appreciated.

 

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alan for an answer to your system restore questions, such as the monitoring of external drives when you have disabled it (which are lets face it beyond the scope of most users) can I suggest you visit the system restore area of this forum

 

http://www.aumha.net/

 

It is peopled by experts in that field and I am positive you will get an answer to your questions there.

 

If you do post, be prepared to give info and follow any instruction given.

 

please let us know how you get on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hazelnut

 

Thank you for that link.

Before I posted a query I thought it polite to first search that forum, and I have already found what look like very successful solutions.

 

I will return later after I have implemented and evaluated, but it may be a few days because first I have to determine a sequence of USB disconnection/ reconnection / whatever that is guaranteed to always provoke Monitoring of the external drive - otherwise I will not know if a cure is successful or whether it might go wrong when I depend upon it.

 

Many thanks

Alan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...