What do you want in CCleaner 3.0

[Aethec]

Yes, indeed. Removing Gutmann would be nice. With, of course, a small explanation in the changelog.

[mr don]

I don't think a lot of people would be hurt by dropping XP support.

Using a 9-years-old OS and complaining about not having modern software is quite ridiculous.

 

 

Aethec, lol!

 

Windows 7 is better than Vista. But that isn't saying much. I have thousands of programs I test. XP does the best job of compatibility, NOT Windows 7.

 

For example: There is a game called Fire Fight by Epic Mega Games that runs fine in XP. When you try it under Vista, OR Windows 7, it will not work. Not even under compatibility mode for XP SP2 or the other options such as Windows 2000, Windows 98/ME etc. There are lots of other programs that are the same way.

 

Additionally, XP search is a lot better than Windows 7. Windows 7 is a lot harder to search through files on your flash drives or external drives than XP. Sure, it may be possible if you go through countless clicks, but why? Windows 7 is pretty garbage compared to XP. Plus, I have a 3,200 MHZ dual core with 2 GB ram & 7,200 rpm harddisk. Runs XP great! Windows 7 lags behind XP in many things it does, which is well documented on websites. Let us just call 7 the dinosaur of the 3 OSes.

 

Security? What? Having a "prompt" before installing does nothing to stop malware on computers. All that happens now, is when you grant a program admin, the malware bundled with it gets admin rights too if it is part of the same program! Yippee! So, back to square 1? I have seen malware on XP, Vista, & 7. 95% or more can be killed by not surfing with Internet Explorer because it has the Active X vulnerability that even if you update IE, it still can happen you surf to a website that can automatically download & install malware. This does not happen on Firefox.

 

Speaking of which, Firefox had a problem with Vista at first. Vista was built around Trusted Computing & Digital Rights Management. Great! You buy, they control! Just what you want/need? Don't believe it? Google it sometime. There are reams of documentation on the fact.

 

I had a friend who "updated" to windows 7, but even with the latest Sound Blaster X-Fi + Windows 7 drivers for it, it sounded kinda brittle & un-crisp because of the way Windows 7 automatically volume levels everything & kills the tone. XP does not have this problem.

 

Additionally, with SP2 of XP, the firewall is decent, & AVG is a decent Antivirus. XP SP3 is buggy & drops wireless internet connections among other well documented failures including causing certain AMD machines to bluescreen if you don't include a certain file to support AMD on certain configurations such as HP OEM machines. SP3 does, however, have the 10% overall speed boost.

 

What does Windows 7 do that XP can't? DX 10? DX 11? Just extract those files to the right area on windows & you have DX 10 or 11 for XP (Yes it works!).

I like the Media Player 11 skin much better in XP than the 11 in Vista or the 12 in 7. So I downloaded a skin & the nice thing is, it will update the media player on windows 98 to look like XP WMP 11, or also Vista & 7 to look like it too.

 

Sure, XP isn't normally as "pretty" as 7, but download the Royal visual style & it works in XP because it is released by MS so doesn't need patching or other tricky manuevers. It really doesn't matter where you run it from, but the C:\Windows\Resources\Themes folder allows it to be detected by the right click on desktop/properties/appearance tab. I love the way that one looks, although they have a lot of 3rd party themes that make it look better as well.

 

Windows 7 doesn't do a good job of finding all the files you need to cross reference in their combined search launcher, while their launcher fails to launch some files unless you go to run to do it. XP finds them, but Locate32 is waaaay faster & has Win 98 style, find files containing text option that really helps to find what file was saved with your name in it, or other info!

 

Bottom line is:

 

Is Windows 7 faster than XP? No. In most cases, it goes slower. It may look overall better, but it is still slower to do the same tasks.

Does Windows 7 offer any compelling reason to upgrade? No, it does look good, but looking good & being easier to use are 2 different things.

Windows 7 & Vista also often tell you a program has stopped responding, then try to kill it because a program was "a little slower loading".

 

In XP, this does not happen!

 

Does Windows 7 have better support for programs? XP works better, even it's compatibility mode (while not perfect) is still better than Windows 7 is!

The run in Vista mode is a joke, because Windows 7 is so close to Vista, it isn't even hard to see how they could pull off running something for Vista in 7!

 

To put it plainly, Windows 7 is the dinosaur, not XP.

 

There are hundreds more reasons why XP is better, but I am keeping this short up here. What I have learned though, is:

 

You like Windows 7, which is:

 

- Slower than XP in most things

- Looks better, although I have visual styles to make it look, in my opinion, as good or better than 7

- Costs more

- Loaded with DRM + TCP elements

- Does a worse job handling the timing of programs (the kill period is too fast)

- Is definitely not as compatible with the programs out there (problems running/loading/using that XP doesn't have)

- Comes with sidebar (Google Sidebar from the looks of it, which also works in XP)

- Comes with notes (Which Hott Notes & other notes like Pin Notes work in XP as well...)

- Uses more disk space (Why? What is 7 doing that XP is not?)

- Have noted that no matter what version of windows (XP, Vista, 7) users can still have bluescreens & Vista & 7 are a laugh to restore the system in some cases!

- XP can boot to a screen to fix boot or MBR, or even do other things, but forget it on Vista or 7. Dumbed down user interface with of course, options that do not always work. The memory checker is nice. Great! But you can use Memtest for XP.

 

Some say that they use 7 because it supports more memory. WRONG! It is not the operating system that supports more memory. It is whether they are 32 or 64 bits!

XP, Vista, 7 all suffer from being unable to address more than 3.5 GB mem in a 32 bit OS. Move to 64 bit, & you can handle much more. Sure, 7 can show all the mem in it's 32 bit mode, but it just can't address it all!

 

Vista & 7 have 64 bit systems. Haha! Time to kill the dinosaur XP! Ok, not so fast! They also make 64 bit versions of XP!

 

See what I mean? There seems to be nothing that Windows 7 truly can do that XP cannot do faster, better, leaner! 'Scratches head... Nope! Can't think of anything 7 does better!'

 

Oh, I did think of something! IP 4 addresses may be running out, so it is time to use IP6! Good reason to upgrade!

Wait, XP includes that too! Right in your networking components, haha! Just install it & seconds later, good to go!

[mr don]

I'm sure Version 3 is around the corner sometime, so what do you long-time users want in the new version?

 

I want an interface overhaul.

 

Having Internet Explorer grouped under windows, then Firefox under applications sounds confusing.

Wouldn't it be less confusing to group all internet browsers together? I think it would be better to have 3 tabs.

 

- Applications (3rd party installations added to windows)

- Internet (Apple Safari, Google Chrome, Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox, Opera, etc...)

- Windows (Start menu history, temp folders, prefetch, etc...)

 

I always did think it would make more sense to group by content type like this, instead of just throwing IE with Windows & Firefox with Applications...

 

>

 

I want the ability to kill all startup tasks...

 

- BHO

- Tasks Folder

- Startup

 

Google services has started to create startup tasks on launch that can't be killed through normal startup items. So has MS & other people. So annoying!

[Aethec]

I want the ability to kill all startup tasks...

 

- BHO

- Tasks Folder

- Startup

 

Google services has started to create startup tasks on launch that can't be killed through normal startup items. So has MS & other people. So annoying!

 

Try SysInternals AutoRuns. You can see everything. However, since you can see everything, you can mess up your PC...be careful.

 

P.S.: I don't know if your extremely long post is a troll, but...1) that's not the subject and 2) you're one of those XP SP2 diehards. Please, keep XP and let the rest of the world be happy with Win7.

[Ishi]

Mr. Don, I don't think we are here to discuss Windows XP vs. Windows 7. It may be the case for you and your hardware and software but not necessarily the case for me and many others. Windows XP is ages behind data backup though in terms of default things and I don't seem to be having too many problems with Windows 7 that I want to complain about in terms of usage.

 

Back on the topic, I tend to agree that they make WFS a tool.

 

Its just gets better and better if it supports more and more apps to clean. But yeah, I wish it would have the ability to remove unless files and folders in the AppData and ProgramData directories simply because its easy for such programs to leave remnants in there after removal.

[mr don]

Try SysInternals AutoRuns. You can see everything. However, since you can see everything, you can mess up your PC...be careful.

 

Yeah... I already knew about that program. In fact, Nir Sofer makes Startup Run as well as What's in Startup that shows BHO + Startup, but, not tasks.

 

I already knew about autoruns, but hey, they asked what we wanted... So I replied! Heh!

 

Can it hurt to want?

 

[Aethec]

Try SysInternals AutoRuns. You can see everything. However, since you can see everything, you can mess up your PC...be careful.

 

Yeah... I already knew about that program. In fact, Nir Sofer makes Startup Run as well as What's in Startup that shows BHO + Startup, but, not tasks.

 

I already knew about autoruns, but hey, they asked what we wanted... So I replied! Heh!

 

Can it hurt to want?

 

Most users wouldn't know what most of the startup items are, and a lot of them would blindly disable everything without thinking (just see what happens with the Registry cleaner)

[mr don]

ame='mr don' date='31 August 2010 - 05:41 AM' timestamp='1283226111' post='176613']

 

Most users wouldn't know what most of the startup items are, and a lot of them would blindly disable everything without thinking (just see what happens with the Registry cleaner)

 

Yes. I agree. Sometimes I wonder if making the registry cleaner a separate program might be a better idea, because of the dangers of removing file types no longer used that are "no longer in use" by an application simply because a program stole exclusivity to run that extension, then never gave it back on uninstall leaving that extension with nothing associated to run it with.

 

Of course, I could go on about users who checkmarked everything under CCleaner & removed hundreds of website auto form fill info's... Couldn't remember their login info, & kerplunk! There went there access to that site!

 

I was thinking it could be added with a warning in CCleaner, enable an "advanced mode" for advanced users warning that improper use can cause a PC to not boot. Be careful.

 

After all, it can't be any more dangerous than the systems the registry cleaner has on occasion killed off, can it?

[luik]

-If I say "Drop XP Support, and create an Aero-based GUI", will you guys kill me ?

I have never seen such tech stupidity in my life... You don't need to drop XP support to develop an Aero-based GUI. O.o

[Aethec]

I have never seen such tech stupidity in my life... You don't need to drop XP support to develop an Aero-based GUI. O.o

 

A lot of methods availaible to create nice-looking Aero-based GUIs require to have a fallback for NT 5.2 and older. And developping two separates GUIs means confusion from users using different versions of Windows, more lines of codes to maintain, more possible bug causes (especially in C++ ), et al.

[Andavari]

Yes, indeed. Removing Gutmann would be nice. With, of course, a small explanation in the changelog.

 

I vote for this:

Gutmann ist kaput.

[Icedrake]

Why is it that so many people manage to argue over Windows XP and Windows 7 in any topic? If someone uses Windows XP deal with it. If someone uses Windows 7, then also deal with it. It's everyone's personal choice what they want to do, and arguing won't change anything.

[ishan_rulz]

Both of them are good, its like comparing an old car model (which was the best at its time, and still runs pretty well) with a new one (looks good, minor and major tweaks to the looks, features and performance)

 

So, if you're satisfied with the old faithful why go for a shiny new one?

 

As for OS support: The company still has to make spare parts for both car models till the old model is reeeeally old, no?

[Aethec]

Why is it that so many people manage to argue over Windows XP and Windows 7 in any topic? If someone uses Windows XP deal with it. If someone uses Windows 7, then also deal with it. It's everyone's personal choice what they want to do, and arguing won't change anything.

 

Yes, but software devs shouldn't have to worry about a 9-years-old OS

[luik]

A lot of methods availaible to create nice-looking Aero-based GUIs require to have a fallback for NT 5.2 and older. And developing two separates GUIs means confusion from users using different versions of Windows, more lines of codes to maintain, more possible bug causes (especially in C++ ), et al.

Tha's not true.

 

software devs shouldn't have to worry about a 9-years-old OS

Not if the given OS still the most used worldwide.

[Aethec]

That's not true.

That is. Unless you have a list of methods giving good results in Vista/7 and acceptable ones in NT 5.2- in mind ?

 

Not if the given OS still the most used worldwide.

This...depends from one thing. Money. If Piriform already earned enough money from CCleaner, they can drop XP. If they need money...they need as much users as possible.

[Nergal]

Yes, but I doubt Piriform want to maintain two different builds of CCleaner with two different GUIs.

I think they should fix all the little known bugs in v2, and then drop XP support for v3 while keeping the v2 download link for XP users.

I'm going to be a nanny goat and say neigh to the xp drop. One cool thing about CCleaner is it still works 98-win7. Remember that in some countries there are people still using win98 and even more where XP is the norm, and many, including myself,run virutal-machine of these OS; speaking of which XP support should not go, so as to beable to run it on Windows Seven's XP mode. One thing about ccleaner is that it's able to run, with no dependencies (like .NET) which keeps it usable for everyone.

 

I think that the x64 support should follow the way Recuva and Defraggler support x64 seperate GUIs but distributed together (at least for the portable version) to allow sharing of win*2.ini files

 

I agree Gutman should be gone, it causes too many issues of "I can still recover" and "it took soooo long"

 

and of course everyone knows my feeling on this but it goes without says WFS either gone or tools. Also I kinda like the third tab for browsers as is being discussed elsewhere

[ishan_rulz]

I'm going to be a nanny goat and say neigh to the xp drop. One cool thing about CCleaner is it still works 98-win7. Remember that in some countries there are people still using win98 and even more where XP is the norm, and many, including myself,run virutal-machine of these OS; speaking of which XP support should not go, so as to beable to run it on Windows Seven's XP mode. One thing about ccleaner is that it's able to run, with no dependencies (like .NET) which keeps it usable for everyone.

 

I think that the x64 support should follow the way Recuva and Defraggler support x64 seperate GUIs but distributed together (at least for the portable version) to allow sharing of win*2.ini files

 

Why didn't that cross my mind before?

 

Nowadays most of the 64-bit is Vista or Seven (except for a few 64-bit XPs). The 64-bit should be made AERO!

[ishan_rulz]

We should have a CCleaner v3 mock-ups competition! The person who comes up with the best GUI, obviously wins.

[luik]

Stop saying Piriform would drop XP (it doesn't need to do this to develop a new interface look at Mozilla Firefox 4 and Opera 10.5!) or that CC needs a new interface and icon. And we are just far from 3.0 (I can't think on anything to make CC better unless adding new features, software cleaned and solving bugs).

[Aethec]

Stop saying Piriform would drop XP (it doesn't need to do this to develop a new interface look at Mozilla Firefox 4 and Opera 10.5!) or that CC needs a new interface and icon. And we are just far from 3.0 (I can't think on anything to make CC better unless adding new features, software cleaned and solving bugs).

 

MrG said somewhere that CCleaner 3.0 and x64 builds would come in some time...

[luik]

MrG said somewhere that CCleaner 3.0 and x64 builds would come in some time...

Hm, that's nice then.

What do you think is going to be new on CC 3.0 (besides an clueless new icon and Aero UI )?

[ishan_rulz]

That's what the whole discussion is about, Luik.

[luik]

That's what the whole discussion is about, Luik.

Not exactly...

The discussion is about "What do you want in CCleaner 3.0?" and not about "What do you think CCleaner 3.0 will feature?".

[MikeW]

This post seems to have lost its original point, and turned into yet another silly exchange of words