The dreaded 'temp files IE5' problem

[buckyboots]

I wish to enter into a conversation regarding the problem of files in the "low content temporary internet files IE5" folder. I run scans with AVG and MSE software on my HP laptop. The AVG scan would take over a day, and the MSE scan wasn't much better. They both bogged down in the folder mentioned above. I constantly clear out the browser temporary folder and the browser is set to self-clean at closing. Yet, I ran CCleaner on my machine and I would like to share the results. There were 44,175 MB removed, including 44,636,450 KB (2.5 million files) in that temp folder. Now, my question is this: What does CCleaner do differently to locate and eliminate these files? No other process worked. My computer runs like a new machine now. The anti-virus scans take less than an hour. I am mystified -- and happy. I asked Piriform this question, and they suggested using the Forum.

[Nergal]

0_o ie5 is too old, broken, unsupported to be of use, I'm not even sure how you were not forced to ie6 (which is also old and broken and unsupported)

 

Second you should never runn two antivirus programs it WILL cause you issues.

 

I'm not even sure ie5 had a "low content" folder

 

What OS are you running (xp? 98? 95?) what version of ccleaner are you running (don't just say the latest that means nothing tell us the version as it is written at the top of ccleaner)

[buckyboots]

Hi. My browser is Google Chrome. I use Windows 7 64-bit. The CCleaner is v3.18.1707. I don't "use" IE5; it is a temporary-files folder on Windows operating systems. Why, I don't know. It is actively discussed on Google.

[Andavari]

The folders still go under the "IE5" moniker where the files are actually stored - probably a case of if it isn't broke why fix it:

* Content.IE5 (for Internet Explorer Temporary Internet Files)

* History.IE5 (For Internet Explorer History)

[buckyboots]

Thanks, Captain Spectacular. I figured as much. But can no one tell me why these files have avoided detection and cleansing -- that is, until CCleaner came along. ...

[Nergal]

wowzer I never noticed that. LOL

 

I apologize for misunderstanding

[Andavari]

But can no one tell me why these files have avoided detection and cleansing -- that is, until CCleaner came along. ...

 

I don't know if this reply is on the right track or not, however it's something I remember from umpteen years ago back in my dreaded Win98 days was if/when IE locked up/froze/crashed (could be caused by adware/spyware/toolbar/poorly and buggy crafted sites) it could have a death grip on the Temporary Internet Files as in the contents being undeleteable by IE's own built-in tool rather it was ran manually or automatically set to clean when exiting.

 

In the Win98 era I'd just nuke the IE left-overs with a batch file in DOS mode.

[Super Fast]

Andavari is right. If I remember correctly, ALL versions of IE still use the content.IE5 folder.

_____

 

As to WHY it found & located junk you did not, the reason is hidden folders. U may not see them initially, but IE will create a sub folder every so often, that drops below the main folder. After it collects a certain level of junk, it creates another folder & starts again. MS's attempt to "keep it fast" by keeping it from getting too full.

 

If you need to see these folders (& still cannot, even after enabling hidden & system files view), then you should be able to see them by copying the content.IE5 folder to another location on your drive. Your desktop, for instance. Then, try to view the files, & they should show the hidden folders. For whatever reason, it does NOT always show all the files & folders UNTIL you copy the folder to another location.

 

Windows 7 is more secretive in this manner, than Windows XP. What you are seeing, is probably the main IE content folder, with the sub folders being hidden. CCleaner runs a command & is thus able to see what we are not able to normally see because of it being "super hidden". Especially if your running Windows 7, as in Windows XP, it lets you see these extra folders after enabling hidden files & folders view. Windows 7 forces you to copy it to another location to see them all.

_____

 

As to IE 5 or 6, they are not really broken. They work fully as well as IE 6, 7, & 8. IE 9 was perhaps the 1st truly stable version of IE that is modern & has tabs. If you used IE 7 or 8 on webpages & opened more than a few tabs (5 to 20 something), it would crash, then hang on tab recovery. Stability wise, IE 5 & 6 would work great, even though they had no tabs. But some websites stopped supporting them so much because of drive by malware using active-X controls, as well as other security problems.

 

The active-X controls are still there in recent IE versions, but they claim it is safer because of whitelisting.

 

Stability wise, under XP, you could open a total of 64 windows. This included Windows & Internet Explorer windows, before no more can be opened. No problems. This was under 32 Bit, but I assume 64 Bit has similar limitations.

 

IE 5 & 6 in my testing, was far more stable most of the time, than IE 7 or 8. But IE 9 is very stable as well, & a lot faster than most of their older cousins. The problem I have with IE 9, is not just active-X, but the fact that some websites like Facebook have trouble if you have a lot of friends or comments. It has trouble loading & displaying the page elements properly.

 

Firefox, Chrome, & Opera seem to load most of these pages fine. Opera has a few websites, however, that it refuses to load. And Chromes bookmarking is a bit lackadaisical, if you ask me. So far, firefox seems to do the overall best job.

 

If IE 9 would work properly with more websites, I would perhaps use it more. That, and if they killed off Active-X bits so that drive-by malware won't install automatically on your computer.

_____

 

IE 5 & 6 were not that bad, stability wise, they just didn't have that much going for them in the way of tabbed browsing, or leaving active-X turned on by default.

 

IE 7 & 8 are ok, if your using only a tab or two at the time, or perhaps 8 may be ok if you using Windows 7, because it does seem a tad more stable under 7 than it does under XP.

 

But there is always a slight page load delay in the older versions of IE compared to the newer versions of IE, Firefox, Chrome, & Opera. Sure, it is only a moment or two, but if you peruse 500 to a thousand tabs of websites at the time, then that is like 1,000 + seconds waiting time.

 

If you use 1,000 tabs a week, times 52 weeks, that's 52,000 seconds of wait. That's 866.67 minutes, or 14.4 hours, or over half a day being wasted on waiting. 60% of a day.

 

And I haven't got time to wait!

[buckyboots]

Thanks.