CCleaner v4

[Winapp2.ini]

CCleaner V4.00.4064 has a duplicate file finder. Thoughts?

 

Edit: Also, general v4 discussion thread?

[pegas]

I wonder what the New System and Browser Monitoring in Pro Version does ...

[Winapp2.ini]

Perhaps something not unlike Speccy?

[Alan_B]

My first thought was that 6 days in advance of 1st April the esteemed Winapp2.ini had posted a spoof.

 

I wonder what the New System and Browser Monitoring in Pro Version does ...

"Monitoring" implies continuous real-time observation and consequently a process is always consuming resources

 

The rather late in the day "Announcement" also indicates this with

"or you can set it to monitor your entire system in the background and detect when to Clean based on disk space that can be saved!",

which suggests that the resource consuming process is an option that can be declined.

[Winapp2.ini]

Well that answers that question. Seems neato, but not particuarly useful for me.

[Nergal]

System and browser monitoring are the Often asked for sit and wait ccleaner. It'll run in the background and clean on browser close, or it will clean on a regularly scheduled (by number of hours not at a certain time) basis.

 

 

I should be testing this out, maybe if I'm able to get to it today

Edited March 26, 2013 by Nergal

[Guest Keatah]

CCleaner V4.00.4064 has a duplicate file finder. Thoughts?

 

I've been using a payware dupe finder for quite some time now. I know it inside and out. I don't think the one included in CCleaner is going to persuade me to stop and switch. For one, it doesn't do Byte-by-Byte or CRC32 comparisons. And two, I like the rich interface of what I'm already jamming with.

 

A newbie exploring CCleaner's features might go OH WOW and learn the concept of getting rid of space consuming double files. But for serious de-duplicating work you'll want a dedicated application. Anyhow, let's hope they don't go blasting everything in sight.

 

As an expert and seasoned user I tend to keep cleaning activities and duplicate-finding activities separate. While both are related to system cleaning - the organization and thought process for each is different. CCleaner's purpose is to remove junk and extraneous abandoned garbage created by programs & o/s from daily use. A duplicate finder is geared more toward maintaining a library or collection of information. 2 different targets.

 

Applications and o/s are less likely to make double and triple logs and temp files. Logs tend to have different names and contents. So do temp files and leftover install files. CCleaner's primary activity is to catch those anyways.

 

But (you yourself) are likely to make dupes by organizing a photo & music library, especially through copy/paste instead of move operations. Or how about by downloading something you already have.. to multiple locations? And it is here, right here, that de-duping will make a huge difference. I've trimmed down my FTP mirrors and classic gaming collection by 45% or more! And when working in this arena you want a full-featured program that allows you to drill down and pick things with tweezers. Contrary to me liking simple things and interfaces, a dupe finder can never be too customizable.

 

Finally, for the dupe finder in CCleaner to be as effective as its stand-alone cousins it will need further development. Having said all that what does everyone else think on the matter?

 

 

 

@Nergal - Isn't that amusing? Check the Enable Monitor Browser Monitoring box, and yet have an option Do not monitor browser.. What happens if you do them both same time?

[pegas]

Thanks for the clarification. It convinced me that I can live without Pro version.

[peteyt]

Is it safe to remove most duplicate files, zero byte files etc?

[Alan_B]

Some may be safe to remove.

Some are NOT.

 

If you have to ask then you really should not

[login123]

+1 for Alan's comment. If you aren't sure what the file is leave it alone.

 

CCleaner v4 duplicate file finder finds some files on mine that are not duplicates.

I had only these boxes checked: Match by Name, Size, Date. Also Ignore read only files.

 

For example, two files named INFCACHE.1 are found.

#1 is at this location: C:\hp\drivers\modem_Agere_Sequoia_Redwood

#2 is at this location: C:\hp\drivers\processor_AMD

 

Nirsoft's Hasher shows different hashes for them. PEEK shows different text content for them. They are different.

What they have in common is name, file size, and creation date.

 

There are several examples like this, same name, different file paths and characteristics.

There are all types: .CAB, .bin, .exe, .msi, etc.

Seems like some should be left alone, even though they show up as dups.

 

Unless I am missing something here. ??

[Winapp2.ini]

What happens if you do them both same time?

 

this

[Youngbear]

Hello:

 

I just downloaded and successfully used CCleaner v4. I have a question about a new item, "Find Files." I used this function and it found about 16 sets of what are supposed to be duplicate files; however, while these files are created on the same date and at the exact same time, one of the files may end in "fail" or "/f" while the other ends in "/e"- IE there may be one letter different between the two files in the pair. How do I know which file is safe to delete or if any of the files are safe to delete?

 

Thank you,

Youngbear

[Winapp2.ini]

If you don't know whether it's safe to delete, it's probably a good idea to just leave it

[Youngbear]

Thank you Winnapp2. Sounds like good advice - I shall follow it!

 

Youngbear

[login123]

Everybody has suggested that if you don't know what an entry is, leave it alone. Good advice.

But, totally lost on many folks I know. . .most don't know what any of that stuff is. They might just run it as is.

 

So I'll just ask it straight out: What would happen if I deleted all the duplicates like the example in post #11 above?

That is just an example, remember. The entire list is a text file 486 kb in size. Big'un, it is

I can't find out for sure without a restart, that 's not an option at this time.

 

Edit: more in a minute. . . .

OK, just used "Select All" to delete the apparent dups. No exclusions checked.

Signing off, back in a minute.

[Winapp2.ini]

And he was never heard from again

[login123]

And he was never heard from again

No such luck, I've escaped.

Ran the dup file finder as described above, 3 iterations. CCleaner 4, free version, Win xp home up to date. However, did not restart the computer.

The few softwares I tried still work.

3 or 4 icons are gone from the desktop.

The number of files named Desktop.ini dropped from 96 to 50. Didn't check for other types.

This file is gone: INFCACHE.1 in C:\hp\drivers\modem_Agere_Sequoia_Redwood

This one is still there: INFCACHE.1 in C:\hp\drivers\processor_AMD

 

So apparently no harm done. I have enormous faith in the Piriform team, but it just worries me that some files are called dups but are actually not.

[Andavari]

it just worries me that some files are called dups but are actually not.

 

Hence the reason for them to incorporate secure checksum/hash checking to determine if something is a duplicate or not, otherwise it's completely pointless to go merely by filename(s) alone. I do realize adding in secure checksum/hash checking could possibly make the File Finder agonizingly slow, but it's the safest approach to know with absolute certainty if dealing with real duplicates or not.

[Alan_B]

File finder has found 19 pairs of duplicates on C:\.

15 pairs are very important to Comodo Internet Security suite and hopefully that is self-protecting.

 

4 pairs are very important to actually booting up Windows 7 :-

1 pair is Boot.sdi

3 pairs are C:\boot\...\boot\fonts

 

It would take me about 5 minutes to come back after zapping the duplicates found on C:\,

I love the speed of a partition image restore on an SSD after a moment of folly

 

Look out for my bug report in the bug forum - it will take a while

 

EDIT

Change of plan - test results in post #7 of

http://forum.piriform.com/index.php?showtopic=38264

Edited March 29, 2013 by Alan_B

[Alan_B]

I do realize adding in secure checksum/hash checking could possibly make the File Finder agonizingly slow, but it's the safest approach to know with absolute certainty if dealing with real duplicates or not.

It would be a terrible delay if every file was processed in one pass.

It would be a negligible delay if the first pass omitted hash checking, and only performed hash checksums on files that have otherwise been matched.