Changes in v5.45 and your feedback

[lmacri]

13 hours ago, mta said:

what I have done in the past is download whatever build you are after and using 7-Zip, just extract the ccleaner and ccleaner64 executables and copy those into your folder you already use for the current Portable build.

Hi mta:

I downloaded the "standard" ccsetup535.exe installer for CCleaner v5.35.6210 (rel. 20-Sep-2017) from FileHippo at https://filehippo.com/download_ccleaner/78119/.  If  I go to File | Open Archive with my 32-bit WinRAR v5.60 and choose All archives including self-extracting as the file type I get the following "The archive is either in unknown format or damaged" error when I try to extract ccsetup535.exe, and I can't see any simple simple way (e.g., using right-click menus or wizards) to unpack the .exe executable with WinRAR.  I thought I found a possible workaround (i.e., go to Options | Settings | Security | Prohibited File Types, enable the File types to exclude from extracting check box and delete *.exe from the list of prohibited file types) but that didn't help.

I don't know if unpacking ccsetup535.exe is a straightforward process with 32-bit 7-Zip v18.05 but at this point I think I'd rather ditch CCleaner altogether and move on to another disk cleaning utility if this means I have to install another file archiver like 7-Zip to roll back CCleaner Portable to an earlier version.  I was hoping Avast/Piriform would have a FTP site where users could download .zip files for older CCleaner Portable versions but that doesn't seem to be the case.
-----------
32-bit Vista Home Premium SP2 * Firefox ESR v52.9.0 * Norton Security Premium v22.14.2.13 *  Wise Disk Cleaner Portable v9.7.6

[Willy2]

- I don't mind that CC wants to collect information on what I have done with the CC program and am actually willing to share quite a lot of information as long as it's done anonymously.

- Things like the files and folders that have been selected and perhaps cleaned, content of "Task Scheduler', startup options, installed programs, operating system specifics, content of CC related files (to name a few things).

- Of course, when the user has enabled the "Monitoring" feature then it's much easier for CC to collect this kind of data/info.

- The reason I don't like the "Monitoring" feature is that I find it (a bit) too "sneaky". I am sure CC won't do anything "bad", has no bad or even criminal intentions. But I fear that then I will put the program to work too soon and without too much thought. Then I fear that the program simply cleans too much and things I don't want to be cleaned (yet). The thought of someone/something "snooping around" simply scares me a bit too much. I simply want to have a certain amount of control over the program and the monitoring feature surely undermines the notion of having that amount of control.

[mta]

@lmacri,

no, you have to use 7-Zip, probably others will work, but I know 7-Zip does.
it lets you open .EXE files and extract those two executable CC files as mentioned.

get 7-Zip from here; https://www.7-zip.org/

[bornconfuzd]

I joined this forum just now so that I could comment on the latest iteration of Ccleaner.

What, Ccleaner/Avast thought we wouldn't notice that you had left the checkbox for turning off monitoring but turned it right back at next boot?

What a sneaky, underhanded dirty sleazoid thing to do to a piece of software that some of us have used and trusted almost since its inception?

I've taken this piece of scamware crap off all my computers.  Oh, and the dozen people I maintain computers for?  It's off theirs too.

I can guarantee you that once off, it stays off.

No Ccleaner/Avast software will ever be used on one of my machines again because I will never be able to trust you again.

This was an inexcusable and disgusting thing to do.

Have a nice life.

 

[johnbot]

This was an inexcusable and disgusting thing to do.  I am going to revert to 5.44 and give them one more version to fix this.  Otherwise I will delete ALL Piriform software and not be back.

[eionmac]

After many years of use and teaching elderly folk to use CCleaner, since update with this awful reporting and non removal of monitor I have spent the last week removing CCleaner from these folks' computers (as well as from all my own Windows machines). Trust is totally lost. For those of little IT competence where both CCleaner and Defragler was useful as part of teaching how to use Windows computers, after I had set them up to be private by removing Windows 10 telemetry. CCleaner took the wrong path. Regrettably I may wait to see developments before I advise my seniors about the next step, if ever, in reinstalling CCleaner.  I have to thank CCleaner/Piriform for all their good work in past where I could use the free version for poor folk who could use computers (mostly second hand), but reputation and trust are very fragile commodities. Years to build up and minutes or single wrong actions to lose.Regards Eion Mac

[titanium]

Most people seem to be much more forgiving and trusting than I am. Or perhaps less risk-averse.

I've used several Piriform products for years, and paid for CCleaner Professional a couple years ago, but I'm done. I did not realize until very recently that new settings had been added that have been compromising my privacy behind my back. All I did was run the updater; no notice was given.

When you also consider the CCleaner update malware compromise from awhile back, you hopefully realize that this software should not be used. Excuses and promises don't cut it.

I will never use another Avast/AVG/Piriform product again. Other users should understand that all these negative things that have happened are a reflection of the priorities of upper management. Security and privacy are obviously not concerns. Pretending that this will truly change now is foolhardy.

[Funghie]

Can't believe there is no update on this. Other than offering the old installer. I too, like others here have often recommended C Cleaner, I paid for it and have recommended others do too. Plus written articles to promote it. So disappointed right now.

[Hawkman]

To late. I've been using CCleaner since like version 1.23 but with this latest nonsense you've lost my trust. I keep turning off active monitoring and it keeps coming back on again and again and AGAIN. No more. You big software companies will learn the hard way that once you start invading our privacy you lose customers. I'm gone. RESPECT YOUR CUSTOMERS PRIVACY.

[cliftonprince]

I do not wish to beat a dead horse. But, at the present moment, as CCleaner 5.45 is still "pulled", as 5.44 is still retroactively distributed without comment, as (presumed number) 5.46 has not appeared on the horizon, as the company has not addressed one of the major and central themes in this situation (pro-active breach of trust without warning or excuse), as standard distribution channels remain un-informed of the problem except in terms of silent version-number regress, as the company has left it up to independent outlets (such as journalists and community-forum participants) to communicate the problem to the company's own customers and patrons, as the company proceeds as though this is merely the cost of doing business, and as a growing number of new people post on these forums subsequent to the initiation of discussion threads, I therefore consider the horse to be quite alive and kicking. I beat it more:

In my first post on the subject, I spoke as though this change were an unintended mistake which could be promptly remedied. Responses from the organization's representatives hint, to the contrary, that the change was implemented rather with full awareness of the technical consequences and also suggest (now, by implication) that it will take some time to unchange. The only consequences they seem to have failed to predict, were the opinions of users such as ourselves. And they have not yet demonstrated (to my personal satisfaction, at least) that they in any way regret having misled us to such a degree of our grave disappointment (whether or not that disappointment is reasonable; in re: the above suggestions that this is a case of ((implied, unreasonable)) "Fear Uncertainty and Doubt", as stated in this thread, with which I mildly disagree). Perhaps the company's successful retainer of so many otherwise unaware and oblivious customers (meaning, the number of users who are NOT on this forum complaining) leads them to a different conclusion than my own, about proper response to a breach of trust.

As for the technical solution, I am guessing (now) that it's an architecture-type issue (perhaps based on the structural and conceptual underpinnings of the entire program's functions), rather than merely a settings issue (one for which a few additions to the user-interface could alleviate the problem). If it were merely about settings, and not about company policy and longer-term planning, then (I suspect) the fix would have been available for download by now, around two weeks later. Tweaking the user-interface to alter access to settings that are intended to be user-alter-able and that had been user-accessible in the past, is a task which should take about forty-five minutes, according to a software-engineering project manager of my acquaintance. We're going on two weeks and it's been a major kerfuffle, so I'm guessing there's something more to fixing it, than merely tweaking user access to a few old settings.

On 8/7/2018 at 15:32, Tex2018 said:

Having read this entire thread, beyond the obvious breach of trust issue, there is something that really bothers me.  It is that Piriform thought that it was OK to do this by omission of notice thereby not notifying the customer. 

Sad but true. I entirely agree with the above sentiment. If it is merely market-response (as in, number of SALES of product packages) that drives their decision-making in the matter, then it is already a grave concern. One does not breach trust merely in hopes it will not be noticed, or in hopes it will not overly negatively affect bottom-line consequences; that kind of choice belies the whole point of trust in the first place. One should address trust without any eye at all to market consequences; or else it is not, by definition, a question of trust; rather, it's merely a market question.

Maybe this post has been excessive. I'm sorry if it is, though I hope I have been polite about it, for I raise points which I believe do bear raising. The circular epistemology of this situation -- a privacy organization breached my privacy more than would have any breach which they might have secured my privacy against -- leads me to believe that the FUD is justified, personally. Are they in league with ... whom? Sending my data to ... where? For ... what purposes? I now follow the developments more out of curiosity than out of any personal interest. I'm using CCleaner 5.32 (the last before Avast bought Piriform, I think?) and intend to migrate to a competitor permanently.

 

[mta]

3 hours ago, cliftonprince said:

...I spoke as though this change were an unintended mistake which could be promptly remedied. Responses from the organization's representatives hint, to the contrary, that the change was implemented rather with full awareness...

 

sadly there has been no response from any 'organisation representative' that I have seen except for that one by @Stephen Piriform where he discussed the mistake and the intent to undo it.

and the company's lack of such communication is simply fanning the flames.
the vacuum is being filled regardless, by everyone else, except the one's in authority.

[nukecad]

Hi mta,

Is that avatar colour change the equivalent of a black armband?

I have noticed that Piriform staff are appearing in 'whos online' in a lot more than previously, 2 of them especially, but they're not posting anything on the forum.
Maybe they are just monitoring the complaints? (or PM'ing members instead?)

[mta]

2 hours ago, nukecad said:

Is that avatar colour change the equivalent of a black armband?

if it is, it was completely unintentional.
maybe my subconscious knows more than she lets on.
but now you mention it - I like that idea and will stick to it, my 40 days of mourning for what was, and will never be again.

as to staff in the Who's Online status, yeah, I don't think they have increased any activity on that front.
I usually see the odd one lurking around.
if they bothered enough to log in and browse, why not spend the few extra seconds and; post an update, say Hi, give us a status report, tell us what's coming down the pipeline, post some feel-good news - ANYTHING, but no, let's stay mouth shout and let the crazy members prattle on with their trivial chatter.

[Tex2018]

Just to add a few more thoughts on this mess.  Having been in business for ~43yrs, I've seen a lot of situations that companies, employees and customers can get themselves into.  Quite often, people will get into a self-imposed catch-22 of not being forthright instead of just owning what they did and telling the truth.  That is what I believe is happening in this situation and why the customer base is not hearing what they expect (the truth).  Losing trust with your customers is a going-out-of-business strategy and getting to that point is equally bad. 

The problem (for me) is that regardless of what Stephen Piriform says, the customer has no assurance that lip-service isn't afoot.  What assurance would the customer have that harvesting customer data wouldn't continue in just another form?   Think Google and the fact that they are still tracking you on your phone even after the user thinks they have disabled it.  Companies that practice this kind of behavior are likely to continue it in whatever new manner they can invent because of greed.  It is a sad commentary on how invasive software has become upon a society that trusts too much and thinks "social media" is the answer to all things.

If Piriform can't at least recognize their deed, and specifically, publicly speak to what they have done, why would anyone trust them regardless of what they do with the next (or future) versions?  It bothers me that the only way that I discovered what was happening with v5.45 was that I got curious and did a web-search.  I'd noticed that they removed the ability to stop the application from the taskbar icon.  That immediately caused me to question "why would they do that"?  A web-search led me to discovering the rest of what they had done.  Think of all the customers out there that upgraded to v5.45 and still have no idea what has been done.  Did any of us get a message from Piriform that we may want to consider reverting to a previous version?  Therein lies another part of the misdeed...not telling the rest of the customers even after you have been caught.  It is an old aberrant behavior that repeats itself in many ways across history and is very much alive today.

Also, the hunt for a replacement product isn't exactly a clean result and it bothers me that Piriform customers have been now forced to consider that move.  So many products of this type are free and from entities where you have no idea as to their trustworthiness.  A person could be jumping from one fire into another so to speak.

[mta]

16 hours ago, Tex2018 said:

Also, the hunt for a replacement product isn't exactly a clean result and it bothers me that Piriform customers have been now forced to consider that move.  So many products of this type are free and from entities where you have no idea as to their trustworthiness.  A person could be jumping from one fire into another so to speak.

luckily the inbuilt MS cleanmgr program, which has gotten better with Windows 10, does just as good a job cleaning Windows as CC did.

[Tex2018]

14 hours ago, mta said:

luckily the inbuilt MS cleanmgr program, which has gotten better with Windows 10, does just as good a job cleaning Windows as CC did.

Yes, that is what I've been using since this whole thing with v5.45 surfaced.  I'd hesitated to say so because I thought it might be seen (by a Mod) as promoting another product.  Typically, I'm not a fan of the free utilities that Microsoft bundles with the OS, but in this case it is actually useful. 

[squibbon]

Before version 5.45, I always had four Piriform  products on my system - CCleaner, Defraggler, Recuva and Speccy.  As of today, only Speccy remains - and I'm actively looking for a replacement for it.    These programs have been on my system through 4 PCs and numerous versions of Windows.  To uninstall them - that's how much trust I've lost in Piriform since CCleaner 5.45.  

 

 

 

[mta]

2 hours ago, Tex2018 said:

Yes, that is what I've been using since this whole thing with v5.45 surfaced.  I'd hesitated to say so because I thought it might be seen (by a Mod) as promoting another product.  Typically, I'm not a fan of the free utilities that Microsoft bundles with the OS, but in this case it is actually useful. 

not when it is built into Windows.   in that scenario, CC is the competitor.

just in case you aren't aware, cleanmgr can be further improved by using the /sageset switch.
type cleanmgr /sageset:1  (where the number can be anything up to 64000)
and tick all the categories you want cleaned.
to use your selection, type cleanmgr /sagerun:1  (with the number matching the /sageset number you used)

so I have a sagerun:1 to clean all categories except windows old installs and a /sagerun:666 that only does windows old file.

 

[Tex2018]

14 hours ago, mta said:

not when it is built into Windows.   in that scenario, CC is the competitor.

just in case you aren't aware, cleanmgr can be further improved by using the /sageset switch.
type cleanmgr /sageset:1  (where the number can be anything up to 64000)
and tick all the categories you want cleaned.
to use your selection, type cleanmgr /sagerun:1  (with the number matching the /sageset number you used)

so I have a sagerun:1 to clean all categories except windows old installs and a /sagerun:666 that only does windows old file.

 

I was speaking purely from Piriform's point of view regarding "competitors" and in that sense any other company (including Microsoft) is a competitor if they take business from Piriform.  But, in Piriform's case, they don't have to worry about competitors because they are fully capable of killing their own business themselves. 

Yes, I'd seen the "sage" related method of running cleanmgr when I researched that utility...thanks for the help anyway.

[hazelnut]

Quote

But, in Piriform's case, they don't have to worry about competitors because they are fully capable of killing their own business themselves.

[Willy2]

- To be frank I don't understand what all the fuss is about. I agree that the good folks at Piriform "made a mistake" in the program code of CC and do hope that they fix this "unwanted behaviour" in the next version of CC.

- But some of the responses/replies in this thread are - IMO - (a bit) "over the top". I simply took the advice given in this or another thread on this forum and removed CC version v5.45 and installed v5.44.

[nukecad]

I think most people have a problem with the lack of 'official' response or action coming from Piriform.

To make a point v5.45 has been withdrawn, but days/weeks later it's still "announced" as the latest version on this forum.

Which shows a lack of attention or even care.

[Nergal]

3 hours ago, nukecad said:

I think most people have a problem with the lack of 'official' response or action coming from Piriform.

To make a point v5.45 has been withdrawn, but days/weeks later it's still "announced" as the latest version on this forum.

Which shows a lack of attention or even care.

Thank you for your concern, at a possible risk to my "job" here, I have hidden 5.45 announcement from public viewing, without a go ahead from admins (or even my fellow moderators really).

#RenegadeModerator

[mta]

9 hours ago, Tex2018 said:

  But, in Piriform's case, they don't have to worry about competitors because they are fully capable of killing their own business themselves. 

+1

and you have to give them credit where credit is due - they are spectacularly good at it, which they have demonstrated on more than one occasion.

[mta]

4 hours ago, Willy2 said:

- To be frank I don't understand what all the fuss is about. I agree that the good folks at Piriform "made a mistake" in the program code of CC and do hope that they fix this "unwanted behaviour" in the next version of CC.

- But some of the responses/replies in this thread are - IMO - (a bit) "over the top". I simply took the advice given in this or another thread on this forum and removed CC version v5.45 and installed v5.44.

if it was just the one 'mistake', no user would have cared too much.  there would have been an initial backlash but things would have settled down.
but it was the kind of mistake, the repeated mistakes (in yet another version), the way it was introduced, and the utter lack of any information in weeks apart from that one "we have listened, it will be fixed" that finally broke the camel's back.

it is simply that the user base has had enough.  fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice (3 times, 4 times.....), shame on me.
each of the previous 'mistakes' usually made some users find alternatives, but either the hunt for them was too hard or they simply didn't do what CC did for them and they scurried back to the devil they knew.
but when that devil itself became the very issue they had with the alternatives, they have gone "bugger it, I might as well use something else now".

and let us be honest here, the sneaky implementation of the heartbeat/monitor issue was no mistake.

for me, the nail in the coffin was the company's failure to take control of the narrative.  (this forum being a prime example)
in fact, that implies they participated in the narrative but were out out voiced whereas they have decided to not even participate.