The "slim" build of CCleaner according to Major Geeks?

[hayc59]

Lets get it all out so there is no more question if that is ok
with everyone

 

Piriform seems to be headed that route. Not too long ago they added third party software (Bundleware) to their programs but you could wait 5 days and get the Slim version. As of today, the Slim version is no longer listed on their website so you will need to dodge their attempts to bundle other software with their Standard download.

http://www.majorgeeks.com/news/story/has_piriform_pulled_the_%E2%80%9Cslim%E2%80%9D_version_of_ccleaner.html

 

[Nergal]

Get what all out. All I see is a link to an article by a begrudged former illigitimate download hoster, fomenting migration to a product, which either hasn't objected to or has endorsed MG hosting, by posting an article about something they know nothing (the status of slim builds). As there's a new version today I see nothing unusual about it not being there today.

[siljaline]

Would it be a fair assement to say that Slim will follow in a week to ten days subsequent to the full version release ?

 

 

[Nergal]

I am no more informed on that then you are, I can just ban spam, other than that I'm just a normal piriform user like or unlike yourself

Edit: that said, the slim is redundant imho. The portable can be unzipped on top of existing installs, and can be coverted to non-portable easily. As well, there's a pro version which allows piriform to pay bills but not enough to warrant a free un-hobbled awesome set of programs without some sort of payment-based system. google pays the bills...do you?

[siljaline]

I am no more informed on that then you are, I can just ban spam, other than that I'm just a normal piriform user like or unlike yourself Edit: that said, the slim is redundant imho. The portable can be unzipped on top of existing installs, and can be coverted to non-portable easily. As well, there's a pro version which allows piriform to pay bills but not enough to warrant a free un-hobbled awesome set of programs without some sort of payment-based system. google pays the bills...do you?

 

Some reading this elsewhere are getting a mixed signal if the Slim version is soon to be pulled from the CCleaner family of software. This probably should be clarified as many run the free Slim version without having to jump through hoops to get the build.

 

If you're asking if costs like web hosting and staff are motive or justification to pull CCleaner Slim out of the line-up, that's something you folks have to arrive at and make a statement. 

 

 

[Nergal]

that's something you folks have to arrive at and make a statement.

I'm not a part of any "you people" I have no part in the company that runs this program.I'm a member, like yourself with only a unpaid virtual-janitorial job of keeping the forum spam-free.

 

If you're asking if costs like web hosting and staff are motive or justification to pull CCleaner Slim out of the line-up.

Umm and development, and the bugfixing and new software, services and computers with either real or virtual technology to keep the programs working and and and

 

Imho, and as an unalligned user, yes I do believe that PRO, Network, Business, Regular Installer, portable might be enough separate "installation" building processes to warrant dropping something that has (most likely) fewer downloads and zero-income generation from the budget.

 

Then again, I also see the other side of the coin. A slim build doesn't set off false alarms in antivirus products as often; there are sporadic reports of the decline for google products not appearing (though yet to be reproduced in the piriform laboratories as far as I know).

 

But it seems to me to majority of the pushback for this (very hypothetical) discussion about the removal of Slim installers comes from people who don't get or don't care that money is needed for this sort of software. My assumption is that if even a portion of those people bought the pro version regularly every year that the free installer wouldn't need a bundled installer.

 

Edited multiple times for content addition and grammer and TapaTalk stinks at formatting on this site

[hayc59]

Nergal Hello, is there anyway you can possibley get my question answered

MajorGeek has made a real bold statement!

[Nergal]

As far as I am aware there's nothing different in the update schedule this month than there has been any other month in the past. I'd expect a slim build in the same time interval from the recent update that you have since the delays were instated.

 

I repeat that it is my believe MG is just acting out against piriform because they were told that they aren't authorized to host or direct dowload the installer. MG have had NUMEROUS infractions of this sort from many publishers, so it doesn't surprise me that they're crying out with assumptions to which they've zero evidence. Basically MG should put up front why they're spreading this information, because all I read was baseless speculation.

 

[Winapp2.ini]

 

We have seen a handful of companies get greedy or try to get themselves ready for sale over the years and it usually starts the same way – by not wanting websites to host their files, essentially giving up free publicity and often millions of downloads.

 

Sounds like they're upset that 'don't rehost or repackage CCleaner,' which has been in the TOS for as long as I can remember, was enforced against them.

[J@tko]

Slim build is now on the builds page. Interesting indeed that MG didn't even wait 5 days before publishing their story.....

[Alan_B]

Slim build is now on the builds page. Interesting indeed that MG didn't even wait 5 days before publishing their story.....

Nothing strange about it.

 

THEY KNEW that they only had a few days head start in which to start a CAMPAIGN OF DELIBERATE FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, AND DOUBT.

[J@tko]

Nothing strange about it.

 

THEY KNEW that they only had a few days head start in which to start a CAMPAIGN OF DELIBERATE FEAR, UNCERTAINTY, AND DOUBT.

Sorry I missed the sarcasm tags

[hayc59]

@ Nergal thank you very much!!

[Nergal]

Again, I did nothing. Not sure I deserve accolades for this thread.

I love how their update to the article qualified their reasons as "we've hosted it for 10+ years"

As stated above, the limited locations of downloading has been Piriform's policy as long as I've been here (membership date +1-2 years before that).portablefreeware dot com had that issue with Piriform and linked to the builds page ever after. Instead of pitching a fit, they could have done that, or even (presumably) convince the developers to replace filehippo with MajorGeek (with infinite charisma and or money anything is possible). But instead they cried, and didn't pull the article and actually apologize to their readership. The article's still there in full

[Hav0c]

A bit off topic but from the original post link.

 

This was in one of the comments made by a poster called Curt Peppers

 

 

Recently SingularLabs was targeted basically because they made Piriform look bad by making a half-assed product like CCleaner a LOT better with CCEnhancer.

 

Just, WOW is all I can say.

[dvdbane]

 READ the article. It's always 5 days after, not a few and it's always still listed on their website with the older version. This was the first time it was removed.

this is from Timothy(MG)

can we still download the older slim version when newer version is out?

just curious

[Guest MrV]

Older slim builds are removed each time a new version is released.

[Winapp2.ini]

A bit off topic but from the original post link.

 

This was in one of the comments made by a poster called Curt Peppers

 

 

Just, WOW is all I can say.

Not sure if trolling or just ignorant of the truth :s

[Nergal]

Me vote troll, in article and in "Curt Peppers". BTW First time of being asked told with authority to remove something, does not equate with allowance of the transgressions that occurred previous to the primary communication.

[Hav0c]

Not sure if trolling or just ignorant of the truth :s

 

Can be a bit of both, but stating CCleaner is half assed is a bit of a bold statement, isn't it ?

Seeing that you get Aggressive and none aggressive cleaners on the net. CCleaner (without the help of winapp2.ini) being none aggressive.

[login123]

Has CCleaner ever tried to install OpenCandy?  I don't remember that it has.  Timothy says it has.  Near the bottom of the page.

I have a screenshot stored locally. 

Timothy replying to Chad Lower - 6 days ago (26 aug 14 10:47 pm):
"Open Candy. As mentioned, why bother with a lightweight cleaner? It's been cute for years but this ship has sailed."

[Nergal]

Neverbloom has been suspended permanently for signature violation

[login123]

Bummer for Neverbloom, good for the forum.  Not sure how that connects to this topic, but maybe its just me, doesn't matter.

 

So, again, has CCleaner ever installed OpenCandy? 

Timothy says it has, I don't remember it. 

If indeed it has not, it is more evidence that the MajorGeeks stuff was just started by someone with an ax to grind. 

Also may be an actionable false statement. 

I have a screenshot stored locally. 

[TheWebAtom]

A bit off topic but from the original post link.

 

This was in one of the comments made by a poster called Curt Peppers

 

Recently SingularLabs was targeted basically because they made Piriform look bad by making a half-assed product like CCleaner a LOT better with CCEnhancer.

 

 

Just, WOW is all I can say.

 

As the owner of SingularLabs, I can say there is no truth to this statement whatsoever.

[Hav0c]

As the owner of SingularLabs, I can say there is no truth to this statement whatsoever.

 

Just as a thought that statement made by Curt Peppers held no water.

Why would, TheWebAtom still hang around here if it was .

(all in good/funny humor intent)