I think highlighting every file/folder missed because it's in use like temp files could be to much.

But atleast in custom folders/files

http://i27.tinypic.com/j96bnn.png doesnt really tell me much that these file was not cleaned

Support: Yes, that would be a good idea.

Does nothing for me.

I trust in God, but not much else.

I always REPEAT a registry clean after it has cleaned something, sometimes I am rewarded with a new item to zap.

I always repeat a file/folder clean after it has cleaned something - not yet caught anything extra, but I can sleep in peace.

If anything to be cleaned was in use on my system, I am sure I would have seen it by now.


Second thoughts :-
Why would CCleaner wish to delete a file that was in use ?
Why would anything be using a file that CCleaner wants to clean ?

Answers :-
1) It is a virus that is trying to hide its presence by masquerading as a bit of left over junk;
2) CCleaner is being a little too aggressive, and a BSOD is due any minute.

Conclusion :-
If CCleaner wants to remove something and cannot do so,
you could have a problem far worse than a bit of surplus junk.

Regards
Alan

Probably just locked in-use files like those created by a resident running program. CCleaner gracefully skips over such stuff, while some other disk cleaning tools try and try to delete them taking a very long time to only fail.

Hello alan, I'm not worried about temp files or viruses, I guess i should of been more spacific.

It's not junk as such, but i have a lot of applications i have made myself and a lot of custom folders i have set ccleaner on.

It's just to time consuming for me to cheak ccleaners log and look for a file in use. Some times i have a lot of documents open, applications running hidden, Files being processed, maybe things still running with email or what ever. Things that i need to be wiped often.Alot of my applications create sensative temp files that could be still active for a number of reasons as i said above.

Looking at the log file takes more time then i have some times. Maybe just a extra section of files skipped would save me a lot of time.

I am aware that one persons problem does not warrent a change in software. I was just seeing if maybe other uses have the same issue

sam

Basically, proper notification is a must in a program. When an application is unable to accomplish a certain task, I believe it owes its user a proper notice.

I fully agree.

Unfortunately the best we can hope for is that the application may tell us of its own errors.
The application may be unaware of a Windows error which fails to append new data to an existing file, and instead replaces all previous data with the new data.

I recently removed an old version of a Firewall, via the official Add/Remove mechanism,
supplemented by a *.BAT script from a user forum to take care of residual registry keys etc.
The script ran and finally reported success.
Fortunately I launched a command prompt and invoked the script on the command line,
and could see many DOS commands and responses above the "success".
and saw that REG.EXE had been told to delete many keys, and a few were reported as "no access".
This was a permissions error not anticipated by the writer of the script, and I had to manually intervene.

I would have been happy if the removal script had detected the problem,
and finished by reporting partial success ( and possibly the keys that were stuck)
but that might have taken an extra 2 or 3 lines of error detection/reporting could for each line of REG.EXE.

Two years ago I removed a much earlier version of the firewall, after which the later version said the old version was still installed and it could not update. At that time there was no user forum script, only the official Add/Remove mechanism. After a little effort I found the firewall's principle registry key and about 2000 sub-keys were accessible but could NOT be removed, and the remotest ends of the registry tree had a few non-accessible items.
RegEdit was useless, and I had to download something far superior to solve the problem.

After more than 30 years designing real-time computer systems that never had a BSOD my standards are too high for Windows.
I like to do things right. My son works in I.T. and tells me to "get a life" ! ! !

Alan

^ So, if we sum it up, Alan, it is agreement but disbelief in possibility?

But I take everything step by step. First, a crude implementation is good. (The rationale: A notice is better than no notice.) Then step by step, refine the implementation each version. This should be the case with this suggestion too.

Yes, that is a reasonable summary.

Alan