Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums

Groonx

Experienced Members
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Groonx

  • Rank
    Member
  1. Thanks for your response. (1) Turned out it was in 3.15.643 (64-bit) as well. (2) But I discovered a (very strange) workaround: —By left-clicking the mouse and dragging the right-hand border of the CCleaner window ANY AMOUNT, the window suddenly "populates" the appropriate gridlines and text inside it. Notes: —XP64 —I've used CCleaner for years and years, numerous times daily; never seen this before; likewise CCleaner has lived on the present XP64 for years —The window, when faulty, is just a totally empty box; nothing inside it at all—BUT ONLY for the Registry function. You can go back and forth to the basic Clean function and that works just fine. —I'll try for screenshot ASAP. Tonight it is working OK, as though it no longer wants to bedevil me since I discovered the workaround.
  2. I've used CCleaner for a lot of years, many times daily. The 3.16.1666 64-bit version usually but not always shows a blank window when I try to use the Registry tab. There is no "Scan for Issues", no gridlines, nothing at all; just an empty box. This is in XP64. If I select Cleaner, all is fine. I return to Registry: nothing. Reinstallation of CCleaner did no good. The problem happens usually but not always. I couldn't distinguish a criteria for when it happened. Eventually I returned to version 3.15.1643 64-bit, and all is working well again.
  3. There was a short-lived request by someone else for skins last year. I wonder if anyone else is interested?I know I am. The GUI features a lot of gray. Gray is a good colour for lots of folks, but I love my extremely rare-for-a-mammal colour vision, and I prefer colours. Blues, pinks, you name it. Doesn't have to be elaborate; just an optional preference. Lighten up my oh-so-serious CCleaner. I'd be happy just to replace the gray with another solid colour. Probably Resource Hacker would do that, but I don't have the savvy, and that might be usage violation. But is anybody on the Piriform team interested? Put it this way: CCleaner has become too good an app to keep it in the dark. It does a lot of good things for a lot of very different people, with different ways of looking at things. Optional skins aren't for everyone, but they'd be very nice for quite a few people, even so. Thank you.
  4. Appreciation I'm not sure where to post this, so I have placed it here because I thought the Defrag devs would be most likely to watch this thread. On QUEUING: I run 15 partitions on XP 64-bit. This morning I was able to select the entire shebang, minimize Defraggler, and continue my day-to-day work. Every so often I look at the progress Defraggler is making on my 1.7 TB system. Beautiful! Once again, you guys are making a perfect app perfecter. Thanks and Respect to you. Vancouver, Canada
  5. This is just to confirm that on XP 64 (desktop, not portable)the usual installation has indeed created the 64-bit EXE file for my system automatically. (I use a custom location on partition E; no problem.)
  6. This was a problem a couple of months ago, and then it went away. It concerns the GUI only. It is a GUI issue; not a defrag issue. Running XP (64) with 4 HDDs divided into a dozen partitions, I find that the boot drive USED SPACE and FREE SPACE displays "vibrate" as though the last 999,999 bytes are being processed very very fast. But it is effectively the equivalent of a hang or a freeze. The only way to abort is usually a Defraggler kill via Task Manager, and even that can be a bit sticky. The thing just wants to hang there with those two lines vibrating their numbers. All the other partition defrags work fine. Only problem is that Defraggler WANTS to return to the boot partition when I restart Defraggler, as though it has a fascination for the one partition it can't handle. In DOS mode?and therefore without the GUI?it works perfectly in all or any partition. Clearly the problem is entirely with the GUI. I have no difficulty working around this, as per above, and I don't need any help. I am submitting this just so the devs know it is happening. Interesting that it would return after being OK for quite awhile. My Defraggler updates are always as soon as any new version comes out, so this was not immediately apparent this time around. Maybe the GUI breaks down a bit after a few scans; I wouldn't know.
  7. ?You didn't look for that, did you?
  8. @Marmite, sure, you are right. It goes along with using a paper-shredder, which isn't generally necessary either. If you want to read about the reasons or paranoia people have for wiping files, you can check out the forums at Heidi's Eraser, which has long been maybe the most respected app in the field. http://bbs.heidi.ie/viewforum.php?f=30 Psychologically, I think a lot of people prefer to have empty wastebaskets around their offices, rather than full ones. Of course, ordinarily deleted files are still pretty much extant; they have surrendered their ownership of their space, so other files might or might not be eventually written overtop. As you know, the readable files are still there, like papers in a wastebasket, and, unlike papers in a wastebasket, they are STILL still there when programs like CCleaner empty the recycle bin. For myself, I'm not worried about security. I have no password on any of my 4 computers at home. I don't do any banking online, and I have nothing to hide in the way of files. And yet I do like the sense of being able to see what I have. I run a very heavy-duty operation with huge Word documents, for example. Big 500-page things with many photos embedded; these are fully-formatted scientific book manuscripts. I use a system of backing these files up which creates maybe two or three dozen copies in a few hours during a work day, each copy almost the same as the previous one. I also have the entire collection backed up to a USB disk at the same time. At the end of the work day, I check the files and then delete all but the last two. Which leaves my system with a huge amount of very recent work in totally readable form, scattered all over the hard drives in question. Hundreds of these files would collect in a few weeks, all very similar to the most recent version of the manuscript. Well, that feels a little insecure to me. It's pretty nice to be able to wipe those disks. Whether it really matters?you're perfectly correct; it might not. It probably would never matter. But it's a moot point, because Wipe Free Space is fast and easy. Heidi's Eraser, as you no doubt know, is an excellent program but is less "fast and easy", and also was not working just right on 64-bit systems.
  9. Vickky, I agree with Aethec that you can do the best job if you operate these 2 apps in tandem. Piriform could put them together, but each one really works best with some TLC applied to specific details. People slur over the details anyway, and, more often than not, miss out on some of the best potential of the programs. Especially now that we have Wipe Free Space included with CCleaner, these apps have become really powerful. I've been testing the possibilities of Wipe Free Space, which is a pretty serious challenge to some excellent programs such as Heidi's Eraser. I think especially 64-bit users may migrate from Eraser to CCleaner's Wipe Free Space. But these apps do require some very individual attention by the user. If Defraggler were combined with CCleaner, I think it would tend to result in a more blurry-than-ever quick-and-dirty clean for a lot of people. I know that my own biggest frustration in attempting to help people is that the majority simply will not take the time or turn on their brains sufficiently to do a good job. They seem to be more willing to pay computer fixers $100 or $200 every few months to clean their systems of debris and malware. I don't know if my thinking is the same as the Piriform People's. But in my opinion, you're better to simply run these programs in tandem. You can add in TuneUp Utilities, if you like, and also of course you have Windows' own built-in Clean Manager (cleanmgr.exe in your System32—you can set up a shortcut for that and you can use "sage run" to have it automatically clean every partition on a multi-partition system if you check out http://support.microsoft.com/kb/315246 ). (Actually CCleaner makes much of Clean Manager's work redundant or obsolete, but redundancies are not always a bad thing in computer management.) Enjoy.
  10. For anyone trying to help, apparently this HAS been done, but does not seem to work: In CCleaner, in the left margin, you see WINDOWS and APPLICATIONS. Left-click on WINDOWS. > WINDOWS EXPLORER > Recent Documents Uncheck the box. I'm scratching my head over this one. I wonder if you have TuneUp Utilities doing the same thing. There are various apps that do it. Why not disable CCleaner temporarily, and see if the problem still exists?
  11. You are cleaning your Firefox cookies off with CCleaner. When you clean EVERYTHING off?ALL your cookies?you lose your passwords. You can set FIREFOX to keep certain cookies. At first it is a nuisance, but as soon as you understand it, it is okay. There are add-ons to help you with that, too.
  12. Yes, O&O and other erasers (Heidi's Eraser) are very powerful, "macho" erasers. They are different from CCleaner. CCleaner is more gentle, lighter, possibly safer. CCleaner is intended for many, many uses. Big erasing systems also clean bits and pieces of the file that still remain on your disk. CCleaner removes access to the file, or pointers to the file. However, many pieces of the file still exist, until you eventually over-write them. They are not really gone. They are still there, until finally you write another file on top. Does that matter? Yes, for security. No, for cleaning. If you want to BE SURE EVERY TRACE IS GONE, you use the powerful erasers. If you want to SIMPLY CLEAN your system, but you don't care if there are still parts of your data remaining, you use CCleaner. Normally, CCleaner is just fine. It is all you need. If you work for the FBI, maybe you need something stronger. Okay?
  13. Yes; definitely. I did that last year for a guy who had always run Windows ME. I used Partition Magic to subdivide his one-and-only partition. Then I set up Windows 2000 for him on the new partition. Absolutely no problem; Partition Magic is meant for the job. ? Even so, you might consider doing a really thorough defrag of your existing partition first. Sort of to keep all your files at one end, as much as possible. Make the job easier for Partition Magic. ? And of course, you're backed up. Right? Have fun. It is a cool operation to perform.
  14. Yes, as comper6 advises, your bad checksum tells you that your downloaded file is not a perfect match with the intended original. Bad checksum = corrupt file = bad download. Actually, Spybot gives you your choice of locations from which to update. Look carefully as it goes through its motions. Bad checksums are common. No worries. Happens all the time. Never proceed with anything that has a bad checksum, because the function exists only to let you know that your copy is not a perfect match. Very useful.
  15. Oh, man, I've used ERUNT to save a couple of systems! That program DELIVERS!!! It's one thing to use it for backups?quite another to find you really NEED it. First time was an emergency, and I could not get into Windows at all. I had to use a DOS disk. It was scary, and I had to read what to do, because of the sense of emergency. But in a few minutes I had that system right back to where it had been. I rate the combination ERUNT and NTRegOpt as two of the most brilliant freeware programs on the internet. Here they are: http://www.larshederer.homepage.t-online.de/erunt/ ? However, NTRegOpt will lose the ability, after awhile, to optimize the second hive of your registry if you are using XP 64. You can still use it, but not for that hive. And in Vista, you will not be able to modify your registry unless you do your restart with the User Control turned off. (Controversial, but I keep it off, myself.) That's here: http://www.petri.co.il/disable_uac_in_windows_vista.htm Back to CCleaner and other registry cleaners: the discussion of these cleaners is very heated. A registry cleaner can kill your boot-up ability. That leaves quite an impression on people. Myself, I like registry cleaners. Other folks hate them. I still use RegSeeker in its very most dangerous fashion in 32-bit XPs, although the same RegSeeker will wipe out XP 64-bit. It will work in x64, but it will wipe out x64. CCleaner can use its huge popularity to maintain a very good, realistic database. CCleaner caused me immense, long-lasting grief when I used to use Word 2000, because there was a seemingly unimportant log file that CCleaner would change in the registry. That did no harm in itself. But Word 2000 had a safety check that would see the change, and would then restore a default Normal.dot system, just in case the change represented unauthorized tinkering. The result was that Word 2000 would lose its settings. To this day, I uncheck CCleaner's box for cleaning Office files, although with the advent of Word 2003, a person could restore Office registry settings anyway, with a tool. I suppose I've used CCleaner, oh, maybe 3,000 times? Hard to say. It could be more. That Word glitch was the only one I ever encountered. Oh, I still keep the 2004 System Security Suite around. Makes for a nice restart, cleaning off the files as it does the restart. CCleaner holds onto the files until the restart; SSS actually causes the restart to happen. Apart from that, CCleaner eclipses SSS, so you don't need SSS. It's redundant, and not as sophisticated as CCleaner. But it's here anyway: http://igorshpak.net/
×
×
  • Create New...