Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums
Winapp2.ini

Winapp2.ini additions

Recommended Posts

With all due respect to Piriform; they don't own the syntax of the winapp files. Technically you cannot hold copyright over a means of expressing information- only the information itself. Not to mention that the "ini" format; despite any minor adaption Piriform have made, is a longstanding invention of Microsoft.

 

That wouldn't be significant except for the fact that Piriform didn't actually write any of the entries. They have no legal basis for telling BleachBit that they cannot use a file that Piriform don't actually hold any rights over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Modified entry:

Updated for new Conceiva Mezzmo v3.0.0.0 release

[Conceiva Mezzmo*]
LangSecRef=3023
Detect=HKLM\SOFTWARE\Conceiva
Default=False
FileKey1=%ProgramFiles%\Conceiva\Mezzmo|*.txt
FileKey2=%ProgramFiles%\Conceiva\Mezzmo\Third\OGMDemuxer\doc|*.*|REMOVESELF
FileKey3=%ProgramFiles%\Conceiva\Mezzmo\Third\MKVToolNix|*.txt
RegKey1=HKCU\Software\Conceiva\Mezzmo\General|LastWatchFolder

- Added FileKey2 and 3

- Edited RegKey1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That wouldn't be significant except for the fact that Piriform didn't actually write any of the entries.

 

True, but it's on their dotcom site so they can do what they want rather that be in "favour" of the community or not. Personally I use both programs, however I also know it would benefit Andrew to use his own format that's far enough away from the winapp2.ini (file) to never again catch Piriforms eye's, that and along with making it easier to write entries for. The only thing is there's allot more cleaning tools that also use winapp2.ini and did long before BleachBit ever did.

Edited by Andavari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but it's on their dotcom site

 

Irrelevant. There is no "we retain full rights to any content you publish on our website" disclaimer on the signup form (just checked).

 

I also know it would benefit Andrew to use his own format that's far enough away from the winapp2.ini

He does. Worst case scenario: he has to convert winapp2.ini to CleanerML on each update. A script could easily be created to automate this process.

 

The only thing is there's allot more cleaning tools that also use winapp2.ini

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The only thing is there's allot more cleaning tools that also use winapp2.ini

 

And make money doing so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And make money doing so.

 

Still technically not illegal. Although it does make me want to punch them in the throat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found a file called ism.exe in my %AppData%\utorrent folder

 

If you didn't place it in there perhaps VirusTotal or Jotti malware scan it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not about what it is (its a toolbar installer or something added by the uTorrent installer,) its weather it should be added to winapp2.ini in order to clean it

 

Edit: may not be smart to add *.exe (uTorren.exe may be installed in the same dir,) maybe best to specify the installer.exe's full name

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On your own computer that would be your choice, but if adware stuff is removed via here it would probably tick someone off claiming it breaks the license agreement, blah, blah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://bleachbit.sourceforge.net/news/winapp2ini-issue-piriform-resolved#utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=tweet

 

My initial reaction seems to have been correct: The original article misstated the way winapp2.ini works (calling it "the source of all of CCleaner's rules," etc) and the issue was not the inclusion of winapp2.ini support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the thing is is that if it can read and intigrate winapp2, it can also integrate the items in the files created with cmd line switch /export which piriform has created so we can customize ccleaner even more. I'd rather the ability to wjnapp2 and view/edit in built rules not be removed, just because another company, whose software is already well known and well regarded, felt it was ok to "bend" the rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd rather the ability to wjnapp2 and view/edit in built rules not be removed, just because another company

 

I tend to agree with that. If Piriform are so worried about people using their internal rules, they should remove the 'export' feature. Instead, they should allow a user to add an entry with the same name in winapp2.ini, and CCleaner should override the internal one. (of course, any one with a resource hacking tool could easily get around it)

 

Side note: BleachBit is an open source project, not a company. That sort of mischaracterization warrants a brutal lynching in some forums... open source contributors can be a nasty bunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wait, you tend to agree but then provided a counter argument against not losing the ability.

 

re "company": Autocorrect made me do it, I meant "competitor".

 

For those unaware, one feature of the export command is it allows a user to rename the resulting file from win*.ini to win*1.ini and create their own, replacing, primary rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you've misunderstood my alternative.

 

The user should be able to override individual entries without needing to replace the entire file. For example; if I added [Adobe Flash Player] to my winapp1.ini (or winapp2.ini) file, the one used internally should be disabled and replaced. That would allow Piriform to disable the export feature, without actually losing the functionality it provides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Entry:

 

[Windows 7/8 Search (Windows.edb)*]

LangSecRef=3025

DetectOS=6.1|

Warning=Checkmark this entry to remove file Windows.edb ONLY if you have Windows Search service disabled. Windows.edb can be several hundred megabytes in size and is not needed if Search is disabled.

Default=False

FileKey1=%ProgramData%\Microsoft\Search\Data\Applications\Windows\|Windows.edb

 

NOTE: This entry MAY be applicable to Windows Vista and XP; however, I have no way of testing it on these systems. I suspect that if search/Indexing is disabled on Windows Vista and XP, then Windows.edb can be removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warning=Checkmark this entry to remove file Windows.edb ONLY if you have Windows Search service disabled. Windows.edb can be several hundred megabytes in size and is not needed if Search is disabled.

If the user does checkmark the entry whilst the service is enabled,

OR IF the service is subsequently enabled,

WHAT is the consequence ?

 

It may be acceptable if the consequence is that a search instantly results in zero results,

but not acceptable if the system locks up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New Entry:

 

[MS Office 2013 SkyDrive (setup logs)*]

LangSecRef=3021

Detect=HKCU\Software\Microsoft\SkyDrive

Default=False

FileKey1=%LocalAppData%\Microsoft\SkyDrive\Setup\Logs\|*.*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the user does checkmark the entry whilst the service is enabled,

OR IF the service is subsequently enabled,

WHAT is the consequence ?

 

It may be acceptable if the consequence is that a search instantly results in zero results,

but not acceptable if the system locks up.

 

If Search is re-enabled, Windows.edb is rebuilt automatically. Google Windows.edb delete shows several results such as:

 

http://windows7themes.net/what-is-windows-edb-can-i-delete-it-or-change-its-location.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://bleachbit.sou...tm_medium=tweet

 

My initial reaction seems to have been correct: The original article misstated the way winapp2.ini works (calling it "the source of all of CCleaner's rules," etc) and the issue was not the inclusion of winapp2.ini support.

 

It's a shame they felt the need to go public and blacken Piriform's name BEFORE getting that clarification <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...