Solved Ccleaner And Windows 8

[CountMike]

Ccleaner doesn't just remove temporary files.

It is also useful for disabling or removing programs that want to startup and remain resident in memory or in you browser.

Stuff like that could be done with built in tools in Windows. It's easier to put "God Mode" on desktop and every utility in Windows can be reached.

I use God Mode---

View attachment 52690

But I also use CCleaner Pro.
Just now I had an issue with an unwanted context menu item.
I used the registry tool in CCleaner & it showed the culprit.
I "fixed all issues" & the unwanted context menu item went away.

That was easy to fix.

But you still had to know what you are doing and what and why to look for.

 

[David Bailey]

But you still had to know what you are doing and what and what to look for.

True.

I have used it for many years & I usually know what I'm doing from years of using computers.

The inexperienced can really mess things up.

That's why I say to all to use Macrium or something similar to be safe in case they mess anything up.

 

[CountMike]

But you still had to know what you are doing and what and what to look for.

True.

I have used it for many years & I usually know what I'm doing from years of using computers.

The inexperienced can really mess things up.

That's why I say to all to use Macrium or something similar to be safe in case they mess anything up.

That's why one should know how to use a tool, even simplest one like a hammer can hurt you if you don't use it wisely.

 

[CountMike]

For manual registry work I used "RegSupreme pro" instead of Regedit, until it license expired. It had advantage of finding, listing and editing of multiple entries at same time. Now I'm using: Download Resplendent Registrar Registry Manager Lite - MajorGeeks to overcome shortcomings in Regedit.

 

[Antilope]

When you say you run benchmarks and after using Ccleaner the system doesn't run any faster. Those benchmarks look at overall computer performance. But they don't test speeds within a browser. I notice faster page loading and faster browser response after using Ccleaner. The browser is not searching through 2gb of files looking for a cached item to load instead of getting a fresh one. It gets to a point where getting a fresh item from the internet is faster then looking through the 2gb of junk.
.
Just because Windows has a built in function doesn't mean it's better than using a different program. Do you use a different word processor (like MS Word) instead Windows built in Wordpad? Why, Windows already has that word processor function built in, why would you use a different one?

 

[CountMike]

When you say you run benchmarks and after using Ccleaner the system doesn't run any faster. Those benchmarks look at overall computer performance. But they don't test speeds within a browser. I notice faster page loading and faster browser response after using Ccleaner. The browser is not searching through 2gb of files looking for a cached item to load instead of getting a fresh one. It gets to a point where getting a fresh item from the internet is faster then looking through the 2gb of junk.

When on SSD it's instant, slower internet and lousy ping can slow everything to a crawl.

 

[Antilope]

Not everyone has SSD and most have fast internet. We have a fiber optic connection to the house. I use Ccleaner because I notice the difference within the browser. If I didn't notice the difference I wouldn't bother using it.

 

[CountMike]

Not everyone has SSD and most have fast internet. We have a fiber optic connection to the house.

Well, we don't, just few years ago I was using dial-up and 3G with sub 1 Mbps speeds and mile long ping, I suspect at least half the world is still there. In any case, even HDD is faster than most downloads from internet.

 

[asvent]

When you say you run benchmarks and after using Ccleaner the system doesn't run any faster. Those benchmarks look at overall computer performance. But they don't test speeds within a browser. I notice faster page loading and faster browser response after using Ccleaner. The browser is not searching through 2gb of files looking for a cached item to load instead of getting a fresh one. It gets to a point where getting a fresh item from the internet is faster then looking through the 2gb of junk.

Sorry, but the physics just don't work out here. Average seek time for finding any given file, even on a platter based drive, is about 8ms give or take. That's several orders of magnitude faster than the blink of an eye which is around 300-400ms. Your drive can find the local file and get the read head in place hundreds of times faster than it could download it over the Internet. What you're describing is almost certainly the placebo effect. You expect things to be faster and so convince yourself that they are, regardless of whether they really are or not. Have you ever sat down with a stopwatch to time these things? I'm guessing no, it's all anecdotal based on your perception.

Your HDD isn't sitting there picking up one file, looking at it, saying "Nope, not it" and tossing it back onto the pile before moving onto the next file. Even if it was, we're talking about a process that takes an average of 8ms.

Just because Windows has a built in function doesn't mean it's better than using a different program. Do you use a different word processor (like MS Word) instead Windows built in Wordpad? Why, Windows already has that word processor function built in, why would you use a different one?

I don't even know where to begin setting this strawman on fire. Unless we're talking about secure deletes, which would be kind of pointless if we're dealing with temp files of one form or another, deleting a file is deleting a file, the end. There's no difference between using the "del" command from the command prompt, Windows Explorer, or CCleaner. Each and every one of them makes the same API call to the kernel which then takes care of it because user level programs like CCleaner are prohibited from directly accessing the hardware on a protected mode OS like Windows.

Then you're comparing two completely different programs which just happen to share some common functionality. WordPad is a surprisingly competent little program and one of the true gems of Windows that most people aren't even aware of. However, to say that it is on the same scale as Word, is laughable on its face. WordPad may well be perfectly suited to the needs of a great many people, who do not need the full expanse of Word's features, but it's like comparing a Ford Pinto to a Ferrari and saying that they're the same thing because they're both cars. Or maybe a slightly less hyperbolic comparison might be to compare the base model Prius with the fully loaded luxury model. You've got a California flag, so let's put it this way: Something like traction control might be a lot more useful if you live in higher elevation areas like Tahoe compared to places that rarely see anything other than clear skies and sun like SD, LA, or the SF Bay Area. Does everyone need traction control? No. Does that mean it doesn't have a great deal of utility to a certain subset of drivers? Not even close.

Also, the speed of your internet connection really means jack all when it comes to how fast files may download. You can have a direct connection to a backbone, won't mean dick if the server on the other end is overloaded. Plus, very few people, the world over, have a fast Internet connection and even fewer have fiber like you. The US in particular lags way behind the rest of the industrialized world on that front with a great many people still on dialup. Broadband in the US is defined as 4Mbps downstream thanks to all the lobbying efforts on the part of companies like AT&T and Comcast. If they could push it lower, they would. I would also personally say that more people are likely to have a SSD than they are a fiber connection to their home.

 

[Antilope]

You can write 20 pages of fluff if you want too, but what am I suppose to believe, you or my eyes?

 

[CountMike]

You can write 20 pages of fluff if you want too, but what am I suppose to believe, you or my eyes?

First thing you learn in piloting school is to trust instruments. not your eyes.

 

[David Bailey]

Comcast just upgraded speed for folks in my area free.
You just need to apply for the wireless modem because the old modem is not able to handle the new speeds.
Mine should arrive in a few weeks.

It's usb so I ordered a usb port with 5 slots.
All my usb's are now occupied.

According to them my speed will double at no extra cost.
So I should get 66 Mbs or so with the new free speeds.



Right now I'm paying for 6Mbs/second & am getting 33.
Not bad.

 

[asvent]

You can write 20 pages of fluff if you want too, but what am I suppose to believe, you or my eyes?

I'll take that to mean: "No, I've never actually done anything even remotely approaching a scientific measurement to determine whether it really is faster. I also have absolutely nothing with which I can refute your argument, so instead I'll just make an ad hominem rather than be a mature adult and admit that you have a point."

Personally, I believe the data. There's just no way to make the math work for what you describe. Maybe that has something to do with how what you describe appears to be based on a very fundamental and very wrong assumption about how HDDs and computers operate. The average seek time on a HDD is 8ms, which is the time it takes to get the read head over the part of the drive platter with the file you want. After which it immediately starts reading the file into RAM. It'll take more than 8ms just for your request to make it from your computer to the remote system with the page you want. So the early advantage is clearly to the local copy of the file. Even if the remote server has the page in memory it has to package it all up, send it back across the Internet, your computer has to unbundle it and display it on screen. There may be some specific instances where loading a page remotely is faster, but I bet if you did 100 trials with a stopwatch, you'd find that local copies come out the winner probably at least 60% of the time, if not significantly more.

 

[CountMike]

You can write 20 pages of fluff if you want too, but what am I suppose to believe, you or my eyes?

I'll take that to mean: "No, I've never actually done anything even remotely approaching a scientific measurement to determine whether it really is faster. I also have absolutely nothing with which I can refute your argument, so instead I'll just make an ad hominem rather than be a mature adult and admit that you have a point."

Personally, I believe the data. There's just no way to make the math work for what you describe. Maybe that has something to do with how what you describe appears to be based on a very fundamental and very wrong assumption about how HDDs and computers operate. The average seek time on a HDD is 8ms, which is the time it takes to get the read head over the part of the drive platter with the file you want. After which it immediately starts reading the file into RAM. It'll take more than 8ms just for your request to make it from your computer to the remote system with the page you want. So the early advantage is clearly to the local copy of the file. Even if the remote server has the page in memory it has to package it all up, send it back across the Internet, your computer has to unbundle it and display it on screen. There may be some specific instances where loading a page remotely is faster, but I bet if you did 100 trials with a stopwatch, you'd find that local copies come out the winner probably at least 60% of the time, if not significantly more.

Ad to that memory and disc cache. Were a page is to change in quick sequence, it's more than like that would be in some cache, FF does a lot of that.

 

[popeye]

I use it, I like it. So kill me.

 

[popeye]

Comcast just upgraded speed for folks in my area free.
You just need to apply for the wireless modem because the old modem is not able to handle the new speeds.
Mine should arrive in a few weeks.

It's usb so I ordered a usb port with 5 slots.
All my usb's are now occupied.

According to them my speed will double at no extra cost.
So I should get 66 Mbs or so with the new free speeds.

View attachment 52710

Right now I'm paying for 6Mbs/second & am getting 33.
Not bad.

I hate you! I'm stuck with satellite.

 

[off piste]

I use CCleaner daily, and with a random write. I have an OS partition of 60 GB (25 GB used), and I don't want to see it cluttered up with rubbish that I don't need. The random write might not be necessary since I don't do anything that might require it, but it is a safety feature such that if anything bad does get downloaded then it is wiped. I do use a good AV anyway. It's perhaps a matter of preference, but having used CCleaner for more than a decade, I will not be stopping because someone else has a different point of view. My system runs about the same each day, and I believe that is from CCleaner, possibly it isn't - I don't care either way. There is also the tracking issue from adverts which I also do not want - I don't use Facebook etc. - for the same reason - too intrusive.

 

[CountMike]

I use CCleaner daily, and with a random write. I have an OS partition of 60 GB (25 GB used), and I don't want to see it cluttered up with rubbish that I don't need. The random write might not be necessary since I don't do anything that might require it, but it is a safety feature such that if anything bad does get downloaded then it is wiped. I do use a good AV anyway. It's perhaps a matter of preference, but having used CCleaner for more than a decade, I will not be stopping because someone else has a different point of view. My system runs about the same each day, and I believe that is from CCleaner, possibly it isn't - I don't care either way. There is also the tracking issue from adverts which I also do not want - I don't use Facebook etc. - for the same reason - too intrusive.

So, it's a "Happy pill" for you. Just for same reasons I don't want some program to decide what I want to do to and with my system.

 

[DustSailor]

Hey mates, Allow me to throw something in here once more

As I stated for myself before, I believe in Ccleaner as a targeting removal system for specific files that are hard to remove yourself, often if you fear messing something up by tinkering in the registry. But in my personal experience, you will not receive faster speeds from using Ccleaner, especially not every day. I say that because in extremely rare cases, and if your computer is a really old model, it may help speed to use it after a very long time (again, based on my own experience with a cluttered clunker on XP, which did not come with many of the tools Windows has today). And I see no harm in removing temp internet files after a long time, to keep things fresh, but it really isn't necessary unless you fear malware, but that is a far fetched notion. Still, nothing inherently wrong with clearing the temp files after a time has passed.

Having said that, there is usually no harm in using the program every day, despite the fact that it will not do anything for you. And like was said by others, the computer will just have to recreate many of the things that were deleted anyway. Which means that it spends time to create them, you do not end up gaining ANY space as everything gets recreated, and YOU spend your own time deleting them every day, which... takes more time away from you than you would gain in the first place. So in reality, it isn't worth it overall for every day use.

Concerning other items that Ccleaner removes:
Now, you can do a lot of the removal stuff from Disk Cleanup, but it may take longer to open than Ccleaner, which I understand would be a legitimate reason to use the program it over the built in stuff... but surely not every day? I work on over 30 computers regularly, and speed has never been gained from removing internet temp files or any of the other stuff. Only space, and most of the time very little of it.

In the car to computer comparison that I've enjoyed thus far, I've got one - you don't clean your car every day do you? It will scratch it and wear down the paint over time. BUT you DO EAT every day, so you have to take that into consideration too. just kidding

 

[off piste]

I use CCleaner daily, and with a random write. I have an OS partition of 60 GB (25 GB used), and I don't want to see it cluttered up with rubbish that I don't need. The random write might not be necessary since I don't do anything that might require it, but it is a safety feature such that if anything bad does get downloaded then it is wiped. I do use a good AV anyway. It's perhaps a matter of preference, but having used CCleaner for more than a decade, I will not be stopping because someone else has a different point of view. My system runs about the same each day, and I believe that is from CCleaner, possibly it isn't - I don't care either way. There is also the tracking issue from adverts which I also do not want - I don't use Facebook etc. - for the same reason - too intrusive.

So, it's a "Happy pill" for you. Just for same reasons I don't want some program to decide what I want to do to and with my system.

There aren't any 'happy pills', just the usual utilities that might not be needed if the OS was designed properly in the first place - either doing the job itself, or allowing us, via various options to do what WE want to do.

I am well aware of what CCleaner does and have looked at all the various options available, and it is the most versatile of the bunch, and free, so why would I not use it. As mentioned, I, and no doubt countless others are happy to use CCleaner. The speed aspect for anything is of secondary importance.