Start a Conversation

Unsolved

This post is more than 5 years old

3 Apprentice

 • 

15.3K Posts

5464

March 26th, 2013 09:00

Updates 3/26/13 - CCleaner 4.0

CCleaner v4.00.4064 (26 Mar 2013)              

- New improved graphics and icon.
- Improved internal architecture for better performance.
- New Duplicate File Finder tool.
- New System and Browser Monitoring (Pro Version).
- Optimized and improved Registry Cleaning.
- Added cleaning for Avast Antivirus 8, Adobe Photoshop CS6, Samsung Kies and Real Player 16.
- Improved Drive Wiper performance.
- Optimized Startup item detection algorithm.
- Optimized 64-bit builds on Windows 7 and 8.
- Many performance improvements and bug fixes.

http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner/builds 

Either be sure to UNcheck any offers for bundled toolbars/programs [unless you really want them], or else, wait [about a week] until the SLIM build is released.

 

1K Posts

March 26th, 2013 14:00

Hi Ky331, and thank you.

I was waiting to try the new Duplicate File Finder tool. Hmmm.... I do not know what to think of it. Although well presented, the files I mean, it is a dangerous tool for someone without the know how. I scanned my sys with the default settings and it found several duplicates; However, none leftovers. Most were from my restore folder and others that are needed for the same program. I imagine that anyone not knowing what he is doing is going to get in trouble real fast with this tool.

Regards.

3 Apprentice

 • 

15.3K Posts

March 26th, 2013 15:00

Hernan,

You've brought up an important point, which indeed should be discussed and emphasized.

I ran the Duplicate File Finder tool quickly, noticed it found "a lot", and then "walked away" from it.

In theory, it had potential to be a good idea:   people often forget where they've downloaded or stored a copy of a file, and so they wind up downloading/creating multiple copies, in different subdirectories, creating "clutter".    But as you pointed out:

1) In most cases for me, the duplicates consisted of the "real" file (in its appropriate location), and a "backup" copy "in storage", which could be used for reinstallation [in case the "real" file was accidentally deleted... or became corrupted].   But there was no elaboration/explanation of this... so if someone were "unaware" and/or "aggressive", all these would have been deleted had they proceeded beyond merely scanning!   Definitely NOT something anyone would want to do!!

2) In several cases for me, multiple copies were indeed installed by programs in separate directories, each of which may need "local" access to that file.   Removing these could cripple the program trying to access THAT copy.

 

In fact, by simply adding 5 subdirectories to the exclusions list, the duplications dropped from HUNDREDS of files to merely 3!   [The 5 directories included the "backup-files" area, and for programs from Intel, NVIDIA, Corel (DVD), and EverNote.]

In conclusion, I'd concur this is a "feature" which can prove more troublesome than it's worth.    For those who decide to use it, PROCEED WITH EXTREME CAUTION!

P.S.   Even if carefully used just for user-created files [rather than system/program files], then, since such files tend to be rather small, the practical benefit [i.e., how much space can be reclaimed relative to the size of today's massive drives] seems almost moot.

5.8K Posts

March 26th, 2013 16:00

I agree:

Given the size of hard drives these days, having duplicate files is unlikely to impact on system storage needs. I can't think of any other reason to delete these files.

3 Apprentice

 • 

15.3K Posts

April 2nd, 2013 13:00

For those who waited, the SLIM build is now available.

No Events found!

Top