Alternatives for CCleaner

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

  1. Posts : 6,021
    Win 7 HP SP1 64-bit Vista HB SP2 32-bit Linux Mint 18.3
       #31

    Hi RoWin7,

    RoWin7 said:
    Just removed CCleaner, installed Glary Utilities. It sucked up about twice the amount of junk that CCLeaner had, and it's very fast. And I like the utilities at the bottom.

    Even harmless registry cleaners are a waste of time. Removing even hundreds of entries doesn't speed up your machine. And I think Revo does a great job of cleaning up after every uninstalled program, including registry entries.
    I have used CCleaner [excluding the registry cleaner], Glary Utilities [excluding the registry cleaner] and Revo Uninstaller for years. The first two I use once a week for a good cleanup. As you pointed out above, running registry cleaners is pointless as it doesn't affect the overall performance and more often than not it causes serious problems, especially if you didn't backup the regidtry first. Revo is excellent because it also gets rid of all the leftover items. These three are very good for keeping your computer clean and running smoothly!
      My Computer


  2. Posts : 38
    Windows 7 Lite: Professional 64-bit
       #32

    RoWin7 said:
    That's true of many products.
    ...
    I wonder if any company has ever improved on a program by making the new version smaller.
    Harddrive space/Specialized instructions ('raw/dumb performance of the CPU')/RAM utilization are all combintory and each have trade-offs.

    A smaller file size (given X constraints under Y conditions but only under Z range) will perform (total execution time) worse than that of a larger version.

    There are more factors at play than you'd first think.

    4096 byte size reading limitation means: An additional ~8ns hdd read hit may perform (on average) far better than using a special instruction set call and keeping the file size under 4kB (due to the cache hit on the CPU).
      My Computer


  3. Posts : 1,384
    Win 7 Ult 64-bit
       #33

    You missed my point. I was talking about removing features that are useless or faulty in an attempt to simplify. We probably use 10% of the features in some of our programs.
      My Computer


  4. Posts : 38
    Windows 7 Lite: Professional 64-bit
       #34

    RoWin7 said:
    You missed my point. I was talking about removing features that are useless or faulty in an attempt to simplify. We probably use 10% of the features in some of our programs.
    Oh! You meant feature creep ('bells and whistles' is the tangible expression)!

    Personally: I tend to use the bulk of features provided in complex programs (typically front end utilities to the CLI tools).

    CCleaner in particular is an exception; I disable the automation bits.
      My Computer


  5. Posts : 9,600
    Win 7 Ultimate 64 bit
       #35

    RoWin7 said:
    You missed my point. I was talking about removing features that are useless or faulty in an attempt to simplify. We probably use 10% of the features in some of our programs.
    I've seen "feature creep" (also known as "feature bloat") destroy many good programs, such as Nero Burning ROM.

    I haven't seen any new features come to Glary Utilities in the past few years. I probably use only 10% of its feature set which doewsn't bother me any.

    Ccleaner, on the other hand... I won't even allow it on my computers anymore.
      My Computer


  6. Posts : 1,384
    Win 7 Ult 64-bit
       #36

    I used Glary the first time last week, and I'm pleased with it. Faster than CCleaner, and does more kinds of cleaning
      My Computer


  7. Posts : 9,600
    Win 7 Ultimate 64 bit
       #37

    RoWin7 said:
    I used Glary the first time last week, and I'm pleased with it. Faster than CCleaner, and does more kinds of cleaning
    It's also less aggressive than CCleaner. I've never had a problem with it.
      My Computer


  8. Posts : 38
    Windows 7 Lite: Professional 64-bit
       #38

    Lady Fitzgerald said:
    It's also less aggressive than CCleaner. I've never had a problem with it.
    As far as creating a free program to implement the same strategies (sanity and practicality aside):

    A potential configuration file could be written as such:
    Code:
    {OS}
    Windows 7
    
    {TITLE}
    Firefox
    
    {PATHS}
    0001=C:/FF/History
    
    {EXCEPTIONS}
    {EXTENSIONS}
    0001=html
    
    {FILES}
    0001=MyPasswords.sql
    To assist with the psychological impact of ultra space conservation in mind: I could create a managed options ini file as well that would enable opting for a compact/compressed binary format of a database (see above).

    To ensure an easy and fast growth rate: There could be a user-driven database generation (denoted by a simple and automated index-based txt file) that's chalked full of individual user specified OS/program + version/path (excluding exceptions).

    ... Think of it as a grass-roots campaign or word-of-mouth.
    The only majorly logged data would be conflicts (excluding drive partition paths) of: Title/Version vs OS

    To better explain: Windows 6 installs Google Chrome to path X whereas Windows 7 installs it to path Y and includes an extra node Z.

    I could also add a category system (system utility, web browser, game, etc). This would further simplify the indexing system.

    To prevent errors is senseless; ergo: User rating system.
    After a certain point of negative conflicts (assumed malicious/invalid data): The GUI notes that the given index has an XX% chance of being wrong for the listed OS.

    Adding filters and a solid yet simple UI design is a cinch!

    All free of cost of course.
      My Computer


 
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

  Related Discussions
Our Sites
Site Links
About Us
Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

© Designer Media Ltd
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:28.
Find Us