CCleaner 2.22 28th July 2009

[28th July 2009]
CCleaner v2.22
- Redesign of Cleaner results panel.
- Added support for Opera 10 Beta.
- Added support for Safari 4.0.
- Added search to Uninstall tool.
- Added search to Cookies screen.
- Improved User assist cleaning in Windows 7.
- Fixed bug in OpenOffice cleaning.
- Fixed IE8 SuggestedSites.dat cleaning support.
- Fixed UI bugs.

Download various builds

http://www.ccleaner.com/

 

Results panel redesign looks pretty good, one can instantly see what was deleted where. Well done!

 

Thanks for the heads-up. CCleaner keeps getting better and better!

 

This is the best I've seen this program yet. The new interface is great and it sure seems to me like scan/deletion times are much faster than previously.

 

Yes agree. It seems to scan faster.

 

it still has avira as one reg issue

 

Would you elaborate on this?

 

Got it !

CCleaner...a classic and best of the bunch. It works !

 

Unused filetype {80b8c23c-16e0-4cd8-bbc3-cecec9a78b79} HKCR\{80b8c23c-16e0-4cd8-bbc3-cecec9a78b79}

I think this one comes from Avira time after time?

 

Thanks Stapp!
Finally. I've been too lazy to search for the solution.

 

I'm running Avira Premium on one machine and the free Personal version on another. I've allowed that unused filetype to be deleted with no apparent effect. I've seen the question posed: What happens if that filetype entry is deleted? But no one has ever posted an answer. So far as I can see, the answer is: nuthin'.

 

Can anyone confirm this works with FF 3.5? I'm finding a ton of cookies left listed in FF even after a CCleaner run.

 

Unused File Extension {80b8c23c-16e0-4cd8-bbc3-cecec9a78b79} HKCR\{80b8c23c-16e0-4cd8-bbc3-cecec9a78b79}

i can exclude it but it keeps coming back i've looked around the net and can't find a real solution anyone here know how to fix it ?

 

thanks but when i update ccleaner [i use portable build] exclusions are gone and i have to do it again why doesn't ccleaner exclude it by default ?

 

CCleaner is a nice tool BUT ...I seriously wonder why they are trying so hard to hide their identity. Does anybody know who the "maker" Piriform actually is? The domain is registered anonymously, there is no address, just anything.

Once, I saw a posting in their forum asking about their profile but it has been deleted unanswered within an hour.

Does anybody know more?

 

According to Wikipedia, they're based in London and incorporated under UK law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piriform_(company)

 

I just checked it, and the WHOIS data is indeed anonymous.

See: http://www.piriform.com/about
But where is the proof ?

That does not please me. Privacy and security are important to me.

I have used Ccleaner more than once.

I can't see ANY legitimate reason for them to be anonymous. It's certainly suspicious. I wonder if it were better to switch to different privacy software.

Food for thought. Perhaps another reason to ponder the difference of 2 MB between the regular version with toolbar and the slim build.

 

Let us do some research:

1. Search http://who.godaddy.com/whoischeck.aspx?ci=8926 for their domains "ccleaner.com" and "piriform.com".

2. You will find that all their domains are registered by the anonymizing registration service http://domainsbyproxy.com/ . This cost a hefty extra. Why doing that for a freeware?

3. The official place of business of "Piriform Ltd." can be retrieved from the UK company register at http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/info

4. You will get the address "17 CAVENDISH SQUARE, W1G 0PH, London, UK" as the result

5. Search that address in Google and you will find a Virtual Office provider http://www.argyllbusinesscentres.com/. Such service cost hell of a lot. It they are using this service, why dishing so many bucks for a freeware?

6. All programs are digitally signed. A seal by a apparantly vapor company? Why pretending originality if they invest so much into anonymity at the same time?

7. Try posting such findings in their forum in a friendly manner and you will be immediately deleted.

Watch the top 10 of every download site and you will find their products. They claim to have more than 300 million downloads. This company is a big number in the software industry but for my taste, the anonymity is suspicious. [Edited sentence to avoid offense that it might have had to a few.]

Compare it to ZoneAlarm. They started as a freeware with comparable popularity at that time but always had a place of business on their website and an advertised business model.

What is the agenda of CCleaner? Just being nice guys giving away fantastic freeware?

I am realistic and say, "Yes, of course, it is just like that".

 

You seem to be equating anonymity with bad intentions or untrustworthiness. Is that a fair assessment for me to make? If so, I know plenty of people who desire to remain anonymous, and they are not involved in any unscrupulous activity. Many philanthropists never want their identities to be known, and yet they give millions of dollars to help others. It also sounds as though a storefront or some sorts... a physical address... would appease your concerns and suspicions. Lots of crooks go to great lengths to hang out a shingle and have a spiffy place of business, with nice carpet and expensive office furniture, and they rip you off to no end. With these two misconceptions in mind, I'd say you are drawing conclusions that really can't be substantiated by what you presently know.

 

That's a ridiculous comparison. If I let people into my house, I want to know who they are. If I install software on my system, I want to know who they are. It is that simple.

 

Actually it is not "that simple", but I don't have the desire to discuss it further. Hopefully you haven't installed any of their software on your system nor let them into your house.

 

The available information is obfuscated and/or anonymous (see my research posting), thus NUL.

The slight difference may be that I do not offer software that is installed on million computers. So, my agenda is irrelevant here. The same as yours.

Please learn to read properly.

I compare to ZoneAlarm and it is just my personal impression that they appear like "Russian underground hackers" looking at all this identity obfuscation.