OK, this confirms with number what I always believed :
http://www.pcworld.com/article.....-test.html
Yes, they will remove 'junk', regain disk space (some for a very short while), but as far as speeding up your computer, probably not... I say probably because a long used overloading loading computer might be helped... but basically, again, not much.
Fire away....
jv16-Power Tools is Known Good Software.
History goes back to 1998.
http://www.macecraft.com/about-macecraft-software/
It will NOT speed up a computer but will keep the system cleaned up.
A majority of users believe IT will speed up your computer, and like placenta pills, once they use one they will SAY it does... Rare that you see real numbers associated with any cleaner and what it does/does not accomplish.
Cleaning, to me something that you do when you need space, and much of what these do remove will be back in no time flat as TEMP files and many registry entries are put back during usage. Many have limits on how large they can get as well, and these will get to a specific size and no larger. Real way to gain space is REMOVE unneeded programs. Get boot speed, remove unneeded auto-start programs and services. Most cleaners will NOT do this for you, at least by themselves. Some my present such data and let you decide though.
Irv S.
Well, if you search hard enough, you shall find. Here is a really nice distro. Download the control PDF and you shall see.
Here is a little sample of this series of tuts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg_5c46ehBc
Manufacturers are burdened by MS contracts. IBM learned that a long time ago. MS gives favorable rates to companies that put Windows on ALL PC's they manufacture. Accounting on both side is easier that way, we made x systems that were sold, here is your money. Otherwise some checking needs to be done on number sold. Only the boutique builders can afford to make non-windows systems. Many years ago at least this was true, doubt it has changed now. Somehow this is not considered a monopoly though?
Irv S.
LH, yes, they do. However there is a problem using those. Basically if Norton discovered they used them they'd be complaining about unfair advantage. MS had a habit of changing those 'hooks' and users figured them out before they were changed and used them, and when that happened user apps crashed because they changed, so they may not be as heavily used today. I believe at one point MS even warned against doing that. At one point I did see an API that handled replacing 'live' files (like DLL's) but it never worked. MS said it was broke and not really allowed to be use.
Links about undocumented API's and some things that it caused (interesting reading) :
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/10.....-testimony
http://www.groklaw.net/article.....0819534335
There are even BOOKS on them :
http://www.amazon.com/Undocume.....0201608340
MS knows what using 'private' information to either outperform or exclude others will lead to lawsuits, and in the case of ruining existing companies business, I don't think they want any part of that. It is one thing to compete, another to give away free something as good as or better by including it in your base product.
Irv S.
I'm not sure I agree.
If the brakes fail on an automobile due to poor design, the automobile manufacturer is held responsible and liable.
It follows that if Windows exposes customers to O/S Security Flaws, MS should be held responsible and liable also.
With the above concept in mind, it would logically behoove MS to design the Best Security Tool possible in order to protect itself against liability.
Just as 3rd parties compete and claim to have better browsers than MS IE, they can also can compete and claim they have better security tools than MS MSE and Defender.
The real problem is that with no oversight and/or regulation, MS has been allowed to write its' own market place rules and is accountable to no one except its' share holders. "Too Big to Regulate" and "Self Regulation" - I think we've heard those terms before for sure !!
Rick, MS has to play where it doesn't show as monopoly.
I don't think your analogy of an OS with holes and them making something that protects those holes is good. Fixing the holes yes, not producing something that finds the attacks for you is good. Especially if it is better than the existing protection products.
This would be like a car manufacturer that has problems with some gasoline on its engines, then selling its own gas for the car and not fixing the problem (say it needs higher octane) and telling everyone you could ONLY use that gas... don't fix the problem, but provide a work-around and at the same time put someone else's business down the drain.
Why was IE forced to be removed from the OS, or at least allow an option of other browsers or IE? So they didn't get sued as a MONOPOLY...
Irv S.
Irv S.
I don't have an Affection for any Suite, but I do like whatever I'm using. I use what works for me. If I do not like it, I find something else. The 'lone' case is my wife's machine and the suite that Dell chose to install on it. I know removing completely any suite can be troublesome... I probably should have done it at day 1 before I gave her the machine, and I did, but then there was a problem when I inserted the SSD. Dell would NOT work with me until I did a RESTORE to their image because of the problem. Once we got the SSD and the keyboard and mouse working together, I was reluctant to do much else in terms of messing with the system. Who knows, she may be stuck on McAfee, even if she doesn't like it (right now, that is not a problem for her).
Don't you have applications you 'like' over others?
All this is different from an MS situation. Someone owning the major PC OS just can't take it upon itself to bundle any application that is as good as or better than a competing product with the OS. Lawyer's just love that if you do.
Irv S.
