@Stick486 asked that I take some screen shots and post them here.  I don't know if this is the right forum (please move if not) but here goes.

 

I have run CCleaner since it first came out in 2004. I now run CCleaner Pro on my desktop, for all the rest of the computers I use the freeware version. I have taken a couple of screen shots of CCleaner Pro at work just to show the naysayers how effective CCleaner can be and to prove how invasive Microsoft is behind the scenes.

 

You can see my computer specs at the top of the screen shots for those interested. When I built this computer I refused to reload W-10 as an operating system and instead installed 8.1; better but not perfect.

 

I'll set the scene. Last night, as always before bedtime, I ran CCleaner. I closed all programs, ran the software, and I cleaned ALL of the un-necessary files from the hard drive. I then did a seven pass wipe of the unused portion of my 1 TB hard drive to clean out any stray information bytes. This morning I opened and read my email (MS Outlook Mail Client), read a news website, looked at Router Forum, and made some posts in TPW. I left my mail client and Firefox open and minimized. Understand, Firefox does NO tracking, I can't say the same for Outlook.

 

Several hours later I ran CCleaner. Notice that all of the garbage file taking up space and affecting the computers performance are MS files. I DO NOT run or use IE, yet there the IE files are, nor do I use any search engines except DuckDuckGo. I NEVER use an IE, Yahoo or Google search.

 

The system files are a given, and FF, again, does not track or store usage data. However, the bulk of the data is keylogging, and usage data, which is sent back to MS for whatever purposes they won't admit or even acknowledge.

 

Look at the two screen shots: before and after cleaning.

 

This is the screen shot AFTER the cleaner was run.

 

 

I think that the screen shot speaks for itself! 266 Tracking Files (all of them going directly back to MS).

 

Hope this information opens some eyes and helps.

 

Bill, Your thoughts on value Upgrading to CC-Pro versus the Free version?

Do you think Pro identifies more than Free?

Isn't Pro supposed to run "real-time" in the back-ground to stop invasive crap 'er stuff like this or am I confusing it with MalwareBytes.

Just curious b/c I've been thinking about subscribing  to both CC & MalwareBytes Pro

Thanks Schnooge...

maybe all the preaching will sink in now..

at least to some...

 

6 minutes ago, Grandpadave52 said:

I've been thinking about subscribing  to both CC & MalwareBytes Pro

 

can't miss...

11 minutes ago, Stick486 said:

can't miss...

Thanks...Wasn't sure how much more effective over the "Free" version they were. I've had both of those (free) for some-time now.

Prior with my old XP 'puter, I subscribed to http://www.paretologic.com/  with very good results too. That was recommended to me then by our in-house IT guys.

31 minutes ago, Grandpadave52 said:

Bill, Your thoughts on value Upgrading to CC-Pro versus the Free version?

Do you think Pro identifies more than Free?

Isn't Pro supposed to run "real-time" in the back-ground to stop invasive crap 'er stuff like this or am I confusing it with MalwareBytes.

Just curious b/c I've been thinking about subscribing  to both CC & MalwareBytes Pro

I don't think that there is much of an advantage of running Pro vs. the freeware version. A couple of more bells and whistles is all I see. I paid around $30 for the Pro, which only includes one license. Although it is transferable to another computer unlike some software. It does automatically download any upgrades and notifies you that it has it ready to install. It will not auto install like some of the MS products. You tell it NO and it listens.

 

I felt after 14 years of using it for free with all it does, I could at least do that to give back to the developers. It has help keep my computers tuned and running a lot smoother. More so than a lot of users out there. I have seen as much as 500 MB of junk files after a day of heavy usage...it cleans and clears it out in no time at all.

 

Imagine how your computer will run if you allow all of those files to accumulate!

 

I JUST LOOKED AT THE WEBSITE...$19.95 FOR PRO

 

https://www.ccleaner.com/ccleaner/update

Edited April 2, 20188 yr by schnewj

The work computer i just gave up using didn't really allow us to "delete" cookies and other trash files that accumulated from IE or Firefox, so I would go in manually and purge the garbage from the computer once i learned where it was all stashed away.   Usually ended up deleting 21k to 50k files which were of no use, were taking up space and directory blocks, slowing things down, and sometimes causing other things to not work correctly.   I save very little in FF and use Pale Moon and my habit is to clear everything before i put them to bed for the night. 

9 hours ago, p_toad said:

The work computer i just gave up using didn't really allow us to "delete" cookies and other trash files that accumulated from IE or Firefox, so I would go in manually and purge the garbage from the computer once i learned where it was all stashed away.   Usually ended up deleting 21k to 50k files which were of no use, were taking up space and directory blocks, slowing things down, and sometimes causing other things to not work correctly.   I save very little in FF and use Pale Moon and my habit is to clear everything before i put them to bed for the night. 

...for those who don't know, Pale Moon is a stripped down version of FF. It eliminates some features to speed up the browser.

 

@p_toad Peter, have you compared the speed of PM to the newer FF Quantum platform. I suspect, that, FF is now running almost as fast if not faster than PM. Just curiosity on my part!

2 hours ago, schnewj said:

have you compared the speed of PM to the newer FF Quantum platform

I have never done a "clean" compare between the two as i leave tabs open in FF and never leave any open in PM.   I'm not all that impressed by the new FF and delayed going to it for some time until the most important (to me) add-ons were re-written to work with it.   It still seems to be a resource hog.

I have been following this thread and saw that one element of web tracking is missing. Your Internet provider has probably provided you with a DNS address. This is the address they want you to use because they can monitor it and see which sites you visit.

 

Recently a new DNS service has become available that claims not to track your DNS hits. 

 

If you are interested check out their claims- https://1.1.1.1/

Facebook Messenger Analyzes What You Send to Friends, Family

Facebook and Google’s Push to Continue Blocking and Censoring Content