Avast WEBforum
Other => General Topics => Topic started by: Abraxas on October 04, 2005, 07:48:22 AM
-
Pretty sure this han't been posted here yet.
http://www.populartechnology.net/
Recently CCleaner has added an internet urban legend as a cleaning option, "Old Prefetch Data". Cleaning the Prefetch folder is an internet Myth that simply will not die due to the gross ignorance of many people in regards to how Windows XP Prefetching works. These same people generally recommend other bogus advice such as disabling Windows Prefetching completely and adding /Prefetch:1 to desktop shortcuts.
"Bottom line: You will NOT improve Windows performance by cleaning out the Prefetch folder. You will, in fact, degrade Windows performance by cleaning out the Prefetch folder."
CCleaner for the most part is a good application, it quickly and easily removes temporary and unused files from Windows. It has a nice interface that clearly shows what has been "cleaned". On neglected systems this can free hundreds of Megabytes of harddisk space. Apparently in the authors quest to clean everything and anything, he blindly ignored how Prefetching works.
SOURCE (http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000743.html)
I don't know that I agree that cleaning Prefetch Folder once a month is wrong ??? In fact on this very Forum I've read that It's not a bad thing. I do it ! What's your opinions Evangelist's ?
-
Hello Abraxas,
Started by UncleRob:
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-11183-0.html?forumID=5&threadID=178204&messageID=1813903
Continued... Very nice article Ed Bott:
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-11183-0.html?forumID=5&threadID=178204&start=0
As Ed Bott has frequently written:
Do not clean out your Prefetch folder!
http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000743.html
Here is an excerpt from Ryan Myers, a developer on Microsoft's Windows Client Performance Team:
XP systems have a Prefetch directory underneath the windows root directory, full of .pf files -- these are lists of pages to load. The file names are generated from hashing the EXE to load -- whenever you load the EXE, we hash, see if there's a matching (exename)-(hash).pf file in the prefetch directory, and if so we load those pages. (If it doesn't exist, we track what pages it loads, create that file, and pick a handful of them to save to it.) So, first off, it is a bad idea to periodically clean out that folder as some tech sites suggest. For one thing, XP will just re-create that data anyways; secondly, it trims the files anyways if there's ever more than 128 of them so that it doesn't needlessly consume space. So not only is deleting the directory totally unnecessary, but you're also putting a temporary dent in your PC's performance.
http://blogs.msdn.com/ryanmy/archive/2005/05/25/421882.aspx
Date: 07/20/05
It looks after all that cleaning of prefetch folder doesn't do any good and/or significant increase in system performance... better to listen to developers of our OS.
Cheers !
-
better to listen to developers of our OS.
I can't sop laughing. Reminds me of a msg I sometimes get "Put the cd in the floppy drive"
Yes that is what the devellopers try to make me do!
I reported this to MS while I was still using 98 first edition, in ALL windows versions released after that, MS still haven't corrected it. So should we listen to the devellopers or should they listen to people who really have knowledge about system......
I also was able to do things that MS said was impossible with Windows......
Makes you really think heh......
1) get a stopwatch
2) boot your system and messure teh time it takes
3) move the prefetch files to another folder
4) repeat steps 1 & 2
5) does it make a difference?
Answer: no it doesn't
1) get a stopwatch
2) open applications that have a prefetch file and messure the time
3) move the prefetch files to another folder
4) reboot (to release the memory, needed for a reliable comparison)
5) repeat steps 1 & 2
6) does it make a difference?
Answer: no it doesn't
Conclusion:
Prefetch files only take up space on the drive and do not contribute anything to better system performance.
-
Haha, now you make me laugh my ass off... have you read this:
So, first off, it is a bad idea to periodically clean out that folder as some tech sites suggest. For one thing, XP will just re-create that data anyways; secondly, it trims the files anyways if there's ever more than 128 of them so that it doesn't needlessly consume space. So not only is deleting the directory totally unnecessary, but you're also putting a temporary dent in your PC's performance.
-
Haha Eddy read what Sasha wrote!
-
I don't know that I agree that cleaning Prefetch Folder once a month is wrong ??? In fact on this very Forum I've read that It's not a bad thing. I do it ! What's your opinions Evangelist's ?
As far I could know, Prefetch really has a very little impact over performance.
The problem is that 'every single' exe file is prefetched and the folder has a lot of files that won't be even checked anymore.
Cleaning it from time to time could get back the sanity in your HDD. Don't do it that often, it will be useless like Sasha said.
By the way, there are tweaks to fully disable prefetching... Is anybody interested?
-
Mark Russinovich Wrote
Prefetching is a good thing, leave it alone. In addition well written disk defrag utilities such as Raxco’s Perfect Disk use the layout.ini information for its optimizations.
Windows defrag also uses this file
-
Unbelievable wonderful !
Mark Russinovich... SysInternals... I believe he knows his business, and he knows it very well ;) Who to trust if not him ? ;) ;)
-
Just read the links about prefetching Sasha gave you these are from guys that know what they're talking about!
http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000743.html
http://blogs.msdn.com/ryanmy/archive/2005/05/25/421882.aspx
-
Unbelievable wonderful !
Mark Russinovich... SysInternals... I believe he knows his business, and he knows it very well ;) Who to trust if not him ? ;) ;)
I certainly believe him more than Eddy who has just proven he hasn't got a clue about what his talking about :-\
-
It is NOT necessary nor is it a good idea to clear the prefetch files. Just pointless thing to do without any real gain.
-
I am sure after all this, guy who is developing ccleaner may have second thoughts... maybe he will remove Clean old prefetch data from next update... or not ?
-
Unbelievable wonderful !
Mark Russinovich... SysInternals... I believe he knows his business, and he knows it very well ;) Who to trust if not him ? ;) ;)
If I didn't trust Mark Russinovich, then why would I have so many of his utilities. ??? ???
Sorry Eddy this time I have to go with the majority opinion. I still thing that your HiLoA program is topps. :)
-
CCleaner is only a tool: you don't have to tick all the boxes. Much of the information we have the option to delete may in fact be useful to the OS or application that saves it. The internet cache speeds up browsing, and its size is limited anyway. names of last files opened in Word may be useful to record.
Some of the information is only a privacy risk. Most programs limit the size of caches. I think the real junk problem is Windows which can be over-cautious about temp files and allow them to build up.
Some viruses can also live in some of these locations so it's useful to have a tool like CCleaner to clean them out: internet cache, Java cache and temp folders. I think there was a thread where somebody mentioned a virus hiding in the Prefetch folder. In a case like that CCleaner could be used to clean out the folder.
I've had the prefetch box ticked for a while in CCleaner and haven't noticed any slowdown. Reading the above I have unticked it. I don't think CCleaner can be criticized for having the option to clean prefetch files, but it doesn't seem to make any sense to routinely remove them.
-
Just pointless thing to do without any real gain.
I won't say so...
Every single executable generates a prefetch file: the temporary ones, the setup files, the windows updates, etc. etc.
It's useless to keep old prefetch files, old versions never run again.
You don't have to clean them frequently but I will not say never.
The same with VRDB: you should generate them to have a database for virus recovery but not that often or you will only store infected stuffs.
The virtue is in the middle: no fanatisms and no paranoids 8)
-
I disabled the prefetch function while ago and noticed nothing since then. I did it in my way to disable as many unnecessary processes that as possible and probably I was right - except that I didn't need to disable the function in the first place, either. At least, I don't need to see prefetch data files in my search for recent modified files anymore. ;)
-
I had prefetch disable for a long time also and no real boot or launching issues. I now use prefetch but I only monitor boot time programs now. It is slightly quicker but noting to get excited about.
However, if you have it on monitor boot and programs it can have an adverse effect if you delete the contents of the prefetch including the Layout.ini as that takes time (3 boots I believe) to be recreated and get a history.
The reason the slowdown is noticeable is because the prefetch was working and doing its job, right up until you deleted it. It won't take long before it starts to decrease boot and launch times again.
-
Hmm, seems every one has varying opinion's on this subject.
1. I saw this CCleaner / prefetch issue listed as "news" @ castle cops and followed the links, out of curiosity.
2. I first saw instructions as to how to clean the Prefetch folder manually here at the Avast! forum not so long ago and just took it as ' good house keeping '.
Thanks for all the reference links, every one.
3. I've emptied the PF folder maybe once over the last three months, with the idea that I am deleting useless obsolete .EXE files trying to be launched at BootTime. Active non-obsolete programs/applications will rebuild entries into the prefetch directory anyhow it seems, which is the so called bootTime "slowdown", or so I presume.
4. I've watched the CCleaner results after ticking the "Clear OLD prefetch files ", and haven't as yet seen anything listed as deleted from the PreFetch directory since it was introduced.
5. If in fact over the period of say a few months clearing the PF directory 'does clear useless' .EXE files from being asked to initiate , I'd think it as a good thing .
6. Seems to be user's choice as to whether or not you clear the folder in question. I think I'll wait and see when CCleaner actually does remove files from the PF directory , and which ones. Then the parameters of files deemed as being old will be more apparent and I may learn something.
I think CCleaner is taking a bit of unnecessary flack over this issue personally as I haven't seen it over-doing Prefetch directory cleaning at all.
-
This is from the on-line FAQ for CCleaner and what it cleans in the Prefetch Folder.
Old Prefetch Data
In Windows XP a Prefetch file is generated each time an application is run. This helps Windows optimise the application the next time it is executed. Unfortunately these files are not deleted when the applications are removed. This option removes these files for programs that haven't been accessed in 14 days. (This process is very safe and Windows will recreate the files as necessary.)
So, according to this it is unlikely to delete the Layout.ini file because that is effectively in use daily. So yes it would appear if this is correct CCleaner it getting a bit of bad Press as it isn't deleting the entire contents of the Prefetch folder.
-
To understand the problem you need to read the whole article from Popular Technology:
What CCleaner does
CCleaner deletes any Prefetch file older then two weeks based on the .pf file's last access date. This is completely idiotic for a number of reasons. First you should never delete a .pf for any installed application. With the .pf file missing, that application will take up to 100% more time to load when you decide to launch it. CCleaner does this to any application you have installed on your computer but have not used in over two weeks. It makes absolutely no sense to delete these files. Why would you deliberately want to slow down any installed application's load time? It will also do this if you have not used you computer for two weeks. Second, it is quite common to disable the NTFS Last Access Time Stamp for performance reasons. I actually recommend doing this since it speeds up the file system. In this case CCleaner will delete any .pf file that was created over two weeks ago. You can clearly see how running CCleaner in this case would wind up deleting ALL your Prefetch files every two weeks. Now you are crippling every application's load time on your system instead of just the ones you have not used in two weeks. Ridiculous!
See this is a miconception:
I've emptied the PF folder maybe once over the last three months, with the idea that I am deleting useless obsolete .EXE files trying to be launched at BootTime
That is NOT how prefetching works.
Here is a better explanation:
By default Windows XP only (not 2000 ect...) will monitor the boot process and an applications startup process. After three boots or three application loads it creates a .pf file. This file is merely a reference to all the files that the boot process or an individual application uses to load. Normally Windows will load these files in a less efficient way. Say DLL A before B and then maybe D or C. With prefetching enabled (it is by default) When you click on an icon to launch an application Windows will first look in the prefetch folder, if a .pf file exists it will now have the location of every file that specific application uses to start and will load them all at once, example: DLL A+B+C+D simultaneously. Look at the .pf file in a text editor and you will see it is just a list of file locations. Now the prefetcher goes further and use the Defragmenter to take all those files and "lay them out" on the disk in the same location. This further improves the application load times.
.pf files are only accessed when you launch the application and take up next to no space, then obsolete ones are cleared when the folder reaches 128 entries. Even with all 128 entrie it only takes up less the 5MB. The article also provides a way to test it:
Testing
Make sure the Task Scheduler service is set to automatic. Launch an application like Firefox three times. Reboot and make sure there is a FIREFOX.EXE-XXXXXXXX.pf file in the C:\WINDOWS\Prefetch folder. If there is, launch Firefox and time it. Then delete the .pf file, reboot, relaunch Firefox and time it again. You will now see Firefox take a significantly longer time to load. Now imagine this on any other application, then imagine doing this deliberately every two weeks? Why? To save a tiny bit of HD space? It makes no sense. 128 .pf files take up maybe 5 MB of disk space.
-
Hello,
A lot of basic conceptions are wrong, and this is another. Some people think delete with MS means delete = gone at once. It is not "deleted" in any way, you just cannot find it back. It just sits there to be written over. If you have special restore programs you can get to it even beyond the recycle bin. If people understand what delete in Microsoft terms really mean, they would create other attitudes in computing.
greets,
polonus
-
Cynthia Reed
This folder may accumulate useless junk, especially if you change your configuration a lot. There's no harm in emptying it. Simply delete all the files in that folder; Windows will rebuild it as needed.
MajorGeeks
Disabling the Prefetch function or at least only enabling it for the Boot Files will allow you to free up some system resources and preserve some disk space.
Techrepublic
start up can be seriously delayed if Windows if prefetching the whole world.
R. Patrick (tweakXP and programmer)
I recommend that you erase all files located in your TEMP and PREFETCH folders on a monthly basis.
Meself has 25 years of experience with computers, running my own computer repair store as well as a on-site-service for small busineses.
Believe whoever you want, it is a free world after all.
But it has been proven that prefetching does not speed up things. That is a fact that will remain, no matter what you like to belive.
-
Hello Eddy,
25 years counts, I like to see your comments on the next thread?
http://forums.techguy.org/archive/t-382236.html. So what Kenny 94 tells about the Prefetch running too large is bull, as you try to tell us?
My experience with the Windows system in general is that it operates sometimes in mysterious ways (like in the U2 song), and that you have to consider and re-consider your actions. That is why a good Restore Program, like RestoreIt or Regular Backups are a must to stay ahead of trouble. You must create a possibility to always go back on your tracks and undo what you apparently have miscalculated. That is the prize we all pay for closed source with many cooks and ergo fingers in the code. Who is the expert. He is the guy who really made all the mistakes he could in a very narrow field, and learnt from this.
greets,
polonus
-
Nope, Kenny tells the same as I did in other words.
-
I also was able to do things that MS said was impossible with Windows
Eddy can you tell us what some of these impossible things you did? You're so smart. ;D
-
To get back on line here.
1.CCleaner has an Option to enable Old prefetch files to be cleared. It does not have to be checked/ticked , if you are in doubt.
2.Polonus said :
"...You must create a possibility to always go back on your tracks and undo what you apparently have miscalculated."
"...Who is the expert. He is the guy who really made all the mistakes he could in a very narrow field, and learnt from this."
I like this idea of learning through your mistakes, not that causing errors to your system is something you want to do, but when you do , and understand why, you wont make the same mistake twice.
I believe it's called the Empirical Method, from which all knowledge is gained. Our science today would not be alive if it wasn't for trial and error.
The subject of CCleaner performing a task which may slowdown or even disable performance is stupid. it's a user choice option.
I'm glad I raised this issue, as the subject of prefetching has been explored .
The Term has been around in a different instance before windows XP, as an optional setting for hard drive performance in older versions of windows, or maybe I'm thinking of BIOS settings.
However, User choice, having a Good System Backup, and IF IN DOUBT, DON'T, are the dynamics to consider here, in my opinion.
-
yes Abraxas I think the subject of PFing has been well and truly covered in this posting and I for one have gained some information added knowledge that I was not aware of prior to reading all of this posting and after all is this not the reason a lot of us come here to voice our opinions, help, learn, teach,expand our knowledge base this has been a very interesting forum topic ;D
-
yes Abraxas I think the subject of PFing has been well and truly covered in this posting and I for one have gained some information added knowledge that I was not aware of prior to reading all of this posting and after all is this not the reason a lot of us come here to voice our opinions, help, learn, teach,expand our knowledge base this has been a very interesting forum topic ;D
Yes p3t3rb0nn I also learnt a lot, and what you say is true, about sharing knowledge.
Plus to top it all off, WE Won The Cricket today against the world 11 !!! ;D
-
Believe whoever you want, it is a free world after all.
But it has been proven that prefetching does not speed up things. That is a fact that will remain, no matter what you like to belive.
All three places you quoted are wrong. The fact is you don't have the slightest clue as to how prefetching works. Not to mention you have obviously never tested it. Please provide me with a reproduceable test to show that prefetching does NOT work. I provided you with one from the article that shows it does work.
The subject of CCleaner performing a task which may slowdown or even disable performance is stupid. it's a user choice option.
You are not reading the article or comprehending it. CCleaner has an option that's only effect is it slows down installed application load times and is enabled by default. There is no reason for it to be there. Once you understand how prefetching works you will realize this.
-
Mastertech:
Abraxas said:
The subject of CCleaner performing a task which may slowdown or even disable performance is stupid. it's a user choice option.
You are not reading the article or comprehending it. CCleaner has an option that's only effect is it slows down installed application load times and is enabled by default. There is no reason for it to be there. Once you understand how prefetching works you will realize this.
The cleaning of OLD PREFETCH FILES is NOT a DEFAULT setting in CCLEANER.
As I said earlier, you have to check the box, and enable it. After what I've learnt in this thread I won't be "Checking the box" , which as a USER I CHOOSE to do.
Enough about Prefetch for goodness sake Mastertech :P
-
I was curious so I ran a little test. I set my system ahead 14 days, and ran the analyze button in CCleaner. Seems CCleaner will clean anything in the prefetch if it has not been accessed in 14 days, including items you routinely use. (see screeny) The items I show only appear after setting my system ahead. So if you are on vacation for a few weeks, come back and run CCleaner, it will most likely empty your entire prefetch folder.
Tipton
-
So if you are on vacation for a few weeks, come back and run CCleaner, it will most likely empty your entire prefetch folder.
Not entirely correct, when you boot after your holiday elements of pre-fetch will be updated. So not everything will be deleted.
-
I went into the registry a year or so ago and disabled prefetch. I have not missed it at all. If it does speed up loading it is minimal. I disabled prefetch in an effort to keep my HDD as clean as possible. It appears we are all making much ado about nothing here.
-
The cleaning of OLD PREFETCH FILES is NOT a DEFAULT setting in CCLEANER.
As I said earlier, you have to check the box, and enable it. After what I've learnt in this thread I won't be "Checking the box" , which as a USER I CHOOSE to do.
Enough about Prefetch for goodness sake Mastertech
The whole point is that it should not be there in the first place and does nothing but slow down application load times.
I went into the registry a year or so ago and disabled prefetch. I have not missed it at all. If it does speed up loading it is minimal. I disabled prefetch in an effort to keep my HDD as clean as possible. It appears we are all making much ado about nothing here.
You have obviously never tested it nor understand how prefetching works. Why would you want to slow down boot and application load times? As clean as possible? LMAO? How?
-
Not entirely correct, when you boot after your holiday elements of pre-fetch will be updated. So not everything will be deleted.
Only the boot prefetch file will be updated. Everything else will be deleted.
-
Pretty sure this han't been posted here yet.
http://www.populartechnology.net/
Recently CCleaner has added an internet urban legend as a cleaning option, "Old Prefetch Data". Cleaning the Prefetch folder is an internet Myth that simply will not die due to the gross ignorance of many people in regards to how Windows XP Prefetching works. These same people generally recommend other bogus advice such as disabling Windows Prefetching completely and adding /Prefetch:1 to desktop shortcuts.
"Bottom line: You will NOT improve Windows performance by cleaning out the Prefetch folder. You will, in fact, degrade Windows performance by cleaning out the Prefetch folder."
CCleaner for the most part is a good application, it quickly and easily removes temporary and unused files from Windows. It has a nice interface that clearly shows what has been "cleaned". On neglected systems this can free hundreds of Megabytes of harddisk space. Apparently in the authors quest to clean everything and anything, he blindly ignored how Prefetching works.
SOURCE (http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000743.html)
I don't know that I agree that cleaning Prefetch Folder once a month is wrong ??? In fact on this very Forum I've read that It's not a bad thing. I do it ! What's your opinions Evangelist's ?
I am an avid cleaner of Prefetch and it does work. I notice instant change in the performance of my machine. I also run reg scrub, win washer, boot vis, and diskeeper.
-
chaos_defined welcome to best forums around...
Please, if it's not too much of a hasle for you, resize your avatar because it's little too big...
See forum policy (button up there):
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=6339.0
Quote:
To all users:
...
...
- do not use large pictures in signatures or avatars (mind other users who might have weaker connection and smaller display resolution)
...
...
Thanks in advance !
-
Avatar size of 100x100 is ideal i believe ;)
-
lol , talk about big that is funny
tim ;)
-
It's not funny, because no matter which resolution you use, you still can see our avatars, right ? If an avatar is too wide like that one up there, all posts are shifted to far right and people using lower rezolutions will not be able to see the board without constant scrolling left and right... ;)
-
lol , that's right
while i was reading ur reply
i was scolling left and right
while reading the part that said about scrolling left and right ;)
this is an edit to this reply:
lol... chaos has begun :o
tim ;)
-
lol ! ;D ;D ;D
-
I am an avid cleaner of Prefetch and it does work. I notice instant change in the performance of my machine. I also run reg scrub, win washer, boot vis, and diskeeper.
No it does not improve performance. Try timing it:
Testing
Make sure the Task Scheduler service is set to automatic. Launch an application like Firefox three times. Reboot and make sure there is a FIREFOX.EXE-XXXXXXXX.pf file in the C:\WINDOWS\Prefetch folder. If there is, launch Firefox and time it. Then delete the .pf file, reboot, relaunch Firefox and time it again. You will now see Firefox take a significantly longer time to load. Now imagine this on any other application, then imagine doing this deliberately every two weeks? Why? To save a tiny bit of HD space? It makes no sense. 128 .pf files take up maybe 5 MB of disk space.
Cleaning the folder only hurts performance. The reason people think it improves performance is because they do not understand how it works. Please explain how you think it works.
-
lol , that's right
while i was reading ur reply
i was scolling left and right
while reading the part that said about scrolling left and right ;)
this is an edit to this reply:
lol... chaos has begun :o
tim ;)
LOL Tim ;D
This is very interesting i wonder why i see it this way(It doesn't move the posts for me)
(http://img430.imageshack.us/img430/7632/howisee4gn.jpg)
-
Sometimes it's like that and sometimes it's the way Tim mentioned... I have no clue why, but it looks like forum engine is doing that...
-
i know how to capture the whole screen to the clipboard but i dont know how to copy certain parts of the screen
how do you guys do that? ???
tim ;)
-
It may not improve times on boot or load but it does improve responsive ness of the PC. The best way to improve boot that i have found is to Run boot vis then shut off al sounds and set driver delay from 400ms to 50ms, as well as the obvious removal of startup items. anyone else have ne ideas for a boot performance increase? maby some reg settings? ;D ;D ;D
-
It may not improve times on boot or load but it does improve responsive ness of the PC. The best way to improve boot that i have found is to Run boot vis then shut off al sounds and set driver delay from 400ms to 50ms, as well as the obvious removal of startup items. anyone else have ne ideas for a boot performance increase? maby some reg settings?
No it improves boot times and application load times. Try running the test I posted.
How do you think prefetching works?
-
I guess it is in the eye of the beer holder....
I see responsiveness with OS and progs.... others look for boot time....
to each his\her own
-
I'm not asking for a leap of faith but running a simple test.
-
chaos_defined
Please reduce the size of your Avatar. 100X100 is the recommended size. Thanks :)
-
chaos_defined
Please reduce the size of your Avatar. 100X100 is the recommended size. Thanks :)
Hehe... Bob, he already resized it... it was a way too big... see here (although you can see just part of it):
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=16749.msg143289#msg143289
This is quite acceptable considering how huge it was before...
Cheers !
-
Just thought the following would be more in line.... :)
-
to chaos defined
you need to see more sunlight ;D
to mastertech
who gives a damn wether a program loads in 3 seconds or 3.5 seconds get a life :)
-
More like whether a program loads in 12 or 30 seconds. Try testing it.
-
Reminds me of DOS Fastopen 8)
Dont know if this info has been linked but here it is http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/12/XPKernel/default.aspx So to make a real comparision you should also scatter files around hd cause ie. Firefox will most likely allready have been tuned by prefetch informatin delivered to and used by defrag. Deleting pf files dont change arrangement of files on hd physically.
I cant see/feel any difference with prefetch enabled or disabled. Definitely no where near many seconds. But what I said could be screwing up comparison. Also fast hd, cpu helps. If a program needs so many seconds to start up it will be slow no matter tricks and tips.
Would be fun to see a test done by the book. Ideally a dual boot setup using same hd but 1 with prefetch disabled soon after install and 1 using defaults. If both were used more or less the same way, same applications running, same uptime for some weeks test might be meaningful.
Cant really think of any reason to turn it off - or what exactly CCleaner does wrong? I mean if you have not accessed a file in 2 weeks you are not likely to be annoyed about increased loading time cause it is never loaded! And that loading time can be argued a lot I think. Im a little worried about seeing the claim 12 -> 30 seconds, I just dont believe that without a very detailed description of test setup and would also want many more people to see same amazing result. Did I miss links to valid testreports or is it a 1 man crusade? Nice feature actually but not essential to happy or fast computing.
Btw, Im sure Ive seen Symantec advicing to disable prefetch cause it could screw up installing or perhaps running their AV or something. Was may be 2 years ago, probably XP without SPs. Not something you see mentioned a lot. I tried searching for the note but couldnt find. But Symantec says about some virus removal "The Prefetch folder is simply a record of recently accessed files that allows frequently used files to load slightly faster. On most modern computers, this is not even noticeable. In any case, Windows will rebuild the contents of this folder."
-
See you don't understand. By default an application will load files out of order and not simultaneously. Even with the files layed out the prefetcher still loads all the necessary files simultaneously. You can time the difference by using the test provided in the article. It is reproduceable and accurate. ust substitute Firefox for another application. But you need a stopwatch to properly time it.
-
Well the more advantage for prefetcher then. The test give too much benefit to prefetch off because files most likely allready have been tuned by defrag. HD will access them faster than if prefetch was never on. We must assume that. Advantage will dissapear over time, relationship between app and connected files lost, but when you just say to disable/delete then reboot part of prefetch is still influencing no prefetch test. Anyway, to make real comparision you need to be sure of conditions.
No I dont need stopwatch when I dont feel any difference. "You will now see Firefox take a significantly longer time to load." I cant relate to. I think you must understand that fast computers will never really be slow. Possible there will be 0.x seconds difference if you compare a prefetched Firefox "package" compared to a scattered one, but as I said it will be packed right now since Ive never had prefetch off.
Besides, may be Firefox is a badly chosen example cause it will never be among those rarely used programs which is actually targetted by CCleaner? so Firefox is irelevant. Any often used program is.
Im thinking about how to prove prefetch advantage. May be if you launched 10 apps at the same time? You have any numbers from actual computers showing differences? Im very sceptical, defnitely for "modern" computer as Symantec say.
-
Ah so I completely misunderstood test. I see why you can notice differences. But what exactly are you measuring? Has nothing to do with prefetch benefits or not but how long it takes for prefetch to build, do its magic. I think I should read all posts here cause Im off topic I think, heh. What I was talking about was launchtime with or without prefetch enabled.
I just dont see the problem, of course it will take time for prefetch to gather info on what to put in pf-file. Dont really see where CCleaner comes in or how it cripples load time providing you use it as advertised. If you keep deleting actively used pf-files but have prefetch enabled it will rebuild and rebuild but not much point in such tactic. The 2 week limit rendering a pf-file "not used" seem ok to me if you want to delete pf-file at all. Hardly a critical setting in any way.
Think it is you who dont understand how such cleaning program works. They all have much useless stuff. Example could be MRU list for a program, CC also have those. They start throwing out oldest entries when limit is reached just like prefetch does but still a popular object for "cleaning". Doesnt mean there is no point in deleting or spending time on such programs cause it might increase awareness of how things are screwed together. CCleaner not really bloated compared to many others.
-
The test is designed to demonstrate what happens when CCleaner deletes a .PF file for an installed application. You can see the difference it takes for that application to now load with no .PF file. If the Application is installed you want to have the prefetch file there for whenever you launch it. The moving of files to lay them out is only one part of prefetching. When you launch an application the Windows XP Cache manager checks the prefetch folder for a prefetch file, if it exists it can now load all files associated with that application simultaneously. This greatly improves load times.
Make sure to read the whole article:
What CCleaner does
CCleaner deletes any Prefetch file older then two weeks based on the .pf file's last access date. This is completely idiotic for a number of reasons. First you should never delete a .pf for any installed application. With the .pf file missing, that application will take up to 100% more time to load when you decide to launch it. CCleaner does this to any application you have installed on your computer but have not used in over two weeks. It makes absolutely no sense to delete these files. Why would you deliberately want to slow down any installed application's load time? It will also do this if you have not used you computer for two weeks. Second, it is quite common to disable the NTFS Last Access Time Stamp for performance reasons. I actually recommend doing this since it speeds up the file system. In this case CCleaner will delete any .pf file that was created over two weeks ago. You can clearly see how running CCleaner in this case would wind up deleting ALL your Prefetch files every two weeks. Now you are crippling every application's load time on your system instead of just the ones you have not used in two weeks. Ridiculous!
As you can see deleting any prefetch file two weeks old is bad enough but with the NTFS last access date turned off it deletes all of the prefetch files.
The test is very accurate. Just substitute Firefox for any other application.
-
Just thought the following would be more in line.... :)
Or like this:
(http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/1741/avatarchaosdefined9bd.gif)
;D ;D
-
Just thought the following would be more in line.... :)
Or like this:
(http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/1741/avatarchaosdefined9bd.gif)
;D ;D
Even nicer Sasha :)
-
So what do you think about your new avatar chaos_defined ? :o ;D
-
Looks like a rabbit caught in the crosshairs ;D
now i know why i havent shown my ugly mug :)
-
I just don't understand what he meant by "chaos defined"... maybe his hair ? (joke hehe)
Chaos Defined, do not be mad at me, we are funny people, you'll learn it while you are here... ;D ;D
-
IMO, the reason the posts related to the original discussions are ignored is that they are already thoroughly discussed in this thread. We have at least a general idea how the prefetch function works in theory. However, many people using the modern machines don't seem to see noticeable differences, including myself. So, as someone said, nothing to be fussed about. Do what you want with prefetch data files. It's your computer after all.
Seeing this forum is so offtopicalaized, it might be high time to bring back the toy-ground in order to separate it with "serious" business. ;) That said, I have to confess that I am always impressed by the talent of people in the fora to make a technical thread into casual entertainment. Keep on your good works.
-
That is not true. You need to test it with a stop watch to see how drastically Prefetching improves performance. It is not something that is unnoticeable even on new systems.
-
Abraxas i think it's maybe time to close this thread i think enough has been said on the subject already...what do you think?And if somebody would sticky it that would be nice... ;)
Cheers
Mikey
-
Abraxas i think it's maybe time to close this thread i think enough has been said on the subject already...what do you think?And if somebody would sticky it that would be nice... ;)
This is what I would have written. Another vote for closing. ;)
-
All I see in there is nice discussion and no one insulted anyone... also, there are no signs of flame of any kind. Other off-topic stuff are always here to calm down the situation if it gets too hot. In this case, those weren't even needed, but our responsibility is to warn if someone doesn't work by forum rules... in this case, to wide avatar...
just my 2 cents... ;)
-
All I see in there is nice discussion and no one insulted anyone... also, there are no signs of flame of any kind. Other off-topic stuff are always here to calm down the situation if it gets too hot. In this case, those weren't even needed, but our responsibility is to warn if someone doesn't work by forum rules... in this case, to wide avatar...
just my 2 cents... ;)
Yes Sasha i know... I didn't say anybody was flaming or anything like that, but don't you think that enough has been said on this subject already?What more is there to say?
-
Yes, I think yous made a good recycle of the thread and successfully made me giggle (again) but, at the same time, I couldn't but notice that this also means that the original topic is over, IMO. ;)
-
May be an idea if people PM´ed moderators instead of posting whatever? Optional to read so feel free to skip to other subject in other thread. Isnt that how forum works?
Not all have understood what at least the test is actually testing. Also not on this page. I didnt either, and still dont see the point of it or what is suppoes to prove. Test show nothing more than 1+1 is 2, the time it take prefetch to rebuild a pf-file or xraying and scribble down notes during load of ie. Firefox. The increase is natural and cant be avoided.
Test scenario is just wrong. Until the newly created pf-file is deleted once again you cant reproduce in any way. Loading time will be the same as if CCleaner was never on hd. Also you assume last access date cannot be used or CCleaner would never have deleted anything. Hmm possible but then you can imagine many bad things in this world. Try CCleaner registry feature, I dont use it but am sure you can find flaws in there. Much more critical than this. Program also allow you to put in your own defined folders, what if you pick the wrong one? Naturally such a program must be used as intended.
Think warning against this is blown way out of proportion.
-
I really don't think people understand how prefetching works. Comments such as you don't notice a difference are not test results. Try timing it.
The loading time is from NOT prefetching, it has nothing to do with building the .PF file.
All CCleaner does is delete the prefetch file? Don't you understand. So manually deleting it is the same exact thing.
Have you tried timing it?
-
If CCleaner does more than deleting files I must admit Im completely lost. We need many more pages Moderator. Also the only way I can understand any noticable increase in loading time will be the ONE time prefetch is rebuilding. The same way some say boot time actually increase with prefetch enabled. Time used come back later due to optimzations.
Seems to me you think CCleaner disable prefetch or is suggesting that way is better because of the few mbs saved on hd? Ive never seen such a claim from maker. What I see is a little optional maintaince feature for those programs not accessed in 2 weeks or more, what else is there? All "damage" CCleaner can do is to force enabled prefetch to rebuild again if program is run so much it is considered prefetchable - so ? Not like that is going to happen often is it?
As I said I dont notice any difference so kinda pointless to time and reboot. Without having any idea of loading time I will without any test results believe making pf-file increases. I think we do something else. You will now give your test results, with as many details of setup as possible. No references to other websites or other story - numbers and details please. There are many people here listning so we can do a mass reproduction later 8) If it fails consider yourself unique...
-
DK you are not understanding this. For prefetching to properly work a prefetch (.pf) file has to be present for the application loading. CCleaner deletes prefetch files that are over two weeks old based on the associate .pf files access time. These can very well be installed applications! You never want to delete a prefetch file for an installed application. Because when you go to launch it, it will be much slower since the prefetch file is not present. It will then rebuild the .pf file but does so in the background. It is NOT slower because it is rebuilding the prefetch file. First of all WHY would you want to do this? Think about this for one minute and answer this then move on to my next part.
Second if the NTFS last access date feature is turned off, after two weeks EVERY prefetch file would be deleted and they ALL will load slowly. Again WHY would you want to do this? What is the point?
CCleaner should not be removing ANY prefetch file for an installed application. The big question is why is it cleaning this folder at all? The folder is self cleaning at 128 entries and even when full is less then 5MB.
Anyone can test this following the above test. You have to reboot because if you did not the second time you launch the application it will already have files in memory, the results will be inaccurate and you will say prefetching has no effect. Prefetching only effects the load times of an application the first time it is launched in a session the most.
-
I still dont see your numbers.
After a program is rebuild "problem" will be gone. So 1 rebuilding/no pf-file launch of a program not used for 2 weeks is a problem? If you insist no prefetch file is only slowdown I again have to say I dont notice any difference - and that is with no pf-files at all and prefetch disabled. But of course with optimized layout on hd thanks to defrag. You should warn against tweakers disabling prefetch overall not this little feature in a cleaner. I dont think CCleaner have this enabled by default, optional to user. User is expected to know what he/she is doing. May be with help of "analyze" function. I can think of many program which have features you almost never should use, like format c:
No matter how nice prefetch is I dont really understand how you can believe load time will increase so dramatically without. You think people would accept looking at starting screen for 30 seconds when used to a few? Not in a million years. May be they never see those 30 seconds then?
This is what CC maker say in online help:
In Windows XP a Prefetch file is generated each time an application is run. This helps Windows optimise the application the next time it is executed. Unfortunately these files are not deleted when the applications are removed. This option removes these files for programs that haven't been accessed in 14 days. (This process is very safe and Windows will recreate the files as necessary.)
His assumption is older prefetch data might belong to uninstalled programs and if not they are rebuild next time program is run. No damage done - if you chose to enable delete old prefetch data, program does not force you.
Actually I prefer IE Privacy Keeper for my cleanups http://www.browsertools.net/IE-Privacy-Keeper/man_system.html mainly cause it have better commandline options and presets. A real danger and weakness of CC is it remembers current settings but also offer a rightclick quickclean and autoclean at every boot. I think that opens up for some ooops I forgot my last session was experimental. Privacy keeper more controllable. BUT it also has a prefetch tickbox and it simply wipes them all out so may be you should start working on them before CC. I wouldnt be surprised if it is standard feature in most cleaning programs. Seems to me CC maker have full understanding for what prefetch does and how it works. Why he add the 2 week limit. That you might be able to screw that up by OS tweak is not his problem but I think he should mention access date being important for correct use.
-
1. DK have you tested this yet?
2. In Windows XP a Prefetch file is generated each time an application is run. This helps Windows optimise the application the next time it is executed. Unfortunately these files are not deleted when the applications are removed. This option removes these files for programs that haven't been accessed in 14 days. (This process is very safe and Windows will recreate the files as necessary.)
This is false they are removed when the 128 limit is reached. Here is the problem. CCleaner is not only removing uninstalled application prefetch files but any file that is two weeks old, which very well would be installed applications. Again WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO REMOVE A PREFETCH FILE FOR AN INSTALLED APPLICATION?
His assumption is older prefetch data might belong to uninstalled programs and if not they are rebuild next time program is run. No damage done - if you chose to enable delete old prefetch data, program does not force you.
The damage is done when you launch the application and it loads slow!!! Don't you understand?
No matter how nice prefetch is I dont really understand how you can believe load time will increase so dramatically without. You think people would accept looking at starting screen for 30 seconds when used to a few? Not in a million years. May be they never see those 30 seconds then?
It is not what I believe but what I have tested. Have you tested it? Seriously you are arguing something you have not tested or refuse to. How can you understand it if you refuse to try?
-
Mastertech
CCleaner should not be removing ANY prefetch file for an installed application.
By default it doesn't.... It's a users choice as are many items.
-
No by default it is enabled. The point is why is it even there at all?
-
No by default it is enabled. The point is why is it even there at all?
It's your PC, it's your choice which programs and settings you use my friend if you don't like the setting or a program than don't use it it's as simple as that...As you can see some people believe that deleting the folder is good for them and obviously you can't change their thinking , the important thing is you know what's best for your PC and he knows what's best for his....
Cheers
Mikey
-
This has nothing to do with personal preferences. Does anyone think fragmenting their HD is a good idea? Does anyone think disabling their CPU L2 Cache is a good idea? No and why not? Because it slows down your PC.
The reason anyone thinks deleting the folder is good is because they don't understand how prefetching works.
If a bunch of people were going around telling everyone to disable their L2 Cache on their CPU saying it either does nothing or is not important. What would you tell them? This is just mind boggling.
-
If CCleaner had an option to "Fragment HD" would you be saying "hey it works for some people". ???
-
The point is why is it even there at all? (http://The point is why is it even there at all?)
The goal of prefetching is to speed up your computer. If prefetch files don’t function correctly, or if there are many old files, things will slow down. A sluggish or poorly responding system can result from one or more corrupted or virus-infected prefetch files. After a malware scan, open %windir%\prefetch, delete any offending files and reboot. Otherwise, leave the maintenance of .PF files to XP.]The goal of prefetching is to speed up your computer. If prefetch files don’t function correctly, or if there are many old files, things will slow down. A sluggish or poorly responding system can result from one or more corrupted or virus-infected prefetch files. After a malware scan, open %windir%\prefetch, delete any offending files and reboot. Otherwise, leave the maintenance of .PF files to XP.
There are no great advantages to purging the contents of Prefetch. If it contains references to malware, or if the files refer to applications that are rarely used or no longer there, then you should clear it out.
http://www.apcmag.com/apc/v3.nsf/0/7B9A8B65A4C59623CA256FB1000147E3
The Prefetch folder contains data files related to enhancing the speed at which applications start. Many viruses and IRC bots like to hide out in Prefetch, and it's a good idea to flush it out before running virus scans.
http://safecomputing.umn.edu/guides/tempdirectories.html
I’m running Windows XP with Zone Alarm and Vcom anti-virus. Today, I noticed a file called MSBLAST.EXE-39813b24.pf in the prefetch folder. My anti-virus software hasn’t noticed it, but on online scan at Sophos picked it up. I regularly update my anti-virus software, so is my PC infected?
http://www.pcanswers.co.uk/tips/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=27958&subsectionid=616
-
If CCleaner had an option to "Fragment HD" would you be saying "hey it works for some people". ???
No no Mastertech don't be so quick to "attack".... I was only saying that you're not getting trough to that guy, you keep telling him to test and he keeps telling there's no diference altough he hasn't even tested it. I personally don't need to run any test cause i see a difference without the tests...You see he just doesn't believe you but like i said it's he's PC and he can do with it whatever he likes right?And also please keep in mind that English is not my first language so it's sometimes difficult for me to explain myself...
Thanks
Mikey
EDIT: Good Point Frank i haven't even thought of that ;)
-
Really guys this topic has been done to death we are not in the system startup, cleaning, configuring,
"Grand Prix" are we?? ;D CCleaner is a very good program use it as you will. Prefetching well there is
probably enough information on this forum the pros and cons in the 6 or so pages to write a book
on the subject. Lets just all agree to disagree ??? ;D all those in favour sent $10 ;D to be anounced
This is starting to get like flogging a dead horse
-
The goal of prefetching is to speed up your computer. If prefetch files don’t function correctly, or if there are many old files, things will slow down. A sluggish or poorly responding system can result from one or more corrupted or virus-infected prefetch files. After a malware scan, open %windir%\prefetch, delete any offending files and reboot. Otherwise, leave the maintenance of .PF files to XP.
See you don't understand how it works. Old files do nothing but take up a miniscule amount of disk space. You can have 128 prefetch files and 127 can be old and it will have ZERO effect on performance. There is no such thing as a prefetch file "not functioning correctly" if an application is changed as in updated and now loads different files on startup the associated prefetch file is modified. The folder is cleaned when 128 entries are reached.
There is also no such thing as a "slugish" system from old or virus infected prefetch files. That comment is an urban legend . Old files do zip and a prefetch file cannot get infected, it is non-executable!
Prefetch files are non executable. Therefore they cannot be malware or viruses. Can a virus hide in the prefetch folder? Sure but any AV can scan and remove it or you can delete it manually. The file would stand out as not having a .pf or .ini extension. There is no reason to delete the regular prefetch files. Why would you delete files that have nothing to do with the virus? It makes no sense.
Prefetch files are reference files to launch an application. If you had malware installed Windows may make a prefetch file associated with the malware but it has none of the malware in it. It would merely include file locations and be useless. You can delete it to make yourself feel better but an associated .pf file to virus or malware is harmless. Not to mention Windows would delete it eventually anyway if you cleaned off the associate malware.
-
See people really don't get it. I don't see why people keep asking to close the topic when so many don't understand it.
A .pf file for an application is NEVER accessed until you launch the associated application which is why prefetch files associated with uninstalled applications do nothing but take up some disk space. In all the folder consumes less then 5MB and is auto cleaning.
-
I do think many people get it, what you don't seem to get is that no matter how much you scream you people just don't get it is obviously not working and as such is pointless (IMHO).
Many have said there is enough information (I too feel there is), for to form an opinion and make an informed decision, not matter what that decision is, right or wrong, it is their decision to make and no amount of banging on is likely to change that. That is why some have said the thread has reached a conclusion. For the most part the thread is now two peoples differing opinion which could be continued by PM.
So add me to the list of those who think this thread has run its course.
-
Ive said it several times now Mastertech, I do not notice any differences with prefetch on/off so why test with a clock? Im asking you for numbers, where are they? What are your setup in details? All I see is claims and hysteria.
People dont understand the damage is so huge as you see it, Im sure because they dont experience it. There is no damage with correct use of CC! You are assuming the worst and playing on less knowledgable readers - or in this case those who dont want to research a little. Understanding the inner workings of prefetch have nothing to do with CC optional cleanup tickbox.
Also no one have said deleting the prefetch folder is good, not even CC maker. Again you are jumping to conclusions.
Getting slightly annoying you keep aksing people to waste time on testing when you have not done so yourself. It is you who make the claim not everyone else so put up... Unless it is all in your head almost everyone should be able to reproduce and we have a new situation. Even then you will have a hard time blaiming CC for much but we will see.
-
I already said I tested it on numerous systems. Here is one.
Test System:
P4 2.0 GHz
512MB RAM
7200 RPM HD
Windows XP SP2
Firefox with Prefetching = 5 seconds to load
Firefox without Prefetching = 11 seconds to load
Same system
Boot with Prefetching enabled = 41 seconds
Boot with Prefetching disabled = 90 seconds
Boot times using Bootvis.
"noticing" is irrelevant. You have to use a timing device. Of course no one "notices" it because the application loads either way.
Also no one have said deleting the prefetch folder is good, not even CC maker. Again you are jumping to conclusions.
Then why is it there? It does nothing but slow down applications when loading.
If CCleaner deletes any prefetch file for an installed application, that application will load SLOWER. So of course you can blame CCleaner. If the NTFS last access date option is off and it deletes the whole folder and everything loading including boot up is slow again you blame CCleaner.
What part of this do you not understand?
The inner workings of prefetching has EVERYTHING to do with a feature in CCleaner that does nothing but cripples the prefetcher from doing what it is supposed to do.
-
Here is a Microsoft Whitepaper clearly showing how Prefetching improves boot performance. http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/fastboot/fastboot-winxp.mspx (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/fastboot/fastboot-winxp.mspx) It includes detailed explanations and test results. Look under the Prefetching section.
-
If CCleaner deletes any prefetch file for an installed application, that application will load SLOWER. So of course you can blame CCleaner. If the NTFS last access date option is off and it deletes the whole folder and everything loading including boot up is slow again you blame CCleaner.
Is that the default setting??? if it's not, blame the person who changed the setting NOT CCleaner. ;D
-
darth.mikey
Abraxas i think it's maybe time to close this thread i think enough has been said on the subject already...what do you think?And if somebody would sticky it that would be nice... ;)
p3t3rb0nn
Really guys this topic has been done to death we are not in the system startup, cleaning, configuring,
"Grand Prix" are we?? ;D CCleaner is a very good program use it as you will. Prefetching well there is
probably enough information on this forum the pros and cons in the 6 or so pages to write a book on the subject.on the subject.
I have no say in what people want to add to my initial reporting of a pretty minor observation about CCleaner. Obviously it's good to have all this information about Prefetching, and thanks to all who passionately linked information about it :) I have to say personally I thought this topic died on about the 3rd page.
Maybe people are bored or sumfin' ... ;D ;D ???
-
Prefetch files are non executable. Therefore they cannot be malware or viruses. Can a virus hide in the prefetch folder? Sure but any AV can scan and remove it or you can delete it manually. The file would stand out as not having a .pf or .ini extension. There is no reason to delete the regular prefetch files. Why would you delete files that have nothing to do with the virus? It makes no sense.
Here's a case where an anti-virus program hasn't noticed malware in prefetch, and it did have a .pf extension, even if a deceitful one.
I’m running Windows XP with Zone Alarm and Vcom anti-virus. Today, I noticed a file called MSBLAST.EXE-39813b24.pf in the prefetch folder. My anti-virus software hasn’t noticed it, but on online scan at Sophos picked it up. I regularly update my anti-virus software, so is my PC infected?
http://www.pcanswers.co.uk/tips/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=27958&subsectionid=616
Due to a missed quote, the opinion Mastertech was railing against was just one of the many that come up on Google if you search for prefetch and virus.
-
Is that the default setting??? if it's not, blame the person who changed the setting NOT CCleaner.
That is not the point, it shows a major problem with CCleaner. The last access date for two weeks is flawed. Since this can include installed applications! This scenario further shows how dangerous it can be.
Here's a case where an anti-virus program hasn't noticed malware in prefetch, and it did have a .pf extension, even if a deceitful one.
I’m running Windows XP with Zone Alarm and Vcom anti-virus. Today, I noticed a file called MSBLAST.EXE-39813b24.pf in the prefetch folder. My anti-virus software hasn’t noticed it, but on online scan at Sophos picked it up. I regularly update my anti-virus software, so is my PC infected?
That file is NOT a virus. The virus file is the MSBLAST.EXE in the system32 folder. Since MSBLAST is an executable windows creates a prefetch for it. but the file MSBLAST.EXE-39813b24.pf has NO VIRUS CODE IN IT! Windows has simply created the reference file for MSBLAST.EXE to optimally load the virus. ;) Without the MSBLAST.EXE in the System32 folder the file MSBLAST.EXE-39813b24.pf is not used.
Due to a missed quote, the opinion Mastertech was railing against was just one of the many that come up on Google if you search for prefetch and virus.
All those searches are the same thing. A prefetch file can not execute or contain virus code. They are reference files for the virus to load into memory quicker.
Don't be confused by this.
-
This chap Ed seems as passionate about the possibility as you, Mastertech, yet does admit the possibility of a virus living in prefetch.
# Philidor Says:
October 9th, 2005 at 12:20 am
Can the prefetch start an application?
Years ago I had to fight a virus on my daughter’s pc. (Not sure that we had XP then.)
I kept cleaning it out and it kept reinstalling on reboot.
The way I finally got rid of it was to shut down each process individually by name, using an AV site for the list, then running the AV, and using a script to empty the prefetch.
All of those steps finally allowed me to get rid of the virus completely by one last AV scan on the next reboot.
I knew I had cleaned out all the startup lists.
I had a theory that prefetch was activating the virus code before I could run the AV.
Possible the virus writer was using the prefetch?
Thanks.
# Ed Bott Says:
October 9th, 2005 at 6:43 am
I’ve had knowledgeable people swear to me that they discovered viruses in the Prefetch folder. I’ve never seen it myself, but I’ve heard it enough times from enough people to believe it could be true. Unusual, but possible.
http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=743
-
Yes a virus can live in the folder like it can in any folder. But it cannot be a .pf file. It has to be executable. When was the last time you found a virus in a .txt text file? It is the same thing. Double click a .pf file and try to run it.
-
Im wondering what Mastertech will do should he some day face a real problem. This is make believe. The issue here is not prefetch on/off as he would like to think but CCleaner on/off. Has CCleaner done anything bad to anyones computer? and if so why? There must be 1000s of sad stories to read if what you say is relevant. Where are they? As I said XP can kill itself, has many risky settings - if you insist on using them or dont know what you are doing. The setting CC has say delete old prefetch data not disable prefetch - there are no double boot time yes/no setting. All in your head and based on the idea CCleaner is here to annoy you.
Since XP only allow 128 entries in prefetch folder OS itself is also "dangerous" cause number 129 will screw it all up and no pf-file should be deleted for installed application. Exactly what you blaim CCleaner for. Number is too low = prefetch is flawed.
-
DK what is the purpose of the Clean Old Prefetch Data option in CCleaner then? And what would you use it for?
Has CCleaner done anything bad to anyones computer? and if so why?
Yes it cleared my prefetch folder, slowing my whole computer down. Why? Because the author of CCleaner does not understand how prefetching works.
The setting CC has say delete old prefetch data not disable prefetch - there are no double boot time yes/no setting
When it deletes a prefetch file for an installed application, it effectively disables prefetching the next time you launch it. With the NTFS last access date turned off it does this to every application including Windows boot up.
All in your head and based on the idea CCleaner is here to annoy you
What is all in my head? I posted clear results of what happens when a prefetch file or the folder is cleared.
The problem is simple CCleaner has an option that does nothing but slow down your computer when used and is enabled by default. Which means everytime you run CCleaner your computer slows down. It should be removed.
-
Yes it "disables" prefetching the same way XP would do in exact same situation! You are making a big effort trying to make CC look bad but in fact it does nothing wrong. As everyone will tell you it is perfectly safe to delete those files, not dangerous! Not a special CC feature though probably better implemented than in most cleaners which just wipe out folder.
Just because author make that 2 week limit shows he fully understand prefetch. Why delete pf-files for actively used programs? Why is that hard to understand?
I have tried to explain to you how cleaners work, the idea behind them. You can take out 50% of all features in every cleaner if you want. Useless or essential - in the eye of the beholder. If you can delete something then better do it today than next week - when OS might do it automatically. Dont use them if you feel they do you no good. Or at least untick the options you dont like.
If we assume you are correct about ntfs access date tweak vs. CC then why is it not allways a good idea to turn it off? Dont you think it is a meaningful tweak UNLESS your programs rely on it? If that is so CC should mention in help but may be author is thinking that if user does registry hacks he is well aware of pros/cons? Would be naive but make sense just the same. Im sure Microsoft mention it, of course you would look up a tweak before applyin it? Nothing wrong in CC making use of ntfs feature. That you wish to disable it is your problem. You shouldnt be tweaking if you dont understand effect.
With no tweak we dont have a problem do we? Not so good is it? May be better to prove a point by silently assume the worst - then test right? And subject magically becomes prefetch vs no prefetch. If you test with no assumptions you will have a hard time telling difference between before and after since no pf-files used last 2 weeks are deleted. That of course includes the one used for booting. Status quo except any older ones is gone - cleaner thing you cant relate to. May be go to CC forums to understand why some are hooked on cleaning.
So your tests and white papers from 2002 have nothing to do with your target CC. Unless those reading your posts actually know CC they must believe it screw up computer - false statement. You could ask author to underline last access being important, rest is ranting and assumptions.
I suggest you move on to registry cleaners - much better area to waste energy.
-
No you still don't understand. XP DOES NOT DELETE ANY PREFETCH FILE FOR ANY INSTALLED APPLICATION below 128 entries. CCleaner does. XP DOES NOT WORK OFF A TWO WEEK TIME LIMIT, it works off a 128 item limit. If all 128 items are installed it will not remove any of them. CCleaner DOES NOT DO WHAT XP does PERIOD!
Here is another situation. Say you go on vacation or do not use your Computer for two weeks and come back, CCleaner will delete every application's prefetch. Why? For what reason. You still haven't answered this. Why are you ignoring the question?
If we assume you are correct about ntfs access date tweak vs. CC then why is it not allways a good idea to turn it off?
Not assume, I am correct. I tested it. You haven't tested one thing.
You shouldnt be tweaking if you dont understand effect.
I do understand, you don't understand. Turning this feature off improves file system performance.
With no tweak we dont have a problem do we
Yes we do! Why are you not reading anything I type? Just because a prefetch file is two weeks old does not mean it is still not installed. XP will never remove these files below the 128 limit. CCleaner does.
So your tests and white papers from 2002 have nothing to do with your target CC. Unless those reading your posts actually know CC they must believe it screw up computer - false statement. You could ask author to underline last access being important, rest is ranting and assumptions.
They have everything to do with it. That is why I posted them. Nothing is assumed. Everything has been tested. You are the one who hasn't tested a single thing. The author needs to remove this option since it is useless and only hurts performance.
I suggest you move on to registry cleaners - much better area to waste energy.
I suggest you read what I am typing and actually test something.
Answer these questions:
#1. Why is this option in CCleaner and on by default?
#2. Have you ever used CCleaner?
#3. Have you tested anything?
-
I continue to suspect that virus writers have found ways to abuse prefetch, and I also suspect that a statement like this can only be a challenge to virus writers to find ways to hide their code here.
A prefetch file can not execute or contain virus code. They are reference files for the virus to load into memory quicker.
Don't be confused by this.
I view of this I think it may still be a good idea to zap the prefetch file if malware infection is suspected: I just wonder now if CCleaner is the way to do this if it doesn't touch active prefetch entries?
I finally got the file to show itself in a search. I first tried various spyware programs without success - no problems noted. I then deleted the c:\windows\prefetch folder -- not just the contents, but the entire folder -- and emptied the recycle bin. Once I did that, the file then appeared in c:\windows\system32. Prior to deleting the prefetch folder the file did not appear in a search of the system32 folder.
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Applications/Q_21185769.html
I was about to scream, when I decided for some reason (divine inspiration, perhaps) to try to find the files myself. So I fired up the Windows search tool, which I don't typically use because it's slow and on a customer's computer I often end up having to deal with that blasted dog, and entered the current name of the files. Bingo. It turns out that there was a file in the Windows prefetch folder that I hadn't been able to find previously. I deleted this.
Then I searched for the name in the registry, and found another instance where the file was being loaded. It wasn't in any of the typical run locations (and, in fact, I don't recall where it was - sorry), and moreover it wasn't even what I'd expect to see, as there was information appended to the end of the filename. For instance, instead of ukidoek.exe, it was ukidoek.exeCommonStartup or something similar. Probably a play on the ever-popular extension overloading issues suffered by Microsoft products.
Sure enough, after disabling these two instances by using msconfig, they stopped loading. I was unable to disable them myself because the entries weren't in the normal locations, and it seems that the prefetch folder can actually load things even if they aren't being called anywhere - as if these files are preloaded for you. A trojan or virus in there simply loads itself at boot time, no startup entry or registry entry or anything.
Once disabled, I was able to remove the files, and search again through the registry for the particular names that I deleted, and finally, wonder of wonders, everything cleared up. But it wasn't easy. Seems that at least one trojan/virus writer has found some pretty nifty hooks into the Windows system. Hooks that aren't among those usually found, and hooks that aren't checked by at least Trend Micro. It detected the virus once running, but even an online scan with their latest product couldn't remove the prefetch entries that were causing it to return over and over.
http://jayseae.cxliv.org/2005/01/06/narrator_trojan_headaches.html
-
Very interesting Frank a trojan that hides in Prefetch.... ::) What will they think of next?
-
I continue to suspect that virus writers have found ways to abuse prefetch, and I also suspect that a statement like this can only be a challenge to virus writers to find ways to hide their code here.
The one thing virus writers cannot get around is the fact that the virus has to execute. Which means it has to be an executable file. Executable files can be put in the prefetch folder and there are ways to hide the extension. Regardless you would want to delete the malware file not the folder. This is the same reason you don't delete the system32 folder because one executable inside is malware. The confusion comes in because people treat the prefetch folder like a temp folder. No special permissions are applied to the prefetch folder preventing AntiSpyware or AntiVirus from removing an infected file found in the folder, nor from you manually deleting it.
I view of this I think it may still be a good idea to zap the prefetch file if malware infection is suspected: I just wonder now if CCleaner is the way to do this if it doesn't touch active prefetch entries?
CCleaner will definitely not do this unless the malware that was removed was over two weeks old or you disable the NTFS last access date. This is just not a good idea regardless to use any prefetch folder cleaner. Just delete the file manually if none of the scanner remove it, don't hurt all your applications load times. It is like using a NUKE when you only needed a laser. Either way it is not possible for a prefetch file to infect you system. But there is also nothing wrong with deleting a .pf associated with Malware since it is unnecessary either way.
-
Has CCleaner done anything bad to anyones computer? and if so why?
Yes it cleared my prefetch folder, slowing my whole computer down. Why? Because the author of CCleaner does not understand how prefetching works.
Since you're so smart why don't you make your own program like CCleaner?
-
too late someone alrady has :P
and its more effective than CC as it gets all users with one sweep.
and it even gets those nasty prefetch ones ;D
-
Ah my dear Cloussau we need links (http://www.stevengould.org/software/cleanup/download.html).... ;D
-
News Flash
Bill Gates plans on removing the prefetch feature in Longhorn -Vista ;D CCleaner to now use "X's" cross
instead of ticks for option choice as well as a mail-to link for user opinions. Poll which
do you prefer the X or the tick ???
The dead horse was flogged so much that it came to life very slowly to prefetch the feed ;D and on the
way someone was forced to reboot sorry boot the horse into action. the horse after all was a very
good friend of Bill Gate$$ and the guys from CCleaner
-
Since you're so smart why don't you make your own program like CCleaner?
I can take the prefetch cleaning option out of CCleaner and repackage it but that would violate the owners copyright. Besides why make a new program when all you need is for one useless setting to be removed.
too late someone alrady has
and its more effective than CC as it gets all users with one sweep.
and it even gets those nasty prefetch ones
Cleanup! is even worse it just deletes the whole prefetch folder. I can't figure out why so many people who write these programs are fooled so easily.
-
I can take the prefetch cleaning option out of CCleaner and repackage it but that would violate the owners copyright. Besides why make a new program when all you need is for one useless setting to be removed.
You should be telling everything about this prefetch issue on the CCleaner forums (http://forum.ccleaner.com/) don't you agree? ;) You obviously know what you're talking about maybe they will listen to you there and remove the option from the program....who knows... But i know this for sure WE can't do anything about that , this is avast! forum after all...
Cleanup! is even worse it just deletes the whole prefetch folder. I can't figure out why so many people who write these programs are fooled so easily.
And the GUI is sooooo ugly.....
Cheers
Mikey
-
I've tried myself and got banned too. I recommend CCleaner all the time but now have to tell people to uncheck that option and spend far too much time explaining why. I don't expect anything to be done here other then inform others so they can do the same. Maybe then something might change. Well if makes everyone feel better I recommend Avast all the time too but I'm tired of hearing people recommending AVG. ::)
And the GUI is sooooo ugly.....
LOL
-
I've tried myself and got banned too.
That's strange. I didn't know they banned people just for making suggestions.... ;D ;D
-
They have been actively deleting topics on it, locking them and banning people. No discussion is allowed it seems.
-
but I'm tired of hearing people recommending AVG. ::)
Me too....
I've tried myself and got banned too.
That's strange. I didn't know they banned people just for making suggestions.... ;D ;D
LOL Bob ;D
-
They have been actively deleting topics on it, locking them and banning people. No discussion is allowed it seems.
Where? Who? ::)
-
The mods in the CCleaner forums.
-
The mods in the CCleaner forums.
Oh, I see... :(
Are the same foolish guys that recommend AVG? ;D
-
They have been actively deleting topics on it, locking them and banning people. No discussion is allowed it seems.
And that's so sad and they should be ashamed. HAve they heard about the freedom of the speach ? Especially when someone is talking sense ? Erasing prefetching folder does nothing good, period.
And why you people are so conservative ? Why don't you let the guy say and explain everything ? As you all see his knowledge is far ahead, are we affraid of new and bright people all of a sudden ? I've noticed many came into these forums lately with some announcements for their freeware (useful btw) programs, and all that happened, our bunch came to scare him right away... is that the way how these forums works now ?
I don't think so... and that's the core of the problem why many good forum members left these forums without thinking. All this became so boring, and people are tired of this.
Let the guy talk if he wants. I personaly can't find even one single thing he said that could be characterized as insult or something. He is just trying to explain how prefetching works. Is it too hard to try to understand it, or we don't wanna learn something new ? Remember, many thinks that they are most clever people in the world, and those won't let other speak.
Mastertech, I don't care what others will say, I'm with you on this one, and I see exactly what are you pointing here.
Too many friends of mine already left these forums... too sad...
Cheers !
-
However, in my case, my browser starts up with less time than letting me use a stopwatch while I disabled the Prefetch function... :(
-
He can talk but wont listen. There is no big discovery to make regarding CCleaner or Prefetch. Everyone understands or can look it up. No secrets. Difference is Mastertech make a big fuss out of nothing. What he see as a major problem hardly anyone will ever notice. But because no one bothers to check him or the "issue" out his word are eaten up like candy...
Ive tried several times now to make him understand his ONLY issue is CCleaner on/off and not trying to make people believe program screw up computer cause it tries to corrupt use of prefetching. His big trick is he conviniently jumps over all details, like the "problem" rely on OS hack which have absolutely nothing to do with CCleaner, and assume worse case scenario - then he blaims CCleaner. Which, as you can clearly see, does in fact take prefetch methode into consideration when doing the optional cleaning up.
Try real hard to understand what it is he see as a major and dangerous problem. When you understand he have lost 2 more ears. Even with correct use of program he still see disaster. I doubt anyone can relate.
That and because he obviously have no intention of debating or questining own words S.Z.Craftec is why he eventutally will get banned. Instead of thinking of free speech then try thinking about him thrashing a program with assumptions and false statements. Good it is not Avast right?
Look at headline for all these posts. False but says it all. If he wanted to communicate he would, politely, have raised the issue of ntfs access hack not going along with features depending on it. Much the same way you will see it for perhaps a backup program. If you read CCleaner description of old prefetch data you see mentioning of access - but not a warning against disabling that ntfs feature through registry hack or tweaker. That is absolutely only "mistake" you can blaim CC for. Rest is imagination, assumptions and having 1 eyed closed.
-
However, in my case, my browser starts up with less time than letting me use a stopwatch while I disabled the Prefetch function...
This can happen if prefetching was never enabled properly to begin with or disabled and never properly renabled. Try this, BootVis is the most accurate way to time startup:
Testing Prefetching At Bootup
Enable Prefetching and Test
1. Services
Task Scheduler = Automatic
COM+ Event System = Automatic
2. Registry (Using Regedit)
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management\PrefetchParameters
Name: EnablePrefetcher
Type: REG_DWORD
Value: 3
3. Reboot three times.
4. Download and Run BootVis. In the menu go to "Trace", select "Next Boot and Driver trace". A "Trace Repetitions" screen will appear, select "Ok" and Reboot. Upon reboot, BootVis will automatically start, analyze and log your system's boot process. When it's done, in the menu go to "Trace" and select "Optimize System" and Reboot. This time when your system comes up, wait until you see the "Optimizing System" box appear, continue to wait until the process is complete.
5. Now you system is optimized for Prefetching run BootVis, go to "Trace", select "Next Boot". Record the time.
Note: You need to confirm Prefetching is working by looking in the C:\Windows\Prefetch folder. For Boot Prefetching you should see a NTOSBOOT-xxxxxxxx.pf and a layout.ini file in the folder. If not prefetching is not working. The built-in Disk Defragmenter needs to be installed and operational (nLite users) Otherwise BootVis can invoke the layout optimization. By default Windows does this every three days, for testing or anytime you want an immediate improvement, say you added or removed a startup option use BootVis and the "Optimize System" option.
Disable Prefetching and Test
1. Registry (Using Regedit)
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Session Manager\Memory Management\PrefetchParameters
Name: EnablePrefetcher
Type: REG_DWORD
Value: 0
2. Run BootVis, go to "Trace", select "Next Boot". Record the time.
Note: These steps are necessary only to confirm your system is setup to use prefetching properly and for this test. On a regular (non tweaked) XP install (not nLite) the Prefetcher is enabled by default, the two services set to automatic, the disk defragmenter is installed and the Registry Key set to 3. After three regular boots it will automatically take effect and after three days layout the files automatically and continue to do so automatically. The problem is with certain tweak programs or custom installs that break the Prefetcher. In which case the steps to enable prefetching above should get you back to normal, if all the features are there (no guarantees with an nLite install).
-
But because no one bothers to check him or the "issue" out his word are eaten up like candy...
Yes you have not checked anything out I said.
Ive tried several times now to make him understand his ONLY issue is CCleaner on/off and not trying to make people believe program screw up computer cause it tries to corrupt use of prefetching. His big trick is he conviniently jumps over all details, like the "problem" rely on OS hack which have absolutely nothing to do with CCleaner, and assume worse case scenario - then he blaims CCleaner. Which, as you can clearly see, does in fact take prefetch methode into consideration when doing the optional cleaning up.
Dk I really don't know how else to explain to you that by default CCleaner deletes prefetch files based on a two week access date. This allows for deletion of a prefetch file for an installed application. When you decided to launch that application it would launch unoptimized and slower. It doesn't corrupt prefetching for those applications but completely disables it on that load. If you don't use your computer for two weeks and come back it will delete them all. The point is simple, it should never delete a prefetch file for an installed application before the 128 limit is reached. XP already does this so it is useless for CCleaner to even bother, especially when it uses such a flawed method to determine if a prefetch file is necessary based on an access date not whether the application is installed. The NTFS tweak further shows how flawed this method can be.
DK try honestly answering one of the questions I have posted over and over. I have provided proof when asked, you keep dodging my questions.
-
...
...
...
That and because he obviously have no intention of debating or questining own words S.Z.Craftec is why he eventutally will get banned. Instead of thinking of free speech then try thinking about him thrashing a program with assumptions and false statements. Good it is not Avast right?
...
...
...
Of course, but your words above doesn't make sense. You know why ? I'll tell you now why...
"Good it is not Avast right?" - what do you mean ? You are maybe trying to tell us that you are defending CCLeaner, because it sounds like that ? Are you one of the developers, and that's why you are trying so hard to prove that Mastertech is telling anything but bull ? I mean, by the number of posts (which is non-important in some other cases of course) I would say that both of you collected pretty much of 90% if not 100% of your posts in this thread... isn't that little off ?
What makes you think no one is allowed to say anything against avast! ? Of course, it wouldn't be nice to come here in these forums and bash avast! without any reason. We are here so long time, helping others with their problems, that it makes our work, which is by the way free and our good will nothing else, useless... why would we look at someone came in here and bashin this product ig he has no reason at all ? If he has some reasons, we are here to try to help him and to solve those problems. If we can not do that, we ask Alwil guys, and that cooperation always works perfectly... Also, we are those who asks questions as well, when something is unclear... we are not all-knowing guys, we are here to provide help if possible... if not, Alwil jumps in. See here, I among the others reported some startup issues, so do not tell me we are here to "hide" some avast! issues or something ;) :
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=16882.0
Again, not trying to step on anyone's toes, just saying that there are some other ways, much better ways to discuss things. This will eventually turn into flamming, and that, Alwil won't tolerate. I don't believe anyone will be abnned from here, but I'm sure someone will step in and lock this thread. Really, I didn't see anything else but nice healthy discussion, but it doesn't mean it will not grow into something else... something no one wants to see in here. I am long enough in these forums to know how those things ends up... not nice, trust me on this one.
We all are friends in here and let's try to keep it that way. If you two disagree on some things, that's ok too. No two individuals are alike, so why would anyone expect you two have to get along ? Think of it...
Regards !
-
You see they'll keep arguing till Christmas Sasha if someone doesn't close this thread and it'll help no one....You two(mastertech and dk70) can continue trough PM's, seriously guys if anyone reading this thread(and all the links provided) doesn't get why you shouldn't use the clean prefetch function in CCleaner that's his problem not mine and it's his opinion and i'll respect it even though i don't agree but i won't argue in this thread about it....
-
Haha Miha, what's the time in Slovenia now ? Shouldn't you be sleeping now ? Counting those jumping sheeps... jumping over ther fence... 1...2...3...4...5...etc.
One of them would be RejZoR, right ? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Haha Miha, what's the time in Slovenia now ? Shouldn't you be sleeping now ? Counting those jumping sheeps... jumping over ther fence... 1...2...3...4...5...etc.
One of them would be RejZoR, right ? ;D ;D ;D ;D
2:50 AM: Yes i was already sleeping but i woke up was a bit thirsty and now i'm awake... No sheeps for me Sasha(especially man ones) i count the stars..... ;D
-
You see they'll keep arguing till Christmas Sasha if someone doesn't close this thread and it'll help no one....You two(mastertech and dk70) can continue trough PM's, seriously guys if anyone reading this thread
No need I have explained it as best as I possibly can. I do not believe PMs will make a difference. At this point I just keep repeating myself.
To make this clear, I actually recommend CCleaner just not with the "old prefetch data" option checked. I obviously think it should be removed and have given plenty of evidence including tests as to why. At this point I will continue with any performance testing discussion. I would like the thread to stay open for this reason.
-
I just keep repeating myself
That's all i'm saying.... ;D
-
At this point I will continue with any performance testing discussion. I would like the thread to stay open for this reason.
IMHO, I think this subject has been beaten to death but, there isn't anything in this thread that warrent's closing it.
-
Mastertech, what I meant is that my browser starts in a blink even when prefetch function is disabled and I don't have practical reasoning to enable the function again. Knowing the security issue, I'd prefer in this way. I don't know about other systems but all the application I need works quickly enough for me probably partially because I like simple ones. Thanx for the info, though.
At this point I will continue with any performance testing discussion. I would like the thread to stay open for this reason.
IMHO, I think this subject has been beaten to death but, there isn't anything in this thread that warrent's closing it.
There have been weird rivalries outside of technical information but they don't seem to have done much harm than I worried. The closing issue seems to be turrned out nothing to be fussed about, as well. ;)
-
Mastertech, what I meant is that my browser starts in a blink even when prefetch function is disabled and I don't have practical reasoning to enable the function again. Knowing the security issue, I'd prefer in this way. I don't know about other systems but all the application I need works quickly enough for me probably partially because I like simple ones. Thanx for the info, though.
Ehhhhmmmm what security issue would that be?
-
(Regsisting temptation of using Star Wars cliche.), darth.mikey, you must have been too distracted. ;)
Check some posts by FreewheelinFrank. Tech also mentioned the privacy issue. I'd take them as information and not argument against anyone, though.
-
Who's arguing?I'm just asking....And if you read the link that Frank gave you'd see that a guy had a problem with a trojan that was hiding in Prefetch folder, but let me tell you a folder is a folder and malware can hide in any folder so that is no reason to disable the Prefetch function ;) And if you tried the tests that Mastertech gave us you would see how Prefetch really helps to load programs faster...
P.S: Didn't you write this?
This is what I would have written. Another vote for closing. ;)
Cheers
Mikey
EDIT: Could you quote me what Tech said on "the privacy issue" ? And remember no one is arguing we're just talking... ;)
-
Who's arguing?I'm just asking.... (...) And remember no one is arguing we're just talking... ;)
I used the word "argument" as a reason given to disprove something or what some people say. Not as a quarrel.
Who's arguing?I'm just asking....And if you read the link that Frank gave you'd see that a guy had a problem with a trojan that was hiding in Prefetch folder, but let me tell you a folder is a folder and malware can hide in any folder so that is no reason to disable the Prefetch function ;)
This is a matter of point of views but I understand it as "fewer folders mean fewer hiding places." In fact, I separate storage partitions from app one and am trying to keep the app one as small as possible.
P.S: Didn't you write this?
This is what I would have written. Another vote for closing. ;)
And I am not critisizing anyone (if it were taken as "criticism" at all) as much as myself. Yet agian, I think this is just the impression caused by my use of the word "argument," I used it rather carelessly, I think. The word itself is often used in academic subjects as well and I thought it was quite safe.
EDIT: Could you quote me what Tech said on "the privacy issue" ?
? Sorry, probably someone else but if we share our systems with someone intentionally or unintentionally ;), the pre-fetch data gives way what apps we are using.
Though, none of them are big issues, I think.
-
I used the word "argument" as a reason given to disprove something or what some people say. Not as a quarrel.
Oh i see, no harm done... ;)
This is a matter of point of views but I understand it as "fewer folders mean fewer hiding places." In fact, I separate storage partitions from app one and am trying to keep the app one as small as possible.
I don't get your logic Umath sorry...I don't see how having less folders means less infections(if that is what you're trying to say) ???
If that is what you believe let me assure you that you're not even a tiny bit safer having less folders... ;)
Cheers
Mikey
-
Yes the security issue is a Myth. A virus or malware can put itself in any folder and there is nothing special about removing one from the prefetch folder. Places like system restore are much more of a concern.
Privacy is a non issue. Prefetching does nothing more then show programs that are installed on your computer anyway. Looking in Add/Remove is more effective then looking in the prefetch folder.
-
The postings I quoted before seem to suggest that malware may be abusing the Prefetch process in order to hide itself.
This may be true, it may not.
I'm going to err on the side of caution and nuke the Prefetch folder with CleanUp! the next time I encounter an infected computer, especially as any performance issue is a)minor and b)shortlived as Windows rebuilds the folder.
Otherwise I'm quite happy to let prefetch do its thing if malware is not present, and to leave the CCleaner prefetch box unchecked.
-
But that doesn't make any sense. If Malware wants to hide itself it will use techniques like alternate data streams ect... Nothing about prefetching has anything to do with hiding files. People are confusing a prefetch file created for the malware executable as malware. Simply impossible. By all means delete any executables found in the prefetch folder that are identified as malware but cleaning the whole folder is a waste of time. I clean malware daily and have dealt with some very bad infections none of which has anything to do with prefetching. This is simply paranoia being spread because the associated prefetch file has the same name as the malware it was prefetching. I see alot of posts in forums where people jump to all sorts of crazy conclusions.
-
This is a matter of point of views but I understand it as "fewer folders mean fewer hiding places." In fact, I separate storage partitions from app one and am trying to keep the app one as small as possible.
I don't get your logic Umath sorry...I don't see how having less folders means less infections(if that is what you're trying to say) ???
If that is what you believe let me assure you that you're not even a tiny bit safer having less folders... ;)
I thought "less" was used for uncountable nouns. I meant less hiding places (for virus and malware).
Yes the security issue is a Myth. A virus or malware can put itself in any folder and there is nothing special about removing one from the prefetch folder. Places like system restore are much more of a concern.
Of course, most favourite places for malware seem to be temp folders and system restore. However, prefetch folder has common things with malware's favourite hiding places: it is a system folder, which is not unnatural to be there. The files inside the folder can be changed often although they shouldn't vary unlike in the other folders. I agree that the other folders are more of the concern but it doesn't mean prefetch folder is totally safe, I think.
Privacy is a non issue. Prefetching does nothing more then show programs that are installed on your computer anyway. Looking in Add/Remove is more effective then looking in the prefetch folder.
I have a lot of manually installed apps, which are not on Add/Remove.
As I wrote, they are not big issues, though. I just tried to explain what I thought.
-
Nothing about prefetching has anything to do with hiding files.
While stories like this appear, I think I'll remain paranoid:
Prior to deleting the prefetch folder the file did not appear in a search of the system32 folder.
it seems that the prefetch folder can actually load things even if they aren't being called anywhere
(See my previous posting for full links.)
I appreciate now that .pf files in Prefetch have the same name as the .exe file, e.g. MSBLAST.EXE-39813b24.pf, but it worries me that Sophos detected this file as a virus file: surely an AV works on content not just name?
Although I've seen no hard evidence that there is a risk from Prefetch other than malware files simply being in the folder, that alone seems to be a good enough reason to delete it along with all the temp and cache folders. Who's going to notice a slight slowdown in performance because prefetch is being rebuilt over the huge improvement in a crippled computer when malware is removed?
And the stories above do worry me.
Is it possible to say categorically that prefetch folder can't actually load things even if they aren't being called anywhere, and that the Prefetch file can't hide a file in the system folder?
-
Of course, most favourite places for malware seem to be temp folders and system restore. However, prefetch folder has common things with malware's favourite hiding places: it is a system folder, which is not unnatural to be there. The files inside the folder can be changed often although they shouldn't vary unlike in the other folders. I agree that the other folders are more of the concern but it doesn't mean prefetch folder is totally safe, I think.
The Prefetch folder is no different then any other folder. It is not hidden ect... So there is no special reason for anything to be put in there. Like any other folder a virus can install itself there, however it has nothing to do with the .pf files.
I have a lot of manually installed apps, which are not on Add/Remove.
As I wrote, they are not big issues, though. I just tried to explain what I thought.
I guess but the performance hit is not worth it IMO.
worries me that Sophos detected this file as a virus file: surely an AV works on content not just name
It is a false positive. Every nonstealth virus running in XP will have a prefetch file created for it. I could find no evidence from any antivirus company that remotely talks about .pf files. I found three separate malware items that can put executables in the prefetch folder. These have nothing to do with the prefetch files. Which is why cleaning the folder is not a solution to anything.
And the stories above do worry me.
When you hear an antivirus company or reputable antispyware company seriously talking about it, I would be concerned. Prefetching has been around since 2001 when XP was released and you see no reputable company talking about cleaning the prefetch folder as any sort of antimalware solution. Simply because it makes not sense. People are getting scared because of the prefetch file name, nothing more.
I mean if the evidence doesn't put your mind at ease, delete the malware associated .pf file. If the malware is cleaned it is not needed anyway. heh.