Problems due to Index.dat Suite???

[Steven Burn]

Oh crickey no... if IE 6 does that then you've just made me even more
determined not to upgrade (atleast when doing that with IE5.x it actually
uninstalls everything to do with it and reverts to a previous version)

--

Regards

Steven Burn
Ur I.T. Mate Group
www.it-mate.co.uk

Keeping it FREE!

Disclaimer:
I know I'm probably wrong, I just like taking part ;o)

 

[John Corliss]

Me too!


Post back the results please John

It's just a theory, but gladly.

 

[John Corliss]

I don't think it's due to an IE6 upgrade - I've just done that myself,
plus an update of the OS, and still my Index.dat file remains at 32KB
when I delete it and reboot.

My index.dat files didn't even get recreated until I started Windows
Explorer or Internet Explorer. And when they did get recreated, they
were the following sizes:

16 KB c:\windows\cookies\index.dat
16 KB c:\windows\history\history.ie5\index.dat
32 KB c:\windows\temporary internet files\content.ie5\index.dat

Now, they are that imediately after Windows starts. Read back and
you'll see that my System Restore was recreating them as whatever size
they were when I had shut down the day before. Deactivating System
Restore temporarily was what deleted the backed up system copies and
led to the OS recreating the index.dat files from scratch. At this
point (since I've reactivated System Restore), I would say that on my
system, they are being recreated from copies that are the same as the
created from scratch versions. This will most likely change though.

What the HELL was MS thinking when they tried to pull the use of
index.dat files on us in the first place?

 

[Rob]

By the way, I had to reformat & re-install, too. Took 12 hrs
(several dozen apps & office); The risks of trying new freeware; Have
you done a backup yet today?

You should consider using Total Uninstall when installing any new software.
If the software doesn't work out you could easily completely uninstall the
software.

Total Uninstall has saved me from formatting my disk and reinstalling
Windows several times.

Rob

 

[bassbag]

My index.dat files didn't even get recreated until I started Windows
Explorer or Internet Explorer. And when they did get recreated, they
were the following sizes:

16 KB c:\windows\cookies\index.dat
16 KB c:\windows\history\history.ie5\index.dat
32 KB c:\windows\temporary internet files\content.ie5\index.dat

Now, they are that imediately after Windows starts. Read back and
you'll see that my System Restore was recreating them as whatever size
they were when I had shut down the day before. Deactivating System
Restore temporarily was what deleted the backed up system copies and
led to the OS recreating the index.dat files from scratch. At this
point (since I've reactivated System Restore), I would say that on my
system, they are being recreated from copies that are the same as the
created from scratch versions. This will most likely change though.

What the HELL was MS thinking when they tried to pull the use of
index.dat files on us in the first place?

The problem seems to arise from the restore function of the operating
systems.I use w98se and while index .dat suite succesfully deletes the
index .dat files in the normal folders it cant erase permanently the
copies located in restore folders.I use powerquest second chance on 98
(very similar to mes restore function) and while index .dat suite deletes
the files that are in the restore folder (powerquest secondchance in my
case) they are immediatley recreated (with everything still in them) by
secondchance when windows loads.Whilst i cant speak for steven..i would
imagine his programme was meant initially for deleting the normal
index.dat files (which it works fine) and not ones that have been backed
up by system restore programmes such as those found in me xp and on 98
using secondchance.I suppose that if the programme could successfully
delete files protected in these restore folders then perhaps the whole
restore safeguard would be pretty much useless?
me

 

[omega]

(e-mail address removed) (Clymer):

Fact is, the batch language, viz. del/tree etc. is not even recognized
by XP as valid.

In the run.bat generated, Index.dat Suite uses either Deltree, or RD + del,
according to which OS. If I check yes for NT5-based OS, then I get:

del D:\ZTMP\MSIE\HISTORY\HISTORY.IE5\INDEX.DAT
del D:\ZTMP\MSIE\COOKIES\INDEX.DAT
cd d:\ZTMP\MSIE\COOKIES
rd /s /q d:\ZTMP\MSIE\COOKIES
cd d:\ZTMP\MSIE\HISTORY
rd /s /q d:\ZTMP\MSIE\HISTORY
cd d:\ZTMP\XX\
rd /s /q d:\ZTMP\XX\
cd d:\ZTMP\MSIE\BCACHE\MSIE
rd /s /q d:\ZTMP\MSIE\BCACHE\MSIE
exit

The author probably could not have shipped the deltree.exe (have heard that
it works in XP, but the issue would be licensing). He could have shipped a
third-party DOS delete program, as part of the package. Yet that would be
unneeded complication - and have to hassle about paths. As stands, you
have the benefit of being able to run the small Index.dat Suite executable
from anywhere; it's totally portable. And it generates a different batch
to run from different Windows OS. There were early threads about this, and
as now, the XP reports are that the generated batch file works fine for
them, as it does for those of us using w98.

.. . .

(Weird extra factors like "System Restore," that's a separate matter, and I
don't have experience with that in order to comment.)

 

[omega]

You should consider using Total Uninstall when installing any new software.
If the software doesn't work out you could easily completely uninstall the
software.

Total Uninstall has saved me from formatting my disk and reinstalling
Windows several times.

It cannot be said enought times, that no insaller should be trusted. Total
Uninstall is an excellent solution. I want to add that it's also a good
idea to take a supplementary step. Important especially for w98SE. To keep
a backup of DLLs and other standard libraries of your system directory. When
an uninstaller overwrites one of them with a wrong version or older version,
you need to be able to replace that damage, by restoring from your files
backup. A lot of installers go by date on a DLL, not version, and the date
markers have a lot of randomness.

 

[omega]

[edit]

an uninstaller overwrites one of them with a wrong version

an _installer_ overwrites one of them with a wrong version

 

[oft]

Karen S wrote:
It cannot be said enought times, that no insaller should be trusted. Total
Uninstall is an excellent solution. I want to add that it's also a good
idea to take a supplementary step. Important especially for w98SE. To keep
a backup of DLLs and other standard libraries of your system directory. When
an uninstaller overwrites one of them with a wrong version or older version,
you need to be able to replace that damage, by restoring from your files
backup. A lot of installers go by date on a DLL, not version, and the date
markers have a lot of randomness.

Yet you trust Total Uninstall's installer?

I installed it a few days ago. As usual I copied the installed dir
from Program Files to Desktop then uninstalled it.
I ran tun.exe from the desktop and used it to install/uninstall 2
programs. Everything worked OK so I copied it to my e:\bin folder
where I keep progs that I won't have to install again.

If it runs without being installed, why the setup.exe?

Then I thought I'd use it to monitor it's own installation process.
I got this error message:
"Setup has detected that Total Uninstall is currently running.
Please close all instances of it now, then click OK to continue, or
Cancel to exit."

I wonder why it won't monitor it's own installation?

e:\bin > Recycle Bin.

oft
oft

 

[Alastair Smeaton]

Yet you trust Total Uninstall's installer?

I installed it a few days ago. As usual I copied the installed dir
from Program Files to Desktop then uninstalled it.
I ran tun.exe from the desktop and used it to install/uninstall 2
programs. Everything worked OK so I copied it to my e:\bin folder
where I keep progs that I won't have to install again.

If it runs without being installed, why the setup.exe?

Then I thought I'd use it to monitor it's own installation process.
I got this error message:
"Setup has detected that Total Uninstall is currently running.
Please close all instances of it now, then click OK to continue, or
Cancel to exit."

I wonder why it won't monitor it's own installation?

e:\bin > Recycle Bin.

most programmes I would guess will check to see if any of it's files
are running in memory during an install - perhaps regardless of where
they sit on your hard drive.

I don't know this product, but I think it is a bit harsh to criticise
it for not monitoring itself

 

[oft]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 06:22:21 +0000, Alastair Smeaton

most programmes I would guess will check to see if any of it's files
are running in memory during an install - perhaps regardless of where
they sit on your hard drive.

If the install program only copies files to the hard drive, and maybe
adds some entries to the registry, why would running processes affect
that?

I don't know this product, but I think it is a bit harsh to criticise
it for not monitoring itself

The very nature of this program brings criticism on itself.
It,s saying you can monitor other programs you install, but not mine.
oft

 

[omega]

Yet you trust Total Uninstall's installer?

No, I don't trust /any/ installer [*], and that includes TUN's. I monitored
its install, like any other. Used Inctrl5.

I installed it a few days ago. As usual I copied the installed dir
from Program Files to Desktop then uninstalled it.
I ran tun.exe from the desktop and used it to install/uninstall 2
programs. Everything worked OK so I copied it to my e:\bin folder
where I keep progs that I won't have to install again.

If it runs without being installed, why the setup.exe?

Why do those 99% of progs that run without needing an installer restrict
their distribution to the setup.exe form? I dislike that trend, as well.

Then I thought I'd use it to monitor it's own installation process.
I got this error message:
"Setup has detected that Total Uninstall is currently running.
Please close all instances of it now, then click OK to continue, or
Cancel to exit."

I wonder why it won't monitor it's own installation?

I saw Alistair already explained this... Novel idea of yours, to use an
installmon to installmon itself. The idea seemed to have paradoxical
appeal or something?

e:\bin > Recycle Bin.

If I interpret that correctly, you should consider whether you're doing
yourself an injustice. Try out TUN for all other installs... Not its own.


--
Karen S.


[1] Re: my not trusting any installer.... Exception could be *.inf, if that
counts as installer, since .inf are, in principle, readable & editable.

 

[omega]

If the install program only copies files to the hard drive, and maybe
adds some entries to the registry, why would running processes affect
that?

When you run the setup.exe to install the latest version of TUN, it needs
to overwrite the tun.exe. It expects your running instance to be the one
it will overwrite, so it's natural for it to look for itself in memory.

I see this all the time. When I'm installing a higher version (or any
version) of a program, it looks for running instances of itself, and asks
me to close them first. Truly, I can't see why you would find this an area
for complaint.

 

[Alastair Smeaton]

When you run the setup.exe to install the latest version of TUN, it needs
to overwrite the tun.exe. It expects your running instance to be the one
it will overwrite, so it's natural for it to look for itself in memory.

I see this all the time. When I'm installing a higher version (or any
version) of a program, it looks for running instances of itself, and asks
me to close them first. Truly, I can't see why you would find this an area
for complaint.

Thanks Karen - was beginning to think *I* was wrong - I can see what
he tried to do - tell it to place tun.exe on a different drive - but I
thought most programmes would check in memory.

I think an analogy might be - :

Jim tells me I tell the truth

How can I check that is true

I know - I will ask Jim - he always tells the truth

There is something slightly illogical in what the OP was trying to do


He/she could try various other programmes to check it - InControl v 4
or 5 perhaps ?

 

[oft]

Yet you trust Total Uninstall's installer?

No, I don't trust /any/ installer [*], and that includes TUN's. I monitored
its install, like any other. Used Inctrl5.

Glad to hear that
Is Inctrl5 available for free download anywhere?
It seems to be a pcmag subscription thing now

Why do those 99% of progs that run without needing an installer restrict
their distribution to the setup.exe form? I dislike that trend, as well.


I saw Alistair already explained this... Novel idea of yours, to use an

Not to my satisfaction.

installmon to installmon itself. The idea seemed to have paradoxical
appeal or something?

Yes. Always look a gift horse in the mouth. Then put your head in
and have a peek down it's throat, and see if it bites it off.

If I interpret that correctly, you should consider whether you're doing
yourself an injustice. Try out TUN for all other installs... Not its own.

I see no reason to use it over filemon/regmon.
Thanks for the advice though
oft

 

[oft]

Thanks Karen - was beginning to think *I* was wrong - I can see what
he tried to do - tell it to place tun.exe on a different drive - but I
thought most programmes would check in memory.

I don't think there is a right and wrong here, it depends how you look
at things. You might think TUN is smart enough to check running
processes, I might think it stupid enough not to check the path as
well.

I think an analogy might be - :

Jim tells me I tell the truth

How can I check that is true

I know - I will ask Jim - he always tells the truth

To me, that is illogical. A closer analogy might be:
TUN tells me it tells the truth.
How can I check that is true?
I know - I'll ask it some questions. Then ask it the same question a
few times and see if I get the same answer.

For instance:
I used TUN to install uability.exe. Then I used TUN to uninstall it.
I checked the drive, it had been uninstalled, but stayed in TUN's
list. I used TUN to uninstall it again, a few more times. It stays in
the list. Each time I did this it updated the last used column to the
current time. It also increased the uses column by 1, it's up to 7
now, but I only ran it once before it was deleted. It also tells me
"Uninstall complete without errors" every time. Not even a file not
found error. By my reckoning it's either lying or stupid. Is that
supposed to inspire confidence?
This could be due to the fact that it's not installed correctly, but I
think it should know if something missing.

There is something slightly illogical in what the OP was trying to do

In these days of spy/fill_in_the_blank/mal/crap ware I like to give
things a poke before I use them.
Especially when they use geocities for a home page and yahoo for an
email addy. LOL. Is that supposed to inspire confidence?

He/she could try various other programmes to check it - InControl v 4
or 5 perhaps ?

I'll do that if I find a link (hint)
I'm not saying it's a bad program and should not be used, I'm saying I
don't like what little I've seen of it. An uninstaller that requires
installing is starting off on the wrong foot as far as I can see.
oft

 

[Alastair Smeaton]

I don't think there is a right and wrong here, it depends how you look
at things. You might think TUN is smart enough to check running
processes, I might think it stupid enough not to check the path as
well.

Fair enough, but this would be a criticism of many programmes - not
just TUN (which i have never tried btw - just thought your criticism
was a bit harsh in this case)

To me, that is illogical. A closer analogy might be:
TUN tells me it tells the truth.
How can I check that is true?
I know - I'll ask it some questions. Then ask it the same question a
few times and see if I get the same answer.

Again - fair enough - but not if you try to ask it questions about
itself You may not get a meaningful answer, or you may just get
lies masquerading as the truth

For instance:
I used TUN to install uability.exe. Then I used TUN to uninstall it.
I checked the drive, it had been uninstalled, but stayed in TUN's
list. I used TUN to uninstall it again, a few more times. It stays in
the list. Each time I did this it updated the last used column to the
current time. It also increased the uses column by 1, it's up to 7
now, but I only ran it once before it was deleted. It also tells me
"Uninstall complete without errors" every time. Not even a file not
found error. By my reckoning it's either lying or stupid. Is that
supposed to inspire confidence?
This could be due to the fact that it's not installed correctly, but I
think it should know if something missing.

Sounds like legit issues - maybe there is an email address for the
author you could address these comments to ?

In these days of spy/fill_in_the_blank/mal/crap ware I like to give
things a poke before I use them.
Especially when they use geocities for a home page and yahoo for an
email addy. LOL. Is that supposed to inspire confidence?

Sure - good advice - but still, your original post seemed to slate TUN
because it could not monitor it's own installs - unfair criticism in
my opinion.

I'll do that if I find a link (hint)

Hint taken - got this link from the first of many pages found thru
google. http://www.devhood.com/tools/tool_details.aspx?tool_id=432

Some people including John Corliss prefer version 4 I think - can't
remember why, and I don't use it myself - too disorganised. I prefer
to install and unistall at will, then fix problems using regseeker, or
manually

I'm not saying it's a bad program and should not be used, I'm saying I
don't like what little I've seen of it. An uninstaller that requires
installing is starting off on the wrong foot as far as I can see.
oft

In this post you give reasons why the programme may not be brilliant,
or might even be rubbish - but I maintain that if the only problem
with TUN was that it could not monitor it's own installation, I could
cope with that

cheers

 

[omega]

Glad to hear that
Is Inctrl5 available for free download anywhere?
It seems to be a pcmag subscription thing now

Folks post obscure URLs for it from time to time, but I don't have those
recorded, sorry. A similar (though weaker) substitute could be using Regshot,
together with UndoReg. Only tracks registry, not file system, changes. And
lacks the valuable "ignore list" feature that Inctrl and Tun both have.
Small and quick at least. Here are the homepage URLs (unchecked for current
working order, perhaps you can report on that)...

Regshot
http://regshot.ist.md
UndoReg
http://spazioinwind.libero.it/neutronstar

I see no reason to use it over filemon/regmon.
Thanks for the advice though

Filemon + Regmon, I use them all the time, but their focus is quite separate.
An install monitor, it records _what has changed_, between one point in time
and another. Filemon & Regmon, they tell you _what is accessed_, in real
time.

 

[omega]

I used TUN to install uability.exe. Then I used TUN to uninstall it.
I checked the drive, it had been uninstalled, but stayed in TUN's
list. I used TUN to uninstall it again, a few more times. It stays in
the list. Each time I did this it updated the last used column to the
current time. It also increased the uses column by 1, it's up to 7
now, but I only ran it once before it was deleted. It also tells me
"Uninstall complete without errors" every time. Not even a file not
found error.

Go to TUN's Options dialog, the tab called "Uninstaller." Put a checkmark
here:

[X] Automatically delete the monitored changes file if successful uninstall

I like keeping the logs, and just moving them (*.tun files) to a separate
folder. But your message indicates you'd prefer the options setting above.

 

[omega]

Alastair Smeaton <[email protected]>:

[...]

but I maintain that if the only problem with TUN was that
it could not monitor it's own installation, I could cope with that

Heh. Right with you there!