Talk:CCleaner

Previous Deletions
I noticed that this page has been deleted previously before creating it, but I thought I'd give it another shot. I am in no way associated with the product or company. Merely someone that uses the product.

Reasons for adding: Via Google Trends if you compare CCleaner against "Spybot" and "Ad-aware" it in some cases rates higher than Ad-ware and tends to be a close third. Both Ad-aware and Spybot have pages on Wikipedia.

Via Google News CCleaner has 600+ news articles that use its name.

Via Alexa.com if you compare ccleaner.com, lavasoftusa.com, safer-networking.org which are the sites for CCleaner, Ad-aware, and Spybot respectively you will find that CCleaner.com is currently rating ABOVE the other two in reach, page rank, and page views.

Its parent company which is Piriform has released a second product, Recuva, and is currently working on a "defrag tool" according to the Products page.

CCleaner is also mentioned in one other Wikipedia article: Windows Startup Process.

I believe that while CCleaner may not be extraordinarily important in the grand scheme of things it is important enough to warrant the space for an article.

Thanks. --Campbecf 21:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Link to deletion article: Articles for deletion/Ccleaner --Campbecf 21:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep, it is helping users who are inexperienced with computers with maintaning it. Emva 21:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you can't vote here; secondly, WP:NOT. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 13:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't be so helpful and welcoming, or we'll blush and start writing better articles! ExitFilm(For a Music) (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Anonymity of the maker
For unknown reasons, the developer Piriform Ltd. refuses to publish its business address and identity of the developers or managers which is quite strange for a company offering a software downloaded by >275 million users. Pretty strange and I wonder why any of the major magazine has never discussed this issue. What, if CCleaner is a giant scam?91.9.224.22 (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reference for that claim? I have removed from the article, as it is unreferenced. The registered company address is public information if that helps: PIRIFORM LTD

17 CAVENDISH SQUARE LONDON UNITED KINGDOM W1G 0PH Company No. 05565433 Widefox (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh thank you, Widefox. If you would have bothered to search in Google for your quoted business address you will find this: http://www.executiveoffices.co.uk/west-end-and-belgravia-offices/cavendish-square/ that is a provider of virtual office space for anonymous and often shady shell companies Shell (corporation). All domains are registered anonymously via Godaddy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.9.231.144 (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if you found evidence, it's still original research by a Wikipedian. Unless you can cite a published source (newspaper/blog/review site) that discusses the matter, we can't keep it in the article. Reverted. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 10:26, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why must it necessarily be "published in a newpaper" to be mentioned? How can a "blog entry" be a more reliable source of information better than above query engines and general publich information in your opinion? You can *verify* the information. Italy's public. You can easily verify that the domain is registered using an anonymizing GoDaddy service: Visit http://who.godaddy.com/whoischeck.aspx?ci=8926 and enter the related domain names. You query the public and official http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk/info Ltd directory and find that Piriform has the same address as a Virtual Office space rental company http://www.argyllbusinesscentres.com/ . There seems to be no real office operations. It should be considered noteworthy in the article that a company offering a popular and wide-spread freeware undertakes serious endeavours to hide and obfuscate its identity for unknown reason and motivation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.9.232.189 (talk) 16:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No it shouldn't, because you are presenting original research in the article - you have researched its background and are presenting a conclusion of your own in the article, that there is some nefarious reason why you can't find their physical address anywhere. Does someone need to have a premises to write software? I'm aware of many different pieces of freeware created by groups of people or individuals that do not have a physical location, it doesn't mean there's something wrong with the software. That is research on your part. We cannot present our own conclusions based on evidence we find, we can only report on conclusions that others have made in verifiable, reliable sources. Please also note that we cannot change the article based on what is good or bad for Piriform/CCleaner, only what is good or bad for the article based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Also please remember to sign your posts in future. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "it doesn't mean there's something wrong with the software.": I believe that users of a software should be a aware that the developer of it undertakes substantial measures to hide its identity. It is about trust. What, if the software turns into a spybot or spam emailer after spreaded further. This is speculation of course but the reason for the obfuscation is yet to explain. "I'm aware of many different pieces of freeware created by groups of people or individuals that do not have a physical location": This is not about "some" freeware but one of the top 5 most downloaded freeware today. It is a major title. And no, such relevant company should not hide its identity and normally would'nt either have interest to do that. "we can only report on conclusions that others have made in verifiable, reliable sources.": Isn't that what I provided?91.9.232.189 (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's not what you have did - you provided the basic evidence, but you made the conclusions yourself, you didn't report on someone else's conclusion. You used a key word here - "I believe that users of a software should be aware". On Wikipedia, what you believe (or think, or like, or want) has no importance whatsoever, due to the policies I have already cited and our neutral point of view policy as well. Think of it the other way around - the company hasn't take substantial measures to hide its identity, it just hasn't taken any measures to show its identity. Why does having no office space make the software more likely to be harmful? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 08:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Why does having no office space make the software more likely to be harmful?". It is not only about not having office space. Please do not view this sinlge point isolateed out of the whole context. It is about hiding the business address on the webpage PLUS registering domains using anonymizing domain registration services PLUS using a shelf corporation with apparently a virtual office. I do not just "believe" that the company tries to hide its identity, but I provided verifiable evidences for all that. What I "believe" is that these facts are notable to users as it may let them think twice regarding trust and confidentiality. Please do not mix these two instances of "believe".91.9.252.41 (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter how many instances or uses of believe you give; the key is that you are saying i believe. That particular subject is only acceptable in a sentence which runs along the lines of I found this published conclusion in which someone else claims that there is a trust issue with Piriform "hiding" their physical location.  Anything else, even taking the information you have found and given and making a conclusion or helping the reader to a conclusion, is original research and, as such, not what Wikipedia is about. Cheers, LindsayHi 05:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input Lindsay. If you don't mind, I've listed this on RfC to garner more opinions on the matter. For new participants in the discussion, the precise change that we are discussing is this addition, currently reverted out of the article. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you provide evidence of a law in the country where the company resides "hidden" that reads a company is obliged to provide their address on the internet? ExitFilm(For a Music) (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I dont get it. Dont you see that Piriform is hiding their business address? It stares at you if you lookup their webpage orif you lookup their anonymous domain registration and the anonymous company setup. And you guys sit there debating about the word "believe"... Wikinerds...*sigh*24.119.59.138 (talk) 01:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, however the crucial point is that it is original research - it does not matter one little bit if it is true or not, it cannot be independently verified by a reliable source, therefore it cannot be included. It is incredibly simple, and not up for debate. Get a journalist to publicly care, then you can put it in the article. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But he quoted verifyable resources?! Have you tried following the provided public links. My vote to add a note regarding the anonymity.74.3.1.130 (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Wikinerds...*sigh*"
 * Damn boy, no need to be so salty about it. ExitFilm(For a Music) (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC on lack of location information
Should the fact that the manufacturer (Piriform) does not list its physical location anywhere on the internet be included in the article? See above section for evidence provided. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If the fact (that the physical location isn't mentioned) is cited in a reliable source, then we can include that fact in the article. If not, then it's original research. – Quadell (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with Quadell. We would need something like a newspaper or other reliable source saying "Piriform is known for its practice of not listing a physical location online" or something similar before we could include it.  To do otherwise would violate no original research.  MBisanz  talk 20:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure I see where the drama is, it is not uncommon for a software house to not list where they are located, there is nothing sinister about it. Even if, as Quadell says, there is an article about Piriform not listing their address I am not sure how that would improve the article.
 * What difference does it make where they are located? Are they breaking any laws by not giving their address? Does knowing/not knowing their address improve the article? FFMG (talk) 04:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

infected CCleaner
I removed this unreferenced claim. This really needs a reference, else I would consider that CCleaner is correctly doing its job of finding malware. "There are several reported instances of systems that have been infected by the Vundo Trojan (also known as Virtumonde) after downloading CCleaner." Widefox (talk) 13:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To note, CCleaner does not claim to (and does not) detect or remove malware. It cleans out temporary files and other miscellaneous unneeded files and registry keys in Windows. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for a complete record; while I'm sure ccleaner doesnt CLAIM to remove malware (let alone actively detect; which it doesnt), it has been used for years in cleaning up malware. One of its functionalities is a powerful uninstall for other software. Similar to the Windows add/remove software list. So, while not specifically an anti-malware itself, it is/was/can be used in anti-malware situations. Although I feel the need to add that, recently, it appears that ccleaner itself can carry malware. 82.173.192.255 (talk) 08:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Old Prefetch Data, what's the need for that section?
Has this general advice about Windows/prefetch got anything to do with this software article? What is the need for it here, in this article? Wikipedia does not give general random advice on various software. Unless anyone has a good reason why we should keep the section I would suggest removing it. FFMG (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep it
I saw something at the top of the artyicle saying it may be deleted, dated November 2010. I vote to keep it, Its used by lots of people and has a good reputation. 92.29.112.73 (talk) 14:05, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

JJJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.53.2 (talk) 06:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep117.221.182.238 (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)it

Unusable on my machine
I have a netbook running Windows XP with an Atom N435 and this "highly recommended" program named CCleaner crashed my system. I do not recommend it. --217.82.177.88 (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

C|Net is not a good gauge of reliability.
The fact that this recieved 5/5 stars on C|net is completely irellevant. Their reliability is really not what it was 5 years ago. Some developers have even caught download.com (a sub site of C|Net) bundling spyware with their legitimate software. . They appear to give any software a good review that pays for it. C|Net has also recently recinded it's "Anti-Spyware" policy. Therefore, I would suggest that they be removed as a credible source of relieability of the software.

Secondly, this entry reads like an advertisement. It cites only one refrence outside the developers website, and that is to C|net which as I mentioned above, appears to be paid to say good things about their advertisers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtuite (talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ccleaner works in my experience, but it does not get rid of viruses and the like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.246.216 (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that Cnet's rating no longer means anything. I've also heard quite some horror stories about Ccleaner messing up. So I think this article is one-sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.82.82 (talk) 08:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

License description
On 12 March 2017 I added a section describing licensing, privacy and Piriform's protective policies on user data. It's visible in the article's View history tab. On 13 March 2017‎ Sbmeirow reviewed the article, deleted some content, but kept the licensing section. On 2 April 2017‎ Nthep did likewise. However on 10 May 2017‎ Train2104 deleted the licensing section with a comment that it was "a needless in-depth critical analysis." I don't think it was "critical analysis," it simply noted CCleaner's terms, without critique. "Needless" is in the eye of the beholder, but it's a brief section describing what CCleaner does. I think most readers understand that free and inexpensive software like CCleaner may use users' data, so description of what data are used and how uses are limited is quite important in understanding a product. I respect that Train2104 does not need the section, but Nthep and Sbmeirow apparently agreed with me it was appropriate. Numbersinstitute (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I added the section back in, since there were no objections here. Numbersinstitute (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Old Name was Crap Cleaner
The old name for CCleaner was Crap Cleaner. Notice the EXTRA "C" in CCleaner. This is correct. Just because there isn't a reference, doesn't mean it's wrong. Yeah, we need to find a reference from some old website before the newer company took it over, but that doesn't mean it should automatically be removed. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 12:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * With a supposed nick-name like that, yes it does. Something which is derogatory needs to be added with extra care, especially as it is liable to be considered vandalism, or even potentially libellous, without a source. An editor's opinion is also inadmissible because it is not neutral, see neutral point of view. The articles Identifying reliable sources, verifiability and notability are also relevant here. Philip Cross (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There's nothing "supposed" about its name at all. Those who used it at the time KNOW it was originally "Crap Cleaner", and it's 100% evidenced in its "About" dialog box, and its own release notes. You can verify this by using v1.06.050 (available from http://www.oldversion.com/windows/ccleaner/); but I've also made two screenshots for you: https://i.imgur.com/RiCl2Y1.png


 * It always was a FACT, but you didn't know it. Though I didn't originally add the old name to this article, I did find a reference to prove it.  Done.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 12:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Hack
Should we report on the recent hack of CCleaner v. 5.33.6162 or CCleaner Cloud v. 1.07.3191, which requires an uninstall?

Since there had been a previous hack in 2009, perhaps we want a succinct section on CCleaner hacks.

The current - most recent - version is 5.34.6207. MaynardClark (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)