is UPHClean a 'registered program'?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2harts4ever
  • Start date Start date
2

2harts4ever

Good morning,

This is a spin-off of the preceding question I submitted (Defender flagging
a known program).

Can anyone who uses 'UPHClean' tell me if it shows as 'permitted' or 'not
yet classified' when they go to Defender > Tools > Software Explorer >
Category (currently running Programs)?

Mine shows as 'not yet classified'.

Thanks and regards,

2harts4ever
 
Hi Stu,

I appreciate the response.

Could I get you to left click on the UPHClean listing and tell me what is
listed in the right window under (1) version and (2) file size?

Thanks and regards,

2harts4ever
 
Sure. No problem. I show in order requested:
1) 1.6.30.0
2) 241725

BTW. I`m running XP Home SP3
WD. 1.1.1593.0

Stu
 
Hi Stu,

Thanks for the follow-up. I have the same two entries as you and I am
running WinXP SP3 too with the same Defender version loaded.

However, for one reason or another, under 'classification' it shows: "not
yet classified" and under 'SpyNet voting': "in progress". Also, under
'digitally signed by' it says: "NOT SIGNED".

I guess since Defender isn't 'permitting' it is the reason why I get those
two annoying error messages listed under Event Viewers 'System' log.

I also run Zone Alarm Internet Security Suite and right now they are having
a problem with their latest program version so I went back to the last good
one. I don't know if this could be the problem or not ... but I will keep
investigating.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. If you have any ideas
let 'em fly.

Regards,

2harts4ever
 
I`ll certainly do that for you. As it happens I run ZA pro as my PF. I
sometimes wonder if there is a preferential order in which one should install
these processes for them to run successfully. Why? Is anyone`s guess - not
least of all mine.

Stu
 
Can you both look at UPHCLEAN using the software explorer?

I wonder if we can get a checksum or hash of the executable to prove whether
they are the same?
 
Question for you Bill OT. Why is the file size on disk different to the
actual file size? I`ve often wondered. Is there some info in there which
tells the FAT where to find it or something?

Thanks in advance.

Stu
 
There is one thing I`ve noticed with software explorer. It sometimes takes
awhile to settle down. That is, one minute I get the same result as you then
some time later the updated result to the one I`ve posted to you. Hope that
makes sense. One thing for sure. It has not been digitally signed by
Microsoft although the file was downloaded from their site. Here`s the link I
got mine from:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloadS/...6D-8912-4E18-B570-42470E2F3582&displaylang=en

Stu
 
File space is allocated by the "cluster" Cluster size is determined when a
drive is formatted, and ranges from 512 up to I'm not sure what. With NTFS,
the most common sizes are 512 and 4096, with 4096 generally being far
preferable--the smaller cluster size can lead to greater fragmentation.

I think the difference between the sizes is the slack space in the last
cluster needed to store the file.

Cluster size is not easy to see in Windows, as I recall.

In Vista, you go to an elevated command prompt (i.e. right click and choose
run as administrator)

and type in

fsutil fsinfo ntfsinfo c:

Modify as appropriate for the drive letter.

I have to say that I'm not sure of the answer if the drive is Fat, fat 16 or
fat32.

I think the above command works on XP but haven't tested it.
 
OK many thanks for the explanation. FWIW, I tried your command on my XP
machine and it seems to work. The sector and cluster size is given as 512KB
which, I light of what you have said, is not good. The external drive is
512/4096.

Stu
 
512 is common in drives converted using the "convert" command from Fat32.

Unfortunately, you need a third party utility such as bootitng to change
this.

My technical details weren't perfect either--if a file is fragmented. there
will be several clusters with slack space in them--depending on the number
of fragments.
 
That is exactly what I did. The recovery disk that comes with this laptop
formats to FAT32 so I converted to a NTFS volume.

Stu
 
This is not uncommon at all. I'm not clear whether the average general use
machine would see a perceptable performance difference by changing to 4096
clusters--servers definitely do, I believe.
 
Yeah. I think better leave alone lest I should get more than I bargained for.
I only converted to NTFS because I read somewhere that NTFS makes for more
efficient file allocation/storage on your hard drive? I`ve had some bad
experiences with third party apps that claimed to do wonderful things with
your system only to find I had a BSOD at the end of it!! You know, the one
with white hexadecimal writing on it which you get a fleeting glimpse of
before your system shuts down? Mine definately does not like Registry
Defragmenters. Last time I did that everything seemed to go fine UNTIL reboot
time! Thats when I received an error telling me that ntld.com was missing and
Windows would not boot. From my limited understanding of Windows I soon came
to realise that is a very serious file to be missing in the boot sequence
.........

Stu
 
NTFS is more efficient and safer than Fat32. A 512 byte cluster is, on
average, less efficient than a 4096 byte cluster, but this isn't something
I'd worry about at all. If you are on XP, create a scheduled task to run
the command-line defragmenter regularly, and don't worry about it. On
Vista, the defragmenter is automatically run in the background once you
enable it.
 
Back
Top