Removing programs that don't exist on the system?

[Mark Kaine]

A while ago I installed "duplicate cleaner" from an external hard drive and ever since this is in my start menu and I could not remove it in a normal way, so I just ended up deleting the contents of the folder it pointed me to (wasn't the program itself obviously just some shortcut and a website to buy this pos program, which didn't do what I wanted anyhow btw, that's another problem, I know I have so many redundant files and folders... but no program is able to successfully remove them *without removing* the files and folders I actually need - I think the problem is that these programs just look for file names, but I need it to actually look for folders too, it's of no help telling me that I have x copies of the same file , which in reality isn't even the same file necessarily, without showing me the folders sorted by *date* of creation, anyway...) **

 

So is this OK to do, won't there be residues in the registry and whatnot...? Does it even make a registry entry for programs that are installed on external? (probably, because it also makes a start menu entry, which doesn't even make sense or is welcomed...) 

 

 

** btw I get what the main problem here is and that's that Windows randomly changes the dates when you copy or rename files, it should *always* show the date of original creation time, but it simply doesn't, at least not reliably, unfortunately. 

 

[tikker]

29 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

** btw I get what the main problem here is and that's that Windows randomly changes the dates when you copy or rename files, it should *always* show the date of original creation time, but it simply doesn't, at least not reliably, unfortunately.

Creation date and last modified date are tracked separately (in explorer right click the bar in detail view and you can add a column with creation date). If you copy a file, the copy will get a new creation date, unless "archive"-copying in a way that preserves the information such as creation date. If you rename a file you will change the last modified date. Both make perfect sense.

 

29 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Does it even make a registry entry for programs that are installed on external? (probably, because it also makes a start menu entry, which doesn't even make sense or is welcomed...) 

If you run an installer, then most likely yes. Otherwise it won't show up in the Apps list to be removed for one thing. This is why it's not recommended (at least I don't) to install to a portable medium. Drive letters can change, screwing with the paths and when unplugged you are left with rogue registry entries.

 

It's a bit hard to make up from your post what you actually want, but in the past I've used e.g. Revo Uninstaller to clean up beyond just uninstalling (so registry as well) and I believe it can deal with broken installations as well.

[Mark Kaine]

11 minutes ago, tikker said:

Both make perfect sense.

Err, no? So let's say I have a file that was created 1996... now I "copy" or "move" (even worse) this file and it'll tell me this file was created in 2021... it makes no sense because that's just a copy of the otherwise unmodified file from 1996.... thus making it impossible to find that file if I ever need it. Not sure what the archive thing is maybe that would circumvent the issue but it's too late now anyway I guess...  I have thousands of files with the *same* name and possibly *same* size but not all of them have necessarily the *same content* so simply sorting by *actual* creation date would mostly fix this issue, but no.... (not reliable at all) 

 

16 minutes ago, tikker said:

It's a bit hard to make up from your post what you actually want, but in the past I've used e.g. Revo Uninstaller to clean up beyond just uninstalling (so registry as well) and I believe it can deal with broken installations as well.

Well basically just know if this can mess up stuff - simply deleting folders and files that Windows *thinks* are installed but aren't and therfore it's unable to deinstall said programs. 

 

I see that's maybe a bit difficult to say, but imo windows simply shouldn't make any entries in registry or start when it's a program that is being installed *externally*. 

 

Of course the other problem is that windows doesn't even see it as "external" even though the fact the drive is connected through USB port should give it a hint that it's indeed not an internal drive.

 

 

But yes, I just want to know what could possibly get messed up the way I did this... pretty sure it actually was in "programs" it just wouldn't deinstall because obviously the drive it's on was missing...

 

[tikker]

18 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Err, no? So let's say I have a file that was created 1996... now I "copy" or "move" (even worse) this file and it'll tell me this file was created in 2021... it makes no sense because that's just a copy of the otherwise unmodified file from 1996.... thus making it impossible to find that file if I ever need it. Not sure what the archive thing is maybe that would circumvent the issue but it's too late now anyway I guess...

It seems to be a Windows thing, but to me it does make sense. When you copy a file you create a new instance of it. For all intents and purposes that is a new file and hence the creation date of that copy will be the date and time on which it was copied. With "archive" copy I mean a copy that preserves file attributes. rsync on Linux happens to call it archival mode, so that was what's in my mind.

22 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

I have thousands of files with the *same* name and possibly *same* size but not all of them have necessarily the *same content* so simply sorting by *actual* creation date would mostly fix this issue, but no.... (not reliable at all)

Preserving creation date won't solve this problem though, as two identically named files cannot exist in the same folder anyway. It also sounds like you need a better system to sort and deal with your files.

23 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Well basically just know if this can mess up stuff - simply deleting folders and files that Windows *thinks* are installed but aren't and therfore it's unable to deinstall said programs.

This is always a bad idea. Never remove files installed by an installer manually, that's asking for issues.

24 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Of course the other problem is that windows doesn't even see it as "external" even though the fact the drive is connected through USB port should give it a hint that it's indeed not an internal drive.

A drive is drive. Even if it would know it's an external drive it'll happily install to it.

25 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

But yes, I just want to know what could possibly get messed up the way I did this... pretty sure it actually was in "programs" it just wouldn't deinstall because obviously the drive it's on was missing...

Windows is what will get "messed up", because it can't find what it needs anymore. Sometimes it will warn you it can't find the software and will offer to remove the entry from the list of programs. Otherwise I think software like Revo should be able to deal with it (been literal years since I've used it though,so maybe it has changed by now).

[Mark Kaine]

9 hours ago, tikker said:

It seems to be a Windows thing, but to me it does make sense.

yeah, it makes 'sense' from a windows perspective, where basically nothing makes sense and is old fashioned like it's 1979.... but from a user perspective this makes zero sense, especially if your actually trying to sort things or in my case find duplicates...

 

"Creation" date = cannot be changed, unless the file itself gets changed, simply changing the name or copying doesn't count - nothing in the file itself was changed... 

 

"modification" date = changing that is fine, for whatever reason, renaming, copying... doesn't matter as long you can still check the "original / real" creation date - funny thing, I've noticed it doesn't even do that reliably... it's not coherent at all - and for my purposes not really suited, but there's no other choice either... 

 

Btw pretty sure Linux does the same, at least Android does, and it's just as annoying as it is on windows... 

 

(yes you could somehow save the data with the attributes or something I guess, but that's not really feasible how clunky it all is) 

 

The simple solution would be to give the user more and better choices and also modernize the OS, completey... they could still use their legacy code - down to the metal windows isn't even bad, it's the outdated, clunky and unintuitive conglomerate of a UI that needs to be updated and modernized from scratch (unfortunately it seems Microsoft is not capable of doing that, they are only good at making it worse and more buggy) 

[Mark Kaine]

9 hours ago, tikker said:

Preserving creation date won't solve this problem though, as two identically named files cannot exist in the same folder anyway. It also sounds like you need a better system to sort and deal with your files.

who said something about the same folder? 

 

this would very much solve my issue because a duplicate 'finder' could then list all files with the same name, either sorted by creation date or size - ideally it would show creation date / size / location tbh then it would be easy for me to see (oldest basically get purged in most cases) 

 

just giving a hypothetical example, so I have 300 files called 

*

f_mod1

*

f_mod1

*

f_mod1

*

and so on... 300 of them... 

 

so now I can't just nilly willy delete the oldest... that will destroy everything... I need to know when it appeared the first time on the system and I need to see exactly the name of the folder(s) 

 

you probably think "that's what duplicate finders do anyway" but they really don't due to the problems mentioned above (windows 'creation date' doesn't necessarily have to do anything with the actual creation date sadly) 

 

 

so I could do it manually, comparing each file, folders, etc... for thousands and thousands of files, in 2021, because it's somehow asking too much from windows to do this for me...? *sigh* we've come a long way, since 1979 1985, huh

 

^I thought it was longer ago when Billy gates stole dos windows from some poor chap's garage, but don't get me wrong, I respect the hustle, and I actually like Gates, when he was still doing it windows was actually good, especially XP and Vista were really awesome and innovative! 

 

 

Spoiler

It all makes sense now hahaha

 

Spoiler

Quote

The irony is that Microsoft didn't develop the operating system in-house. It "acquired" 86-DOS -- originally called QDOS, short for "quick and dirty operating system" --

 

 

Nomen est omen! 

[tikker]

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

Btw pretty sure Linux does the same, at least Android does, and it's just as annoying as it is on windows... 

 

(yes you could somehow save the data with the attributes or something I guess, but that's not really feasible how clunky it all is) 

 

The simple solution would be to give the user more and better choices and also modernize the OS, completey... they could still use their legacy code - down to the metal windows isn't even bad, it's the outdated, clunky and unintuitive conglomerate of a UI that needs to be updated and modernized from scratch (unfortunately it seems Microsoft is not capable of doing that, they are only good at making it worse and more buggy) 

I know for that cp, rsync and probably others on linux have flags to preserve creation date. After checking Windows does not seem to on its own, but there are tools available. A copy is created at some point and is not the original, it's a copy, so I'm still in favour of creation date of a copy being the date it was copied by default.

 

23 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

just giving a hypothetical example, so I have 300 files called 

*

f_mod1

*

f_mod1

*

f_mod1

*

and so on... 300 of them... 

 

so now I can't just nilly willy delete the oldest... that will destroy everything... I need to know when it appeared the first time on the system and I need to see exactly the name of the folder(s) 

This example doesn't really clear anything up for me. If dates are crucially important when making copies wouldn't it be better to incorporate it into the file name then? I'm still confused, because you mention

11 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

it's of no help telling me that I have x copies of the same file , which in reality isn't even the same file necessarily

A copy of a file is the same file no matter when it is created. I don't see how create date matters here, but maybe I'm not aware of a niche usecase. If it's not the same file, it's not a copy. If they are the same file why would the date matter because the contents would be identical? Or maybe each folder is some incremental progress

26 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

you probably think "that's what duplicate finders do anyway" but they really don't due to the problems mentioned above (windows 'creation date' doesn't necessarily have to do anything with the actual creation date sadly)

I think of duplicate finders as either simple ones that check by name or advanced ones that will compare something like a checksum to see if they are actually duplicates. A copy, and by that I mean identically named files with identical contents (i.e. same checksum) are by definition duplicates of each other.

 

At this point stuff that already exists has probably become indistinguishable, so in any case I would look into changing your sorting system, such as incorporating the original creation date in their file name so that they are no longer identical files. I'm not sure if duplicate finders that take full paths (as far as I understand you now) into account exist, because then you'll never find a duplicate. I hope someone who understands what you are looking for drops by though

 

 

[Mark Kaine]

33 minutes ago, tikker said:

This example doesn't really clear anything up for me. If dates are crucially important when making copies wouldn't it be better to incorporate it into the file name then? I'm still confused, because you mention

right, I mean that isn't easy to explain, the point is I need to figure out which files *and* folders are duplicates amongst thousands, and they often have the same or similar name... and renaming them, *especially* the files just isn't feasible, because they also *must* have the exact name or they won't function... so I'd be renaming files constantly and possibly messing them up in the process too... so, no, really the point is why can't windows do that for me and what's the benefit of changing a creation date constantly (this should actually be illegal...)

 

33 minutes ago, tikker said:

A copy of a file is the same file

it is technically the same file but how am I supposed to find the *oldest* (the one I don't need anymore) when windows constantly changes the creation date ie the age... it simply should *never* do this, even if you somehow change the file it should keep the *original creation date* I don't see why it wouldn't, that's what "modified" is for. 

 

 

And alright, I see its not easy to understand... 

 

in my example 

 

f_mod1 is not necessarily the same file as f_mod1.... they may have entirely different functions... 

and they may have the same size or not, it doesn't matter because if one is 3kb and the other 2kb that doesn't really tell me anything you see? 

 

 

The *only* reliable way of differentiating them is the "time" it appeared on the system.

 

But for "reasons" that's not possible because as soon you move that file just once this time gets falsified by windows for no reason whatsoever, there is no benefit in doing so (not for the user) 

 

you're right theoretically I could rename every file so it includes the date, but is this really feasible with thousands of files and folders... and then I'd need to rename them again when I want to use them...? Nah I don't think that's feasible or practical. 

 

BTW It's the same with videos for example. 

 

so video 1...  I "edit" it... Windows will make a new "creation" date but this is incorrect the creation date did not change, what changed was the edit date, or modification date. 

 

 

So same problem I want to sort my videos after creation date... impossible... 

it'll show everything out of order because it actually changed the real dates... for *no reason*. 

 

a video that was created in January is still created in January, even when I edited it in July... does that make sense to you?

 

I don't really care *why* windows and other OS's do that but it's highly inconvenient and the way things are presented to the user are simply old-fashioned and literally *outdated* because it can't even remember the dates lol 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 2, 2021 by Mark Kaine
edited for clarity

[Mark Kaine]

1 hour ago, tikker said:

A copy, and by that I mean identically named files with identical contents (i.e. same checksum) are by definition duplicates of each other.

... actually this is what I'd need in addition to showing me the exact location... then I wouldn't necessarily need the date anymore I guess... I didn't come across anything like that that would compare checksums... because honestly that's the main issue, real dublicates... they take up so much space (also videos btw as mentioned some are modified, some aren't, but it's impossible to find because windows does not keep the original order as mentioned... I btw have around 6tb of videos... it's again not feasible to do that manually...) 

 

And interesting about Linux im not aware of this function on Android however... 

 

 

But that's a good example how *useless* changing dates after copy is... I think everyone knows this issue... 

So you have an android phone and a lot of pictures so you'll copy a bunch (from the last year or so) to your SD card.... cool! 

 

BUT! now all of your pictures have the *same* creation date (the date you *copied* or moved them, and the time line is a complete mess... 

 

It's really a dumb fact this is exactly what happens if you copy or move pictures on Android (and Windows I suppose) 

 

you keep saying you think it's ok that a simply copy is a new creation date but where is the benefit for the user? there is none! if you for whatever reason want to check when the file was modified, that's great, because there is already a category for that, a "creation date" that changes for whatever reason is redundant. 

 

 

 

ps: here's a picture to - undeniably - as I think prove what a big fricking mess Windows file system is. 

So I sorted by "date created" for funnsies... 

 

 

(btw 232 "items", in a 90 GB main folder, all with the same name...) 

 

 

Check the dates... it actually says "modified" and is not in chronological order at all, also note how the date is sometimes on the right side, sometimes on the left side... 

 

So am I supposed to think this is the actual order of creation now, since that's what I selected, knowing full well that the date has been changed several times and it still only shows "modified"...?

 

 

This system was not made for humans... (and is technically and graphically completely outdated) 

 

It really should show me this in a 3d graphic, easily understandable with a good overview and *functional*  sorting options (see how you can't even see folder names and locations properly?) instead of showing me this DOS style text window, that doesnt give me much information whatsoever. 

 

A complete mess. Understandably if you know how old this program is, but not really acceptable in my opinion.