@choro: "GOFOR HITCH-A-RIDE ON WINDOWS 7
Don't know how my computer caught this STD but even after uninstalling 
it with Revo Uninstaller, it popped up asking for updating.
Traced it with Everything and clicked to delete the 2 GoFor folders. No 
luck. They stayed put.
Went into Safe Mode but the 2 folders did not even show up there. 
Neither did they show up in the normal mode. Not in Windows Explorer anyway.
BUT this is how I got rid of the 2 Gofor folders in the end.
1-Traced them with Everything.
2-Dragged them into the Recycle Bin
3-Emptied the Recycle Bin
Glad to report that when I searched them again with Everything, they at 
last did not show up.
So
1-Why did Revo Uninstaller (free version) fail to remove Gofor completely?
2-and Why did the 2 Gofor folders NOT show up in Windows Explorer when 
they WERE there even when I had configured Windows Explorer to show both 
HIDDEN as well as System Files?
Any ideas?
And have others caught this computer STD?
Bloody fucking bastards. They get up to all sorts of tricks these days. 
Enough to make one want to give up Windows!
choro
*****"
    @notme: "<quote>
You do understand that Revo uses the program's own uninstaller, don't
you? Just like Windows...
But Revo does search for other items afterwards.
Also, the free Revo won't deal with 64-bit programs. I have no idea if
this is a problem in your situation.
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)"
    @choro: "<quote>
Thanks for the info about Revo Free. I was thinking of getting the paid 
version if that indeed does a better job. But I think that GoFor was in 
the x86 group of programs so it couldn't have been 64 bit.
To be honest I think there should be an internationally binding law 
against this sort of behaviour by software companies. What is more piggy 
back installation of unwanted programs should also be banned 
internationally. I steer clear of cNet for this very reason. They are 
very persistent and deliberately vague about whether one wants other 
programs to be installed and then they have the cheek to tell one that 
one did permit the installation of piggy-back programs. The cheek of 
it!!! I mean uninstalling a program and then being faced with a pop-up 
suggesting and update is disgusting, to say the least.
But thanks for your response anyway Gene.
choro
*****"
    @mayayana: "  I'm curious what this "Everything" is and what it means
to "trace". You seem to be assuming that everyone knows
what you're talking about.
  In the future you might check for a desktop.ini file in
the folder if you have trouble seeing items. There may
be other ways to hide a folder but I don't know what
they might be.
| >> Don't know how my computer caught this
  You should know.
| To be honest I think there should be an internationally binding law
| against this sort of behaviour by software companies. What is more piggy
| back installation of unwanted programs should also be banned
| internationally. I steer clear of cNet for this very reason.
  You probably allowed it and weren't paying attention.
Many installers now include installation of things
like junk toolbars but usually they show a pre-checked
box that you can uncheck. (IrfanView, for instance.)
   You really have to be careful with the software
download sites. Years ago they were just listing
services that linked to author sites. CNet was one of
the first that started charging authors. I was listing
software on their site when they made the change
and never went back. They wanted a fee just to get
a program listed without waiting for months. The problem
is that it's hard for them to make money being honest,
so there are all sorts of little gimmicks: They charge
authors fees for reviews, placement, etc, while pretending
to be neutral, impose junkware while pretending not to,
provide most downloads from the author's site but obscure
the link to make it look like their site....
   I still get occasional emails
from sites telling me that my software has just been
awarded 5 stars.... providing that I add a link to their
site on my product page. (That's why it's so common
to see shareware with numerous 5-star ratings.)
  To my mind CNet is probably among the worst. They're
a big corporate operation. At the time they started charging
authors for listings they got away with it because they
were so big that most shareware didn't have much chance
without being on CNet. They're also
one of the few that actually hosts the software, but
that's not necessarily a good thing. It means the software
may be outdated and could be adulterated with junkware
wrappers.
  There are also several other sites that require using
their downloader and/or won't provide a link to the author
website. Major Geeks seems to be one of the few that's
still honest. But I think you can avoid most of that mess
if you just follow a simple rule:
   Never download from the software listing
site. Always go to the author site. If the author doesn't
even have a site then research the product before
installing it. (That rule also helps in making sure that
you get the latest version, though you'll still need to
be watchful for junkware when running the installer.)"
    @notme: "<quote>
Which (I'd like to add) has been discussed and highly recommended fairly
often in this NG.
I use it for quick filename searches (although I don't let it index in
the background) and I use FileLocator Lite when I want to search for
text within files.
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)"
    @notme: "<quote>
I have read (usually in this NG) that some sites *don't* wait for
permission :-(
As for CNet, I try to track down the original site and download from
there instead.
That can be hard when I got to CNet from the original site :-)
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)"
    @notme: "<quote>
I've played with several uninstallers. I don't totally like any of them,
but lately I have been happier with Geek Uninstaller.
<url>
To be honest, I have no real basis for my choices beyond (1)
superstition, (2) having to uninstall the occasional 64-bit program, and
(3) not liking the attempts of one or two of the other programs to get
me to obtain things I don't want.
"Superstition" might also include my subjective impressions that a given
program may not be all that effective.
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)"
    @none: "<quote>
The Program Files (x86) folder is just a folder. There's nothing magical
about it. As a result, it would be a mistake to assume that everything in it
is 32-bit, just as it would be a mistake to assume that everything in
Program Files is 64-bit. Both are just folders.
Char Jackson"
{'source': 'USENET', 'other_information': '{"reply_count": 7, "forum_name": "alt.windows7.general.20140710.mbox"}', 'file': 'data/output/usenet-alt.windows7.parquet'}