Clean My Mac X

[Randy B. Singer]

I'm not sure that even if Disk Warrior should somehow figure out how to repair APFS drives, that it's worth paying $119.95 for a single license.

You are exactly right. My feeling is that unless your data is very important, and you don't have a backup (and you should), making Disk Warrior a viable last resort, that the money that you would apply to purchasing Disk Warrior is best applied towards a new hard drive. Because even if Disk Warrior repairs your hard drive, a hard drive that was so badly munged that it required Disk Warrior to fix it probably can't be relied on again.

 

[pm-r]

I'm not sure that even if Disk Warrior should somehow figure out how to repair APFS drives, that it's worth paying $119.95 for a single license.

I'm not sure that I would even be purchasing the DW version 5.x as an update that I could qualify for even at at the Upgrade price of $59.95, that's still a pretty steep price for some questionable features.

And who knows if they ever made their v. 5 upgrades easier than their old v. 4.x bizarre methods were.

Anyway, I had a good long run with various versions over the year, and it certainly paid for itself. It's too bad that Apple can't help Alsoft out a little bit more.


- Patrick
======

 

[Slydude]

It's disappointing that Disk Warrior doesn't really handle APFS but that's not the deal breaker for me. I had stopped using it before APFS became the issue. Here's what did it for me:

As you know disk utilities need to be kept up to date in order to truly be useful. In fact, using an out-of-date utility can do more harm than good. One year they released a new version and I realized that I hadn't used the program since the previous version had been released. I attribute that to a little bit of luck and a decent backup strategy thanks in part to Time Machine.

 

[jga40]

I've posted a few times about the merits of CleanMyMac (now at version 4.6.3) and others replied not to touch it.

Well guess what Apple have now endorsed it by making it available in the App Store. Apple describes it.

"12 years after the initial release, CleanMyMac X is finally debuting on the central square of the Mac world. Why didn’t it happen earlier? See link : Sorry forgot how to do short links"

CleanMyMac X arrives to the Mac App Store

 

[ferrarr]

@jga40,

You do know MacPaw is the developer of CleanMyMac, right? I'm fine if people choose to use it(or any other apps), but the user is the cause of any issues that may develop.

 

[Raz0rEdge]

Are you paid from this company or what? Quoting that companies website about their appearance on the App Store is not an endorsement from Apple since Apple doesn't do that. Also, as long as you don't blatantly violate Apple's policies for apps you can put anything up on the App Store. If MacPaw took this long to get it up there, that is actually is MORE telling than the fact that they finally made it on there.

There are enough anecdotal posts about the issues that people have run into with this app doing bad things.

Again, the stance that a lot of us have taken on this forum is to NOT endorse this application. But your machine is your machine, you can install whatever you want on it.

 

[rachalmers]

Too intrusive

I've posted a few times about the merits of CleanMyMac (now at version 4.6.3) and others replied not to touch it.

Well guess what Apple have now endorsed it by making it available in the App Store. Apple describes it.

"12 years after the initial release, CleanMyMac X is finally debuting on the central square of the Mac world. Why didn’t it happen earlier? See link : Sorry forgot how to do short links"

CleanMyMac X arrives to the Mac App Store

CleaneMyMac is way too intrusive. Worse than the Malware it’s supposed to clear.
I got rid of after just one day.

 

[Lifeisabeach]

I've posted a few times about the merits of CleanMyMac (now at version 4.6.3) and others replied not to touch it.

Well guess what Apple have now endorsed it by making it available in the App Store. Apple describes it.

"12 years after the initial release, CleanMyMac X is finally debuting on the central square of the Mac world. Why didn’t it happen earlier? See link : Sorry forgot how to do short links"

CleanMyMac X arrives to the Mac App Store

There used to be a version of MacKeeper on the App Store also, so being there is hardly a ringing endorsement. Now, I'm going to be slightly more generous than the others here. I've looked over CMM X a few times over the years and my first impressions early on were not good, largely due to the vagueness of the "junk cleaning" it claimed to do. One test I ran didn't seem to actually do anything. I do think the software has gotten better since then and it by no means is dangerous in the way that MacKeeper is. I also appreciate the desire to have a single suite of utilities for easy access rather than a bunch of different ones.

HOWEVER, given my own last trial of it, I don't think it does anything that isn't done better by other tools that are free or much cheaper. It's NOT worth the price by any stretch of the imagination, and even less so as a subscription.

 

[chscag]

The folks at MacPaw (publishers of CMM X) are really good at selling this app. They even got themselves a ringing endorsement from Macworld Magazine. Now it appears they're in Mac App Store.

However, as Ashwin stated above, there have been posts in our forums and other forums about this app and the damage it did.

If anyone wishes to install this app and use it, that's their choice. But we here at Mac Forums will continue to recommend NOT to use this app.

 

[pm-r]

@jga40,

You do know MacPaw is the developer of CleanMyMac, right? I'm fine if people choose to use it(or any other apps), but the user is the cause of any issues that may develop.

I would tend to agree, but only when and if all applications and the OS used were all perfect and worked impeccably and even cleaned up after themselves.




- Patrick
======

 

[Randy B. Singer]

I've posted a few times about the merits of CleanMyMac (now at version 4.6.3) and others replied not to touch it.

Well guess what Apple have now endorsed it by making it available in the App Store. ...

The presence of something in the Apple Store isn't anything like an "endorsement."

Indeed, Apple has sold things that they actively recommend against.

Here's an example. Apple very strenuously recommends against using a screen protector on your iPhone:

Apple's Ban on Screen Protectors Makes (Some) Sense | PCWorld

Apple bans protective screen film from Apple Store | iLounge

Apple – Gigaom

Apple Stores purging screen protection? | Macworld

Why did Apple ban iPhone, iPod, and MacBook screen protectors from their stores? - MacDailyNews

Despite that, apparently Apple wanted the money to be made from selling third party screen protectors. So you can still find them being sold by Apple:

https://www.apple.com/us/search/screen-protector?page=1&sel=accessories&src=globalnav#!&f=protect-screenfilter&fh=463a+462d

 

[MacInWin]

Randy, not exactly an apples to apples comparison there. The ten-year-old articles refer to plastic screen protectors that Apple got rid of. Hard to apply, lots of bubbles, lots of returns on them for little value. What is in the Apple store now are glass protectors that provide a nice degree of protection and don't have nearly as much tendency to bubbles. I just applied a Zagg protector to my iPhone 11 Pro and the kit came with a screen cleaner wipe, a dust-free cloth to dry it, a frame to position the cover properly on the phone, and clear instructions. Worked perfectly first time, zero bubbles, zero dust under the cover.

So what Apple dropped 10 years ago and what they sell today are two entirely different products.

 

[Randy B. Singer]

So what Apple dropped 10 years ago and what they sell today are two entirely different products.

1) There were glass protectors 10 years ago

2) Apple's position is that you simply don't need a screen protector in any case

 

[MacInWin]

@Randy, You've been around Apple for a lot longer than I have, so I am hesitant to respond, but:

1. I don't remember glass until more recently. However, from the articles, I took it that films were what was in the store and what was removed:

Apple has banned protective screen film from its retail and online stores,

Emphasis added.

Among the most popular accessories for the iPhone, iPod, and MacBook lines are films and coverings designed to protect the screen from scratches; some products also fight glare and offer privacy protection.

Emphasis added.

“That’s no explanation for why Apple is also banning antiglare, mirrored, and privacy film,

Again, emphasis added.

Hence, my comment about Apple removing plastic films from the store, but having glass protectors there now (and maybe back then, too). Could be the reporters got it wrong and/or missed the glass protectors as well.

For Item 2, do you have something from Apple that says that? I looked at Apple.com and found nothing to that effect. I'm not saying it isn't Apple's position, just that I have never seen that in anything from Apple. Lots of pundits say that is Apple's position, particularly in those old articles when the plastic films were removed from the store but did Apple actually come out and say that? I do know Steve Jobs wanted a glass screen on the original iPhone because he wanted the phone to be durable enough to put in a pocket and not have keys, change, whatever, scratch it. So no plastic on the first iPhone and none since. That sounded good, but the glass did scratch pretty easily until the Gorilla glass and similar hard glass appeared. All I can find at Apple.com about the screen on an iPhone now is that it is oleophobic (fingerprint-resistant). In the environmental section it also says the glass is arsenic-free. Other than that, I can't find anything other than the paper on how to clean the phone: Cleaning your iPhone - Apple Support

Now for iPads, I don't think there have ever been screen protectors, at least not widely used. iPads don't generally get exposed to keys, change, etc., so maybe the risk is so low that nobody thinks they need a screen protector. Or maybe I don't think I need one, so I have never looked for one--they could be everywhere!

 

[Randy B. Singer]

I think that this is all unnecessary quibbling about a throw-away example that I gave.

 

[Rod]

It would be nice to think that Apple would at least test apps allowed on the App Store to ensure that they are not intrinsically harmful or at the very least print a disclaimer to say that they don't. For example I notice the Shredder function has been removed in the App Store version so there have been some concessions made.

CMM has been in the wild for 12 years now and I've been using it for about that long on succesive devices so I would love to see any of these reports about "problems" caused by this app. Obviously I haven't encountered any.

Like rachalmers post that states; "CleaneMyMac is way too intrusive. Worse than the Malware it’s supposed to clear.
I got rid of after just one day." I have never thought of CMM as a malware cleaner. In all the times I've used it it has never found any. What does he mean by "intrusive"? If he means giving access to scan the system well, DetectX Swift and all Malware scanners need that, same for MalwareBytes.

Any third party software should be treated with care, I think we can all agree on that. Backup before you use anything that might change or delete your data and make sure you read and understand what is going to happen before you commit. In CMM's case a pretty detailed description of what each function will do comes up on the main screen when you select it and you can modify most scripts.

CMM is expensive and in the end there are only two questions you need to ask:
Do you need CMM? No.
Could it do harm? Yes.

 

[jga40]

@jga40,

You do know MacPaw is the developer of CleanMyMac, right? I'm fine if people choose to use it(or any other apps), but the user is the cause of any issues that may develop.

Certainly do. But surely Apple think it's a safe application as they chose to include it in the App Store

 

[krs]

But surely Apple think it's a safe application as they chose to include it in the App Store

I think it depends how one defines "safe".
I would think (no proof) that any app in the Apple Store is "safe" in that it doesn't contain any malware, but it's not necessarily "safe"in that it can't mess up your Mac.

 

[harryb2448]

Not that long ago Apple was selling Symantec antivirus, whilst Symantec was saying do not use with Mac OS X and providing instructions for deleting it entirely. All about bucks.

 

[usagora]

Not that long ago Apple was selling Symantec antivirus, whilst Symantec was saying do not use with Mac OS X and providing instructions for deleting it entirely. All about bucks.

Wait...Symantec made a Mac version of their antivirus software and then told people not to use it? Am I missing something here?

Randy, not exactly an apples to apples comparison there. The ten-year-old articles refer to plastic screen protectors that Apple got rid of. Hard to apply, lots of bubbles, lots of returns on them for little value. What is in the Apple store now are glass protectors that provide a nice degree of protection and don't have nearly as much tendency to bubbles. I just applied a Zagg protector to my iPhone 11 Pro and the kit came with a screen cleaner wipe, a dust-free cloth to dry it, a frame to position the cover properly on the phone, and clear instructions. Worked perfectly first time, zero bubbles, zero dust under the cover.

So what Apple dropped 10 years ago and what they sell today are two entirely different products.

I'm sure you're right. Apple's not stupid, and they're not going to sell something they don't want to. If it were all about the money, as some suggest, then they wouldn't have warned against using something they wanted to sell (duh!).