Q: Adobe Acrobat DC and Reader compatibility

One is a Launch Agent, and the other is a Launch Daemon.

Launch Daemons: ⓘ

    [loaded]    com.macpaw.CleanMyMac3.Agent.plist (2016-03-07) [Support]

User Launch Agents: ⓘ

    [loaded]    com.macpaw.CleanMyMac3.Scheduler.plist (2016-03-22) [Support]

They can't do a lot without the rest of the installed app, but they're still taking up resources. Open the main hard drive and then the root Library folder. You'll see both a LaunchAgents and a LaunchDaemons folder. Look in them for the CleanMyMac plist files mentioned by the report. Put them in the trash and restart. There's also a LaunchAgents folder in the Library folder of your user account. The launch agent may be there if you don't find it in the root Library folder.

Launch CleanMyMac 3, then Select Uninstaller module at the left side bar.
Add  CleanMyMac 3 in the Apps list, then click on “Complete uninstallation”
Click on “Uninstall” to start removing CleanMyMac

From the Finder
hold down OPTION
go to Go>Library
go to ~/Library/LaunchAgents
Delete
com.macpaw.CleanMyMac3.Scheduler.plis

go to >System Preferences... > Users & Groups >

select Login Items.

Select CleanMyMac3 Menu item, then Click on the “—” button.

Reboot your Mac

I don't mind if people don't want to use Chrome or Google Earth or Google search, but at least be accurate in your assessments.

While I don't mind if people have correcting notes to post (it's a good thing as we all learn from one another), there is also no need to be condescending about it.

I repeated information by others noting that this is a function that can be turned off by not allowing Chrome to collect anonymous data. It apparently may be wrong. But regardless, Chrome, and all Google apps are fully known to compile and send such data. I will not use any of them for this reason.

Kurt Lang wrote:

 

I don't mind if people don't want to use Chrome or Google Earth or Google search, but at least be accurate in your assessments.

While I don't mind if people have correcting notes to post (it's a good thing as we all learn from one another), there is also no need to be condescending about it.

I had no intention of being condescending or even scolding you a little.

I have nothing but respect for your posts but I do tend to cringe when something is presented as fact when it isn't. Chrome seems to be a main target for lots of contributors.

As far as calling home, so does FireFox and Safari if not disabled.

Wasn't a personal attack.

Apologies to you then, dialabrain. I did read through your post a couple of times before responding, but alas, that's the downfall of text only conversations. Much too easy at times to read even the most innocuous post the wrong way.

Yes, you are quite right that they all do some kind of background data routine. But hey! That's why Chrome and Firefox are "free". Windows 10 is almost funny how many screens you go through during setup to turn off over a dozen (or more) data collection options that are on by default.

I've never been quite sure what Safari does. The preferences for it don't give you any hint what you would turn off as far as personal data going back to Apple. Firefox has this in its settings:

Not hard to find and easy to disable.

Besides data collection, my main reason for avoiding Chrome is lack of color management. Firefox is the same. Safari is the only browser that automatically assigns sRGB to untagged images and color text. Since that's the color space most web images are saved in, it's the correct assumption the majority of the time if the image was saved without an embedded profile. What Chrome and Firefox do with such images or text is simply display them in your monitor's color space.

To see it, check this little test page I threw together. How well your monitor is calibrated and profiled determines how much of a difference you'll see. On a wide gamut monitor, it will be much more obvious. Since Safari automatically displays the left, untagged image as sRGB, they display identically. Display the same page in Chrome or Firefox, and the color of the left image will be highly over saturated.

Kurt Lang wrote:

 

Apologies to you then, dialabrain…

No need Kurt. I am all too aware how text conversations can be misinterpreted. I have received warnings from our Hosts for what I thought were innocent posts on my part.

As far as color management, we actually had a brief conversation about that some months ago, Yes, Safari does a better job of rendering colors but I've been online for as long as there has been an online and the quality of images I've seen over the years has varied so much I suppose I'm desensitized to them now.

I do want to say something about data collection. I have an Amazon account so they know what I've purchased in the past and what items I've looked at. I don't mind when I go back to the site they have "suggestions" for me. I may find something I wasn't aware of. Same with NetFlix.

One thing I fear is coming is not being able to use ad blocking on most sites. We already seem to be headed that way.

Anyway, we're cool and I hope to remain that way with you.

I have an Amazon account so they know what I've purchased in the past and what items I've looked at. I don't mind when I go back to the site they have "suggestions" for me. I may find something I wasn't aware of.

Yes, I see that all the time. I don't care when it's on the same site I purchased something from, but it greatly annoys me with the newer method a lot of vendors use. Such as I went to Martin Guitars web site a couple of months back. Right after that, ads for Martin Guitars started appearing within other completely unrelated web sites. Even on my iPad, and I hadn't even visited the site with that device! They are far from the only vendor to use this method of ad placement. At least they're easy to get rid of. You simply clear your web history and cached data. Gone then until some other vendor tags your web data the same way.

Ugh! That, too. Some sites won't even let you view their page unless you turn your ad blocker off. Unless it's something I can only see on that one site, I just say forget it, and go to any of a couple hundred other sites with the same info. They try to make it sound like "We're just trying to make a living here and the ads pay our bills.". Well, too bad. I don't watch commercials on TV either if I can help it (we zip through pretty much all of them with TiVo).

Now you've completely destroyed my image of Martins.

You know, we're somewhat spoiled, assuming you are anywhere near old enough to remember the days before DVRs and TiVo. I don't think most people worried about TV ads until there was a way to get rid of them. Ads were used to get up and get a beer or a snack, or visit the "facilities", or sometimes, they were better than the shows.

I think we as a people are hard to please.

assuming you are anywhere near old enough to remember the days before DVRs and TiVo.

Sadly, I am no longer a "20 something", or even a "30 something". Sounds like you may recall the days of (NBC if I recall?) Saturday Night at the Movies. They'd run a blockbuster movie on TV (when there was no such thing as a VCR) and you were either home to watch it, or you missed it. Better luck next time.

Yeah, you didn't really pay attention to the commercials since you couldn't skip through them. Or at least you tried to ignore them. I still hate Mr. Whipple and won't purchase Charmin bathroom tissue out of spite.

Geez, how could you hate Mr. Whipple? And if you still do, sounds like a perfect reason to buy Charmin.