1. Welcome Guest! In order to create a new topic or reply to an existing one, you must register first. It is easy and free. Click here to sign up now!.
    Dismiss Notice

Registry Cleaners

Discussion in 'Windows XP' started by JohnD, May 16, 2009.

  1. FredW

    FredW Guest

    On Sat, 16 May 2009 23:29:54 +0200, "Linea Recta" <mccm.vos@abc.invalid>
    wrote:

    >
    >"SPAMCOP User" <spamcop_user@no_mail.haha> schreef in bericht
    >news:eZZcYxh1JHA.6056@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
    >> JohnD,
    >>
    >> Never use a registry cleaner!!!!
    >>

    >Then you'll soon have to live with a clogged registry.


    Wat een lariekoek! Zoiets bestaat helemaal niet.

    Lees dit maar eens:
    (You better read this)
    http://miekiemoes.blogspot.com/2008/02/registry-cleaners-and-system-tweaking_13.html
    http://www.whatthetech.com/2007/11/25/do-i-need-a-registry-cleaner/
    http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=28099
    http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000643.html

    --
    Fred W. (NL)
     
  2. Twayne

    Twayne Guest

    Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
    > On Sat, 16 May 2009 04:48:05 -0700, JohnD
    > <JohnD@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Can anyone recommend a good, safe registry cleaner that may or may
    >> not be a freebie, but doesn't bring in a lot of unwanted stuff with
    >> it? (XP Pro SP3)

    >
    >
    >
    > No, nobody can. That's because there are *no* good, safe registry
    > cleaners.


    Yes, many people can, and even YOU have commented in the past on
    CCleaner, a very good program for newbies to the experience.

    >
    > Registry cleaning programs are *all* snake oil.


    No, they are not.

    Cleaning of the
    > registry isn't needed and is dangerous.


    It is needed on occasion and is often an answer to several different
    kinds of problems.
    Any reputable registry cleaner will not be dangerous in any way and just
    in case something is removed the user didn't want removed, they also
    provide undo options. I've never had to use an undo option in the many
    years I've used these excellent tools, but it is comforting to know it's
    there.

    Leave the registry alone and
    > don't use any registry cleaner.


    That's silly and also a delinquent piece of advice. This person has not
    seen a registry cleaner since the days of antiquity I don't think, and
    is easily susceptible to a closed minded approach to any subject where
    anyone may disagree with him. He can't stand not being right even when
    he's wrong as you're likely to see in his retort to this post.

    Despite what many people think,

    Those people include a lot who are more intelligent, more experienced,
    more practical and more sensible than you ever thought of being or you
    won't make such rash judgements and even keep a boilerplate handy so you
    can do it over and over and over. But that's OK; I enjoy cutting you
    down to size.

    and
    > what vendors of registry cleaning software try to convince you of,
    > having unused registry entries doesn't really hurt you.


    You cannot seem to wrap your mind around the fact that there is more to
    registry problems than "unused registry entries", can you? You always
    hype on that, even though no one else mentions it. One of the bennies
    of your using boilerplate rater than reading and considering the
    querant's situation.

    Oh, and BTW I guess that puts Microsoft at a pretty bid disadvantage,
    too, since they highly hype their product and even mess around with
    registry cleaners. Which, last I knew, you were miserably out of date
    on last time I saw you talk about it.

    >
    > The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner erroneously
    > removing an entry you need is far greater than any potential benefit
    > it may have.


    That's nonsense. It just does not happen, especially when they have the
    opportunity to undo their changes. Almost every single program is also
    intelligent enough to know what parts may be catastrophic and what parts
    may not. It is very difficult to cause any serious problems with a
    registry cleaner. In fact, it's nearly impossible with some of the
    better ones, two of which I use often as a process of elimination tool.

    >
    > Read http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000643.html


    Another reference to a set of biased information not worth the ether it
    occupies, and located at another formerly unheard of web URL. Who knows
    what surprises may await a visitor there?

    Those closed-minded ignorant with his boilerplated misinformation has
    been doing this for a long time and has been proven to be wrong over and
    over. His credibility in any area anywhere near this subject is nil and
    completely without merit.

    Thanks for the opportunity again,

    Twayne`
     
  3. Twayne

    Twayne Guest

    Bruce Chambers wrote:
    > JohnD wrote:
    >> Can anyone recommend a good, safe registry cleaner that may or may
    >> not be a freebie, but doesn't bring in a lot of unwanted stuff with
    >> it? (XP Pro SP3) Thanks

    >
    >
    > There's no such thing.


    Of course there is.

    >
    > Why would you even think you'd ever need to clean your registry?


    That's condescending and not worthy of an MVP title claimant. Why do
    you find there is never a reason to use a registry cleaner? Explain it
    clearly, and with valid, verifiable references and someone might be able
    to start taking you seriously at least about why you parrot such things
    as you do.

    > What specific *problems* are you actually experiencing (not some
    > program's bogus listing of imaginary problems) that you think can be
    > fixed by using a registry "cleaner?"


    See, that's not an actual question: It's rhetorical and a way for you to
    be condescending again. You never "educate" but you love to put people
    down with your closed minded, ignorant misinformation.
    >
    > If you do have a problem that is rooted in the registry, it would
    > be far better to simply edit (after backing up, of course) only the
    > specific key(s) and/or value(s) that are causing the problem.


    And in another breath you'll warn them never to touch the registry
    without first becoming experienced with it. Brilliant.

    After
    > all, why use a chainsaw when a scalpel will do the job?


    Why use snide remarks when a practical, well thought out response will
    do the job?

    Additionally,
    > the manually changing of one or two registry entries is far less
    > likely to have the dire consequences of allowing an automated product
    > to make multiple changes simultaneously.


    No, the least likely way to avoid problems is to use a tool that is
    designed for the job, has a specific purpose, and is available to the
    masses. If even a tiny part of your allegations and misinformation were
    true, there would be a LOT more than a few supposed "experts" here
    making these claims. If there was the tiniest bit of truth to anything
    you say, the 'net would be full of information about it. One would
    practically have to use NOT-terms to not see it pop up on search term
    results. It'd be all over the e-mags and blogs where finding
    verification of your allegations would be a very easy task.
    So, why is it then that the ONLY place one sees this kind of
    misinformation is here? Because it's misinformation - the questions
    provides its own answer.

    The only thing needed to
    > safely clean your registry is knowledge and Regedit.exe.


    Sooo, why aren't you teaching how to use regedit and making references
    to learn about the registry? Afraid someone will compare that knowledge
    to how registry tools work? If you're not, you should be.
    >
    > The registry contains all of the operating system's "knowledge" of
    > the computer's hardware devices, installed software, the location of
    > the device drivers, and the computer's configuration. A misstep in
    > the registry can have severe consequences.


    Gee, I guess you'd better have an undo feature and not change areas that
    aren't to be changed! Oh wait! They have been doing that for a long
    time!

    One should not even
    > turning loose a poorly understood automated "cleaner," unless he is
    > fully confident that he knows *exactly* what is going to happen as a
    > result of each and every change.


    Wow. You must have one hell of a time whenever you get an update to
    anything because they usually make registry changes in the process. How
    do you ever stand to install any programs that write to the registry?
    It's the same analytic process, after all.
    >
    > Having repeatedly seen the results of inexperienced people using
    > automated registry "cleaners," I can only advise all but the most
    > experienced computer technicians (and/or hobbyists) to avoid them all.
    > Experience has shown me that such tools simply are not safe in the
    > hands of the inexperienced user. If you lack the knowledge and
    > experience to maintain your registry by yourself, then you also lack
    > the knowledge and experience to safely configure and use any
    > automated registry cleaner, no matter how safe they claim to be.


    You've said that a lot of times. How about some proof/evidence of it?
    Some specifics of some sort. What damage happened that was so
    catastrophic? I submit that the whole paragraph above is a lie and that
    you have no proof in any of those cases that it had anything to do with
    the registry cleaner but rather was the result of something else in the
    systems.
    >
    > More importantly, no one has ever demonstrated that the use of an
    > automated registry "cleaner," particularly by an untrained,
    > inexperienced computer user, does any real good, whatsoever. There's
    > certainly been no empirical evidence offered to demonstrate that the
    > use of such products to "clean" WinXP's registry improves a computer's
    > performance or stability. Given the potential for harm, it's just not
    > worth the risk.


    There has been. I've presented it and watched you weasel around it and
    use irrelevant data to prove silly stuff that had nothing to do with the
    case. If YOU consider it not worth the risk, fine - but take your
    ignorance elsewhere if y ou believe the world at large has to agree with
    you.
    >
    > Granted, most registry "cleaners" won't cause problems each and
    > every time they're used, but the potential for harm is always there.
    > And, since no registry "cleaner" has ever been demonstrated to do any
    > good (think of them like treating the flu with chicken soup - there's
    > no real medicinal value, but it sometimes provides a warming placebo
    > effect), I always tell people that the risks far out-weigh the
    > non-existent benefits.


    Now that little bit of weaseling is in direct opposition to several of
    your "all" and "never" allegations preceding this bit. What you spout
    is true of ANY piece of code, period. In reality, registry cleaners
    have a better record that way than most of Microsoft's software. In
    many years I have never h ad a registry cleaner cause a serious problem,
    actually never a problem, but I HAVE had Microsoft's own software pretty
    well screw things up to the point of non-bootability. But you'd
    probably pin that one on a fictional registry cleaner, I'll bet. You
    logic just never holds up and turns into nothing but rationalizing.
    >
    > I will concede that a good registry *scanning* tool, in the hands
    > of an experienced and knowledgeable technician or hobbyist can be a
    > useful time-saving diagnostic tool, as long as it's not allowed to
    > make any changes automatically. But I really don't think that there
    > are any registry "cleaners" that are truly safe for the general
    > public to use. Experience has proven just the opposite: such tools
    > simply are not safe in the hands of the inexperienced user.


    Earlier you said there we NO usefulness. You need to redo your
    boilerplate for crap like this. Actually what you need is a brain
    transplant or a fix for whatever has you so brainwhashed that you
    believe your own tripe.
    ..
    >
    > A little further reading on the subject: [extremely little, in
    > fact]
    >
    > Why I don't use registry cleaners
    > http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=643
    >
    > AumHa Forums . View topic - AUMHA Discussion: Should I Use a Registry
    > Cleaner?
    > http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=28099


    How many links with similar content/context would you like to see for
    why someone DOES use a registry cleaner? There are a LOT more of them
    than you can link with your few obscure, biased and self serving links.
    It's a little suspect when you discover the same authors there as here;
    not exactly a different set of data, you know? And weblogs, well, ...
    anyone can do that and I'm sure you'll soon get a couple more blogs
    together amongst your ignorant circle to up the URL count, but ... it'll
    still be junk. Junk is junk, no matter what you try to make it look
    and smell like.

    Twayne`
     
  4. Twayne

    Twayne Guest

    PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
    > If you think your Registry needs to be "cleaned" or "repaired," read
    > http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=28099 and draw your own conclusions.


    Yeah, right, go read information written by the very same idiots making
    the same statments here. That's proof, it sure is, yup, fer sure.

    Credibility: -20 more points.

    Twayne`


    >
    > JohnD wrote:
    >> Can anyone recommend a good, safe registry cleaner that may or may
    >> not be a
    >> freebie, but doesn't bring in a lot of unwanted stuff with it? (XP
    >> Pro SP3)
    >>
    >> Thanks
     
  5. Twayne

    Twayne Guest

    milt wrote:
    > JohnD wrote:
    >> Can anyone recommend a good, safe registry cleaner that may or may
    >> not be a freebie, but doesn't bring in a lot of unwanted stuff with
    >> it? (XP Pro SP3) Thanks

    >
    > No such thing, none of them are any good. Avoid at all costs.


    That hand up your butt feel good?
     
  6. Twayne

    Twayne Guest

    noone@home.com wrote:
    > SPAMCOP User wrote:
    >> JohnD,
    >>
    >> Never use a registry cleaner!!!!
    >>

    >
    > That's not what they say here:
    > http://onecare.live.com/site/en-us/center/cleanup.htm


    You can't convince closed, ignorant minds of anything. I do like it
    when I see people saying MS lies though, then they'll turn and support
    them til doomsday. They don't have a single bit of valid evidence to
    support their claims and know it, yet they'll support it to their death.
    Good attitude, at least in that way!
    If you corner them they'll try to weasel-word you and if that fails
    they go black-hole. I fight this ignorance every time I see it. Gives
    me a break from the boredom for a minute or so.

    Twayne`
     
  7. Twayne

    Twayne Guest

    Alias wrote:
    > noone@home.com wrote:
    >> Alias wrote:
    >>> noone@home.com wrote:
    >>>> SPAMCOP User wrote:
    >>>>> JohnD,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Never use a registry cleaner!!!!
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> That's not what they say here:
    >>>> http://onecare.live.com/site/en-us/center/cleanup.htm
    >>>
    >>> They LIE. Why do they lie? To sell the product, what else?

    >>
    >> It's free and it is a Microsoft site.

    >
    > With Windows 7, it's history and being replaced by Morro. It's not
    > free. It costs 49.95 US dollars. See:
    >
    > http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/3/default.htm
    >
    > So not only do they lie, you do too.
    >
    > Alias


    LOL! Right!
    Parsing input: http://onecare.live.com
    Routing details for 207.46.160.201
    [refresh/show] Cached whois for 207.46.160.201 : abuse@microsoft.com

    Whois will get MS too. THAT is an MS site; sorry! A rose by ...
     
  8. Twayne

    Twayne Guest

    Bruce Chambers wrote:
    > noone@home.com wrote:
    >>
    >> It's free and it is a Microsoft site.

    >
    >
    > That doesn't make it safe to use.


    It also doesn't make it unsafe to use.

    Twayne`
     
  9. Twayne

    Twayne Guest

  10. Twayne

    Twayne Guest

    Well stated, Randem.


    Randem wrote:
    > I use Registry Cleaner, It does support creating a Restore Point
    > before cleaning just in case... Do not listen to the pundits who keep
    > trying to scare you from using one. Just ask them for a repeatable
    > example and you will not get a legitimate response. I just use the
    > registry cleaner to solve a problem with VB today.
    >
    > I created a custom dll a few years bac and was updating it. It was
    > not going to be compatible with the older one so I copied the project
    > then renamed it for the new dll. Everything was fine until I wated to
    > change the name in the references of VB and debug it, then there was
    > a problem I could not. It was because VB had referenced both dll
    > projects as the same and the only way to get rid of the references
    > was to delete all the custom dlls then clean the registry so that any
    > reference to the old dll was gone, then it worked. I could debug the
    > project.
    > To the pundits, Try doing that without a registry cleaner!
    >
    > Let the pundits give you a REAL example not just their scare tactics
    > which have no proof.
    >
    >
    > "JohnD" <JohnD@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    > news:7B93D4B4-0493-4BCE-B1E9-B11CCC730469@microsoft.com...
    >> Can anyone recommend a good, safe registry cleaner that may or may
    >> not be a
    >> freebie, but doesn't bring in a lot of unwanted stuff with it? (XP
    >> Pro SP3)
    >>
    >> Thanks
     
  11. Twayne

    Twayne Guest

    Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
    > On Sat, 16 May 2009 07:46:10 -1000, "Randem" <newsgroups@randem.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    >> I use Registry Cleaner, It does support creating a Restore Point
    >> before cleaning just in case...

    >
    >
    > Creating a restore point before using a registry cleaner is certainly
    > a very good thing to do. If the registry cleaner screws up, and you
    > can use the restore point, you may be able to undo the damage it has
    > done.
    >
    > But if the result of using the registry cleaner is an unbootable
    > computer (which *does* happen), you are out of luck unless you have
    > made an image or clone of the drive.
    >
    > Add that danger of using a registry cleaner to the fact that cleaning
    > of the registry isn't needed and is dangerous, and it's obvious that
    > it's a serious mistake to use one. Leave the registry alone and don't
    > use any registry cleaner. Despite what many people think, and what
    > vendors of registry cleaning software try to convince you of, having
    > unused registry entries doesn't really hurt you.
    >
    > The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner erroneously
    > removing an entry you need is far greater than any potential benefit
    > it may have.
    >
    > Read http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000643.html


    What I said before. Same trash, same boilerplate, same closed minded
    ignorance being displayed again. Try using something that's not written
    by you guys; someting legitimate from a verifiable source. You can't do
    it. UMhaw! is not a verifiable site. And neither are blogs.
     
  12. Twayne

    Twayne Guest

    Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
    > On Sat, 16 May 2009 14:46:38 -0400, WaIIy <WaIIy@(nft).invalid> wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 16 May 2009 04:48:05 -0700, JohnD
    >> <JohnD@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Can anyone recommend a good, safe registry cleaner that may or may
    >>> not be a freebie, but doesn't bring in a lot of unwanted stuff with
    >>> it? (XP Pro SP3)
    >>>
    >>> Thanks

    >>
    >> If you insist on using one, I've used CCleaner for that purpose.
    >> It's not as agressive as some and it asked you to backup before the
    >> changes.
    >>
    >> You can go ape with a deep registry cleaner, but they're a little
    >> dangerous.
    >>
    >> Again, if you insist, use Erundt before you clean and you can save
    >> yourself from yourself.

    >
    >
    > Yes, having a backup of the registry (for example, with Erunt) reduces
    > the risk of using a registry cleaner. However, note that it does *not*
    > eliminate that risk. Using a registry cleaner can leave you with an
    > unbootable computer.


    CAN, but not very likely, very, very unlikely in fact. It CAN in the
    same sense that ANY program can do that!
     
  13. Twayne

    Twayne Guest

    ANONYMOUS wrote:
    > If you really want to clean your registry then the safest thing is to
    > reformat your HD and reinstall the OS. There aren't any safe
    > products that can "clean" the registry because there is no need to
    > clean it for a normal computer user.


    Well ... if you're going to rebuild anyway, then what's wrong with
    trying a registry cleaner?

    That was actually a good point! You've nothing to lose if you're going
    to rebuild anyway. It will settle the arguements for a lot of people
    wondering about the closed minds here, although not many do anymore.
    They've been pretty well "outed".

    Glad you said that!

    Twayne`




    >
    > hth
    >
    >
    > JohnD wrote:
    >
    >> Can anyone recommend a good, safe registry cleaner that may or may
    >> not be a freebie, but doesn't bring in a lot of unwanted stuff with
    >> it? (XP Pro SP3)
    >>
    >> Thanks
     
  14. Twayne

    Twayne Guest

    Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
    > On Sat, 16 May 2009 23:29:54 +0200, "Linea Recta"
    > <mccm.vos@abc.invalid> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "SPAMCOP User" <spamcop_user@no_mail.haha> schreef in bericht
    >> news:eZZcYxh1JHA.6056@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
    >>> JohnD,
    >>>
    >>> Never use a registry cleaner!!!!
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> Then you'll soon have to live with a clogged registry.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Complete nonsense. I have *never* used a registry cleaner and I have
    > never had a clogged registry.
    >
    > As a matter of fact, there's no such thing as a "clogged registry."


    You can't possibly know that until you query the OP on what he means by
    it. I say there IS such a thing, and I have seen it.
     
  15. Tim Meddick

    Tim Meddick Guest

    It also proves the point that an overblown registry makes the system run
    slower as it's never quite as fast as when just installed when the registry
    is at it's smallest. Then watch as speed decreases as the size of the
    registry increases!


    ==



    Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :)


    "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
    news:uDZP$Lo1JHA.1900@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
    > ANONYMOUS wrote:
    >> If you really want to clean your registry then the safest thing is to
    >> reformat your HD and reinstall the OS. There aren't any safe
    >> products that can "clean" the registry because there is no need to
    >> clean it for a normal computer user.

    >
    > Well ... if you're going to rebuild anyway, then what's wrong with trying
    > a registry cleaner?
    >
    > That was actually a good point! You've nothing to lose if you're going to
    > rebuild anyway. It will settle the arguements for a lot of people
    > wondering about the closed minds here, although not many do anymore.
    > They've been pretty well "outed".
    >
    > Glad you said that!
    >
    > Twayne`
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >>
    >> hth
    >>
    >>
    >> JohnD wrote:
    >>
    >>> Can anyone recommend a good, safe registry cleaner that may or may
    >>> not be a freebie, but doesn't bring in a lot of unwanted stuff with
    >>> it? (XP Pro SP3)
    >>>
    >>> Thanks

    >
    >
    >
     
  16. The size of the registry has nothing to do with the speed of the system.
    The speed of the system depends on what is actually running. Other
    than taking a bit more virtual memory space the size of the registry
    really has no effect on system performance. The complete registry is
    mapped into the virtual memory but what isn't actually needed or used
    just stays there, performance wise it affects nothing, its about the
    same as saying that having lots of files on your hard drive slows down
    the computer, other than when defraging or doing searches having lots of
    files slows down nothing unless you actually open the files! Other than
    when doing registry searches the size of the registry doesn't affect
    performance.

    John

    Tim Meddick wrote:
    > It also proves the point that an overblown registry makes the system run
    > slower as it's never quite as fast as when just installed when the registry
    > is at it's smallest. Then watch as speed decreases as the size of the
    > registry increases!
    >
    >
    > ==
    >
    >
    >
    > Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :)
    >
    >
    > "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
    > news:uDZP$Lo1JHA.1900@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
    >> ANONYMOUS wrote:
    >>> If you really want to clean your registry then the safest thing is to
    >>> reformat your HD and reinstall the OS. There aren't any safe
    >>> products that can "clean" the registry because there is no need to
    >>> clean it for a normal computer user.

    >> Well ... if you're going to rebuild anyway, then what's wrong with trying
    >> a registry cleaner?
    >>
    >> That was actually a good point! You've nothing to lose if you're going to
    >> rebuild anyway. It will settle the arguements for a lot of people
    >> wondering about the closed minds here, although not many do anymore.
    >> They've been pretty well "outed".
    >>
    >> Glad you said that!
    >>
    >> Twayne`
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> hth
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> JohnD wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Can anyone recommend a good, safe registry cleaner that may or may
    >>>> not be a freebie, but doesn't bring in a lot of unwanted stuff with
    >>>> it? (XP Pro SP3)
    >>>>
    >>>> Thanks

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     
  17. Tim Meddick

    Tim Meddick Guest

    So YOU say.
    However, after saying such rash things there ARE some things you can't
    ignore. One is, right-click on the desktop and choose "New" and see how
    long it takes for the list of available new files you can create to come up.
    This is directly proportional to the number of entries the system has to go
    through in HKEY_CLASSESS_ROOT to look up any second-level keys named
    "ShellNew". On a new system - this will be almost immediate, however, on a
    much older one, with many more times the number of registered filetypes,
    this will be noticeably longer. You people can quote parrot-fashion what
    others have said for ever as far as I'm concerned, but I know what I know to
    be true, no matter your dogmatic adherence to an indefensible position.
    What you say goes against logic. For another instance - registry searches
    using the 'Edit' > 'Find' and 'Find Next' options. In a new system it takes
    only a few seconds to find a single value, even located at the end of the
    registry. But in much older systems in can be literally minutes. What -
    you think the CPU can do this instantly?! Why does it not do so then?
    There are many more examples that can be directly related to the size of
    the registry.

    ==


    Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :)


    "John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message
    news:e1h2PWp1JHA.4468@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
    > The size of the registry has nothing to do with the speed of the system.
    > The speed of the system depends on what is actually running. Other than
    > taking a bit more virtual memory space the size of the registry really has
    > no effect on system performance. The complete registry is mapped into the
    > virtual memory but what isn't actually needed or used just stays there,
    > performance wise it affects nothing, its about the same as saying that
    > having lots of files on your hard drive slows down the computer, other
    > than when defraging or doing searches having lots of files slows down
    > nothing unless you actually open the files! Other than when doing
    > registry searches the size of the registry doesn't affect performance.
    >
    > John
    >
    > Tim Meddick wrote:
    >> It also proves the point that an overblown registry makes the system run
    >> slower as it's never quite as fast as when just installed when the
    >> registry is at it's smallest. Then watch as speed decreases as the size
    >> of the registry increases!
    >>
    >>
    >> ==
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :)
    >>
    >>
    >> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
    >> news:uDZP$Lo1JHA.1900@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
    >>> ANONYMOUS wrote:
    >>>> If you really want to clean your registry then the safest thing is to
    >>>> reformat your HD and reinstall the OS. There aren't any safe
    >>>> products that can "clean" the registry because there is no need to
    >>>> clean it for a normal computer user.
    >>> Well ... if you're going to rebuild anyway, then what's wrong with
    >>> trying a registry cleaner?
    >>>
    >>> That was actually a good point! You've nothing to lose if you're going
    >>> to rebuild anyway. It will settle the arguements for a lot of people
    >>> wondering about the closed minds here, although not many do anymore.
    >>> They've been pretty well "outed".
    >>>
    >>> Glad you said that!
    >>>
    >>> Twayne`
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> hth
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> JohnD wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Can anyone recommend a good, safe registry cleaner that may or may
    >>>>> not be a freebie, but doesn't bring in a lot of unwanted stuff with
    >>>>> it? (XP Pro SP3)
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Thanks
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
     
  18. Mike Torello

    Mike Torello Guest

    "Tim Meddick" <timmeddick@gawab.com> wrote:

    >It also proves the point that an overblown registry makes the system run
    >slower as it's never quite as fast as when just installed when the registry
    >is at it's smallest. Then watch as speed decreases as the size of the
    >registry increases!


    You're never gonna pass Logic 101 with that kind of thinking, bozo.
     
  19. Bill in Co.

    Bill in Co. Guest

    Tim Meddick wrote:
    > So YOU say.
    > However, after saying such rash things there ARE some things you can't
    > ignore. One is, right-click on the desktop and choose "New" and see how
    > long it takes for the list of available new files you can create to come
    > up.


    That has NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. You're talking about two
    completely unrelated things here.

    > This is directly proportional to the number of entries the system has to
    > go
    > through in HKEY_CLASSESS_ROOT to look up any second-level keys named
    > "ShellNew". On a new system - this will be almost immediate, however, on
    > a
    > much older one, with many more times the number of registered filetypes,
    > this will be noticeably longer. You people can quote parrot-fashion what
    > others have said for ever as far as I'm concerned, but I know what I know
    > to
    > be true, no matter your dogmatic adherence to an indefensible position.
    > What you say goes against logic. For another instance - registry searches
    > using the 'Edit' > 'Find' and 'Find Next' options. In a new system it
    > takes
    > only a few seconds to find a single value, even located at the end of the
    > registry. But in much older systems in can be literally minutes.


    And that behavior has NOTHING to do with the "access time" in the registry.
    NOTHING! Totally unrelated.

    > What -
    > you think the CPU can do this instantly?! Why does it not do so then?
    > There are many more examples that can be directly related to the size
    > of
    > the registry.
    >
    > ==
    >
    >
    > Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :)
    >
    >
    > "John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message
    > news:e1h2PWp1JHA.4468@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
    >> The size of the registry has nothing to do with the speed of the system.
    >> The speed of the system depends on what is actually running. Other than
    >> taking a bit more virtual memory space the size of the registry really
    >> has
    >> no effect on system performance. The complete registry is mapped into
    >> the
    >> virtual memory but what isn't actually needed or used just stays there,
    >> performance wise it affects nothing, its about the same as saying that
    >> having lots of files on your hard drive slows down the computer, other
    >> than when defraging or doing searches having lots of files slows down
    >> nothing unless you actually open the files! Other than when doing
    >> registry searches the size of the registry doesn't affect performance.
    >>
    >> John
    >>
    >> Tim Meddick wrote:
    >>> It also proves the point that an overblown registry makes the system run
    >>> slower as it's never quite as fast as when just installed when the
    >>> registry is at it's smallest. Then watch as speed decreases as the size
    >>> of the registry increases!
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> ==
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :)
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:uDZP$Lo1JHA.1900@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
    >>>> ANONYMOUS wrote:
    >>>>> If you really want to clean your registry then the safest thing is to
    >>>>> reformat your HD and reinstall the OS. There aren't any safe
    >>>>> products that can "clean" the registry because there is no need to
    >>>>> clean it for a normal computer user.
    >>>> Well ... if you're going to rebuild anyway, then what's wrong with
    >>>> trying a registry cleaner?
    >>>>
    >>>> That was actually a good point! You've nothing to lose if you're going
    >>>> to rebuild anyway. It will settle the arguements for a lot of people
    >>>> wondering about the closed minds here,


    Quite evidently that's you, bubba. (Self projection noted once again).
    Sigh...

    >>>> although not many do anymore.
    >>>> They've been pretty well "outed".
    >>>>
    >>>> Glad you said that!
    >>>>
    >>>> Twayne`
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> hth
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> JohnD wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Can anyone recommend a good, safe registry cleaner that may or may
    >>>>>> not be a freebie, but doesn't bring in a lot of unwanted stuff with
    >>>>>> it? (XP Pro SP3)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Thanks
     
  20. Randem

    Randem Guest

    No, that will not find all the CSLID's and other such things that are
    related that need to be removed. It was not the physical dll that was the
    problem so removing the name would not help.

    --
    Randem Systems
    Your Installation Specialist
    The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
    http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
    Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
    http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938



    "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message
    news:XWDPl.29353$yr3.23314@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
    > What's so difficult about that? Just do a registry find and delete the old
    > dll's.
    > "Randem" <newsgroups@randem.com> wrote in message
    > news:ugE5x4k1JHA.1420@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
    >>I use Registry Cleaner, It does support creating a Restore Point before
    >>cleaning just in case... Do not listen to the pundits who keep trying to
    >>scare you from using one. Just ask them for a repeatable example and you
    >>will not get a legitimate response. I just use the registry cleaner to
    >>solve a problem with VB today.
    >>
    >> I created a custom dll a few years bac and was updating it. It was not
    >> going to be compatible with the older one so I copied the project then
    >> renamed it for the new dll. Everything was fine until I wated to change
    >> the name in the references of VB and debug it, then there was a problem I
    >> could not. It was because VB had referenced both dll projects as the same
    >> and the only way to get rid of the references was to delete all the
    >> custom dlls then clean the registry so that any reference to the old dll
    >> was gone, then it worked. I could debug the project.
    >>
    >> To the pundits, Try doing that without a registry cleaner!
    >>
    >> Let the pundits give you a REAL example not just their scare tactics
    >> which have no proof.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Randem Systems
    >> Your Installation Specialist
    >> The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
    >> http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
    >> Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
    >> http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> "JohnD" <JohnD@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
    >> news:7B93D4B4-0493-4BCE-B1E9-B11CCC730469@microsoft.com...
    >>> Can anyone recommend a good, safe registry cleaner that may or may not
    >>> be a
    >>> freebie, but doesn't bring in a lot of unwanted stuff with it? (XP Pro
    >>> SP3)
    >>>
    >>> Thanks

    >>
    >>

    >
    >
     

Share This Page