Registry Cleaners

If you think that you really don't understand the problem or registry
cleaners... Finding the name of a dll is useless for the problem is the
CSLID's and other related entries of which you will not find with the Find
function...

--
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



"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:uWuB9ll1JHA.2656@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Randem wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> To the pundits, Try doing that without a registry cleaner!
>>
>
>
> You could do that just using Regedit's built-in Find function.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> Help us help you:
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375
>
> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
>
> Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand
> Russell
>
> The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
> killed a great many philosophers.
> ~ Denis Diderot

 

Those who think that registry cleaners speed up computers do a lot of
"parroting" of their own! You install software, it writes stuff in the
registry, that is a Windows fact of life. If you want the computer to
stay as it was when Windows was installed then don't install anything on
it! What you are saying about registry searches is true, none of us
have ever refuted that the time that it takes to search through the
whole registry increases with the size of the registry, I said that much
in my earlier post. But if you think that removing a few unused or
obsolete entries out of the registry is going to make your searches
noticeably faster you are only kidding yourself. Do you seriously think
that using a registry cleaner to remove few hundred obsolete entries out
of a registry that has more than 100,000 values is going to make any
noticeable difference when you do a registry search? The same with your
argument about the HKCR key, taking a few unused entries out of the key
will not make your computer any faster, taking a handful of obsolete
entries out of the Classes key will not make your context menus any
faster! Because of the hierarchical nature of the registry its size is
inconsequential to the operation of Windows and the applications,
Windows and applications do not do searches through the whole registry.

All of this nonsense about making your computer faster by removing a few
obsolete and unused entries in the registry is nothing but hype from the
ones wanting to sell these next to utterly useless programs. There are
some who buy into this hype and some of those who buy into it parrot and
perpetuate the notions that they were spoon fed by the authors of these
programs. The purposed non existent benefits parroted by the vendors
and fans of these programs is simply not worth the risk of the real
damages that these programs can and do cause.

John


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.
> 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
>>>>
>

 

John

Your comments about removing redundant entries causes me to question
whether they are redundant or just not needed at the present time? If in
the second category what problems are caused when the users needs change
and the registry entry is now needed? It is one thing to disable
something but removal can go a step too far.

You get the same situation when users massacre the default settings for
services and then cannot figure out why something does not work. Changes
can often yield little benefit and store up annoying consequences and
problems for the future!


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

John John - MVP wrote:
> Those who think that registry cleaners speed up computers do a lot of
> "parroting" of their own! You install software, it writes stuff in
> the registry, that is a Windows fact of life. If you want the
> computer to stay as it was when Windows was installed then don't
> install anything on it! What you are saying about registry searches
> is true, none of us have ever refuted that the time that it takes to
> search through the whole registry increases with the size of the
> registry, I said that much in my earlier post. But if you think that
> removing a few unused or obsolete entries out of the registry is
> going to make your searches noticeably faster you are only kidding
> yourself. Do you seriously think that using a registry cleaner to
> remove few hundred obsolete entries out of a registry that has more
> than 100,000 values is going to make any noticeable difference when
> you do a registry search? The same with your argument about the HKCR
> key, taking a few unused entries out of the key will not make your
> computer any faster, taking a handful of obsolete entries out of the
> Classes key will not make your context menus any faster! Because of
> the hierarchical nature of the registry its size is inconsequential
> to the operation of Windows and the applications, Windows and
> applications do not do searches through the whole registry.
> All of this nonsense about making your computer faster by removing a
> few obsolete and unused entries in the registry is nothing but hype
> from the ones wanting to sell these next to utterly useless programs.
> There are some who buy into this hype and some of those who buy into
> it parrot and perpetuate the notions that they were spoon fed by the
> authors of these programs. The purposed non existent benefits
> parroted by the vendors and fans of these programs is simply not
> worth the risk of the real damages that these programs can and do
> cause.
> John
>
>
> 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. 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

 

Gerry wrote:

> John
>
> Your comments about removing redundant entries causes me to question
> whether they are redundant or just not needed at the present time? If in
> the second category what problems are caused when the users needs change
> and the registry entry is now needed? It is one thing to disable
> something but removal can go a step too far.

That is the whole crux of the problem with these cleaners, they do at
time remove valid entries and unless you have extensive knowledge of
what is in your registry or unless you want to take the time that it
takes to do the research on the findings you just don't know for sure if
some of the entries are bogus or not, you can't trust these cleaners.
Often the problem caused by the cleaner goes unnoticed for weeks and
often time users don't connect the dots between the cleaner and the
problem. Most people use these cleaners to look for non existent
problems or to provide illusionary performance improvements, when used
for these purposes they can really cause more harm than good!

There are those who adamantly claim that using cleaners improves
performance on their machines therefore cleaning the registry is
beneficial. The improvement might have more to do with compaction than
anything else. Some of these cleaners do compact the registry and
unlike the removal of a few entries in the registry compaction can and
does at time improve performance. This has nothing to do with the
actual size of the registry or with the removal of a few unused entries,
it is just that having holes in the registry structure can affect the
way Windows reads and writes to the registry and this can affect
performance. You don't have to use registry cleaners to compact the
registry, this can be done with tools like PageDefrag or NTRegOpt and
unlike useless registry cleaners these tools are perfectly safe to use!

John

 

John

So how would you do a before and after test to evaluate the benefits of
using NTRegOpt.

Will the benefits of NTRegOpt be more obvious where the user is
regularly installing and uninstalling applications than a user just adds
an occasional application. Will it help where the user swaps one
anti-virus for another?


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


John John - MVP wrote:
> Gerry wrote:
>
>> John
>>
>> Your comments about removing redundant entries causes me to question
>> whether they are redundant or just not needed at the present time?
>> If in the second category what problems are caused when the users
>> needs change and the registry entry is now needed? It is one thing
>> to disable something but removal can go a step too far.
>
> That is the whole crux of the problem with these cleaners, they do at
> time remove valid entries and unless you have extensive knowledge of
> what is in your registry or unless you want to take the time that it
> takes to do the research on the findings you just don't know for sure
> if some of the entries are bogus or not, you can't trust these
> cleaners. Often the problem caused by the cleaner goes unnoticed for
> weeks and often time users don't connect the dots between the cleaner
> and the problem. Most people use these cleaners to look for non
> existent problems or to provide illusionary performance improvements,
> when used for these purposes they can really cause more harm than
> good!
> There are those who adamantly claim that using cleaners improves
> performance on their machines therefore cleaning the registry is
> beneficial. The improvement might have more to do with compaction
> than anything else. Some of these cleaners do compact the registry
> and unlike the removal of a few entries in the registry compaction
> can and does at time improve performance. This has nothing to do
> with the actual size of the registry or with the removal of a few
> unused entries, it is just that having holes in the registry
> structure can affect the way Windows reads and writes to the registry
> and this can affect performance. You don't have to use registry
> cleaners to compact the registry, this can be done with tools like
> PageDefrag or NTRegOpt and unlike useless registry cleaners these
> tools are perfectly safe to use!
> John

 

The benefits would vary depending on how effective the uninstall works.
Many applications remove the core components but leave user specific
settings/customizations in place. ( In case of a program re-load ). Usually
stored in the local profile's \Application Data path.

The Registry has sections of "White Space" where the data is removed.
On average, a typical PC's Registry will compact from 3 to 9% of it's pre
NTRegOpt size. Even with that it's doubtful the PC's performance will
have any noticeable improvement after being compacted. ( Actually the
program writes out the Registry and then re-imports so no White Space
exists ).

The Registry is like a dictionary. Unless a specific entry is called for
any
other data exists but isn't referenced. The only thing I've ever seen in the
Registry that "MIGHT" cause a system effect is an orphaned service that
is called to load. These can be easily found by using AutoRuns and check
the "Image Path" column for a descriptor "File not Found."

"Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:O4gJFOw1JHA.3476@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> John
>
> So how would you do a before and after test to evaluate the benefits of
> using NTRegOpt.
>
> Will the benefits of NTRegOpt be more obvious where the user is regularly
> installing and uninstalling applications than a user just adds an
> occasional application. Will it help where the user swaps one anti-virus
> for another?
>
>
> --
>
>
> Gerry
> ~~~~
> FCA
> Stourport, England
> Enquire, plan and execute
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
> John John - MVP wrote:
>> Gerry wrote:
>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> Your comments about removing redundant entries causes me to question
>>> whether they are redundant or just not needed at the present time?
>>> If in the second category what problems are caused when the users
>>> needs change and the registry entry is now needed? It is one thing
>>> to disable something but removal can go a step too far.
>>
>> That is the whole crux of the problem with these cleaners, they do at
>> time remove valid entries and unless you have extensive knowledge of
>> what is in your registry or unless you want to take the time that it
>> takes to do the research on the findings you just don't know for sure
>> if some of the entries are bogus or not, you can't trust these
>> cleaners. Often the problem caused by the cleaner goes unnoticed for
>> weeks and often time users don't connect the dots between the cleaner
>> and the problem. Most people use these cleaners to look for non
>> existent problems or to provide illusionary performance improvements,
>> when used for these purposes they can really cause more harm than
>> good!
>> There are those who adamantly claim that using cleaners improves
>> performance on their machines therefore cleaning the registry is
>> beneficial. The improvement might have more to do with compaction
>> than anything else. Some of these cleaners do compact the registry
>> and unlike the removal of a few entries in the registry compaction
>> can and does at time improve performance. This has nothing to do
>> with the actual size of the registry or with the removal of a few
>> unused entries, it is just that having holes in the registry
>> structure can affect the way Windows reads and writes to the registry
>> and this can affect performance. You don't have to use registry
>> cleaners to compact the registry, this can be done with tools like
>> PageDefrag or NTRegOpt and unlike useless registry cleaners these
>> tools are perfectly safe to use!
>> John
>

 

I don't know of specific tests, on the venerable NT4 the most noticeable
difference was on the boot up time and how quickly you would get to the
working desktop. NT4 was a fast operating system! It didn't have all
the bells and whistles (fluff) that newer Windows versions have.

John

Gerry wrote:
> John
>
> So how would you do a before and after test to evaluate the benefits of
> using NTRegOpt.
>
> Will the benefits of NTRegOpt be more obvious where the user is
> regularly installing and uninstalling applications than a user just adds
> an occasional application. Will it help where the user swaps one
> anti-virus for another?
>
>

 

Thanks John for your further observations.


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


John John - MVP wrote:
> I don't know of specific tests, on the venerable NT4 the most
> noticeable difference was on the boot up time and how quickly you
> would get to the working desktop. NT4 was a fast operating system! It
> didn't have all the bells and whistles (fluff) that newer Windows
> versions have.
> John
>
> Gerry wrote:
>> John
>>
>> So how would you do a before and after test to evaluate the
>> benefits of using NTRegOpt.
>>
>> Will the benefits of NTRegOpt be more obvious where the user is
>> regularly installing and uninstalling applications than a user just
>> adds an occasional application. Will it help where the user swaps one
>> anti-virus for another?

 

Thanks for your comments.

I cannot see how NTRegOpt will change the situation regarding entries
left behind by an ineffective uninstall process. I say this having read
your explanation of how NTRegOpt compacts.

I was aware of the usefulness of Autoruns to remove orphan start up
items. Complaints of error reports of this nature are quite common in
these newsgroups.

--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

R. McCarty wrote:
> The benefits would vary depending on how effective the uninstall
> works. Many applications remove the core components but leave user
> specific settings/customizations in place. ( In case of a program
> re-load ). Usually stored in the local profile's \Application Data
> path.
> The Registry has sections of "White Space" where the data is removed.
> On average, a typical PC's Registry will compact from 3 to 9% of it's
> pre NTRegOpt size. Even with that it's doubtful the PC's performance
> will have any noticeable improvement after being compacted. ( Actually
> the
> program writes out the Registry and then re-imports so no White Space
> exists ).
>
> The Registry is like a dictionary. Unless a specific entry is called
> for any
> other data exists but isn't referenced. The only thing I've ever seen
> in the Registry that "MIGHT" cause a system effect is an orphaned
> service that is called to load. These can be easily found by using
> AutoRuns and
> check the "Image Path" column for a descriptor "File not Found."
>
> "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:O4gJFOw1JHA.3476@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> John
>>
>> So how would you do a before and after test to evaluate the
>> benefits of using NTRegOpt.
>>
>> Will the benefits of NTRegOpt be more obvious where the user is
>> regularly installing and uninstalling applications than a user just
>> adds an occasional application. Will it help where the user swaps
>> one anti-virus for another?
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>> Gerry
>> ~~~~
>> FCA
>> Stourport, England
>> Enquire, plan and execute
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>
>> John John - MVP wrote:
>>> Gerry wrote:
>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> Your comments about removing redundant entries causes me to
>>>> question whether they are redundant or just not needed at the
>>>> present time? If in the second category what problems are caused
>>>> when the users needs change and the registry entry is now needed?
>>>> It is one thing to disable something but removal can go a step too
>>>> far.
>>>
>>> That is the whole crux of the problem with these cleaners, they do
>>> at time remove valid entries and unless you have extensive
>>> knowledge of what is in your registry or unless you want to take
>>> the time that it takes to do the research on the findings you just
>>> don't know for sure if some of the entries are bogus or not, you
>>> can't trust these cleaners. Often the problem caused by the
>>> cleaner goes unnoticed for weeks and often time users don't connect
>>> the dots between the cleaner and the problem. Most people use
>>> these cleaners to look for non existent problems or to provide
>>> illusionary performance improvements, when used for these purposes
>>> they can really cause more harm than good!
>>> There are those who adamantly claim that using cleaners improves
>>> performance on their machines therefore cleaning the registry is
>>> beneficial. The improvement might have more to do with compaction
>>> than anything else. Some of these cleaners do compact the registry
>>> and unlike the removal of a few entries in the registry compaction
>>> can and does at time improve performance. This has nothing to do
>>> with the actual size of the registry or with the removal of a few
>>> unused entries, it is just that having holes in the registry
>>> structure can affect the way Windows reads and writes to the
>>> registry and this can affect performance. You don't have to use
>>> registry cleaners to compact the registry, this can be done with
>>> tools like PageDefrag or NTRegOpt and unlike useless registry
>>> cleaners these tools are perfectly safe to use!
>>> John

 

"JohnD" <JohnD@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7D74AEB9-4D2A-4318-A4E7-1645C7DC1FB8@microsoft.com...
>
>
> "Thanks everybody!"

Hi John D
This is my standard reply to those asking about Reg Cleaners -

I do not let any registry cleaner etc on my one and only computer.
> If I get a problem then I fix it - if it aint broke I dont fix it.
> If a computer owner, like me, has only basic user skills, and does not
> know
> what goes on in the Registry, then the last thing they should use is a
> tool to do it.
> The problem with me(and thousands of others) of limited techno ability, is
> that I have no idea what goes on in the registry.
> Until I am able to learn the hidden secrets in there I do not enter unless
> held by the hand by somebody far more capable.
> More damage can be caused than good done - it has been widely posted that
> such a prog. gives a user no particular benefit.
> Whether or not one gains any significant performance is questionable - I
> have read more posts/articles to say that performing a registry clean does
> not enhance performance to any degree.
> In every thread I have read in newsgroups/forums in the last 2
> years or more, the advice has come down against these Reg Cleaners.
> I have no problem with those who recommend/support or whatever the use
> of these cleaners. I think they have been lucky.
> I just wish they would point out the other side of the coin to those who
> may not have a clue what they are doing. The more responsible users I
> have found also know what goes on in the registry and pick and choose what
> > is dealt with, rather than just hit the button to clean.
> But most never seem to consider the capabilities of the poster to
> whom they reply.
> When I had my rush of blood to the head and used the top computer
> magazine recommended cleaner, I had not heard of 'backup' and
> there was no such thing as System Restore. I had to get my local comp
> shop to re-install Windows - so for me, never again.
> But if just one scientific test could once and for all prove the overall
> worthwhile of a Reg, cleaner and in particular show that it makes your
> computer go faster, then I would be the first to shout "congratulations".

Added note -
A couple of months ago, Zone Alarm offered me their cleaning utility.
I asked them if the claim that their software improved performance was
backed by any tech/scientific proof/evidence, they replied that it was the
bits that removed TIF, temp folders/files and the like. They added that no
such tests had been done regarding the speed effect with the Reg Cleaner.
Does anybody know if there is any vendor of this snake-oil that can back up
their claim with proof?

Antioch

 

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:

Your point? The guy didn't have Windows 7.

> http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/3/default.htm
>
> So not only do they lie, you do too.

Not hardly although I see you never bothered to ,look at the link I
gave you.

That link is FREE. On the same page, they offer the PAID version.

 

Gerry wrote:
> John
>
> Would you go to a Witch Doctor if you weren't feeling very well?

I probably wouldn't but millions do.

 

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

So, if nothing ever needs to be done to the registry, what about
NTREGOPT? Do you consider that safe?

 

On Sun, 17 May 2009 11:18:01 -0600, noone@home.com wrote:

> 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
>
> So, if nothing ever needs to be done to the registry, what about
> NTREGOPT? Do you consider that safe?


I have played very slightly with NTREGOPT, but have very little
experience with it. So take my views on it with a grain of salt. Yes,
as far as I know, it's safe to use.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

 

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Sun, 17 May 2009 11:18:01 -0600, noone@home.com wrote:
>
>> 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
>> So, if nothing ever needs to be done to the registry, what about
>> NTREGOPT? Do you consider that safe?
>
>
> I have played very slightly with NTREGOPT, but have very little
> experience with it. So take my views on it with a grain of salt. Yes,
> as far as I know, it's safe to use.

Thanks.

 

If you'd look at my post - I never said reg cleaners do any good! However,
what I do say is to those people who seem to ignore pure logic and
experience that says an overblown registry is responsible for some speed
decrease as time goes on. The items I listed in my last post have been
knocked aside with no qualification of how they are wrong. I know these
effects to be truly visible and nobody can give me a satisfactory
explanation of what otherwise could cause these effects. One day I will
import the HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT hive on my old XP machine to a brand new XP
installation and ultimately prove once and for all that it is responsible
for those time delays that I have cited. (I may try it out on MS VPC very
shortly in fact)

==



Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.


"John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:uH947du1JHA.6132@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Those who think that registry cleaners speed up computers do a lot of
> "parroting" of their own! You install software, it writes stuff in the
> registry, that is a Windows fact of life. If you want the computer to
> stay as it was when Windows was installed then don't install anything on
> it! What you are saying about registry searches is true, none of us have
> ever refuted that the time that it takes to search through the whole
> registry increases with the size of the registry, I said that much in my
> earlier post. But if you think that removing a few unused or obsolete
> entries out of the registry is going to make your searches noticeably
> faster you are only kidding yourself. Do you seriously think that using a
> registry cleaner to remove few hundred obsolete entries out of a registry
> that has more than 100,000 values is going to make any noticeable
> difference when you do a registry search? The same with your argument
> about the HKCR key, taking a few unused entries out of the key will not
> make your computer any faster, taking a handful of obsolete entries out of
> the Classes key will not make your context menus any faster! Because of
> the hierarchical nature of the registry its size is inconsequential to the
> operation of Windows and the applications, Windows and applications do not
> do searches through the whole registry.
>
> All of this nonsense about making your computer faster by removing a few
> obsolete and unused entries in the registry is nothing but hype from the
> ones wanting to sell these next to utterly useless programs. There are
> some who buy into this hype and some of those who buy into it parrot and
> perpetuate the notions that they were spoon fed by the authors of these
> programs. The purposed non existent benefits parroted by the vendors and
> fans of these programs is simply not worth the risk of the real damages
> that these programs can and do cause.
>
> John
>
>
> 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. 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
>>>>>
>>

 

Suppose you want to back up yet another unqualified answer with some logic
of your own? Pal.

==


Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.


"Mike Torello" <torellom@chicoplt.com> wrote in message
news:fp2v051jof16ke2jr3rmn9chn1dgoltel6@4ax.com...
> "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.

 

Tim

Are you removing redundant entries or those just not needed at the
present time? If in the second category won't problems be caused when
the users needs change and the registry entry is needed to accomodate
the change? How can automated registry cleaner have a crystal ball to
know what the user might want at a future time?


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Tim Meddick wrote:
> Suppose you want to back up yet another unqualified answer with some
> logic of your own? Pal.
>
> ==
>
>
> Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.
>
>
> "Mike Torello" <torellom@chicoplt.com> wrote in message
> news:fp2v051jof16ke2jr3rmn9chn1dgoltel6@4ax.com...
>> "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.

 

For the Nth time.... I have NOT (as yet) said anything about reg-cleaners.
Just the fact that an excessively sized registry is linked, or has links to
a certain decrease in overall performance. I think it's of vital importance
to keep the size of the registry down to a minimum by not installing too
many programs that are superfluous to what you are trying to accomplish on
your PC. Once it is of an excessive size there's not too much you can do
with a registry. This is because, quite rightly, even the best reg-cleaners
have to be cautious in what hey remove and the decrease in volume on entries
is not significant. Much more can be achieved by avoidance and the adage
'prevention is better than cure' is very true.
Reg cleaners do, I think, have a place though. I cite Randem's post
where he had so many entries to a .dll file that was preventing a program
from functioning, and the reg cleaner he used automated the clean-up of
these entries. I have tried using Regedit's 'Find' [F3] option to do
something similar, and you can be at it for hours on end...

==


Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.


"Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uVylnrz1JHA.6056@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Tim
>
> Are you removing redundant entries or those just not needed at the present
> time? If in the second category won't problems be caused when the users
> needs change and the registry entry is needed to accomodate the change?
> How can automated registry cleaner have a crystal ball to know what the
> user might want at a future time?
>
>
> --
>
>
> Gerry
> ~~~~
> FCA
> Stourport, England
> Enquire, plan and execute
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Tim Meddick wrote:
>> Suppose you want to back up yet another unqualified answer with some
>> logic of your own? Pal.
>>
>> ==
>>
>>
>> Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.
>>
>>
>> "Mike Torello" <torellom@chicoplt.com> wrote in message
>> news:fp2v051jof16ke2jr3rmn9chn1dgoltel6@4ax.com...
>>> "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.
>

 

Alias wrote:
>>
>> Neither of these, along with OneCare (at $49.94), have anything to
>> do with Microsoft's free registry cleaner.
>>
>>
>
> I stand corrected but wouldn't use it.
>

Oh, go ahead.

I don't think it actually DOES anything, but it might make you feel better.
It's called the "Placebo Effect."