Registry cleaners
chicchio
I have used RegCleaner for a long time; I have read about newer registry
cleaners, like CCleaner or RegSeeker, and I am asking if I must turn to these
SW.
But, I am asking also: do I *really* need a registry cleaner ?
I seldom do install/uninstall, except som updates of SW that I already have.
If I leave in the registry some old entries, what will be the result ?
My ideas about registry cleaners are a little confused, so can someone help ?
Thanks in advance, Enrico
Pegasus [MVP]
"chicchio" <chic...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:48ABA125-BFBB-447C...@microsoft.com...
This topic comes up fairly frequently and appears to be a matter of faith.
Here are some hard facts:
- The registry does not need cleaning.
- Registry "cleaners" excel in reporting numerous registry "errors" which
they claim slow down your machine. This is the well-known FUD strategy:
Create Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
- These "errors", if they exist, do not slow down your machine. They do not
impair its operation either.
- Most registry "cleaners" do not improve the operation of your machine in
any way.
- Some registry "cleaners" cause serious damage. The average registry has
around 10,000 entries and the registry cleaners have no way of knowing the
meaning of each and every one of them. They therefore face an impossible
task.
- I have never seen a repeatable test that would demonstrate the benefit of
a registry cleaner. Those who swear by them claim big benefits but they
cannot substantiate them. I suspect the main benefit consists of having a
warm feeling deep inside about owning a "clean" machine.
I recommend that you do not use any registry cleaner.
Alias
I have used a registry cleaner that has fixed problems, including
enabling a video game to play that would not play before using the
registry cleaner System Suite 5.
I recommend that one use a reputable registry cleaner when one needs to,
not as routine maintenance.
Alias
Singapore Computer Service
Quick answer. No.
If you want a clean registry, clean install XP with a slipstreamed SP3. You
will then start with a clean registry.
Read a recent recount from using RegSeeker in another group I frequent
http://groups.google.com/group/24hoursupport.helpdesk/msg/b83b0266c17694b3
Regards,
Singapore Computer Home Repair Service
http://www.bootstrike.com/ComputerService/
Video Conversion VHS Video8 Hi8 Digital8 MiniDv MicroMv
http://www.bootstrike.com/VHSVideoConvert/
"chicchio" <chic...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:48ABA125-BFBB-447C...@microsoft.com...
John John - MVP
> Hello !
>
> I have used RegCleaner for a long time; I have read about newer registry
> cleaners, like CCleaner or RegSeeker, and I am asking if I must turn to these
> SW.
> But, I am asking also: do I *really* need a registry cleaner ?
No. These cleaners are next to utterly useless and for most part they
usually cause more harm than good, you really *don't* need them.
John
chicchio
Thanks to all for the answers.
Now my ideas about registry and registry cleaners are clear.
Bye, Enrico
milt
Here we go AGAIN!
Ken Blake, MVP
I see that you've already gotten a couple of answers saying the same
thing I'm about to say, but I'll say it anyway, since I want to add my
voice to that opinion. Those with the opposite opinion may post
answers too, so an extra voice for the following should help you:
Registry cleaning programs are *all* snake oil. Cleaning of the
registry isn't needed and is dangerous. 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
If you have used a registry cleaner for a long time, and never had a
problem as a result, consider yourself very fortunate.
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Unknown
cleaners.
"Pegasus [MVP]" <ne...@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:%23cOsiOS...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Twayne
news:48ABA125-BFBB-447C...@microsoft.com
I like CCleaner because it includes other little utilities that are
useful, but in your situation, I'd say NO, you do not really need a
registry cleaner. Good cleaners won't hurt anything, but in your case
aren't likely to help in any noticeable way either. Plus the good ones
will always let you back out any changes they've made. I've never used
it, but it's comforting to know it's there.
You're "confused" probably because there are two camps on the
subject, especially here on this group where there are a few closed
minds. But the two groups, usually more logical than the closed minds
here exist everywhere and the subject can become animated discussions.
If I were you and wished to stop using them, I would, but don't blow
it away just in case some use comes up in the future where it may be
useful. Those are generally specific situations though, not for what
you describe here. Then after several months of the macine slows down
you could run it and see if it makes any improvement or not; 9 times out
of 10 it won't if the only "problems" are some leftover entries.
HTH,
Twayne`
Twayne
> news:48ABA125-BFBB-447C...@microsoft.com...
>> Hello !
>>
>> I have used RegCleaner for a long time; I have read about newer
>> registry cleaners, like CCleaner or RegSeeker, and I am asking if I
>> must turn to these
>> SW.
>> But, I am asking also: do I *really* need a registry cleaner ?
>> I seldom do install/uninstall, except som updates of SW that I
>> already have.
>> If I leave in the registry some old entries, what will be the result
>> ? My ideas about registry cleaners are a little confused, so can
>> someone help ?
>>
>> Thanks in advance, Enrico
>
> This topic comes up fairly frequently and appears to be a matter of
> faith. Here are some hard facts:
> - The registry does not need cleaning.
> - Registry "cleaners" excel in reporting numerous registry "errors"
> which they claim slow down your machine. This is the well-known FUD
> strategy: Create Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.
Aww, and you were doing so good, too. I suppose your strategy of
defamation and libel are better?
> - These "errors", if they exist, do not slow down your machine. They
> do not impair its operation either.
That's assuming they are never accessed, which isn't true. Just to GET
to the entry it's necessary to search an index and even if the entry
wasn't accessed, the time WAS spent.
What you mean is, it's very fast and seldom shows up as any speed
changes.
> - Most registry "cleaners" do not improve the operation of your
> machine in any way.
That's not true as in the right circumstance they can do a LOT to
"improve" the operatio nof a machine. You're myopically assuming the
only thing a cleaner does is remove unused entries.
> - Some registry "cleaners" cause serious damage. The average registry
> has around 10,000 entries and the registry cleaners have no way of
> knowing the meaning of each and every one of them. They therefore
> face an impossible task.
OFFICE has over 10,000 registry entries with a Full Install! Office may
or may not be the major occupant of the registry.
> - I have never seen a repeatable test that would demonstrate the
> benefit of a registry cleaner.
And, you have not tried to find such a test either; ever, or you would
have it. Likewise, I have never seen a repeatable test that WOULD
demonstrate that any damage of any kind can be caused by a full
featured, reputable registry cleaner.
Those who swear by them claim big
> benefits but they cannot substantiate them. I suspect the main
> benefit consists of having a warm feeling deep inside about owning a
> "clean" machine.
And those who talk like you do are closed minds without actual
experience/knowledge of the situation or even how simple the registry is
to interpret and verify. You libel and defame an entire industry based
on NO verifiable evidence, and unlike you, I have looked for it at
places other that where biased articles written by other friends of
yours wrote. Name aumha in this case. Even there, one finds only opinion
and no verifiable information of any kind.
>
> I recommend that you do not use any registry cleaner.
Same here, but not for the reasons you do; I recommend it because in his
case it is likely to be on no benefit to him. Unlike you, I even
suggested a "test" he could make to see for himself whether it makes any
difference, since he's been running it for a long time without problems.
He'll likely find no discernible differences in timing unless something
else goes wrong.
Thanks for letting me expose you again.
Twayne`
Twayne
news:h3k63a$9nb$1...@news.eternal-september.org
Makes sense.
TWayne
Twayne
reality, it's going to slap you good and hard right in the face. You
know a good registry cleaner is a good tool but you and others have
backed yourself into such a corner with your misinformation you're
afraid of looking like a fool if you admit reality. You remind me of
Magician Murphy, buried in tombs of books, looking feverishly for the
spell that will make everyone in the entire world think the way you do
without your having to justify or show how your allegations could be so.
You think, so you're sapient, but that's about all that can be said
about you.
Twayne
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:08qr55l9m4pumj3su...@4ax.com
John John - MVP
Twayne wrote:
>> - These "errors", if they exist, do not slow down your machine. They
>> do not impair its operation either.
>
> That's assuming they are never accessed, which isn't true. Just to GET
> to the entry it's necessary to search an index and even if the entry
> wasn't accessed, the time WAS spent.
Obviously you have absolutely no idea whatsoever on how applications use
the registry. The registry is not "searched", applications make
requests for specific keys and values, they don't search an index to get
those keys. Unused registry entries or dead keys are not accessed or
ever even looked at, the only time these dead entries would matter is if
the registry was extensively search by registry tools. The registry is
a hierarchical database, application have no need to search through the
registry, and they don't!
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms724875(VS.85).aspx
Registry Functions (Windows)
John
Pegasus [MVP]
"Twayne" <nob...@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:eVTnATWB...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> And, you have not tried to find such a test either; ever, or you would
> have it. Likewise, I have never seen a repeatable test that WOULD
> demonstrate that any damage of any kind can be caused by a full featured,
> reputable registry cleaner.
When you discover or use something new then the burden is up to *you* to
prove that it works.If you think that your registry cleaner improves the
speed of your PC and if you want the rest of the world to accept your claim
then you must publish a set of reproducible test results. Consider the
opposite: I might claim that my PC works faster under the full moon. You
challenge my ridiculous claim and I tell you to disprove me. You obviously
can't, and according to your way of thinking my claim should stand as it is.
There is only one way out of the dilemman: I publish my test methods and my
results and I ask you to repeat them. I have yet to see such a test for any
registry cleaner.
In the same way I can't and I won't prove that some reputable registry
cleaner can't do damage. When a large number of people use this cleaner
without any detrimental effect then you can reasonably expect that it is
safe to use but you won't know for sure. We sometimes hear about the effects
of registry cleaners in this newsgroup when someone's machine gets thrashed.
In summary: Since nobody has published a repeatable performance test on
registry cleaners and since there are published instances of registry
cleaners doing damage, the reasonable course of action is not to use them.
Unless you believe in them and accept that it's a matter of faith.
Peter Foldes
hands of any person that does not know the Registry and what the Reg Tool is trying
to erase is an open invitation to disaster. Most people fall into this category
--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
"Twayne" <nob...@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:Oe5KXTWB...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Unknown
accessed.news:eVTnATWB...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Unknown
persist
in claiming all sorts of erroneous things about it such as, it slows down
your system,
items are searched etc. etc. etc. May I suggest you write a simple program
which
must access the registry to teach yourself.
"Twayne" <nob...@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:uTbSnZWB...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Unknown
a truthful errorless statement----'aren't likely to help in any noticeable
way'.
Hooray for you!news:%23Gl4iLW...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Rick
"Be very afraid" of registry cleaners! I downloaded and ran CCleaner since
the beginning of '09 thinking it was doing no harm, only to learn that my
"Software Repair Tool" was missing and my "System Restore" kept displaying
this message:"SYSTEM RESTORE Restoration Incomplete Your Computer cannot be
restored". I made attempts to restore in "Safe Mode", to no avail. I have
not been able to resolve these issues.
Please, leave your registry alone!
Rick
HeyBub
>
> Aww, and you were doing so good, too. I suppose your strategy of
> defamation and libel are better?
>
>> - These "errors", if they exist, do not slow down your machine. They
>> do not impair its operation either.
>
> That's assuming they are never accessed, which isn't true. Just to GET
> to the entry it's necessary to search an index and even if the entry
> wasn't accessed, the time WAS spent.
> What you mean is, it's very fast and seldom shows up as any speed
> changes.
The registry doesn't HAVE an index. Searching a minimal registry and one
that has entries for Office, Photoshop, and AutoCAD take exactly the same
amount of time, and even that is less than ten milliseconds. The ONLY thing
a bloated registry will slow down is a system backup where you have to
backup two megabytes instead of one and a half.
>
> That's not true as in the right circumstance they can do a LOT to
> "improve" the operatio nof a machine. You're myopically assuming the
> only thing a cleaner does is remove unused entries.
Often asserted but never proven.
>
>> - I have never seen a repeatable test that would demonstrate the
>> benefit of a registry cleaner.
>
> And, you have not tried to find such a test either; ever, or you would
> have it. Likewise, I have never seen a repeatable test that WOULD
> demonstrate that any damage of any kind can be caused by a full
> featured, reputable registry cleaner.
Well, there's plenty of anecdotal evidence for the latter. A couple of times
a month someone comes here to report his otherwise-perfect machine no longer
works after he "cleaned the registry." Limiting the discussion to "full
featured, reputable registry cleaners" is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If any
given cleaner hoses a system, your out will be: "It wasn't reputable."
That's exactly like saying someone died because he didn't pray hard enough.
Twayne
news:uFZWfjWB...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl
Think about the overall process: From initial call to successful read.
Twayne
> "Twayne" <nob...@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:eVTnATWB...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> And, you have not tried to find such a test either; ever, or you
>> would have it. Likewise, I have never seen a repeatable test that
>> WOULD demonstrate that any damage of any kind can be caused by a
>> full featured, reputable registry cleaner.
>
> When you discover or use something new then the burden is up to *you*
> to prove that it works.If you think that your registry cleaner
lol, Registry cleaning is NEW?? Where the hell have you been?
> improves the speed of your PC and if you want the rest of the world
> to accept your claim then you must publish a set of reproducible test
> results.
I have done that already. Twice. Your score on the other hand is 0.
I also offered to participate in a testing of agreed upon registry
cleaners and to produce a running tally of the results over time to an
agreed upon set of works. But not a single one of you or your closed
minded humpers had so much as a single response, let alone any
suggestions on setting up to do a verifiable, statistical test. None of
your small group were anywhere to be seen. THAT one told me an awful
lot about your circle. Like the typical bullies you want to be, you all
stayed out of school that day to avoid reality.
It would have been an ideal time to set up situations to
prove/disprove whether damage resulted or not, let alone ever causing an
unbootable state. I never said so before, but it also caused me to add
"lazy" to your repertoire of being abilities-challenged.
Consider the opposite: I might claim that my PC works faster
> under the full moon. You challenge my ridiculous claim and I tell you
> to disprove me. You obviously can't, and according to your way of
> thinking my claim should stand as it is. There is only one way out of
> the dilemman: I publish my test methods and my results and I ask you
> to repeat them. I have yet to see such a test for any registry
> cleaner.
That's because you ran away from it. You had a perfect opportunity.
Wow, you're losing it, kiddo! LOL, You're concentrating on "speed" as
opposed to the overall picture, as you usually do. You need to do some
rereads.
>
> In the same way I can't and I won't prove that some reputable registry
> cleaner can't do damage. When a large number of people use this
> cleaner without any detrimental effect then you can reasonably expect
> that it is safe to use but you won't know for sure. We sometimes hear
> about the effects of registry cleaners in this newsgroup when
> someone's machine gets thrashed.
And many more times you hear just the opposite. One hears the allegation
and opinion of one person, and we all know no one ever
misreads/misinterprets/misguesses anything, right? Yeah, right.
For everything that happens, there is a mechanism that explains it. If
you had more than a biased opinion and less than a closed mind you would
have the data to explain it. For "every" registry cleaner to be capable
of "damage" on its own, there is going to be a finite mechanism in
place. But you know the whole thing is a lie and have yourself so
backed into a corner that you feel saying anything but your boilerplate
would be so crushing you might pass from this rock, IMO.
>
> In summary: Since nobody has published a repeatable performance test
Holy cow! Hundreds, thousands, millions of people prove it every day.
You must live in a cave!
> on registry cleaners and since there are published instances of
> registry cleaners doing damage,
Anything can be "published"; it's even been published that Windows will
destroy itself in less than a year. Not only published, but
demonstrated, and in much less than a year. You think somethign
"published" in your un, huh crap areas is credible, but it's only as
credible as the authors are; there are no details or solid evidence
there or anywhere else.
the reasonable course of action is
> not to use them. Unless you believe in them and accept that it's a
> matter of faith.
By that line of reasoning, then no Microsoft application should ever be
installed on a PC because it's going to destrouy itself, and it'll do so
faster and more repeatably than will a good registry cleaner.
Your'e full of "can'ts"; how about a "can" once in awhile?
Thanks again,
Twayne`
Twayne
news:kjo7m.9101$8r....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com
> First off, there is no such thing as a 'good cleaner'. And, you
> finally made a truthful errorless statement----'aren't likely to help
> in any noticeable way'.
> Hooray for you!
I have never said anything but that. But I can't help your reading
comprehension.
John John - MVP
You really don't get it, do you? Lets make it simple, maybe you will
understand...
Applications don't go searching for keys and values, they ask to read or
write to *specific* keys or values or to verify their presence. Let's
pretend that MyApp wants to read one of its registry values, lets say it
wants a key in the HKLM subtree:
It doesn't matter if there is a dud in the HKU subtree, MyApp needs
information from the HKLM subtree, the other ones aren't looked at.
Lets say that MyApp wants a subkey in HKLM\Software:
It doesn't matter if there is a dud in the HKLM\System key, MyApp needs
information from the HKLM\Software key, the other ones aren't looked at.
Lets say that MyApp wants a subkey in HKLM\Software\MyApp:
It doesn't matter if there is a dud in the HKLM\Software\SomeOtherApp
subkey, MyApp needs information from the HKLM\Software\MyApp subkey, the
other ones aren't looked at.
Lets say that MyApp wants a value in HKLM\Software\MyApp\Subkey2:
It doesn't matter if there is a dud in the HKLM\Software\MyApp\Subkey1,
MyApp needs information from the HKLM\Software\MyApp\Subkey2, the other
ones aren't looked at.
Finally, lets say that MyApp wants the value information at:
HKLM\Software\MyApp\Subkey2\Value2:
It doesn't matter if HKLM\Software\MyApp\Subkey2\Value1 is a dud, MyApp
needs information from the HKLM\Software\MyApp\Subkey2\Value2, the other
ones aren't looked at.
Do you get it? It makes not a hill of beans if there are obsolete
registry keys or values in the registry because nothing needs them and
nothing looks for them and due to the hierarchical nature of the
registry nothing but useless registry cleaners ever looks at these
stupid obsolete keys or values!
In other words, if I specifically ask you to "Go get me a Widget at Acme
Widgets in the city's East side" does it matter if the Widgco Wingnut
factory in the West side burned down last week? Will you really be lost
enough to go looking for Acme Widgets in the city's West side?
John
Bill in Co.
Look John, he doesn't get it, and has no intention of ever getting it
(assuming he were even capable of getting it - which he clearly isn't).
And besides which, last I heard, he's still working on his AA degree, so you
should probably just let it die here on the vine. :-)
Bruce Chambers
> Hello !
>
> I have used RegCleaner for a long time; I have read about newer registry
> cleaners, like CCleaner or RegSeeker, and I am asking if I must turn to these
> SW.
> But, I am asking also: do I *really* need a registry cleaner ?
No, No, a thousand times, NO!
Why would you even think you'd ever need to clean your registry?
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?"
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. After
all, why use a chainsaw when a scalpel 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. The only thing needed to safely clean
your registry is knowledge and Regedit.exe.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
A little further reading on the subject:
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
--
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
Bill in Co.
Say whaaaat??? Well then, you musta missed all of Twain's "documented
results" that he "published"! (snort :-)
!! ROFLMAO !!
(sorry, couldn't resist)
> Given the potential for harm, it's just not worth the risk.
EXACTLY. Well said, and a word to the wise is sufficient.
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> A little further reading on the subject:
>
> 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
Pegasus [MVP]
<snip>
Definition of a fanatic: A man redoubling his efforts after losing sight of
his aim.
Keith Wilby
I've used registry cleaners on all 4 of my family's PCs many times and I
have *never* noticed an improvement in their performance or reliability in
any way. From what I've read in this thread I won't be using them any more.
Franz Leu
> Hello !
>
> I have used RegCleaner for a long time; I have read about newer registry
> cleaners, like CCleaner or RegSeeker, and I am asking if I must turn to these
> SW.
> But, I am asking also: do I *really* need a registry cleaner ?
> If I leave in the registry some old entries, what will be the result ?
> My ideas about registry cleaners are a little confused, so can someone help ?
>
> Thanks in advance, Enrico
Just a side-note to think about:
If cleaning up the registry is useless, as many of you said in this
thread, why did Microsoft release the RegClean utility at times of win98
- to speed-up(!) the PC ???
Excerpt from a MS support webpage:
<snip>
My Windows 98 Registry is working OK, but the associated files have
grown massively and there are loads of redundant entries in there.
The longer you run a PC without a clean reinstall, the more your
Registry files grow. This is just a fact of Windows and over time it can
cause your PC to slowdown. While Windows is good at adding and tracking
changes in your Registry, tasks such as uninstalling software do not
always cause the Registry entries to be removed. There’s a utility for
Windows 98 called RegClean that can help you get rid of all these
erroneous entries and speed up your PC in the process. You can download
it from http://download.com.com/3000-2094-881470.html.
<snip>
Franz
Daave
Although I almost always agree with the content of that statement, I do
grant there are occasional exceptions to that rule when a skilled user
is involved, especially one who regularly backs up their system (by
cloning or imaging their drive). To wit, Alias stated that he has had
success using System Suite 5 with regard to enabling a particular video
game to play that otherwise wouldn't. I would like to know more about
the specifics. What game was it? What was the particular problem. And
how did System Suite 5 solve the problem? (And in retrospect, was there
an even better solution?)
If an ordinary user runs an automated "cleaner," that can certainly be a
recipe for disaster. We've all seen numerous posts to this newsgroup
that involved just that. However, when a skilled user uses a particular
program to scan for particular issues for one particular program and
images or clones the drive prior to altering specific registry keys
(either by using regedit or by a program such as System Suite 5), I
think that is a useful method to solve specific problems.
Peter Foldes wrote:
> No it does not make sense. Registry Cleaners are all (ALL) snake oil
> remedies.In the hands of any person that does not know the Registry
> and what the Reg Tool is trying to erase is an open invitation to
> disaster. Most people fall into this category
>
Alias
> Not so fast.
>
> Although I almost always agree with the content of that statement, I do
> grant there are occasional exceptions to that rule when a skilled user
> is involved, especially one who regularly backs up their system (by
> cloning or imaging their drive). To wit, Alias stated that he has had
> success using System Suite 5 with regard to enabling a particular video
> game to play that otherwise wouldn't. I would like to know more about
> the specifics. What game was it? What was the particular problem. And
> how did System Suite 5 solve the problem? (And in retrospect, was there
> an even better solution?)
Devil May Cry 3. System Suite reconnected registry entries with the .exe
and the game worked. I did go through the hundreds of recommendations
from System Suite and ONLY chose the one related to Devil May Cry to
change. Normally, I leave the registry alone and that particular
computer boots up in less than 37 seconds running XP Home.
Alias
John John - MVP
> chicchio schrieb:
>> Hello !
>>
>> I have used RegCleaner for a long time; I have read about newer
>> registry cleaners, like CCleaner or RegSeeker, and I am asking if I
>> must turn to these SW.
>> But, I am asking also: do I *really* need a registry cleaner ?
>> I seldom do install/uninstall, except som updates of SW that I already
>> have.
>> If I leave in the registry some old entries, what will be the result ?
>> My ideas about registry cleaners are a little confused, so can someone
>> help ?
>>
>> Thanks in advance, Enrico
>
> Just a side-note to think about:
> If cleaning up the registry is useless, as many of you said in this
> thread, why did Microsoft release the RegClean utility at times of win98
> - to speed-up(!) the PC ???
Nice try, but that ("to speed-up the PC") isn't the reason at all why
RegClean was developed. RegClean was first released with Microsoft
Visual Basic and its real purpose was to help applications developer
cleanup their programs registry entries while they were writing and
testing their applications, this had nothing *whatsoever* to do with
speeding up the computer, it was a programming tool, nothing more. It
is other third party individuals who started making speed claims and who
started suggesting that RegClean should be used for that dubious purpose.
> Excerpt from a MS support webpage:
> <snip>
> My Windows 98 Registry is working OK, but the associated files have
> grown massively and there are loads of redundant entries in there.
You left this important part out of the excerpt:
"The articles set out below are articles created and/or produced by
Future Publishing Limited. Microsoft is not responsible for the content,
accuracy or opinions expressed in these articles."
You also seem to forget that Windows 98 and Windows NT operating systems
are completely different, the desktop and GUI may look similar but under
the hood these operating systems are as different as a Fiat and a
Lamborghini... or, at the risk of offending die hard Windows 98 fans,
you are trying to compare a Lada with a Formula 1 race car!
Finally, you should also tell us why Microsoft decided to pull the
RegClean utility and remove it from all its download locations.
John
Daave
> Daave wrote:
>> Not so fast.
>>
>> Although I almost always agree with the content of that statement, I
>> do grant there are occasional exceptions to that rule when a skilled
>> user is involved, especially one who regularly backs up their system
>> (by cloning or imaging their drive). To wit, Alias stated that he
>> has had success using System Suite 5 with regard to enabling a
>> particular video game to play that otherwise wouldn't. I would like
>> to know more about the specifics. What game was it? What was the
>> particular problem. And how did System Suite 5 solve the problem?
>> (And in retrospect, was there an even better solution?)
>
> Devil May Cry 3. System Suite reconnected registry entries with the
> .exe and the game worked. I did go through the hundreds of
> recommendations from System Suite and ONLY chose the one related to
> Devil May Cry to change. Normally, I leave the registry alone and
> that particular computer boots up in less than 37 seconds running XP
> Home.
> Alias
Interesting.
What was wrong with Devil May Cry 3 in the first place? How do you
suppose the registry entries came to be "disconnected"?
Alias
> Alias wrote:
>> Daave wrote:
>>> Not so fast.
>>>
>>> Although I almost always agree with the content of that statement, I
>>> do grant there are occasional exceptions to that rule when a skilled
>>> user is involved, especially one who regularly backs up their system
>>> (by cloning or imaging their drive). To wit, Alias stated that he
>>> has had success using System Suite 5 with regard to enabling a
>>> particular video game to play that otherwise wouldn't. I would like
>>> to know more about the specifics. What game was it? What was the
>>> particular problem. And how did System Suite 5 solve the problem?
>>> (And in retrospect, was there an even better solution?)
>> Devil May Cry 3. System Suite reconnected registry entries with the
>> .exe and the game worked. I did go through the hundreds of
>> recommendations from System Suite and ONLY chose the one related to
>> Devil May Cry to change. Normally, I leave the registry alone and
>> that particular computer boots up in less than 37 seconds running XP
>> Home.
>> Alias
>
> Interesting.
>
> What was wrong with Devil May Cry 3 in the first place?
It wouldn't start.
> How do you
> suppose the registry entries came to be "disconnected"?
I have no idea. Both Devil May Cry 3 and 4 are awesome games, btw.
Alias
Franz Leu
Thats an easy one ... it has never been developed further to support
newer OS. Using it on todays OS and Software (i.e. MS Office installed)
setups is even very dangerous.
Franz
John John - MVP
It was pulled many years ago (during the ME days), it was causing
problems even on the DOS based operating systems, it wasn't necessarily
a problem with the newer Windows XP.
John
Terry R.
whim, Daave pounded out on the keyboard:
> Not so fast.
>
> Although I almost always agree with the content of that statement, I do
> grant there are occasional exceptions to that rule when a skilled user
> is involved, especially one who regularly backs up their system (by
> cloning or imaging their drive). To wit, Alias stated that he has had
> success using System Suite 5 with regard to enabling a particular video
> game to play that otherwise wouldn't. I would like to know more about
> the specifics. What game was it? What was the particular problem. And
> how did System Suite 5 solve the problem? (And in retrospect, was there
> an even better solution?)
>
> If an ordinary user runs an automated "cleaner," that can certainly be a
> recipe for disaster. We've all seen numerous posts to this newsgroup
> that involved just that. However, when a skilled user uses a particular
> program to scan for particular issues for one particular program and
> images or clones the drive prior to altering specific registry keys
> (either by using regedit or by a program such as System Suite 5), I
> think that is a useful method to solve specific problems.
>
>
I agree. I have used them for years to resolve issues that would take
way too much time using regedit. Back before a lot of AV companies
started producing tools for removal, cleaners and a watchful eye were
the only way to eradicate the problem.
But I will never throw out the suggestion to use one to anyone that may
be a novice.
Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.
Terry R.
whim, Keith Wilby pounded out on the keyboard:
Hi Keith,
Why anyone would attempt to try one when a workstation is working fine,
I'll never know. Maybe curiosity. And that's where most users wind up
getting in trouble.
Bill in Co.
And unlike most others here, including Twain, I can testify to that,
firsthand, as Microsoft's old RegClean caused me some problems in my Win98SE
system (some were related to Netscape, for example). And as you said,
John, they removed it from their site years ago.
Terry R.
whim, Bill in Co. pounded out on the keyboard:
One users experience. I had good results with it back then on
workstations. Would I let a user touch it? Never.
Bill in Co.
What does "good results" mean? I'm not denying that it can remove a few
spurious entries, but, big deal, and, so what? Nothing practical is really
gained. (I occasionally use one to *selectively* remove the most recent
file document list entries, which otherwise gets too cluttered, for
example). If someone doesn't know their way around regedit, for example,
they have no business even considering the use of such. And even if they
do know their waya around regedit, they know what is prudent (which is NOT
to run the automatic ones!)
Terry R.
Average users shouldn't mess with the registry, period.
But when an app failed to install properly, or the installation of a
program screwed up another program, it came in very handy. When viruses
came along before good eradication apps, they helped. "Good results"
mean just that. I never allowed an auto clean by any of them. And I
use ones that create backups prior to removal, under my control (I
personally like JV16, and an older version of it).
This argument continues and will until the registry is finally
eliminated. I don't recommend them, but I use them.
John John - MVP
> This argument continues and will until the registry is finally
> eliminated.
Then the registry cleaner vendors will tell us that XML files slow down
the computer and the argument will be about XML cleaners...
John
Terry R.
whim, John John - MVP pounded out on the keyboard:
Of course! Sales people make me crazy!
ANONYMOUS
John John - MVP wrote:
The product that is actually a hindrance to the speed of the current
powerful intel and AMD processors is Microsoft's Windows OS. The speed
of the processors and other hardware has increased exponentially but
this is hindered by the Windows OS. The DOS was at least faster and
efficient despite running on low spec systems!
Perhaps Chrome will rectify this anomaly! The members of the pig
society (of which you are one) are required to stand by MS products even
if it is crap.
ANONYMOUS
To people who are paranoid about their registry entries, I always
suggest that the surest way and the most effective yet most secure
method is to do a clean install of the operating system every 18 months
or so. Doing a clean install ensures you clear not only any so called
rogue entries in your registry but also all the temporary files that
keep piling up in Windows OS. Microsoft, with all the brain power at
its disposal, thought that temporary files are the best thing for users'
enjoyment of computing experience! These files are NOT deleted
automatically and the members of the pig society frequently suggests to
defrag the HD and use the MS's Disk Cleanup utility. This never method
works (except it helps you to pass your idle time) and I strongly
believe that the only thing that needs defrag or cleaning up is their
own brain.
Hope this helps.
John John - MVP
No one forces you to use Windows operating systems, if you don't like
Windows use something else, there is nothing wrong with Mac or Linux so
do what you have to do and cut the string. Or are you just too insecure
to do so?
John
ANONYMOUS
The members of the pig society (of which you are one) are required to be
loyal and to stand by MS products even if it is crap. For the past 25
years, MS did its best to destroy any competition it had and now people
can't find any Accountancy or Tax software that runs on Mac or Linux.
Could you name me one? You are doing very well in being a member of the
PIG society. You should be supported by fellow pig members when your
membership comes for renewal. Indeed, I expect that you will receive
handsome support from other PIGS when they come to read this message. I
bet on it!!!!
John John - MVP
> For the past 25
> years, MS did its best to destroy any competition it had and now people
> can't find any Accountancy or Tax software that runs on Mac or Linux.
> Could you name me one?
What's wrong with Sage Accpac? What kind of accountant are you if you
can't even find your way to an accounting software package like Sage?
(Rhetorical, don't bother answering we already know the answer!)
Bye!
Bruce Chambers
Franz Leu wrote:
>
>
> Just a side-note to think about:
> If cleaning up the registry is useless, as many of you said in this
> thread, why did Microsoft release the RegClean utility at times of win98
> - to speed-up(!) the PC ???
>
And why did they discontinue providing it almost immediately? More
importantly, why would you think that anything that may have applied to
Win9x could possibly apply to WinXP? For future reference, comparing
WinXP to Win98/ME is a lot like comparing a Lexus to a Yugo -- the only
similarities are entirely superficial.
Bruce Chambers
> To wit, Alias stated that he has had
> success using System Suite 5 with regard to enabling a particular video
> game to play that otherwise wouldn't.
And Alias also claims that Ubuntu is a superior OS. He has no credibility.
Terry R.
whim, Bruce Chambers pounded out on the keyboard:
> Franz Leu wrote:
>>
>> Just a side-note to think about:
>> If cleaning up the registry is useless, as many of you said in this
>> thread, why did Microsoft release the RegClean utility at times of win98
>> - to speed-up(!) the PC ???
>>
>
>
> And why did they discontinue providing it almost immediately? More
> importantly, why would you think that anything that may have applied to
> Win9x could possibly apply to WinXP? For future reference, comparing
> WinXP to Win98/ME is a lot like comparing a Lexus to a Yugo -- the only
> similarities are entirely superficial.
>
>
Far from almost immediately. It was available for years. And he wasn't
comparing the OS's.
Keith Wilby
news:%23eI66Ok...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> The date and time was Thursday, July 16, 2009 1:36:16 AM , and on a whim,
> Keith Wilby pounded out on the keyboard:
>
>> "Twayne" <nob...@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:ehEZC5a...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>
>> I've used registry cleaners on all 4 of my family's PCs many times and I
>> have *never* noticed an improvement in their performance or reliability
>> in any way. From what I've read in this thread I won't be using them any
>> more.
>
> Hi Keith,
>
> Why anyone would attempt to try one when a workstation is working fine,
> I'll never know. Maybe curiosity. And that's where most users wind up
> getting in trouble.
>
>
Like many others Terry, I believed the scaremongering. I don't know enough
about PCs to make a decision myself so I have to assess what information is
available and decide from that. Right now I believe that the right thing to
do is leave the registry well alone.
:)
John John - MVP
> The date and time was Thursday, July 16, 2009 7:11:13 PM , and on a
> whim, Bruce Chambers pounded out on the keyboard:
>
>> Franz Leu wrote:
>>>
>>> Just a side-note to think about:
>>> If cleaning up the registry is useless, as many of you said in this
>>> thread, why did Microsoft release the RegClean utility at times of
>>> win98 - to speed-up(!) the PC ???
>>>
>>
>>
>> And why did they discontinue providing it almost immediately?
>> More importantly, why would you think that anything that may have
>> applied to Win9x could possibly apply to WinXP? For future reference,
>> comparing WinXP to Win98/ME is a lot like comparing a Lexus to a Yugo
>> -- the only similarities are entirely superficial.
>>
>>
>
> Far from almost immediately. It was available for years. And he wasn't
> comparing the OS's.
He's using information that was written for and that offers "tweaks" for
Windows 98, his source of information is inappropriate for Windows NT
operating systems. Also, little do many folks know but the RegClean
utility only ever looked for orphans or problems in the
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT key, the utility never ever looked at any other keys.
John
Terry R.
> "Terry R." <F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com> wrote in message
> news:%23eI66Ok...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> The date and time was Thursday, July 16, 2009 1:36:16 AM , and on a whim,
>> Keith Wilby pounded out on the keyboard:
>>
>>> "Twayne" <nob...@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ehEZC5a...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> I've used registry cleaners on all 4 of my family's PCs many times and I
>>> have *never* noticed an improvement in their performance or reliability
>>> in any way. From what I've read in this thread I won't be using them any
>>> more.
>> Hi Keith,
>>
>> Why anyone would attempt to try one when a workstation is working fine,
>> I'll never know. Maybe curiosity. And that's where most users wind up
>> getting in trouble.
>>
>>
>
> Like many others Terry, I believed the scaremongering. I don't know enough
> about PCs to make a decision myself so I have to assess what information is
> available and decide from that. Right now I believe that the right thing to
> do is leave the registry well alone.
>
> :)
>
Hi Keith,
For most users, you are correct. I don't believe registry tools should
be used by anyone but those who work on them. Unfortunately, too many
think by using a utility like that it will save them the cost of having
a tech resolve the issue, and wind up damaging their system(s) and
costing more in the long run.
Terry R.
John John - MVP pounded out on the keyboard:
He stated "at times of Win98" when talking about RegClean, which was to
counter all the "useless" comments. He didn't state RegClean should be
used for NT kernel OS's.
But it's always good to clarify statements in newsgroups where the
casual reader may misinterpret what was said.
Bruce Chambers
>
> He stated "at times of Win98" when talking about RegClean, which was to
> counter all the "useless" comments. He didn't state RegClean should be
> used for NT kernel OS's.
>
And what would be his purpose in interjecting such an off-topic,
irrelevant piece of trivia, if not a lame attempt to support the
position that registry cleaners were also applicable to WinXP?
Franz Leu
> Terry R. wrote:
>>
>> He stated "at times of Win98" when talking about RegClean, which was
>> to counter all the "useless" comments. He didn't state RegClean
>> should be used for NT kernel OS's.
>>
>
> And what would be his purpose in interjecting such an off-topic,
> irrelevant piece of trivia, if not a lame attempt to support the
> position that registry cleaners were also applicable to WinXP?
>
>
Don't you have anything more important to do than just 'guess-working' ....
For me, this thread does not give any further interesting information. I
am not interested in an OffTopic discussion (guess-working) that is just
smalltalk. That's just garbage to the web and newgroups, and I assume it
is as well not of any use for the person who started this thread out of
a need for a recommendation.
I regard this thread as 'closed' in the sense of OriginalTopic.
Oh btw ... MS is still cleaning out the registry with its on line tools
at onecare live saftey (or something like that).
Now, you can go ahead and discuss about the sense of this and why MS is
doing it if does not make any sense .... or whatever .
Bye
Franz
Alias
> Daave wrote:
>> To wit, Alias stated that he has had success using System Suite 5
>> with regard to enabling a particular video game to play that otherwise
>> wouldn't.
>
>
> And Alias also claims that Ubuntu is a superior OS. He has no
> credibility.
>
>
Actually, Ubuntu is superior for most things. It is not superior for
playing video games or being infected by malware. Windows is much better
for both. Fact is, what I posted is true, your insults and lies
notwithstanding.
Alias
Terry R.
> Terry R. wrote:
>> He stated "at times of Win98" when talking about RegClean, which was to
>> counter all the "useless" comments. He didn't state RegClean should be
>> used for NT kernel OS's.
>>
>
> And what would be his purpose in interjecting such an off-topic,
> irrelevant piece of trivia, if not a lame attempt to support the
> position that registry cleaners were also applicable to WinXP?
>
>
Not RegClean for XP though. That's all he talked about was in reference
to Win98. Could be an interpretation issue.
Unknown
"Alias" <iamalias...@OUTOFHEREgmail.com> wrote in message
news:h3q5iu$nac$5...@news.eternal-september.org...
Bill Sanderson, MSFT, MVP
John John - MVP wrote:
>
> Then the registry cleaner vendors will tell us that XML files slow
> down the computer and the argument will be about XML cleaners...
>
> John
The product that is actually a hindrance to the speed of the current
powerful intel and AMD processors is Microsoft's Windows OS. The speed
of the processors and other hardware has increased exponentially but
this is hindered by the Windows OS. The DOS was at least faster and
efficient despite running on low spec systems!
Perhaps Chrome will rectify this anomaly! The members of the pig
society (of which you are one) are required to stand by MS products even
if it is crap.