Utilities question

| If you want ensure that your PC functions
| correctly, and remains fast, you'll need to clean it up.
|
|
| I strongly disagree.
|
| You are entitled to your opinion.
|
| However, it would help if when you quote you leave to entire prior thought
so as
| to make it easier to keep everything in context.

What could he have left in that would make a
difference? This topic has come up many times before.
As I said above, you're hanging a Christmas tree air
freshener on your rearview mirror and expecting better
gas mileage. You *may* feel your car is running
better, but that's your imagination.

I just started Regmon and then opened IE. There
were 8,000 Registry accesses in about 2 seconds.
Just hovering over the shortcut showed about
3,000 Registry checks. How are you going to make
that faster by removing a relatively tiny number
of Registry settings? Microsoft has designed their
own software to be shockingly sloppy for the sake
of stability, checking the same entries over and over
again. In short, the Registry operates with almost
magical speed, despite being many MB big.

Take an example of a real case of entries that
your Registry cleaner will clean out:

XYZ program is installed and registers an ActiveX
control's classes:
HKCR\XYZ.doer
HKCR\XYZ.otherDoer
HKCR\{2....4}\
HKCR\{2....5}\
HKCR\{2....6}\

Etc. There will be a couple dozen entries under the
CLSID keys and under the HKCR\Typelib key. They
allow XYZ to use its ActiveX control.

Then you uninstall XYZ. The uninstaller is badly
designed and fails to remove the entries, despite
removing the file. What happens? Nothing. XYZ is
gone, so those entries will never be looked up again.
If somehow there were another program that used
the XYZ control there would be a problem. It would
look up the classes in the Registry, try to use the
control, and then fail -- perhaps crashing -- when it
turns out that the file is gone. But what would happen
if you've used all your super duper Registry cleaners?
*The same thing!* The new program will fail because
the ActiveX control is not installed.

So, in a sense the information you quoted is true.
Cleaning out those outdated entries might result in
preventing an error message. But what they fail to
explain is that you'll just see a different error message,
in the unlikely event that there's ever actually a problem.
Whether you clean out the XYZ entries or not will have
no effect on speed or number of errors.

If you feel so strongly that Registry cleaners improve
the functioning and speed of your computer then I
would like to see at least one example of a real-life
scenario. I've given you an example of a typical scam
scenario that utility makers falsely claim they can help.
If Registry cleaners could *possibly* be of any value
then it seems reasonable to ask for real examples of
that.

The part about identity theft is interesting, though
alarmist. It's true that if you enter your name in a
program setup it will probably be in the Registry. But
what good does it do to remove that entry only after you
uninstall the software. More to the point, why are you
entering your name? Just because the window asked
you to? If that's the case you have bigger worries than
Registry privacy.

There was an interesting report today that if you
download Dell's product ID checker when you visit their
website it gets total access to your machine and may
be vulnerable to hacking. Back in the 90s Microsoft
was caught reading registration info from the Registry
during windows update. These days, of course, they
spy on Windows users without apology. So, yes, private
information in the Registry might be an issue. But again,
your Registry cleaner won't help by cleaning out old
software entries. You need to stop offering
private information in the first place, and don't allow
any entity to come onto your machine that might access
the Registry. (Yes, that means disabling automatic updates
of all kinds. That may seem extreme, but it can do wonders
to reduce problems and increase speed of your machine.
And that claim is actually true.

| Thanks for sharing!

So you agree, then, and have no examples
of actual improvements possible through
"Registry cleaning"?

You've made some adamant claims and supported
Piriform's claims about Registry cleaning. When Ken
disagreed you complained that he didn't repost
your whole post, which makes no sense and doesn't
answer his points.
Now I've also disagreed, explaining my logic in detail,
and your response is to be frivolously flippant. I don't
think it's unreasonable to ask that you either back up
your claims or retract them. Other people with less
experience read these posts and deserve to get clear
facts. You've basically just reprinted a Piriform ad as
though it were technical information, providing no
indication that you actually know and understand the
details of what their "cleaner" does.

On 24 Mar 2015, T wrote in alt.windows7.general:

I thought it was crapware. And that it did not help.
I have tried to use it once or twice, but ...

Incorrectly, obviously

I also like to do clean ups manually so I know exactly
what is going on, especially *.tmp files. I love to know
who has file locks on those that won't remove.

Ccleaner will tell you exactly what it proposes to delete before you
approve it. If a file isn't removed because it has a lock on it, it
will still be there for you to examine.

On 3/24/15 10:29 AM, Stormin' Norman wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:54:22 -0400, "Mayayana" wrote:

frivolously flippant

Oh good, I wasn't too subtle......

You might as well give it up, Norman. No matter the issue in life,
there will always be the "camp" on each side of a discussion that seems
to be unwilling to consider they might be wrong. And it really seems to
come out with the discussion of registry cleaners.

So I was really surprised Ken Blake checked his system for the number of
..DLL files and found far more than he expected. Kudos to Ken for doing
that.

I don't have anywhere near the technical knowledge of many that post
here, but no one has offered up any explanation of what I saw, in real
life, the first time I used a registry cleaner in something like 2003.
There was a definite increase in the speed of the computer. I have my
thoughts as to why, but no one seems to be interested, so I basically
don't take part in the discussions any more. Feels like too many closed
minds exist here.

For clarity's sake, I'm not saying the hardware speed went up, like the
CPU going from 1.2GHz to 1.4GHz. I'm defining speed as there being less
work for the computer (in its entirety) to do to get from A to B, and it
gets done in fewer seconds on the clock.

I also found Wolf's comments about cleaning the registry to be
supportive, at least from the perspective that cleaning the registry is
a good thing to do now and again. From his post, I'd venture he does it
manually, leaving only the method of doing the job being left out there.

Since you can do just as much damage manually tweaking the registry as
you can by using a registry cleaner, and things get totally fouled up,
you're screwed no matter which method was used.

If you're curious as to why I think it's beneficial to do some
housecleaning now and again, just ask.

--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 36.0.4
Thunderbird 31.5
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 03/24/2015 11:30 AM, John wrote:
I do love the smell of many coffees, and I like tea.

Hi J,

Coffee gives me a belly ache. It is a bummer too, because
one of my customers is an organic coffee roasting company.
And, I L O V E the smell of coffee, especially theirs.
But, I can't taste a drop. Bummer!

Tea, I can drink. And I drink a lot of it. So, all
is not lost.

-T

On 03/24/2015 11:33 AM, John wrote:
On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 21:20:40 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 14:03:02 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 23:37:30 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 16:26:00 -0700, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Mar 2015 23:02:19 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

Declaring CCleaner to be "crapware" is rather akin to thinking you don't need to
eat your vegetables.

*Please* don't make me eat the broccoli!

I wonder how most broccoli haters, who survive a bout with colon cancer, feel
about that most maligned of vegetables after they pay the medical bills?

In truth, I like broccoli and most other crucifers, but not Brussels
sprouts.

My remark bent the truth a bit for humor (or at least attempted humor,
which I assume is only a misdemeanor).


Uh, good to know, just in case you are ever invited for dinner. Although, when
we have company, the food served is usually artery clogging and decadent.

I have absolutely no idea what I provide when company comes over.
None ever has.
I suspect I'd order take-away.
But I've never done that, either.
J.


Oh now that sucks!

| but no one has offered up any explanation of what I saw, in real
| life, the first time I used a registry cleaner in something like 2003.
| There was a definite increase in the speed of the computer. I have my
| thoughts as to why, but no one seems to be interested,

Why not explain? Are you waiting for an
invitation?

As I detailed above, it's
hard to imagine any actual difference that
can result from so-called Registry cleaning.
There can be slow boot due to mix-ups in
loaded drivers. There can be a number of
things that slow down the system. But I don't
see how extra settings in the Registry could
be one of them. I explained in detail above why
I think that. If you think otherwise then shouldn't
you at least present your reasoning rather than
dismissing others are close-minded hard-heads?

I asked Stormin' Norman for
just one credible example of something a Registry
cleaner removes that might make a difference in
Windows functioning, but he clearly doesn't
understand the Piriform ad he's posted. He avoids
the issue with wisecracks.

I'd be willing to consider that I might be wrong,
but I'd want to see convincing evidence. I have
a fair amount of experience dealing with the
Registry and needing to know how the settings
work. I know enough to know that Piriform's ad
is just that -- marketing fluff with enough truth
to make it sound tenable.

On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:30:21 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:


So I was really surprised Ken Blake checked his system for the number of
.DLL files and found far more than he expected. Kudos to Ken for doing
that.


Thanks for the kind words.

| Coffee gives me a belly ache. It is a bummer too, because
| one of my customers is an organic coffee roasting company.
| And, I L O V E the smell of coffee, especially theirs.
| But, I can't taste a drop. Bummer!
|

Even with food? I get an acid stomach if I
drink coffee on an empty stomach. Too much --
or old coffee -- will give me intestinal queasiness.
But I have no problem with food. I drink strong coffee
with every meal. By itself, if I remember correctly,
it's about the same pH as beer: 4.5. That's quite
acidic.

On 3/24/2015 12:00 AM, T wrote:
On 03/23/2015 10:30 PM, Nil wrote:
On 23 Mar 2015, T wrote in alt.windows7.general:

Exactly what I said. Never saw it help. Have seen it hurt.

Then you obviously don't know how to use it.


I thought it was crapware. And that it did not help.
I have tried to use it once or twice, but ...

I also like to do clean ups manually so I know exactly
what is going on, especially *.tmp files. I love to know
who has file locks on those that won't remove.

google "wholockme"

On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 21:06:51 +0100, FredW wrote:

works also for 64-bit programs unlike Revo Uninstaller Free

Eh? Revo... seems to work pretty well here on 64bit system.

On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 18:54:40 +0000, John wrote:

Computers, while complex, should be nowhere near complex enough to
*have* placebo effects but I know people who have little superstitious
rituals that they are utterly convinced keeps their machines running
perfectly. Manual de-frags, re-installation of Windows every year, the
running of some Reg-cleaner or other or some other magic spell. For
many, for many years, their magics *work*.

I always turn three times widdershins before sitting down at my computer
chair, and have so far had little trouble with viruses.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 13:45:50 +0000, Stormin' Norman wrote:

I'm going to quote one remark of yours and one from the Piriform remarks
that you quoted.

You:

I disagree. The CCleaner registry "cleaner" is not designed to repair registry
issues, but rather it is designed to "clean" the registry. It identifies
entries which are no longer used or associated with software that is no longer
present and allows the user to remove those entries.

The cleaner, to the best of my knowledge, is not designed to identify entries
with incorrect settings and repair those settings. In fact, that would be very
dangerous.

Piriform as quoted by you:

The Registry Cleaner will remove entries for non-existent applications, and
it'll also fix invalid or corrupted entries. You'll probably find your computer
starts much more quickly too!

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 19:52:00 +0000, mechanic wrote:

On Mon, 23 Mar 2015 21:06:51 +0100, FredW wrote:

works also for 64-bit programs unlike Revo Uninstaller Free

Eh? Revo... seems to work pretty well here on 64bit system.

He didn't say it won't work on a 64-bit system, he said it won't remove
64-bit programs.

That's true on my system (I learned that on Usenet and verified it for
myself) and that's one reason why I usually don't use it.

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On 3/24/15 12:52 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| but no one has offered up any explanation of what I saw, in real
| life, the first time I used a registry cleaner in something like 2003.
| There was a definite increase in the speed of the computer. I have my
| thoughts as to why, but no one seems to be interested,

Why not explain? Are you waiting for an
invitation?

In a way, yea. LOL It is a lot of typing, and I wasn't sure anyone
would be interested. Seen too many posts complaining about this type of
thing.

See the end of your post for the story.

As I detailed above, it's
hard to imagine any actual difference that
can result from so-called Registry cleaning.
There can be slow boot due to mix-ups in
loaded drivers. There can be a number of
things that slow down the system. But I don't
see how extra settings in the Registry could
be one of them. I explained in detail above why
I think that. If you think otherwise then shouldn't
you at least present your reasoning rather than
dismissing others are close-minded hard-heads?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that what I've seen
discussed isn't absolute proof that registry cleaning doesn't have an
effect. There may be some possible mitigating factors that are never
discussed, or even mentioned in the posts I've seen.

I asked Stormin' Norman for
just one credible example of something a Registry
cleaner removes that might make a difference in
Windows functioning, but he clearly doesn't
understand the Piriform ad he's posted. He avoids
the issue with wisecracks.

I'm not defending Norman, perhaps he is just reporting his experiences
over the years, but never took the time to determine what was removed
that he could absolutely say was the cause. This scenario more
accurately describes me. I can't even begin to tell you what it was, or
if it was a number of things that caused the results I saw.

I'd be willing to consider that I might be wrong,
but I'd want to see convincing evidence. I have
a fair amount of experience dealing with the
Registry and needing to know how the settings
work. I know enough to know that Piriform's ad
is just that -- marketing fluff with enough truth
to make it sound tenable.

I doubt you'll ever see the type of evidence you'd like to see. I think
it would take too much time, knowledge, and special equipment to
definitively explain what's going on.

Don't ask for too many details. My experience(s) were 10 years or so,
and details are lost in the mists of time.

I have to admit, I've never really enjoyed Windows as it came out of the
box. In fact that applies to every computer I've owned to some extent.
First experience was DOS at work, followed by Windows for Workgroups.
W4G went right out the door as the GUI, replaced by Norton Desktop.
ND and the Atari 16/32 bit interfaces have been my favorites, basically
even steven overall. ND had the best built in calculator of any that
I've seen, bar none.

When XP came out, and it was being hyped that DOS was dead, I wanted to
see what that was about. So bought an XP Home system around 2002. I
don't know if I do what most users do, but I was constantly installing
and removing software, fiddling with this and that, with no knowledge of
what happened in something called the Registry. Over time, the system
started to slow down, although I don't remember noticing it.

Eventually, I ran across registry cleaners, as well as other utilities,
such as defragmenters, drive management tools, etc. One day I installed
and tried a registry cleaner. As I watched the computer reboot, the
reboot time was definitely noticeably faster, and some programs
performed better. A registry clean was the only thing I changed.

Did it happen again? No, but I also never operated the computer in the
same manner. Basically, I didn't go for who knows how long between
cleanings, so never again was the registry in a similar condition with
the number of entries in the file.

So the question becomes, what was responsible for the very noticeable
speed increase? Since a cleanup was the only thing I did, the first
hypotheses has to be cleaning the registry had to be the reason. And
since I never allowed the system to be that "cluttered" ever again, I
could never duplicate the results.

Today, when I read these registry cleaning discussions, I never see some
factors even mentioned that may bear on the effectiveness of cleaning
the registry, no matter how it is accomplished, manually or using a cleaner.

I will stipulate, that with the advent of solid state drives (and
possibly hybrid drives, I've no experience with them) and much, much
more powerful processors, the effects of registry cleaning may now be a
moot point. But that doesn't mean is doesn't work. I can't see cancer
cells doing their thing, but that doesn't mean it isn't happening.

First, processor speed. The XP system I had at the time was a single
core, 1.2GHz system. Today, we have dual and quad core systems running
at 2 and 3 times the speed of my old XP system. It may be, that without
specialized test equipment you may not be able to notice any speed
change. Not because it isn't happening, but because the human system
doesn't notice it. My thought is, if this situation does exist, only
heavy multitaskers using software that requires lots of resources would
notice a change.

Second, hard drive access time. With newer computers, the access time
for the hard drives is faster, and when combined with the processor's
ability to process instructions, may also have an effect. I waffle back
and forth on this, and haven't really come to a conclusion whether hard
drive times are a positive or negative for this subject. But I am
leaning towards it does affect the registry aspect.

Third, any other increase in speed of the computer itself. Maybe
today's buss speed is higher than my old XP system, I suspect most are.

Fourth, registry defragmentation. What I've read is, when a program's
uninstall routine deletes registry entries, the actual registry file is
not compacted to delete the space formerly used to store program data.
Logically, it makes to sense to me that these open areas will slow down
all those registry reads the system does when the drive has to move the
heads a greater distance across the hard drive when reading and writing.
Not to mention all those .DLL files Ken mentioned he discovered on his
system, that the system has to skip over when they are no longer needed.

Fifth, registry size. I think I read somewhere that the system reads
the entire registry into RAM. This would eliminate repetitive reads
during operation but takes up more system RAM. Which might be more
noticeable on machines with smaller amounts of RAM.

With a serious discussion aimed a definitive answer, I may have other
questions, but I don't think said discussion is probably worth the
effort as I doubt anyone here has the equipment to accurately measure
some results.




--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 36.0.4
Thunderbird 31.5
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"