A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » Windows XP Help and Support
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Free" Rigistry Cleaner any good?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16  
Old August 24th 05, 04:12 AM
Ted Zieglar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"The registry gets to be pretty big, and cutting down the junk in it can =
improve response time when a program has to go hunt in it for =
something."

Another widely held misconception (w/r/t Windows XP).

Ted Zieglar

"VManes" wrote in message =
...
Bruce,
=20
I think you're leaning a bit too far out on this topic (much like many =

of=20
our political organizations today), and the fringe is seldom a good =

place to=20
be.
=20
Yes, any working in the Registry is not to be done by someone without =

some=20
knowledge, and wholesale housecleaning is not for the faint of heart.
=20
Yes, the Norton/Symantec prodcuts are a pale imitation of what they =

once=20
were ( I loved Norton Untilites 4.5 - that was Golden!) Recently, I=20
undertook the task of removing all Symantec products from our two main =

PCs -=20
mainly because the antispam product was just dogging down the system, =

not=20
just while working email. Man, what a performance boost!
=20
Now, what could some registry cleaner product do that I could not do =

with=20
RegEdit? Find the hundredSSSS of keys and values that=20
Systemworks/AntiVirus/AntiSpam and especially Live Update left =

scattered=20
throughout the registry, even after a supposed complete uninstall. I =

found=20
lots on my own, but Registry First Aid found many many more.
=20
The only programs that do a good job of cleaning up after themselves =

in the=20
registry with their uninstall are ones that don't make much use of the =


registry, and even there simple apps still leave lots of flotsam and =

jetsam=20
around.
=20
On a system that's been in use going on 3 years now, lots of programs=20
installed and removed over that time, Registry First Aid found about =

2000=20
entries that were orphaned, misdirected, or otherwised needed =

correction or=20
could be deleted.
=20
The registry gets to be pretty big, and cutting down the junk in it =

can=20
improve response time when a program has to go hunt in it for =

something.
=20
I'm not saying this is necessary for every user, or needed very often, =

but=20
in my case it was a useful procedure. And certainly a lot less =

painful than=20
wiping the drive and reinstalling everything to have cleaner system.
=20
Val
=20
ps - Bruce, I've seen your posts here for years, and been helped by =

your=20
advice more than a few times. Thanks.
=20
=20
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bruce Chambers" wrote in message=20
...
TRABEM wrote:
It might very well be a scam, but the concept of registry cleaning is
a valid one, even in XP.

=20
=20
No, that's not in the least bit correct. You've been listening to
salesman and marketing lies, rather than experienced, knowledgeable
technicians.
=20
=20
I use Norton Systemworks, which is a suite, which includes a registry
checker/cleaner.

=20
=20
Actually, SystemWorks' primary function separate your money from your
wallet. Once a useful utility suite, back in the days of MS-DOS, when
Peter Norton was more than a picture on the box, Norton Utilities have
been becoming increasingly useless and redundant over the years.
There's little offered by NU that WinXP cannot already do natively. =

And
some of Systemworks's features, like CrashGuard and CleanSweep (if
they're still included) cause far more problems then they prevent.
=20
=20
It finds registry errors all the time, many times finding 20 or 30 =

per
scan. Most software doesn't install cleanly, even WORD and Pagemaker,
which are supposed to be above suspicion by reputation::

=20
I find keys that don't lead anywhere and other assorted problems,
especially activeX problems. I can uninstall almost any piece of
software and run the scanner, it will be guaranteed to find problems!

Even when software isn't uninstalled, there are often 3 or 4 'medium'
rated registry problems found.

=20
=20
=20
Any thought as to where these registry "errors" are coming from, if
you're finding new ones "all the time?" Oh, and what specific =

problems
have any orphaned entries actually caused? Come on, name at least one
specific problem that you experienced and couldn't have fixed without
SystemWorks.
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
--=20
=20
Bruce Chambers
=20
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
=20
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on =

having
both at once. - RAH=20
=20

Ads
  #17  
Old August 24th 05, 05:17 AM
beamish
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hello, As stated by most posters you really do not need a "registry cleaner".
Buying a cleaner is a true waste of money. If you want to use one then there
are several free cleaners that do as good a job as any for pay applications.
RegSeeker and jv16 PowerTools (free) still available.
As stated backup registry using "Erunt". Use a search engine to find
applications.
take care.
beamish.

" wrote:

I downloaded the free Registry Cleaner and it "supposedly" found hundreds of
faults, even though my computer, 2.GHz, Windows XP Pro, 512 MB RAM, seems to
run fine.

It fixes 50 of the "faults" free but then wants the upgrade version for $
29.95 to fix anything else.

Does anyone have this program and is satisfied with it?



  #18  
Old August 24th 05, 09:03 AM
Zankhna
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

beamish wrote:
Hello, As stated by most posters you really do not need a "registry cleaner".
Buying a cleaner is a true waste of money. If you want to use one then there
are several free cleaners that do as good a job as any for pay applications.
RegSeeker and jv16 PowerTools (free) still available.
As stated backup registry using "Erunt". Use a search engine to find
applications.
take care.
beamish.

" wrote:


I downloaded the free Registry Cleaner and it "supposedly" found hundreds of
faults, even though my computer, 2.GHz, Windows XP Pro, 512 MB RAM, seems to
run fine.

It fixes 50 of the "faults" free but then wants the upgrade version for $
29.95 to fix anything else.

Does anyone have this program and is satisfied with it?



I use something called ccleaner. Its a great little freeware that
*shows you all the temp files etc and allows you to delete them
*shows any registry links that need fixing (as a result of uninstalling
etc) and allows them to be fixed
*it gives you the option to backup the registry before touching it so if
someone goes wrong (which it hasn't done as a recent of this software in
the last year+ ive been using it!) then you can restore the registry files.
*the other handy thing is you can uninstall and clean up those entries
that linger in the ad/remove list and also view/modify your start up list
*lastly its soo user friendly!

I used a number of these so called "free" softwares and like people have
already mentioned they are scams.

If your gona use one then find one like mind that is free and has a
registry backup system built in.

hope this helps.

Zankhna
  #19  
Old August 24th 05, 12:08 PM
bxf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'd like to add my 2 cents to the question of whether or not Registry
cleaners are necessary.

As we know, too many products leave their crap behind after being
uninstalled. True, this usually does not create an actual problem. But
I don't like to keep empty containers in my kitchen cupboard just
because they don't cause a problem. Even if space were not an issue,
you'd want to get rid of these containers. Same logic for getting rid
of crap in the Registry.

OK, that explains one reason for wanting to clean up. The problem is
that none of the cleaners are able to distinguish between what is
expendible and what is not, so relying on generic cleaning just about
guarantees some problems down the line.

I use two different cleaners to identify entries that they consider to
be in error, and then I make changes selectively, and sometimes
manually using Regedit. Most reported Registry errors reported by
cleaners should be ignored, but there is nothing wrong with removing
all traces of an application that had been uninstalled, for example.

  #20  
Old August 24th 05, 02:37 PM
Ted Zieglar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Same logic for getting rid of crap in the Registry."

Can you describe exactly how this "crap" adversely affects your computer? Be
specific.


--
Ted Zieglar
"You can do it if you try."

"bxf" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'd like to add my 2 cents to the question of whether or not Registry
cleaners are necessary.

As we know, too many products leave their crap behind after being
uninstalled. True, this usually does not create an actual problem. But
I don't like to keep empty containers in my kitchen cupboard just
because they don't cause a problem. Even if space were not an issue,
you'd want to get rid of these containers. Same logic for getting rid
of crap in the Registry.

OK, that explains one reason for wanting to clean up. The problem is
that none of the cleaners are able to distinguish between what is
expendible and what is not, so relying on generic cleaning just about
guarantees some problems down the line.

I use two different cleaners to identify entries that they consider to
be in error, and then I make changes selectively, and sometimes
manually using Regedit. Most reported Registry errors reported by
cleaners should be ignored, but there is nothing wrong with removing
all traces of an application that had been uninstalled, for example.


  #21  
Old August 24th 05, 03:50 PM
bxf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Ted Zieglar wrote:
"Same logic for getting rid of crap in the Registry."

Can you describe exactly how this "crap" adversely affects your computer? Be
specific.


No, I specifically said "True, this usually does not create an actual
problem". My point is that it is garbage, and ought not to be there, by
definition (i.e. it is garbage). If the responsible product did its job
correctly, it would have deleted all the entries that it had created
for itself.

I could give you another example that may be easier to digest because
it is more conspicuous. If you installed and then uninstalled a product
that left 50 small files on your C: drive, wouldn't you want to
eliminate them, even though the space occupied is not significant?

I am not disputing the fact that deleting Registry entries
indiscriminately is dangerous. It's not as if letting cleaners run on
the loose MAY cause problems. It WILL cause problems, so you get no
argument from me in that regard. I just like to keep things clean.

  #22  
Old August 24th 05, 04:38 PM
Ted Zieglar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Your response is based on a very common misunderstanding of how the registry
works and how software is uninstalled. The registry is not like my sock
drawer, where I can put 10 socks in and then take the very same 10 socks
out, leaving the drawer exactly as it was.

For all but the simplest of programs, a well written uninstaller often
leaves fragments of a program behind in the registry. Without going all
technical on you, this is for two reasons: One is for safety. A well written
uninstaller will not take the risk of editing registry keys if it might
adversely affect your computer's performance. The second is for business.
For example: Who would convert a time-limited free trial of a program to a
paid version if uninstalling the free version removed evidence that the
program was previously installed?

Going back to my sock drawer - because I'm too lazy to come up with a better
analogy - If my sock drawer was as big as Los Angeles, why would I care
whether it contained old pairs of torn socks stuck way in the back where
they aren't doing any harm to anybody, unless I was anal.

--
Ted Zieglar
"You can do it if you try."

"bxf" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ted Zieglar wrote:
"Same logic for getting rid of crap in the Registry."

Can you describe exactly how this "crap" adversely affects your

computer? Be
specific.


No, I specifically said "True, this usually does not create an actual
problem". My point is that it is garbage, and ought not to be there, by
definition (i.e. it is garbage). If the responsible product did its job
correctly, it would have deleted all the entries that it had created
for itself.

I could give you another example that may be easier to digest because
it is more conspicuous. If you installed and then uninstalled a product
that left 50 small files on your C: drive, wouldn't you want to
eliminate them, even though the space occupied is not significant?

I am not disputing the fact that deleting Registry entries
indiscriminately is dangerous. It's not as if letting cleaners run on
the loose MAY cause problems. It WILL cause problems, so you get no
argument from me in that regard. I just like to keep things clean.


  #23  
Old August 24th 05, 05:07 PM
bxf
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Ted Zieglar wrote:
Your response is based on a very common misunderstanding of how the registry
works and how software is uninstalled. The registry is not like my sock
drawer, where I can put 10 socks in and then take the very same 10 socks
out, leaving the drawer exactly as it was.

For all but the simplest of programs, a well written uninstaller often
leaves fragments of a program behind in the registry. Without going all
technical on you, this is for two reasons: One is for safety. A well written
uninstaller will not take the risk of editing registry keys if it might
adversely affect your computer's performance.


I would say that a reasonably written uninstaller should know which
items are expendible and which are not. Your statement implies that all
that is left behind is left behind for a good reason. I am willing to
bet you anything that such is not the case. If you're not aware of this
then you haven't looked hard enough. Run a cleaner in scan mode and see
if you have any references to non-existent files, where you know that
these references will never be called upon until the relevant product
is reinstalled. This is a simple, but realistic example.

The second is for business.
For example: Who would convert a time-limited free trial of a program to a
paid version if uninstalling the free version removed evidence that the
program was previously installed?


OK, I can accept this one. But, if I'm not mistaken, Registry entries
related to this type of stuff are generally well masked, their function
is not obvious, and they certainly are not the type that one would take
upon themselves to delete.

Going back to my sock drawer - because I'm too lazy to come up with a better
analogy - If my sock drawer was as big as Los Angeles, why would I care
whether it contained old pairs of torn socks stuck way in the back where
they aren't doing any harm to anybody, unless I was anal.


Socks in LA? What if it wasn't socks, but old rusting buses? What about
my "50 leftover files" example?


--
Ted Zieglar
"You can do it if you try."

"bxf" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ted Zieglar wrote:
"Same logic for getting rid of crap in the Registry."

Can you describe exactly how this "crap" adversely affects your

computer? Be
specific.


No, I specifically said "True, this usually does not create an actual
problem". My point is that it is garbage, and ought not to be there, by
definition (i.e. it is garbage). If the responsible product did its job
correctly, it would have deleted all the entries that it had created
for itself.

I could give you another example that may be easier to digest because
it is more conspicuous. If you installed and then uninstalled a product
that left 50 small files on your C: drive, wouldn't you want to
eliminate them, even though the space occupied is not significant?

I am not disputing the fact that deleting Registry entries
indiscriminately is dangerous. It's not as if letting cleaners run on
the loose MAY cause problems. It WILL cause problems, so you get no
argument from me in that regard. I just like to keep things clean.


  #24  
Old August 24th 05, 05:50 PM
Ted Zieglar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"What about my "50 leftover files" example?"

Heck, I must have thousands of files on my hard disk that I'll never use. If
I was to spend my time chasing down every unneeded (in my opinion) file that
takes up negligable space and does no harm anyway, I wouldn't have time to
play with my kid.

--
Ted Zieglar
"You can do it if you try."

"bxf" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ted Zieglar wrote:
Your response is based on a very common misunderstanding of how the

registry
works and how software is uninstalled. The registry is not like my sock
drawer, where I can put 10 socks in and then take the very same 10 socks
out, leaving the drawer exactly as it was.

For all but the simplest of programs, a well written uninstaller often
leaves fragments of a program behind in the registry. Without going all
technical on you, this is for two reasons: One is for safety. A well

written
uninstaller will not take the risk of editing registry keys if it might
adversely affect your computer's performance.


I would say that a reasonably written uninstaller should know which
items are expendible and which are not. Your statement implies that all
that is left behind is left behind for a good reason. I am willing to
bet you anything that such is not the case. If you're not aware of this
then you haven't looked hard enough. Run a cleaner in scan mode and see
if you have any references to non-existent files, where you know that
these references will never be called upon until the relevant product
is reinstalled. This is a simple, but realistic example.

The second is for business.
For example: Who would convert a time-limited free trial of a program to

a
paid version if uninstalling the free version removed evidence that the
program was previously installed?


OK, I can accept this one. But, if I'm not mistaken, Registry entries
related to this type of stuff are generally well masked, their function
is not obvious, and they certainly are not the type that one would take
upon themselves to delete.

Going back to my sock drawer - because I'm too lazy to come up with a

better
analogy - If my sock drawer was as big as Los Angeles, why would I care
whether it contained old pairs of torn socks stuck way in the back where
they aren't doing any harm to anybody, unless I was anal.


Socks in LA? What if it wasn't socks, but old rusting buses? What about
my "50 leftover files" example?


--
Ted Zieglar
"You can do it if you try."

"bxf" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ted Zieglar wrote:
"Same logic for getting rid of crap in the Registry."

Can you describe exactly how this "crap" adversely affects your

computer? Be
specific.

No, I specifically said "True, this usually does not create an actual
problem". My point is that it is garbage, and ought not to be there,

by
definition (i.e. it is garbage). If the responsible product did its

job
correctly, it would have deleted all the entries that it had created
for itself.

I could give you another example that may be easier to digest because
it is more conspicuous. If you installed and then uninstalled a

product
that left 50 small files on your C: drive, wouldn't you want to
eliminate them, even though the space occupied is not significant?

I am not disputing the fact that deleting Registry entries
indiscriminately is dangerous. It's not as if letting cleaners run on
the loose MAY cause problems. It WILL cause problems, so you get no
argument from me in that regard. I just like to keep things clean.



  #25  
Old August 28th 05, 07:41 AM
NYMarkM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi Folks,

Just couldn't resist putting in my 2 cents worth on this topic. WinXP
appears to be much better than older windows incarnations about the
registry; however, there is a potential "need" for a good registry cleaner
in certain situations.

1) If you really must clean out all of the bad links to the files in "temp"
folders that were opened by Outlook, but are not there now, then a Registry
cleaner will do this. Norton Systemworks ferrets these out with the One
Button Cleanup function quite nicely. As an aside, some Adware cleaners
(had this problem with Spybot and with AdAware, but not with Microsoft's
beta spyware cleaner) get overaggressive at what they label most recently
used entries (MRU's) and actually label and remove binary control keys for
MSOffice. I couldn't figure out why my newly installed MSOffice Pro 2003
kept doing a repair install every so often until I noticed that it was after
running an Adware cleaner (Spybot and/or AdAware). I wrote to both
companies and they apparently took this to heart and fixed their definition
file updates, and it hasn't happened recently. Bizzare and strange, and
hopefully won't happen again.

2) If you regularly install your kids' games (yeah, yeah, yeah, we really
install them so that we can play Doom3 at 2am) and then uninstall them, you
leave behind a ton of stuff in the registry. A cleaner will get this out,
and then if you compact the registry, the system will run faster, etc.

As far as what cleaners to use, I've found that System Suite puts out a
great cleaner, but it is very aggressive. You need to know something about
the registry to use this one, even if all you know is how to be worried
enough about a strange-looking key enough to leave it alone
Norton WinDoctor is somewhere in between aggressive and conservative and is
a safe balance if you take the recommended actions for most problems flagged
with the exception of those in the ActiveX section. Only let Norton fix
ActiveX issues if you know for sure that the action is OK. I've messed up
my machine too many times with this issue in the past by letting Norton "go
to town". PCTools puts out Registry Mechanic, which IMHO is an outstanding
cleaner. It is somewhat conservative, and if I had to characterize it, I'd
say that it is similar in actions to running Norton and then ignoring the
ActiveX section, so this is a solution that I like. It also has a registry
compacter, as does System Suite. I find that I can never remember the
command line to get WinXP to compact the registry, so this is a nice touch.
PCTools has downloadable trials of their software (I like their Spyware
Doctor, as well, but wouldn't necessarily recommend spending the money if
you don't mind using the beta from MS, since the two are similar in
capabilities --- I'm curious about what the final MS spyware cleaner will
look like and whether it will be rolled into SP3 or will be a separate,
commercial product (ie, cost $'s))

Bottom line, though, is that the safest route is to not clean the registry
if you don't mind the slow deterioration in speed due to registry buildup.
If you don't install/uninstall often, though, you probably won't even
notice. If you don't fall into this category, I think that the PCTools
Registry Mechanic is the best cleaner for the money. Note that you get 1
year's worth of "updates" in the purchase. This means any algorithm
changes/additions, AND any new versions of the program. For Adware
Cleaners, you need to know a little about the registry to prevent some
programs from doing harm, but the MS cleaner (free) appears to be highly
functional and hasn't caused any of this type of problem on my machines at
home yet.

Thanks.

Regards,
Mark

PS: Not affiliated with MS or with any of the products mentioned above, nor
am I employed in the Computer Industry. I am an avid enthusiast, however.


"Ted Zieglar" wrote in message
...
"What about my "50 leftover files" example?"

Heck, I must have thousands of files on my hard disk that I'll never use.
If
I was to spend my time chasing down every unneeded (in my opinion) file
that
takes up negligable space and does no harm anyway, I wouldn't have time to
play with my kid.

--
Ted Zieglar
"You can do it if you try."

"bxf" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ted Zieglar wrote:
Your response is based on a very common misunderstanding of how the

registry
works and how software is uninstalled. The registry is not like my sock
drawer, where I can put 10 socks in and then take the very same 10
socks
out, leaving the drawer exactly as it was.

For all but the simplest of programs, a well written uninstaller often
leaves fragments of a program behind in the registry. Without going all
technical on you, this is for two reasons: One is for safety. A well

written
uninstaller will not take the risk of editing registry keys if it might
adversely affect your computer's performance.


I would say that a reasonably written uninstaller should know which
items are expendible and which are not. Your statement implies that all
that is left behind is left behind for a good reason. I am willing to
bet you anything that such is not the case. If you're not aware of this
then you haven't looked hard enough. Run a cleaner in scan mode and see
if you have any references to non-existent files, where you know that
these references will never be called upon until the relevant product
is reinstalled. This is a simple, but realistic example.

The second is for business.
For example: Who would convert a time-limited free trial of a program
to

a
paid version if uninstalling the free version removed evidence that the
program was previously installed?


OK, I can accept this one. But, if I'm not mistaken, Registry entries
related to this type of stuff are generally well masked, their function
is not obvious, and they certainly are not the type that one would take
upon themselves to delete.

Going back to my sock drawer - because I'm too lazy to come up with a

better
analogy - If my sock drawer was as big as Los Angeles, why would I care
whether it contained old pairs of torn socks stuck way in the back
where
they aren't doing any harm to anybody, unless I was anal.


Socks in LA? What if it wasn't socks, but old rusting buses? What about
my "50 leftover files" example?


--
Ted Zieglar
"You can do it if you try."

"bxf" wrote in message
oups.com...

Ted Zieglar wrote:
"Same logic for getting rid of crap in the Registry."

Can you describe exactly how this "crap" adversely affects your
computer? Be
specific.

No, I specifically said "True, this usually does not create an actual
problem". My point is that it is garbage, and ought not to be there,

by
definition (i.e. it is garbage). If the responsible product did its

job
correctly, it would have deleted all the entries that it had created
for itself.

I could give you another example that may be easier to digest because
it is more conspicuous. If you installed and then uninstalled a

product
that left 50 small files on your C: drive, wouldn't you want to
eliminate them, even though the space occupied is not significant?

I am not disputing the fact that deleting Registry entries
indiscriminately is dangerous. It's not as if letting cleaners run on
the loose MAY cause problems. It WILL cause problems, so you get no
argument from me in that regard. I just like to keep things clean.





  #26  
Old August 28th 05, 04:15 PM
Bruce Chambers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

NYMarkM wrote:





and then if you compact the registry, the system will run faster, etc.


Please provide independent laboratory documentation in support of this
claim. To date, no one else has been able to do do.





if you don't mind the slow deterioration in speed due to registry buildup.



Again, please provide documentation to substantiate this claim.




--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
  #29  
Old August 30th 05, 06:52 AM
NYMarkM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi Bruce,

I'm just giving my personal experience. The first time that I ever ran a
registry cleaner, speed difference was quite noticable, and the actual size
of registry files after compacting the registry went down by about 15%. The
computer seemed to boot faster and was definitely snappier. I'm not sure
what test would measure this sort of thing, but it was definitely not
"placebo effect". I'm assuming that the time savings amounts to the smaller
size of the registry resulting in faster searches for info within. If you
know of a test that would be appropriate to measure this, please advise and
I'll glady run it the next time I've done a lot of installing/uninstalling
and feel like cleaning and compacting the registry. I'm not looking to
start a big debate or get into a "show me the test" contest --- just adding
my personal observations.

So, I'll add a few more observatios while I'm here...

I definitely agree with your earlier observation and remarks about the
dangers of registry cleaners. Unless the user knows what is being
changed/deleted and why, it's best left alone. That's why, in general, I
leave the ActiveX portion alone with WinDoctor, since it "finds" a lot of
"errors" and it's usually just not worth the time it would take to trace
them all back and make a decision. Just for the heck of it, and after
backing up the registry first, I went ahead with the default action without
checking each first, and it really messed up the machine. So, if I do
delete an entry in ActiveX, I always trace it back first to make sure that
it is safe.

One exception to leaving ActiveX alone and a potential benefit of registry
cleaners is found when uninstalling. If I'm about to uninstall something, I
run Windoctor and Registry Mechanic FIRST. I then tell them to ignore all
findings in ActiveX and carefully trace out the others and delete what I
find safe. I then uninstall the program(s)/game(s) and rerun Windoctor and
Registry Mechanic. At that point, anything that points off into the void is
likely due to an incomplete uninstall and probably serving no purpose. I
suppose that it might be a result of the uninstall doing a bad job of
pointing a reference back to where it was pre-install, but that's less
likely. When I trace these things out, they really do seem to be useless
MOST of the time, but not always. If I'm feeling brave (and lucky), I then
nuke those entries that appear to be useless. All of this is too much for
the average user and is bordering on too much for me (as a
hobbyist/enthusiast) to handle, which is why when people at work ask me to
recommend a "good" registry cleaner, I first advise them to leave it alone.
If they persist, though, I always steer them to Registry Mechanic, since it
seems to avoid almost all of the ActiveX "findings" that other more
agressive cleaners report. I'm not convinced that the old fashioned way of
doing a manual cleaning of individual programs by going in with Regedit is
better or worse. The plus with the registry cleaners is that they flag what
you should/could be looking at, so you don't have to find it all yourself,
so it becomes a matter of semantics. I suppose that I'm an advocate of
using regedit and only deleting or fixing what you know to be problems --- I
just use the various registry cleaners to "cheat" by marking the entries for
me to look at with Regedit !!!

Another way to get around the registry bloat when there is a lot of
installing/uninstalling going on is to simply do a fresh restore of a basic
working image. I've burned to DVD an image of WinXP with MSOffice Pro 2003
and some specialized programs for work, all with the most recent battery of
patches and updates that are available at the time. I just recently
restored that image and only had to reinstall the current version of
firewall and antivirus, etc, plus the one or two games that I'm currently
playing with my kids (Myst fans). This really is less timeconsuming than it
sounds. If it gets to the point that there are just too many patches to
reapply, then I do another fresh install and base image. Building a base
image can be done a few CD's at a time on a spare partition, while keeping
the active partition intact and running. There are more partition managers,
boot managers, and disk imagers out there than you shake the proverbial
stick at, so I'll avoid mentioning any by name, since the differences are
really minor. I also keep a weekly, rotating, full disk image of all my
computers. I put these on USB2 Hard Disks. I have one dedicated to each
computer, plus one hooked to the wireless LAN/internet connection, with
appropriate password protection, etc. The LAN disk allows everyone to sync
and backup their My Documents folder on a daily basis so that they are
covered in between the weekly image. Of note, it's important to power down
the USB disk dedicated to each machine when not actively doing an image,
since a virus strike could otherwise wipe both your hard drive and the
backup image!!! If the USB disk is powered down, then the image is safe.

But I think that the bottom line is to leave the registry alone unless you
know what you are doing (or like to experiment and have the time on your
hands to fix what you mess up). If you do have the knowledge and time to
trace out and confirm the findings of the various cleaners and only
implement those that you can confirm to be safe, then there appears to be a
speed and stability benefit if you do a lot of installing/uninstalling. (I'm
not sure of how to measure this, though, but in a system that has not been
"maintained", the difference IMHO is so big that you can't miss it). If all
of the checking, confirming, and cleaning is too much technically and
time-wise for the end user, then restoring a working base image, or simply a
manual install from the CDs, every couple of years is likely of benefit.
Windows has come a long way since Win95 and a good install/configuration
will remain stable and usuable for years, but WinXP may benefit from
maintanence every so often, but in a conservative manner.

Thanks.

Regards,
Mark



  #30  
Old December 21st 05, 10:25 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support,microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Free" Rigistry Cleaner any good?

Hi Val,
I too wish to uninstall Norton System Works 2005 because it appears to be
such a resource hog and there is virtually no support. Might you have any
tips for a complete and safe removal of NSW2005 from a Windows XP Pro SP2 PC?
-
Peter Sale

"VManes" wrote:

Yes, the Norton/Symantec prodcuts are a pale imitation of what they once
were ( I loved Norton Untilites 4.5 - that was Golden!) Recently, I
undertook the task of removing all Symantec products from our two main PCs -
mainly because the antispam product was just dogging down the system, not
just while working email. Man, what a performance boost!


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Defragment Bug? Stex Performance and Maintainance of XP 4 July 18th 05 02:58 PM
Start up speed JULES New Users to Windows XP 2 July 11th 05 07:07 PM
Lost My Desktop [email protected] General XP issues or comments 2 July 10th 05 08:14 PM
Sloooooooooooooowww Comptuer Greg Performance and Maintainance of XP 6 December 14th 04 05:57 AM
How To Completely Uninstall IE6 on Windows Xp bt Windows XP Help and Support 2 December 8th 04 06:07 PM






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:20 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.