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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
How do you get to the Windows XP Pro Registry cleaner and defrag?
"thedon57" wrote in message ... 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? * Hi i tried that one but i prefer windows registry repair, as i think it does a better job and has an extra program that you can run that defrags the registry and puts all file back in order. -- thedon57 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Posted via http://www.mcse.ms ------------------------------------------------------------------------ View this thread: http://www.mcse.ms/message1808897.html |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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 | |
|
|
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 |