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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Which Registry Cleaner?
Hi Jim, Well Placed.
Thanks Prabhat "Jim Byrd" wrote in message ... Hi Prabhat - In my experience all of these Reg cleaners, even the best, are fraught with danger. I advise against using them except in one specific instance, that is when you have one that is capable of doing specific Reg searches, and you NEED (not just WANT) to remove the remaining traces of something that didn't get uninstalled correctly. (and you didn't have foresight enough to install it using Total Uninstall, http://www.geocities.com/ggmartau/tu.html or direct dwnld he http://files.webattack.com/localdl834/tun234.zip, in the first place.) Lastly, if you must screw around with your Registry, then at least get Erunt/Erdnt, and run it before you do the Reg clean. You'll then have a true restore available to you. Read below to see why you might not just using the Reg cleaner's resto Get Erunt here for all NT-based computers including XP: http://home.t-online.de/home/lars.he...runt/index.htm I've set it up to take a scheduled backup each night at 12:01AM on a weekly round-robin basis, and a Monthly on the 1st of each month. See here for how to set that up: http://home.t-online.de/home/lars.he...runt/erunt.txt, and for some useful information about this subject. This program is one of the best things around - saved my butt on many occasions, and will also run very nicely from a DOS prompt (in case you've done something that won't let you boot any more and need to revert to a previous Registry) IF you're FAT32 OR have a DOS startup disk with NTFS write drivers in an NTFS system. (There is also a way using the Recovery Console to get back to being "bootable" even without separate DOS write NTFS drivers, after which you can do a "normal" Erdnt restore.) (BTW, it also includes a Registry defragger program). Free, and very, very highly recommended. FYI, quoting from the above document: "Note: The "Export registry" function in Regedit is USELESS (!) to make a complete backup of the registry. Neither does it export the whole registry (for example, no information from the "SECURITY" hive is saved), nor can the exported file be used later to replace the current registry with the old one. Instead, if you re-import the file, it is merged with the current registry, leaving you with an absolute mess of old and new registry keys. -- Please respond in the same thread. Regards, Jim Byrd, MS-MVP In , Prabhat typed: I don't know, But the people from Microsoft or MVPs should able to reply this. Thanks Prabhat " wrote in message ... Do I understand correctly, that XP removes redundant registry entries left behind when programmes are un-installed. "Prabhat" wrote in message ... Hi All, I have XP + SP1. I use Microsoft OLD RegClean. Is this the Best Registry Cleaner Available? Or If not which one I should Go For my XP System? Thanks Prabhat |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Which Registry Cleaner?
Hi Richard,
Thanks for the Test Result Prabhat "Richard Urban" wrote in message ... Consider this then! I performed a clean install a month ago, just to test this theory. Clean install. Added SP1 and all available Window Updates. Installed all my programs (had a lot of time on my hands). Then I installed SP2. I ran WinDoctor and eliminated about 600 bad entries in the registry. I rebooted and emptied the recycle bin. I then ran NTREGopt.exe ( from ERUNT). This optimized (compacted) the registry. I obtained a 19% gain in the reduction of the registry size (about 8.5 meg smaller). When I rebooted I was able to "CLOCK" - via a stop watch, a 23 second reduction in bootup time to a usable desktop! -- Regards: Richard Urban aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-) "Ted Zieglar" wrote in message ... Do you really think so? Consider this: How many megabytes of memory does, say, one thousand redundant registry keys occupy? How much RAM do you have installed? How fast is your hardware? You accomplish nothing measurable (let alone perceptable) by eliminating those thousand registry keys, but you risk crippling your system with a so-called registry cleaner toy. If you're interested in speeding up your system in a way that you can actually notice, and you're already diligent about maintaining your computer, buy more RAM, a faster hard disk or a faster video card. -- Ted Zieglar "Prabhat" wrote in message ... Hi Ted, Doeas Registry Gets Load while the Windows Load? If yes Then that should affect the System Performance if the Size grows due to Unwanted Values in it. Thanks Prabhat "Ted Zieglar" wrote in message ... Wesley is correct, of course. The proper way to deal with the registry is to leave it alone, unless you need to fix a specific problem that can only be repaired by editing the registry. Redundant registry entries cause no harm to your computer and do not affect its performance. -- Ted Zieglar "Wesley Vogel" wrote in message ... No. XP does not do this. -- Hope this helps. Let us know. Wes In , hunted and pecked: Do I understand correctly, that XP removes redundant registry entries left behind when programmes are un-installed. "Prabhat" wrote in message ... Hi All, I have XP + SP1. I use Microsoft OLD RegClean. Is this the Best Registry Cleaner Available? Or If not which one I should Go For my XP System? Thanks Prabhat |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Which Registry Cleaner?
Hi All,
I Got Looooots of thing from this Discussion. Probably I come to comclusion that If we are Good in Registry Keys then Better We keep the Backup and Do it our self, Only if the Uninstaller of any Application leaves some thing or XP Itself does not compact the Registry. Thanks All Prabhat "Wesley Vogel" wrote in message ... Use NTREGOPT. NTREGOPT NT Registry Optimizer ERUNT The Emergency Recovery Utility NT http://home.t-online.de/home/lars.hederer/erunt/ ERUNT [[Note: The "Export registry" function in Regedit is USELESS (!) to make a complete backup of the registry. Neither does it export the whole registry (for example, no information from the "SECURITY" hive is saved), nor can the exported file be used later to replace the current registry with the old one. Instead, if you re-import the file, it is merged with the current registry, leaving you with an absolute mess of old and new registry keys.]] http://home.t-online.de/home/lars.he...runt/erunt.txt NTREGOPT [[Similar to Windows 9x/Me, the registry files in an NT-based system can become fragmented over time, occupying more space on your hard disk than necessary and decreasing overall performance. You should use the NTREGOPT utility regularly, but especially after installing or uninstalling a program, to minimize the size of the registry files and optimize registry access. The program works by recreating each registry hive "from scratch", thus removing any slack space that may be left from previously modified or deleted keys. Note that the program does NOT change the contents of the registry in any way, nor does it physically defrag the registry files on the drive (as the PageDefrag program from SysInternals does). The optimization done by NTREGOPT is simply compacting the registry hives to the minimum size possible.]] http://home.t-online.de/home/lars.he...t/ntregopt.txt -- Hope this helps. Let us know. Wes In , Prabhat hunted and pecked: Hi Ted, Doeas Registry Gets Load while the Windows Load? If yes Then that should affect the System Performance if the Size grows due to Unwanted Values in it. Thanks Prabhat "Ted Zieglar" wrote in message ... Wesley is correct, of course. The proper way to deal with the registry is to leave it alone, unless you need to fix a specific problem that can only be repaired by editing the registry. Redundant registry entries cause no harm to your computer and do not affect its performance. -- Ted Zieglar "Wesley Vogel" wrote in message ... No. XP does not do this. -- Hope this helps. Let us know. Wes In , hunted and pecked: Do I understand correctly, that XP removes redundant registry entries left behind when programmes are un-installed. "Prabhat" wrote in message ... Hi All, I have XP + SP1. I use Microsoft OLD RegClean. Is this the Best Registry Cleaner Available? Or If not which one I should Go For my XP System? Thanks Prabhat |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Which Registry Cleaner?
The main problem with all registry cleaners is that if you don't know what
you are doing you can trash your system, And if you do know what you are doing you don't need them. Testy \ "Prabhat" wrote in message ... Hi All, I Got Looooots of thing from this Discussion. Probably I come to comclusion that If we are Good in Registry Keys then Better We keep the Backup and Do it our self, Only if the Uninstaller of any Application leaves some thing or XP Itself does not compact the Registry. Thanks All Prabhat "Wesley Vogel" wrote in message ... Use NTREGOPT. NTREGOPT NT Registry Optimizer ERUNT The Emergency Recovery Utility NT http://home.t-online.de/home/lars.hederer/erunt/ ERUNT [[Note: The "Export registry" function in Regedit is USELESS (!) to make a complete backup of the registry. Neither does it export the whole registry (for example, no information from the "SECURITY" hive is saved), nor can the exported file be used later to replace the current registry with the old one. Instead, if you re-import the file, it is merged with the current registry, leaving you with an absolute mess of old and new registry keys.]] http://home.t-online.de/home/lars.he...runt/erunt.txt NTREGOPT [[Similar to Windows 9x/Me, the registry files in an NT-based system can become fragmented over time, occupying more space on your hard disk than necessary and decreasing overall performance. You should use the NTREGOPT utility regularly, but especially after installing or uninstalling a program, to minimize the size of the registry files and optimize registry access. The program works by recreating each registry hive "from scratch", thus removing any slack space that may be left from previously modified or deleted keys. Note that the program does NOT change the contents of the registry in any way, nor does it physically defrag the registry files on the drive (as the PageDefrag program from SysInternals does). The optimization done by NTREGOPT is simply compacting the registry hives to the minimum size possible.]] http://home.t-online.de/home/lars.he...t/ntregopt.txt -- Hope this helps. Let us know. Wes In , Prabhat hunted and pecked: Hi Ted, Doeas Registry Gets Load while the Windows Load? If yes Then that should affect the System Performance if the Size grows due to Unwanted Values in it. Thanks Prabhat "Ted Zieglar" wrote in message ... Wesley is correct, of course. The proper way to deal with the registry is to leave it alone, unless you need to fix a specific problem that can only be repaired by editing the registry. Redundant registry entries cause no harm to your computer and do not affect its performance. -- Ted Zieglar "Wesley Vogel" wrote in message ... No. XP does not do this. -- Hope this helps. Let us know. Wes In , hunted and pecked: Do I understand correctly, that XP removes redundant registry entries left behind when programmes are un-installed. "Prabhat" wrote in message ... Hi All, I have XP + SP1. I use Microsoft OLD RegClean. Is this the Best Registry Cleaner Available? Or If not which one I should Go For my XP System? Thanks Prabhat |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Which Registry Cleaner?
Just installing SP2 will create many, many useless registry entries. I suggest
you use a stop watch and time your functions then do a registry clean and time them again. You won't be convinced until you do so. @tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Holly cow, Richard: What kind of software do you buy that causes 600 "errors" to appear in your registry? Maybe you ought to spend a little more and get the good stuff. {;- {;- Ted Zieglar "Richard Urban" wrote in message ... Told you I loaded ALL of my software, about 100 major programs and smaller applets! -- Regards: Richard Urban aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-) "Ted Zieglar" wrote in message ... The six hundred registry entries that you eliminated didn't make your bootup any faster. It took your system a fraction of a second to load those registry entries into RAM; that's how much time you saved by eliminating them. Besides, how do you know that those 600 registry entries were "bad" -- because WinDoctor told you so? The great majority of 'errors' that WinDoctor finds (missing icons, broken shortcuts, etc.) are laughable. Does it seem a little suspicious to you that a clean install of Windows with nothing more than Windows updates added yielded 600 "bad" registry keys? Windows XP is continuously tuning itself in the background, establishing the pre-fetch, performing partial defrags, reordering the driver load (the 'secret' behind the bootvis routine), etc. Have you ever seen an article in a computer magazine that tested registry cleaners with 'before and after' benchmarks that measured boot times and overall system performance? -- Ted Zieglar "Richard Urban" wrote in message ... Consider this then! I performed a clean install a month ago, just to test this theory. Clean install. Added SP1 and all available Window Updates. Installed all my programs (had a lot of time on my hands). Then I installed SP2. I ran WinDoctor and eliminated about 600 bad entries in the registry. I rebooted and emptied the recycle bin. I then ran NTREGopt.exe ( from ERUNT). This optimized (compacted) the registry. I obtained a 19% gain in the reduction of the registry size (about 8.5 meg smaller). When I rebooted I was able to "CLOCK" - via a stop watch, a 23 second reduction in bootup time to a usable desktop! -- Regards: Richard Urban aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-) "Ted Zieglar" wrote in message ... Do you really think so? Consider this: How many megabytes of memory does, say, one thousand redundant registry keys occupy? How much RAM do you have installed? How fast is your hardware? You accomplish nothing measurable (let alone perceptable) by eliminating those thousand registry keys, but you risk crippling your system with a so-called registry cleaner toy. If you're interested in speeding up your system in a way that you can actually notice, and you're already diligent about maintaining your computer, buy more RAM, a faster hard disk or a faster video card. -- Ted Zieglar "Prabhat" wrote in message ... Hi Ted, Doeas Registry Gets Load while the Windows Load? If yes Then that should affect the System Performance if the Size grows due to Unwanted Values in it. Thanks Prabhat "Ted Zieglar" wrote in message ... Wesley is correct, of course. The proper way to deal with the registry is to leave it alone, unless you need to fix a specific problem that can only be repaired by editing the registry. Redundant registry entries cause no harm to your computer and do not affect its performance. -- Ted Zieglar "Wesley Vogel" wrote in message ... No. XP does not do this. -- Hope this helps. Let us know. Wes In , hunted and pecked: Do I understand correctly, that XP removes redundant registry entries left behind when programmes are un-installed. "Prabhat" wrote in message ... Hi All, I have XP + SP1. I use Microsoft OLD RegClean. Is this the Best Registry Cleaner Available? Or If not which one I should Go For my XP System? Thanks Prabhat |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Which Registry Cleaner?
How about posting some of those "many, many useless registry entries" along
with your explanation of why they are useless. Or is this just your opinion? In fact, I have tried a few of the more popular "registry cleaners" (WinDoctor, RegCleaner, etc.) and none of them came up with anything that would affect my system's performance or bootup. No surprise then that my before and after bootups were identical. But I did have a good laugh about the "errors" these toys discovered. I won't belabor the point: There is no substitute for learning how to use a PC correctly and to best advantage. In the long run, this will cover your a** better than digital eye candy. -- Ted Zieglar "Unknown" wrote in message om... Just installing SP2 will create many, many useless registry entries. I suggest you use a stop watch and time your functions then do a registry clean and time them again. You won't be convinced until you do so. @tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Holly cow, Richard: What kind of software do you buy that causes 600 "errors" to appear in your registry? Maybe you ought to spend a little more and get the good stuff. {;- {;- Ted Zieglar "Richard Urban" wrote in message ... Told you I loaded ALL of my software, about 100 major programs and smaller applets! -- Regards: Richard Urban aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-) "Ted Zieglar" wrote in message ... The six hundred registry entries that you eliminated didn't make your bootup any faster. It took your system a fraction of a second to load those registry entries into RAM; that's how much time you saved by eliminating them. Besides, how do you know that those 600 registry entries were "bad" -- because WinDoctor told you so? The great majority of 'errors' that WinDoctor finds (missing icons, broken shortcuts, etc.) are laughable. Does it seem a little suspicious to you that a clean install of Windows with nothing more than Windows updates added yielded 600 "bad" registry keys? Windows XP is continuously tuning itself in the background, establishing the pre-fetch, performing partial defrags, reordering the driver load (the 'secret' behind the bootvis routine), etc. Have you ever seen an article in a computer magazine that tested registry cleaners with 'before and after' benchmarks that measured boot times and overall system performance? -- Ted Zieglar "Richard Urban" wrote in message ... Consider this then! I performed a clean install a month ago, just to test this theory. Clean install. Added SP1 and all available Window Updates. Installed all my programs (had a lot of time on my hands). Then I installed SP2. I ran WinDoctor and eliminated about 600 bad entries in the registry. I rebooted and emptied the recycle bin. I then ran NTREGopt.exe ( from ERUNT). This optimized (compacted) the registry. I obtained a 19% gain in the reduction of the registry size (about 8.5 meg smaller). When I rebooted I was able to "CLOCK" - via a stop watch, a 23 second reduction in bootup time to a usable desktop! -- Regards: Richard Urban aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-) "Ted Zieglar" wrote in message ... Do you really think so? Consider this: How many megabytes of memory does, say, one thousand redundant registry keys occupy? How much RAM do you have installed? How fast is your hardware? You accomplish nothing measurable (let alone perceptable) by eliminating those thousand registry keys, but you risk crippling your system with a so-called registry cleaner toy. If you're interested in speeding up your system in a way that you can actually notice, and you're already diligent about maintaining your computer, buy more RAM, a faster hard disk or a faster video card. -- Ted Zieglar "Prabhat" wrote in message ... Hi Ted, Doeas Registry Gets Load while the Windows Load? If yes Then that should affect the System Performance if the Size grows due to Unwanted Values in it. Thanks Prabhat "Ted Zieglar" wrote in message ... Wesley is correct, of course. The proper way to deal with the registry is to leave it alone, unless you need to fix a specific problem that can only be repaired by editing the registry. Redundant registry entries cause no harm to your computer and do not affect its performance. -- Ted Zieglar "Wesley Vogel" wrote in message ... No. XP does not do this. -- Hope this helps. Let us know. Wes In , hunted and pecked: Do I understand correctly, that XP removes redundant registry entries left behind when programmes are un-installed. "Prabhat" wrote in message ... Hi All, I have XP + SP1. I use Microsoft OLD RegClean. Is this the Best Registry Cleaner Available? Or If not which one I should Go For my XP System? Thanks Prabhat |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Which Registry Cleaner?
"Testy" wrote in
: The main problem with all registry cleaners is that if you don't know what you are doing you can trash your system, And if you do know what you are doing you don't need them. I'll disagree with the last, a registry cleaner is usually much faster than manually going through the registry. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Which Registry Cleaner?
I may be just playing with words here, but I don't think a registry
'cleaner' is called for even in that case. There are several third party registry 'editors' that are more convenient than regedit. Basically, they make it easier to navigate through the registry. For those who work in the registry often, and who know what they're looking at, a well designed registry editor can make working in the registry a lot less tedious. And let's face it, working in the registry is dull. I'd much rather be playing with Windows Media Player. :-) -- Ted Zieglar "XS11E" wrote in message .. . "Testy" wrote in : The main problem with all registry cleaners is that if you don't know what you are doing you can trash your system, And if you do know what you are doing you don't need them. I'll disagree with the last, a registry cleaner is usually much faster than manually going through the registry. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Which Registry Cleaner?
I really wish I could so that I could convince you. However, I have deleted
them already. But as an example, my system came with many advertised ISP's. Notably, AOL. If I wanted to subscribe to AOL I would click on its ICON and install and register it. (Subscribe). I cleaned out everything pertainging to AOL and, there was tons of it. If you had similar experience, do a regedit search for AOL and see what comes up. I run a registry cleaner about once a month and usually find at least 30 useless items each time. They accumulate. "Ted Zieglar" wrote in message ... How about posting some of those "many, many useless registry entries" along with your explanation of why they are useless. Or is this just your opinion? In fact, I have tried a few of the more popular "registry cleaners" (WinDoctor, RegCleaner, etc.) and none of them came up with anything that would affect my system's performance or bootup. No surprise then that my before and after bootups were identical. But I did have a good laugh about the "errors" these toys discovered. I won't belabor the point: There is no substitute for learning how to use a PC correctly and to best advantage. In the long run, this will cover your a** better than digital eye candy. -- Ted Zieglar "Unknown" wrote in message om... Just installing SP2 will create many, many useless registry entries. I suggest you use a stop watch and time your functions then do a registry clean and time them again. You won't be convinced until you do so. @tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Holly cow, Richard: What kind of software do you buy that causes 600 "errors" to appear in your registry? Maybe you ought to spend a little more and get the good stuff. {;- {;- Ted Zieglar "Richard Urban" wrote in message ... Told you I loaded ALL of my software, about 100 major programs and smaller applets! -- Regards: Richard Urban aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-) "Ted Zieglar" wrote in message ... The six hundred registry entries that you eliminated didn't make your bootup any faster. It took your system a fraction of a second to load those registry entries into RAM; that's how much time you saved by eliminating them. Besides, how do you know that those 600 registry entries were "bad" -- because WinDoctor told you so? The great majority of 'errors' that WinDoctor finds (missing icons, broken shortcuts, etc.) are laughable. Does it seem a little suspicious to you that a clean install of Windows with nothing more than Windows updates added yielded 600 "bad" registry keys? Windows XP is continuously tuning itself in the background, establishing the pre-fetch, performing partial defrags, reordering the driver load (the 'secret' behind the bootvis routine), etc. Have you ever seen an article in a computer magazine that tested registry cleaners with 'before and after' benchmarks that measured boot times and overall system performance? -- Ted Zieglar "Richard Urban" wrote in message ... Consider this then! I performed a clean install a month ago, just to test this theory. Clean install. Added SP1 and all available Window Updates. Installed all my programs (had a lot of time on my hands). Then I installed SP2. I ran WinDoctor and eliminated about 600 bad entries in the registry. I rebooted and emptied the recycle bin. I then ran NTREGopt.exe ( from ERUNT). This optimized (compacted) the registry. I obtained a 19% gain in the reduction of the registry size (about 8.5 meg smaller). When I rebooted I was able to "CLOCK" - via a stop watch, a 23 second reduction in bootup time to a usable desktop! -- Regards: Richard Urban aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-) "Ted Zieglar" wrote in message ... Do you really think so? Consider this: How many megabytes of memory does, say, one thousand redundant registry keys occupy? How much RAM do you have installed? How fast is your hardware? You accomplish nothing measurable (let alone perceptable) by eliminating those thousand registry keys, but you risk crippling your system with a so-called registry cleaner toy. If you're interested in speeding up your system in a way that you can actually notice, and you're already diligent about maintaining your computer, buy more RAM, a faster hard disk or a faster video card. -- Ted Zieglar "Prabhat" wrote in message ... Hi Ted, Doeas Registry Gets Load while the Windows Load? If yes Then that should affect the System Performance if the Size grows due to Unwanted Values in it. Thanks Prabhat "Ted Zieglar" wrote in message ... Wesley is correct, of course. The proper way to deal with the registry is to leave it alone, unless you need to fix a specific problem that can only be repaired by editing the registry. Redundant registry entries cause no harm to your computer and do not affect its performance. -- Ted Zieglar "Wesley Vogel" wrote in message ... No. XP does not do this. -- Hope this helps. Let us know. Wes In , hunted and pecked: Do I understand correctly, that XP removes redundant registry entries left behind when programmes are un-installed. "Prabhat" wrote in message ... Hi All, I have XP + SP1. I use Microsoft OLD RegClean. Is this the Best Registry Cleaner Available? Or If not which one I should Go For my XP System? Thanks Prabhat |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Which Registry Cleaner?
What you fail to recognize is that a registry cleaner finds items that are not
associated with anything else (a useless key). Problem is that you don't have a list of what to search for. Hence, you cannot clean your registry. "Ted Zieglar" wrote in message ... I may be just playing with words here, but I don't think a registry 'cleaner' is called for even in that case. There are several third party registry 'editors' that are more convenient than regedit. Basically, they make it easier to navigate through the registry. For those who work in the registry often, and who know what they're looking at, a well designed registry editor can make working in the registry a lot less tedious. And let's face it, working in the registry is dull. I'd much rather be playing with Windows Media Player. :-) -- Ted Zieglar "XS11E" wrote in message .. . "Testy" wrote in : The main problem with all registry cleaners is that if you don't know what you are doing you can trash your system, And if you do know what you are doing you don't need them. I'll disagree with the last, a registry cleaner is usually much faster than manually going through the registry. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Which Registry Cleaner?
Richard Urban wrote:
I just performed that benchmark, with a stop watch. I can't argue with the results! I think the problem is that you observed that "B" followed "A" and came to the conclusion that A must have *caused* B. There are other factors that could have come into play. We know, for instance, that post-SP2 boot time isn't initially optimized until after the third post-SP2 boot. I agree with Ted in general, in that registry cleaners are highly overrated, and shouldn't be messed with by anyone who isn't comfortable with editing the registry without one. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Which Registry Cleaner?
Unknown wrote:
What you fail to recognize is that a registry cleaner finds items that are not associated with anything else (a useless key). Problem is that you don't have a list of what to search for. Hence, you cannot clean your registry. What you fail to recognize is that there doesn't seem to be any reliable objective evidence that "useless" entries cause any problems. If you believe it does you some good, and it makes you happy, that's fine. But it's irresponsible to tout registry cleaning if the basis for your recommendation is without an objective basis in fact. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Which Registry Cleaner?
Ah, but it is with an objective basis in fact. Your problem is simply that
you haven't tested or tried it but merely have a great fear of the registry. Preserve your ignorance. "Phil McCracken" wrote in message ... Unknown wrote: What you fail to recognize is that a registry cleaner finds items that are not associated with anything else (a useless key). Problem is that you don't have a list of what to search for. Hence, you cannot clean your registry. What you fail to recognize is that there doesn't seem to be any reliable objective evidence that "useless" entries cause any problems. If you believe it does you some good, and it makes you happy, that's fine. But it's irresponsible to tout registry cleaning if the basis for your recommendation is without an objective basis in fact. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Which Registry Cleaner?
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:25:51 -0700, XS11E wrote:
"Testy" wrote in : The main problem with all registry cleaners is that if you don't know what you are doing you can trash your system, And if you do know what you are doing you don't need them. I'll disagree with the last, a registry cleaner is usually much faster than manually going through the registry. Try searching Tucows for System utilities, and Registry Cleaners or Editors. There are at least 3 editors (freeware) and 3 cleaners (free & share). I currently use Norton System Works which has a decent file shredder, registry cleaner AV and internet tools (for $89) Tools tried are Vilma Rege Explorer (free) and Oberon (share $35), awa Resplendent Registrar - editor. I favor one that can present a list at the bottom of all known inferences to a search item (like the old Norton editor for 98/me). There are many, many more out there. Try them and then decide which ones best suit your needs. -- Lester Stiefel In Romans 1 there are qualities of Unregenerate man listed which describe him in the last days. Is your quality found on this list?? |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Which Registry Cleaner?
Here is my 2 cents worth: I've tried at least 6 or 7 "registry cleaners"
and have deleted quite a lot of uneeded or redundant keys. Fortunately I've done no harm to my system. However, I have not found that I've experienced any performance enhancement. I think the idea of an automated cleaner sounds great ... if it is safe and effective. But for me, the risk benefit ratio cannot justify using any of the registry cleaners that I've encountered so far. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Registry cleaner | TheBFG | New Users to Windows XP | 10 | November 26th 12 11:02 AM |
Registry cleaner | Just Me | General XP issues or comments | 21 | December 14th 04 01:31 AM |
Registry Cleaner for XP? | Dick M. | The Basics | 8 | October 8th 04 04:10 AM |
What are the reasons to use a registry cleaner? | Mike | General XP issues or comments | 5 | August 26th 04 04:02 AM |
Any Value in a 'Registry Cleaner' in Windows XP? | Lillly | General XP issues or comments | 11 | August 2nd 04 01:01 PM |