Utilities question

On 3/24/15 12:53 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 12:30:21 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:


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


Thanks for the kind words.

Your welcome.


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

On 3/24/15 7:55 PM, Ken Springer wrote:

snip everything including the kitchen sink

PostScript:

I should note that when the XP system self-destructed in early 2009, I
switched to the Mac I'm using right now. I'd be surprised to find my
computing time using Windows of some flavor to be more than 1% of my
total time these days.

So the discussion is really more of a learning situation than the need
to solve a problem.


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

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

You've clearly thought this through, but I guess we're
actually approaching it from opposite ends. I figure there are
too many variables to just assess speed, so I'm thinking
in terms of logistics: What actually happens when entries
are deleted and how that *could* affect operation.

| Fourth, registry defragmentation.

Sysinternals used to have a Registry defragmenter,
as did Norton Utilities. I don't see it now at the
Sysinternals site. I don't know why that is.

| What I've read is, when a program's
| uninstall routine deletes registry entries, the actual registry file is
| not compacted to delete the space formerly used to store program data.
| Logically, it makes to sense to me that these open areas will slow down
| all those registry reads the system does when the drive has to move the
| heads a greater distance across the hard drive when reading and writing.

That makes sense, but it's also one of the easiest things
to test. The speed of Registry reads is astonishing.
Thousands per second.

On 3/24/15 8:16 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| I doubt you'll ever see the type of evidence you'd like to see. I think
| it would take too much time, knowledge, and special equipment to
| definitively explain what's going on.
|

You've clearly thought this through,

Thanks. But I've always been one to see other possibilities that may
have the same effect/outcome, and I very often question conventional
wisdom. Maybe I've been associated to often with things where the
logical conclusion wasn't the correct answer in certain cases.

but I guess we're
actually approaching it from opposite ends. I figure there are
too many variables to just assess speed, so I'm thinking
in terms of logistics: What actually happens when entries
are deleted and how that *could* affect operation.

Damn good question, but I don't have the knowledge and skills to
determine the answer. And it is a question of how I often approach
things, what's going to happen if I do A, or if I do B.

And to be honest, finding the answer isn't that high on my list. The #1
thing on my list is using a computer, any computer, in a way and manner
that feels "right", if you know what I mean, and applying various
"tweaks" to the system to speed it up without having to program it. I
don't want to reinvent the tools to do this, I'd rather use tools
created by someone else.

| Fourth, registry defragmentation.

Sysinternals used to have a Registry defragmenter,
as did Norton Utilities. I don't see it now at the
Sysinternals site. I don't know why that is.

To use the snake-oil phrase some use to describe registry cleaners...

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that some registry do work, and
others aren't worth crap. Couldn't we say similar things about registry
defragmenters?
| What I've read is, when a program's
| uninstall routine deletes registry entries, the actual registry file is
| not compacted to delete the space formerly used to store program data.
| Logically, it makes to sense to me that these open areas will slow down
| all those registry reads the system does when the drive has to move the
| heads a greater distance across the hard drive when reading and writing.

That makes sense, but it's also one of the easiest things
to test. The speed of Registry reads is astonishing.
Thousands per second.

How would you go about testing it? I no longer have any Windows systems
that are likely to be good candidates for testing.



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

On 3/21/2015 12:20 PM, Thip wrote:
wrote in message
...
I just downloaded a free copy of Glary Utilities Pro, an offer from
CNET. How
reliable and safe are these utility programs that supposedly clean up
your
Windows system? I just ran one thing, which searched for empty folders
on my
system, and it found 4,400 of them. I manually checked a number and
sure enough,
they were empty folders. So, I deleted them (but they're still in my
recycle bin
for now.) So are programs like this safe to use? I donwloaded this one
because
it was a CNET offer and I always took them to be reliable. Thanks.

Glary's one of those all-in-one rock 'em sock 'em cleaners. The one you
downloaded doesn't include free updates, so I don't know if you'll be
able to update the malware component. Beware the registry cleaner!!!!
And I'm always wary of tools who claim to do everything. It's a good
way to end up doing too much and hosing your system, in spite of what
they claim.

IMO, if you just want to do some good, basic crap cleaning, I'd
recommend CCleaner. I've used the portable version forever. Again, I'd
recommend you stay clear of the registry cleaner component.

https://www.piriform.com/ccleaner/download/portable

Just extract it to a directory of your choice.

What exactly is bad about their reg cleaner? Exactly? I know there are
so many registry cleaners that make claims they are a cure all that
everyone says to stay clear of them all. CCleaner has one included and
if you simply back up your registry then what's the problem? What's the
worst that could happen that one can't be prepared for from the start?
I've never read a single post about CCleaner's reg cleaner hosing a
system but maybe you know something I don't.

On 3/21/2015 11:43 PM, Steve Hayes wrote:
On Fri, 20 Mar 2015 18:04:23 -0400, wrote:

I just downloaded a free copy of Glary Utilities Pro, an offer from CNET. How
reliable and safe are these utility programs that supposedly clean up your
Windows system? I just ran one thing, which searched for empty folders on my
system, and it found 4,400 of them. I manually checked a number and sure enough,
they were empty folders. So, I deleted them (but they're still in my recycle bin
for now.) So are programs like this safe to use? I donwloaded this one because
it was a CNET offer and I always took them to be reliable. Thanks.

I've used Glary utilities for several years with no ill-effects that I
can see.

I use it mainly for deleting .TMP files before backing up my disks,
though it doesn't seem to delete them all.

My main gripe with it is that it offers me about 5 updates for each
time I use it.


Try typing %temp% at the bottom of the start menu.

| And to be honest, finding the answer isn't that high on my list. The #1
| thing on my list is using a computer, any computer, in a way and manner
| that feels "right", if you know what I mean,

Yes. The ultimate software, or tool, is the one that
works and doesn't get in the way.

I started exploring
computers when I was given a Win3.1 box and spent
an entire evening trying to figure out how to copy
something from a floppy to the Desktop. Silly me, I
thought that would be in the help.

To some extent the handyman aspect of it is still alluring
to me -- inspiring me to learn through a combination of
two things. On the one hand is empowerment, having
realized that I can adapt this tool to my needs, and that
no one more than Microsoft has made that feasible. (My
first thrill was writing a VBScript message box and realizing
that I can work "on the other side of the screen". Mac,
by contrast, is harder to get at, while Linux doesn't provide
the same range of tools and docs that MS does. The Linux
people are into hazing and dumping people off the deep end
to teach them to swim.)
The second motivation is sheer frustration. (I'll be damned
if I'm going to spend another entire evening trying to
accomplish something that should be easy!) I guess
that's the same frustration that leads people to invent
things like storm door closers; a sense that the work will
pay off over time. But over the years I began to realize
that tech in general, and Microsoft in particular, is partially
built on forced obsolescence and manufactured abstruseness.
The storm door design keeps changing for no good reason.
One needs to buy new screwdrivers and learn how to use
them. One needs to take new classes and get new certifications,
as the old screwdrivers are now "deprecated". There's a whole
industry of trumped-up knowledge and teaching jobs built
onto unnecessary change.

So now I have a great deal of expertise in something that
will be no more than a memory soon.

| | Fourth, registry defragmentation.
|
| Sysinternals used to have a Registry defragmenter,
| as did Norton Utilities. I don't see it now at the
| Sysinternals site. I don't know why that is.
|
| To use the snake-oil phrase some use to describe registry cleaners...
|
| Let's assume for the sake of discussion that some registry do work, and
| others aren't worth crap. Couldn't we say similar things about registry
| defragmenters?

I wonder. It doesn't seem that it could make all that
much difference. Maybe it was more for Win9x. I don't
know. The only reason I took it seriously was because
Mark Russinovich wrote it. He's a very well regarded
Windows programmer, who originally started Sysinternals,
writing all sorts of low-level utilities that MS *should*
have written and made public.
A few years back Microsoft hired him and bought his
company, continuing the Sysinternals tools to some extent.
Mark Russinovich, meanwhile, became a top programmer
at MS and lectures other programmers. So, if he told me
that a Registry defragmenter was worthwhile I'd believe
him. But... that tool is no longer on his/their website.


| That makes sense, but it's also one of the easiest things
| to test. The speed of Registry reads is astonishing.
| Thousands per second.
|
| How would you go about testing it? I no longer have any Windows systems
| that are likely to be good candidates for testing.
|

The same Sysinternals company used to make Regmon
and Filemon, for monitoring the Registry and the file
system, respectively. They now offer Procmon (Process
Monitor), which combines both. Personally I still prefer
the earlier tools. Procmon was an "improvement" that
just results in more work and complication.

In any case, using either Regmon or Procmon one can
watch actions in real time. I open IE and 5,000 Registry
hits are made in about 2 seconds. I change a value in
IE settings, then close the settings window, and another
2,000 hits are made almost instantly. (The Regmon window
just jumps by 2,000. It doesn't scroll. And that speed includes
the time it took for Regmon to gather, organize and display
all that data. I imagine the screen refreshes were probably
what took most of that time.

I first noticed all this one time when I was trying to
connect IE security settings to Registry values. With most
software, if you change a setting you might see one or two
Registry writes. With MS software there's a vast obfuscation
factor. MS designs it to be extremely active, either for
thoroughness or obscuration or both. IE writes and rewrites
the same settings, over and over, and also checks the same
settings over and over. Literally thousands of Registry hits
happen in about 1 second. That's why I say that it would
seem very unlikely that any cleaning could improve the speed.
Even on a mediocre Win9x box that speed will still be amazing.

That doesn't account for other issues, like outdated
entries wasting time, but I just don't know of a believable
case of that. Registry cleaners mostly clean HKCR\ class
keys and HKCR\CLSID\ GUID keys. Those can refer to
missing COM libraries, but as I detailed in an earlier post,
that makes no difference. Settings for missing files are
very unlikely to be accessed. If they are then there will
be an error, anyway. If the Registry setting was not cleaned
then when software tries to load the COM object it will
fail, because the file is missing. So you'd probably get
something like:

"Error 435. Process cannot create object."

If the Registry setting was cleaned then either you'd
probably get a crash, or if the software was carefully
written it would have checked the Registry for the COM
object it wants to load and show you a message like:

"Unable to continue. Xyz.dll is missing."

The second message is arguably more helpful, but either
way, the file is missing. In the unlikely event that
something tries to load that library there will be a crash
or disabled functionality, whether the Registry entry was
cleaned or not.

The other big category for removal is HKLM\Software\
or HKCU\Software\. Those are settings for installed
programs. Cleaners will often remove settings for
uninstalled software. But those settings do no harm,
and in some cases they'll be useful if software is
reinstalled. For instance, I have a program that I
designed to leave behind activation key data, so
that if someone updates or removes and then re-installs
my software they won't lose their activation key.
Those keys are analogous to the App Data folder. If
you remove Firefox you can save space by going in
and deleting the FF profile folders. On the other hand,
you'll then also lose all of your customization should you
decide to re-install FF. With App Data at least you'd
be saving space. With HKCU\Software\ you're only
going to save a few bytes if you remove software
settings.

Probably more than you care to know as a Mac
convert....

| What exactly is bad about their reg cleaner? Exactly? I know there are
| so many registry cleaners that make claims they are a cure all that
| everyone says to stay clear of them all. CCleaner has one included and
| if you simply back up your registry then what's the problem? What's the
| worst that could happen that one can't be prepared for from the start?
| I've never read a single post about CCleaner's reg cleaner hosing a
| system but maybe you know something I don't.
|

I just gave an example above: Removing software
settings for software that's removed. In some cases
those settings may be useful, just as you may want
to save App Data folders for removed software, so that
you can have your customizations back if you
re-install the software.
And that's assuming the cleaner in question works
perfectly.

The basic point is that it does no good and *probably*
won't do any serious harm, but why take the chance?
Like the OP thinking of deleting all empty folders, if
one doesn't actually check what's being removed and
understand the function of what's being removed then
one is just working blind.

On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 03:05:35 -0400, Al Drake
wrote:

What exactly is bad about their reg cleaner? Exactly? I know there are
so many registry cleaners that make claims they are a cure all that
everyone says to stay clear of them all. CCleaner has one included and
if you simply back up your registry then what's the problem? What's the
worst that could happen that one can't be prepared for from the start?


The worst that could happen with *any* registry cleaner is that using
it leaves your system unbootable.

Yes, it's less likely with CCleaner than with most other registry
cleaners, but the risk is not zero.

On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 15:23:16 +0000, Stormin' Norman
wrote:

On Wed, 25 Mar 2015 08:02:45 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

The worst that could happen with *any* registry cleaner is that using
it leaves your system unbootable.

Yes, it's less likely with CCleaner than with most other registry
cleaners, but the risk is not zero.

I wonder which risk is greater, dying on any given day or having CCleaner hose
your system? :-)

I have already exceeded, by a non-negligible amount, the life expectancy of an
American male,


Me too. The life expectancy of an American male is 76.4 years, and
I've exceeded that by just under one year.




so my odds of dying on any given day are now fairly high. I
would put my money on dying over being hosed by CCleaner........ but only if I
wanted my heirs to collect on the wager....

The above is intended to be rhetorical, if not slightly humorous.


Understood, but my view is different from yours. Regardless of how
small the risk is, there is no point in taking *any* risk when there
is no benefit in doing what taking the risk entails.

On 03/24/2015 11:57 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| Coffee gives me a belly ache. It is a bummer too, because
| one of my customers is an organic coffee roasting company.
| And, I L O V E the smell of coffee, especially theirs.
| But, I can't taste a drop. Bummer!
|

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

I get an upset stomach and get really jittery. Doesn't
matter if it is high test or decaf

On 03/24/2015 01:05 PM, John wrote:
Tea needs milk. I keep running out.


I use heavy whipping cream. No carbs. :-)

On 03/24/2015 01:11 PM, John wrote:
On Tue, 24 Mar 2015 11:36:13 -0700, T wrote:

On 03/24/2015 11:33 AM, John wrote:

snipped

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


Oh now that sucks!

Which sucks? Take-away? I've bought take-out food from many fine,
reputable dining establishments when I've been awandering around this
green and soggy land; I wouldn't imagine getting it delivered instead
would make much of a difference but I've just never managed to do it.
It's an idea. And it's currently only slightly dark-at-night-o'clock
so some places could be open.

Or perhaps you mean no one coming, ever, sucks? Well, it doesn't for
them. I imagine all seven milliards of the little buggers are happier
*not* encountering me at home.
I'm neither gorgeous nor amiable.
J.


Sucks is not having someone to share your meals with.

On 03/24/2015 12:09 PM, mike wrote:
On 3/24/2015 12:00 AM, T wrote:
On 03/23/2015 10:30 PM, Nil wrote:
On 23 Mar 2015, T wrote in alt.windows7.general:

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

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


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

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

google "wholockme"

Hi Mike,

Thank you!

I had been using an older version of Unlocker. (The new
version is nothing but junkware.)

Do you have any junkware problems with WhoLockMe?

-T

On 03/25/2015 10:27 AM, T wrote:
On 03/24/2015 12:09 PM, mike wrote:
On 3/24/2015 12:00 AM, T wrote:
On 03/23/2015 10:30 PM, Nil wrote:
On 23 Mar 2015, T wrote in alt.windows7.general:

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

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


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

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

google "wholockme"

Hi Mike,

Thank you!

I had been using an older version of Unlocker. (The new
version is nothing but junkware.)

Do you have any junkware problems with WhoLockMe?

-T

Where are you downloading yours from?

And does it work in w7 and w8+?