|
|
For those who would like some information about registry cleaners from
definitions to operating to results, here are some anecdotal pastes from
various places. This information is presented for your enlightenment
and education. Much more can be found by using Google or most any other
search engine, whatever your favorite one may be.
Registry cleaners, free or pay-for, are like any other software
application program you will find on the net; some are great, some good,
and some malicious. A bit of research is always in order before
purchasing any software from any source, even if you know the brand
because the brand, though most always indicative of safe software, does
not necessarily speak to the quality of the software.
"Stuff happens", just like with any other program, so befroe using
anything that delves into your operating system, you also want to be
sure your backups are up to date. Whether it's a power outage or a DNS
theft, you always want a way to get back to where you started.
Enjoy:
Some Registry cleaner functions:
identifies invalid references, corrupted DLLs, orphaned startup programs
and invalid system records
The Registry can have a hundred thousand or more entries.
scans the Windows Registry and looks for outdated and invalid entries.
makes a backup copy so that the prior state can be restored if
required.
----------------
Registry Maintenance includes handling:
Applications often create Registry entries for temporary data and
pointers to other files, but never delete them.
If folders are manually deleted by the user, Registry entries may point
to files that do not exist.
The user can "Select All" or click specific entries to be fixed.
Problems with the Windows Registry are a common cause of Windows crashes
and error messages.
Finds bad paths, which are not deleted, bad entries, which slow system
work and items, which are not in use.
And others; I'm pasting, not typing, so if it's printed, I'm using it,
else not, since the above covers the major areas.
--------------
Things that happen in the registry:
n computing, the Windows registry is a database which stores settings
and options for the operating system for Microsoft (NSDQ: MSFT) Windows
32-bit versions. It contains information and settings for all the
hardware, software, users, and preferences of the PC. Whenever a user
makes changes to "Control Panel" settings, or file associations, system
policies, or installed software, the changes are reflected and stored in
the registry....
-------------------
A registry cleaner results window:
http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=Registry+cleaner&i=50360,00.asp
----------------------------
A rather informal test of ten registry cleaners:
http://www.bmighty.com/hardware_software/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201400014&pgno=2
----------------------------
one reader had upgraded a major-brand PC from Win98 to XP. This reader
had above-average PC skills, and had regularly backed up his system,
defragged, and otherwise maintained it, including running Norton's
"WinDoctor" and ToniArt's "EasyCleaner" to help maintain the registry.
Despite all that, we found and were able to remove some *3,000*
additional *bogus entries* in his Registry. That, and some other
maintenance steps we took, cut his PC's boot times *in half*, and made
the system *perceptibly faster* and more stable.
----------------------------
Another interesting anecdote:
First there's the matter of simple semantics: At one end of the
spectrum, there are Registry errors that -- if not corrected -- may make
a system unbootable or unstable, or that may cause some of your software
to crash or to malfunction. But at the other end of the spectrum, there
are trivial, transient Registry items that are intended for short-term
use, that harm nothing when they go out of date, and that are ultimately
self-correcting via normal Windows housecleaning. Naturally, counting
these latter as "errors" drives up the count and lets a given piece of
software generate impressive-looking stats; but removing those "errors"
doesn't mean much in terms of a real benefit.
Then again, some Registry cleaners truly are more aggressive than
others, digging deeper and looking in more places for more kinds of
errors.
Put those factors together and you can begin to see why one tool might
report 18 errors while another reports more than 700 on the same system.
--------------------------
I don't care for Fred Langa's analytic skills much, but he had this
report from a reader:
However, no Registry-cleaner software had been used on the system, and
so whatever errors and other debris had been accumulating in the
Registry since the original installation of XP was still in there.
I made a disk "image" (a bit-for-bit exact copy of the hard drive's
contents) and then tried the 10 different Registry cleaners on the test
system, one at a time. First, I'd install and run one cleaner three
times, with a reboot between each run. I'd make a note of the number of
Registry errors the software found and fixed on each run.
After the third run, I'd restore the original saved disk image,
returning the system to the same initial condition it was in before any
tests. Then I'd install and test the next cleaning tool over three
separate runs, with a reboot between each run.
Testing this way ensured that each cleaner faced exactly the same
initial conditions on its first run, with the Registry in exactly the
same initial state.
Doing immediate second and third runs with each cleaning tool was to see
if any of the programs under test were fudging their numbers by
over-reporting errors. For example, if a tool was really doing what it
said it was, it would find and fix all the errors it could on the first
run. Immediate subsequent runs should show essentially zero errors,
because they all were fixed on the first run, right?
But if a tool still reports a significant number of errors on the second
and third runs, you might wonder what was going on: Why couldn't the
tool find and fix all the errors the first time? Is the tool introducing
new errors as it runs? Is it fudging the numbers to make you think it's
doing more than it really is? Is it reporting as "errors" some things
that really aren't errors after all?
At the least, it seems to me that a good Registry cleaning tool should
report a stable, repeatable, and very low number of errors on
back-to-back repeated runs. To me, a tool that can't get the number of
reported errors down to a stable, low minimum number on repeated runs
either isn't fixing things right, or isn't analyzing them right in the
first place. Your mileage may vary, but I tend to stay away from tools
that act this way.
---------------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
Twayne wrote:
[Quoted Text] > For those who would like some information about registry cleaners from
<snip - more MULTIposted spam crap trying to sell you a particular
program>
Twayne is too stupid to know how to properly cross-post his same post to
multiple newsgroups. He's on a mission to educate the uneducated with
his ignorant proselytizing because someone who is selling a registry
cleaner came up with reasons to buy it.
Learn to cross-post, Twayne.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html
A point not made is that N multiposted copies will consume N times the
disk space for each of the separate copies of the same post.
Crossposted messages have just *one* copy on the server with links in
the newsgroups back to the same single copy. Multiposting wastes disk
space on the server. Yes, your post may be small but remember that you
consume N times the space on one server and then do so again on all the
newsgroups servers worldwide. You waste more bandwidth getting N copies
of your multiposted message distributed to all the newsgroups servers
worldwide. Cross-posting has just one copy of the message on an NNTP
server, and only one copy gets propagated to other NNTP servers.
To those visiting the newsgroups, crossposting helps them see ALL the
replies from those in the other RELATED newsgroup to which you linked
your post. That way, they don't waste their time duplicating similar
replies.
Don't cross-post to more groups than needed if at all. Many consider
cross-posting to more than 4 groups as rude and may filter out your
post. The more groups you add, the less likely that they are related,
the less accurate or focused are the targeted groups, or some of the
included groups may already encompassed by another included but more
general group. If the are subgroups under a topic, choose whether you
will be specific or general in the targeted groups to which you post.
Don't go shotgunning your post across multiple groups trying to capture
as large an audience as possible as you will offend netizens with your
poor aim.
|
|
Damn, I have to stop replying when watching early-morning flicks while
half asleep. I figured even Twayne wouldn't be so stupid as to repost
his drivel in the same newsgroups where he got lambasted before for his
spam.
Twayne doesn't want to actual research the product looking for a
problem. He wants to believe the payware author's claims without
actually taking the time to analyze their claims.
|
|
Hmm, apparently Van can't count to one. That was posted in only one
place; right here. If it went further, another spidiot did that<g>.
Oh, and ... where's the spam?
[Quoted Text] > Twayne wrote: > >> For those who would like some information about registry cleaners >> from > <snip - more MULTIposted spam crap trying to sell you a particular > program> > > Twayne is too stupid to know how to properly cross-post his same post > to multiple newsgroups. He's on a mission to educate the uneducated > with his ignorant proselytizing because someone who is selling a > registry cleaner came up with reasons to buy it. > > Learn to cross-post, Twayne. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossposting> http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm> http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/usenet/xpost.html> > A point not made is that N multiposted copies will consume N times the > disk space for each of the separate copies of the same post. > Crossposted messages have just *one* copy on the server with links in > the newsgroups back to the same single copy. Multiposting wastes disk > space on the server. Yes, your post may be small but remember that > you consume N times the space on one server and then do so again on > all the newsgroups servers worldwide. You waste more bandwidth > getting N copies of your multiposted message distributed to all the > newsgroups servers worldwide. Cross-posting has just one copy of the > message on an NNTP server, and only one copy gets propagated to other > NNTP servers. > > To those visiting the newsgroups, crossposting helps them see ALL the > replies from those in the other RELATED newsgroup to which you linked > your post. That way, they don't waste their time duplicating similar > replies. > > Don't cross-post to more groups than needed if at all. Many consider > cross-posting to more than 4 groups as rude and may filter out your > post. The more groups you add, the less likely that they are related, > the less accurate or focused are the targeted groups, or some of the > included groups may already encompassed by another included but more > general group. If the are subgroups under a topic, choose whether you > will be specific or general in the targeted groups to which you post. > Don't go shotgunning your post across multiple groups trying to > capture as large an audience as possible as you will offend netizens > with your poor aim.
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > Damn, I have to stop replying when watching early-morning flicks while
> half asleep. I figured even Twayne wouldn't be so stupid as to repost
> his drivel in the same newsgroups where he got lambasted before for
> his spam.
>
> Twayne doesn't want to actual research the product looking for a
> problem. He wants to believe the payware author's claims without
> actually taking the time to analyze their claims.
Prove me wrong. Prove that registry cleaners are no good.
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > Twayne wrote:
>>
>
> Spam reported.
Hey! You spammed! Duly reported<G>
|
|
|