|
|
In all fairness to the readers here, it's probably a good time now to
make some points about the use of registry cleaners that seem to have
become buried in the details of a flame war induced the the naysayers
who say to never, ever use a registry cleaner and promise the readers
that it WILL, not might, create problems for them.
ANY application will, over time, create some sort of a problem for
the system. In my experience, and I don't know why this is, the
registry cleaners I have used have been the source of a lot fewer
problems (as in none) than Microsoft's own software and its attendant
file corruption and bad habits employment. While I have experience many
MS application problems, many which caused freezes, etc., I have never
yet encountered such a problem with any registry cleaner that I use.
Why? I don't know. Intiuitively I would have actuall expected a
similar problem with at least one of my registry cleaners by now, but so
far, knock on wood, I have not.
That said, it's obviously, like any other application, necessary for
the user to be certain they source their programs from reliable sources
of known stable and reliable programs.
Now let's look at some other points w/r to XP:
1. The registry is not inherently the major culprit in a machine
slowing down or taking a long time to boot or to shut down or restart.
Most of the time running a registry cleaner will not result in an
improvement of the slowness observed in a computer. A good one will
offer to throw out som unused goodies such as references to programs
that were uninstalled, files that were deleted, misdirected access
attempts by poorly written software (even MS has done that) and several
other things. It's fine to let that stuff go and get rid of it so it
doesn't have to be dealt with in the future, just as you usually have to
go back and delete the directories/folders they used and files that are
left over.
There are many instances of uninstalled programs still referencing
those "leftover" files and folders, and depending on how many of those
exist, can eventually result in slower boot times and a slower machine
overall. In some cases, just deleting those leftover files/folders can
cause the registry to throw an error. But the user has no way of
knowing what happened of IF that is what happened.
Do not misunderstand me: There ARE ways the registry can really slow
a machine down; but those are in the minority and don't occur very
often.
2. Registry bloat in and of itself is NOT much of a problem for the
registry as a rule. Being text based, it's very fast to read it, and
execute the instructions contained in it.
3. It does not necessarily require huge bloat or gazillions of problems
for the registry to make boot times extend to seemingly infinite
lengths. A few "well" placed entries in the registry where the search
allowed time of 20 seconds has to pass before it continues to the next
item, is one culprit. Three of those and you've added a full minute to
the boot time. 6 of them two minutes, and so on. The Event Viewer,
something many people are unaware of, is one of only a very few places
you will ever notice warnings to tip you off to what's happening.
BootVis for XP will show them to you rather well, but BootViz in
itself can create some problems so I don't really recommend it for the
neophyte. BootVis gives you a labeled graph of the boot sequences, and
the 20 second timeouts stand our rather well against the other
milli/micro second operations it lists.
This may also occur in places like program starts, program exits, and
other similar activity. That 20 second default can be shortened, but
this is ill advised, especially if the machine if part of a network.
4. Then you have the installer-stopping leftover registry keys, again
hard to spot. Usually just a reinstall will fix it, but ... if it was
poorly written software, perhaps not. Registry cleaners get those out
of the way quickly and routinely without the user even being aware of
them most of the time, and never yet in my experience, causing any crash
to happen on the machines.
5. Problematic installs are often cured with a simple registry cleaning
schedule. Cleaned on a schdule, a user will seldom run into this
problem. But let them build and eventually it's going to occur unless
it's a seldom modified machine.
6. Installing applications, even doubling or tripling the number of
installations on a machine does not slow down the registry IF it has
been maintained. This particular XP machine has been running for over
three years now, closer to four I think, and the boot times today are
the same as after the first initial build. Total time from pressin
Restart to have a usable, functional window in front of me is
approximately three minutes and a few seconds. The bullets going across
the logo screen vary from around 7 1/2 trips to 8 and a half, depending
on what I was last doing with it. But that's only part of the overall
process. The last about a minute of the restarting process isn't boot
operation in a way; the system is starting up all the background
processes for the icons that are going to become visible in the System
Tray during that last several seconds.
Almost all of the cases above can be seen with a little effort by any
user with a little background in windows.
Keep in mind though, that you may not get the improvement you want from
registry cleaning, not because it's dangerous or useless, but because
the culprits are often elsewhere in the system. While the registry
cleaning might improve things, and is quick and easy to do, it might not
be much of an improvement, or none at all if you routinely use a
cleaner. You need to actually look at the overall picture as best you
can and use the tools at hand.
Whether a registry cleaner is used for the process of elimination or
the registry itself turns out to be the major culprit of the slowness
problem/s, a good cleaner is valuable, can put everything back if you
make a misstep, and never causes any major problems. Several of them
fit that bill.
Enjoy ... I'm considering showing how you can watch some of these
operations at work and get repeatable results from them. It's a case of
picking the right program to do the right tasks.
|
|
"Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:u3FbA7DQJHA.1164[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > In all fairness to the readers here, it's probably a good time now to make
> some points about the use of registry cleaners that seem to have become
> buried in the details of a flame war induced the the naysayers who say to
> never, ever use a registry cleaner and promise the readers that it WILL,
> not might, create problems for them.
> ANY application will, over time, create some sort of a problem for the
> system. In my experience, and I don't know why this is, the registry
> cleaners I have used have been the source of a lot fewer problems (as in
> none) than Microsoft's own software and its attendant file corruption and
> bad habits employment. While I have experience many MS application
> problems, many which caused freezes, etc., I have never yet encountered
> such a problem with any registry cleaner that I use. Why? I don't know.
> Intiuitively I would have actuall expected a similar problem with at least
> one of my registry cleaners by now, but so far, knock on wood, I have not.
> That said, it's obviously, like any other application, necessary for the
> user to be certain they source their programs from reliable sources of
> known stable and reliable programs.
>
> Now let's look at some other points w/r to XP:
>
> 1. The registry is not inherently the major culprit in a machine slowing
> down or taking a long time to boot or to shut down or restart. Most of the
> time running a registry cleaner will not result in an improvement of the
> slowness observed in a computer. A good one will offer to throw out som
> unused goodies such as references to programs that were uninstalled, files
> that were deleted, misdirected access attempts by poorly written software
> (even MS has done that) and several other things. It's fine to let that
> stuff go and get rid of it so it doesn't have to be dealt with in the
> future, just as you usually have to go back and delete the
> directories/folders they used and files that are left over.
> There are many instances of uninstalled programs still referencing those
> "leftover" files and folders, and depending on how many of those exist,
> can eventually result in slower boot times and a slower machine overall.
> In some cases, just deleting those leftover files/folders can cause the
> registry to throw an error. But the user has no way of knowing what
> happened of IF that is what happened.
> Do not misunderstand me: There ARE ways the registry can really slow a
> machine down; but those are in the minority and don't occur very often.
>
> 2. Registry bloat in and of itself is NOT much of a problem for the
> registry as a rule. Being text based, it's very fast to read it, and
> execute the instructions contained in it.
>
> 3. It does not necessarily require huge bloat or gazillions of problems
> for the registry to make boot times extend to seemingly infinite lengths.
> A few "well" placed entries in the registry where the search allowed time
> of 20 seconds has to pass before it continues to the next item, is one
> culprit. Three of those and you've added a full minute to the boot time.
> 6 of them two minutes, and so on. The Event Viewer, something many people
> are unaware of, is one of only a very few places you will ever notice
> warnings to tip you off to what's happening.
> BootVis for XP will show them to you rather well, but BootViz in itself
> can create some problems so I don't really recommend it for the neophyte.
> BootVis gives you a labeled graph of the boot sequences, and the 20 second
> timeouts stand our rather well against the other milli/micro second
> operations it lists.
> This may also occur in places like program starts, program exits, and
> other similar activity. That 20 second default can be shortened, but this
> is ill advised, especially if the machine if part of a network.
>
> 4. Then you have the installer-stopping leftover registry keys, again hard
> to spot. Usually just a reinstall will fix it, but ... if it was poorly
> written software, perhaps not. Registry cleaners get those out of the way
> quickly and routinely without the user even being aware of them most of
> the time, and never yet in my experience, causing any crash to happen on
> the machines.
>
> 5. Problematic installs are often cured with a simple registry cleaning
> schedule. Cleaned on a schdule, a user will seldom run into this problem.
> But let them build and eventually it's going to occur unless it's a seldom
> modified machine.
>
> 6. Installing applications, even doubling or tripling the number of
> installations on a machine does not slow down the registry IF it has been
> maintained. This particular XP machine has been running for over three
> years now, closer to four I think, and the boot times today are the same
> as after the first initial build. Total time from pressin Restart to have
> a usable, functional window in front of me is approximately three minutes
> and a few seconds. The bullets going across the logo screen vary from
> around 7 1/2 trips to 8 and a half, depending on what I was last doing
> with it. But that's only part of the overall process. The last about a
> minute of the restarting process isn't boot operation in a way; the system
> is starting up all the background processes for the icons that are going
> to become visible in the System Tray during that last several seconds.
>
> Almost all of the cases above can be seen with a little effort by any user
> with a little background in windows.
>
> Keep in mind though, that you may not get the improvement you want from
> registry cleaning, not because it's dangerous or useless, but because the
> culprits are often elsewhere in the system. While the registry cleaning
> might improve things, and is quick and easy to do, it might not be much of
> an improvement, or none at all if you routinely use a cleaner. You need
> to actually look at the overall picture as best you can and use the tools
> at hand.
> Whether a registry cleaner is used for the process of elimination or the
> registry itself turns out to be the major culprit of the slowness
> problem/s, a good cleaner is valuable, can put everything back if you make
> a misstep, and never causes any major problems. Several of them fit that
> bill.
>
> Enjoy ... I'm considering showing how you can watch some of these
> operations at work and get repeatable results from them. It's a case of
> picking the right program to do the right tasks.
>
Interesting that you have never had a registry problem associated with
registry cleaner.
I haven't had a registry problem, but I have never used a registry cleaner.
Jim
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> ...
>>
> Interesting that you have never had a registry problem associated with
> registry cleaner.
> I haven't had a registry problem, but I have never used a registry
> cleaner. Jim
I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but the point is I haven't had any
problems created by the registry cleaners I have used over the years. I
also find it "interesting" as the odds say that after all this time I
probably should have had some issues as any other software would
present. But I haven't. In some ways I'm overdue<g>.
I'm not too surprised you've never experienced a registry problem
either, really. I've talked with others who haven't and that's good.
Mostly I think it would imply a thoughtfully used machine in those
cases.
Twayne
|
|
I have always heard that most Registry cleaners are more dangerous than
good and for this reason I have become accustomed to manually editing the
Registry i.e.after uninstalling applications I now go into the Registry and
clean out all applicable entries related to the uninstalled application etc.
Most advertised Registry applications allow you to screen and then
indicate all these erroneous entries in an effort to get you to buy their
application, which to me is a farce. The only Registry cleaner that I now
use is within CCleaner, which I have found to have never caused any problems
whatsoever. I also have found CCleaner is about the best application that
cleans out redundant and unnecessary files that can possibly slow down a
computer for the average user.
Based upon all that you have said and indicated what Registry (freeware)
application have you found that has worked the best for you? Enjoyed your
comments....
Thanks
"Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:u3FbA7DQJHA.1164[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
In all fairness to the readers here, it's probably a good time now to
make some points about the use of registry cleaners that seem to have
become buried in the details of a flame war induced the the naysayers
who say to never, ever use a registry cleaner and promise the readers
that it WILL, not might, create problems for them.
ANY application will, over time, create some sort of a problem for
the system. In my experience, and I don't know why this is, the
registry cleaners I have used have been the source of a lot fewer
problems (as in none) than Microsoft's own software and its attendant
file corruption and bad habits employment. While I have experience many
MS application problems, many which caused freezes, etc., I have never
yet encountered such a problem with any registry cleaner that I use.
Why? I don't know. Intiuitively I would have actuall expected a
similar problem with at least one of my registry cleaners by now, but so
far, knock on wood, I have not.
That said, it's obviously, like any other application, necessary for
the user to be certain they source their programs from reliable sources
of known stable and reliable programs.
Now let's look at some other points w/r to XP:
1. The registry is not inherently the major culprit in a machine
slowing down or taking a long time to boot or to shut down or restart.
Most of the time running a registry cleaner will not result in an
improvement of the slowness observed in a computer. A good one will
offer to throw out som unused goodies such as references to programs
that were uninstalled, files that were deleted, misdirected access
attempts by poorly written software (even MS has done that) and several
other things. It's fine to let that stuff go and get rid of it so it
doesn't have to be dealt with in the future, just as you usually have to
go back and delete the directories/folders they used and files that are
left over.
There are many instances of uninstalled programs still referencing
those "leftover" files and folders, and depending on how many of those
exist, can eventually result in slower boot times and a slower machine
overall. In some cases, just deleting those leftover files/folders can
cause the registry to throw an error. But the user has no way of
knowing what happened of IF that is what happened.
Do not misunderstand me: There ARE ways the registry can really slow
a machine down; but those are in the minority and don't occur very
often.
2. Registry bloat in and of itself is NOT much of a problem for the
registry as a rule. Being text based, it's very fast to read it, and
execute the instructions contained in it.
3. It does not necessarily require huge bloat or gazillions of problems
for the registry to make boot times extend to seemingly infinite
lengths. A few "well" placed entries in the registry where the search
allowed time of 20 seconds has to pass before it continues to the next
item, is one culprit. Three of those and you've added a full minute to
the boot time. 6 of them two minutes, and so on. The Event Viewer,
something many people are unaware of, is one of only a very few places
you will ever notice warnings to tip you off to what's happening.
BootVis for XP will show them to you rather well, but BootViz in
itself can create some problems so I don't really recommend it for the
neophyte. BootVis gives you a labeled graph of the boot sequences, and
the 20 second timeouts stand our rather well against the other
milli/micro second operations it lists.
This may also occur in places like program starts, program exits, and
other similar activity. That 20 second default can be shortened, but
this is ill advised, especially if the machine if part of a network.
4. Then you have the installer-stopping leftover registry keys, again
hard to spot. Usually just a reinstall will fix it, but ... if it was
poorly written software, perhaps not. Registry cleaners get those out
of the way quickly and routinely without the user even being aware of
them most of the time, and never yet in my experience, causing any crash
to happen on the machines.
5. Problematic installs are often cured with a simple registry cleaning
schedule. Cleaned on a schdule, a user will seldom run into this
problem. But let them build and eventually it's going to occur unless
it's a seldom modified machine.
6. Installing applications, even doubling or tripling the number of
installations on a machine does not slow down the registry IF it has
been maintained. This particular XP machine has been running for over
three years now, closer to four I think, and the boot times today are
the same as after the first initial build. Total time from pressin
Restart to have a usable, functional window in front of me is
approximately three minutes and a few seconds. The bullets going across
the logo screen vary from around 7 1/2 trips to 8 and a half, depending
on what I was last doing with it. But that's only part of the overall
process. The last about a minute of the restarting process isn't boot
operation in a way; the system is starting up all the background
processes for the icons that are going to become visible in the System
Tray during that last several seconds.
Almost all of the cases above can be seen with a little effort by any
user with a little background in windows.
Keep in mind though, that you may not get the improvement you want from
registry cleaning, not because it's dangerous or useless, but because
the culprits are often elsewhere in the system. While the registry
cleaning might improve things, and is quick and easy to do, it might not
be much of an improvement, or none at all if you routinely use a
cleaner. You need to actually look at the overall picture as best you
can and use the tools at hand.
Whether a registry cleaner is used for the process of elimination or
the registry itself turns out to be the major culprit of the slowness
problem/s, a good cleaner is valuable, can put everything back if you
make a misstep, and never causes any major problems. Several of them
fit that bill.
Enjoy ... I'm considering showing how you can watch some of these
operations at work and get repeatable results from them. It's a case of
picking the right program to do the right tasks.
|
|
"ColTom2" <noemailaddress[ at ]nomail.com> wrote in message
news:eLDRFZcQJHA.728[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > I have always heard that most Registry cleaners are more dangerous than
> good
Right.
> and for this reason I have become accustomed to manually editing the
> Registry
Good.
> i.e.after uninstalling applications I now go into the Registry and
> clean out all applicable entries related to the uninstalled application
> etc.
But why? Are you aware that in the vast majority of sitiuations those extra
registry entries don'tr really hurt you?
> Most advertised Registry applications allow you to screen and then
> indicate all these erroneous entries in an effort to get you to buy their
> application,
Right.
> which to me is a farce. The only Registry cleaner that I now
> use is within CCleaner, which I have found to have never caused any
> problems
> whatsoever. I also have found CCleaner is about the best application that
> cleans out redundant and unnecessary files that can possibly slow down a
> computer for the average user.
I agree that it is less dangerous than most, but that doesn't make it free
of risk. Just because you haven't had any problems (yet) doesn't mean that
the risk of using it is zero.
|
|
But why? Are you aware that in the vast majority of situations those extra
registry entries don't really hurt you?
When you uninstall an application why not go ahead and completely purge it
from your computer. These remaining files are of no value whatsoever and I
feel they are best removed rather than to continue to clutter your Registry.
They might not hurt now, but if you rid them they there is never an
opportunity to do so in the future.
"Ken Blake" <kblake[ at ]this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:%23Sp9OhcQJHA.1960[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
"ColTom2" <noemailaddress[ at ]nomail.com> wrote in message
news:eLDRFZcQJHA.728[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > I have always heard that most Registry cleaners are more dangerous than
> good
Right.
> and for this reason I have become accustomed to manually editing the
> Registry
Good.
> i.e.after uninstalling applications I now go into the Registry and
> clean out all applicable entries related to the uninstalled application
> etc.
But why? Are you aware that in the vast majority of sitiuations those extra
registry entries don'tr really hurt you?
> Most advertised Registry applications allow you to screen and then
> indicate all these erroneous entries in an effort to get you to buy their
> application,
Right.
> which to me is a farce. The only Registry cleaner that I now
> use is within CCleaner, which I have found to have never caused any
> problems
> whatsoever. I also have found CCleaner is about the best application that
> cleans out redundant and unnecessary files that can possibly slow down a
> computer for the average user.
I agree that it is less dangerous than most, but that doesn't make it free
of risk. Just because you haven't had any problems (yet) doesn't mean that
the risk of using it is zero.
|
|
"ColTom2" <noemailaddress[ at ]nomail.com> wrote in message
news:eD9uFdeQJHA.584[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > But why? Are you aware that in the vast majority of situations those extra
> registry entries don't really hurt you?
>
> When you uninstall an application why not go ahead and completely purge
> it
> from your computer. These remaining files are of no value whatsoever and I
> feel they are best removed rather than to continue to clutter your
> Registry.
> They might not hurt now, but if you rid them they there is never an
> opportunity to do so in the future.
>
>
> "Ken Blake" <kblake[ at ]this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:%23Sp9OhcQJHA.1960[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress[ at ]nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:eLDRFZcQJHA.728[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>> I have always heard that most Registry cleaners are more dangerous than
>> good
>
>
> Right.
>
>> and for this reason I have become accustomed to manually editing the
>> Registry
>
> Good.
>
>> i.e.after uninstalling applications I now go into the Registry and
>> clean out all applicable entries related to the uninstalled application
>> etc.
>
>
> But why? Are you aware that in the vast majority of sitiuations those
> extra
> registry entries don'tr really hurt you?
>
>
>> Most advertised Registry applications allow you to screen and then
>> indicate all these erroneous entries in an effort to get you to buy their
>> application,
>
>
> Right.
>
>> which to me is a farce. The only Registry cleaner that I now
>> use is within CCleaner, which I have found to have never caused any
>> problems
>> whatsoever. I also have found CCleaner is about the best application that
>> cleans out redundant and unnecessary files that can possibly slow down a
>> computer for the average user.
>
> I agree that it is less dangerous than most, but that doesn't make it free
> of risk. Just because you haven't had any problems (yet) doesn't mean that
> the risk of using it is zero.
>
>
>
A registry cleaner can be used as long as it is used carefully. The problem
with recommending use of a registry cleaner is this. In the wrong hands, it
can wipe out settings which can leave a system partially or fully
compromised.
I do use a registry cleaner on severely messed up client computers which
come to me.. Regcleaner 4.3
http://majorgeeks.com/download460.html
This is the ONLY one that I use..
It works well on all Windows desktop operating systems, but I know what I am
doing, as do Twayne and yourself.
If the uninitiated user sets more functions within utilities of this type
beyond the default, they can be surprised by the results in a bad way.
So it is better not to make general recommendations to use these in a
regular housekeeping schedule, only to use them if all else fails.
The same applies to Disk Cleanup, CCleaner and utilities of that ilk. If
functions are checked over and above the default set, logins for a variety
of stuff will disappear. This can be a real bummer, especially to users who
have not made a note of their login settings.
Most of the clients I see who have used such utilities experience more
niggling problems than those who don't.
This is why I do not recommend them.. :-)
--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
|
|
Ccleaner (crap cleaner) is probably the best freebie program or at least
one of the best. It's also the one I provide to clients when they come
in, in a ready to install folder and a readme I put with it. Many have
been pleased to see it since I charged nothing for the effort and no one
has yet complained.
I'm not mentioning the others unless someone else does in the manner
you just did because all that does is give the closed minds here further
license to libel and otherwise slander their companies and authors,
which is not my intent. Apologies for that. .
In addition I don't profess to know THE best, but rather simply the
ones that work well and reliably for me. There are several I do not
have experience with and many I never will, based on research already
performed.
BTW, KUDOS for bothering to learn how to handle the registry manually.
There are a few caveats of course but since you sound like you've been
mostly successful I won't go into them except to say that backing up
everything you change so you can put it back is MOST important! "Stuff"
happens, even to the best of us<g>! That knowledge will help you a lot
with confidence in using registry maintainers, too.
Try to identify the "branded" applications and their reputations; their
forums where you find nothing but complaints as a rule, as would be
expected, are good places to watch. Look for commonalities in the
complaints, not the single-mentions or sour grape posts, and then you
have something to research if it's something important.
Regards,
Twayne
[Quoted Text] > I have always heard that most Registry cleaners are more dangerous
> than good and for this reason I have become accustomed to manually
> editing the Registry i.e.after uninstalling applications I now go
> into the Registry and clean out all applicable entries related to the
> uninstalled application etc.
>
> Most advertised Registry applications allow you to screen and then
> indicate all these erroneous entries in an effort to get you to buy
> their application, which to me is a farce. The only Registry cleaner
> that I now use is within CCleaner, which I have found to have never
> caused any problems whatsoever. I also have found CCleaner is about
> the best application that cleans out redundant and unnecessary files
> that can possibly slow down a computer for the average user.
>
> Based upon all that you have said and indicated what Registry
> (freeware) application have you found that has worked the best for
> you? Enjoyed your comments....
>
> Thanks
>
> "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:u3FbA7DQJHA.1164[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> In all fairness to the readers here, it's probably a good time now to
> make some points about the use of registry cleaners that seem to have
> become buried in the details of a flame war induced the the naysayers
> who say to never, ever use a registry cleaner and promise the readers
> that it WILL, not might, create problems for them.
> ANY application will, over time, create some sort of a problem for
> the system. In my experience, and I don't know why this is, the
> registry cleaners I have used have been the source of a lot fewer
> problems (as in none) than Microsoft's own software and its attendant
> file corruption and bad habits employment. While I have experience
> many
> MS application problems, many which caused freezes, etc., I have never
> yet encountered such a problem with any registry cleaner that I use.
> Why? I don't know. Intiuitively I would have actuall expected a
> similar problem with at least one of my registry cleaners by now, but
> so far, knock on wood, I have not.
> That said, it's obviously, like any other application, necessary for
> the user to be certain they source their programs from reliable
> sources
> of known stable and reliable programs.
>
> Now let's look at some other points w/r to XP:
>
> 1. The registry is not inherently the major culprit in a machine
> slowing down or taking a long time to boot or to shut down or restart.
> Most of the time running a registry cleaner will not result in an
> improvement of the slowness observed in a computer. A good one will
> offer to throw out som unused goodies such as references to programs
> that were uninstalled, files that were deleted, misdirected access
> attempts by poorly written software (even MS has done that) and
> several other things. It's fine to let that stuff go and get rid of
> it so it doesn't have to be dealt with in the future, just as you
> usually have to
> go back and delete the directories/folders they used and files that
> are left over.
> There are many instances of uninstalled programs still referencing
> those "leftover" files and folders, and depending on how many of those
> exist, can eventually result in slower boot times and a slower machine
> overall. In some cases, just deleting those leftover files/folders
> can cause the registry to throw an error. But the user has no way of
> knowing what happened of IF that is what happened.
> Do not misunderstand me: There ARE ways the registry can really
> slow
> a machine down; but those are in the minority and don't occur very
> often.
>
> 2. Registry bloat in and of itself is NOT much of a problem for the
> registry as a rule. Being text based, it's very fast to read it, and
> execute the instructions contained in it.
>
> 3. It does not necessarily require huge bloat or gazillions of
> problems for the registry to make boot times extend to seemingly
> infinite
> lengths. A few "well" placed entries in the registry where the search
> allowed time of 20 seconds has to pass before it continues to the next
> item, is one culprit. Three of those and you've added a full minute
> to
> the boot time. 6 of them two minutes, and so on. The Event Viewer,
> something many people are unaware of, is one of only a very few places
> you will ever notice warnings to tip you off to what's happening.
> BootVis for XP will show them to you rather well, but BootViz in
> itself can create some problems so I don't really recommend it for the
> neophyte. BootVis gives you a labeled graph of the boot sequences,
> and
> the 20 second timeouts stand our rather well against the other
> milli/micro second operations it lists.
> This may also occur in places like program starts, program exits,
> and other similar activity. That 20 second default can be shortened,
> but
> this is ill advised, especially if the machine if part of a network.
>
> 4. Then you have the installer-stopping leftover registry keys, again
> hard to spot. Usually just a reinstall will fix it, but ... if it was
> poorly written software, perhaps not. Registry cleaners get those out
> of the way quickly and routinely without the user even being aware of
> them most of the time, and never yet in my experience, causing any
> crash
> to happen on the machines.
>
> 5. Problematic installs are often cured with a simple registry
> cleaning schedule. Cleaned on a schdule, a user will seldom run into
> this
> problem. But let them build and eventually it's going to occur unless
> it's a seldom modified machine.
>
> 6. Installing applications, even doubling or tripling the number of
> installations on a machine does not slow down the registry IF it has
> been maintained. This particular XP machine has been running for over
> three years now, closer to four I think, and the boot times today are
> the same as after the first initial build. Total time from pressin
> Restart to have a usable, functional window in front of me is
> approximately three minutes and a few seconds. The bullets going
> across the logo screen vary from around 7 1/2 trips to 8 and a half,
> depending
> on what I was last doing with it. But that's only part of the overall
> process. The last about a minute of the restarting process isn't boot
> operation in a way; the system is starting up all the background
> processes for the icons that are going to become visible in the System
> Tray during that last several seconds.
>
> Almost all of the cases above can be seen with a little effort by any
> user with a little background in windows.
>
> Keep in mind though, that you may not get the improvement you want
> from registry cleaning, not because it's dangerous or useless, but
> because
> the culprits are often elsewhere in the system. While the registry
> cleaning might improve things, and is quick and easy to do, it might
> not
> be much of an improvement, or none at all if you routinely use a
> cleaner. You need to actually look at the overall picture as best you
> can and use the tools at hand.
> Whether a registry cleaner is used for the process of elimination or
> the registry itself turns out to be the major culprit of the slowness
> problem/s, a good cleaner is valuable, can put everything back if you
> make a misstep, and never causes any major problems. Several of them
> fit that bill.
>
> Enjoy ... I'm considering showing how you can watch some of these
> operations at work and get repeatable results from them. It's a case
> of picking the right program to do the right tasks.
|
|
yeah manually editing the registry is good advice IF you tell people that
regedit has no roll back function short of System Restore which is another
program and depends highly on system stability in order to run. With regedit
once you make an edit with it you've committed to that edit. IMO manually
editing the registry is no less dangerous than running a third party
application.
I suggest that you educate people about how to manually edit the registry or
advice then to use a third party cleaner or don't give any advice at all on
the subject.
--
Xandros
"ColTom2" <noemailaddress[ at ]nomail.com> wrote in message
news:eLDRFZcQJHA.728[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > I have always heard that most Registry cleaners are more dangerous than
> good and for this reason I have become accustomed to manually editing the
> Registry i.e.after uninstalling applications I now go into the Registry
> and
> clean out all applicable entries related to the uninstalled application
> etc.
>
> Most advertised Registry applications allow you to screen and then
> indicate all these erroneous entries in an effort to get you to buy their
> application, which to me is a farce. The only Registry cleaner that I now
> use is within CCleaner, which I have found to have never caused any
> problems
> whatsoever. I also have found CCleaner is about the best application that
> cleans out redundant and unnecessary files that can possibly slow down a
> computer for the average user.
>
> Based upon all that you have said and indicated what Registry (freeware)
> application have you found that has worked the best for you? Enjoyed your
> comments....
>
> Thanks
>
> "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:u3FbA7DQJHA.1164[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> In all fairness to the readers here, it's probably a good time now to
> make some points about the use of registry cleaners that seem to have
> become buried in the details of a flame war induced the the naysayers
> who say to never, ever use a registry cleaner and promise the readers
> that it WILL, not might, create problems for them.
> ANY application will, over time, create some sort of a problem for
> the system. In my experience, and I don't know why this is, the
> registry cleaners I have used have been the source of a lot fewer
> problems (as in none) than Microsoft's own software and its attendant
> file corruption and bad habits employment. While I have experience many
> MS application problems, many which caused freezes, etc., I have never
> yet encountered such a problem with any registry cleaner that I use.
> Why? I don't know. Intiuitively I would have actuall expected a
> similar problem with at least one of my registry cleaners by now, but so
> far, knock on wood, I have not.
> That said, it's obviously, like any other application, necessary for
> the user to be certain they source their programs from reliable sources
> of known stable and reliable programs.
>
> Now let's look at some other points w/r to XP:
>
> 1. The registry is not inherently the major culprit in a machine
> slowing down or taking a long time to boot or to shut down or restart.
> Most of the time running a registry cleaner will not result in an
> improvement of the slowness observed in a computer. A good one will
> offer to throw out som unused goodies such as references to programs
> that were uninstalled, files that were deleted, misdirected access
> attempts by poorly written software (even MS has done that) and several
> other things. It's fine to let that stuff go and get rid of it so it
> doesn't have to be dealt with in the future, just as you usually have to
> go back and delete the directories/folders they used and files that are
> left over.
> There are many instances of uninstalled programs still referencing
> those "leftover" files and folders, and depending on how many of those
> exist, can eventually result in slower boot times and a slower machine
> overall. In some cases, just deleting those leftover files/folders can
> cause the registry to throw an error. But the user has no way of
> knowing what happened of IF that is what happened.
> Do not misunderstand me: There ARE ways the registry can really slow
> a machine down; but those are in the minority and don't occur very
> often.
>
> 2. Registry bloat in and of itself is NOT much of a problem for the
> registry as a rule. Being text based, it's very fast to read it, and
> execute the instructions contained in it.
>
> 3. It does not necessarily require huge bloat or gazillions of problems
> for the registry to make boot times extend to seemingly infinite
> lengths. A few "well" placed entries in the registry where the search
> allowed time of 20 seconds has to pass before it continues to the next
> item, is one culprit. Three of those and you've added a full minute to
> the boot time. 6 of them two minutes, and so on. The Event Viewer,
> something many people are unaware of, is one of only a very few places
> you will ever notice warnings to tip you off to what's happening.
> BootVis for XP will show them to you rather well, but BootViz in
> itself can create some problems so I don't really recommend it for the
> neophyte. BootVis gives you a labeled graph of the boot sequences, and
> the 20 second timeouts stand our rather well against the other
> milli/micro second operations it lists.
> This may also occur in places like program starts, program exits, and
> other similar activity. That 20 second default can be shortened, but
> this is ill advised, especially if the machine if part of a network.
>
> 4. Then you have the installer-stopping leftover registry keys, again
> hard to spot. Usually just a reinstall will fix it, but ... if it was
> poorly written software, perhaps not. Registry cleaners get those out
> of the way quickly and routinely without the user even being aware of
> them most of the time, and never yet in my experience, causing any crash
> to happen on the machines.
>
> 5. Problematic installs are often cured with a simple registry cleaning
> schedule. Cleaned on a schdule, a user will seldom run into this
> problem. But let them build and eventually it's going to occur unless
> it's a seldom modified machine.
>
> 6. Installing applications, even doubling or tripling the number of
> installations on a machine does not slow down the registry IF it has
> been maintained. This particular XP machine has been running for over
> three years now, closer to four I think, and the boot times today are
> the same as after the first initial build. Total time from pressin
> Restart to have a usable, functional window in front of me is
> approximately three minutes and a few seconds. The bullets going across
> the logo screen vary from around 7 1/2 trips to 8 and a half, depending
> on what I was last doing with it. But that's only part of the overall
> process. The last about a minute of the restarting process isn't boot
> operation in a way; the system is starting up all the background
> processes for the icons that are going to become visible in the System
> Tray during that last several seconds.
>
> Almost all of the cases above can be seen with a little effort by any
> user with a little background in windows.
>
> Keep in mind though, that you may not get the improvement you want from
> registry cleaning, not because it's dangerous or useless, but because
> the culprits are often elsewhere in the system. While the registry
> cleaning might improve things, and is quick and easy to do, it might not
> be much of an improvement, or none at all if you routinely use a
> cleaner. You need to actually look at the overall picture as best you
> can and use the tools at hand.
> Whether a registry cleaner is used for the process of elimination or
> the registry itself turns out to be the major culprit of the slowness
> problem/s, a good cleaner is valuable, can put everything back if you
> make a misstep, and never causes any major problems. Several of them
> fit that bill.
>
> Enjoy ... I'm considering showing how you can watch some of these
> operations at work and get repeatable results from them. It's a case of
> picking the right program to do the right tasks.
>
>
>
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > yeah manually editing the registry is good advice IF you tell people
> that regedit has no roll back function short of System Restore which
> is another program and depends highly on system stability in order to
> run. With regedit once you make an edit with it you've committed to
> that edit. IMO manually editing the registry is no less dangerous
> than running a third party application.
>
> I suggest that you educate people about how to manually edit the
> registry or advice then to use a third party cleaner or don't give
> any advice at all on the subject.
That's actually pretty important and certainly relevant advice!
It's surprising how confusing the issue still is with many people.
For whatever reason, it's seldom mentioned in a proper context unless
you go deeply into the context of an instruction paper. It's a good
thing to keep in mind.
Cheers,
Twayne
>
>
> "ColTom2" <noemailaddress[ at ]nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:eLDRFZcQJHA.728[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> I have always heard that most Registry cleaners are more dangerous
>> than good and for this reason I have become accustomed to manually
>> editing the Registry i.e.after uninstalling applications I now go
>> into the Registry and
>> clean out all applicable entries related to the uninstalled
>> application etc.
>>
>> Most advertised Registry applications allow you to screen and then
>> indicate all these erroneous entries in an effort to get you to buy
>> their application, which to me is a farce. The only Registry cleaner
>> that I now use is within CCleaner, which I have found to have never
>> caused any problems
>> whatsoever. I also have found CCleaner is about the best application
>> that cleans out redundant and unnecessary files that can possibly
>> slow down a computer for the average user.
>>
>> Based upon all that you have said and indicated what Registry
>> (freeware) application have you found that has worked the best for
>> you? Enjoyed your comments....
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:u3FbA7DQJHA.1164[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> In all fairness to the readers here, it's probably a good time now to
>> make some points about the use of registry cleaners that seem to have
>> become buried in the details of a flame war induced the the naysayers
>> who say to never, ever use a registry cleaner and promise the readers
>> that it WILL, not might, create problems for them.
>> ANY application will, over time, create some sort of a problem for
>> the system. In my experience, and I don't know why this is, the
>> registry cleaners I have used have been the source of a lot fewer
>> problems (as in none) than Microsoft's own software and its attendant
>> file corruption and bad habits employment. While I have experience
>> many MS application problems, many which caused freezes, etc., I
>> have never yet encountered such a problem with any registry cleaner
>> that I use. Why? I don't know. Intiuitively I would have actuall
>> expected a similar problem with at least one of my registry cleaners
>> by now, but so far, knock on wood, I have not.
>> That said, it's obviously, like any other application, necessary
>> for the user to be certain they source their programs from reliable
>> sources of known stable and reliable programs.
>>
>> Now let's look at some other points w/r to XP:
>>
>> 1. The registry is not inherently the major culprit in a machine
>> slowing down or taking a long time to boot or to shut down or
>> restart. Most of the time running a registry cleaner will not result
>> in an improvement of the slowness observed in a computer. A good
>> one will offer to throw out som unused goodies such as references to
>> programs that were uninstalled, files that were deleted, misdirected
>> access attempts by poorly written software (even MS has done that)
>> and several other things. It's fine to let that stuff go and get
>> rid of it so it doesn't have to be dealt with in the future, just as
>> you usually have to go back and delete the directories/folders they
>> used and files that are left over.
>> There are many instances of uninstalled programs still referencing
>> those "leftover" files and folders, and depending on how many of
>> those exist, can eventually result in slower boot times and a slower
>> machine overall. In some cases, just deleting those leftover
>> files/folders can cause the registry to throw an error. But the
>> user has no way of knowing what happened of IF that is what happened.
>> Do not misunderstand me: There ARE ways the registry can really
>> slow a machine down; but those are in the minority and don't occur
>> very often.
>>
>> 2. Registry bloat in and of itself is NOT much of a problem for the
>> registry as a rule. Being text based, it's very fast to read it, and
>> execute the instructions contained in it.
>>
>> 3. It does not necessarily require huge bloat or gazillions of
>> problems for the registry to make boot times extend to seemingly
>> infinite lengths. A few "well" placed entries in the registry where
>> the search allowed time of 20 seconds has to pass before it
>> continues to the next item, is one culprit. Three of those and
>> you've added a full minute to the boot time. 6 of them two minutes,
>> and so on. The Event Viewer, something many people are unaware of,
>> is one of only a very few places you will ever notice warnings to
>> tip you off to what's happening. BootVis for XP will show them to
>> you rather well, but BootViz in itself can create some problems so I
>> don't really recommend it for
>> the neophyte. BootVis gives you a labeled graph of the boot
>> sequences, and the 20 second timeouts stand our rather well against
>> the other milli/micro second operations it lists.
>> This may also occur in places like program starts, program exits,
>> and other similar activity. That 20 second default can be
>> shortened, but this is ill advised, especially if the machine if
>> part of a network. 4. Then you have the installer-stopping leftover
>> registry keys, again
>> hard to spot. Usually just a reinstall will fix it, but ... if it
>> was poorly written software, perhaps not. Registry cleaners get
>> those out of the way quickly and routinely without the user even
>> being aware of them most of the time, and never yet in my
>> experience, causing any crash to happen on the machines.
>>
>> 5. Problematic installs are often cured with a simple registry
>> cleaning schedule. Cleaned on a schdule, a user will seldom run
>> into this problem. But let them build and eventually it's going to
>> occur unless it's a seldom modified machine.
>>
>> 6. Installing applications, even doubling or tripling the number of
>> installations on a machine does not slow down the registry IF it has
>> been maintained. This particular XP machine has been running for
>> over three years now, closer to four I think, and the boot times
>> today are the same as after the first initial build. Total time
>> from pressin Restart to have a usable, functional window in front of
>> me is approximately three minutes and a few seconds. The bullets
>> going across the logo screen vary from around 7 1/2 trips to 8 and a
>> half, depending on what I was last doing with it. But that's only
>> part of the overall process. The last about a minute of the
>> restarting process isn't boot operation in a way; the system is
>> starting up all the background processes for the icons that are
>> going to become visible in the System Tray during that last several
>> seconds. Almost all of the cases above can be seen with a little
>> effort by any
>> user with a little background in windows.
>>
>> Keep in mind though, that you may not get the improvement you want
>> from registry cleaning, not because it's dangerous or useless, but
>> because the culprits are often elsewhere in the system. While the
>> registry cleaning might improve things, and is quick and easy to do,
>> it might not be much of an improvement, or none at all if you
>> routinely use a cleaner. You need to actually look at the overall
>> picture as best you can and use the tools at hand.
>> Whether a registry cleaner is used for the process of elimination
>> or the registry itself turns out to be the major culprit of the
>> slowness problem/s, a good cleaner is valuable, can put everything
>> back if you make a misstep, and never causes any major problems.
>> Several of them fit that bill.
>>
>> Enjoy ... I'm considering showing how you can watch some of these
>> operations at work and get repeatable results from them. It's a
>> case of picking the right program to do the right tasks.
|
|
|