Registry Cleaners

[Bill Ridgeway]

Ken Blake wrote (in response to another thread) -
<<Registry cleaning programs are *all* snake oil. Cleaning of the registry
isn't needed and is dangerous. Leave the registry alone and don't use any
registry cleaner. Despite what many people think, and what vendors of
registry cleaning software try to convince you of, having unused registry
entries doesn't really hurt you.

The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner erroneously
removing an entry you need is far greater than any potential benefit it may
have.>>

I would agree with the warning of the possibility of (serious) damage to the
Registry and the consequence that the computer may not boot up. I would
also agree that it may not be necessary to clean the Registry very
regularly. However, the Registry does become bloated with calls to
uninstalled software which does increase the time needed to boot up - at the
very least. However, the additional space requirement of a bloated Registry
may not be significant. I would suggest, say, an annual tidy-up.

I have used two Registry cleaners over the years (Max Registry Cleaner and
Registry Mechanic) both without any problem. Mind you, my backup system
includes a cloned hard disk drive and separate copy of all key files (as at
the previous day). I have recently proved that I can get a system with a
failed hard disk drive up and running in the time it takes to swap a hard
disk, copy key files and update Windows and NIS: About 30 minutes.

Bill Ridgeway

 

[Gerry]

Bill

You do not need a Registry Cleaner.

Use Autoruns to remove the orphaned start-up entries

To identify what loads when you boot use Autoruns (freeware from
Microsoft).
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/ProcessesAndThreads/Autoruns.mspx

With Autoruns you can uncheck an item, which disables it from
starting,or you can right click an item and then delete it. If you
uncheck you can recheck to re-enable the item. It is a much safer
approach than editing the Registry and better than using msconfig..
Another useful feature of the programme is that you can right click an
item and select Search Online to get information about the item
selected.

You will spot them by seeing an entry like this -File not found being
the relevant bit
Display Panning CPL Extension File not found: deskpan.dll

Using the Online feature you can get information as illustrated in the
next link.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=deskpan.dll&src=IE-SearchBox&Form=IE8SRC

Using a Registry Cleaner produces so much information that you cannot
see the wood for the trees.

--


Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Touch Base]

Ken Blake wrote (in response to another thread) -
<<Registry cleaning programs are *all* snake oil. Cleaning of the registry
isn't needed and is dangerous. Leave the registry alone and don't use any
registry cleaner. Despite what many people think, and what vendors of
registry cleaning software try to convince you of, having unused registry
entries doesn't really hurt you.

==================================================

"Registry cleaning programs are *all* snake oil."

Well why is it then that Windows Live OneCare promotes this on their
website:

"As part of its Clean Up scan, the Windows Live OneCare safety scanner
offers a free registry cleaner. Running this scan is a great way to rid your
PC of clutter and keep it running at its speediest." ??

For the full details
http://onecare.live.com/site/en-Us/article/registry_cleaner_why.htm

I have used CCleaner on mine and client computers for some time and I have
yet to have a call back complaining that something has gone amiss. I have
also regularly used RegCleaner by Jouni Vuoro with no bad repercussions.

 

[Gerry]

Touch Base

Does Windows Live OneCare have an assured future? It is being dropped by
Microsoft!

The problem is that using a Registry Cleaner gives negligible gains for
a certain risk that any errors it makes are invariably insoluble
problems for all but the most expert users.

--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Ken Blake wrote (in response to another thread) -
<<Registry cleaning programs are *all* snake oil. Cleaning of the registry
isn't needed and is dangerous. Leave the registry alone and don't use any
registry cleaner. Despite what many people think, and what vendors of
registry cleaning software try to convince you of, having unused registry
entries doesn't really hurt you.

The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner erroneously
removing an entry you need is far greater than any potential benefit it may
have.>>

I would agree with the warning of the possibility of (serious) damage to the
Registry and the consequence that the computer may not boot up. I would
also agree that it may not be necessary to clean the Registry very
regularly. However, the Registry does become bloated with calls to
uninstalled software which does increase the time needed to boot up - at the
very least.

What you call "bloated up" is true in the sense that it becomes
somewhat bigger. However the extra size is minimal and the
significance of that extra size is also minimal, since access to the
registry is random.

Since most people boot up not much more than once a day, how long it
takes to boot up is of very little consequence. My standard statement
is "In the overall scheme of things, even a few minutes to start up
isn't very important. Personally I power on my computer when I get up
in the morning, then go get my coffee. When I come back, it's done
booting. I don't know how long it took to boot and I don't care."

Moreover, a slightly bigger registry will make such a small difference
to the time it takes to boot that it's insignificant.

However, the additional space requirement of a bloated Registry
may not be significant.

Exactly!


I would suggest, say, an annual tidy-up.

I wouldn't. Using a registry cleaner is dangerous. Using it less often
is, of course, less dangerous, but I believe you should eliminate that
danger, not reduce it.

I have used two Registry cleaners over the years (Max Registry Cleaner and
Registry Mechanic) both without any problem.

There are *many* people who have had similar experiences. None of us
has ever claimed that every time someone uses a registry cleaner, the
result is a problem. If that were the case, everyone would know that
they couldn't be used, and all registry cleaners would quickly
disappear.

But although no registry cleaner always causes a problem, there is
*always* a risk in using one. Since there is no benefit to using it,
running any risk at all is foolhardy.

Mind you, my backup system
includes a cloned hard disk drive and separate copy of all key files (as at
the previous day). I have recently proved that I can get a system with a
failed hard disk drive up and running in the time it takes to swap a hard
disk, copy key files and update Windows and NIS: About 30 minutes.

Good! Then the risk of using a registry cleaner is less to you than it
is to most people. But not everyone is as well backed-up as you are.
Moreover, there is no point in taking any risk at all for no benefit
at all.

 

[JS]

Not a good idea.
The only good registry cleaner is one that will list what it finds by
grouping them into categories.
The gives you the option to manually make a change after investigating any
information provided
by the cleaner. If you can determine the cause for what it found and decide
on a fix then in effect
you are the registry cleaner and not some automated vacuum cleaner.

Example #1
Ran a scan to count the number of entries in my PC's registry
Total was over 260,000
So if a registry cleaner (if it worked properly) removed say 1,000 entries
that would be less than one half of one percent space savings.

Example #2
I while back I ran a registry cleaner knowing in advance what some of the
fixes the cleaner should find and the suggested changes.
This was based on the fact I had uninstalled an application (knowing it
would leave some orphaned registry entries) and then reinstalled the same
application to a different directory location.

The cleaner's default suggested fix for the application's old directory
location (the orphaned entries) was to change these entries to the new
location, which was not necessary as you would have to entries point to the
same location, so I manually deleted these entries.

Now here is where a registry cleaner could cause a real problem!
A few months ago I removed a large number but not all of the
$NtUninstallKBxxxxxx$ folders
(these are the folders and associated files left behind each time you
install the latest Windows Updates each month)
The cleaner reported the broken (orphaned) registry entries but the
suggested fix was to point the broken entries to more recent $NtUninstall
files still on the hard drive (on a random basis), thus royally screwing up
the registry pointers. By that I mean: if you go to uninstall (in rare
cases) a MS KB patch that may be giving you problems and due to the screwed
up registry entry it may instead removes the wrong patch.

If the above isn't enough to convince you then read this:
AUMHA Discussion: Should I Use a Registry Cleaner?
http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=28099

 

[Leonard Grey]

To add to Gerry's typically good advice:

Many people have this vision of the Windows registry: They see Windows
scurrying through the registry and getting stuck in all those dead-ends
left behind by uninstalled software. They think: "this is surely slowing
my computer's performance." However, the registry does not work that
way. Applications make specific calls to registry keys; they don't go
hunting for data.

Another misconception: the "bloated" registry. In theory, if you remove
an unused registry key, it will take less time to load the registry into
memory. However, since a registry key typically occupies only a few
bytes, you would have to remove millions of registry keys to notice the
difference. And even if you could remove millions of registry keys, the
time needed to load, run and then exit the registry cleaner would
outstrip the time saved, by far.

In general, the more you know about the registry, the more you
understand why we like to poke fun at registry cleaners (and the people
who use them.)

 

[Peter Foldes]

Bill

However, the Registry does become bloated with calls to
uninstalled software which does increase the time needed to boot up

That is also not true and is a misconception. You need to remove hundreds if not
thousands of dead entries to be able to notice even a very small difference.

Best advice to anyone is to DO NOT TOUCH the registry

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

Ken Blake wrote (in response to another thread) -
<<Registry cleaning programs are *all* snake oil. Cleaning of the registry
isn't needed and is dangerous. Leave the registry alone and don't use any
registry cleaner. Despite what many people think, and what vendors of
registry cleaning software try to convince you of, having unused registry
entries doesn't really hurt you.

The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner erroneously
removing an entry you need is far greater than any potential benefit it
may
have.>>

I would agree with the warning of the possibility of (serious) damage to
the
Registry and the consequence that the computer may not boot up. I would
also agree that it may not be necessary to clean the Registry very
regularly. However, the Registry does become bloated with calls to
uninstalled software which does increase the time needed to boot up - at
the
very least. However, the additional space requirement of a bloated
Registry
may not be significant. I would suggest, say, an annual tidy-up.

I have used two Registry cleaners over the years (Max Registry Cleaner and
Registry Mechanic) both without any problem. Mind you, my backup system
includes a cloned hard disk drive and separate copy of all key files (as
at
the previous day). I have recently proved that I can get a system with a
failed hard disk drive up and running in the time it takes to swap a hard
disk, copy key files and update Windows and NIS: About 30 minutes.

Bill Ridgeway

As long as Windows 9x conventions are applied to Windows NT and its
successors, the myths regarding how Win 2000, XP, Vista and Win 7 process
the registry, fonts and everything else which could be a problem in Win 9x
will continue.

Windows NT and its successors ignore orphaned entries. They may fall over if
they come across active corrupted entries, but registry cleaners do not fix
this type of problem..

 

[Twayne]

you're a wart on the ass of progress.

 

[Twayne]

Touch Base

Does Windows Live OneCare have an assured future? It is being dropped
by Microsoft!

No, it's beign replaced with something they think is better. But neither
work well anyway unfortunately.

 

[Twayne]

To add to Gerry's typically good advice:

Many people have this vision of the Windows registry: They see Windows
scurrying through the registry and getting stuck in all those
dead-ends left behind by uninstalled software. They think: "this is
surely slowing my computer's performance." However, the registry does
not work that way. Applications make specific calls to registry keys;
they don't go hunting for data.

Another misconception: the "bloated" registry. In theory, if you
remove an unused registry key, it will take less time to load the
registry into memory. However, since a registry key typically
occupies only a few bytes, you would have to remove millions of
registry keys to notice the difference. And even if you could remove
millions of registry keys, the time needed to load, run and then exit
the registry cleaner would outstrip the time saved, by far.

In general, the more you know about the registry, the more you
understand why we like to poke fun at registry cleaners (and the
people who use them.)

Because it bugs you that someone else understands the registry well
enough to write a good program for it, eh? That's nothing but ego and
based on myth, nothing concrete.

They don't mess up any more, and probably less, than even MS's own
programs.

 

[Twayne]

What you call "bloated up" is true in the sense that it becomes
somewhat bigger. However the extra size is minimal and the
significance of that extra size is also minimal, since access to the
registry is random.

Since most people boot up not much more than once a day, how long it
takes to boot up is of very little consequence. My standard statement
is "In the overall scheme of things, even a few minutes to start up
isn't very important. Personally I power on my computer when I get up
in the morning, then go get my coffee. When I come back, it's done
booting. I don't know how long it took to boot and I don't care."

Moreover, a slightly bigger registry will make such a small difference
to the time it takes to boot that it's insignificant.




I wouldn't. Using a registry cleaner is dangerous. Using it less often
is, of course, less dangerous, but I believe you should eliminate that
danger, not reduce it.




There are *many* people who have had similar experiences. None of us
has ever claimed that every time someone uses a registry cleaner, the
result is a problem. If that were the case, everyone would know that
they couldn't be used, and all registry cleaners would quickly
disappear.

But although no registry cleaner always causes a problem, there is
*always* a risk in using one. Since there is no benefit to using it,
running any risk at all is foolhardy.





Good! Then the risk of using a registry cleaner is less to you than it
is to most people. But not everyone is as well backed-up as you are.
Moreover, there is no point in taking any risk at all for no benefit
at all.

I expected better from you: That's myopic and short sighted.

 

[Twayne]

Not a good idea.
The only good registry cleaner is one that will list what it finds by
grouping them into categories.
The gives you the option to manually make a change after
investigating any information provided
by the cleaner. If you can determine the cause for what it found and
decide on a fix then in effect
you are the registry cleaner and not some automated vacuum cleaner.

And programs are the automation of that; good ones are invaluable in
some instances.

Example #1
Ran a scan to count the number of entries in my PC's registry
Total was over 260,000
So if a registry cleaner (if it worked properly) removed say 1,000
entries that would be less than one half of one percent space savings.

A single program can have tens of thousands of registry entries. Those
"lost" entries can occasionally even be picked up by new installs of
other programs and used; creating installation problems. I've only seen
it once, but that means it's possible. The numbers aren't the complete
issue; lots more to it.

Example #2
I while back I ran a registry cleaner knowing in advance what some of
the fixes the cleaner should find and the suggested changes.
This was based on the fact I had uninstalled an application (knowing
it would leave some orphaned registry entries) and then reinstalled
the same application to a different directory location.

The cleaner's default suggested fix for the application's old
directory location (the orphaned entries) was to change these entries
to the new location, which was not necessary as you would have to
entries point to the same location, so I manually deleted these
entries.

Should have let the cleaner do it; you wasted time and effort, if it was
a decent cleaner.

Now here is where a registry cleaner could cause a real problem!
A few months ago I removed a large number but not all of the
$NtUninstallKBxxxxxx$ folders
(these are the folders and associated files left behind each time you
install the latest Windows Updates each month)
The cleaner reported the broken (orphaned) registry entries but the
suggested fix was to point the broken entries to more recent
$NtUninstall files still on the hard drive (on a random basis), thus
royally screwing up the registry pointers. By that I mean: if you go
to uninstall (in rare cases) a MS KB patch that may be giving you
problems and due to the screwed up registry entry it may instead
removes the wrong patch.

You do not fully comprehend how that system is managed and this nameless
registry cleaner sounds like a purposely pulled piece of SH_T you hand
picked anyway.

If the above isn't enough to convince you then read this:
AUMHA Discussion: Should I Use a Registry Cleaner?
http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=28099

Ah yes, go to the infamous um,ha site, with the responses written by the
SAME people who started all the myths and misinformation about registry
cleaners right here in the MS groups! Yup, that's sure to be an
unbiased look and full of excellent detailed, information to support
their myths, right? !

HTH,

Twayne`

 

[Twayne]

Bill


That is also not true and is a misconception. You need to remove
hundreds if not thousands of dead entries to be able to notice even a
very small difference.
Best advice to anyone is to DO NOT TOUCH the registry

Peter F. has written a sensible, decent post. In truth, problems are
seldom fixed by changes to the registry. Speed problems are seldom due
to the registry in any large way. With a slow computer, any improvement
to the registry are nearly guaranteed to be overshadowed by other
things. It isn't very often, in fact it's nearly never, the registry is
solely at fault for a slow machine and very seldom is a place to start
troubleshooting.

Regards,

Twayne

 

[Twayne]

Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

....

As long as Windows 9x conventions are applied to Windows NT and its
successors, the myths regarding how Win 2000, XP, Vista and Win 7
process the registry, fonts and everything else which could be a
problem in Win 9x will continue.

Myths; good choice, because people applying 9x conventions to 2k & XP is
just that. You're good at rationalizing with whatever thought may occur
to you but that doesn't make it factual. IME the majority of people
here without closed minds see the situation in a clearer and more
logical sense than you can. You have mired yourself into a corner with
your own XP myths and proclamations made all over the 'net and now you
feel that you cannot admit reality because it would make you look less
than perfect. In actual fact, you know the situation as it really is
but don't dare to admit the reality, reliability and capabilities of
today's registry cleaners. You've even tried a few tiny concessions
here and there, like cc comments, but ended up conflicting with your own
words and rather than appear to have opened your mind a crack, securely
locked it down again.

Windows NT and its successors ignore orphaned entries. They may fall
over if they come across active corrupted entries, but registry
cleaners do not fix this type of problem..

So does VB and Python, and PHP and a plethora of other coded works. You
are trying to imply (which is all you ever do in your rationalized
world) that "orphaned" entries never cause any kind of impact ever in
any way, and that is patently untrue. You think that because a
key/whatever is never called (and orphans often DO get called, BTW, by
other orphans in some situations) it costs zero time. You're trying to
imply that the registry is only READ, and that it never executes an
instruction or command. IMO your understanding of the registry's
internal workings are actually abysmally deficient but good enough for
you to grab onto single events and then try to build those into
all-encompassing rationalizations to push onto what you consider your
"minions". You can occasionally see a tree in the forest but you never
address more then one tree and I doubt you ever even notice there is a
forest there or your attitudes would be different.

Now, an "active" corrupted entry, whatever you mean by that, is not
usually going to make the thing "fall". The vast majority of the time,
it's going to result in an error message.
You then imply that registry cleaners do not fix that "type of
problem", but often they do/will, because the cleaner WILL report it not
able to execute and offer the normal various possibilities for repair.
Thanks to the robustness of the registry, it seldom ever occurs, but
when it does a decent registry cleaner will point it out for the user.
I only recall that ever happening once, long ago, but I believe I have
seen it happen. In that case it wasn't a single corruption; an entire
key was corrupted and made no sense in any way. In that case I
seriously suspect it was corruption that occurred during the write TO
the registry by an installed program; otherwise it wouldn't have been so
neatly confined as it was.

The registry is a very robust thing and it's actually hard to make it
'fall' on purpose. In fact, many have seen the results of trying to
remove something the system needed when the deleted entry is simply
re-created by the system. Many parts of it you couldn't corrupt if you
wanted to. Even adding unallowed data often won't hurt anything. Enter
a 4 where the only possibilities are 0 or 1, and you'll get back a 0
next time you look at it!

Add to that the fact that all you guys pushing all these myths have
NEVER provided a single authoritative piece of information to support
your myths, and it pretty well wraps up your credibility on the subject.
Even MS has dabbled with registry cleaners for along time and still are
doing so, so obviously they don't buy the "will trash" and "imminent..."
this & that attitudes you try to push. You guys need to stick with
subjects you can verify, clarify, reproduce and otherwise use factual
data for. The lack of anything like that has gone on for so long now
that anything that any of you did decide to provide would likely be
suspect or it would have been posted long ago. Anyone can write an
article on um,ha and then come here and recommend that article as
"proof" that what they say is true; I always have to giggle when I see
that happen. It has been as serious hit on the credibility of the web
site, not to mention the nearly current unrecognized status of being an
MVP as some are.

I thank you for this opportunity to once more expose the myths being
pushed by a small ring of loud and noisy closed minds here and on a few
other groups.

HTH,

Twayne`

 

[John John - MVP]

No, it's beign replaced with something they think is better. But neither
work well anyway unfortunately.

How would you know how well or not the replacement works? Morro has not
yet been release in any form, beta or other, and only Microsoft insiders
know what it does or doesn't include. Microsoft is saying that a Beta
release is coming soon but as of June 15/09 it had not yet been released.

John

 

[JS]

"You do not fully comprehend how that system is managed and this nameless

registry cleaner sounds like a purposely pulled piece of SH_T you hand
picked anyway."

No I did not, the cleaner suggested the fix and the suggested fix
(if I let it do it automatically) was clearly wrong! Along with a number
of other suggested fixes.

 

[Unknown]

Back that up with facts not idle chatter.

I expected better from you: That's myopic and short sighted.

 

[Unknown]

Holy cow you finally make some sense.

Peter F. has written a sensible, decent post. In truth, problems are
seldom fixed by changes to the registry. Speed problems are seldom due to
the registry in any large way. With a slow computer, any improvement to
the registry are nearly guaranteed to be overshadowed by other things. It
isn't very often, in fact it's nearly never, the registry is solely at
fault for a slow machine and very seldom is a place to start
troubleshooting.

Regards,

Twayne