K
Ken Blake, MVP
And I'm sure you knew that, and it was just a minor mental lapse. The
older I get, the more often I do it too.
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
And I'm sure you knew that, and it was just a minor mental lapse. The
older I get, the more often I do it too.
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
V
VanguardLH
Ken Blake said:
Well, only in the sense of being picky, yes, there are some negatives
about not cleaning out the registry of unused or orphaned entries.
The registry is a set of files. As the registry grows in size so do its
..dat and hive files. You waste disk space on entries that have no
purpose. A fresh install of Windows XP might have a registry file set
that consumes 24 MB; however, after years of using the OS and apps along
with a myriad of installs and uninstalls (including those not initiated
by the user), the registry could grow to over 100MB in size. Sorry, but
my PC days started back when a 10 MB HDD was considered huge, so a
difference in registry size of 80+ MB seems, to me, a large change.
Windows reads from the memory copy of the registry. On startup, the
registry files are read from the hard disk. The larger the registry
file set the longer the time to load it all into memory. Obviously a
larger file set will take longer to load and since much of Windows' load
requires information from the registry then its load time is also
impacted. While:
wmic registry get currentsize, maximumsize
reports my in-memory binary registry size is only 7MB, it still has to
be read from the 4 hive files and ntuser.dat file off the hard disk
which, for me, are now at a total of 97.4 MB -- and I have nowhere as
many programs installed as I've seen for many other users. Once the
hive and user files are read from the disk files and in memory then it
doesn't matter that there are orphaned entries in the registry. They
won't be accessed (well, hopefully they won't be accessed) so they waste
a little space in memory but generate no delays in the lookup of the
other registry entries. So you get a wee bit of memory space wasted for
remnant registry entries that won't affect lookup of other entries, more
disk space consumed for the much larger hive and user files, and longer
to load those files into memory where is the registry that gets
accessed. Cleaning up a registry that results in a 1-2 MB reduction in
file set size isn't going to affect Windows startup time but a reduction
of 60+ MB will. You could either wait to clean up the registry after
several years of use to speed up the registry load time or you could do
the cleanup incrementally to eliminate the slow down in the first place.
This is similar to whether you defrag your hard disk every few years or
do it incrementally so there is little change over all those years.
Shell extensions are found in the registry and the more of them there
are the more time to build the context menu for an object type (e.g.,
drive type, folder type, file type). In fact, the presence of a shell
extension that is no longer properly defined can result in not being to
display the context menu. If a handler (program) has been uninstalled
but still listed then the user gets presented with a handler that no
longer exists and gets an error when selected. The context menu is
unnecessarily longer than occupying more screen space with some defunct
entries that are lingering timebombs to generate an error upon selection
because the handler no longer exists.
While filetypes are found by direct lookup in the registry (i.e., you go
directly to the registry key defining the association), there are
usually multiple entries under each defining action and a history list
of handlers. The user double clicks on a filetype, it still has a
defined association in the registry, the program is no longer installed,
so the user gets an error message.
Then there are program uninstalls that leave behind entries in the Start
menu. Perhaps the host is shared amongst multiple users. One
uninstalls a program but the others don't know that, so when they click
on a start menu shortcut they get an unexpected error. Cleaners can
ferret out and delete those orphaned shortcuts. While you and I would
remember on our sole-use PC about the program uninstall and know to
delete any remnant start menu entries, I doubt we constitute the typical
expertise of Windows users.
Yes, a good installer should also on its uninstall action clean out
those remnant handler entries and start menu shortcuts but if that were
always true then registry cleaners might not exist. Installers can only
record the changes made during installation, not entries created later
when the installed software gets *used* (added by the program or by
Windows).
There can be remnant registry entries that can effect an unwanted
artifact in behavior and [good] registry cleaners can eliminate those.
I've seen where there is no KB, forum, or Usenet article to address an
unwanted behavior but a registry cleanup fixed the problem. The danger
is that users too often do too much cleanup and that's because they
don't know what the registry entries mean or their possible
interdependence or chaining. Registry cleaners should be looked upon as
an automatic method to ease the discovery of worthless or invalid
entries in the reigstry that they could do themselves manually. The
cleaner just finds those entries quickly but the user is still
responsible for having the expertise to understand them.
Will cleaning the registry significantly improve load time for Windows?
Well, how much time is saved when you incrementally defrag your hard
disk, like every month? Yeah, not much because the change isn't much
versus waiting years for the problem to grow to then cause a significant
impact. Also, I have seen where cleaning the registry fixes a problem
or eliminates unwanted behavior. Yet the registry is crucial to
operation of the OS and apps so twiddling with it is hazardous. Tis
something you do not want to do without decent backups.
For typical users routinely running a registry cleaner, the gains are
insignificant. For non-typical (educated) users, the gains are also
minimal on routine cleanings but then so are the number of changes to
troubleshoot should one of those changes cause a problem.
It's a bit like knowing how to put together a fuse and blasting [fuse]
cap: if you know that you don't push the fuse end onto the mercury
fulminate but leave it a tad above it and how to crimp the fuse then
you're okay but if you grind the fuse end onto the mercury fulminate
then you're going to lose some fingers. As with the registry, if you
know what you're doing (or think you do and have backups) then it's
okay. If you don't then stay away.
V
VanguardLH
Ken Blake said:
There are so many terms used for the same thing: registration,
validation, authentication, verification, certification, confirmation,
and I'm sure more terms have been used. It's like using multiple
programming languages but having to pause to remember (or lookup) if you
use a select, case, switch, inspect, or something else in the one you
happen to be using now for a multiple conditional. It's taken me about
10 years to change from saying directory to folder but I still mix them.
Seems the more you know the more your speech turns into babble.
R
Rebel1
That's my situation. One CD, one license.
Yes, now I see the key on the bottom of the laptop. So its validation
should no be a problem.
I'll do this is a few days.
No to both questions.
That's what I'll do.
Again, many thanks.
R1
K
Ken Blake, MVP
Yes, of course that's not what I meant. You quoted just part of the
sentence. What I meant was expressed in the full sentence: " Leave the
registry alone and don't use any registry cleaner."
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
R
Rebel1
Ken,
Thanks for the informative links. (The second one didn't work; got an
error message saying "General Error Could not get style data')
R1
T
Twayne
In
You've been addressed by one of the most closed minds on the 'net,
unfortunately. IMO it's a narcisstic ego-maniacal person with a mind so
locked it's ridiculous; He's run that line of "snake oil" for many years and
I suspect knows very little about reality any longer. Believe me, he's in
the minority and will lkely flame me heavily for this, but whenever I spot
him or one of his followers I can't avoind challenging him to demnstrate ANY
unbiased report other than ones he's posted to "prove his point": just ask
him and you'll note he only cites things he wrote or had a hand in.
As long as any registry cleaner you use also allows you to put back
everything you may have removed, and does it reliably, you're in good shape.
I use one routinely to keep the registry clean and devoid of years worth of
garbage buildup. I've used ccleaner and now use a Norton tool for same.
I've often run into problems on my system that ended up being caused by
leftover registry clutter.
The only "trick" iis to get one from a reliable source. Beware unknowns
because they may be malware spreaders themselves.
Don't duck from the flames! <grn>
HTH,
Twayne`
Rebel1 said:
You've been addressed by one of the most closed minds on the 'net,
unfortunately. IMO it's a narcisstic ego-maniacal person with a mind so
locked it's ridiculous; He's run that line of "snake oil" for many years and
I suspect knows very little about reality any longer. Believe me, he's in
the minority and will lkely flame me heavily for this, but whenever I spot
him or one of his followers I can't avoind challenging him to demnstrate ANY
unbiased report other than ones he's posted to "prove his point": just ask
him and you'll note he only cites things he wrote or had a hand in.
As long as any registry cleaner you use also allows you to put back
everything you may have removed, and does it reliably, you're in good shape.
I use one routinely to keep the registry clean and devoid of years worth of
garbage buildup. I've used ccleaner and now use a Norton tool for same.
I've often run into problems on my system that ended up being caused by
leftover registry clutter.
The only "trick" iis to get one from a reliable source. Beware unknowns
because they may be malware spreaders themselves.
Don't duck from the flames! <grn>
HTH,
Twayne`
G
glee
Twayne said:
Give exact examples of what specific problems you encountered from
so-called Registry "clutter" and what Registry entries were found by
your registry cleaner that you claim fixed the issue. Most Registry
cleaners report numerous "problems" that are not problems at all, and in
fact many of the "fixes" made by them cause issues, often not discovered
by the user right away, making it difficult to determine which of their
backups will reverse the damage they caused. There are numerous
registry scripts available to fix specific problems caused by the use of
Registry cleaners.
As for the links posted by Ken, if you're claiming greater understanding
of the Registry, and the worth of cleaners, than Mark Russinovich,
you're credibility takes a nose dive.
I've worked with a number of Registry cleaners for over 15 years .... a
few did no damage, but none found anything that was actually a cause of
an issue or that *could* cause an issue. Almost all found "issues" that
were not, and by removing said entries from the Registry caused them to
be re-written each time, which actually clutters the Registry more
because unless a compaction is done, adding those entries back over and
over increases the size of the database instead of trimming it. They
are basically useless.
G
glee
Rebel1 said:
The second link is to the AumHa forums, which is down due to a database
error, and may be down indefinitely. The first and third links are good
and authoritative, particularly the link to Mark Russinovich's blog.
Mark Russinovich and Bryce Cogswell probably know more about the
workings of the registry than anyone. They were the founders of
Winternals Sysinternals, and authors of the definitive tools for
Registry and file monitoring: Filemon and Regmon, eventually replaced by
Process Monitor... Process Explorer... Autoruns... Contig...
PageDefrag... NTFSDOS... RootKitRevealer... ERD Commander. They
eventually knew more about the intricacies and workings of the Registry
than the devs at Microsoft, and Microsoft eventually hired mark and
bought his company as a result. Mark's blog discussion alone is
argument enough for the lack of usefulness of so-called cleaners.
T
Twayne
....
What makes you think Mark is the only guru in the world? Just because he's
good he doesn't take your closed-minded, uneducated approach to things.
You're another case of seeing what you want to see in someone's writing,
including your own.
The "clutter" I've found is none of your business, but a couple of example
would be the time for instance it was causing a program to attempt to start
that no longer had the primary program that called it installed. BOTH had
been removed, but beware when you started the application right above it!
Another was to get rid of all Flash residue - Flash doesn't really
uniinstall when you tell it to. Adobe still tries to run it.
Same for JRE installs.
Before the Remove programs came out for a LOT of programs the only way to
completely "uniinstall" them was with a registry "cleaner".
Should a registry change ever occur due to a cleaner, though it's never
happened in over a decade now, I can always put the stuff back by importinig
it back from the quarantiine files. Although that need never arose because I
use reputable sources for my software, free and pay-for both.
You know nothing of which you speak. Sounds like you just downloaded willy
nilly registre cleaners and that wasn't wise for anyone to do, as is true
with any other application, too.
a few did no damage,
But still you call them "snakeoil".
but none found
In many clients' computers I routinely run a regstry cleaner and have seen
the size of the registry come down by more than half the time it used to
spend getting loaded. I've run them on hundreds of computers and never had a
single problem, ever. Often One Button Checkup finds most of the problems,
missing active-x controls and what not. If there's too many "errors" then
I'll run the full gambiit of tests. The most errors are almost always in the
registry including thousands of links that go nowhere and can be picked
up/triggered when they're least expected.
Almost all found "issues" that
Here I honestly don't know what you're talking about; it's plain nonsense as
far as I can see. That scenario should never happen.
Based on your treatment of the registry, I'll bet your Event Viewer is just
full of errors, isn't it?
I'm from the school that says "no errors" will keep your machine running
well at all times. Ignoraing errors, of any type, anywhere, is silly if you
want to keep a machine running smoothly and being the excellent tool you
want it to be.
I won't be reading you any longer, regardless of the nym you use, so our
discussion is over. I'm not even curious what your response to this will be;
but I know what you'll say anyway. I find your time on the 'net to be a
colossal waste of time for the most part.
HTH,
Twayne`
What makes you think Mark is the only guru in the world? Just because he's
good he doesn't take your closed-minded, uneducated approach to things.
You're another case of seeing what you want to see in someone's writing,
including your own.
The "clutter" I've found is none of your business, but a couple of example
would be the time for instance it was causing a program to attempt to start
that no longer had the primary program that called it installed. BOTH had
been removed, but beware when you started the application right above it!
Another was to get rid of all Flash residue - Flash doesn't really
uniinstall when you tell it to. Adobe still tries to run it.
Same for JRE installs.
Before the Remove programs came out for a LOT of programs the only way to
completely "uniinstall" them was with a registry "cleaner".
Should a registry change ever occur due to a cleaner, though it's never
happened in over a decade now, I can always put the stuff back by importinig
it back from the quarantiine files. Although that need never arose because I
use reputable sources for my software, free and pay-for both.
You know nothing of which you speak. Sounds like you just downloaded willy
nilly registre cleaners and that wasn't wise for anyone to do, as is true
with any other application, too.
a few did no damage,
But still you call them "snakeoil".
but none found
In many clients' computers I routinely run a regstry cleaner and have seen
the size of the registry come down by more than half the time it used to
spend getting loaded. I've run them on hundreds of computers and never had a
single problem, ever. Often One Button Checkup finds most of the problems,
missing active-x controls and what not. If there's too many "errors" then
I'll run the full gambiit of tests. The most errors are almost always in the
registry including thousands of links that go nowhere and can be picked
up/triggered when they're least expected.
Almost all found "issues" that
Here I honestly don't know what you're talking about; it's plain nonsense as
far as I can see. That scenario should never happen.
Based on your treatment of the registry, I'll bet your Event Viewer is just
full of errors, isn't it?
I'm from the school that says "no errors" will keep your machine running
well at all times. Ignoraing errors, of any type, anywhere, is silly if you
want to keep a machine running smoothly and being the excellent tool you
want it to be.
I won't be reading you any longer, regardless of the nym you use, so our
discussion is over. I'm not even curious what your response to this will be;
but I know what you'll say anyway. I find your time on the 'net to be a
colossal waste of time for the most part.
HTH,
Twayne`
G
glee
Twayne said:
Typical troll non-reply. You don't know what you are talking about.
Have a nice time.
D
dadiOH
Twayne said:
You just went from opinionated to ignorant and/or dumb. <<Hint: sequential
access files.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net
K
Ken Blake, MVP
He's been on my killfile for a long while now. I don't have to read
his nonsense except when I see it in a quoted message.
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP
P
Paul
J. P. Gilliver (John) said:Bill in Co said:J. P. Gilliver (John) said:
I feel a little less negative about it.It's difficult enough to
write a reliable program to begin with, much less make it perfect. That
said, I always liked Pascal more than C, as I find C a bit too
cryptic.
What prog. language one is using, and whether the result is reliable,
are no excuses for creating registry keys with names like
"{ecabafab-7f19-11d2-978e-0000f8757e2a}", when other ones with names
like "UnlockerShellExtension" exist. (Those two taken from the same
level.) [OK, I don't know exactly what UnlockerShellExtension is about,
but I can at least guess and then verify; the other one is almost
impossible to tell - and there are a huge number of ones of that nature.]
[]Which, of course, is not scientific; it's purely psychological.
But yes, some things do feel nice ... from a psychological viewpoint.
And are _arguably_ thus still worth doing. If something irritates me
every time I see it, I tend to amend it [if I can! Other people mangling
the English language, I can't!], in life, as the time - even a moment -
wasted by being irritated is cumulative (and also often distracts my
train of thought which is also undesirable). Obviously, untidy aspects
of the registry aren't something I see unless I actually look, though.Indeed. If those who put things in the registry used more meaningful
names (see above example), mind, there'd be _more_ chance of it being
clear what doing things to them would do, though.
What I've noticed, is the "{ecabafab-7f19-11d2-978e-0000f8757e2a}"
thing is used to support indirection.
something_we_know ---> {ecabafab-7f19-11d2-978e-0000f8757e2a}
{ecabafab-7f19-11d2-978e-0000f8757e2a} ---> something_we_need
Whereas, in a previous time, we would have seen
something_we_know ---> something_we_need
If the "{ecabafab-7f19-11d2-978e-0000f8757e2a}" is changed on
the fly, then any things referencing it, can change at the same
time. And that can mean, more than one thing can be updated at
a time by using indirection.
Just making up an example...
pdf (open with) ---> {ecabafab-7f19-11d2-978e-0000f8757e2a}
pdx (open with) ---> {ecabafab-7f19-11d2-978e-0000f8757e2a}
{ecabafab-7f19-11d2-978e-0000f8757e2a} ---> Acrobat Reader
Now, later, perhaps I change to Foxit Reader. I could update
the last entry...
{ecabafab-7f19-11d2-978e-0000f8757e2a} ---> Foxit Reader
and instantly, all the PDF related things get updated at the same time.
Of course they wouldn't do it that way. It was just to demonstrate
the potential to do such things.
That's just one of the uses of GUIDs.
There's nothing special about GUIDs. They're just a string
which is large enough, that if you make up a value at random,
the odds are very good it won't "collide" with an existing string.
Paul
G
glee
J. P. Gilliver (John) said:
Some of the Registry "fixes' on Ramesh's site are directly related to
repairing damage done by Registry cleaners, such as breaking Windows
Help and Support, Search, etc.
http://windowsxp.mvps.org/
The Windows Update forums over the years have documented numerous issues
with Windows, and with activation issues, that are the result of entries
"cleaned" from the Registry. You've spent a long time in the
newsgroups, I would think you have seen these reported for years....
although if you never strayed out of the "general.discussion" groups you
may not have.
I didn't bring up the topic and make the obnoxious remarks, Twayne did.
He cited nothing, and I asked for some specifics to back up his claim.
The ball was in his court and he punted with insults. I'm not wasting
my time on it.
P
Paul
J. P. Gilliver (John) said:J. P. Gilliver (John) said:In message <[email protected]>, Bill in
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message <[email protected]>, Bill
in Co
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
[snip 42 lines]
registry - and even if you are, you still need to be very careful.
I guess we're in agreement there. Though the way the registry is
used -
with long strings of meaningless characters as key (?) names, rather
than something human-meaningful - is irritating, as it smacks of lazy
programming, deliberate obscuration, or both.
[]
I feel a little less negative about it.
enough to
write a reliable program to begin with, much less make it perfect.
That
said, I always liked Pascal more than C, as I find C a bit too
cryptic.
What prog. language one is using, and whether the result is
reliable, are no excuses for creating registry keys with names like
"{ecabafab-7f19-11d2-978e-0000f8757e2a}", when other ones with names
like "UnlockerShellExtension" exist. (Those two taken from the same
level.) [OK, I don't know exactly what UnlockerShellExtension is
about, but I can at least guess and then verify; the other one is
almost impossible to tell - and there are a huge number of ones of
that nature.]
[]
I think the main thing is a _feeling_ that things are better when the
registry is tidier.
Which, of course, is not scientific; it's purely psychological.
But yes, some things do feel nice ... from a psychological viewpoint.
And are _arguably_ thus still worth doing. If something irritates me
every time I see it, I tend to amend it [if I can! Other people
mangling the English language, I can't!], in life, as the time -
even a moment - wasted by being irritated is cumulative (and also
often distracts my train of thought which is also undesirable).
Obviously, untidy aspects of the registry aren't something I see
unless I actually look, though.
And yes, I know that making is so is dangerous in
the hands of the unknowing.
Actually, even in the alleged "knowing", too, in some cases.
Because the
truth is, no one really knows all the potential ramifications of making
(some) changes in the registry, and often until it's too late to
reverse
(keeping track of such, and all the backups, if/until some particular
program is invoked that becomes broken as a consequence - is really
a fool's
errand).
Indeed. If those who put things in the registry used more meaningful
names (see above example), mind, there'd be _more_ chance of it being
clear what doing things to them would do, though.
What I've noticed, is the "{ecabafab-7f19-11d2-978e-0000f8757e2a}"
thing is used to support indirection.
something_we_know ---> {ecabafab-7f19-11d2-978e-0000f8757e2a}
{ecabafab-7f19-11d2-978e-0000f8757e2a} ---> something_we_need
Whereas, in a previous time, we would have seen
something_we_know ---> something_we_need
If the "{ecabafab-7f19-11d2-978e-0000f8757e2a}" is changed on
the fly, then any things referencing it, can change at the same
time. And that can mean, more than one thing can be updated at
a time by using indirection.
Just making up an example...
pdf (open with) ---> {ecabafab-7f19-11d2-978e-0000f8757e2a}
pdx (open with) ---> {ecabafab-7f19-11d2-978e-0000f8757e2a}
{ecabafab-7f19-11d2-978e-0000f8757e2a} ---> Acrobat Reader
Now, later, perhaps I change to Foxit Reader. I could update
the last entry...
{ecabafab-7f19-11d2-978e-0000f8757e2a} ---> Foxit Reader
and instantly, all the PDF related things get updated at the same time.
Of course they wouldn't do it that way. It was just to demonstrate
the potential to do such things.
That's just one of the uses of GUIDs.
There's nothing special about GUIDs. They're just a string
which is large enough, that if you make up a value at random,
the odds are very good it won't "collide" with an existing string.
Paul
I still don't see why the intervening "thing" has to have a name made up
at random rather than something meaningful (or at least guessable) by a
human; you could still have several things point to/through it. But it's
not gonna happen now )-:.
You can look for the "something_we_need" part, and work backwards.
Paul
T
Twayne
In
That's right.
The bootable CD is nearly a gven - t's pretty hard to make changes to files
that are in use. In fact it's the only way to restore an entire boot drive
to a computer. ALL the better ones have this ability. And, most will tell
you to restore the boot drive you have to reboot on that CD. And of course,
you need the archive needed for the restore or you'll lose whatever was
installed afterwards. I backup my boot drive whenever anything is installed
or over xxx Meg of data has been added.
System Restore should also be tried first, in case that's all that's
needed. And it should all be programmatic, which all the good ones are.
Is "it" missing something? No, it's not. But you are far too short on disk
space to have an on-disk backup. You must keep them on CD/DVD or use an
external terabyte drive to store them on. External terabyte drves are
available for less than $100 these days; I have an ACOM that cost me $69.
Periodically I make DVD backups from the external drive and then delete
every recovery point I no longer need, which is all but the most current -
it gets the space used back for me.
HTH,
Twayne`
J. P. Gilliver (John) said:
That's right.
The bootable CD is nearly a gven - t's pretty hard to make changes to files
that are in use. In fact it's the only way to restore an entire boot drive
to a computer. ALL the better ones have this ability. And, most will tell
you to restore the boot drive you have to reboot on that CD. And of course,
you need the archive needed for the restore or you'll lose whatever was
installed afterwards. I backup my boot drive whenever anything is installed
or over xxx Meg of data has been added.
System Restore should also be tried first, in case that's all that's
needed. And it should all be programmatic, which all the good ones are.
Is "it" missing something? No, it's not. But you are far too short on disk
space to have an on-disk backup. You must keep them on CD/DVD or use an
external terabyte drive to store them on. External terabyte drves are
available for less than $100 these days; I have an ACOM that cost me $69.
Periodically I make DVD backups from the external drive and then delete
every recovery point I no longer need, which is all but the most current -
it gets the space used back for me.
HTH,
Twayne`
P
Paul
glee said:
Once you get past the advert here, the comparison test
tells you a lot about the area.
http://www.informationweek.com/langa-letter-testing-10-windows-registry/171203805?pgno=2
JV16 PowerTools 1.3.0.195 307 (122)
JV16 PowerTools 2005: 800 (53,691,56)
EasyCleaner: 99,0,0
Registry Mechanic: 39(58),19
Registry Repair: 691,124,200
Registry First Aid: 59,123,109
RegistryMedic: 100,80,68
The Registry Drill: 134,110,109
RegistryFix: 105,66,55
CleanMyPC: 130,114,112
"EasyCleaner is the best free tool currently available"
Isn't it amazing, that only the *free* tool deserves the title of "utility",
while the commercial ones can't manage to find the same things, can't
converge to "zero problems found" ? I'd say Snake Oil sums it
up pretty well. You're fixing something, with apparently
no definition of "broken".
Can I write a random number generator for $29.95 and charge
you for it ? Yes, I think I can manage that. You have 493 "problems",
and when you check again, you'll have 317 problems, and later
today you'll have 19 problems. All via the skillful usage
of my random number generator. Did I touch your registry ?
Of course not
Why would I do that, when you're a suckerfor this stuff ?
Paul
T
Twayne
....
Database compaction? If a database doesn't have a compaction feature it's
useless. Fortunately not many are databases though.
Most are simply VDD enabled, compressed files so the space they occupy is
minimized. On mine for instance the choices of compression range from none
to legacy to tight and super-tight multip-pass compression. The legacy
setting would let you take to to any computer and unzip it to get the files
back. I use Norton exclusively but durinig NOrton's "fat code" era I also
used about three others from the "free" offers.
HTH,
Twayne`
Database compaction? If a database doesn't have a compaction feature it's
useless. Fortunately not many are databases though.
Most are simply VDD enabled, compressed files so the space they occupy is
minimized. On mine for instance the choices of compression range from none
to legacy to tight and super-tight multip-pass compression. The legacy
setting would let you take to to any computer and unzip it to get the files
back. I use Norton exclusively but durinig NOrton's "fat code" era I also
used about three others from the "free" offers.
HTH,
Twayne`
G
glee
J. P. Gilliver (John) said:
Well the one I believe you stated you use (PC Tools Registry Mechanic)
claims to have a Compaction feature.... if you use the software, you
should be able to say if it does or not. It's not automatic, it's a
specific tool you have to choose separately as far as I can see. The
fact that a user of the tool like yourself isn't aware of its features
is indicative of either poor skills by the user (which I doubt in your
case) or a poorly written or documented program. Whether it actually
compacts I don't know. I see no reason for anyone to buy a useless
"cleaner" to get a compaction feature, when it can be done with the free
utility NTRegOpt, available separately or bundled with the free ERUNT:
http://www.larshederer.homepage.t-online.de/erunt/