Cleaning and maintaining the registry

[stuart]

I'v just "cleand" the registry using "Advanced System Optimizer's"
registry clear, then I ran "Registry Mechanic" and it found more
"errors", ok so it's not done any harm, and it looks from the few
checks I made that the errors reported were in fact correct, a lot on
the report were from recent changes I'd made - like shifting my "My
documents/my pictures" to another location (other partition), It makes
you wonder about the reliabilty of any registry cleaner - when another
one find otehr errors that the first did not! I mean ~ !! how many of
these should I run to finally say I'v a Clean Registry!

but two questions, one of which I hope a Microsoft Tech' can take note
of...
1 -- IS there ANY registry tool out there that can reliably find ALL
errors instead of it seems- having to run mutiple registry programs to
find them all?

2 -- "Windows" really need to have some means of keeping track of ALL
file changes.. particularly installs / uninstalls / deletions / moves -
and actively either update the registry whenever a file is <any of the
above action>,
or at least hold these changes in a file which it will later apply the
reg' changes at a specified time - on power down , or duering system
"quiet moments" -
as I say- a lot of the "errors" found were either the result of files
I'd deleted or moved to another location -you'd really expect the
system to keep track of these and make the required reg' changes, or
presumable it DOES make the changes for the new location.. but not for
the old location or deletion!!

I won't bother re-trying "RegistryFix".. I mean to say. !!! good grief
-a registry cleanup tool... and when you uninstall it.. it leaves
behind it's installation folder on the hard drive! you'd kind of expect
a program of this sort to do a real nice cleanup of ITSELF!

 

[Guest]

:

[...]

You don't need registry cleaners with XP. At best they are harmless but not
helpful; at worst, when they screw up (or you do), they will cause your OS to
buy the farm. The only time you should ever mess with your registry is
manually with regedit and even then only if you know exactly what you are
doing, and why.

Incidentally, why do you even think you need a registry cleaner, anyway?
What do you expect to gain by spending the time and money and assuming the
(substantial) risk of using such programs? For example, you mentioned that
you moved your My Pictures folder to another folder. There is a manual
registry entry you can make to reflect the change if you are having any
problems, but usually XP will find the new location automatically.

Ken

 

[Bruce Chambers]

I'v just "cleand" the registry using "Advanced System Optimizer's"
registry clear, then I ran "Registry Mechanic" and it found more
"errors", ok so it's not done any harm,

Consider yourself lucky and don't experiment any further.

but two questions, one of which I hope a Microsoft Tech' can take note
of...
1 -- IS there ANY registry tool out there that can reliably find ALL
errors instead of it seems- having to run mutiple registry programs to
find them all?

Not that I've ever heard of.

The registry contains all of the operating system's "knowledge" of
the computer's hardware devices, installed software, the location of the
device drivers, and the computer's configuration. A misstep in the
registry can have severe consequences. One should not even consider
turning loose a poorly understood automated "cleaner," unless he is
fully confident that he knows *exactly* what is going to happen as a
result of each and every change. Having seen the results of
inexperienced people using automated registry "cleaners," I can only
advise all but the most experienced computer technicians (and/or
hobbyists) to avoid them all. Experience has shown me that such tools
simply are not safe in the hands of the inexperienced user.

The only thing needed to safely clean your registry is knowledge
and Regedit.exe. If you lack the knowledge and experience to maintain
your registry by yourself, then you also lack the knowledge and
experience to safely configure and use any automated registry cleaner,
no matter how safe they claim to be.



I always use Regedit.exe. I trust my own experience and judgment
far more than I would any automated registry cleaner. I strongly
encourage others to acquire the knowledge, as well.

2 -- "Windows" really need to have some means of keeping track of ALL
file changes.. particularly installs / uninstalls / deletions / moves -
and actively either update the registry whenever a file is <any of the
above action>,
or at least hold these changes in a file which it will later apply the
reg' changes at a specified time - on power down , or duering system
"quiet moments" -

Why? No one has ever demonstrated, to my satisfaction, that the use of
an automated registry cleaner, particularly by an untrained,
inexperienced computer user, does any real good. There's certainly been
no empirical evidence offered to demonstrate that the use of such
products to "clean" WinXP's registry improves a computer's performance
or stability.

What specific problem are you experiencing that you *know* beyond
all reasonable doubt will be fixed by using an automated registry
cleaner? If you do have a problem that is rooted in the registry, it
would be far better to simply edit (after backing up, of course) only
the specific key(s) and/or value(s) that are causing the problem. Why
use a shotgun when a scalpel will do the job? Additionally, the
manually changing of one or two registry entries is far less likely to
have the dire consequences of allowing an automated product to make
multiple changes simultaneously.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Alias]

Have you tried System Suite's Registry Fixer? It has a feature where it just
flags and sorts registry problems. You have to elect which ones to change or
delete and you can back up the changes and use the Undo function if
necessary. System Suite used to be made by Ontrack but was bought by VCom.
www.v-com.com

Alias

 

[Guest]

Have you tried System Suite's Registry Fixer? It has a feature where it just
flags and sorts registry problems. You have to elect which ones to change or
delete and you can back up the changes and use the Undo function if
necessary. System Suite used to be made by Ontrack but was bought by VCom.
www.v-com.com

What exactly is a registry "problem," anyway? The vast majority of
so-called "problems" are totally harmless and have no adverse effect
whatsoever on system performance or stability. Nor does removing them with a
registry cleaner. Moreover,no one who pushes these programs has ever come
forward with testable proof that they have any transparent positive effect
whatsoever. The only time you really notice these programs is when they make
a mistake that causes your OS to buy the farm.

Bruce is right. The best registry tool available is a combination of
regedit.exe and the gray matter between your ears.

Ken

 

[Ron Martell]

:

[...]

You don't need registry cleaners with XP. At best they are harmless but not
helpful; at worst, when they screw up (or you do), they will cause your OS to
buy the farm. The only time you should ever mess with your registry is
manually with regedit and even then only if you know exactly what you are
doing, and why.

I am going to differ with you on this. There are times when a
registry cleaner is useful, if only to save time.

Yesterday I spent over an hour working to "de-Norton" a system where
the user had botched an install of Norton Systemworks 2005. The
software would not uninstall or reinstall, and persisted in loading at
Startup, including GoBack.

What I ended up doing was to boot the computer into Safe Mode and
delete all of the Symantec related files. Then I used a Registry
Cleaner (RegSeeker) to clean the registry so that all of the Symantec
related references were gone.

It was then possible to actually reinstall Norton and get it
functioning, sans GoBack.

While it would have been possible to clean the registry manually using
Regedit to get rid of all of the Symantec related crud and corruption,
doing so would have taken considerably longer and even at my bargain
rate of $40 per hour I think I have a duty to my customers to be as
efficient as possible when working on their systems.


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

In memory of a dear friend Alex Nichol MVP
http://aumha.org/alex.htm

 

[Guest]

I am going to differ with you on this. There are times when a
registry cleaner is useful, if only to save time.

Yesterday I spent over an hour working to "de-Norton" a system where
the user had botched an install of Norton Systemworks 2005. The
software would not uninstall or reinstall, and persisted in loading at
Startup, including GoBack.

Yuck. That happened to me a few months ago when -- against my better
judgment -- I decided to experiment with GoBack on XP Professional. Big
mistake.

What I ended up doing was to boot the computer into Safe Mode and
delete all of the Symantec related files. Then I used a Registry
Cleaner (RegSeeker) to clean the registry so that all of the Symantec
related references were gone.

That's what I ended up doing, too, except that I used regedit only and
manually searched the registry for all references to Symantec or Norton. It
is amazing how much crud Symantec likes to install in the registry, isn't it?

It was then possible to actually reinstall Norton and get it
functioning, sans GoBack.

I didn't go so far as to reinstall any Syamtec product. I was too angry.
Good software should install and uninstall seamlessly.

While it would have been possible to clean the registry manually using
Regedit to get rid of all of the Symantec related crud and corruption,
doing so would have taken considerably longer and even at my bargain
rate of $40 per hour I think I have a duty to my customers to be as
efficient as possible when working on their systems.

That's a good point. Manual searches with regedit can be painfully slow,
and a halfway decent registry cleaner like Registry First Aid can help you
locate and remove the rogue entries a bit quicker. But I am not talking
about the infrequent situation in which a user is trying to remove registry
keys that the uninstall program should have removed, but didn't. I'm talking
about routine computer maintenance and operation. There simply is no need to
run a registry cleaner unless you are trying to solve a specific problem that
is actually causing you to take a performance or stability hit, like your
Symantec example. Besides, I have hosed my system more than once with these
things. I have not always been where I am at right now.

Ken

 

[NoStop]

What exactly is a registry "problem," anyway? The vast majority of
so-called "problems" are totally harmless and have no adverse effect
whatsoever on system performance or stability. Nor does removing them
with a
registry cleaner. Moreover,no one who pushes these programs has ever come
forward with testable proof that they have any transparent positive effect
whatsoever. The only time you really notice these programs is when they
make a mistake that causes your OS to buy the farm.

The registry grows over the life of system and systems get slower as a
result, because on Windows systems, virtually all programs need to access
the registry. Few if any uninstall programs, cleanup everything that was
installed. When an application lacks an uninstall program or either the
install or uninstall program has a bug, there is a increased chance some or
all the registry entries will get left behind.

The worst problem with the registry is that is a single structure, to which
administrators normally have full access. Most software installs need to be
run as an administrator. Thus any bug in a software install program can
result in corruption in almost any part of the registry. Unlike file and
directory related programs, where administrators generally have a pretty
good idea what will and will not be affected, there is no way to know what
registry keys any install program will access deliberately or
unintentionally change.

By definition, one of the specific functions of an install program, is to
update the registry. Programmers develop install programs like any others,
make mistakes, and get poor specifications. There are important differences
though. The registry is probably the most system specific component on any
Windows system, as every system variation is reflected in it, somewhere,
thus making it one of the hardest parts to properly test. All changes are
normally made with the full authority of the system.

Any misunderstanding the programmer has regarding the use of system calls
related to registry updates, could result in unpredictable consequences.
Whatever the programmer believes his program needs to update will get
updated except when the programmer makes a mistake. Because installs execute
with administrator level access, then whatever the install program is built
to do, whether it is intentional or accidental, will be done. When you
install software, you are normally asked what directory to put it in,
usually what program group to put it in and sometimes whether or not to
create a desktop icon. You're never asked about registry updates. When you
install software you implicitly trust the install programmer as well as the
company that employs him or her and hopefully tests the installs well. When
you install Windows software, someone else is making critical system
choices for you, without your knowledge or consent.

A corrupt registry can bring down the whole operating system and make it
unrecoverable. It's simply astounding that MickeySoft decided to use a
registry like this as opposed to the way it was done before with text based
INI files for each application that was installed. It certainly doesn't
offer any speed, makes debugging problems significantly more difficult,
especially with the proprietary nature of the Windows registry. I have
often wondered just what MickeySoft's real agenda for the use of the
registry was?

Bruce is right. The best registry tool available is a combination of
regedit.exe and the gray matter between your ears.

Like any single individual could possibly figure out all the cryptic
registry entries that all the different individual application programmers
decide to desposit in the registry. Who are you kidding?

Ken

--

ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°øø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
Tired of the insecurity of your Wintendo box? Update to GNU/Linux
STOP the dummying down of America - Move to a REAL o/s.

 

[Edward W. Thompson]

Yuck. That happened to me a few months ago when -- against my better
judgment -- I decided to experiment with GoBack on XP Professional. Big
mistake.


That's what I ended up doing, too, except that I used regedit only and
manually searched the registry for all references to Symantec or Norton.
It
is amazing how much crud Symantec likes to install in the registry, isn't
it?


I didn't go so far as to reinstall any Syamtec product. I was too angry.
Good software should install and uninstall seamlessly.


That's a good point. Manual searches with regedit can be painfully slow,
and a halfway decent registry cleaner like Registry First Aid can help you
locate and remove the rogue entries a bit quicker. But I am not talking
about the infrequent situation in which a user is trying to remove
registry
keys that the uninstall program should have removed, but didn't. I'm
talking
about routine computer maintenance and operation. There simply is no need
to
run a registry cleaner unless you are trying to solve a specific problem
that
is actually causing you to take a performance or stability hit, like your
Symantec example. Besides, I have hosed my system more than once with
these
things. I have not always been where I am at right now.

Ken

Seems there is a degree of 'flip flopping' here. If I may quote you
'Moreover,no one who pushes these programs has ever come
forward with testable proof that they have any transparent positive effect
whatsoever.' It seems when an MVP reports he finds a Registry Cleaner useful
suddenly they are OK but only if used infrequently.

While there maybe no 'need' to run a Registry Cleaner provided the system is
operating normally, they do have their uses and I don't see what the
frequency of use has to do with anything. If they are as dangerous, as many
who contribute to this thread would have us believe, they shouldn't be used
at all. I regularly use a Registry Cleaner, and have done for the past 10
years and perhaps longer. I have never had a problem caused by running
these programs, although I am careful which ones I use and always ensure the
Registry is recoverable beforehand, ERUNT and not System Restore.

As a regular reader of these NGs I do not notice any posts reporting a
machine that has been incapacitated after running a Registry Cleaner,
further if such an event does occur the situation is recoverable via System
Restore and by the backup provided by all reputable Registry Cleaning
programs. I fail to see why this is different in essence to editing the
Registry using Regedit, making a mistake and recovering using System
Restore. If my experience of the 'flakiness' of System Restore is typical,
and I believe it is, using a proprietary Registry Cleaner with an automatic
backup incorporated appears to be a safer course.

 

[Kelly]

Hi Ed,

As a regular reader of these NGs I do not notice any posts reporting a
machine that has been incapacitated after running a Registry Cleaner,

Really, are you selectively reading posts here? That said, why wait for it?
I have been at this for a great while and know what can happen, what does
happen and am tired of saying, sorry about that.

Again, if one does not know how to clean the registry hands on, never trust
third party to do it for you. That is my story and I am sticking to it.
)
--

All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP)

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com

 

[Guest]

Seems there is a degree of 'flip flopping' here. If I may quote you
'Moreover,no one who pushes these programs has ever come
forward with testable proof that they have any transparent positive effect
whatsoever.' It seems when an MVP reports he finds a Registry Cleaner useful
suddenly they are OK but only if used infrequently.

He used it to solve a specific problem with locating and deleting Symantec
registry entries. He could have accomplished the same result using regedit,
although it would have taken him slightly longer. Besides, he IS a MVP, so
presumably he has the knowledge and good sense to review the entries that the
registry cleaner selects and decide himself whether to delete it instead of
letting the program do it for him.

While there maybe no 'need' to run a Registry Cleaner provided the system is
operating normally, they do have their uses and I don't see what the
frequency of use has to do with anything. If they are as dangerous, as many
who contribute to this thread would have us believe, they shouldn't be used
at all. I regularly use a Registry Cleaner, and have done for the past 10
years and perhaps longer. I have never had a problem caused by running
these programs, although I am careful which ones I use and always ensure the
Registry is recoverable beforehand, ERUNT and not System Restore.

More than one of them has caused my OS to buy the farm. But the truth of the
matter is that for knowledgeable users, your XP system will run just fine
with them or without them. There isn't a shred of objective, measurable,
testable proof that regular use of these registry cleaners improves system
performance or stability. However, every time you run a registry cleaner,
you are playing russian roulette with your registry. Now, if you like to
spend all the time, effort, on money on backing up your registry, running
these programs, and hopefully not making a mistake so that your computer will
run no better afterwards than it did before, that's your choice. But if you
really think that they are helping your OS, that's only the placebo effect
messing with your head.

[...]

Ken

 

[Kelly]

Besides, he IS a MVP, so

presumably he has the knowledge and good sense to review the entries that
the
registry cleaner selects and decide himself whether to delete it instead of
letting the program do it for him.

Who is?


--

All the Best,
Kelly (MS-MVP)

Troubleshooting Windows XP
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com

Seems there is a degree of 'flip flopping' here. If I may quote you
'Moreover,no one who pushes these programs has ever come
forward with testable proof that they have any transparent positive
effect
whatsoever.' It seems when an MVP reports he finds a Registry Cleaner
useful
suddenly they are OK but only if used infrequently.

He used it to solve a specific problem with locating and deleting Symantec
registry entries. He could have accomplished the same result using
regedit,
although it would have taken him slightly longer. Besides, he IS a MVP,
so
presumably he has the knowledge and good sense to review the entries that
the
registry cleaner selects and decide himself whether to delete it instead
of
letting the program do it for him.

While there maybe no 'need' to run a Registry Cleaner provided the system
is
operating normally, they do have their uses and I don't see what the
frequency of use has to do with anything. If they are as dangerous, as
many
who contribute to this thread would have us believe, they shouldn't be
used
at all. I regularly use a Registry Cleaner, and have done for the past
10
years and perhaps longer. I have never had a problem caused by running
these programs, although I am careful which ones I use and always ensure
the
Registry is recoverable beforehand, ERUNT and not System Restore.

More than one of them has caused my OS to buy the farm. But the truth of
the
matter is that for knowledgeable users, your XP system will run just fine
with them or without them. There isn't a shred of objective, measurable,
testable proof that regular use of these registry cleaners improves system
performance or stability. However, every time you run a registry cleaner,
you are playing russian roulette with your registry. Now, if you like to
spend all the time, effort, on money on backing up your registry, running
these programs, and hopefully not making a mistake so that your computer
will
run no better afterwards than it did before, that's your choice. But if
you
really think that they are helping your OS, that's only the placebo effect
messing with your head.

[...]

Ken

 

[Alias]

What exactly is a registry "problem," anyway? The vast majority of
so-called "problems" are totally harmless and have no adverse effect
whatsoever on system performance or stability. Nor does removing them
with a
registry cleaner. Moreover,no one who pushes these programs has ever come
forward with testable proof that they have any transparent positive effect
whatsoever. The only time you really notice these programs is when they
make
a mistake that causes your OS to buy the farm.

Bruce is right. The best registry tool available is a combination of
regedit.exe and the gray matter between your ears.

Ken

It's saved my ass many times. You don't know what you're talking about and I
can safely say you've never tried System Suite and are just talking out of
your ass.

Alias

 

[Guest]

Who is?

Ron Martell. He was telling us earlier in the thread that he used a
registry cleaner to help remove a Symantec program.

Ken

 

[Guest]

It's saved my ass many times. You don't know what you're talking about and I
can safely say you've never tried System Suite and are just talking out of
your ass.

Yes I have, as well as a few others. What do you mean, a registry cleaner
saved your ass many times?

Ken

 

[Kerry Brown]

The registry grows over the life of system and systems get slower as a
result, because on Windows systems, virtually all programs need to access
the registry. Few if any uninstall programs, cleanup everything that was
installed. When an application lacks an uninstall program or either the
install or uninstall program has a bug, there is a increased chance some
or
all the registry entries will get left behind.

The worst problem with the registry is that is a single structure, to
which
administrators normally have full access. Most software installs need to
be
run as an administrator. Thus any bug in a software install program can
result in corruption in almost any part of the registry. Unlike file and
directory related programs, where administrators generally have a pretty
good idea what will and will not be affected, there is no way to know what
registry keys any install program will access deliberately or
unintentionally change.

By definition, one of the specific functions of an install program, is to
update the registry. Programmers develop install programs like any others,
make mistakes, and get poor specifications. There are important
differences
though. The registry is probably the most system specific component on any
Windows system, as every system variation is reflected in it, somewhere,
thus making it one of the hardest parts to properly test. All changes are
normally made with the full authority of the system.

Any misunderstanding the programmer has regarding the use of system calls
related to registry updates, could result in unpredictable consequences.
Whatever the programmer believes his program needs to update will get
updated except when the programmer makes a mistake. Because installs
execute
with administrator level access, then whatever the install program is
built
to do, whether it is intentional or accidental, will be done. When you
install software, you are normally asked what directory to put it in,
usually what program group to put it in and sometimes whether or not to
create a desktop icon. You're never asked about registry updates. When you
install software you implicitly trust the install programmer as well as
the
company that employs him or her and hopefully tests the installs well.
When
you install Windows software, someone else is making critical system
choices for you, without your knowledge or consent.

A corrupt registry can bring down the whole operating system and make it
unrecoverable. It's simply astounding that MickeySoft decided to use a
registry like this as opposed to the way it was done before with text
based
INI files for each application that was installed. It certainly doesn't
offer any speed, makes debugging problems significantly more difficult,
especially with the proprietary nature of the Windows registry. I have
often wondered just what MickeySoft's real agenda for the use of the
registry was?

Like any single individual could possibly figure out all the cryptic
registry entries that all the different individual application programmers
decide to desposit in the registry. Who are you kidding?


--

ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°øø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
Tired of the insecurity of your Wintendo box? Update to GNU/Linux
STOP the dummying down of America - Move to a REAL o/s.

You are lumping all versions of Windows together. This assumption is not
correct. Windows 2000 and XP store the registry in several files (hives). It
is rebuilt each time a user logs in. Many of the settings are user specific.
That's how group policy is able to work.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/sysinfo/base/registry_hives.asp

Your other assumption about programming an install routine is theoretically
correct but in the real world not that much of a worry, unless of course you
are installing Symantec products Most programmers don't like reinventing
the wheel and use well known libraries or scripted installers.

In the days of Windows 3.x and earlier many people complained about all the
..ini files and how hard they were to manage. A common problem was a
corrupted or bloated system.ini bringing down the system. I prefer the
registry to that solution but that's personal preference. I spend most of my
day working on pc's. It's much easier to track down something in the
registry than hunt the hard drive for several .ini files and trying to
figure out which one has the setting you are looking for. Perhaps if
Microsoft would have forced a common directory and structure for .ini files
that would have been a better solution.

I used to use registry cleaners all the time with Win 9x. There was no
option other than to use a cleaner, set to prompt you before doing any
change, and hope and a prayer. The cure often caused other problems. Since
Win2k and XP have become more prevalent I have not found the need to use a
registry cleaner. All the cases of corruption I've found have either been
fixed by booting to the last known good configuration, or system restore, or
were caused by a hardware problem. I do use regedit daily removing malware
for customers. A cleaner program would be useless for that.

It's not possible for a generic cleaner program to know what is needed and
what isn't. Your last paragraph admits this but you say this is why cleaners
are needed. That doesn't make sense to me. Sooner or later it will screw up
and cause more problems that it will ever solve because it deleted some
cryptic entry that it didn't understand.

Kerry

 

[NoStop]

You are lumping all versions of Windows together. This assumption is not

I'm aware of that and I wasn't lumping all versions together.

correct. Windows 2000 and XP store the registry in several files (hives).
It is rebuilt each time a user logs in. Many of the settings are user
specific. That's how group policy is able to work.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/sysinfo/base/registry_hives.asp

Your other assumption about programming an install routine is
theoretically correct but in the real world not that much of a worry,
unless of course you are installing Symantec products Most programmers
don't like reinventing the wheel and use well known libraries or scripted
installers.

Yes, "most" is the key to whether or not an installation will go correctly
or not. But I was also talking about storing configurations generally
into the registry from an application. Not just installing it. The
programmer can essentially store anything he wants wherever he wants. The
only benefit I can see of the use of a cryptic registry that doesn't allow
for helpful comments, like a INI file can provide, is that it's just
another way to keep everything proprietary and hidden from the user.
Fulfills the mission of protecting property rights for the big boys I
guess.

In the days of Windows 3.x and earlier many people complained about all
the .ini files and how hard they were to manage. A common problem was a
corrupted or bloated system.ini bringing down the system. I prefer the
registry to that solution but that's personal preference. I spend most of
my day working on pc's. It's much easier to track down something in the
registry than hunt the hard drive for several .ini files and trying to
figure out which one has the setting you are looking for. Perhaps if

Something like the /etc directory on a *NIX system, where all configuration
files are stored in plain text would alleviate your concerns, no?

Microsoft would have forced a common directory and structure for .ini
files that would have been a better solution.

Or forced applications to only be able to write to the registry in some sort
of organized fashion. We're totally at the whim of the programmers as to
how cryptic their entries in the registry are and I know there is all sorts
of stuff in there that no individual could possibly weed out. I've written
commercial Windows apps and know what I can do in terms of registry
entries.

It's not possible for a generic cleaner program to know what is needed and
what isn't. Your last paragraph admits this but you say this is why
cleaners are needed. That doesn't make sense to me. Sooner or later it

Please read again. I never suggested cleaners are needed. I can't imagine
anyone being able to write a cleaner that could possibly parse through the
registry and figure out what should be removed considering the haphazard
ability of programmers to write to the registry.

will screw up and cause more problems that it will ever solve because it
deleted some cryptic entry that it didn't understand.

And you and I could just as easily delete a cryptic entry or if uncertain,
be prone to leave it alone and never really know what impact it has on the
whole system. That's the fundamental problem with the registry. If
configuration files are plain text and commented and placed where they can
all be found, problematic applications can be easily disconnected. Try
disconnecting within the registry where data can be inserted all over the
place and sometimes in a very cryptic fashion. The Norton Suite, as you
point out, is a case in point. It can become a nightmare to administer.
Others like Real Player can leave so much junk within a system that finding
it all to remove it is a major undertaking and there are other examples
where this also applies.

Kerry

Cheers. Good discussion.

--

ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°øø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
Tired of the insecurity of your Wintendo box? Update to GNU/Linux
STOP the dummying down of America - Move to a REAL o/s.

 

[Kerry Brown]

I'm aware of that and I wasn't lumping all versions together.

Yes, "most" is the key to whether or not an installation will go correctly
or not. But I was also talking about storing configurations generally
into the registry from an application. Not just installing it. The
programmer can essentially store anything he wants wherever he wants. The
only benefit I can see of the use of a cryptic registry that doesn't allow
for helpful comments, like a INI file can provide, is that it's just
another way to keep everything proprietary and hidden from the user.
Fulfills the mission of protecting property rights for the big boys I
guess.


Something like the /etc directory on a *NIX system, where all
configuration
files are stored in plain text would alleviate your concerns, no?

I like the /etc idea but the files themselves need to be better documented.
.. I don't know linux well enough but when I have played with it I have found
that it can be very confusing trying to figure out which file out of
hundreds I need to edit. When I do figure it out then sometimes the
switches/commands are not documented that well. It is a great idea, on the
whole better than windows, but with so many programmers thinking their way
is the best it needs some standards, or least better documentation. I'm not
saying Windows programmers do this better. I just wish all programmers and
programs used a standard method or documented why and how they are
different.

Or forced applications to only be able to write to the registry in some
sort
of organized fashion. We're totally at the whim of the programmers as to
how cryptic their entries in the registry are and I know there is all
sorts
of stuff in there that no individual could possibly weed out. I've written
commercial Windows apps and know what I can do in terms of registry
entries.


Please read again. I never suggested cleaners are needed. I can't imagine
anyone being able to write a cleaner that could possibly parse through the
registry and figure out what should be removed considering the haphazard
ability of programmers to write to the registry.


And you and I could just as easily delete a cryptic entry or if uncertain,
be prone to leave it alone and never really know what impact it has on the
whole system. That's the fundamental problem with the registry. If
configuration files are plain text and commented and placed where they can
all be found, problematic applications can be easily disconnected. Try
disconnecting within the registry where data can be inserted all over the
place and sometimes in a very cryptic fashion. The Norton Suite, as you
point out, is a case in point. It can become a nightmare to administer.
Others like Real Player can leave so much junk within a system that
finding
it all to remove it is a major undertaking and there are other examples
where this also applies.

Forgot about Real Player. I removed it over a year ago from my personal pc
and I still find the odd entry when I'm looking for something else.

Cheers. Good discussion.

--

ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°øø¤º°`°ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°ø
Windows is *NOT* a virus. Viruses are small and efficient.
Tired of the insecurity of your Wintendo box? Update to GNU/Linux
STOP the dummying down of America - Move to a REAL o/s.

I guess as long as we have programmers someone will always think they have a
better idea and do things their own way. It is human nature and without it
we would have no innovation. At least it allows some of us who have a small
inkling of how it works to make a living

Kerry

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Have you tried System Suite's Registry Fixer? It has a feature where it just
flags and sorts registry problems. You have to elect which ones to change or
delete and you can back up the changes and use the Undo function if
necessary. System Suite used to be made by Ontrack but was bought by VCom.
www.v-com.com

No, I haven't tried it. I really don't see the need for anything other
than Regedit.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH

 

[Bruce Chambers]

The registry grows over the life of system

True.


and systems get slower

Please provide some sort of documentation to support this claim. It's
contrary to years of first-hand experience.

because on Windows systems, virtually all programs need to access
the registry. Few if any uninstall programs, cleanup everything that was
installed. When an application lacks an uninstall program or either the
install or uninstall program has a bug, there is a increased chance some or
all the registry entries will get left behind.

Also true, but so what? What specific, documented problems do these
"orphaned" entries cause?

The worst problem with the registry is that is a single structure,

No, it's not. It's comprised of several files that are loaded into
memory at Windows Startup. The specific files used depends upon the
user logged in.

.... to which
administrators normally have full access. Most software installs need to be
run as an administrator. Thus any bug in a software install program can
result in corruption in almost any part of the registry.

Assuming the developers performed absolutely no testing before
releasing the product, I'll stipulate that such damage is theoretically
possible, but it's highly likely to be very widespread.

Unlike file and
directory related programs, where administrators generally have a pretty
good idea what will and will not be affected, there is no way to know what
registry keys any install program will access deliberately or
unintentionally change.

Unless, of course, the administrator is at least marginally competent
and takes the standard precaution of backing up the registry and
creating a restore point before installing an unknown and untested
application ....

By definition, one of the specific functions of an install program, is to
update the registry. Programmers develop install programs like any others,
make mistakes, and get poor specifications. There are important differences
though. The registry is probably the most system specific component on any
Windows system, as every system variation is reflected in it, somewhere,
thus making it one of the hardest parts to properly test. All changes are
normally made with the full authority of the system.

Any misunderstanding the programmer has regarding the use of system calls
related to registry updates, could result in unpredictable consequences.
Whatever the programmer believes his program needs to update will get
updated except when the programmer makes a mistake. Because installs execute
with administrator level access, then whatever the install program is built
to do, whether it is intentional or accidental, will be done. When you
install software, you are normally asked what directory to put it in,
usually what program group to put it in and sometimes whether or not to
create a desktop icon. You're never asked about registry updates. When you
install software you implicitly trust the install programmer as well as the
company that employs him or her and hopefully tests the installs well. When
you install Windows software, someone else is making critical system
choices for you, without your knowledge or consent.

But none of this justifies turning an automated registry "cleaner"
loose on the machine. Why deliberately take the very good chance of
compounding any theoretical problem, when one needs only restore the
backed up registry or edit one or two keys? And, don't forget, when you
install and use an automated registry cleaner, someone else is making
critical system choices for you, without any direct knowledge whatsoever
of your system.

A corrupt registry can bring down the whole operating system and make it
unrecoverable.

Occasionally, but not very frequently. Corrupt registries are usually
reparable.




--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH