Brian said:
Follow David Lipman's advice.
If that's the only problem you've had, consider yourself lucky.
Heck, I've been "lucky" for many years, then.
Registry cleaning programs are *all* snake oil.
That's just plain silly and wrong.
Cleaning of the
registry isn't needed and is dangerous.
"Needed" is indeed often debatable. "Dangerous" is not. A decent
registry cleaner is no more dangerous than a disk defragmentation
program, restoring from backup or any of the many good applications that
work under the hood to keep an OS running efficiently and reliably.
Leave the registry alone and
don't use any registry cleaner.
... Despite what many people think,
and what this poster thinks,
and
what vendors of registry cleaning software try to convince you of,
Just like the vendor of ANY application, especially the MS Windows hype
of each version being perfect compared to the last,
having unused registry entries doesn't really hurt you.
No, unused registry entries probably will not "hurt" him. Until one
gets accidentally accessed by an app, intercepts an installer and
confuses it, or still looks for something not present, etc. etc..
Unused entries is but one of a plethora of possibilities, many of which
can cause problems. The you have the reliability factor: With say 1,000
entries, you get sort of a MTBF of x. With 2,000 entries, that becomes
2x. And 3x, and so on.
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.
No, not at all. It is simply an indication that maybe the Restore
feature of the cleaner should be used to put the entry back if it caused
problems. But that seldom happens and I have NEVER in all my years of
using them, had a registry cleaner cause any serious damage of ANY kind
to the computer I used it on. The last time I used a registry cleaner
was last Thursday. IFF this poster has ever used a registry cleaner at
all, it was probably back in the days of computer antiquity unless he
doesn't follow his own advice. It's the only reason I can think of as
to why this poster has never once provided any in the way of supporting
or validating his claims.
To the OP, I've seen some decent suggestions from a couple others who
asked questions but I seem to have missed your answers to them, or you
have not provided them. That, IMO would be the best thing you can do
for yourself at the moment. I seem to recall something about you have
version 10 and that's a version 9 file; that's the area of the posts I'm
referring to.
Twayne