I wonder what the feeling are about using CCleaner.

[Bruce Chambers]

From the FAQ:

Does it clean all the user accounts on the computer?

At the moment CCleaner supports cleaning the current user's account
only. This may change in a future release

http://www.ccleaner.com/help/faq/using/does-it-clean-all-the-user-accounts-on-the-computer


* * * * *

(I seem to recall *earlier* versions of Ccleaner allowed to clear temp
files from multiple accounts.)

Yes, that's what I recall, as well. Oh well, thanks for the updated
info. I'll try to remember to amend any future posts on the subject.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:


http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

 

[Bruce Chambers]

The registry cleaner will report othe things besides orphaned entries
of course.

True, but those reported orphaned items couldn't possibly exist, so
that's what I used as an example.

Over a hundred you say? I just ran it on my system and it found 4
entires all of which are easily explained and I haven't installed XP
on my system in 4+ years. I install and uninstall third party
software frequently. I have CCleaner installed but do not use it
except to understand it. It find's my registry quite boring
apparently after my usual methods.

Curiouser and curioser. CCleaner finds hundreds of orphaned entries
where none exist, but virtually none where there should be an abundance?
I'd say that pretty well demonstrates it's unreliablility in this matter.

I hear CCleaner does a swell job on temp files though.

Yes, it does. That's the only use I have for it. (One could do it
manually, of course, but CCleaner does save time.)


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:


http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

 

[Bruce Chambers]

I trust Microsoft to know what is and isn't safe to delete from the registry.

Why? How do they *KNOW* what you've installed and removed from your
computer? How do they *KNOW* to what specific uses you put the computer?


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:


http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

 

[Daave]

Yes, that's what I recall, as well. Oh well, thanks for the updated
info. I'll try to remember to amend any future posts on the subject.

YW.

 

[Toni]

Why? How do they *KNOW* what you've installed and removed from your computer?

Um, DUMB question, Bruce - simple answer is, installed programs register themselves in
certain places the registry. THAT is how they *KNOW* what you've installed.

And they know what you've removed from your computer if the registry references a
program that is no linger registered in the registry (get it?) *and* is no longer
present on the hard drive.

Understand???

Registry cleaners cause problems when bad programs are installed that use the registry
in a way it was not meant to be used.

For example, I've discovered that some trialware programs will create an orphan entry in
the registry that remains behind when uninstalled. This way, if it's reinstalled later,
the program recognizes that the program had been previously on the system and so does
not start a new trialware period. Problem is, if you later buy the program & activate
with a registration key, and then run a registry cleaner, because the program uses the
registry "impolitely", the program becomes deactivated. Adobe used to be notorious for
this bad behavior.

As an example, I once worked with a guy that wrote a Windows program that used the
registry for local storage outside of the HKLM/SOFTWARE key. These unregistered
locations were removed when using a registry cleaner, because he didn't have a
professional understanding of proper coding practices.

How do they *KNOW* to what specific uses you put the computer?

Why is this important?

Can you give me an example of "specific uses" that may affect a registry cleaner?

 

[Jim]

...

Um, DUMB question, Bruce - simple answer is, installed programs register themselves in
certain places the registry. THAT is how they *KNOW* what you've installed.

How is it reported back to Microsoft ?

 

[Jose]

...


Um, DUMB question, Bruce - simple answer is, installed programs register themselves in
certain places the registry. THAT is how they *KNOW* what you've installed.

And they know what you've removed from your computer if the registry references a
program that is no linger registered in the registry (get it?) *and* is no longer
present on the hard drive.

Understand???

Registry cleaners cause problems when bad programs are installed that usethe registry
in a way it was not meant to be used.

For example, I've discovered that some trialware programs will create an orphan entry in
the registry that remains behind when uninstalled. This way, if it's reinstalled later,
the program recognizes that the program had been previously on the systemand so does
not start a new trialware period. Problem is, if you later buy the program & activate
with a registration key, and then run a registry cleaner, because the program uses the
registry "impolitely", the program becomes deactivated. Adobe used to be notorious for
this bad behavior.

As an example, I once worked with a guy that wrote a Windows program thatused the
registry for local storage outside of the HKLM/SOFTWARE key. These unregistered
locations were removed when using a registry cleaner, because he didn't have a
professional understanding of proper coding practices.


Why is this important?

Can you give me an example of "specific uses" that may affect a registry cleaner?

These examples sound like self inflicted wounds.

 

[Toni]

On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 14:59:11 -0500, "Toni" wrote:...


How is it reported back to Microsoft ?

I don't quite understand your question... it's not "reported" back to Microsoft, it's
the the registry cleaner that "knows" and expects proper coding practices. But registry
cleaners are not idiot proof, and if an idiot writes a poorly coded program that uses
the registry in a way it was not designed for, the registry cleaner can hose the
program.

That scumware malware poisonware Viewpoint Media Player is one program that, besides
sending your personal information to those bottom-feeders at Viewpoint, doesn't
uninstall properly. When Viewpoint is uninstalled, it leaves orphan behind registry
entries that continue to monitor and interfere with your computer. In this case, a
registry cleaner is a Godsend for removing that leftoever crap.

 

[John John - MVP]

...

I don't quite understand your question... it's not "reported" back to Microsoft, it's
the the registry cleaner that "knows" and expects proper coding practices. But registry
cleaners are not idiot proof, and if an idiot writes a poorly coded program that uses
the registry in a way it was not designed for, the registry cleaner can hose the
program.

That scumware malware poisonware Viewpoint Media Player is one program that, besides
sending your personal information to those bottom-feeders at Viewpoint, doesn't
uninstall properly. When Viewpoint is uninstalled, it leaves orphan behind registry
entries that continue to monitor and interfere with your computer. In this case, a
registry cleaner is a Godsend for removing that leftoever crap.

That doesn't make any sense, registry entries do not "monitor" your
computer, executables and dlls do this. And orphans are entries without
parents... how could orphaned registry entries pointing to no existent
files be monitoring anything?

John

 

[Bill in Co.]

That doesn't make any sense, registry entries do not "monitor" your
computer, executables and dlls do this. And orphans are entries without
parents... how could orphaned registry entries pointing to no existent
files be monitoring anything?

John

Maybe Sarah Palin has the answer.

 

[Toni]

That doesn't make any sense, registry entries do not "monitor" your computer,
executables and dlls do this. And orphans are entries without parents... how could
orphaned registry entries pointing to no existent files be monitoring anything?

Sorry, my anger against Viewpoint got the best of me...

No, ORPHAN registry entires do not monitor anything, But having too many of them can
still intefere with the smooth operation of a computer. I once removed 820 orphan
registry entries from a Windows 2000 laptop and the improvement in performance was
startling. But what I cannot understand is how a computer can get 820 orphan registry
entries in the first place!

 

[Twayne]

Good: Got a bunch of stuff all in one convenient place to make comments to:

In

"John John - MVP" wrote...

And yet you fully reject the usefulness of MS attempts at registry cleaners?
Yes, they created a couple of real clunkers, but you stood by your comments
of impending disaster all the way! And as far as has ever been validated,
they never damaged anything, they just didn't do what they said they'd do.
Do you class that as a poorly written program? By Microsoft? And if so you
still "trust" them?

Uhh, by looking at the leftovers in the registry? No MS program and almost
none of non-MS programs completely clean themselves from the registry. Lot
of history can be pulled from it. And it's even all easy to locate.

Same way anything else might be.

Not very likely for a well written, reputable cleaner of which there seem to
be more and more all the time. Precisely how could a poorly written program
be hosed by a cleaner? Please give us an example or otherwise logical
process by which this could happen?

It's things like this that make me think you don't know what you're
talking about.

Realware is even worse and makes them look like children with all of its
reporting schemes and half baked removals.

 

[Unknown]

First off, of the 820 'orphans' you removed, it is entirely possible that
only one was causing you
a performance problem. Generally speaking, the 'orphans' do not cause any
problems whatsoever.
The manufacturer puts many programs on a computer for you to select from or
try out.
All of these leave something in the registry. Thus, you may have hundreds of
orphans if those
programs are not used by yourself..

 

[Twayne]

In

First off, of the 820 'orphans' you removed, it is entirely possible
that only one was causing you
a performance problem.

I'd agree with that, but also ... why have to figure out the "one" when all
of them are useless entries? It's like picking up an apple from the middle
of the LR floor but not bothering with the banana over beside the sofa.
Orphaned entries get created dozens at a time when a system is reinstalled
in particular. There are a lot of different places they come from over
time.

Generally speaking, the 'orphans' do not cause

any problems whatsoever.

Generally true; except when one is in there having to skim down past
hundreds of orphaned entries that don't have to be there in the way, plus
the possibility some are causing problems. I forget the programs now; might
have been cardfile & cardspace, but I had one orphan entry get picked up by
a different program once that turned out to be a real headache to hunt down.
The odds of same-name modules these days are growing and pretty annoying to
troubleshoot when it happens. I just figure if it can happen once ...

The manufacturer puts many programs on a computer for you to select
from or try out.
All of these leave something in the registry. Thus, you may have
hundreds of orphans if those
programs are not used by yourself..

Definitely! The ONLY valid reason to MAYBE leave something behind is IF user
data was created; it is possible to need the user data again if the program
is being reinstalled or updated. But if that happens the user MUST be given
notice, plus the user should have been given the option to keep or not the
data he created. ALL of my VB programming operates that way. I've seen a few
install programs that give that option before they uninstall the old one
automatically, but only a few. IIRC I use two that did that. It needs to
cacth on. But, it's not that hard for an author to know where his entries
were made and if new ones were created during run times, to know where those
would be and remove them if present. It's just not hard to do unless you're
lazy. No, I'm no guru and it may not be 100% "easy" but it's still possible.
If program authors wrote programs properly, there would be a lot less
need for a registry cleaner. But they don't and likely never will. In
addition, orphan entries are far from the major problems that can happen
with the registry. In XP there is no limitation on the max size of the
registry so it can grow to gargantuan proportions under the right
circumstances.

My 2 ¢ anyway.

Twayne

 

[Unknown]

Regardless-------The average PC user should NEVER run a registry cleaner.

 

[ANONYMOUS]

Regardless-------The average PC user should NEVER run a registry cleaner.

CCleaner isn't considered to be a registry cleaner per se! It is mainly
a crap cleaner (it is called CCLEANER) and it removes those stubborn
tmp files and DAT files..

I have not had any problems with this little tool .

To clean your registry, the surest way is to reformat your HD and start
from scratch.

 

[Toni]

Good: Got a bunch of stuff all in one convenient place to make comments to:

Toni typed:

And yet you fully reject the usefulness of MS attempts at registry cleaners?

NO, I think I wrote that I ACCEPT "the usefullnes of MS attempts at registry cleaners".

Yes, they created a couple of real clunkers, but you stood by your comments of
impending disaster all the way! And as far as has ever been validated, they never
damaged anything, they just didn't do what they said they'd do. Do you class that as a
poorly written program? By Microsoft? And if so you still "trust" them?

I *really* don't undnerstand what you've written. TO my knowledge, MS has only created
ONE registry cleaner, not a "couple of real clunkers". The rest of what you've written
makes no sense.

Uhh, by looking at the leftovers in the registry? No MS program and almost none of
non-MS programs completely clean themselves from the registry. Lot of history can be
pulled from it. And it's even all easy to locate.


Same way anything else might be.

Oh, could you BE more vague?

Not very likely for a well written, reputable cleaner of which there seem to be more
and more all the time. Precisely how could a poorly written program be hosed by a
cleaner? Please give us an example or otherwise logical process by which this could
happen?

I think you've come late to this discussion - I explained this about four posts ago. You
really should read this thread from the beginning.

It's things like this that make me think you don't know what you're talking about.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Realware is even worse and makes them look like children with all of its reporting
schemes and half baked removals.

YES, I COMPLETELY agree.

RealPlayer is classified as both "crapware" and Spyware.