Ping: John John MVP re: Ccleaner

[Ken Springer]

What's your overall opinion of Ccleaner?


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 7.0.1
Thunderbird 7.0.1
LibreOffice 3.3.3

 

[John John MVP]

What's your overall opinion of Ccleaner?

Fine for removing temporary files but don't use the registry cleaning
functions.

The thing with temp files on newer operating systems is that they tend
to accumulate in all kinds of different places and I find that Ccleaner
does a quick job of getting rid of them in one fell swoop, a lot easier
that hunting them down manually.

As for the registry cleaner... well I think that registry cleaners are
all next to utterly useless and that for most parts they create more
harm than good. They're a solution for non existent problems and more
often than not they cause problems where none previously existed.

John

 

[Ken Springer]

As for the registry cleaner... well I think that registry cleaners are
all next to utterly useless and that for most parts they create more
harm than good. They're a solution for non existent problems and more
often than not they cause problems where none previously existed.

I've heard the same opinion, but I don't have the technical knowledge to
know if that's true or not. And I've heard others swear by them.

I do know that there are some viruses, search toolbars, etc., that leave
crap in the registry that AV software doesn't seem to find.

And, when I got my first XP machine, I didn't mess with them either. I
don't remember why, but for some reason I ended up with one after who
knows how long I'd owned the computer. All I know is, after I ran the
cleaner, the computer did boot and run faster. And the registry cleaner
was the only software I ran before rebooting.

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 7.0.1
Thunderbird 7.0.1
LibreOffice 3.3.3

 

[David H. Lipman]

I've heard the same opinion, but I don't have the technical knowledge to know if that's
true or not. And I've heard others swear by them.

I do know that there are some viruses, search toolbars, etc., that leave crap in the
registry that AV software doesn't seem to find.

And, when I got my first XP machine, I didn't mess with them either. I don't remember
why, but for some reason I ended up with one after who knows how long I'd owned the
computer. All I know is, after I ran the cleaner, the computer did boot and run faster.
And the registry cleaner was the only software I ran before rebooting.

People abuse the term "virus".

All viruses are malware. Not all malware are viruses.

There are malware in the form of Trojans that leave crap in the Registry. Viruses will
tend not to.

As one moves towards adware, spyware, Browser Helper Objects, etc, you get many
modifications to the Registry. Visrses attack files and rarely use the Registry or modify
them as part of their attack vector.

So when you write you "...know that there are some viruses, search toolbars, etc., that
leave crap in the registry", You are mistaken.

Now assuming some malware leaves remnants in the Registry, that is still NOT a good reason
to use the Snake Oil called Registry Cleaners. In the case of malware modifications there
are two possibilities. Modified Registry keys and adding Registry keys. In the case of
modifications to Registry keys, it is best to revert they keys to their original. In the
case of added Registry keys, if the malware infection (DLL, EXE, OCX, SYS, etc) files have
been removed then orphaned Registry entries will do no harm and still NOT a good reason to
use the Snake Oil called Registry Cleaners.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Fine for removing temporary files but don't use the registry cleaning
functions.

The thing with temp files on newer operating systems is that they tend
to accumulate in all kinds of different places and I find that Ccleaner
does a quick job of getting rid of them in one fell swoop, a lot easier
that hunting them down manually.

As for the registry cleaner... well I think that registry cleaners are
all next to utterly useless and that for most parts they create more
harm than good. They're a solution for non existent problems and more
often than not they cause problems where none previously existed.

You made three points. Ditto, ditto, and ditto.

 

[Ken Springer]

People abuse the term "virus".

All viruses are malware. Not all malware are viruses.

There are malware in the form of Trojans that leave crap in the Registry. Viruses will
tend not to.

As one moves towards adware, spyware, Browser Helper Objects, etc, you get many
modifications to the Registry. Visrses attack files and rarely use the Registry or modify
them as part of their attack vector.

So when you write you "...know that there are some viruses, search toolbars, etc., that
leave crap in the registry", You are mistaken.

Technically worded, you're right. But, for the people I know, getting
that anal is a waste of time, they aren't interested in the technical
differences.

But, there is a browser search bar called My Search. I had to remove
that from a friend's computer. Uninstalled every which way I could,
d**ned thing would not go away. Even manually removed everything I
could find. Then, I found a web article about removing it, and the
toolbar installed itself somehow via the registry. The article stated
the only way to get rid of it was to manually edit the registry. I
followed the instructions given, and finally it was gone.

I did some more digging, and found that some anti spyware programs
consider the My Search toolbar to be spyware, some do not.

Leaving me with the question, "What's a computer owner to do?"

I simply tell my friends, never ever install a search toolbar from anybody.

Now assuming some malware leaves remnants in the Registry, that is still NOT a good reason
to use the Snake Oil called Registry Cleaners. In the case of malware modifications there
are two possibilities. Modified Registry keys and adding Registry keys. In the case of
modifications to Registry keys, it is best to revert they keys to their original. In the
case of added Registry keys, if the malware infection (DLL, EXE, OCX, SYS, etc) files have
been removed then orphaned Registry entries will do no harm and still NOT a good reason to
use the Snake Oil called Registry Cleaners.

Everyone's welcome to their own opinion, and I'm not interested in
coming to a decision of snake oil or not. I can only report my experiences.

The XP story earlier is certainly true. And the effects of an
efficiently organized registry may be more noticeable on older and
slower computers. By today's standards, I don't own a single computer
with a Windows OS that you can could consider speedy. And the above
computer was just 1.2GHz. I never get to "play" with fast computers,
and it's logical, the less there is in any file the computer has to
access, the faster it will appear to run.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 7.0.1
Thunderbird 7.0.1
LibreOffice 3.3.3

 

[Ken Springer]

People abuse the term "virus".

All viruses are malware. Not all malware are viruses.

There are malware in the form of Trojans that leave crap in the Registry. Viruses will
tend not to.

As one moves towards adware, spyware, Browser Helper Objects, etc, you get many
modifications to the Registry. Visrses attack files and rarely use the Registry or modify
them as part of their attack vector.

So when you write you "...know that there are some viruses, search toolbars, etc., that
leave crap in the registry", You are mistaken.

Technically worded, you're right. But, for the people I know, getting
that anal is a waste of time, they aren't interested in the technical
differences.

But, there is a browser search bar called My Search. I had to remove
that from a friend's computer. Uninstalled every which way I could,
d**ned thing would not go away. Even manually removed everything I
could find. Then, I found a web article about removing it, and the
toolbar installed itself somehow via the registry. The article stated
the only way to get rid of it was to manually edit the registry. I
followed the instructions given, and finally it was gone.

I did some more digging, and found that some anti spyware programs
consider the My Search toolbar to be spyware, some do not.

Leaving me with the question, "What's a computer owner to do?"

I simply tell my friends, never ever install a search toolbar from anybody.

Now assuming some malware leaves remnants in the Registry, that is still NOT a good reason
to use the Snake Oil called Registry Cleaners. In the case of malware modifications there
are two possibilities. Modified Registry keys and adding Registry keys. In the case of
modifications to Registry keys, it is best to revert they keys to their original. In the
case of added Registry keys, if the malware infection (DLL, EXE, OCX, SYS, etc) files have
been removed then orphaned Registry entries will do no harm and still NOT a good reason to
use the Snake Oil called Registry Cleaners.

Everyone's welcome to their own opinion, and I'm not interested in
coming to a decision of snake oil or not. I can only report my experiences.

The XP story earlier is certainly true. And the effects of an
efficiently organized registry may be more noticeable on older and
slower computers. By today's standards, I don't own a single computer
with a Windows OS that you can could consider speedy. And the above
computer was just 1.2GHz. I never get to "play" with fast computers,
and it's logical, the less there is in any file the computer has to
access, the faster it will appear to run.


--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 7.0.1
Thunderbird 7.0.1
LibreOffice 3.3.3

 

[Ken Springer]

Sorry for the double post, I got a message box telling me the message
was *not* posted.

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 7.0.1
Thunderbird 7.0.1
LibreOffice 3.3.3

 

[- Bobb -]

IF I could butt in for a second....
As a trial Open Ccleaner manually, scan the registry for issues and just
look at "what it found".

FWIW, I DO use Ccleaner periodically and do so MANUALLY ( from right-click
on Recycle Bin - Open Ccleaner) and have never had an issue ( going back
many years)

As for the Registry app setting: Since I want to leave some things as they
came, I have UNchecked:

Umused extensions
Type Libraies
Fonts
MUI cache

I have no need to delete those - I MAY want them in the future.
When I DO "Scan for Issues" there, I DO save the current file before the
change ( After viewing, when you click 'Fix selected Issues' the app prompts
you if you'd like to). Fortunately I have never had an issue that I've had
to "go back to the way it was". Whenever I do run it, and it does find
something, I always recognize it as "something I did remove/uninstall" and
apparently it didn't remove all instances of itself, so I save the finding
first and then clean it up.( Symantec products were often an issue) I last
scanned registry about a month ago and I just did it again while typing this
: "No issues were found" last month or today,

My Cleaner Default options show Check boxes for:
Windows
Temp
Cookies
Index.dat files

Under Windows Explorer I have checked
Other MRUs

system I checked
Top 6 boxes

Under Advanced
I checked
Old Prefetch Data

On Applications tab, check those apps you want it to "clean up " or none if
you like. I chose top 4 for Firefox

When I Run it I have it ANALYZE and then I look at what it's going to "clean
up". I've never had it " about to delete" something I didn't want done

 

[Mint]

What's your overall opinion of Ccleaner?

--
Ken

Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 7.0.1
Thunderbird 7.0.1
LibreOffice 3.3.3

The good registry cleaners do provide a benefit.

All kinds of software leave entries in the registry that are not
removed when the program is un-installed.

Even Microsoft programs are guilty of that.

And the bigger the registry is, the slower your computer will run.

I have been using CCleaner and Regcleaner for many years with 0
problems.

I also recommend NtRegOpt.

Andy

 

[Peter Foldes]

What's your overall opinion of Ccleaner?

Not true at all

Yes you are correct

Even Microsoft programs are guilty of that.

That is a fairy tale and not true

You been lucky. It is playing Russian Roulette and you will get caught sooner or
later

Another Snake Oil remedy like all the rest



--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

The good registry cleaners do provide a benefit.

There are no good registry cleaners and they provide no benefits.

All kinds of software leave entries in the registry that are not
removed when the program is un-installed.

That's true of many programs. But those leftover entries do not hurt
you.

Even Microsoft programs are guilty of that.

True.


And the bigger the registry is, the slower your computer will run.

Absolutely false.

I have been using CCleaner and Regcleaner for many years with 0
problems.

If you say so, I believe you. But neither I nor anyone else who warns
against the use of registry cleaners has ever said that they always
cause problems. If they always caused problems, they would disappear
from the market almost immediately. Many people have used a registry
cleaner and never had a problem with it.

Rather, the problem with a registry cleaner is that it carries with it
the substantial *risk* of having a problem. And since there is no
benefit to using a registry cleaner, running that risk is a very bad
bargain.

 

[David H. Lipman]

The good registry cleaners do provide a benefit.

All kinds of software leave entries in the registry that are not
removed when the program is un-installed.

Even Microsoft programs are guilty of that.

And the bigger the registry is, the slower your computer will run.

I have been using CCleaner and Regcleaner for many years with 0
problems.

I also recommend NtRegOpt.

Andy

good registry cleaners <---- Oxymoron

 

[Mike S]

That is a fairy tale and not true

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it correct that the registry
has to be loaded into memory? If so, on low memory systems a large
registry might increase the odds of the OS using the swap file when
other programs require more than the available RAM capacity, I'm
guessing that's where this thinking came from.

 

[Paul]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it correct that the registry
has to be loaded into memory? If so, on low memory systems a large
registry might increase the odds of the OS using the swap file when
other programs require more than the available RAM capacity, I'm
guessing that's where this thinking came from.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/hardware/gg463468.aspx#ENC

"Kernel Enhancements for Windows XP

Registry Enhancements

The new registry implementation delivers two key benefits:

* Larger registries
* Faster queries

Larger Registries

Windows XP supports larger registries than previous versions of the kernel,
which were effectively limited to about 80 percent of the total size of paged pool.
The new implementation is limited only by available system disk space.

A tendency to use the registry more like a database developed among registry
consumers, which increased demands on registry size. The original design of the
registry kept all of the registry files in the paged-pool, which, in the 32-bit
kernel, is effectively limited at approximately 160 MB because of the layout of
the kernel virtual address space. A problem arose because, as larger registry
consumers such as Terminal Services and COM appeared, a considerable amount of
paged-pool was used for the registry alone, potentially leaving too little memory
for other kernel-mode components.

Windows XP solves this problem by moving the registry out of paged pool and using
the cache manager to do an in-house management of mapped views of the registry files.
The mapped views are mapped in 256K chunks into system cache space instead of paged pool.
"

So, yes, the registry is in RAM, but in a low memory situation, the Cache Manager will
evict cached files. And in a low memory situation, your system slows down anyway.
With portions of the registry evicted, a reference to the registry would require
reading the disk again, to get it.

It's possible they have separate policies for handling the registry, but that might
require an article that delves in more detail than that overview web page.

Paul

 

[Paul]

Thanks for the correction, Paul (shoulda mentioned you, too, in the
correction pool). I had always assumed the registry was always contained in
RAM memory (I mean all of it).

Looks like that assumption is (or rather, now can be), invalid. With 160
MB, it's no problem, but evidently that limit is no longer applicable (new,
at least as of XP), so that allows paging to the disk for the registry now
possible.

You also said:

I sure think that would present a noticeable (and unwanted) "drag" on
operations, but perhaps it's no more so than the normal and regular paging
operations.

I guess (to me) it seems worse to do this (i.e. paging the registry) vs just
paging some specific application's use of the hard disk space for its own
dedicated operations.

Now, having found that article by chance, it's a puzzle to me, why things
like Regedit are so slow. With a 3GHz Core2 and a machine that's had relatively
little software installed on it, doing a search in Regedit should "fly".
But it's "slug-slow" instead.

Paul

 

[Mike S]

Now, having found that article by chance, it's a puzzle to me, why things
like Regedit are so slow. With a 3GHz Core2 and a machine that's had
relatively
little software installed on it, doing a search in Regedit should "fly".
But it's "slug-slow" instead.
Paul

I've wondered about that too.
Mike

 

[Mayayana]

| it's a puzzle to me, why things
| like Regedit are so slow.

I wonder if that might just be a Regedit problem. When
I was using Win98, at one point I had Norton System
Works, which had its own Registry editor. The Norton
version was extremely fast. What took minutes in Regedit
could take seconds in Norton... and also seemed to find
more data. I just assumed that Regedit must be a barebones
tool that was originally thrown together for use by IT people
and was never optimized -- but I really have no idea what
the problem was. Like XP Find/Search now in comparison to
AgentRansack, it baffles me that Microsoft's own versions
of tools for its own product can be so stunningly bad
sometimes.

 

[John John MVP]

I've wondered about that too.
Mike

It's sort of like doing a search for text strings inside documents.
Consider that your Windows XP registry probably has 150,000 to 250,000
values (or more) and you will understand why these linear/sequential
searches for strings done through all the records take time.

However the registry is a hierarchical database and Windows doesn't do
lineal searches when working with the registry so performance wise a few
hundred or even a few thousand errant/orphaned entries doesn't really
make any difference, in a hierarchical database the system looks for
exact values or records and except for exhaustive searches those records
that are not exact are not even looked at or read.

Consider how quickly you can find a frying pan in your house, you don't
start in the attic or basement and search sequentially through the whole
house for the pan, you use your 'hierarchical reasoning...'
House->Kitchen->Cupboard-By-The-Stove->Bottom-Shelf and in no time flat
you have your frying pan in hand. Removing an unused shirt in your
bedroom closet will not make you find your frying pan any faster...

John

 

[John John MVP]

| it's a puzzle to me, why things
| like Regedit are so slow.

I wonder if that might just be a Regedit problem. When
I was using Win98, at one point I had Norton System
Works, which had its own Registry editor. The Norton
version was extremely fast. What took minutes in Regedit
could take seconds in Norton... and also seemed to find
more data. I just assumed that Regedit must be a barebones
tool that was originally thrown together for use by IT people
and was never optimized -- but I really have no idea what
the problem was. Like XP Find/Search now in comparison to
AgentRansack, it baffles me that Microsoft's own versions
of tools for its own product can be so stunningly bad
sometimes.

When it comes to searching Microsoft couldn't find it's way out of a
paper bag...