programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetent programmers

[H. S.]

Hello,

I am curious, what are the reasons that some applications after being
uninstalled leave some entries in the registry, or leave behind a
corrupted registry?

Are the application developers incompetent? Or is it just difficult to
do this in Windows (bad OS design)?

Having gone through the recent ZoneAlarm and KB951748 fiasco, I am
strongly thinking of doing away with ZA. But looking at the methods to
clean up one's computer, e.g. one is here:
http://forums.zonealarm.org/zonelabs/board/message?board.id=inst&message.id=78945

I cannot recommend this method to an average Joe.

Are such applications' developers just plain incompetent and/or
careless? Or is Windows to blame for making it unnecessarily difficult
to program application which cleanup registry entries during uninstallation?

Could somebody shed some light on this please.

Thanks.

 

[db.·.. >]

there are a number of reasons
all of which are not in our
control.

however what you do have is
control over your computer and
maintaining the registry is
imperative to the performance
of your system.

the registry is a database file
and the imperative is that its
data needs to be reconciled to
the data on the disk.

if the registry contains worthless
data because the parent files
are no longer valid or found
on the disk, then the worthless
data needs to be removed from
the registry.

removing faulty data from the
registry not only makes it accurate
but reduces the file size as well.

the result of having a very large
registry data base because it contains
worthless data also increases
the fragmentation of the
registry file and increases the
risk of a corrupted registry
and crash.

microsoft invented windows
and invented the registry. they
also invented the first registry
cleaner.

therefore i suggest you take
advantage of their wisdom
and generosity for there latest
utility:

http://onecare.live.com/site/en-US/article/registry_cleaner_why.htm

 

[H.S.]

microsoft invented windows
and invented the registry. they
also invented the first registry
cleaner.

Makes sense!

therefore i suggest you take
advantage of their wisdom
and generosity for there latest
utility:

http://onecare.live.com/site/en-US/article/registry_cleaner_why.htm

I will look into it. But will this help, say, removal of Zone Alarm by
cleaning up the registry clutter left behind by ZA?

 

[Alan Edwards]

IMHO, the main reason is incompetence. Some programmers seem to do a
good job, others can be a bit ordinary.

I am just removing ZA from a Win98SE box and I see no reason for the
folders, files and Registry entries left behind. Cleaning is not too
difficult as I kept details of the installation but otherwise, it
would be difficult.
The site you mention does not seem to cater for older versions as
there are many more Registry entries in my removal.

....Alan

 

[HeyBub]

there are a number of reasons

all of which are not in our
control.

however what you do have is
control over your computer and
maintaining the registry is
imperative to the performance
of your system.

The registry either works or it doesn't. There is no "maintenance"
necessary. The registry won't rot if you don't oil it.

the registry is a database file
and the imperative is that its
data needs to be reconciled to
the data on the disk.

That is mostly true.

if the registry contains worthless
data because the parent files
are no longer valid or found
on the disk, then the worthless
data needs to be removed from
the registry.

That is manifestly NOT true.

removing faulty data from the
registry not only makes it accurate
but reduces the file size as well.

Accuracy, in this case, is over-rated. No one cares about the size.

the result of having a very large
registry data base because it contains
worthless data also increases
the fragmentation of the
registry file and increases the
risk of a corrupted registry
and crash.

The size of the registry is virtually unaffected by application entries.
Entries placed in the registry in response to application installations
amounts to a negligible percentage of the contents.

microsoft invented windows
and invented the registry. they
also invented the first registry
cleaner.

therefore i suggest you take
advantage of their wisdom
and generosity for there latest
utility:

http://onecare.live.com/site/en-US/article/registry_cleaner_why.htm

But first, ask yourself WHY Microsoft invented a registry cleaner? I believe
they did so because people insisted upon having one - like they insist on
taking antibiotics when they have a cold! We have no empirical evidence that
Microsoft's registry cleaner actually does anything and ample evidence that
the difference between using Microsoft's cleaner and doing nothing is zero.

For all we know, Microsoft's registry cleaner is a placebo.

 

[H.S.]

But first, ask yourself WHY Microsoft invented a registry cleaner? I believe
they did so because people insisted upon having one - like they insist on
taking antibiotics when they have a cold! We have no empirical evidence that
Microsoft's registry cleaner actually does anything and ample evidence that
the difference between using Microsoft's cleaner and doing nothing is zero.

For all we know, Microsoft's registry cleaner is a placebo.

Now that you mention this, I think you have a valid point. After all,
when an application was installed in the past, it did some
customizations, and then it was removed leaving the registry clutter
behind, how can any registry cleaner know which entries are rogue or
invalid entries when the cleaner was not present at the time of the
application's original installation?

In my belief, the only way to properly clean the registry is to keep
track of the changes being done by an application. Upon removal of that
application, the changes need to undone or relevant registry entries
removed.

I don't see how a registry cleaner can look in the past and try to
deduce what an application was trying to do after the installation is
long gone.

 

[H.S.]

IMHO, the main reason is incompetence. Some programmers seem to do a
good job, others can be a bit ordinary.

I am just removing ZA from a Win98SE box and I see no reason for the
folders, files and Registry entries left behind. Cleaning is not too
difficult as I kept details of the installation but otherwise, it
would be difficult.
The site you mention does not seem to cater for older versions as
there are many more Registry entries in my removal.

I think there is another explanation perhaps, at least in part. The
application programmers actually intentionally leave behind the registry
clutter to either limit license related stuff or to leave tracks behind
so that they know about the earlier setup when a newer version of the
application is installed.

Furthermore, it might just be because marketing drones insisted on
leaving the information on the system for future statistics gathering stuff.

In any case, if this is a designed behavior, it is just being sneaky and
underhanded. And, for fear of being flamed, this logically leads to the
conclusion that open source software is more moral in this sense; there
is nothing hidden in those like it is in registry related mess here.

I have a theory since long. Had this whole registry stuff been not
misused, more people would have had more trust in Windows. It is quite
common for Windows users to do a reinstallation every hear. And more
often than not, it is precisely because of problems from registry
clutter. Open source users have no limits to the fun they have when they
see this. Quite understandably, I would say.

 

[H.S.]

IMHO, the main reason is incompetence. Some programmers seem to do a
good job, others can be a bit ordinary.

BTW, here is an interesting thing. I posted regarding this same problem
in Zone Alarm support forum. The thread was not liked one bit by the
administrators there:
http://forums.zonealarm.org/zonelabs/board/message?board.id=inst&message.id=79206

Looks like the forum is run by Zone Alarm payed administrators while
claiming not to be a tech support forum but only a support forum.

There goes free speech!!

 

[jameshanley39]

Hello,

I am curious, what are the reasons that some applications after being
uninstalled leave some entries in the registry, or leave behind a
corrupted registry?

Are the application developers incompetent? Or is it just difficult to
do this in Windows (bad OS design)?

Having gone through the recent ZoneAlarm and KB951748 fiasco, I am
strongly thinking of doing away with ZA. But looking at the methods to
clean up one's computer, e.g. one is here:http://forums.zonealarm.org/zonelabs/board/message?board.id=inst&mess...

I cannot recommend this method to an average Joe.

Are such applications' developers just plain incompetent and/or
careless? Or is Windows to blame for making it unnecessarily difficult
to program application which cleanup registry entries during uninstallation?

Could somebody shed some light on this please.

Thanks.

--

zone alarm or anti virus software may put crap all over the registry
to make itself hard to remove. So that malicious software has trouble
getting rid of it.

But uninstallers shoulst still remove it.

If uninstallers don't do the job, it comes down to programmers
working in industry. They have a deadline and have to get the program
shipped out, and the uninstaller isn't a priority,the end users they
sell to aren't that bothered by that, they are just consumers. It's
not completely incompetent programmers, it's the system they work in,
the way the industry is, that makes them like that. They were probably
good programmers at one time, and in a sense still are, but they have
to produce what they are paid to produce, in the time they have to do
it!

I had a very bad experience with a version of Zone Alarm that would
not uninstall. I never used it since. I just use the windows firewall
and my NAT Router. And not any 3rd party popup firewall software / PFW
s(so-called Personal Firewall Software). Said software is not taken
that seriously by techies anyway.

ZA / Zone Alarm was promoted alot by Steve "Ahab!" Gibson, a very bad
manipulative liar. When pushed on the radio over one of his claims ,
it turned out he knew what he was doing, he said "I spread a
deliberate disinformation campaign". His idea is not even security by
obscurity - but security by obfuscation and lies so as to mislead any
potential hackers that try to learn from his site!

There was a site called grcsucks.com but now it's down, most articles
gone. It really exposed him big time.

 

[H.S.]

If uninstallers don't do the job, it comes down to programmers
working in industry. They have a deadline and have to get the program
shipped out, and the uninstaller isn't a priority,the end users they
sell to aren't that bothered by that, they are just consumers. It's
not completely incompetent programmers, it's the system they work in,
the way the industry is, that makes them like that. They were probably
good programmers at one time, and in a sense still are, but they have
to produce what they are paid to produce, in the time they have to do
it!

Basically, good programmers are worthless if a company employs clueless
pointy haired managers and self praising buzz word inventing marketing
execs

The best way to deal with this problem is to not use such a product. The
company will eventually realize what is lacking or just simply die.

ZA / Zone Alarm was promoted alot by Steve "Ahab!" Gibson, a very bad
manipulative liar. When pushed on the radio over one of his claims ,
it turned out he knew what he was doing, he said "I spread a
deliberate disinformation campaign". His idea is not even security by
obscurity - but security by obfuscation and lies so as to mislead any
potential hackers that try to learn from his site!

There was a site called grcsucks.com but now it's down, most articles
gone. It really exposed him big time.

Too bad! Would have loved to know some references here.

Anyhow, Zone Alarm is now a thing of the past. I used to be very
supporting of ZA, not anymore. Moreover, the thread control nazis at
their support forum have completely put me off their product.

ZA's remove option is so broken that while facing the prospect of
uninstalling it I get the image of Norton Antivirus uninstallation in my
head.

Regards.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Hello,

I am curious, what are the reasons that some applications after being
uninstalled leave some entries in the registry, or leave behind a
corrupted registry?

Are the application developers incompetent?

Sometimes incompetence comes into play, but it's more often simple
laziness, I think, since orphaned entries in the registry are almost
entirely harmless, in most cases, and have no affect whatsoever on
performance.

Or is it just difficult to
do this in Windows (bad OS design)?

Absurd conclusion. If an installer can make a registry entry, a
properly coded uninstaller can remove it just as easily.





--

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]

there are a number of reasons
all of which are not in our
control.

however what you do have is
control over your computer and
maintaining the registry is
imperative to the performance
of your system.

Utter nonsense. The registry requires no maintenance.

the registry is a database file
and the imperative is that its
data needs to be reconciled to
the data on the disk.

Database, yes. "Reconciled?" Are the two not speaking? This makes no
sense.

if the registry contains worthless
data because the parent files
are no longer valid or found
on the disk, then the worthless
data needs to be removed from
the registry.

A deliberate lie. Orphaned registry entries do no harm and have no
affect upon performance, whatsover.

removing faulty data from the
registry not only makes it accurate
Nonsense.

but reduces the file size as well.

Microscopically, I suppose.

the result of having a very large
registry data base because it contains
worthless data also increases
the fragmentation of the
registry file and increases the
risk of a corrupted registry
and crash.

Again, a deliberate lie (*because this error has been piointed out to
you repeatedly. You obviously either have no clue as to how a database
works, or are knowingly spreading false information.

microsoft invented windows

Not strictly true, although they now own the rights to it has it
currently exists.

and invented the registry.

False.

they
also invented the first registry
cleaner.

False, again




--

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 think there is another explanation perhaps, at least in part. The
application programmers actually intentionally leave behind the registry
clutter to either limit license related stuff or to leave tracks behind
so that they know about the earlier setup when a newer version of the
application is installed.

This is particularly true in the case of trial versions of
applications. Unless the uninstaller leaves something behind, all the
less scrupulous would need do to is uninstall and then reinstall the
trial software every 30 days (or however long the free evaluation period
lasts), rather than actually paying for it honestly.

Furthermore, it might just be because marketing drones insisted on
leaving the information on the system for future statistics gathering
stuff.

In any case, if this is a designed behavior, it is just being sneaky and
underhanded.

OK, now I think we're drifting off course onto the Sea of Paranoia....



--

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

 

[db.·.. >]

it can as long as there
is absolutely no folders
or files or dll's still
on the disk.

so even if there are
files orphaned or
camouflaged still
on the disk and there
are keys in the registry
that still point to them,
then the keys won't
be removed.

in addition you can
search for orphaned
keys after the cleaning
by searching the registry
with a criterion of za and
other nomenclatures such
programs utilize.

then simply delete them.

this method above is
provided by other registry
cleaners like regclean 4,
whereas it groups keys
by name or manufacture,
then you can simply delete
the unwanted ones as a
group.

 

[db.·.. >]

if that were true, then
this would not be:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307545

------------

it is best that everyone relies
on the number one authority
of windows and all others
just stay on your buggies and
pass on thru....

 

[HeyBub]

if that were true, then

this would not be:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307545

------------

it is best that everyone relies
on the number one authority
of windows and all others
just stay on your buggies and
pass on thru....

The article deals with recovery from a corrupted registry. This is not in
conflict with my assertion that the registry either works or it doesn't.
Whatever the case, the registry doesn't need maintenance, cleaning,
compacting, or tattooing.

 

[HeyBub]

Sometimes incompetence comes into play, but it's more often simple
laziness, I think, since orphaned entries in the registry are almost
entirely harmless, in most cases, and have no affect whatsoever on
performance.




Absurd conclusion. If an installer can make a registry entry, a
properly coded uninstaller can remove it just as easily.

Speaking as a programmer, I can offer a slim reason (not a justification).
An application can be installed all over the place - almost any folder, any
drive, any machine. So, when it comes time to execute, where are all the
bits?

There is only one registry. If the installer puts the links there, they can
always be found.

At least that's what some programmers think.

 

[Sam]

in addition you can
search for orphaned
keys after the cleaning
by searching the registry
with a criterion of za and
other nomenclatures such
programs utilize.

then simply delete them.

this method above is
provided by other registry
cleaners like regclean 4,
whereas it groups keys
by name or manufacture,
then you can simply delete
the unwanted ones as a
group.

Which brings to this question: Can I trust the application to have
created registry items named based on a systematic nomenclature?

See, this is central to registry cleaning. If, say, ZoneAlarm people
named all their registry items appropriately, it would be really easy to
clean it. I suspect they intentionally confound the registry cleaning by
giving weird names. I would love to be proved wrong though.

 

[Sam]

This is particularly true in the case of trial versions of
applications. Unless the uninstaller leaves something behind, all the
less scrupulous would need do to is uninstall and then reinstall the
trial software every 30 days (or however long the free evaluation period
lasts), rather than actually paying for it honestly.

This just appears to be a broken business model then. After all, it is
quite common to find out from the web how to remove the relevant
registry items.

OK, now I think we're drifting off course onto the Sea of Paranoia....

I did say "If", didn't I?

 

[Sam]

Absurd conclusion. If an installer can make a registry entry, a
properly coded uninstaller can remove it just as easily.

It is absurd to conclude that the above was a conclusion. It is quite
obvious it was a question. I fully agree with the second part of your
response. The onus lies squarely with the application developers. And to
date, I am yet to come across a Windows application which cleans itself
up systematically, some do most of the work some don't, Norton Antivirus
and ZoneAlarm being two cases at hand.

But to be honest, the only applications that I believe behave the best
in this regard are open source applications available for Windows. This
shouldn't come across as surprise. Closed source programmers are not
fearing to be ashamed when their incompetences are noted by others.

Regards.