Registry Cleaners

[Bill in Co.]

Is it bigger than a bread-box? What color is it?

It's blue. What's the matter with you?

 

[Daave]

For the Nth time.... I have NOT (as yet) said anything about
reg-cleaners. Just the fact that an excessively sized registry is
linked, or has links to a certain decrease in overall performance.

I've seen others make that claim, yet I have *never* seen any evidence
to support it.

I think it's of vital importance to keep the size of the registry down
to a minimum by not installing too many programs that are superfluous
to what you are trying to accomplish on your PC. Once it is of an
excessive size there's not too much you can do with a registry. This
is because, quite rightly, even the best reg-cleaners have to be
cautious in what hey remove and the decrease in volume on entries is
not significant. Much more can be achieved by avoidance and the
adage 'prevention is better than cure' is very true. Reg cleaners
do, I think, have a place though. I cite Randem's post where he had
so many entries to a .dll file that was preventing a
program from functioning, and the reg cleaner he used automated the
clean-up of these entries. I have tried using Regedit's 'Find' [F3]
option to do something similar, and you can be at it for hours on
end...

Apples and oranges. That example is not an instance of "an excessively
sized registry."

 

[Jose]

John

Would you go to a Witch Doctor if you weren't feeling very well?

--

Gerry
 ~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good one.

With your permission I will add that to my list of snappy comeback(s).

So far I have (for XP): "System Restore is not a time machine".

 

[Tim Meddick]

Are we speaking the same language even?
There's a new paragraph at:

Reg cleaners do, I think, have a place though. I cite Randem's post
where he had so many entries to a .dll file that was preventing a program
from functioning, and the reg cleaner he used automated the clean-up of
these entries. I have tried using Regedit's 'Find' [F3] option to do
something similar, and you can be at it for hours on end...

....this was because the thread is debating the possible benefits of registry
cleaners. Saying that they [may] have their place is not saying anything
about registry sizes, is it?

But I stand by the first paragraph in my [former] post. When you say you
have seen no "evidence" to support the fact that excessively sized
registries make for a decrease in overall performance, what "evidence" are
you willing to accept? The effects of a sudden large increase in reg size
(in certain areas of the registry, that is - it's not just linked to the
overall size) can, quite often be seen. I have seen it when importing my
'recognized file types' (I exported the HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT hive to a file:
classes.reg and put it on a pen drive before reinstalling XP) to a new XP
installation, and certain functions were definitely slower. Like
'right-clicking' the desktop and choosing "New" - the time it takes for the
list of "new" file types available took much longer to appear. This was
because you could almost 'feel' the system going through HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT
looking for the subkey name "ShellNew" to build it's file-list. Same sort
of thing happens when you open the 'File Types' in 'Folder Options' this
takes even longer, if you have as many extensions registered as file types
as I have. Of course it makes a difference and of course there are many
other things affecting the speed and efficiency of the system.

==



Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.

For the Nth time.... I have NOT (as yet) said anything about
reg-cleaners. Just the fact that an excessively sized registry is
linked, or has links to a certain decrease in overall performance.

I've seen others make that claim, yet I have *never* seen any evidence to
support it.

I think it's of vital importance to keep the size of the registry down
to a minimum by not installing too many programs that are superfluous
to what you are trying to accomplish on your PC. Once it is of an
excessive size there's not too much you can do with a registry. This
is because, quite rightly, even the best reg-cleaners have to be
cautious in what hey remove and the decrease in volume on entries is
not significant. Much more can be achieved by avoidance and the
adage 'prevention is better than cure' is very true. Reg cleaners
do, I think, have a place though. I cite Randem's post where he had so
many entries to a .dll file that was preventing a
program from functioning, and the reg cleaner he used automated the
clean-up of these entries. I have tried using Regedit's 'Find' [F3]
option to do something similar, and you can be at it for hours on
end...

Apples and oranges. That example is not an instance of "an excessively
sized registry."

 

[Carl Kaufmann]

Oh, go ahead.

I don't think it actually DOES anything, but it might make you feel better.
It's called the "Placebo Effect."

Oh, it does something alright ... in my case totally kill my UltraVNC
install.

Carl

 

[Marianne]

But I stand by the first paragraph in my [former] post. When you say you
have seen no "evidence" to support the fact that excessively sized
registries make for a decrease in overall performance, what "evidence" are
you willing to accept?

We are willing to accept our own experience and that of a renown Windows
expert like Dr. Russinovich, who says:

"...even if the registry was massively bloated there would be little impact
on the performance of anything other than exhaustive searches."

Here are some of Dr. Russinovich's credentials and some of his work:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/techfellow/Russinovich/default.mspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Russinovich
http://bookprice24.com/author/Mark Russinovich
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/

Now let's have your credentials and your research papers....

M

 

[Bill in Co.]

But I stand by the first paragraph in my [former] post. When you say
you
have seen no "evidence" to support the fact that excessively sized
registries make for a decrease in overall performance, what "evidence"
are
you willing to accept?

We are willing to accept our own experience and that of a renown Windows
expert like Dr. Russinovich, who says:

"...even if the registry was massively bloated there would be little
impact
on the performance of anything other than exhaustive searches."

Here are some of Dr. Russinovich's credentials and some of his work:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/techfellow/Russinovich/default.mspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Russinovich
http://bookprice24.com/author/Mark Russinovich
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/

Now let's have your credentials and your research papers....

M

Clearly, clearly you musta "missed" Twayne's!
ROFL!

 

[Johnw]

Here are some of Dr. Russinovich's credentials and some of his work:

More from Mark Russinovich.

Registry Junk: A Windows Fact of Life
http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/92764/registry-junk-a-windows-fact-of-life.html
Notes - "Registry Cleaners can fix problems associated with traces of
applications left behind due to incomplete uninstalls. So it seems that
Registry junk is a Windows fact of life and that Registry cleaners will
continue to have a place in the anal-sysadmin's tool chest, at least
until we're all running .NET applications that store their per-user
settings in XML files - and then of course we'll need XML cleaners."
- Mark Russinovich, Ph.D. Computer Engineering, Microsoft Technical
Fellow.

I use Revo Uninstaller in Advanced Mode.
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Tweak/Uninstallers/Revo-Uninstaller.shtml
http://www.softpedia.com/progScreenshots/Revo-Uninstaller-Screenshot-74235.html
http://www.revouninstaller.com/

 

[Tim Meddick]

So that is how you judge truth ultimately is it? By what qualifications
someone shines in your face. While it may well be a good indicator of
someone's intelligence and integrity, to discount or deride someone else's
opinions purely on the fact of the absence of academic achievements. is
short sighted in the extreme. So you are judging me and trying to make me
look small by attempting to have people compare me with someone like Dr.
Russinovich. I am entitled to my opinion and my right to express it.


==



Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.

But I stand by the first paragraph in my [former] post. When you say
you have seen no "evidence" to support the fact that excessively sized
registries make for a decrease in overall performance, what "evidence"
are you willing to accept?

We are willing to accept our own experience and that of a renown Windows
expert like Dr. Russinovich, who says:

"...even if the registry was massively bloated there would be little
impact on the performance of anything other than exhaustive searches."

Here are some of Dr. Russinovich's credentials and some of his work:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/techfellow/Russinovich/default.mspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Russinovich
http://bookprice24.com/author/Mark Russinovich
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/

Now let's have your credentials and your research papers....

M

 

[Marianne]

So that is how you judge truth ultimately is it? By what qualifications
someone shines in your face. While it may well be a good indicator of
someone's intelligence and integrity, to discount or deride someone else's
opinions purely on the fact of the absence of academic achievements. is
short sighted in the extreme. So you are judging me and trying to make me
look small by attempting to have people compare me with someone like Dr.
Russinovich. I am entitled to my opinion and my right to express it.

I didn't say that you were not entitled to your opinion. However, in
matters where there is so much divisiveness and debate and outright deceit
from some of the players, (not you, Tim, but from the vendors of these
programs and the nut cases like Twayne), I prefer to believe the well known
and respected experts. Dr. Russinovich is one of the foremost Windows
expert, I'll take my chances with him. You make your point and present your
opinions, others present theirs. I see no wrong in supporting my point with
Dr. Russinovich's comments, they are relevant to the discussion.

M

 

[Twayne]

But I stand by the first paragraph in my [former] post. When you
say you have seen no "evidence" to support the fact that
excessively sized registries make for a decrease in overall
performance, what "evidence" are you willing to accept?

We are willing to accept our own experience and that of a renown
Windows expert like Dr. Russinovich, who says:

"...even if the registry was massively bloated there would be little
impact on the performance of anything other than exhaustive searches."

Here are some of Dr. Russinovich's credentials and some of his work:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/techfellow/Russinovich/default.mspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Russinovich
http://bookprice24.com/author/Mark Russinovich
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/

Now let's have your credentials and your research papers....

M

Russonovich also wrote:
------------
<quote>
Registry Junk: A Windows Fact of Life
Registry cleaners have always been popular, but I never paid much
attention to them. I originally thought that there might be valid
reasons for their existence, but over time changed my mind, only to
recently recognize that even today they can help maintain Registry
hygiene. ...
</quote>

Originally by Mark Russinovich on 10/2/2005 4:09:00 PM
Migrated from original Sysinternals.com/Blog
----------

There's more too, but suffice it to say that when one "researches"
something they need to actually cover the whole realm of the data, not
just the parts that seem to apply to what you're interested in. I'll
bet his name is very new to you and rather than respecting the guy's
works you're simply using him, hoping to prove a point rather
unsuccessfully. One thing you'll come to realize if you do read his
works is that he hasd an open mind, unlike the few socio-paths here that
so erroneously think the whole world must hang on their every thought.
He'd freely admit any mistake or oversight, allowed for other's opinions
and worked factually to convince one otherwise when he knew something
someone else didn't. Rather than try to simply force somethign down
anyone's throat, he would use actual, verifiable examples and methods to
show his points were valid. That's a lot different than the so called
MVPs here do and especially you, who only parrot things someone else
said.
Mark's many papers and articles are a gold mine of information about
windows and many other things.

Twayne`

 

[Unknown]

He is completely unlike you isn't he.

But I stand by the first paragraph in my [former] post. When you
say you have seen no "evidence" to support the fact that
excessively sized registries make for a decrease in overall
performance, what "evidence" are you willing to accept?

We are willing to accept our own experience and that of a renown
Windows expert like Dr. Russinovich, who says:

"...even if the registry was massively bloated there would be little
impact on the performance of anything other than exhaustive searches."

Here are some of Dr. Russinovich's credentials and some of his work:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/techfellow/Russinovich/default.mspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Russinovich
http://bookprice24.com/author/Mark Russinovich
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/

Now let's have your credentials and your research papers....

M

Russonovich also wrote:
------------
<quote>
Registry Junk: A Windows Fact of Life
Registry cleaners have always been popular, but I never paid much
attention to them. I originally thought that there might be valid reasons
for their existence, but over time changed my mind, only to recently
recognize that even today they can help maintain Registry hygiene. ...
</quote>

Originally by Mark Russinovich on 10/2/2005 4:09:00 PM
Migrated from original Sysinternals.com/Blog
----------

There's more too, but suffice it to say that when one "researches"
something they need to actually cover the whole realm of the data, not
just the parts that seem to apply to what you're interested in. I'll bet
his name is very new to you and rather than respecting the guy's works
you're simply using him, hoping to prove a point rather unsuccessfully.
One thing you'll come to realize if you do read his works is that he hasd
an open mind, unlike the few socio-paths here that so erroneously think
the whole world must hang on their every thought. He'd freely admit any
mistake or oversight, allowed for other's opinions and worked factually to
convince one otherwise when he knew something someone else didn't. Rather
than try to simply force somethign down anyone's throat, he would use
actual, verifiable examples and methods to show his points were valid.
That's a lot different than the so called MVPs here do and especially you,
who only parrot things someone else said.
Mark's many papers and articles are a gold mine of information about
windows and many other things.

Twayne`

 

[Twayne]

I didn't say that you were not entitled to your opinion. However, in
matters where there is so much divisiveness and debate and outright
deceit from some of the players, (not you, Tim, but from the vendors
of these programs and the nut cases like Twayne), I prefer to believe
the well known and respected experts. Dr. Russinovich is one of the
foremost Windows expert, I'll take my chances with him.

Make up your mind: You tried to use Russinovich to prove they aren't any
good. Does that mean that now you are changing your mind like he did?
I don't think there is much you can say that is of any value to this
subject, M; sorry about that.

Twayne`

 

[Twayne]

You're an idiot.

No, Tim's not an idiot, at least in my books; actually even the
misinformationists on the subject aren't idiots. Nor is Mark of course.
I have a feeling we may just have a couple of people here to whom the
name is news so that's probably a good thing. BTW, why the new nick?

Twayne`

 

[John John - MVP]

Make up your mind: You tried to use Russinovich to prove they aren't any
good. Does that mean that now you are changing your mind like he did?
I don't think there is much you can say that is of any value to this
subject, M; sorry about that.

I think she and Tim were talking about the *size* of the registry, that
is what Tim was talking about in his whole thread, or most of it anyway.
As usual you didn't follow anything and then you jump in with your
irrelevant comments.

Mark says that "...Registry cleaners will continue to have a place in
the anal-sysadmin’s tool chest..." After you figure what that means
read Mark's reply to one of the comments:

Comment from Anonymous: "Hi Mark, do you really think that Registry
junk left by uninstalled programs could severely slow down the computer?
I would like to 'hear' your opinion."

Mark: "No, even if the registry was massively bloated there would be
little impact on the performance of anything other than exhaustive
searches."

"On Win2K Terminal Server systems, however, there is a limit on the
total amount of Registry data that can be loaded and so large profile
hives can limit the number of users that can be logged on simultaneously."

"I haven't and never will implement a Registry cleaner since it's of
little practical use on anything other than Win2K terminal servers and
developing one that's both safe and effective requires a huge amount of
application-specific knowledge."

http://blogs.technet.com/markrussin.../02/registry-junk-a-windows-fact-of-life.aspx

John

 

[Gerry]

John

You make your point well.


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Tim Meddick]

Marianne,
It's not a matter of supporting or not supporting [Dr.
Russinovich's] or anyone's opinion. It is about whether or not you use
other peoples academic achievements to try to belittle (i.e. compare formal
qualifications) others and prove your own point. That is why I was offended
by your comments, they smacked of cliquish academic elitism.
Why all these people think that the basic laws of physics don't apply to
them is the only thing that's beyond my comprehension. How these people can
possibly believe that a (personal) computer system, no matter how fast
(within today's limits), can search for values in a database (that's all the
registry is) in zero time, I don't know!
I have heard the term "except for exhaustive searches" used. What do
you think happens when a program needs to retrieve ALL the currently
registered file-types, as in explorer attempting to display the File-types
in 'Folder Options'? Why do you think it takes it's time about it on some
systems? Is it just making you wait out of pure spite, or could it possibly
be that it is related to how many file-types you have registered? To me,
it's a dumb question because the answer is so obvious. If A PROGRAM wants
to retrieve a single value from the registry, then, of course, it doesn't
matter whether or not the registry is vast. So here are two instances where
in one it affects the outcome and in the other it does not. ...and what
happens to the PC's performance OVERALL because of it?
That is my opinion on the matter. That registry cleaners do not really
impact on the size of the registry (so I think it's a bit pointless to try
and use them to 'optimize' it ) but that there is an argument in their use
to automate large tasks of invalid entry deletion when such invalid entries
are causing a program to fail.
Prevention (of letting the registry get bloated with garbage from
installing too many crappy and ill-written programs) is better than cure, to
summarise my thoughts on this.

==


Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.

 

[Tim Meddick]

Thankyou (...will print out and hang on wall).

==



Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.

 

[Bill in Co.]

The search and/or access time in the registry, no matter how large it is, is
in the order a few milliseconds; but the search and/or access time on a
disk is what you're really referring to, and THAT time (like waiting for all
the files to display in Explorer, or what have you) is what makes a
noticeable difference, NOT the registry. The bottom line is the registry
in practice is not really the issue here, for the reasons mentioned.

Marianne,
It's not a matter of supporting or not supporting [Dr.
Russinovich's] or anyone's opinion. It is about whether or not you use
other peoples academic achievements to try to belittle (i.e. compare
formal
qualifications) others and prove your own point. That is why I was
offended
by your comments, they smacked of cliquish academic elitism.
Why all these people think that the basic laws of physics don't apply
to
them is the only thing that's beyond my comprehension. How these people
can
possibly believe that a (personal) computer system, no matter how fast
(within today's limits), can search for values in a database (that's all
the
registry is) in zero time, I don't know!
I have heard the term "except for exhaustive searches" used. What do
you think happens when a program needs to retrieve ALL the currently
registered file-types, as in explorer attempting to display the File-types
in 'Folder Options'? Why do you think it takes it's time about it on some
systems? Is it just making you wait out of pure spite, or could it
possibly
be that it is related to how many file-types you have registered? To me,
it's a dumb question because the answer is so obvious. If A PROGRAM
wants
to retrieve a single value from the registry, then, of course, it doesn't
matter whether or not the registry is vast. So here are two instances
where
in one it affects the outcome and in the other it does not. ...and what
happens to the PC's performance OVERALL because of it?
That is my opinion on the matter. That registry cleaners do not really
impact on the size of the registry (so I think it's a bit pointless to try
and use them to 'optimize' it ) but that there is an argument in their use
to automate large tasks of invalid entry deletion when such invalid
entries
are causing a program to fail.
Prevention (of letting the registry get bloated with garbage from
installing too many crappy and ill-written programs) is better than cure,
to
summarise my thoughts on this.

==


Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.

I didn't say that you were not entitled to your opinion. However, in
matters where there is so much divisiveness and debate and outright
deceit
from some of the players, (not you, Tim, but from the vendors of these
programs and the nut cases like Twayne), I prefer to believe the well
known and respected experts. Dr. Russinovich is one of the foremost
Windows expert, I'll take my chances with him. You make your point and
present your opinions, others present theirs. I see no wrong in
supporting my point with Dr. Russinovich's comments, they are relevant to
the discussion.

M

 

[Twayne]

I think she and Tim were talking about the *size* of the registry,
that is what Tim was talking about in his whole thread, or most of it
anyway. As usual you didn't follow anything and then you jump in
with your irrelevant comments.

Mark says that "...Registry cleaners will continue to have a place in
the anal-sysadmin’s tool chest..." After you figure what that means
read Mark's reply to one of the comments:

Comment from Anonymous: "Hi Mark, do you really think that Registry
junk left by uninstalled programs could severely slow down the
computer? I would like to 'hear' your opinion."

Mark: "No, even if the registry was massively bloated there would be
little impact on the performance of anything other than exhaustive
searches."

"On Win2K Terminal Server systems, however, there is a limit on the
total amount of Registry data that can be loaded and so large profile
hives can limit the number of users that can be logged on
simultaneously."
"I haven't and never will implement a Registry cleaner since it's of
little practical use on anything other than Win2K terminal servers and
developing one that's both safe and effective requires a huge amount
of application-specific knowledge."

http://blogs.technet.com/markrussin.../02/registry-junk-a-windows-fact-of-life.aspx

John

That's your right. Just don't force it down others' throats.