That is your opinion. It doesn't not mean it is the truth, because it
isn't.
Yes it is my opinion, but it's one held by, I would say, the vast majority
of knowledgable computer folks.
The reason? They improve system performance and resolve errors.
The primary reason is to glean money from the gullible. It's marketing,
plain and simple.
To state that Registry cleaning is a bad thing to do is erroneous.
How so? What exactly is "cleaning" going to accomplish? How can removing
100 unused entries that are not otherwise problematic - not wrong, not
blocking an install, just unused - from a database of hundreds of thousands,
have a signficant impact?
There is no objective evidence that registry cleaners do any good but there
is much evidence to the contrary. Orphaned entries do not as a rule cause
problems. A "bad" entry, whether orpahaned or not, can be problematic but
there is no value to relying on an automated registry cleaner to remove it.
Assuming it even spots the problem, it can also remove useful entries. And
there in lies the problem. Removing the wrong ones can cause significant
problems.
To state that Hard Drive Defragging does nothing to improve system
performance is erroneous.
I didn't say it doesn't. "Defragging a hard drive is of less importance
than people place on it." I said it depends on the circumstances. In some
cases it can make a big difference, data base applications, signficant drive
access, etc. But for the average user, the need is overblown. And as
drives get bigger and faster with correspondingly greater amount of free
space the impact is even less. Yes one should should defrag occasionally,
but it's not going to gain you a whole lot unless the drive get's overly
filled, which will cause other problems.
As opposed to registry cleaners, regularly running a defragmenter will not
cause any harm (except for the unusual occasion when the random glitch
occurs which you can never predict; this is were backups and drive imaging
come in.) but it doesn't do much good running it all the time (daily for
example). Like I said before, for most users once a month is probably fine.
To state that Free Memory Optimizers are worthless is erroneous.
Those are even worse snake oil programs than registry cleaners, if that's
possible. They do no good. Free RAM is wasted RAM. That is why you see in
Vista, for example, significant improvements in the memory management
functions to utilize as much of the RAM as possible for caching files and
programs. In Vista it's not uncommon in Task Manger under the Performance
tab to see close to 0 free RAM. That is a good thing. The RAM is put to
use caching items based on past use patterns, so the affected programs start
faster, but the memory is available if a program needs it.
Free Memory utilties are an absolute waste.
In the book "Microsoft Windows Internals" 4th Edition (2005) Mark
Russinovich, one of the founders of Winternals / SystemInternals (They were
bought out by MS in July, 2006 I believe. Mark now works for MS; he
certainly knows the workings of Windows inside and out and is highly
regarded in the Windows field. This edition of the book was published a
year before the buy out.) there is a section called "RAM Optimizers: Fact or
Fiction". Over several pages he dubunks the myth of these programs. It's
fiction. Among the things he writes:
"While gaining more available memory might seem like a good think, it isn't.
As RAM optimizers force the available memory counter up, they force other
processes' data and code out of memory... The performance degradation can
be severe on servers ...."
"Some vendors make additional claims for their RAM-optimizer products. One
claim you might see is that a product frees memory that's needlessly
consumed by unused processes, sush as those run in the Taskbar tray. That
claim could be true only if those processes had sizable working sets at the
time of optimization. However, because Windows automatically trims idle
processes' working sets, all such claims are untrue...."
"Developers of RAM optimizers also claim that their products defragment
memory. The act of allocating and then freeing a large amount of virtual
memory might, as a conceivable side-effect, lead to large blocks of
contiguous available memory. However, because virtual memory masks the
layout of physical memory from processes, they can't directly benefit from
having virtual memory backed by contiguous physical memory. .....However,
any minor benefit that might result from making available physical memory
contiguous is heavily outweighed by the negative effect of discarding
valuable code and data from memory."
"Finally, vendors often claim that RAM optimizers regain memory lost to
leaks. This is perhaps the most patently false assertion of all...."
I don't care to involve myself in arguing about whether or not techs think
Registry Cleaners work or not.
Any tool can be constructive or destructive depending on how they are
used.
I would say many tools used improperly could be destructive. I wouldn't say
every tool can be constructive. Those that are just benign translates into
a waste of money, which I see as destructive.
Some registry cleaners are less agressive than others, but that doesn't make
them safer. That's because there is very little upside to their use by the
unknowledgable, but with a signifcant downside.
In some cases a registry cleaner might be useful. As I said, if you are
troubleshooting a particular problem that could be a registry issue, it's
another tool in the arsenal; see what it suggests, but any suggestions for
change needs to be evaluated and if needed researched, and only those items
changed that knowledge, experience and the research indicates are
associated. Registry changes should be preceded by a system restore point,
exporting the keys to be changed, and regular, complete backups of the
registry with a tool like ERUNT.
Wholesale cleaning of registry entries flagged by a cleaner gains you
nothing, and routine use just for the nebulous purpose of "cleaning", and
especially it's use by an unknowledgable person is asking for trouble.
I think it's irresponsible to recommend it's use without knowing the
person's skill level and without at the very least pointing out the dangers.
Recommending the use of one to an unknowledgeable user is absolutely
irresponsible.
Bottom Line. Get cheap tools, Get cheap results.
I would say, use the wrong tools and get lousy results.
Cost doesn't always translate into quality. In somethings it can, but not
in everything. I know of some free tools that work well for their purpose
where corresonding pay for use tools are not anywhere near as worthwhile.
Free or extremely expensive - registry cleaners, for the majority of users,
and memory optimizers, for all, are lousy tools, and should be avoided.