XP registry cleaners

[Twayne]

There is no such thing as a "good" registry cleaner, free or
otherwise.
Lie.


Why do you even think you'd ever need to clean your registry? What
specific *problems* are you actually experiencing (not some program's
bogus listing of imaginary problems) that you think can be fixed by
using a registry "cleaner?"

Let's see, problems I've experienced that I thought I could use it for:
-- Calling for a file that doesn't exist. Reinstalling the app didn't
fix it; couldn't tell for sure what app it was.
Norton found and removed the entries in about 30 seconds, advising
me to remove, look for the target, or ignore it. I let Norton decide;
it removed the entry; all fine afterwards.

-- system message of registry corruption after a virus on neighbor's
computer. Norton found many errors; I let it fix automatically. It
did; everything fine afterwards, ALL apps worked, never a problem from
it.

-- Uninstall of my own Office app apparently failed; registry error
messages appeared afterwards. Used Norton; removed rest, and all
worked.

-- registry complained of files it couldn't find. None of them existed
anymore. Norton removed the references in seconds.

-- on an unpredictably pausing machine, I ran their Norton out of
frustration; fixed the problem. Later turned out user had
exported/imported registry several times playing with regedit. Regained
noticeable amount of drive space on a small drive, noticeably improved
the intermittant, unpredicatable pauses, shortened boot time, fixed
inability to shut down. I think this was a win98 machine.

Norton SystemWorks also does a better disk clean than XP, has a better
Defrag that, with proper use, noticeably extends time between defrag
needs, beats tweakUI, included AV, GoBack, a restore/recovery program
that saved my butt a few times before I got imaging software, and much
more. It also let me undo anything I've done if I by chance remove
something I wanted, or if I went back in time and wanted to bring a
recent install along with me.

I could actually sit down and create a pretty detailed list but since
I've already done that once long ago, when challenged, and after which
all the closed minds became black holes for awhile, I'm not about to do
it again.
Anything YOU can do, well written software can do faster, more
accuratetly, and better.

If you do have a problem that is rooted in the registry, it would
be far better to simply edit (after backing up, of course) only the
specific key(s) and/or value(s) that are causing the problem. After
all, why use a chainsaw when a scalpel will do the job? Additionally,
the manually changing of one or two registry entries is far less
likely to have the dire consequences of allowing an automated product
to make
wide-spread multiple changes simultaneously. The only thing needed to
safely clean your registry is knowledge and Regedit.exe.

You left out the learning curve for managing the registry that way, plus
the fact that it isn't necessary to edit EVERY instance of something in
the registry to get rid of it. What you've omitted with this advice is
something much more important w/r to damaging a machine than is a
registry cleaner with Undo capabilities, which nearly all of them have
these days.
This, IMO is the equivalent of lying by omission.

What would you rather have fiddle with a registry? A cleaner that can
undo its changes at a button click, or the newbie you told to hack his
registry and now he's facing a rebuild?

..> Having repeatedly seen the results of inexperienced people using

automated registry "cleaners," I can only advise all but the most
experienced computer technicians (and/or hobbyists) to avoid them all.

That's so stupid it's pathetic. Common sense is required, but nothing
near the expertise you indicate which, BTW, IS much more required if one
decides to hack his registry.

Experience has shown me that such tools simply are not safe in the
hands of the inexperienced user. If you lack the knowledge and
experience to maintain your registry by yourself, then you also lack
the knowledge and experience to safely configure and use any
automated registry "cleaner," no matter how safe they claim to be.

Again, stupid.

More importantly, no one has ever demonstrated that the use of an
automated registry "cleaner," particularly by an untrained,
inexperienced computer user, does any real good, whatsoever. There's
certainly been no empirical evidence offered to demonstrate that the
use of such products to "clean" WinXP's registry improves a computer's
performance or stability. Given the potential for harm, it's just not
worth the risk.

I did that, several years ago now. Go look in your archives; it's there
if you had half a brain.

Granted, most registry "cleaners" won't cause problems each and
every time they're used, but the potential for harm is always there.

And it's also there every time you install a program, often while you
use the program, and when you uninstall the program unless it's written
in VB6 or the like, and then it leaves registry changes up to the OS.
The opportunity for a problem is only slightly higher than installing
new software, and that includes MS's own apps. "Stuff happens", so ...
it's not exactly rocket science. Your experience sometimes sounds like
it comes from pre-windows days.

And, since no registry "cleaner" has ever been demonstrated to do any
good (think of them like treating the flu with chicken soup - there's
no real medicinal value, but it sometimes provides a warming placebo
effect), I always tell people that the risks far out-weigh the
non-existent benefits.

And you're wrong. I'll admit they get used for no good reason a lot,
but ... reputable apps simply do not do what you claim. And BTW there
are some medicinal advantages to hot chicken soup; but it's technical so
you probably wouldn't understand it.

I will concede that a good registry *scanning* tool, in the hands
of an experienced and knowledgeable technician or hobbyist can be a
useful time-saving diagnostic tool, as long as it's not allowed to
make any changes automatically. But I really don't think that there
are any registry "cleaners" that are truly safe for the general
public to use. Experience has proven just the opposite: such tools
simply are not safe in the hands of the inexperienced user.

Well, your experience is either outdated, old or both. And certainly
they have to cause a LOT fewer problems than your constant advice to
manually edit the registry, over and over, without proper safeguards.
And if you do mention the safeguards, you've moved the possibilities out
of the hands of anyone less than advanced level, which is why the person
asked about registry apps in the first place. So you end up in circles.

I had planned to give you links to a couple of white papers and detailed
tests of "cleaners" but I'm sure your closed mind won't allow you to
follow them so I'll leave it to you to do your own research if you're so
inclined. It wouldn't hurt to get new boilerplate, too; except for the
last para, you haven't changed your faux mantra in a long long time.

Open your eyes.

 

[Twayne]

....
I tried the latest version on a

brand-new OS installation with no additional applications installed,
and certainly none installed and then uninstalled, and CCleaner still
managed to "find" over a hundred allegedly orphaned registry entries
and dozens of purportedly "suspicious" files, making it clearly a
*worthless* product, in this regard.

....

Umm, that's typical of a new OS. That's MS's "In case he wants this
someday I'll leave this too, oh, and this, and that, and he might want
to ... .
Even MS admits that. But what you fail to mention is that removing
those entries (and even deleting the folders put in "just in case", did
NOT cause any problems, nor did it have any impact at all on the system.
The cleaner did exactly what it was designed to do: It looked, found a
reference to whatever, discovered whatever didn't exist, and offers a
fix for it.
It's not necessary, but one of the first things I used to do with a
new install was to go in and get rid of the mess of folders and files I
could tell I didn't want/need (comm progs, massive amounts of temp files
from the install, etc.) and then clean the registry so it matched what
was on the drive.
You know, the methodology of a "registry cleaner" isn't rocket
science. If you'll look and see what they do, it's pretty straight
forward stuff. Even a newbie could understand it, even if they couldn't
work their way through the maze and heirarchy of the sections.
Oversimplifyng it, a registry cleaner looks at what the registry wants,
and then looks to see if it's available. If it's not, it's an error
report. That's really about all there is to it. Even a newbie like me
could write an app to clean the reigistry for probably over 80% of what
they do, with VB6. Are you even aware that some parts of the registry
do't even exist until you boot the machine? They're built on the fly at
every boot.

CCleaner's only real strength, and the only reason I use it, lies
in its usefulness for cleaning up unused temporary files from the hard
drive; as a registry "cleaner," it's not significantly better or worse
than any other snake oil product of the same type.

That's not much of a strength since XP can do that natively. Just
schedule it and forget it, along with a couple other niceties.

OH well. I hope someday you'll educate yourself and open your eyes.

 

[John John (MVP)]

Spoken like a true, closed-minded zealot. Back up your claims and prove
me wrong, or get off the pot. Make it clear WHY you say what you do and
and use something other than "I tried them all and ... " crap.
I have decades of use/experience and occasional research behind me;
something you obviously do not or you'd trot it out to recover at least
some modicum of credibility for your reputation over making the sweeping
claims you tend to issue. It makes everything you say suspect touting
the silly line you do over registry apps. You're just parroting too,
I'm afraid.

He's not parroting, he too is just telling the truth. Ever turn the
argument around and think for a minute that *you* might be the one doing
the "parroting"? The plain and simple fact is that registry cleaning
for no good reason does absolutely nothing to improve your computer
performance and that wholesale registry cleaning done by those
applications provide absolutely no useful benefits, it only introduce a
risk of failure in your computing environment.

If you have nothing better to do than running registry cleaners you may
as well take a break from your computer and go in the attic to clean out
the cobwebs and risk falling through the ceiling and breaking your
neck... which is a pretty close comparison to what benefits cleaning the
registry will give you.

John

 

[JS]

I have the 2006 version of System Works with Ghost.
The best part of System Works is it ability to put registry issues into
groups and the option to choose each key and what is to be done to repair
it.

JS

 

[Bill in Co.]

He's not parroting, he too is just telling the truth. Ever turn the
argument around and think for a minute that *you* might be the one doing
the "parroting"? The plain and simple fact is that registry cleaning
for no good reason does absolutely nothing to improve your computer
performance and that wholesale registry cleaning done by those
applications provide absolutely no useful benefits, it only introduce a
risk of failure in your computing environment.

If you have nothing better to do than running registry cleaners you may
as well take a break from your computer and go in the attic to clean out
the cobwebs and risk falling through the ceiling and breaking your
neck... which is a pretty close comparison to what benefits cleaning the
registry will give you.

John

Oh, but wait, John! He said he had "decades of experience and research"
with it!! LOL.
Well, actually it's not funny. It's kinda pathetic.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Spoken like a true, closed-minded zealot. Back up your claims and prove
me wrong, or get off the pot. Make it clear WHY you say what you do and
and use something other than "I tried them all and ... " crap.

I don't need to try them to konw they're crap. Knowing the the
registry is an indexed database, I know that there is no possible way
for a registry cleaner, even if it did remove only orphaned entries,
could have any affect upon performance.

I have decades of use/experience and occasional research behind me;

I really, really doubt that, or you'd not resort to name-calling
instead of providing some evidence that registry cleaners do any good,
whatsoever. (By the way, if you ever do find and produce links to any
sort of independent laboratory documentation to support the use of
registry cleaners, you'll be the very first person to ever have done so.
And I've asked this of every snake oil salesman that's touted registry
cleaners.)




--

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]

Oh, but wait, John! He said he had "decades of experience and research"
with it!! LOL.
Well, actually it's not funny. It's kinda pathetic.

Oh, I missed the "decades" bit. Now we know he's a liar. WinXP isn't
anywhere near that old.


--

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

 

[dor.raba.forums]

Hi,

I have read the following article which explained me alot on registry
cleaners and which one to choose.

<a href="http://www.squidoo.com/free-regirtsy-cleaners">http://
www.squidoo.com/free-regirtsy-cleaners</a>

this is a great article from the home of:

<a href="http://topregistrycleanerscenter.com">Http://
www.TopRegistryCleanersCenter.com</a>

 

[Twayne]

Hi,

I have read the following article which explained me alot on registry
cleaners and which one to choose.

<a href="http://www.squidoo.com/free-regirtsy-cleaners">http://
www.squidoo.com/free-regirtsy-cleaners</a>

this is a great article from the home of:

<a href="http://topregistrycleanerscenter.com">Http://
www.TopRegistryCleanersCenter.com</a>

Never heard of either one but they look a little "off" to me. First
article wants you to buy something I never heard of, and second is one I
never heard of. IMO ymmv may vary with those; looks like all 3 offers
are from the same source, actually and not much of a recommendation.
Their "10x faster" etc. claims are all false; it just doesn't work that
way 99.9% of the time.

Better to stay with named, reputable, experienced products that have a
history, as with any other software, IMO.

Your links are also borked, BTW.

 

[Twayne]

I have the 2006 version of System Works with Ghost.

The best part of System Works is it ability to put registry issues
into groups and the option to choose each key and what is to be done
to repair it.

JS

Same here except 2007 versions. Advice: GoBack isn't necessary if
you're using Ghost; I'd uninstall it & free up the drive
spacestorage/resources.

Twayne

 

[Twayne]

....

He's not parroting, he too is just telling the truth. Ever turn the
argument around and think for a minute that *you* might be the one
doing the "parroting"?

If you'd read my post, you'd know I had. I'm open to any and all new
information. Only none is ever presented.

The plain and simple fact is that registry

cleaning for no good reason does absolutely nothing to improve your
computer performance and that wholesale registry cleaning done by
those applications provide absolutely no useful benefits,

I never said it did. In fact, I said it wouldn't give noticeable
improvements most of the time. I can't help that you can't read a post
and get the details before engaging your parrot.

it only

introduce a risk of failure in your computing environment.

And so does each and every other application you install; even those
that don't make any registry entries except for an add/remove entry.

If you have nothing better to do than running registry cleaners you
may as well take a break from your computer and go in the attic to
clean out the cobwebs and risk falling through the ceiling and
breaking your neck... which is a pretty close comparison to what
benefits cleaning the registry will give you.

Again you obviously can't read because that's completely contrary to
anything I said. You really need some help with reading comprehension.

John

Yup; definitely gotta hit the john; too much coffee.

 

[Twayne]

Oh, but wait, John! He said he had "decades of experience and
research" with it!! LOL.
Well, actually it's not funny. It's kinda pathetic.

said the pathetic loser, offering nothing to the contrary, having
nothing valid to refute any of the comments made.

 

[Twayne]

Oh, I missed the "decades" bit. Now we know he's a liar. WinXP isn't
anywhere near that old.

Uhh, I think you lost it too, Bruce; the subject isn't "winXP"; it's
registry cleaners. I have experience back through 98, 95, 3.x, 6.22 and
CP/M, and used Norton tools with every one of them. In fact, I still
have an x86 packed away with single-sided, hard sectored 90k floppies
(pre affordable hard drives) and I've use a Norton product on every one
of them.

Now, let's talk about how far back the Registry goes: do YOU know?
It's well over ten years, making it "decades". Let's see, 20 years
would make it about 1988; do YOU know when the Registry came about? You
can research it easily enough, but it's my bet you do not. You're as
big a maroon as the other silly posters you've aligned yourself with
here.

You know, I'm only doing this because of all the folks lurking here
watching you take your blows for being such a closed minded egotistic
narcist.

Your power-mongering over the masses doesn't work with a thinking
people. You simply cannot pursuade those who have facts and real world
experience on their side, to believe you simply because you say
something is so. A little research at reputable sites and companies will
grant you a pretty consistant view of the practices used and how comples
such software is NOT! You're also one of only a few these days that
will hide behind the ignorance of those facts and who keep your mind
clamped so tightly closed that you can't see the red flame that's
singing your eyebrows. It's not that you cannot be educated, it's that
you choose to not learn anything new.
Based on how long you've been touting this mantra against registry
applications, I'd hazard a guess that you haven't gone past about the
1990's thinking and when you were an MVP picked up a company line
somewhere when MS stopped providing such programs.
You believe in management by force; it doesn't work, never has.
Managing the registry is simple: there are probably many good
registry apps out there that I won't touch anymore simply because I
don't have the time or inclination to do the research needed to check
them out. So using your line of thinking, I should just call them all
'snake oil' and say none of the are any good.
For about the tenth time, I'll tell you to provide valid, verifiable,
reliably sourced information and I'll listen to it, especially white
papers or known unbiased reports, which is where my background comes
from, on top of experience and actual use.

 

[Twayne]

I don't need to try them to konw they're crap.

Now, that's a real piece of work there!

Knowing the the

registry is an indexed database, I know that there is no possible way
for a registry cleaner, even if it did remove only orphaned entries,
could have any affect upon performance.

Really? You know little about databases then.
It CAN, under the right circumstances, especially at boot time, make a
noticeable speed improvement, but ... I never said it would always
improve performance; in fact, I said just the opposite; I said it seldom
would. It's just a set of text files on disk and others created on the
fly from what is on disk, so it's fast to execute. But even a text file
can eventually have an impact on speed, especially at boot time.
Interpolate the size of your registry, then increse it ten fold and see
if you don't notice some minor differences here and there. Do right and
you can pretty much slow things right down.
It's very easy; you obviously don't understand the structure and
methodology of the reigistry even from a high level. So it's indexed;
big deal.

I really, really doubt that, or you'd not resort to name-calling
instead of providing some evidence that registry cleaners do any good,

Nice set of innuendo by trimming, BTW. But I guess cornered people get
like that. I have right and knowledge on my side, unlike you.

That's also funny because I sent you plenty of "evidence" some time ago,
which you chose to ignore. At that time I just dismissed you as a black
hole not liking being called out but now I know what an idiot and closed
mind you are, I'm not near as polite anymore. I believe it was just
before the XP release if you want a timeframe to look for my post to
you. You do archive, right? An important fella like you must. Oh, I
forgot, you know everything and dont' need to keep any records.

whatsoever. (By the way, if you ever do find and produce links to any
sort of independent laboratory documentation to support the use of
registry cleaners, you'll be the very first person to ever have done
so.

Nice thought, but a lie. I'd love to be "first" but if it exists, which
it does, by definition then I cannot be the "first", right? Duhh!
I've already sent you same but you chose not to respond to it. It's
your turn now. Turn this away from confrontational and initiate some
factual dialog; I'll take it into account and even do further research
if I feel the need. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize, but not strongly
because it'll mean you've had information at hand all along that you
never chose to share with anyone, let alone when you're challenged on
the subject. Hell, you've never even justified how you can install an
application that uses the registry and registers components and objects
in the registry and not get you liver quivering. It must really kill
you that your registry is in constant flux of reads/writes the whole
time you're using your computer.

Lots of white papers exist on the subject. Lots of reviews and
comparisons exist. Lots of blogs too, but I might's well listen to you
if I'm going to use most blogs for a reference.

And I've asked this of every snake oil salesman that's touted

registry cleaners.)

I'd say that's statistically about a 99+% chance that's: Obviously
another sweeping lie. "every", "always", "never", "none", etc.; you
sure like those terms, don't you? OTOH, since there is no such thing as
a "snake oil salesman" that's "touted registry cleaners", the whole
sentence makes no sense and just drifts into oblivion read that way.
I know what you wanted me to feel you said though, so you lied. Yes,
I'm calling you a liar for that and a lot of other statements you've
made.

I challenge you to prove your point/s. It's your turn.

 

[John John (MVP)]

If you'd read my post, you'd know I had. I'm open to any and all new
information. Only none is ever presented.

You're not open to new information, you are just parroting your usual
opinions about registry cleaners, opinions which in your mind you hold
to be facts. There has been plenty of evidence shown about the near
uselessness of registry cleaners and the potential risks associated with
their use, yet you still go on with your parroting and dismiss the facts
presented, although you and the others who tout these products can offer
no verifiable evidence of the necessity or benefits of using these
cleaners on a regular basis. Read the comments by readers here:
http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000643.html and see what kind of
problems these things can cause. As if the problems they cause aren't
bad enough, at best these programs provide virtually no benefits, a
complete waste of time and an only an invitation for problems which
would otherwise be avoidable!

John

 

[JS]

Never installed GoBack as had problems with an earlier version (forget when
or which version).

Thanks
JS

 

[Unknown]

If indeed you do have decades of experience with registry cleaners why do
you continue to tout them? Are you insane?

 

[JS]

What is needed is a good Registry Editor.
As Notepad to MS Word, Regedit should have a higher level tool.
Regcleaners (in most cases) are best compared to a vacuum cleaner
(it sucks up anything on the floor it finds).

It was mentioned in an earlier post that the registry is an "indexed
database".
If so this database has no SQL like query tool.

Select HKLM
From: Last Uninstalled Application
Where Key = orphaned
Group By: Subkey
End:

What is needed is a truly intelligent editor that once you highlight a key
returns all the information known about that key.
Some examples:
When it was created.
What application created it.
What permissions are assigned.
Is it still viable.
Etc., Etc., Etc.

Also this editor would automatically make a backup of any key that you edit.
Have a log file of any changes made.

JS

 

[Daave]

Uhh, I think you lost it too, Bruce; the subject isn't "winXP"; it's
registry cleaners.

Actually, the subject is "XP registry cleaners."

I have experience back through 98, 95, 3.x, 6.22 and CP/M <snip>

I'm pretty sure the point is that while registry cleaning may have had a
place in all the earlier operating systems, there is no evidence
supporting the premise that it is beneficial for PCs running XP. If you
have a link to a Web page that offers this evidence, I will be happy to
read it. I have used search engines a number of times, but I've never
been able to find such evidence. If you are able to provide it, I would
be interested in reading it.

 

[Bill in Co.]

Actually, the subject is "XP registry cleaners."


I'm pretty sure the point is that while registry cleaning may have had a
place in all the earlier operating systems, there is no evidence
supporting the premise that it is beneficial for PCs running XP. If you
have a link to a Web page that offers this evidence, I will be happy to
read it. I have used search engines a number of times, but I've never
been able to find such evidence. If you are able to provide it, I would
be interested in reading it.

He is not (obviously). That's why he goes on and on like he does (and he
gets a tad upset when he is called on it).