Best Registry Cleaner?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Alias" <maskedandanonymous@aka.com> wrote in message
news:c6909i$9a9s9$1@ID-208405.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Steve Baron - KB3MM" <SteveBaron@StarLinX.com> wrote in message
> news:uRX$49IKEHA.2012@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> >
> > "Alias" <maskedandanonymous@aka.com> wrote in message
> > news:c68l3s$9egho$1@ID-208405.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > > I like SystemSuite 5.0. It not only cleans up your registry, it
defrags
> it
> >
> > HUH
>
> What is it about this that you don't understand?
>
> Alias


<crosspost slashed>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.windows.misc,microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

David wrote:

> IMHO Registry cleaners can be destructive, for the sake of saving a
> few kb's I think leave it alone.

Some are (based on the occasional "wth happened to my registry" post,
here), but IME, the JV16 product (RegCleaner) has caused no problems
whatsoever and helped me manually remove some pests.


Rick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.windows.misc,microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Alias wrote:

>>>I like SystemSuite 5.0. It not only cleans up your registry, it defrags

k, now that's a neat trick. Freeware? (says he hopefully)


Rick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.windows.misc,microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

heirloom wrote:

> Rick,
> The Me Registry will automatically compact itself when it reaches a
> certain amount of freespace (500K, I think), however, you can run Scanreg
> /opt to compact the Registry after a major cleanup.......no exactly a
> defrag, but, it does get rid of the slack.

I wonder if it writes a new file or reuses the same clusters.

> Of course, you probably already knew all this............
> I know there are those that don't believe in any advantage to keeping the
> Reg free from useless entries........they may not hurt, but, they sure can't
> be doing any good!!!

Exactly... and I forgot to mention stuff that changes systems settings
that aren't needed anymore.


Rick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.windows.misc,microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 14:59:32 GMT, "Rocket J. Squirrel"
<rocky@bullwinkle.com> wrote:

>How do "cross links and dead end paths" in the registry make a computer run
>slower? Do they, for example, soak up CPU time?
>
>Is it just possible that your perception of "noticeably faster" performance
>is influenced by all the myth and hype surrounding tools that have no real
>value for Windows XP, but give the user the illusion that they're somehow
>'doing something' for their computer?
>
>Rocky

Having useless entries in your registry is not helpful. As to a
measurement of speed 'before' & 'after' I can't supply you with a link
or a program that will verify the perception. But then again, you
don't know what group you're in, so I doubt your 'perception' is all
that great anyway.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.windows.misc,microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

"Rocket J. Squirrel" <rocky@bullwinkle.com> wrote:

>On the other hand, if a registry cleaner removes (or tells me to remove) as
>little as one sub-key, and it's wrong, my computer can become unstable. Am I
>going to trust someone else's judgment with the integrity of my computer?
>For a few hundred KB's (if that) of registry entries that aren't doing a
>darn thing except sitting around with nothing to do? Not on your life.
>All the above does not mean that it's never a good idea to edit your
>registry. Many times editing the registry is exactly what's needed to
>correct a problem or to access a configuration setting not available from
>the GUI. When you edit the registry in this way you have a specific goal in
>mind and you are performing specific steps. This very different from vague
>'registry cleaning.'

My "specific goal in mind" is as I learned it from IT gurus at
companies I worked for - keeping the registry cleaned of obsolete
entries so that when you /do/ have to go into the registry to fix
a problem, you don't have those obsolete entries to wade through
while finding the one you need to work on.

Yes, care is required in the selection and use of registry
cleaners. So what? Care is required in a lot of things you do
in life. I perceive benefits in doing it, regularly. You don't.
So be it.

>Want to know the secret to a speedy, rock-steady system? Got you -- that was
>a trick question, because it's no secret: Learn how to use your computer
>wisely, and how to protect yourself from the exploits that miscreants are
>trying to send you over the Internet, and your computer will purr like a
>kitten. Just like my computer. There's no substitute for knowledge, and your
>own good judgment is worth more than any registry cleaner.

Oh, geez, I'm hearing the violins, seeing the fluffy white clouds
in the azure sky, and smelling the apple pie baking in the oven
after that motherhood, God, and apple pie paean. And you
inflicted a 189 line post on three newsgroups to end up with that
as a finale? Next thing you'll be telling us is that use of
registry cleaners is unconstitutional, and that anyone who does
so should be locked up.
--
OJ III
[Email sent to Yahoo address is burned before reading.
Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.windows.misc,microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 05:42:12 GMT, "Rocket J. Squirrel"
<rocky@bullwinkle.com> wrote:

>The registry of the NT versions of Windows is different from the registry of the
>9x versions of Windows. Furthermore, Windows XP includes many capabilities
>that are not present in the 9x versions of Windows which greatly improve
>XP's stability and efficiency.
>

The Win9x registry was taken from WinNT:

""The current design of the Registry was first introduced in Windows
NT to replace a proliferation of INI and setup files..." (page 10)
Windows 95 Registry Troubleshooting - Rob Tidrow

What are those capabilities in XP that are different from previous
versions?

Geo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.windows.misc,microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

"Oh, geez, I'm hearing the violins, seeing the fluffy white clouds in the
azure sky, and smelling the apple pie baking in the oven after that
motherhood, God, and apple pie paean."

OJ, you kill me. Rock on, man. ;-> (There I go giving away my age again.)

Rocky

"Ogden Johnson III" <oj3usmc@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5sji801ts6r5qco7v9juls6h5d7q8bdu8p@4ax.com...
> "Rocket J. Squirrel" <rocky@bullwinkle.com> wrote:
>
> >On the other hand, if a registry cleaner removes (or tells me to remove)
as
> >little as one sub-key, and it's wrong, my computer can become unstable.
Am I
> >going to trust someone else's judgment with the integrity of my computer?
> >For a few hundred KB's (if that) of registry entries that aren't doing a
> >darn thing except sitting around with nothing to do? Not on your life.
> >All the above does not mean that it's never a good idea to edit your
> >registry. Many times editing the registry is exactly what's needed to
> >correct a problem or to access a configuration setting not available from
> >the GUI. When you edit the registry in this way you have a specific goal
in
> >mind and you are performing specific steps. This very different from
vague
> >'registry cleaning.'
>
> My "specific goal in mind" is as I learned it from IT gurus at
> companies I worked for - keeping the registry cleaned of obsolete
> entries so that when you /do/ have to go into the registry to fix
> a problem, you don't have those obsolete entries to wade through
> while finding the one you need to work on.
>
> Yes, care is required in the selection and use of registry
> cleaners. So what? Care is required in a lot of things you do
> in life. I perceive benefits in doing it, regularly. You don't.
> So be it.
>
> >Want to know the secret to a speedy, rock-steady system? Got you -- that
was
> >a trick question, because it's no secret: Learn how to use your computer
> >wisely, and how to protect yourself from the exploits that miscreants are
> >trying to send you over the Internet, and your computer will purr like a
> >kitten. Just like my computer. There's no substitute for knowledge, and
your
> >own good judgment is worth more than any registry cleaner.
>
> Oh, geez, I'm hearing the violins, seeing the fluffy white clouds
> in the azure sky, and smelling the apple pie baking in the oven
> after that motherhood, God, and apple pie paean. And you
> inflicted a 189 line post on three newsgroups to end up with that
> as a finale? Next thing you'll be telling us is that use of
> registry cleaners is unconstitutional, and that anyone who does
> so should be locked up.
> --
> OJ III
> [Email sent to Yahoo address is burned before reading.
> Lower and crunch the sig and you'll net me at comcast.]

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.windows.misc,microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

And this is why the "personal" is in "personal computing".

Each user gets to make their own decisions and live with the
consequences.

I'm not aware of any serious reports of benchmarking results of the
benefits, if noticable, of registry cleaning or compacting. I suspect
the benefits are considerably less than the general consensus regarding
defragmentation. The commercial vendors are a reasonable starting
place.
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-04 MVP for Win9X / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
____
"Robert R Kircher, Jr." <rrkircher@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8ZGdnakCasS5-RTdRVn-vw@giganews.com...
> Rocky,
>
> Have you ever worked with a database such as the type that the
Registry
> uses? Conceptually its not about how many bytes of data are in the
database
> its all about how efficiently that info can be retrieved from the
database.
> Orphaned branches and entries can cause performance degradation with
this
> type of database. Is the reg db large enough to suffer performance
issues?
> Well the jury's still out in my mind.
>
> With that said, I've never cleaned my Reg db and most likely won't
because I
> don't feel like cleaning up the mess if it does delete something it
> shouldn't.
>
> --
>
> Rob
>
<snip>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.windows.misc,microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Note that heirloom's remarks were clipped from

Command-Line Switches for the Registry Checker Tool
;184023]http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;[LN];184023

where, unfortunately, MS librarians have not corrected the order of the
switches for scanreg, which should be

scanreg.exe /opt /fix

as discussed ad infinitum on Wed, 9 Feb 2000, in
microsoft.public.win98.performance.

Description of the Windows Registry Checker Tool (Scanreg.exe)
;183887]http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;[LN];183887
--
Jack E. Martinelli 2002-04 MVP for Win9X / DTS
Help us help you: http://www.dts-L.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/
Your cooperation is very appreciated.
____
"heirloom" <heirloom@nospamatall.com> wrote in message
news:u$HctINKEHA.3472@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Rick,
> The Me Registry will automatically compact itself when it
reaches a
> certain amount of freespace (500K, I think), however, you can run
Scanreg
> /opt to compact the Registry after a major cleanup.......no exactly a
> defrag, but, it does get rid of the slack.
>
> Description of Switches for Scanreg
>
> The following table lists each command-line switch and its
description:
>
> Switch Description
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
------
> /backup Backs up the registry and related files
without
> displaying any prompts.
>
> /restore Displays a list of available backup files,
sorted
> by the date and time the backup was created.
>
> "/comment=<text>" Enables you to add a descriptive comment to
the
> registry backup.
>
> /fix Repairs any damaged portions of the
registry, and
> optimizes it by rebuilding it without unused
> space.
>
> /autoscan Automatically scans the registry and backs
it up
> without displaying any prompts if there is
no
> backup for that date.
>
> /scanonly Scans the registry and displays a message if
any
> errors are found. This switch does not back
up the
> registry.
>
> filename Scans the registry file specified and
displays a
> message indicating whether or not any errors
were
> found. This switch does not back up the
registry.
>
> /opt The /opt command-line switch causes the
> Registry Checker tool to optimize the
> registry by removing unused space.
>
> Of course, you probably already knew all this............
> I know there are those that don't believe in any advantage to keeping
the
> Reg free from useless entries........they may not hurt, but, they sure
can't
> be doing any good!!!
> Heirloom, old and keep mine clean
>
>
> "Rick T" <plinnane3NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:eqdoq2MKEHA.952@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > Rocket J. Squirrel wrote:
> >
<snip>

 

[louise]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

In article <cene809pkhm230dkksaqb8slkavt56odtj@4ax.com>,
UseNewsgroup@NotEmail.net says...
> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:42:27 -0400, "James Nipper"
> <jnipper@nospam.fdn.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >Thanks for all the responses !! What about Registry Mechanic?
> >
> I was happy with Registry Mechanic until I tried jv16 Power Tools.
> jv16 is *much* better.
>
Better in what ways?

TIA

Louise

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 23:50:06 -0400, Louise <none@nospam.com> wrote:

>In article <cene809pkhm230dkksaqb8slkavt56odtj@4ax.com>,
>UseNewsgroup@NotEmail.net says...
>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 16:42:27 -0400, "James Nipper"
>> <jnipper@nospam.fdn.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >Thanks for all the responses !! What about Registry Mechanic?
>> >
>> I was happy with Registry Mechanic until I tried jv16 Power Tools.
>> jv16 is *much* better.
>>
>Better in what ways?
>
jv16 Power Tools offers *much* more thorough scans and more options...but
keep in mind that I stated that it is the better choice for the
*experienced* user. A novice could get into serious trouble by accidentally
deleting registry keys that are necessary.
--
<<<SgtRich>>>

Desktop: Dell Dimension XPS T550
Notebook: Dell Inspiron 8600
Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition running on both

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.windows.misc,microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 21:14:06 -0400, "James Nipper"
<jnipper@nospam.fdn.com> wrote:

>which of the registry cleaners do YOU think is best ??

Quick format and O/S reinstall, followed by installing only the
latest, known-good, versions of the drivers and applications that you
actually use. Registry cleaners are a distant second choice bandaid
that offer a too-high risk/reward quotient. You just can't beat a
fresh system install for fastest problem-free operation

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.windows.misc,microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

Jim Kent wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 21:14:06 -0400, "James Nipper"
> <jnipper@nospam.fdn.com> wrote:
>
>
>>which of the registry cleaners do YOU think is best ??
>
>
> Quick format and O/S reinstall, followed by installing only the
> latest, known-good, versions of the drivers and applications that you
> actually use. Registry cleaners are a distant second choice bandaid
> that offer a too-high risk/reward quotient. You just can't beat a
> fresh system install for fastest problem-free operation
>

Won't argue that, except I run RegCleaner once a week or so, which would
be a little too often for a fresh reinstall.


Rick

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.windows.misc,microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 09:34:17 -0400, in
<#upNf5eLEHA.3516@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl>, Rick T
<plinnane3NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>Jim Kent wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 21:14:06 -0400, "James Nipper"
>> <jnipper@nospam.fdn.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>which of the registry cleaners do YOU think is best ??
>>
>>
>> Quick format and O/S reinstall, followed by installing only the
>> latest, known-good, versions of the drivers and applications that you
>> actually use. Registry cleaners are a distant second choice bandaid
>> that offer a too-high risk/reward quotient. You just can't beat a
>> fresh system install for fastest problem-free operation
>
>Won't argue that, except I run RegCleaner once a week or so, which would
>be a little too often for a fresh reinstall.

Yep, and a fresh reinstall is only the beginning. Now you need
to apply the OS updates, then reinstall the applications that
didn't come with the OS and apply any updates to them, then
restore the data - which although not mentioned, you better have
backed up before that quick format. Now you get to reset all the
parameters and setup options for all those applications. And
more.

I think anyone who favors the format and reinstall approach is
probably doing little more than playing black jack (hearts,
minesweeper, you name it) with their computer.

OTOH, you clean your registry once a week?

I'm thinking some folks may just need to start practicing safe
and responsible hex vs going to the clinic every so often for a
cure.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.windows.misc,microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

> I'm thinking some folks may just need to start practicing safe
> and responsible hex vs going to the clinic every so often for a
> cure.
>

Great! How long did it take to come up with that one?

WT

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.windows.misc,microsoft.public.windowsme.general (More info?)

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 13:42:58 -0500, in
<c6u6nj$g8vvn$1@ID-201804.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Wayne Tiffany"
<wayne.tiffany@asi.com> wrote:

>> I'm thinking some folks may just need to start practicing safe
>> and responsible hex vs going to the clinic every so often for a
>> cure.
>>
>
>Great! How long did it take to come up with that one?

I've been using the "safe hex" line for years, but I didn't coin
it. Don't know who did. The rest just came to me on the spur of
the moment... out of the frustration with seeing some resort to
cleanup methods that are more problem than simply using basic
good safe computing practices in the first place.

 

[Guest]

This topic has been closed by Fihart