Rocket
Fri Apr 23 00:42:12 CDT 2004
In the first place, I am only writing in the context of Windows XP. 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 first thing to understand is that the registry is not code or script. It
does not execute. The registry is a central repository for software
configuration settings. When software uninstalls and leaves registry keys or
sub-keys behind, those remaining keys are doing nothing but taking up space.
The program that referenced them is gone so they have no use. Those keys do
not interact with any other software or hardware. Their worst crime is that
they occupy a few bytes of memory and hard disk space. The same is true of
keys or sub-keys that point to non-existent shortcuts or icons, or of
virtually all the laughable 'errors' that so-called registry cleaners come
up with.
Let's say that a typical computer has thousands of these orphan registry
keys. I don't know if this is true, let's just say it is. Let's say it all
adds up to several hundred KB's worth of wasted space. I have 512 million
bytes of memory and 200 billion bytes of hard disk capacity. Am I going to
concern myself with several hundred KB's of orphan registry keys? I have
more than that in my Recycle Bin many days. Are several hundred KB's worth
of fluff going to slow down my system's performance one bit? No way.
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.
Have you ever wondered, if these programs are as essential as they claim,
why no reputable computer publication has ever published a comparison of
registry cleaners using 'before and after' performance benchmarks on a set
of test bed registries? Or why Microsoft does not publisher a registry
cleaner for XP, as it did for some of the 9x versions of Windows? Or why
scanreg is not supported in XP?
And what about those keys left behind by uninstalling software...why are
they left behind? It could be sloppy programming, or it could be that the
developer knows that no harm will come from leaving them behind, and rather
than take the risk of making unnecessary changes to a user's registry the
keys remain.
And for anyone who is so concerned about removing bloat - there's a thousand
times more bloat outside the registry!
If you think that regedit is a registry cleaner...if you think that orphan
registry keys "can cause errors in other installed programs," you are
displaying a lack of understanding that can lead to serious problems, such
as those experienced by the unfortunates who write into the Windows
newsgroups hoping to undue the damage their registry cleaners have done to
their computers. These toys are pushed onto naive users who, like yourself,
have all the best intentions and just want to do something good for their
computers.
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.'
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.
Rocky
asks"heirloom" <heirloom@nospamatall.com> wrote in message
news:O3UH9eOKEHA.3428@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Rocky,
> Please feel free to enlighten us.........I, too, am of the opinion
> that a stack of useless entries in the Reg cannot be good. I never
claimed
> to be one of the gurus in this group, but, I do try to learn from it and
> share what may be of use to others.
> In regard to compacting the Reg......this information comes from
C.
> Quirke's 9x page:
> <<<<<<Compacting the registry
>
> The registry grows as the system ages, and because "deleted' entries
remain
> in place to maintain index integrity, it doesn't shrink after
> uninstallations or cleanup. It will probably become fragmented at the file
> level, as the registry is always "in use" and so may not be defragged by
> Defrag. That not only slows access to the registry, but also increases the
> risk period during which a crash, reset or power off will interrupt the
> process of directory writes and thus corrupt the file.
>
> For this reason, it is sometimes advisable to compact the registry. In
> Windows 98, there's a utility called ScanReg that will do that; in fact,
if
> the system detects too much "dead space" within the registry, ScanReg may
> perform this task automatically. >>>>>>>
>
> (reason enough for me to occasionally compact the Reg)
>
> I have a great deal of respect for the knowledge of Mr. Quirke and the
rest
> of the MS-MVP's that frequent this group.....not to mention the time and
> effort they expend helping others, like myself.
>
> Maybe I am mistaken, but, it sounds like you condone never cleaning the
> Registry, as the 'leftovers' don't hurt anything. If that is the case,
why
> does MS make the registry cleaner, scanreg (with the switches), regedit,
> etc.?
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but,
> The registry is a database that contains information and settings for all
> the hardware, software, and user preferences of your computer. When you
> install, uninstall, or simply use software programs, registry entries are
> created, modified, or deleted.
>
> If you uninstall an application incorrectly or an error occurs during the
> uninstall process, the registry entries belonging to the application may
> remain in the registry. This may also happen if a file referenced from the
> registry gets deleted. Furthermore, some programs don't remove their
> registry entries when uninstalling.
>
> As a result, your registry gets stuffed with corrupt and orphaned entries.
> Many invalid records remain in the registry long after the corresponding
> applications were removed. This slows down your computer and can cause
> errors in other installed programs.
>
> As the registry gets filled with invalid data, Windows and programs
consume
> more system resources to search the database for any data. Therefore your
> computer gets slower and slower.
>
> Last but not least, passing invalid data to Windows programs can cause
> severe system complications resulting in system crash, hang and
malfunction.
>
> So, Mr. Squirrel, if the above is incorrect.......please, feel free to
> correct my misconceptions so that I won't be passing on false information.
> Heirloom, old and could have it all wrong
>
> "Rocket J. Squirrel" <rocky@bullwinkle.com> wrote in message
> news:8c0735cd0092758f2391a86a70de1763@news.teranews.com...
> > "As it is, removing dead entries makes for a less complicated system,
and
> as
> > I said, less things to go wrong..."
> >
> > I don't have any malicious intent whatsoever when I say this, and mean
no
> > disrespect: You don't understand what you're talking about.
> >
> > Rocky
> >
> > "Rick T" <plinnane3NO@SPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:eqdoq2MKEHA.952@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> > > Rocket J. Squirrel wrote:
> > >
> > > > And how does this cleaning of 'detritus' improve your computer's
> > > > performance? Does it start faster, for example, or does it run more
> > > > dependably? Is your Internet connection speedier or your does your
> > computer
> > > > run cooler?
> > >
> > > For me the main thing is there's less crap hanging around so less that
> > > could go wrong. RegCleaner (older JV16)'s interface lets you see new
> > > additions to the registry, once or twice I caught some malware before
it
> > > could do any damage. It's not 'snakeoil'; I wish they'd throw in a
> > > registry defragger though, that would *definitely* improve startup
time.
> > > As it is, removing dead entries makes for a less complicated system,
and
> > > as I said, less things to go wrong and less crap to wade through if
you
> > > have to troubleshoot. To me that would be a 'no brainer' M$ tool, but
I
> > > guess they figured by the time the registry got too bloated to use,
the
> > > user should be upgrading OSes anyways.
> > >
> > >
> > > Rick
> >
>
>