programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetent programmers

July 13, 2008

Hello,

I am curious, what are the reasons that some applications after being

uninstalled leave some entries in the registry, or leave behind a

corrupted registry?

Are the application developers incompetent? Or is it just difficult to

do this in Windows (bad OS design)?

Having gone through the recent ZoneAlarm and KB951748 fiasco, I am

strongly thinking of doing away with ZA. But looking at the methods to

clean up one's computer, e.g. one is here:

http://forums.zonealarm.org/zonelabs/board/message?board.id=inst&message.id=78945

I cannot recommend this method to an average Joe.

Are such applications' developers just plain incompetent and/or

careless? Or is Windows to blame for making it unnecessarily difficult

to program application which cleanup registry entries during uninstallation?

Could somebody shed some light on this please.

Thanks.

--

---

Please remove underscores, if any, from my email address to obtain the

correct one. Sorry for the trouble but this is to reduce SPAM.

July 13, 2008

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetent programmers

there are a number of reasons

all of which are not in our

control.

however what you do have is

control over your computer and

maintaining the registry is

imperative to the performance

of your system.

the registry is a database file

and the imperative is that its

data needs to be reconciled to

the data on the disk.

if the registry contains worthless

data because the parent files

are no longer valid or found

on the disk, then the worthless

data needs to be removed from

the registry.

removing faulty data from the

registry not only makes it accurate

but reduces the file size as well.

the result of having a very large

registry data base because it contains

worthless data also increases

the fragmentation of the

registry file and increases the

risk of a corrupted registry

and crash.

microsoft invented windows

and invented the registry. they

also invented the first registry

cleaner.

therefore i suggest you take

advantage of their wisdom

and generosity for there latest

utility:

http://onecare.live.com/site/en-US/article/registry_cleaner_why.htm

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

"H. S." <g_reate_xcalibur@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:%23i6PuPI5IHA.5012@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Hello,

>

> I am curious, what are the reasons that some applications after being

> uninstalled leave some entries in the registry, or leave behind a corrupted

> registry?

>

> Are the application developers incompetent? Or is it just difficult to do this

> in Windows (bad OS design)?

>

> Having gone through the recent ZoneAlarm and KB951748 fiasco, I am strongly

> thinking of doing away with ZA. But looking at the methods to clean up one's

> computer, e.g. one is here:

> http://forums.zonealarm.org/zonelabs/board/message?board.id=inst&message.id=78945

>

> I cannot recommend this method to an average Joe.

>

> Are such applications' developers just plain incompetent and/or careless? Or

> is Windows to blame for making it unnecessarily difficult to program

> application which cleanup registry entries during uninstallation?

>

> Could somebody shed some light on this please.

>

> Thanks.

>

> --

> ---

> Please remove underscores, if any, from my email address to obtain the correct

> one. Sorry for the trouble but this is to reduce SPAM.

July 13, 2008

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

db.·.. ><))) ·>` .. . wrote:

> microsoft invented windows

> and invented the registry. they

> also invented the first registry

> cleaner.

Makes sense!

> therefore i suggest you take

> advantage of their wisdom

> and generosity for there latest

> utility:

>

> http://onecare.live.com/site/en-US/article/registry_cleaner_why.htm

I will look into it. But will this help, say, removal of Zone Alarm by

cleaning up the registry clutter left behind by ZA?

July 13, 2008

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetent programmers

IMHO, the main reason is incompetence. Some programmers seem to do a

good job, others can be a bit ordinary.

I am just removing ZA from a Win98SE box and I see no reason for the

folders, files and Registry entries left behind. Cleaning is not too

difficult as I kept details of the installation but otherwise, it

would be difficult.

The site you mention does not seem to cater for older versions as

there are many more Registry entries in my removal.

....Alan

--

Alan Edwards, MS MVP Windows - Internet Explorer

http://dts-l.com/index.htm

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:01:03 -0400, in

microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, "H. S."

<g_reate_xcalibur@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Hello,

>

>I am curious, what are the reasons that some applications after being

>uninstalled leave some entries in the registry, or leave behind a

>corrupted registry?

>

>Are the application developers incompetent? Or is it just difficult to

>do this in Windows (bad OS design)?

>

>Having gone through the recent ZoneAlarm and KB951748 fiasco, I am

>strongly thinking of doing away with ZA. But looking at the methods to

>clean up one's computer, e.g. one is here:

>http://forums.zonealarm.org/zonelabs/board/message?board.id=inst&message.id=78945

>

>I cannot recommend this method to an average Joe.

>

>Are such applications' developers just plain incompetent and/or

>careless? Or is Windows to blame for making it unnecessarily difficult

>to program application which cleanup registry entries during uninstallation?

>

>Could somebody shed some light on this please.

>

>Thanks.

July 13, 2008

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetent programmers

> there are a number of reasons

> all of which are not in our

> control.

>

> however what you do have is

> control over your computer and

> maintaining the registry is

> imperative to the performance

> of your system.

The registry either works or it doesn't. There is no "maintenance"

necessary. The registry won't rot if you don't oil it.

>

> the registry is a database file

> and the imperative is that its

> data needs to be reconciled to

> the data on the disk.

That is mostly true.

>

> if the registry contains worthless

> data because the parent files

> are no longer valid or found

> on the disk, then the worthless

> data needs to be removed from

> the registry.

That is manifestly NOT true.

>

> removing faulty data from the

> registry not only makes it accurate

> but reduces the file size as well.

Accuracy, in this case, is over-rated. No one cares about the size.

>

> the result of having a very large

> registry data base because it contains

> worthless data also increases

> the fragmentation of the

> registry file and increases the

> risk of a corrupted registry

> and crash.

The size of the registry is virtually unaffected by application entries.

Entries placed in the registry in response to application installations

amounts to a negligible percentage of the contents.

>

> microsoft invented windows

> and invented the registry. they

> also invented the first registry

> cleaner.

>

> therefore i suggest you take

> advantage of their wisdom

> and generosity for there latest

> utility:

>

> http://onecare.live.com/site/en-US/article/registry_cleaner_why.htm

>

But first, ask yourself WHY Microsoft invented a registry cleaner? I believe

they did so because people insisted upon having one - like they insist on

taking antibiotics when they have a cold! We have no empirical evidence that

Microsoft's registry cleaner actually does anything and ample evidence that

the difference between using Microsoft's cleaner and doing nothing is zero.

For all we know, Microsoft's registry cleaner is a placebo.

July 13, 2008

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

HeyBub wrote:

>

> But first, ask yourself WHY Microsoft invented a registry cleaner? I believe

> they did so because people insisted upon having one - like they insist on

> taking antibiotics when they have a cold! We have no empirical evidence that

> Microsoft's registry cleaner actually does anything and ample evidence that

> the difference between using Microsoft's cleaner and doing nothing is zero.

>

> For all we know, Microsoft's registry cleaner is a placebo.

>

Now that you mention this, I think you have a valid point. After all,

when an application was installed in the past, it did some

customizations, and then it was removed leaving the registry clutter

behind, how can any registry cleaner know which entries are rogue or

invalid entries when the cleaner was not present at the time of the

application's original installation?

In my belief, the only way to properly clean the registry is to keep

track of the changes being done by an application. Upon removal of that

application, the changes need to undone or relevant registry entries

removed.

I don't see how a registry cleaner can look in the past and try to

deduce what an application was trying to do after the installation is

long gone.

July 13, 2008

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

Alan Edwards wrote:

> IMHO, the main reason is incompetence. Some programmers seem to do a

> good job, others can be a bit ordinary.

>

> I am just removing ZA from a Win98SE box and I see no reason for the

> folders, files and Registry entries left behind. Cleaning is not too

> difficult as I kept details of the installation but otherwise, it

> would be difficult.

> The site you mention does not seem to cater for older versions as

> there are many more Registry entries in my removal.

I think there is another explanation perhaps, at least in part. The

application programmers actually intentionally leave behind the registry

clutter to either limit license related stuff or to leave tracks behind

so that they know about the earlier setup when a newer version of the

application is installed.

Furthermore, it might just be because marketing drones insisted on

leaving the information on the system for future statistics gathering stuff.

In any case, if this is a designed behavior, it is just being sneaky and

underhanded. And, for fear of being flamed, this logically leads to the

conclusion that open source software is more moral in this sense; there

is nothing hidden in those like it is in registry related mess here.

I have a theory since long. Had this whole registry stuff been not

misused, more people would have had more trust in Windows. It is quite

common for Windows users to do a reinstallation every hear. And more

often than not, it is precisely because of problems from registry

clutter. Open source users have no limits to the fun they have when they

see this. Quite understandably, I would say.

July 13, 2008

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

Alan Edwards wrote:

> IMHO, the main reason is incompetence. Some programmers seem to do a

> good job, others can be a bit ordinary.

BTW, here is an interesting thing. I posted regarding this same problem

in Zone Alarm support forum. The thread was not liked one bit by the

administrators there:

http://forums.zonealarm.org/zonelabs/board/message?board.id=inst&message.id=79206

Looks like the forum is run by Zone Alarm payed administrators while

claiming not to be a tech support forum but only a support forum.

There goes free speech!!

July 13, 2008

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

On 13 Jul, 02:01, "H. S." <g_reate_xcali...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Hello,

>

> I am curious, what are the reasons that some applications after being

> uninstalled leave some entries in the registry, or leave behind a

> corrupted registry?

>

> Are the application developers incompetent? Or is it just difficult to

> do this in Windows (bad OS design)?

>

> Having gone through the recent ZoneAlarm and KB951748 fiasco, I am

> strongly thinking of doing away with ZA. But looking at the methods to

> clean up one's computer, e.g. one is here:http://forums.zonealarm.org/zonelabs/board/message?board.id=inst&mess...

>

> I cannot recommend this method to an average Joe.

>

> Are such applications' developers just plain incompetent and/or

> careless? Or is Windows to blame for making it unnecessarily difficult

> to program application which cleanup registry entries during uninstallation?

>

> Could somebody shed some light on this please.

>

> Thanks.

>

> --

zone alarm or anti virus software may put crap all over the registry

to make itself hard to remove. So that malicious software has trouble

getting rid of it.

But uninstallers shoulst still remove it.

If uninstallers don't do the job, it comes down to programmers

working in industry. They have a deadline and have to get the program

shipped out, and the uninstaller isn't a priority,the end users they

sell to aren't that bothered by that, they are just consumers. It's

not completely incompetent programmers, it's the system they work in,

the way the industry is, that makes them like that. They were probably

good programmers at one time, and in a sense still are, but they have

to produce what they are paid to produce, in the time they have to do

it!

I had a very bad experience with a version of Zone Alarm that would

not uninstall. I never used it since. I just use the windows firewall

and my NAT Router. And not any 3rd party popup firewall software / PFW

s(so-called Personal Firewall Software). Said software is not taken

that seriously by techies anyway.

ZA / Zone Alarm was promoted alot by Steve "Ahab!" Gibson, a very bad

manipulative liar. When pushed on the radio over one of his claims ,

it turned out he knew what he was doing, he said "I spread a

deliberate disinformation campaign". His idea is not even security by

obscurity - but security by obfuscation and lies so as to mislead any

potential hackers that try to learn from his site!

There was a site called grcsucks.com but now it's down, most articles

gone. It really exposed him big time.

July 13, 2008

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

>

> If uninstallers don't do the job, it comes down to programmers

> working in industry. They have a deadline and have to get the program

> shipped out, and the uninstaller isn't a priority,the end users they

> sell to aren't that bothered by that, they are just consumers. It's

> not completely incompetent programmers, it's the system they work in,

> the way the industry is, that makes them like that. They were probably

> good programmers at one time, and in a sense still are, but they have

> to produce what they are paid to produce, in the time they have to do

> it!

Basically, good programmers are worthless if a company employs clueless

pointy haired managers and self praising buzz word inventing marketing

execs :)

The best way to deal with this problem is to not use such a product. The

company will eventually realize what is lacking or just simply die.

>

> ZA / Zone Alarm was promoted alot by Steve "Ahab!" Gibson, a very bad

> manipulative liar. When pushed on the radio over one of his claims ,

> it turned out he knew what he was doing, he said "I spread a

> deliberate disinformation campaign". His idea is not even security by

> obscurity - but security by obfuscation and lies so as to mislead any

> potential hackers that try to learn from his site!

>

> There was a site called grcsucks.com but now it's down, most articles

> gone. It really exposed him big time.

Too bad! Would have loved to know some references here.

Anyhow, Zone Alarm is now a thing of the past. I used to be very

supporting of ZA, not anymore. Moreover, the thread control nazis at

their support forum have completely put me off their product.

ZA's remove option is so broken that while facing the prospect of

uninstalling it I get the image of Norton Antivirus uninstallation in my

head. :)

Regards.

July 13, 2008

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

H. S. wrote:

> Hello,

>

> I am curious, what are the reasons that some applications after being

> uninstalled leave some entries in the registry, or leave behind a

> corrupted registry?

>

> Are the application developers incompetent?

Sometimes incompetence comes into play, but it's more often simple

laziness, I think, since orphaned entries in the registry are almost

entirely harmless, in most cases, and have no affect whatsoever on

performance.

> Or is it just difficult to

> do this in Windows (bad OS design)?

>

Absurd conclusion. If an installer can make a registry entry, a

properly coded uninstaller can remove it just as easily.

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

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

July 13, 2008

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

db.·.. ><))) ·>` .. . wrote:

> there are a number of reasons

> all of which are not in our

> control.

>

> however what you do have is

> control over your computer and

> maintaining the registry is

> imperative to the performance

> of your system.

>

Utter nonsense. The registry requires no maintenance.

> the registry is a database file

> and the imperative is that its

> data needs to be reconciled to

> the data on the disk.

>

Database, yes. "Reconciled?" Are the two not speaking? This makes no

sense.

> if the registry contains worthless

> data because the parent files

> are no longer valid or found

> on the disk, then the worthless

> data needs to be removed from

> the registry.

>

A deliberate lie. Orphaned registry entries do no harm and have no

affect upon performance, whatsover.

> removing faulty data from the

> registry not only makes it accurate

Nonsense.

> but reduces the file size as well.

>

Microscopically, I suppose.

> the result of having a very large

> registry data base because it contains

> worthless data also increases

> the fragmentation of the

> registry file and increases the

> risk of a corrupted registry

> and crash.

>

Again, a deliberate lie (*because this error has been piointed out to

you repeatedly. You obviously either have no clue as to how a database

works, or are knowingly spreading false information.

> microsoft invented windows

Not strictly true, although they now own the rights to it has it

currently exists.

> and invented the registry.

False.

> they

> also invented the first registry

> cleaner.

>

False, again

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

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

July 13, 2008

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

H.S. wrote:

>

> I think there is another explanation perhaps, at least in part. The

> application programmers actually intentionally leave behind the registry

> clutter to either limit license related stuff or to leave tracks behind

> so that they know about the earlier setup when a newer version of the

> application is installed.

>

This is particularly true in the case of trial versions of

applications. Unless the uninstaller leaves something behind, all the

less scrupulous would need do to is uninstall and then reinstall the

trial software every 30 days (or however long the free evaluation period

lasts), rather than actually paying for it honestly.

> Furthermore, it might just be because marketing drones insisted on

> leaving the information on the system for future statistics gathering

> stuff.

>

> In any case, if this is a designed behavior, it is just being sneaky and

> underhanded.

OK, now I think we're drifting off course onto the Sea of Paranoia....

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

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

July 13, 2008

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetent programmers

it can as long as there

is absolutely no folders

or files or dll's still

on the disk.

so even if there are

files orphaned or

camouflaged still

on the disk and there

are keys in the registry

that still point to them,

then the keys won't

be removed.

in addition you can

search for orphaned

keys after the cleaning

by searching the registry

with a criterion of za and

other nomenclatures such

programs utilize.

then simply delete them.

this method above is

provided by other registry

cleaners like regclean 4,

whereas it groups keys

by name or manufacture,

then you can simply delete

the unwanted ones as a

group.

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

"H.S." <hs.samREMOVEMEix@google.com> wrote in message

news:%23M00rkI5IHA.4908@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> db.·.. ><))) ·>` .. . wrote:

>

>> microsoft invented windows

>> and invented the registry. they

>> also invented the first registry

>> cleaner.

>

> Makes sense!

>

>> therefore i suggest you take

>> advantage of their wisdom

>> and generosity for there latest

>> utility:

>>

>> http://onecare.live.com/site/en-US/article/registry_cleaner_why.htm

>

> I will look into it. But will this help, say, removal of Zone Alarm by

> cleaning up the registry clutter left behind by ZA?

>

July 13, 2008

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetent programmers

if that were true, then

this would not be:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307545

------------

it is best that everyone relies

on the number one authority

of windows and all others

just stay on your buggies and

pass on thru....

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:Os74g6I5IHA.5012@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> there are a number of reasons

>> all of which are not in our

>> control.

>>

>> however what you do have is

>> control over your computer and

>> maintaining the registry is

>> imperative to the performance

>> of your system.

>

> The registry either works or it doesn't. There is no "maintenance" necessary.

> The registry won't rot if you don't oil it.

>

>>

>> the registry is a database file

>> and the imperative is that its

>> data needs to be reconciled to

>> the data on the disk.

>

> That is mostly true.

>

>>

>> if the registry contains worthless

>> data because the parent files

>> are no longer valid or found

>> on the disk, then the worthless

>> data needs to be removed from

>> the registry.

>

> That is manifestly NOT true.

>

>>

>> removing faulty data from the

>> registry not only makes it accurate

>> but reduces the file size as well.

>

> Accuracy, in this case, is over-rated. No one cares about the size.

>

>>

>> the result of having a very large

>> registry data base because it contains

>> worthless data also increases

>> the fragmentation of the

>> registry file and increases the

>> risk of a corrupted registry

>> and crash.

>

> The size of the registry is virtually unaffected by application entries.

> Entries placed in the registry in response to application installations

> amounts to a negligible percentage of the contents.

>

>>

>> microsoft invented windows

>> and invented the registry. they

>> also invented the first registry

>> cleaner.

>>

>> therefore i suggest you take

>> advantage of their wisdom

>> and generosity for there latest

>> utility:

>>

>> http://onecare.live.com/site/en-US/article/registry_cleaner_why.htm

>>

>

> But first, ask yourself WHY Microsoft invented a registry cleaner? I believe

> they did so because people insisted upon having one - like they insist on

> taking antibiotics when they have a cold! We have no empirical evidence that

> Microsoft's registry cleaner actually does anything and ample evidence that

> the difference between using Microsoft's cleaner and doing nothing is zero.

>

> For all we know, Microsoft's registry cleaner is a placebo.

>

July 13, 2008

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetent programmers

> if that were true, then

> this would not be:

>

> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307545

>

> ------------

>

> it is best that everyone relies

> on the number one authority

> of windows and all others

> just stay on your buggies and

> pass on thru....

>

The article deals with recovery from a corrupted registry. This is not in

conflict with my assertion that the registry either works or it doesn't.

Whatever the case, the registry doesn't need maintenance, cleaning,

compacting, or tattooing.

July 13, 2008

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetent programmers

Bruce Chambers wrote:

>

> Sometimes incompetence comes into play, but it's more often simple

> laziness, I think, since orphaned entries in the registry are almost

> entirely harmless, in most cases, and have no affect whatsoever on

> performance.

>

>> Or is it just difficult to

>> do this in Windows (bad OS design)?

>>

>

> Absurd conclusion. If an installer can make a registry entry, a

> properly coded uninstaller can remove it just as easily.

Speaking as a programmer, I can offer a slim reason (not a justification).

An application can be installed all over the place - almost any folder, any

drive, any machine. So, when it comes time to execute, where are all the

bits?

There is only one registry. If the installer puts the links there, they can

always be found.

At least that's what some programmers think.

July 13, 2008

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

db.·.. ><))) ·>` .. . wrote:

>

> in addition you can

> search for orphaned

> keys after the cleaning

> by searching the registry

> with a criterion of za and

> other nomenclatures such

> programs utilize.

>

> then simply delete them.

>

> this method above is

> provided by other registry

> cleaners like regclean 4,

> whereas it groups keys

> by name or manufacture,

> then you can simply delete

> the unwanted ones as a

> group.

>

Which brings to this question: Can I trust the application to have

created registry items named based on a systematic nomenclature?

See, this is central to registry cleaning. If, say, ZoneAlarm people

named all their registry items appropriately, it would be really easy to

clean it. I suspect they intentionally confound the registry cleaning by

giving weird names. I would love to be proved wrong though.

July 13, 2008

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

Bruce Chambers wrote:

> This is particularly true in the case of trial versions of

> applications. Unless the uninstaller leaves something behind, all the

> less scrupulous would need do to is uninstall and then reinstall the

> trial software every 30 days (or however long the free evaluation period

> lasts), rather than actually paying for it honestly.

This just appears to be a broken business model then. After all, it is

quite common to find out from the web how to remove the relevant

registry items.

>

>> Furthermore, it might just be because marketing drones insisted on

>> leaving the information on the system for future statistics gathering

>> stuff.

>>

>> In any case, if this is a designed behavior, it is just being sneaky

>> and underhanded.

>

> OK, now I think we're drifting off course onto the Sea of Paranoia....

I did say "If", didn't I? :)

July 13, 2008

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

Bruce Chambers wrote:

>

>> Or is it just difficult to do this in Windows (bad OS design)?

>>

>

> Absurd conclusion. If an installer can make a registry entry, a

> properly coded uninstaller can remove it just as easily.

It is absurd to conclude that the above was a conclusion. It is quite

obvious it was a question. I fully agree with the second part of your

response. The onus lies squarely with the application developers. And to

date, I am yet to come across a Windows application which cleans itself

up systematically, some do most of the work some don't, Norton Antivirus

and ZoneAlarm being two cases at hand.

But to be honest, the only applications that I believe behave the best

in this regard are open source applications available for Windows. This

shouldn't come across as surprise. Closed source programmers are not

fearing to be ashamed when their incompetences are noted by others.

Regards.

July 13, 2008

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetentprogrammers

HeyBub wrote:

>

> Speaking as a programmer, I can offer a slim reason (not a justification).

> An application can be installed all over the place - almost any folder, any

> drive, any machine. So, when it comes time to execute, where are all the

> bits?

>

> There is only one registry. If the installer puts the links there, they can

> always be found.

>

> At least that's what some programmers think.

>

Counter example: many other OSes do not use registry concept at all but

use conf files. Many of those OSes are used for mission critical tasks.

Clearly, registry is not a necessary thing for important and stable systems.

July 14, 2008

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetent programmers

The very first caution (Do not use this procedure on an OEM installed OS)

eliminates about 90% of all Windows users.

" db.·.. ><))) ·>` .. ." <databaseben.public.newsgroup.microsoft.com> wrote

in message news:%23ruCZeR5IHA.5052@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> if that were true, then

> this would not be:

>

> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307545

>

> ------------

>

> it is best that everyone relies

> on the number one authority

> of windows and all others

> just stay on your buggies and

> pass on thru....

>

> --

>

> db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

>

> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:Os74g6I5IHA.5012@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>> there are a number of reasons

>>> all of which are not in our

>>> control.

>>>

>>> however what you do have is

>>> control over your computer and

>>> maintaining the registry is

>>> imperative to the performance

>>> of your system.

>>

>> The registry either works or it doesn't. There is no "maintenance"

>> necessary. The registry won't rot if you don't oil it.

>>

>>>

>>> the registry is a database file

>>> and the imperative is that its

>>> data needs to be reconciled to

>>> the data on the disk.

>>

>> That is mostly true.

>>

>>>

>>> if the registry contains worthless

>>> data because the parent files

>>> are no longer valid or found

>>> on the disk, then the worthless

>>> data needs to be removed from

>>> the registry.

>>

>> That is manifestly NOT true.

>>

>>>

>>> removing faulty data from the

>>> registry not only makes it accurate

>>> but reduces the file size as well.

>>

>> Accuracy, in this case, is over-rated. No one cares about the size.

>>

>>>

>>> the result of having a very large

>>> registry data base because it contains

>>> worthless data also increases

>>> the fragmentation of the

>>> registry file and increases the

>>> risk of a corrupted registry

>>> and crash.

>>

>> The size of the registry is virtually unaffected by application entries.

>> Entries placed in the registry in response to application installations

>> amounts to a negligible percentage of the contents.

>>

>>>

>>> microsoft invented windows

>>> and invented the registry. they

>>> also invented the first registry

>>> cleaner.

>>>

>>> therefore i suggest you take

>>> advantage of their wisdom

>>> and generosity for there latest

>>> utility:

>>>

>>> http://onecare.live.com/site/en-US/article/registry_cleaner_why.htm

>>>

>>

>> But first, ask yourself WHY Microsoft invented a registry cleaner? I

>> believe they did so because people insisted upon having one - like they

>> insist on taking antibiotics when they have a cold! We have no empirical

>> evidence that Microsoft's registry cleaner actually does anything and

>> ample evidence that the difference between using Microsoft's cleaner and

>> doing nothing is zero.

>>

>> For all we know, Microsoft's registry cleaner is a placebo.

>>

>

July 14, 2008

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetent programmers

The people here who keep talking about "needing to maintain and clean out

the registry" are often just so clueless - which is bad enough; but when

they espouse their uneducated and inexperienced "advice" to others, it's

just criminal.

Unknown wrote:

> The very first caution (Do not use this procedure on an OEM installed OS)

> eliminates about 90% of all Windows users.

>

> " db.·.. ><))) ·>` .. ." <databaseben.public.newsgroup.microsoft.com>

> wrote

> in message news:%23ruCZeR5IHA.5052@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>> if that were true, then

>> this would not be:

>>

>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307545

>>

>> ------------

>>

>> it is best that everyone relies

>> on the number one authority

>> of windows and all others

>> just stay on your buggies and

>> pass on thru....

>>

>> --

>>

>> db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

>>

>> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:Os74g6I5IHA.5012@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>> there are a number of reasons

>>>> all of which are not in our

>>>> control.

>>>>

>>>> however what you do have is

>>>> control over your computer and

>>>> maintaining the registry is

>>>> imperative to the performance

>>>> of your system.

>>>

>>> The registry either works or it doesn't. There is no "maintenance"

>>> necessary. The registry won't rot if you don't oil it.

>>>

>>>>

>>>> the registry is a database file

>>>> and the imperative is that its

>>>> data needs to be reconciled to

>>>> the data on the disk.

>>>

>>> That is mostly true.

>>>

>>>>

>>>> if the registry contains worthless

>>>> data because the parent files

>>>> are no longer valid or found

>>>> on the disk, then the worthless

>>>> data needs to be removed from

>>>> the registry.

>>>

>>> That is manifestly NOT true.

>>>

>>>>

>>>> removing faulty data from the

>>>> registry not only makes it accurate

>>>> but reduces the file size as well.

>>>

>>> Accuracy, in this case, is over-rated. No one cares about the size.

>>>

>>>>

>>>> the result of having a very large

>>>> registry data base because it contains

>>>> worthless data also increases

>>>> the fragmentation of the

>>>> registry file and increases the

>>>> risk of a corrupted registry

>>>> and crash.

>>>

>>> The size of the registry is virtually unaffected by application entries.

>>> Entries placed in the registry in response to application installations

>>> amounts to a negligible percentage of the contents.

>>>

>>>>

>>>> microsoft invented windows

>>>> and invented the registry. they

>>>> also invented the first registry

>>>> cleaner.

>>>>

>>>> therefore i suggest you take

>>>> advantage of their wisdom

>>>> and generosity for there latest

>>>> utility:

>>>>

>>>> http://onecare.live.com/site/en-US/article/registry_cleaner_why.htm

>>>>

>>>

>>> But first, ask yourself WHY Microsoft invented a registry cleaner? I

>>> believe they did so because people insisted upon having one - like they

>>> insist on taking antibiotics when they have a cold! We have no empirical

>>> evidence that Microsoft's registry cleaner actually does anything and

>>> ample evidence that the difference between using Microsoft's cleaner and

>>> doing nothing is zero.

>>>

>>> For all we know, Microsoft's registry cleaner is a placebo.

July 14, 2008

Re: programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetent programmers

Correct!

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:ekY6o8e5IHA.4344@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> The people here who keep talking about "needing to maintain and clean out

> the registry" are often just so clueless - which is bad enough; but when

> they espouse their uneducated and inexperienced "advice" to others, it's

> just criminal.

>

> Unknown wrote:

>> The very first caution (Do not use this procedure on an OEM installed OS)

>> eliminates about 90% of all Windows users.

>>

>> " db.·.. ><))) ·>` .. ." <databaseben.public.newsgroup.microsoft.com>

>> wrote

>> in message news:%23ruCZeR5IHA.5052@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>> if that were true, then

>>> this would not be:

>>>

>>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307545

>>>

>>> ------------

>>>

>>> it is best that everyone relies

>>> on the number one authority

>>> of windows and all others

>>> just stay on your buggies and

>>> pass on thru....

>>>

>>> --

>>>

>>> db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

>>>

>>> "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:Os74g6I5IHA.5012@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>> there are a number of reasons

>>>>> all of which are not in our

>>>>> control.

>>>>>

>>>>> however what you do have is

>>>>> control over your computer and

>>>>> maintaining the registry is

>>>>> imperative to the performance

>>>>> of your system.

>>>>

>>>> The registry either works or it doesn't. There is no "maintenance"

>>>> necessary. The registry won't rot if you don't oil it.

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> the registry is a database file

>>>>> and the imperative is that its

>>>>> data needs to be reconciled to

>>>>> the data on the disk.

>>>>

>>>> That is mostly true.

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> if the registry contains worthless

>>>>> data because the parent files

>>>>> are no longer valid or found

>>>>> on the disk, then the worthless

>>>>> data needs to be removed from

>>>>> the registry.

>>>>

>>>> That is manifestly NOT true.

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> removing faulty data from the

>>>>> registry not only makes it accurate

>>>>> but reduces the file size as well.

>>>>

>>>> Accuracy, in this case, is over-rated. No one cares about the size.

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> the result of having a very large

>>>>> registry data base because it contains

>>>>> worthless data also increases

>>>>> the fragmentation of the

>>>>> registry file and increases the

>>>>> risk of a corrupted registry

>>>>> and crash.

>>>>

>>>> The size of the registry is virtually unaffected by application

>>>> entries.

>>>> Entries placed in the registry in response to application installations

>>>> amounts to a negligible percentage of the contents.

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> microsoft invented windows

>>>>> and invented the registry. they

>>>>> also invented the first registry

>>>>> cleaner.

>>>>>

>>>>> therefore i suggest you take

>>>>> advantage of their wisdom

>>>>> and generosity for there latest

>>>>> utility:

>>>>>

>>>>> http://onecare.live.com/site/en-US/article/registry_cleaner_why.htm

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> But first, ask yourself WHY Microsoft invented a registry cleaner? I

>>>> believe they did so because people insisted upon having one - like they

>>>> insist on taking antibiotics when they have a cold! We have no

>>>> empirical

>>>> evidence that Microsoft's registry cleaner actually does anything and

>>>> ample evidence that the difference between using Microsoft's cleaner

>>>> and

>>>> doing nothing is zero.

>>>>

>>>> For all we know, Microsoft's registry cleaner is a placebo.

>

Sign In

programming good practices: registry etiquette and incompetent programmers

Recommended Posts

Guest H. S.

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest db.·.. >

Guest H.S.

Guest Alan Edwards

Guest HeyBub

Guest H.S.

Guest H.S.

Guest H.S.

Guest jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk

Guest H.S.

Guest Bruce Chambers

Guest Bruce Chambers

Guest Bruce Chambers

Guest db.·.. >

Guest db.·.. >

Guest HeyBub

Guest HeyBub

Guest Sam

Guest Sam

Guest Sam

Guest Sam

Guest Unknown

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Unknown

Similar Content

Best Practices in Software Engineering Leadership in a Remote Environment

Best Practices for Integrating Chatbots Into Your Business

Launching program automatically before log in

Good wifi but lags in games

Putting Threat Modeling Into Practice: A Guide for Business Leaders

Browse

Activity

Site Info