Guest Pegasus \(MVP\) Posted October 3, 2007 Posted October 3, 2007 Re: registry cleaner "Stephen" <none> wrote in message news:%23nNJM1cBIHA.464@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > "Pegasus (MVP)" <I.can@fly.com> wrote in message > news:O4QtjhcBIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> >> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >> news:fe03fq$kog$1@aioe.org... >>> Pegasus (MVP) wrote: >>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:udaAJ2aBIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>>> Pegasus (MVP) wrote: >>>>>> Unless you know exactly what you're doing, you should rely >>>>>> on the add/remove tool when removing programs from your >>>>>> PC. The amount of disk space used by left-over registry >>>>>> entries is so small that it would require tens of thousands of >>>>>> programs to make a noticeable difference on the amount of >>>>>> free disk space. >>>>> True. >>>>> >>>>>> Registry cleaners often claim to speed up your machine by >>>>>> removing such entries. The claim is false: There is no difference >>>>>> in speed before and after. >>>>>> >>>>> False. I see a marked improvement in performance and boot up time, >>>>> especially when using CCleaner and SystemSuite5 after a clean install >>>>> of XP and Office. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Alias >>>>> To email me, remove shoes >>>> >>>> Let's have some details: >>>> - What exactly did you measure, i.e. what was your benchmark test? >>>> - How did you measure it? Did it "feel" faster? Did you use a >>>> stopwatch? >>>> - What was the improvement? >>>> - Was this a once of test or were you able to see a consistent >>>> improvement >>>> on many different machines? >>>> >>>> Unless you supply full details it won't be possible for other >>>> readers to duplicate your tests and confirm your results. >>>> >>> >>> Stop watch. Dozens and dozens of machines. I just cleaned up a computer >>> that took TEN MINUTES to boot up. Now it boots up in 46 seconds. Enough >>> of a benchmark for you? I removed almost a THOUSAND errant registry >>> entries. >>> >>> -- >>> Alias >>> To email me, remove shoes >> >> Unless you supply full details, we have to take your word for it >> since we cannot repeat your tests. It therefore becomes an >> issue of belief rather than scientific proof. >> > > This is getting silly. You may well be correct in your assertion that > registry cleaning is unnecessary. However, nobody could supply full > details of such a test so that it could be repeated (in a 'scientific' > fashion), as this would entail knowing exactly what state the computer was > in before cleaning. > > We do not need to descend into a 'religion versus science' argument. I > would rather ask "Alias" (on a non-confrontational basis) if he has any > idea whether it is the number of errant entries that makes such a > difference, or some particular entry or type of entry, or what. If we > could make progress in narrowing down the source of the reported > performance improvement, perhaps we could learn something useful. > > As one who doesn't know that much about registry entries, I just wonder if > one could be trying to access a (now non-existent) mapped drive, or > something similar, and so waiting for a timeout. If this kind of behaviour > is possible, presumably removing this particular registry entry could have > a significant effect on performance, especially boot-up time. I would > welcome advice on this. > > Stephen > Let's introduce some clear thinking into this thread. If Alias had a systematic approach then he would report something like this: 1. I did a clean installation of WinXP. 2. I did a clean installation of Office XP. 3. I arranged it so that Word would auto-start. 4. I measured the time from when I turned on the PC until Word would accept my typing. 5. I applied registry cleaner "xyz". 6. I repeated test #4. The time reduced from 85 to 65 seconds. 7. I observed similar reductions on a number of other machines. So far Alias has reported no such thing. It is therefore impossible for me or anyone else to repeat his tests or confirm the results. His reports are purely anecdotal and therefore a matter of faith. Is there room for faith in a PC?
Guest Gerry Posted October 3, 2007 Posted October 3, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Stephen Stephen wrote: > As one who doesn't know that much about registry entries, I just > wonder if one could be trying to access a (now non-existent) mapped > drive, or something similar, and so waiting for a timeout. If this > kind of behaviour is possible, presumably removing this particular > registry entry could have a significant effect on performance, > especially boot-up time. I would welcome advice on this. Problems like this appear in Event Viewer so that you can pick and correct what you know to be a problem without resorting to a Registry Cleaner. -- Hope this helps. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Guest Gerry Posted October 3, 2007 Posted October 3, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Alias The only way you can demonstrate your point is to test performance after each stage of housekeeping. Unless a registry entry causes a timeout any superfluous entry will have so little affect than you would not notice any difference in performance. You mention removing 1,000 registry entries but how many of those entries would have been accessed when you restart the computer? Very few I suspect. If they are accessed to provide a false start-up the best solution is to remove them manually using Autoruns, having first confirmed what affect they have by disabling rather than removing. The processor handles so many transactions continuously that a few extra do not make a significant difference. Event Viewer Reports generate errors / warnings if there is a problem and it is logical to follow up from there. Based on what you say you have been doing I do not see that you can distinguish between the effect on performance of removing unnecessary registry entries and defragmenting 4,000 files. Defragmenting in the situation you describe will have a noticeable impact. Your approach may not pose a significant risk in your hands but if the risk converts to reality you can have a major problem which may be very difficult to recover from. -- Regards. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Alias wrote: >> >> > > I don't know if it was a particular entry or combination of entries. I > do know that it booted up much quicker after removing all those > entries. Removing 50 viruses didn't improve the boot up time as much > as removing the registry entries, though. Over 4000 fragmented files > being defragmented helped boot up and performance as well but I did > that last.
Guest Alias Posted October 3, 2007 Posted October 3, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Gerry wrote: > Alias > > The only way you can demonstrate your point is to test performance after > each stage of housekeeping. Unless a registry entry causes a timeout any > superfluous entry will have so little affect than you would not notice > any difference in performance. You mention removing 1,000 registry > entries but how many of those entries would have been accessed when you > restart the computer? Very few I suspect. If they are accessed to > provide a false start-up the best solution is to remove them manually > using Autoruns, having first confirmed what affect they have by > disabling rather than removing. The processor handles so many > transactions continuously that a few extra do not make a significant > difference. Event Viewer Reports generate errors / warnings if there is > a problem and it is logical to follow up from there. > > Based on what you say you have been doing I do not see that you can > distinguish between the effect on performance of removing unnecessary > registry entries and defragmenting 4,000 files. Defragmenting in the > situation you describe will have a noticeable impact. Your approach may > not pose a significant risk in your hands but if the risk converts to > reality you can have a major problem which may be very difficult to > recover from. > > Hasn't happened in over five years and hundreds of computers. -- Alias To email me, remove shoes
Guest Gerry Posted October 3, 2007 Posted October 3, 2007 Re: registry cleaner You're only commenting on the "risk" and ignoring the other points I made. -- Regards. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Alias wrote: > Gerry wrote: >> Alias >> >> The only way you can demonstrate your point is to test performance >> after each stage of housekeeping. Unless a registry entry causes a >> timeout any superfluous entry will have so little affect than you >> would not notice any difference in performance. You mention removing >> 1,000 registry entries but how many of those entries would have >> been accessed when you restart the computer? Very few I suspect. If >> they are accessed to provide a false start-up the best solution is >> to remove them manually using Autoruns, having first confirmed what >> affect they have by disabling rather than removing. The processor >> handles so many transactions continuously that a few extra do not >> make a significant difference. Event Viewer Reports generate errors >> / warnings if there is a problem and it is logical to follow up from >> there. Based on what you say you have been doing I do not see that >> you can >> distinguish between the effect on performance of removing unnecessary >> registry entries and defragmenting 4,000 files. Defragmenting in the >> situation you describe will have a noticeable impact. Your approach >> may not pose a significant risk in your hands but if the risk >> converts to reality you can have a major problem which may be very >> difficult to recover from. >> >> > > Hasn't happened in over five years and hundreds of computers.
Guest Doug W. Posted October 3, 2007 Posted October 3, 2007 Re: registry cleaner "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message news:%233k7ZuaBIHA.1184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > elenbe wrote: >> Namely game trials that I try and then Delete using >> the Add/Remove Option. If the space that these registries is >> taking up is small I'm not worried but it does eventually add >> up. Is there a way to just delete registries from the things >> I've deleted??? >> elenbe > > Yeah, there is. Get Crap Cleaner from http://www.ccleaner.com and use > the Registry function. Be sure to also use the back up feature > before removing registry entries. If you've installed and > uninstalled a slew of programs. Crap Cleaner will find > hundreds of entries that should be removed, regardless of what > *anyone* says. Once you've done that, you will see a marked > performance improvement. - BS...should notice little if any improvement in performance. > > -- > Alias > To email me, remove shoes
Guest Doug W. Posted October 3, 2007 Posted October 3, 2007 Re: registry cleaner "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message news:O%235aTIeBIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Gerry wrote: >> Alias >> >> The only way you can demonstrate your point is to test >> performance after each stage of housekeeping. Unless a >> registry entry causes a timeout any superfluous entry will >> have so little affect than you would not notice any >> difference in performance. You mention removing 1,000 >> registry entries but how many of those entries would have >> been accessed when you restart the computer? Very few I >> suspect. If they are accessed to provide a false start-up the >> best solution is to remove them manually using Autoruns, >> having first confirmed what affect they have by disabling >> rather than removing. The processor handles so many >> transactions continuously that a few extra do not make a >> significant difference. Event Viewer Reports generate errors >> / warnings if there is a problem and it is logical to follow >> up from there. >> >> Based on what you say you have been doing I do not see that >> you can distinguish between the effect on performance of >> removing unnecessary registry entries and defragmenting 4,000 >> files. Defragmenting in the situation you describe will have >> a noticeable impact. Your approach may not pose a significant >> risk in your hands but if the risk converts to reality you >> can have a major problem which may be very difficult to >> recover from. >> >> > > Hasn't happened in over five years and hundreds of computers. > > -- > Alias > To email me, remove shoes - I have used a good many so-called registry cleaners over the last twenty years. I have found thousands of entries that I removed. This did not improve performance one iota...but the registry is sparkling clean and free of dross. All it did was houseclean and made the various registry sections a bit smaller so they took up less space on the harddrive. Alias...no offense...but you are so full of BEANS. - Doug W.
Guest Zilbandy Posted October 3, 2007 Posted October 3, 2007 Re: registry cleaner On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:52:28 +0200, Alias <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote: >You know it's impossible for me to provide you with all the registry >entries I removed. The computer isn't mine but a client's who lives >cross town. Whether you believe me or not isn't material to me. I know >both registry fixers work so I use them on every machine I encounter and >have been doing this for years with no problems. If that isn't good >enough for you, well, so be it. Likely running some anti spyware programs would have fixed it. I don't like to see clutter in the registry either, but I've never noticed any change in performance after cleaning my registry, and yes, I periodically 'clean' my registry. It's sort of like cleaning the backseat of my car. It doesn't make it run better, but it makes me feel better. FYI, I'm using an older version of Registry First Aid 3.04 and I do backup registry with Erunt prior to using it. -- Zilbandy
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:24:44 -0700, Zilbandy <zilbandy@comcastREMOVETHIS.net> wrote: > I don't > like to see clutter in the registry either, but I've never noticed any > change in performance after cleaning my registry, and yes, I > periodically 'clean' my registry. It's sort of like cleaning the > backseat of my car. It doesn't make it run better, but it makes me > feel better. There one *very big* difference between cleaning the registry and cleaning the back seat of your car. Cleaning the back seat of your car can't result in your car not working. > FYI, I'm using an older version of Registry First Aid > 3.04 and I do backup registry with Erunt prior to using it. Glad to hear you do backups first (and Erunt is a good tool for that), but you need to be aware that if the registry cleaner screws up badly enough (and that's always possible) you can be left with an unbootable computer. You are taking a risk that as far as I'm concerned is unacceptable, since you are taking it for what you yourself admit provides no real benefit. But it's your computer and your choice, of course. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Zilbandy Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:00:34 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote: >Glad to hear you do backups first (and Erunt is a good tool for that), >but you need to be aware that if the registry cleaner screws up badly >enough (and that's always possible) you can be left with an unbootable >computer. If I can't boot it in safe mode, then it's time to use the Acronis True image boot disk and restore my last image. If I can't boot from that, then I've more problems than just a screwed registry. Do you ever wash your car? Why? Ohhh, you like it to look good! Why? Get my point? -- Zilbandy
Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:08:30 -0700, Zilbandy <zilbandy@comcastREMOVETHIS.net> wrote: > On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:00:34 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP" > <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote: > > >Glad to hear you do backups first (and Erunt is a good tool for that), > >but you need to be aware that if the registry cleaner screws up badly > >enough (and that's always possible) you can be left with an unbootable > >computer. > > If I can't boot it in safe mode, then it's time to use the Acronis > True image boot disk and restore my last image. If I can't boot from > that, then I've more problems than just a screwed registry. Do you > ever wash your car? Why? Ohhh, you like it to look good! Why? Get my > point? As a matter of fact, no, I don't. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Edward W. Thompson Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message news:fe03fq$kog$1@aioe.org... > Pegasus (MVP) wrote: >> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >> news:udaAJ2aBIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> Pegasus (MVP) wrote: >>>> Unless you know exactly what you're doing, you should rely >>>> on the add/remove tool when removing programs from your >>>> PC. The amount of disk space used by left-over registry >>>> entries is so small that it would require tens of thousands of >>>> programs to make a noticeable difference on the amount of >>>> free disk space. >>> True. >>> >>>> Registry cleaners often claim to speed up your machine by >>>> removing such entries. The claim is false: There is no difference >>>> in speed before and after. >>>> >>> False. I see a marked improvement in performance and boot up time, >>> especially when using CCleaner and SystemSuite5 after a clean install of >>> XP and Office. >>> >>> -- >>> Alias >>> To email me, remove shoes >> >> Let's have some details: >> - What exactly did you measure, i.e. what was your benchmark test? >> - How did you measure it? Did it "feel" faster? Did you use a stopwatch? >> - What was the improvement? >> - Was this a once of test or were you able to see a consistent >> improvement >> on many different machines? >> >> Unless you supply full details it won't be possible for other >> readers to duplicate your tests and confirm your results. >> > > Stop watch. Dozens and dozens of machines. I just cleaned up a computer > that took TEN MINUTES to boot up. Now it boots up in 46 seconds. Enough of > a benchmark for you? I removed almost a THOUSAND errant registry entries. > > -- > Alias > To email me, remove shoes Your assertions are patently false (in crude terms 'lies') and unfortunately I think you know it. This thread is nothing but SPAM. I am suprised that anyone has given you any credence.
Guest Stephen Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner "Pegasus (MVP)" <I.can@fly.com> wrote in message news:%23O61cadBIHA.3848@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > "Stephen" <none> wrote in message > news:%23nNJM1cBIHA.464@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> "Pegasus (MVP)" <I.can@fly.com> wrote in message >> news:O4QtjhcBIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>> >>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:fe03fq$kog$1@aioe.org... >>>> Pegasus (MVP) wrote: >>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:udaAJ2aBIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>>>> Pegasus (MVP) wrote: >>>>>>> Unless you know exactly what you're doing, you should rely >>>>>>> on the add/remove tool when removing programs from your >>>>>>> PC. The amount of disk space used by left-over registry >>>>>>> entries is so small that it would require tens of thousands of >>>>>>> programs to make a noticeable difference on the amount of >>>>>>> free disk space. >>>>>> True. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Registry cleaners often claim to speed up your machine by >>>>>>> removing such entries. The claim is false: There is no difference >>>>>>> in speed before and after. >>>>>>> >>>>>> False. I see a marked improvement in performance and boot up time, >>>>>> especially when using CCleaner and SystemSuite5 after a clean install >>>>>> of XP and Office. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Alias >>>>>> To email me, remove shoes >>>>> >>>>> Let's have some details: >>>>> - What exactly did you measure, i.e. what was your benchmark test? >>>>> - How did you measure it? Did it "feel" faster? Did you use a >>>>> stopwatch? >>>>> - What was the improvement? >>>>> - Was this a once of test or were you able to see a consistent >>>>> improvement >>>>> on many different machines? >>>>> >>>>> Unless you supply full details it won't be possible for other >>>>> readers to duplicate your tests and confirm your results. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Stop watch. Dozens and dozens of machines. I just cleaned up a computer >>>> that took TEN MINUTES to boot up. Now it boots up in 46 seconds. Enough >>>> of a benchmark for you? I removed almost a THOUSAND errant registry >>>> entries. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Alias >>>> To email me, remove shoes >>> >>> Unless you supply full details, we have to take your word for it >>> since we cannot repeat your tests. It therefore becomes an >>> issue of belief rather than scientific proof. >>> >> >> This is getting silly. You may well be correct in your assertion that >> registry cleaning is unnecessary. However, nobody could supply full >> details of such a test so that it could be repeated (in a 'scientific' >> fashion), as this would entail knowing exactly what state the computer >> was in before cleaning. >> >> We do not need to descend into a 'religion versus science' argument. I >> would rather ask "Alias" (on a non-confrontational basis) if he has any >> idea whether it is the number of errant entries that makes such a >> difference, or some particular entry or type of entry, or what. If we >> could make progress in narrowing down the source of the reported >> performance improvement, perhaps we could learn something useful. >> >> As one who doesn't know that much about registry entries, I just wonder >> if one could be trying to access a (now non-existent) mapped drive, or >> something similar, and so waiting for a timeout. If this kind of >> behaviour is possible, presumably removing this particular registry entry >> could have a significant effect on performance, especially boot-up time. >> I would welcome advice on this. >> >> Stephen >> > > Let's introduce some clear thinking into this thread. > If Alias had a systematic approach then he would > report something like this: > 1. I did a clean installation of WinXP. > 2. I did a clean installation of Office XP. > 3. I arranged it so that Word would auto-start. > 4. I measured the time from when I turned on the > PC until Word would accept my typing. > 5. I applied registry cleaner "xyz". > 6. I repeated test #4. The time reduced from > 85 to 65 seconds. > 7. I observed similar reductions on a number of > other machines. > So far Alias has reported no such thing. It is therefore > impossible for me or anyone else to repeat his tests > or confirm the results. His reports are purely anecdotal > and therefore a matter of faith. Is there room for faith > in a PC? > OK. Maybe you're right - and I think that's likely. (Although, of course, a real scenario would be hugely more complicated - clean installations are not likely to be improved by cleaning!) Let me ask you a similar question, though. Can you provide full details of a registry key that is removed by a (specified) registry cleaner that causes the PC not to boot? That's what has been alleged, but without details (which may well be available, but I've never seen posted), such an allegation is "purely anecdotal and therefore a matter of faith". Stephen
Guest Pegasus \(MVP\) Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner > >> Let's introduce some clear thinking into this thread. >> If Alias had a systematic approach then he would >> report something like this: >> 1. I did a clean installation of WinXP. >> 2. I did a clean installation of Office XP. >> 3. I arranged it so that Word would auto-start. >> 4. I measured the time from when I turned on the >> PC until Word would accept my typing. >> 5. I applied registry cleaner "xyz". >> 6. I repeated test #4. The time reduced from >> 85 to 65 seconds. >> 7. I observed similar reductions on a number of >> other machines. >> So far Alias has reported no such thing. It is therefore >> impossible for me or anyone else to repeat his tests >> or confirm the results. His reports are purely anecdotal >> and therefore a matter of faith. Is there room for faith >> in a PC? >> > > OK. Maybe you're right - and I think that's likely. (Although, of course, > a real scenario would be hugely more complicated - clean installations are > not likely to be improved by cleaning!) > > Let me ask you a similar question, though. Can you provide full details of > a registry key that is removed by a (specified) registry cleaner that > causes the PC not to boot? That's what has been alleged, but without > details (which may well be available, but I've never seen posted), such an > allegation is "purely anecdotal and therefore a matter of faith". > > Stephen > Sorry, I can't. Since I don't believe in registry cleaners I do not use them, and my machines all boot the way they should. When a registry-cleaner-prophet such as Alias will produce some hard and reproducible evidence that registry cleaners do more good than harm then I will review the issue. Up to now the message has always been "Believe me, it did miracles on x hundred machines". Strong faith, weak evidence.
Guest Stephen Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner "Pegasus (MVP)" <I.can@fly.com> wrote in message news:eoCh6GmBIHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > > >>> Let's introduce some clear thinking into this thread. >>> If Alias had a systematic approach then he would >>> report something like this: >>> 1. I did a clean installation of WinXP. >>> 2. I did a clean installation of Office XP. >>> 3. I arranged it so that Word would auto-start. >>> 4. I measured the time from when I turned on the >>> PC until Word would accept my typing. >>> 5. I applied registry cleaner "xyz". >>> 6. I repeated test #4. The time reduced from >>> 85 to 65 seconds. >>> 7. I observed similar reductions on a number of >>> other machines. >>> So far Alias has reported no such thing. It is therefore >>> impossible for me or anyone else to repeat his tests >>> or confirm the results. His reports are purely anecdotal >>> and therefore a matter of faith. Is there room for faith >>> in a PC? >>> >> >> OK. Maybe you're right - and I think that's likely. (Although, of course, >> a real scenario would be hugely more complicated - clean installations >> are not likely to be improved by cleaning!) >> >> Let me ask you a similar question, though. Can you provide full details >> of a registry key that is removed by a (specified) registry cleaner that >> causes the PC not to boot? That's what has been alleged, but without >> details (which may well be available, but I've never seen posted), such >> an allegation is "purely anecdotal and therefore a matter of faith". >> >> Stephen >> > > Sorry, I can't. Since I don't believe in registry cleaners I do not use > them, and my machines all boot the way they should. When a > registry-cleaner-prophet such as Alias will produce some hard and > reproducible evidence that registry cleaners do more good than > harm then I will review the issue. Up to now the message has > always been "Believe me, it did miracles on x hundred machines". > Strong faith, weak evidence. > Fine. My point is that your "belief" in how bad registry cleaners are is no better founded than Alias's "belief" in their efficacy. There's nothing wrong with "belief". Much of what we do in life isn't backed up by firm, scientifically-repeatable proof, but is based on "belief", often founded on some kind of evidence that falls short of proof. As a matter of interest, I don't use registry cleaners either. I have done so in the past and never experienced any problems. However, neither did I see any improvement. I just think it would be better if BOTH sides of this debate would put forward sensible evidence (not necessarily proof) for their beliefs, rather than wild (and probably unsupportable) claims. Stephen
Guest Alias Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Zilbandy wrote: > On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:52:28 +0200, Alias <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> > wrote: > >> You know it's impossible for me to provide you with all the registry >> entries I removed. The computer isn't mine but a client's who lives >> cross town. Whether you believe me or not isn't material to me. I know >> both registry fixers work so I use them on every machine I encounter and >> have been doing this for years with no problems. If that isn't good >> enough for you, well, so be it. > > Likely running some anti spyware programs would have fixed it. I don't > like to see clutter in the registry either, but I've never noticed any > change in performance after cleaning my registry, and yes, I > periodically 'clean' my registry. It's sort of like cleaning the > backseat of my car. It doesn't make it run better, but it makes me > feel better. FYI, I'm using an older version of Registry First Aid > 3.04 and I do backup registry with Erunt prior to using it. > The program I use, SystemSuite5 doesn't just "clean" the registry, it will suggest pointing entries to where they belong as well instead of deleting them. As an example, on one computer I couldn't complete defrag so I ran SystemSuite's registry defrag and then the XP defrag could complete its task. There are registry tools and then there are registry tools. -- Alias To email me, remove shoes
Guest Alias Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Edward W. Thompson wrote: > "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message > news:fe03fq$kog$1@aioe.org... >> Pegasus (MVP) wrote: >>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:udaAJ2aBIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>> Pegasus (MVP) wrote: >>>>> Unless you know exactly what you're doing, you should rely >>>>> on the add/remove tool when removing programs from your >>>>> PC. The amount of disk space used by left-over registry >>>>> entries is so small that it would require tens of thousands of >>>>> programs to make a noticeable difference on the amount of >>>>> free disk space. >>>> True. >>>> >>>>> Registry cleaners often claim to speed up your machine by >>>>> removing such entries. The claim is false: There is no difference >>>>> in speed before and after. >>>>> >>>> False. I see a marked improvement in performance and boot up time, >>>> especially when using CCleaner and SystemSuite5 after a clean install of >>>> XP and Office. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Alias >>>> To email me, remove shoes >>> Let's have some details: >>> - What exactly did you measure, i.e. what was your benchmark test? >>> - How did you measure it? Did it "feel" faster? Did you use a stopwatch? >>> - What was the improvement? >>> - Was this a once of test or were you able to see a consistent >>> improvement >>> on many different machines? >>> >>> Unless you supply full details it won't be possible for other >>> readers to duplicate your tests and confirm your results. >>> >> Stop watch. Dozens and dozens of machines. I just cleaned up a computer >> that took TEN MINUTES to boot up. Now it boots up in 46 seconds. Enough of >> a benchmark for you? I removed almost a THOUSAND errant registry entries. >> >> -- >> Alias >> To email me, remove shoes > > Your assertions are patently false (in crude terms 'lies') and unfortunately > I think you know it. This thread is nothing but SPAM. I am suprised that > anyone has given you any credence. > > Care to give evidence to back up your sweeping insults? I have no vested interest in any software program. Everything I have posted here is true. -- Alias To email me, remove shoes
Guest Gerry Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Alias You chose not to respond to the specific points I made earlier, electing only to answer one of a number. Was that because it did not suit your cause? -- Hope this helps. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Alias wrote: > Edward W. Thompson wrote: >> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >> news:fe03fq$kog$1@aioe.org... >>> Pegasus (MVP) wrote: >>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:udaAJ2aBIHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>>> Pegasus (MVP) wrote: >>>>>> Unless you know exactly what you're doing, you should rely >>>>>> on the add/remove tool when removing programs from your >>>>>> PC. The amount of disk space used by left-over registry >>>>>> entries is so small that it would require tens of thousands of >>>>>> programs to make a noticeable difference on the amount of >>>>>> free disk space. >>>>> True. >>>>> >>>>>> Registry cleaners often claim to speed up your machine by >>>>>> removing such entries. The claim is false: There is no difference >>>>>> in speed before and after. >>>>>> >>>>> False. I see a marked improvement in performance and boot up time, >>>>> especially when using CCleaner and SystemSuite5 after a clean >>>>> install of XP and Office. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Alias >>>>> To email me, remove shoes >>>> Let's have some details: >>>> - What exactly did you measure, i.e. what was your benchmark test? >>>> - How did you measure it? Did it "feel" faster? Did you use a >>>> stopwatch? - What was the improvement? >>>> - Was this a once of test or were you able to see a consistent >>>> improvement >>>> on many different machines? >>>> >>>> Unless you supply full details it won't be possible for other >>>> readers to duplicate your tests and confirm your results. >>>> >>> Stop watch. Dozens and dozens of machines. I just cleaned up a >>> computer that took TEN MINUTES to boot up. Now it boots up in 46 >>> seconds. Enough of a benchmark for you? I removed almost a THOUSAND >>> errant registry entries. -- >>> Alias >>> To email me, remove shoes >> >> Your assertions are patently false (in crude terms 'lies') and >> unfortunately I think you know it. This thread is nothing but SPAM. >> I am suprised that anyone has given you any credence. >> >> > > Care to give evidence to back up your sweeping insults? I have no > vested interest in any software program. Everything I have posted > here is true.
Guest Alias Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Gerry wrote: > Alias > > You chose not to respond to the specific points I made earlier, electing > only to answer one of a number. Was that because it did not suit your > cause? > > That's because I already addressed them. You just don't accept what I say. I can't prove it to you unless you come here and watch it in action because anything I say that happened, you won't believe. Unfortunately, you can't do it yourself because System Suite 5 is no longer available and 8, the new version, isn't as good due to the fact that someone bought out VCOM and changed the program considerably. -- Alias To email me, remove shoes
Guest Gerry Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Alias I cannot see where you did? You might try a little harder instead of being evasive. The only way you can demonstrate your point is to test performance after each stage of housekeeping. Unless a registry entry causes a timeout any superfluous entry will have so little affect than you would not notice any difference in performance. You mention removing 1,000 registry entries but how many of those entries would have been accessed when you restart the computer? Very few I suspect. If they are accessed to provide a false start-up the best solution is to remove them manually using Autoruns, having first confirmed what affect they have by disabling rather than removing. The processor handles so many transactions continuously that a few extra do not make a significant difference. Event Viewer Reports generate errors / warnings if there is a problem and it is logical to follow up from there. Based on what you say you have been doing I do not see that you can distinguish between the effect on performance of removing unnecessary registry entries and defragmenting 4,000 files. Defragmenting in the situation you describe will have a noticeable impact. Your approach may not pose a significant risk in your hands but if the risk converts to reality you can have a major problem which may be very difficult to recover from. -- Regards. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Alias wrote: > Gerry wrote: >> Alias >> >> You chose not to respond to the specific points I made earlier, >> electing only to answer one of a number. Was that because it did not >> suit your cause? >> >> > > That's because I already addressed them. You just don't accept what I > say. I can't prove it to you unless you come here and watch it in > action because anything I say that happened, you won't believe. > > Unfortunately, you can't do it yourself because System Suite 5 is no > longer available and 8, the new version, isn't as good due to the fact > that someone bought out VCOM and changed the program considerably.
Guest R. McCarty Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Most ( if any ) performance impact of a Registry Cleaning MIGHT BE due to an orphaned Service that is no longer present on the machine. A typical culprit is SymEvent, orphaned after a Norton Uninstall. However this would only affect the computer's boot time as the service call will no longer time out ( 30-Seconds ). Most Registry Cleaners do little more than clean up MRU tables and a few of the temporary/workspace files that exist on any PC. Things that most users could accomplish manually with Regedit. The issue, if there is any is the uninstall routines of many programs that leave remnants in the Program Files and Common Files data trees. Program uninstalls will leave Registry keys intact for the possibility of a reinstall so that any of the customizations of the program stay in place. From my own testing, I've never found two or more Registry Cleaners that come even close to a matching determination of what is or is not recommended to be "Registry Errors". It's this subjective determination that is dangerous. No one who recommends a Registry Cleaning has a clear idea of the interactions and associations between Keys and Values. If a user cannot make that determination, how can an automated cleaner scan thousands of keys and decide that a particular entry is "Bogus". It's impossible to convince some Registry Cleaning proponents that there is a risk that using a Registry Cleaner will break your machine. All I can say is that over the years I've fixed a room full of computers that all had the same "Self-Inflicted" malady - a Registry Cleaning. If someone is tempted to use one, then make sure you have a "Image" or backup of your system prior to using a Registry Cleaner - "Just in Case.." "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message news:u6CWqtnBIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Alias > > I cannot see where you did? You might try a little harder instead of being > evasive. > > The only way you can demonstrate your point is to test performance after > each stage of housekeeping. Unless a registry entry causes a timeout any > superfluous entry will have so little affect than you would not notice > any difference in performance. You mention removing 1,000 registry > entries but how many of those entries would have been accessed when you > restart the computer? Very few I suspect. If they are accessed to > provide a false start-up the best solution is to remove them manually > using Autoruns, having first confirmed what affect they have by > disabling rather than removing. The processor handles so many > transactions continuously that a few extra do not make a significant > difference. Event Viewer Reports generate errors / warnings if there is > a problem and it is logical to follow up from there. > > Based on what you say you have been doing I do not see that you can > distinguish between the effect on performance of removing unnecessary > registry entries and defragmenting 4,000 files. Defragmenting in the > situation you describe will have a noticeable impact. Your approach may > not pose a significant risk in your hands but if the risk converts to > reality you can have a major problem which may be very difficult to > recover from. > > > -- > Regards. > > Gerry > ~~~~ > FCA > Stourport, England > Enquire, plan and execute > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > Alias wrote: >> Gerry wrote: >>> Alias >>> >>> You chose not to respond to the specific points I made earlier, >>> electing only to answer one of a number. Was that because it did not >>> suit your cause? >>> >>> >> >> That's because I already addressed them. You just don't accept what I >> say. I can't prove it to you unless you come here and watch it in >> action because anything I say that happened, you won't believe. >> >> Unfortunately, you can't do it yourself because System Suite 5 is no >> longer available and 8, the new version, isn't as good due to the fact >> that someone bought out VCOM and changed the program considerably. > >
Guest Stephen Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:eDq10JoBIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Most ( if any ) performance impact of a Registry Cleaning MIGHT BE > due to an orphaned Service that is no longer present on the machine. A > typical culprit is SymEvent, orphaned after a Norton Uninstall. However > this would only affect the computer's boot time as the service call will > no longer time out ( 30-Seconds ). > > Most Registry Cleaners do little more than clean up MRU tables and a > few of the temporary/workspace files that exist on any PC. Things that > most users could accomplish manually with Regedit. The issue, if there > is any is the uninstall routines of many programs that leave remnants in > the Program Files and Common Files data trees. Program uninstalls will > leave Registry keys intact for the possibility of a reinstall so that any > of > the customizations of the program stay in place. > > From my own testing, I've never found two or more Registry Cleaners > that come even close to a matching determination of what is or is not > recommended to be "Registry Errors". It's this subjective determination > that is dangerous. No one who recommends a Registry Cleaning has a > clear idea of the interactions and associations between Keys and Values. > If a user cannot make that determination, how can an automated cleaner > scan thousands of keys and decide that a particular entry is "Bogus". > > It's impossible to convince some Registry Cleaning proponents that there > is a risk that using a Registry Cleaner will break your machine. All I can > say is that over the years I've fixed a room full of computers that all > had > the same "Self-Inflicted" malady - a Registry Cleaning. > > If someone is tempted to use one, then make sure you have a "Image" > or backup of your system prior to using a Registry Cleaner - "Just in > Case.." > I agree with you, there is a potential problem with remnants left behind by uninstall programs. I've often thought it would be really good to know exactly what registry entries are made (or changed) when a program is installed, but I've not found a convenient way of doing this. It almost feels as though this kind of information is deliberately kept shrouded in mystery by program suppliers. Uninstall ought to remove ALL keys that are specific to the particular program, but doesn't seem to. Neither (as far as I have been able to discover) is there a reliable way of searching for such keys. If you uninstall Norton, you might have thought that a search for "Norton" would discover any remnants, but it's by no means that simple! Or do I just not know enought about how to do it? Stephen
Guest Gerry Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Stephen Looking in Autoruns after removal can be worthwhile. -- Hope this helps. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Stephen wrote: > "R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message > news:eDq10JoBIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> Most ( if any ) performance impact of a Registry Cleaning MIGHT BE >> due to an orphaned Service that is no longer present on the machine. >> A typical culprit is SymEvent, orphaned after a Norton Uninstall. >> However this would only affect the computer's boot time as the >> service call will no longer time out ( 30-Seconds ). >> >> Most Registry Cleaners do little more than clean up MRU tables and a >> few of the temporary/workspace files that exist on any PC. Things >> that most users could accomplish manually with Regedit. The issue, >> if there is any is the uninstall routines of many programs that >> leave remnants in the Program Files and Common Files data trees. >> Program uninstalls will leave Registry keys intact for the >> possibility of a reinstall so that any of >> the customizations of the program stay in place. >> >> From my own testing, I've never found two or more Registry Cleaners >> that come even close to a matching determination of what is or is not >> recommended to be "Registry Errors". It's this subjective >> determination that is dangerous. No one who recommends a Registry >> Cleaning has a clear idea of the interactions and associations >> between Keys and >> Values. If a user cannot make that determination, how can an >> automated cleaner scan thousands of keys and decide that a >> particular entry is "Bogus". It's impossible to convince some >> Registry Cleaning proponents that >> there is a risk that using a Registry Cleaner will break your >> machine. All I can say is that over the years I've fixed a room full >> of computers that all had >> the same "Self-Inflicted" malady - a Registry Cleaning. >> >> If someone is tempted to use one, then make sure you have a "Image" >> or backup of your system prior to using a Registry Cleaner - "Just in >> Case.." >> > > I agree with you, there is a potential problem with remnants left > behind by uninstall programs. I've often thought it would be really > good to know exactly what registry entries are made (or changed) when > a program is installed, but I've not found a convenient way of doing > this. It almost feels as though this kind of information is > deliberately kept shrouded in mystery by program suppliers. Uninstall > ought to remove ALL keys that are specific to the particular program, > but doesn't seem to. Neither (as far as I have been able to discover) > is there a reliable way of searching for such keys. If you uninstall > Norton, you might have thought that a search for "Norton" would > discover any remnants, but it's by no means that simple! Or do I just > not know enought about how to do it? > Stephen
Guest Alias Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Gerry wrote: > Alias > > I cannot see where you did? You might try a little harder instead of > being evasive. > > The only way you can demonstrate your point is to test performance after > each stage of housekeeping. Unless a registry entry causes a timeout any > superfluous entry will have so little affect than you would not notice > any difference in performance. You mention removing 1,000 registry > entries but how many of those entries would have been accessed when you > restart the computer? Very few I suspect. If they are accessed to > provide a false start-up the best solution is to remove them manually > using Autoruns, having first confirmed what affect they have by > disabling rather than removing. The processor handles so many > transactions continuously that a few extra do not make a significant > difference. Event Viewer Reports generate errors / warnings if there is > a problem and it is logical to follow up from there. > > Based on what you say you have been doing I do not see that you can > distinguish between the effect on performance of removing unnecessary > registry entries and defragmenting 4,000 files. Defragmenting in the > situation you describe will have a noticeable impact. Your approach may > not pose a significant risk in your hands but if the risk converts to > reality you can have a major problem which may be very difficult to > recover from. > > > -- > Regards. > > Gerry > ~~~~ > FCA > Stourport, England > Enquire, plan and execute > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > > Alias wrote: >> Gerry wrote: >>> Alias >>> >>> You chose not to respond to the specific points I made earlier, >>> electing only to answer one of a number. Was that because it did not >>> suit your cause? >>> >>> >> That's because I already addressed them. You just don't accept what I >> say. I can't prove it to you unless you come here and watch it in >> action because anything I say that happened, you won't believe. >> >> Unfortunately, you can't do it yourself because System Suite 5 is no >> longer available and 8, the new version, isn't as good due to the fact >> that someone bought out VCOM and changed the program considerably. > > Is there an echo in here? I removed a slew of errant registry entries and the performance was increased and the boot time decreased. Chances are you don't install and uninstall as many programs as the user of the computer I worked on did. I doubt you let your hard drive accumulate over 4000 fragmented files either. I am also 100% positive that you've never used System Suite 5 and I seriously doubt any of the others who sneer at registry fixers have either. If what you and the others say is true, I would have fuçked up 100s of computers and none, I repeat none, had anything but positive results from using System Suite 5. I have a friend who turned me on to SS5 and he's a repair tech and has used it on thousands of computers with no ill effects, only positive results. So if thousands of instances with 100% success rates isn't good enough for you, find someone with SS5 and install and uninstall a couple of hundred programs, run it and do the tests the way you think they should be done. Either that or STFU. -- Alias To email me, remove shoes
Guest Gerry Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Alias You're still not answering the points I asked about! Why go on and rant about something I was not challenging? -- Regards. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Alias wrote: > Gerry wrote: >> Alias >> >> I cannot see where you did? You might try a little harder instead of >> being evasive. >> >> The only way you can demonstrate your point is to test performance >> after each stage of housekeeping. Unless a registry entry causes a >> timeout any superfluous entry will have so little affect than you >> would not notice any difference in performance. You mention removing >> 1,000 registry entries but how many of those entries would have >> been accessed when you restart the computer? Very few I suspect. If >> they are accessed to provide a false start-up the best solution is >> to remove them manually using Autoruns, having first confirmed what >> affect they have by disabling rather than removing. The processor >> handles so many transactions continuously that a few extra do not >> make a significant difference. Event Viewer Reports generate errors >> / warnings if there is a problem and it is logical to follow up from >> there. Based on what you say you have been doing I do not see that >> you can >> distinguish between the effect on performance of removing unnecessary >> registry entries and defragmenting 4,000 files. Defragmenting in the >> situation you describe will have a noticeable impact. Your approach >> may not pose a significant risk in your hands but if the risk >> converts to reality you can have a major problem which may be very >> difficult to recover from. >> >> >> -- >> Regards. >> >> Gerry >> ~~~~ >> FCA >> Stourport, England >> Enquire, plan and execute >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> >> >> >> Alias wrote: >>> Gerry wrote: >>>> Alias >>>> >>>> You chose not to respond to the specific points I made earlier, >>>> electing only to answer one of a number. Was that because it did >>>> not suit your cause? >>>> >>>> >>> That's because I already addressed them. You just don't accept what >>> I say. I can't prove it to you unless you come here and watch it in >>> action because anything I say that happened, you won't believe. >>> >>> Unfortunately, you can't do it yourself because System Suite 5 is no >>> longer available and 8, the new version, isn't as good due to the >>> fact that someone bought out VCOM and changed the program >>> considerably. >> >> > > Is there an echo in here? I removed a slew of errant registry entries > and the performance was increased and the boot time decreased. Chances > are you don't install and uninstall as many programs as the user of > the computer I worked on did. I doubt you let your hard drive > accumulate over 4000 fragmented files either. > > I am also 100% positive that you've never used System Suite 5 and I > seriously doubt any of the others who sneer at registry fixers have > either. If what you and the others say is true, I would have fuçked up > 100s of computers and none, I repeat none, had anything but positive > results from using System Suite 5. I have a friend who turned me on to > SS5 and he's a repair tech and has used it on thousands of computers > with no ill effects, only positive results. So if thousands of > instances with 100% success rates isn't good enough for you, find > someone with SS5 and install and uninstall a couple of hundred > programs, run it and do the tests the way you think they should be > done. Either that or STFU.
Recommended Posts