PC utilities: Do computer Registry cleaners really work?
- 6/19/09 12:42 PM
A common misconception
by rbsjrx - 6/5/09 9:02 PM In reply to: It depends . . . . by RWallaceJD"Registry cleaners clean out unused, 'broken' or non-essential files such as temporary files, among other things..."
The Windows registry is a database. When it is "cleaned", all that's removed are pointers. Cleaning out junk files is an entirely different maintenance task. The confusion is understandable, though, since many top-rated registry cleaners can also clean out junk files as well. The best registry cleaners will be configurable so you can specify whether you want junk files cleaned as well as the registry, since the cleaning out junk file functionality is largely redundant with Windows' standard Accessories->System Tools->Disk Cleanup utility.
Keep your money and don't worry
by DrMicro - 6/5/09 7:45 PM In reply to: Do computer Registry cleaners really work? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
If you use your computer regularly, download and apply system and program updates, install and uninstall programs, you will always have some registry entries that are no longer valid or point to empty or invalid locations or registry keys. 99.9% of the time, these are not fatal or damaging in any way... they just simply take up a few lines of registry that are invalid. Unless you have a massive number of these (unlikely), or your registry is full of corrupt entries (also unlikely), your computer is in no danger of crashing.
Since you already have a registry cleaner and run it occasionally, you're fine. Free registry scanners often tell you that you have registry errors, 99.99% of which are not really "errors" at all, but may simply be leftover or extraneous entries that cause you no harm, but they like to scare you into thinking they will, just so you can buy their product. They love to play on your caution, fear and paranois.
Is your computer working? Are all your programs working as they should? Can you access the internet, download and read your email? If the answer to these questions is yes, then stop worrying, leave your computer alone and stop downloading and running free trial scanners.
You make too many asusmptions
by rbsjrx - 6/5/09 8:11 PM In reply to: Keep your money and don't worry by DrMicroThe likelihood of having registry corruption sufficient to significantly affect the performance or stability of any Windows PC increases dramatically as the system become more highly loaded. How many applications does it have installed? How many applications involve custom drivers or other system-level components? How often do you install, remove, and/or upgrade software? In normal operation, how many active processes are you normally running?
In my case, I have ~250 installed programs, many with custom drivers since I do development work, modify my installed software base several times per month, and I'm working right now so I have 94 processes running as I type this, with 10 items on my task bar. If I'm not diligent about cleaning my registry, I know from past experience that my system will slow noticeably within 2-3 weeks, and begin exhibiting signs of instability within 2-3 months. Even with my best efforts, I still expect to have to reinstall Windows at 18 to 24 month intervals.
One other point needs to be addressed, though. Although keeping Windows updated is essential from a security standpoint, it's a crap shoot from a stability perspective. I've had to completely reinstall Windows just as many times in the wake of a Microsoft official service pack release as from failure due to a corrupt system. Small wonder that most of my friends in IT rarely deploy service packs throughout the enterprise when first released and certainly not without rigorous testing.
What's most frustrating about this is that none of it is necessary. My Linux systems don't have registries to clean, aren't subject to significant disk fragmentation problems, and run 24/7/365 without crashing. Also, all but the most major software updates (i.e. the equivalent of moving from WinXP to Vista) can be installed in the background without rebooting.
A registry cleaner analogy...
by John.Wilkinson - 6/5/09 7:49 PM
In reply to: Do computer Registry cleaners really work? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Your home is cluttered with years of accumulated stuff and you want to clean it up. So, you ask your next door neighbor to, while you are away, clean your home, throwing away everything he/she thinks you do not need/want. Hours later, you return home.
Q: Is your home cleaner?
A: Yes.
Q: Did he/she get rid of a lot of useless junk?
A: Yes.
Q: Where is your childhood baseball glove, the video of your child's first steps, and the blender you borrowed from your inlaws?
A: Uh...Oops!
================================================================================
That is exactly what it like running a registry cleaner. So, to answer your questions more directly:
"What do Registry cleaners do exactly?"
-> They delete registry keys/entries that they think you do not want/need, and their opinions vary widely.
"Do they create more problems or solve them?"
-> Like the neighbor that cleaned your home while you were away, they can, especially if Windows requires one of the entries to function.
"Or are companies who make these utilities just out here to make a buck?"
-> Largely the case; many people call them "snake oil salespeople."
"Bottom line, do registry cleaners really work?"
-> Registry cleaners do not speed up your computer. They can 'accidentally' fix a problem, but generally they offer no tangible benefit.
"And how are you to know if they are doing what they are suppose to do?"
-> They present you with a list of things they claim to have deleted. You just hope they made the right decisions.
Hope this helps,
John
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
by rbsjrx - 6/5/09 8:24 PM In reply to: A registry cleaner analogy... by John.Wilkinson
I agreed with most of your post up until I got to:
"-> Registry cleaners do not speed up your computer. They can 'accidentally' fix a problem, but generally they offer no tangible benefit."
For many people, this may (or may not) be true. As an emphatic blanket statement, it's egregiously false. The average user will use a browser, office suite, multimedia app(s), possibly a couple of personal communications (e.g. email, IM) applications, and one or two other applications. Returning to your analogy, that's like cleaning an efficiency apartment. Other folks, like me, have systems that are more analogous to cleaning an office building. And, like cleaning an office building, you hire cleaning people do do it for you.
The other thing wrong with your post is that the registry is just a database. When entries are removed, it's not like throwing out valued possessions, it's just like having them moved from a drawer where you're used to looking for them to somewhere else. They're still there, but the pointers to them are gone. In that case, the tools to find them, again are readily available.
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
by John.Wilkinson - 6/5/09 9:26 PM
In reply to: Wrong, wrong, wrong! by rbsjrx
"it's egregiously false."
-> How so? What is the performance increase after cleaning up what number of entries? What problems does it resolve?
"And, like cleaning an office building, you hire cleaning people do do it for you."
-> The companies hired to clean office buildings vacuum, empty trash cans, et cetera. They do not go through your filing cabinets, desk drawers, et cetera and throw away files. That is not very analogous.
"They're still there, but the pointers to them are gone."
-> Yes, the files are still there. But you must remember that the pointers are there for a reason...applications, and even Windows itself, requires them for various purposes. It is not like throwing away a sticky note and having to search the actual file for the information. Windows and the applications do not know where to find the information without the pointer. And so they fail. To illustrate, delete the registry entries referencing your installed motherboard drivers and then reboot. What happens? Delete all of the 0FF1CE registry entries and launch Microsoft Office. What happens? They fail.
"In that case, the tools to find them, again are readily available."
-> There are no magic tools that can identify missing registry entries and recreate them when an application, or Windows, fails because a registry cleaner deleted them. If the registry cleaner backed up the entries, they can be restored, provided Windows is still able to run. But then what? The average user cannot determine which deleted entry/entries caused the problem, among the hundreds or thousands deleted, so he/she must simply not use the registry cleaner again.
And how long after the deletion does the user recognize the problem? Before or after the registry backup is deleted? Before or after the user forgets about the cleaning/backup? Before or after the registry is further changed such that importing the old backup may overwrite new values?
Yes, I run a registry cleaner from time to time as I am a heavy user. But I inspect every entry and know what I am looking for. Does the average user who you recommend registry cleaners to?
John
Re: Wrong, wrong, wrong!
by rbsjrx - 6/5/09 9:59 PM In reply to: Wrong, wrong, wrong! by John.Wilkinson
"it's egregiously false."
-> How so? What is the performance increase after cleaning up what number of entries? What problems does it resolve?
When I don't maintain my registry, I see a noticeable performance hit within 2-3 weeks. For me to notice it, that means the machine is running at least 25% slower.
The problems are a longer-term issue. If I don't maintain my registry, the system <u>will</u> crash within 2-3 months.
"And, like cleaning an office building, you hire cleaning people do do it for you."
-> The companies hired to clean office buildings vacuum, empty trash cans, et cetera. They do not go through your filing cabinets, desk drawers, et cetera and throw away files. That is not very analogous.
No, I hire secretaries, assistants and other more highly skilled personnel to keep my files in order. The principle is the same, only the skill level is different.
"They're still there, but the pointers to them are gone."
-> Yes, the files are still there. But you must remember that the pointers are there for a reason...applications, and even Windows itself, requires them for various purposes. It is not like throwing away a sticky note and having to search the actual file for the information. Windows and the applications do not know where to find the information without the pointer. And so they fail. To illustrate, delete the registry entries referencing your installed motherboard drivers and then reboot. What happens? Delete all of the 0FF1CE registry entries and launch Microsoft Office. What happens? They fail.
Do you know of any <u>reputable</u> registry cleaners that would do any of these things? I don't.
"In that case, the tools to find them, again are readily available."
-> There are no magic tools that can identify missing registry entries and recreate them when an application, or Windows, fails because a registry cleaner deleted them.
If you can find the files, then you can open them in the application where they're used. If the registry cleaner wiped out the application, then see my last response.
"Yes, I run a registry cleaner from time to time as I am a heavy user. But I inspect every entry and know what I am looking for. Does the average user who you recommend registry cleaners to?"
I always used to do this, but my confidence in Advanced System Care Pro has increased to the point where I only do it any more when the number of entries to clean is high or when I've just installed a new update to the program itself. And that is another key aspect of all this. While I have tried lots of cleaners, I wind up settling with one that earns my trust until/unless I have a reason to change.
You're overlooking quite a bit...
by John.Wilkinson - 6/6/09 8:32 AM
In reply to: Re: Wrong, wrong, wrong! by rbsjrx
"When I don't maintain my registry, I see a noticeable performance hit within 2-3 weeks. For me to notice it, that means the machine is running at least 25% slower."
-> Yes, I've heard that before. But then I switched the registry cleaners over to virtual mode and let the users go on as usual. Funny thing: they still swore by the registry cleaner improving performance! Bottom line: Show me the stats.
"The problems are a longer-term issue. If I don't maintain my registry, the system will crash within 2-3 months."
-> That's impressive! I am a software developer and frequent beta tester, but have never screwed up my system that badly. Then again, I consider what I am installing/running and use sandboxes/VMs when I know I am dealing with a potentially problematic application. I wonder what those bad applications are doing to your system. What actually caused the crashes. What kind of crashes they were... (Name names.)
"Do you know of any reputable registry cleaners that would do any of these things? I don't."
-> I've analyzed the changes from Registry Mechanic, Reg Cure (scam claims abound), System Mechanic, Advanced WindowsCare Professional, and others. The first was very good about crippling Office 2007 Ultimate SP1 on a clean installation of Windows Vista, though I hope they have fixed that particular one since then. Reg Cure recommended deleting entries that would disable the printer. The last two just made changes that were unnecessary (the entries were recreated minutes later), eliminated uninstallation options, and/or offered no performance increase on a clone of an 'average user's' system that had not been 'tuned up' for over a year.
"If you can find the files, then you can open them in the application where they're used."
-> HORRIBLE misconception illustrating a limited understanding of how the registry is used. It doesn't just tell you where that text file is you edited last week. It tells Windows where the driver is for your wireless networking card. It tells Adobe Reader where the DLL file is that is used to load PDFs. What application do you propose to tell to open those system files and magically resolve the problem of the missing registry entry, required by the other software to function?
And let us not forget that the registry stores FAR more than just pointers. What are Windows settings? What are application settings? What are product keys? What is registration information? What are uninstallation entries? What are encryption keys? What are stored passwords? What are the mounted drives? What are the 'last known good' settings used by Windows to recover should you screw something up? Those are not stored in some file pointed to by a registry entry; they ARE the registry entries.
"My confidence in Advanced System Care Pro has increased to the point where I only do it any more when the number of entries to clean is high or when I've just installed a new update to the program itself."
-> There is a reason why it fails to have a 100% satisfaction rating and has accumulated more than a few reports of problematic behavior. And I am still waiting for the evidence of it boosting performance on an NT-based operating system.
John
Re: You're overlooking quite a bit...
by rbsjrx - 6/6/09 10:18 AM In reply to: You're overlooking quite a bit... by John.Wilkinson
"When I don't maintain my registry, I see a noticeable performance hit within 2-3 weeks. For me to notice it, that means the machine is running at least 25% slower."
-> Yes, I've heard that before. But then I switched the registry cleaners over to virtual mode and let the users go on as usual. Funny thing: they still swore by the registry cleaner improving performance! Bottom line: Show me the stats.
I reported what I've seen - you're free to believe it or not.
"The problems are a longer-term issue. If I don't maintain my registry, the system will crash within 2-3 months."
-> That's impressive! I am a software developer and frequent beta tester, but have never screwed up my system that badly. Then again, I consider what I am installing/running and use sandboxes/VMs when I know I am dealing with a potentially problematic application. I wonder what those bad applications are doing to your system. What actually caused the crashes. What kind of crashes they were... (Name names.)
I do (or used to do - I recently retired) embedded systems development. My machine has development suites from Freescale/Metrowerks, Keil, IAR, TI, and Microchip on it as well as FPGA development tools from Cypress and Actel. Most of these also have custom drivers for JTAG emulators. For purely PC work, I have C/C++ compilers from Microsoft, Digital Mars, and gcc w/ Eclipse. I also have Python, Perl, PHP, and several other more obscure languages (e.g. Forth). For testing, I have several protocol analyzers and support software for several instrument manufacturers, many with even more custom drivers. I used to use VMware, but it was a maintenance nightmare so I unloaded it and now use only VirtualBox which is much better behaved (I currently have four instances of virtual Linux distros installed on it). Let's see, what else? Oh, Java which I seldom use and a variety of modeling and code analysis tools.
For office software, I have MS Office 2003 (including MS Project), Softmaker Office, and OpenOffice. I have about a half-dozen image editing programs including GIMP, Photoshop Elements, Corel PSP, and several special-purpose utilities. I use mostly Firefox and Thunderbird, plus Pidgin for IM'ing. I use VanDyke Secure CRT for SSH sessions and WinSCP for secure ftp and scp sessions. Although I don't use it, I have Filezilla since I share files with people who have to download files from my server and if they have problems, I have to be able to recreate them.
I have Autotrax EDA for hardware design plus multiple analog and digital filter design tools. One of my hobbies is loudspeaker design, so I have several CAE tools for that.
My most often used utility is Total Commander which is always open. Other things that never close are Winamp, The Weather Channel Desktop, and Bad Blue (a lightweight web server which I use for local PHP development before posting code to my Debian server). And, speaking of always open, this machine runs 24/7/365. That works fine with my Linux machines and my server, but is problematic with Windows.
That's not complete, but it gives a reasonably fair inventory of my system. What causes the crashes? Who knows? I'll be working, the machine will reboot itself, and from there, it's downhill all the way. Often times, even single stepping in safe mode won't work. I always have some hints ahead of time that the system is becoming unstable, but the failures are always catastrophic and never graceful degradation. It could be power glitches, although I have a ferroresonant isolation transformer upstream of a UPS (I never have fully trusted the UPS). My last crash happened a few months after hurricane Ike came through here, so that may have played a role in it. My primary Windows machine runs WinXP MCE which I finally managed to upgrade to SP3 after it crashed my system a while back. As I mentioned before, I've had just as many crashes in the wake of service pack updates as I have from anything else. Even if I wanted to use Vista on that machine (and I don't), I couldn't because some older, more obscure packages I still occasionally use won't run under Vista.
"-> I've analyzed the changes from Registry Mechanic, Reg Cure (scam claims abound), System Mechanic, Advanced WindowsCare Professional, and others."
I've never used any of those. I used Registry Booster for years before switching to Advanced System Care Pro last year. Of course, I'm neither using Vista (except on my laptop) nor Office 2007 where you reported the problems.
"If you can find the files, then you can open them in the application where they're used."
-> HORRIBLE misconception illustrating a limited understanding of how the registry is used. It doesn't just tell you where that text file is you edited last week. It tells Windows where the driver is for your wireless networking card. It tells Adobe Reader where the DLL file is that is used to load PDFs.
This gets back to my previous assertion. I have yet to see a reputable registry cleaner that would do that sort of damage. Besides, those aren't the sort of errors that would prevent booting in safe mode. Most importantly, when I'm scrupulous about maintaining my registry, I have no problems. If I were to believe your analysis, I'd expect those sorts of problems when I <u>did</u> use my registry cleaner.
"And let us not forget that the registry stores FAR more than just pointers. What are Windows settings? What are application settings? What are product keys? What is registration information? What are uninstallation entries? What are encryption keys? What are stored passwords? What are the mounted drives?"
Yeah, well those are not what gets lost. Most often (and especially if the crash is a result of a service pack update), the error message is that Windows itself is M.I.A.
"-> There is a reason why it fails to have a 100% satisfaction rating and has accumulated more than a few reports of problematic behavior. And I am still waiting for the evidence of it boosting performance on an NT-based operating system."
You've seen several reasons in this thread. When someone complains that a registry cleaner failed to detect a corrupt DLL, it speaks to the knowledge and expectations of the user rather than the quality of the tool.
Still lacking...
by John.Wilkinson - 6/6/09 11:38 AM
In reply to: Re: You're overlooking quite a bit... by rbsjrx
"I reported what I've seen - you're free to believe it or not."
-> More he said/she said. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer evidence to conjecture. I believe it was Cnet's own Ed Bott who, a couple years ago, claimed there were no conclusive evidence registry cleaners increase performance at all on NT-based systems. I found his evidence lacking, but the argument itself was, and remains, valid. Care to be one of the first to actually prove the benefit of registry cleaners, to us non-believers?
"What causes the crashes? Who knows?"
-> Standard troubleshooting. Note the STOP code? Disable auto restart for appropriate error messages? Check the error logs? Enable verbose logging? Run SFC? Check the CheckSur and PBS logs? (Actually helps troubleshoot more than just updates.) Perhaps it is just me, but I prefer to find out what the problem is and fix it rather than crossing my fingers and hoping it is a 'bad' registry entry that a registry cleaner will identify and remove. It is like swatting a fly with a bazooka.
"It could be power glitches [...] hurricane Ike came through here, so that may have played a role in it."
-> So power and environmental issues, despite proper protection, created erroneous registry entries that caused significant problems and that the registry cleaners discovered and removed? Or was that unrelated to the topic at hand?
"As I mentioned before, I've had just as many crashes in the wake of service pack updates as I have from anything else."
-> Yes, I've found compatibility issues cause major problems as well. But it is still unrelated.
"I've never used any of those. I used Registry Booster for years before switching to Advanced System Care Pro last year."
-> Fine. But those are some of the most frequently-recommended registry cleaners. They are among those generating the complaints. And they genuinely produce problems. Keep that in mind when you recommend registry cleaners in general, and contradict others.
"Of course, I'm neither using Vista (except on my laptop) nor Office 2007 where you reported the problems."
-> Again, you recommend registry cleaners to the general public, yet you have not tested or considered Windows Vista, Office 2007, and likely other wide-spread software. Consider what the registry cleaners may do to others, not just to yourself, when you recommend the software to others. Also, consider that if a registry cleaner can cause such problems with such popular/wide-spread applications, what might it do to lesser-known software installations?
"I have yet to see a reputable registry cleaner that would do that sort of damage."
-> My point is that I, and many others, have. And those include some of the 'premier' options on the market. Yet you recommend registry cleaners in general, and you state they both increase performance and solve problems while not doing damage. Quoting a previous statement of yours, "as an emphatic blanket statement, it's egregiously false."
"Besides, those aren't the sort of errors that would prevent booting in safe mode."
-> No, but I have cited others that would/have.
"Most importantly, when I'm scrupulous about maintaining my registry, I have no problems."
-> You have faith that the general public will review, and understand, the proposed deletions before clicking the giant button that reads "click here?" Remember, you are advising those that are not like yourself.
"If I were to believe your analysis, I'd expect those sorts of problems when I did use my registry cleaner."
-> No, they do not affect everyone, but they do affect a significant portion of individuals who use registry cleaners based on recommendation rather than comprehension. Remember what the average user thinks: "Registry cleaners fix computer problems? Sweet! All I have to do is click here, 'cause software that fixes problems would never create them!"
"Yeah, well those are not what gets lost."
-> Who says? You, because you have not seen it happen? The average user, because he/she does not expect it to happen? Or the unfortunate user who has had it happen and the experienced users who have reproduced the catastrophes? Fact is, it DOES happen. Regularly? No. Frequently enough to create a steady stream of complains at repair shops, online forums, et cetera? Most definitely!
"Most often (and especially if the crash is a result of a service pack update), the error message is that Windows itself is M.I.A."
-> I am taking about the problems caused by registry cleaners. If you are too, you agree. Otherwise, your reply is irrelevant as it does not address the issue.
"You've seen several reasons in this thread. When someone complains that a registry cleaner failed to detect a corrupt DLL, it speaks to the knowledge and expectations of the user rather than the quality of the tool."
-> I agree; the general public does not have a full understanding of what they're doing. But that is part of my point: You have recommended the use of registry cleaners without knowing what the problem is, or if there even is a problem! Plus, many registry cleaners do create problems and you have declined to produce evidence that they actually offer performance boosts.
Bottom Line: I have cited just a couple of the problems registry cleaners have caused, based on my own testing experience. You side-stepped them by saying you do not use said software. Irrelevant; the problems remain and have affected countless users. You have also declined to support your claims of problems being fixed ('my machine did not crash when it does normally' is not evidence of a problem being resolved, let alone an identification of the type of problem resolved) or support your claims of a performance increase ('I noticed a performance increase of at least 25%' is not evidence, just an unsupported guess, and exceeds what most registry cleaner-developing companies claim their products offer). That places your argument on the same level as 'I ran a registry cleaner and had problems later that week, so registry cleaners are dangerous.'
To paraphrase your previous comment, 'I reported factual accounts of problems produced without seeing counter-evidence - you're free to believe it or not.'
John
Hopefully the last volley in this exchange
by rbsjrx - 6/6/09 4:59 PM In reply to: Still lacking... by John.Wilkinson
I appreciate your comments, but it appears that neither of us will be swayed too much by the other's POV, so maybe we should just agree to disagree.
"I reported what I've seen - you're free to believe it or not."
-> More he said/she said. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer evidence to conjecture. I believe it was Cnet's own Ed Bott who, a couple years ago, claimed there were no conclusive evidence registry cleaners increase performance at all on NT-based systems. I found his evidence lacking, but the argument itself was, and remains, valid. Care to be one of the first to actually prove the benefit of registry cleaners, to us non-believers?
Have I ever done a double-blind test to validate what I've said? No, but to do so would require identical systems with all work duplicated on each, so that's simply not going to happen. What I've presented is testimony. Like any testimony, you're free to accept or reject it. I could tell you that in my personal life, I've proven to be highly resistant to the placebo effect, but you're also free to accept or reject that as well.
As for "experts", I hear from a lot of them - especially here on C|Net - that Windows is wonderful. My experience tells me that it's a big steaming pile of trouble, unworthy of being called an OS, so why should I believe those "experts" on anything else? I've used Windows over the years as a business necessity. Now that I've retired, I'm migrating to Linux. The migration will probably never be complete, but it's underway.
I also know quite well how easy it is to get published. I've written articles for DDJ and CUJ, and had a monthly column in Tech Specialist (which later became Windows Developer Journal before it disappeared), and wrote for other late lamented pubs like Creative Computing. With that perspective, I'm generally unswayed by what I read in print.
"What causes the crashes? Who knows?"
-> Standard troubleshooting. Note the STOP code? Disable auto restart for appropriate error messages? Check the error logs? Enable verbose logging? Run SFC? Check the CheckSur and PBS logs? (Actually helps troubleshoot more than just updates.) Perhaps it is just me, but I prefer to find out what the problem is and fix it rather than crossing my fingers and hoping it is a 'bad' registry entry that a registry cleaner will identify and remove. It is like swatting a fly with a bazooka.
On a few occasions, I've dug out Windows boot media or fired up Knoppix to look at things, but most of the time, I'm fighting a deadline, so getting back to work is more important than diagnostics. On those occasions when I did look into it, nothing really stood out - there was no smoking gun. When I got my system back up and running, I turned to registry cleaning as part of my arsenal of preventative maintenance actions. It has seemed to work. Again, testimony, but not evidence that you might consider.
If I care more about simply killing the fly than doing it with finesse, then a bazooka is as good a tool as any.
"It could be power glitches [...] hurricane Ike came through here, so that may have played a role in it."
-> So power and environmental issues, despite proper protection, created erroneous registry entries that caused significant problems and that the registry cleaners discovered and removed? Or was that unrelated to the topic at hand?
You asked what could have been the cause. My answers were stream of thought, free association. As I said, I adopted registry cleaning as part of my maintenance routine and the frequency of my troubles, i.e. the intervals between major problems, decreased noticeably. I'm dealing with remediation, not analysis here.
We seem to have different perspectives. I accept that Windows is cr*p - necessary cr*p perhaps, but cr*p none the less. I'm not an IT guy at heart. For me, if I want an OS, I'll write my own and run it on a microcontroller. Windows (or Linux or Mac) is nothing but a tool for me. I just want it to work. I care less about why it breaks than about how to prevent it happening again.
"As I mentioned before, I've had just as many crashes in the wake of service pack updates as I have from anything else."
-> Yes, I've found compatibility issues cause major problems as well. But it is still unrelated.
Perhaps, but since the symptoms are the same, I had to consider it worth mentioning.
"I've never used any of those. I used Registry Booster for years before switching to Advanced System Care Pro last year."
-> Fine. But those are some of the most frequently-recommended registry cleaners. They are among those generating the complaints. And they genuinely produce problems. Keep that in mind when you recommend registry cleaners in general, and contradict others.
As I said in another post, I recognize the theoretical justification for registry cleaners. I also recognize that it's imperative for anyone planning on using such a tool to be an informed consumer and research it before turning it loose on their system. In researching registry cleaners, I weighed recommendations with caveats before winnowing the field. It's not rocket science, but it does require due diligence.
"-> Again, you recommend registry cleaners to the general public, yet you have not tested or considered Windows Vista, Office 2007, and likely other wide-spread software. Consider what the registry cleaners may do to others, not just to yourself, when you recommend the software to others. Also, consider that if a registry cleaner can cause such problems with such popular/wide-spread applications, what might it do to lesser-known software installations?"
As I said, I <u>am</u> using Vista on my laptop. Getting back to my earlier "it's just a tool" statement, I don't stop using a tool just because a flashier one is available. And especially so since the tools we're talking about here are so expensive in both time, money, and hardware. Microsoft has trained its consumers to follow them, lemming-like off a cliff (another myth, but useful enough as a metaphor) just to have the "latest and greatest" from Redmond. Why should I pay Microsoft (or anyone else) to fix bugs that shouldn't be there in the first place?
"I have yet to see a reputable registry cleaner that would do that sort of damage."
-> My point is that I, and many others, have. And those include some of the 'premier' options on the market. Yet you recommend registry cleaners in general, and you state they both increase performance and solve problems while not doing damage. Quoting a previous statement of yours, "as an emphatic blanket statement, it's egregiously false."
Point well taken. The principle behind registry cleaners is certainly valid. The execution is obviously a mixed bag. This gets back to the point about an informed consumer doing his/her homework.
"Most importantly, when I'm scrupulous about maintaining my registry, I have no problems."
-> You have faith that the general public will review, and understand, the proposed deletions before clicking the giant button that reads "click here?" Remember, you are advising those that are not like yourself.
Another good point - and one reason I heartily agreed with the folks who pointed out the the first line of defense in addressing Windows performance problems should be a good defrag utility rather than a registry cleaner.
"You've seen several reasons in this thread. When someone complains that a registry cleaner failed to detect a corrupt DLL, it speaks to the knowledge and expectations of the user rather than the quality of the tool."
-> I agree; the general public does not have a full understanding of what they're doing. But that is part of my point: You have recommended the use of registry cleaners without knowing what the problem is, or if there even is a problem! Plus, many registry cleaners do create problems and you have declined to produce evidence that they actually offer performance boosts.
You're right, John, my recommendation should have been more highly qualified.
Again, let's agree to disagree in part. I'll continue to recommend the careful use of registry cleaners to folks who understand what they're doing. As a general-purpose solution for tyros, they can be dangerous - and especially so given the number of fraudulent and scareware packages flooding the market.
Bob Stout
wow...
by phillongtran - 6/19/09 7:33 PM In reply to: Hopefully the last volley in this exchange by rbsjrxu guys have managed to give me a headache...c cleaner for me....
Computer "FIX-IT" Utilities
by nutroxx - 6/20/09 3:10 AM In reply to: wow... by phillongtranI have used "ERROR SMART" for years and have never had any trouble with the 'Registry Fixer' at all! In fact, there have been times that I would be buying another computer without it as I have 15-IBM Computers that run 24/7 on several! I have been into Computers since they came onto the Market and know of Experience that not all Registry Cleaners are alike! Some indeed may destroy while others are Actually High Technology and do what they were intended to do and that is to Fix Errors! Gerald Bennett, PhD, Engineer
Hopefully the last volley in this exchange
by standeb - 6/19/09 9:36 PM In reply to: Hopefully the last volley in this exchange by rbsjrxHello rbxjrx,
I have tried some registry cleaners in the past and more recently Ccleaner.
I asked a question about registry cleaners some time ago and was told the same thng by john. Let them alone!!! It's just a money making thing.
Although I still have Ccleaner I have continually used the following:-
Click start. Search. Click on All files and folders. Type in *.tmp without the quotes. When the search is done, Click Edit select all. click file, delete all. Type in search again *.chk without the quotes,
repeat the same sequence, then I still do a disc cleanup deleting all but the last restore point, then I defrag. I got part of this from an article written by Grif Thomas who later warned that one should know what they are deleting from *.chk, so I beware of what I am deleting there. I would suggest you read Griff's article.
So far as I have seen, the above exercise gets me a good deal of used drive space back. I also delete temproary internet files when I click on tools on the Internet explorer browser and click on internet options, settings, view files and delete files from there as well as Temp Files from local settings. Then History and forms.
I surely believe John and to a greater extent Grif Thomas.
It's best to stay away from Registry Clearners as they say, and I so advise.
I stand corrected by these two gentlemen. They've got the bible. If I have made incorrect statements here I would like to read their comments on my contribution. Kindly note that I am still fairly a newbie and have learned quite a deal from these guys in the forum.
standeb
I don't care what they said..
by JCitizen - 6/21/09 6:09 PM In reply to: Hopefully the last volley in this exchange by standebIt is immaterial to why I use the thing in the first place. Malware and bad installation behavior by both Microsoft's and third party installers is why I use CCleaner.
I don't do it for performance per se; but when you have system instability or error windows popping up all over the place, BSODs, and it isn't a driver, you've got to do something!
I have consistently fixed such problems using the registry tool in CCleaner, but I rarely have problems anyway. I've found that things seem to have gone back to the bad old DOS days and I can't trust Microsoft to do all the uninstalling anymore. I'm much better off using whatever uninstall exe that came with the app or using CCleaner to make the decision of what uninstall method/path to use.
For the tough nuts I use Revo, and it hasn't let me down yet. Before I started using these utilities - I was forced to either nuke the drive and start over or do an sfc /scannow to repair Internet Explorer. That one is no longer available since SP2, so it is CCleaner for me! To heck with all the talking heads!
If you ask me, it is the installation methods some of these third and first party applications use that is the problem, and malware also screws that up. As I said else where, MalwareBytes anti-malware can take care of this better than any registry cleaner, I use CCleaner for after action virus battles, and uninstalls gone bad by clients.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
