Registry Cleaning?

"db" <> wrote in message
news:...
> by removing orphaned keys from
> the registry,
>
> the file size of the registry will be
> reduced
>
> a reduction of file size has a number
> of benefits.
>

Very few. The registry is a lookup table. Your system will not be affected
by removing a few entries in this table.
Give it a rest.

> --------------
>
> ultimately, do not utilize registry
> cleaners that have not been recommended
> by users in this newsgroups.
>
> many of them are not up to date
> and some of them are spywares
> in disguise.
>
>
> --
> db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
> DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
> - Systems Analyst
> - Database Developer
> - Accountancy
> - Veteran of the Armed Forces
> - @Hotmail.com
> - nntp Postologist
> ~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>
>
> "Artreid" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> I am reading in this NG and all over the internet that cleaning the
>> registry is a no, no. I am also informed that the registry can/does get
>> all messed up/cluttered with all sorts of stuff, from removed programs,
>> old pointers, etc, over time.
>>
>> So what/how do you fix this if you shouldn't use a registry cleaner???
>>
>>
>>

Artreid wrote:
> I am reading in this NG and all over the internet that cleaning the
> registry is a no, no. I am also informed that the registry can/does get
> all messed up/cluttered with all sorts of stuff, from removed programs,
> old pointers, etc, over time.
>
> So what/how do you fix this if you shouldn't use a registry cleaner???
>
>
>


There's nothing to fix. Such orphaned entries have no affect upon
performance.

Remember, the registry is an *indexed* database. The OS doesn't
have scan through each and every registry entry to find the one that
it's looking for. To use an imperfect analogy, try thinking of the
registry as a book with a very detailed table of contents. Once the OS
knows to which "page" it must turn to find the information needed, the
OS goes *directly* (much more so than you or I could do with a physical
book) to the pertinent data. The number of intervening "pages,
paragraphs, and words" is utterly irrelevant.

The only time the sheer number of registry entries matters, and can
possibly affect performance, is when one is doing something that
requires a full entry-by-entry scan of the registry. And one does this
*only* on those rare occasions when it is necessary to search the
registry for a particular value, or when using something like a registry
scanner or "cleaner." Day-to-day operations remain untouched.



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

housetrained wrote:
> "Artreid" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> I am reading in this NG and all over the internet that cleaning the
>> registry is a no, no. I am also informed that the registry can/does
>> get all messed up/cluttered with all sorts of stuff, from removed
>> programs, old pointers, etc, over time.
>>
>> So what/how do you fix this if you shouldn't use a registry cleaner???
>>
>>
>>
> Been using ccleaner for two years with no problems - it lets you back up
> the registry. Get it from filehippo.com
>


You've been lucky.

CCleaner's registry scanner seems relatively benign, as long as you
step through each detected "issue" (almost all of which will be bogus)
one at a time, to determine if it really is an "issue" or not, and then
decide whether or not to let the application "fix" it. In my testing,
though, most of the reported "issues" won't be issues, at all. I tried
the latest version on a brand-new OS installation with no additional
applications installed, and certainly none installed and then
uninstalled, and CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred
allegedly orphaned registry entries and dozens of purportedly
"suspicious" files. Its findings were utter nonsense, in plain terms.

CCleaner's only real strength, and the only reason I use it, lies
in its usefulness for cleaning up unused temporary files from the hard
drive; as a registry "cleaner," it's not significantly different from
any other snake oil product of the same type.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

Jon wrote:
>
>
>
>
> The anti-registry cleaner crowd are essentially non-programmers.
>


True. Instead, we are, for the most part, highly experienced (20+
years, in my case, going on 15 years with registry-based operating
systems) technicians, many of us professionals, who know that all too
many "programmers" are some of the most technically clueless people
extant. All a lot of them do is kludge together (copy & paste) modules
and sub-routines that others have written. I know. I've had to repair
their computers' operating systems often enough. (Yes there are good
programmers out there, but they seem to be in the minority, sadly.)


> They do not comprehend the fact that when an application starts up and
> reads entries from the registry, that this takes TIME.
>


/Au contraire/, we realized perfectly well that each application will
have to take a few nanoseconds to read the few pertinent registry
entries. This time, however, is meaningless to humans, and remains
exactly the same whether or not the registry contains extraneous
entries, or whether or not a registry "cleaner" has been used.


> They do not comprehend the fact that reading 6000 entries at application
> startup will take longer than reading 20.
>


But we do understand that the registry is an indexed database, and that
no application reads any significant portion of the registry on startup.
Instead, they read exactly those, and only those, entries that they
need.



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

db wrote:
> by removing orphaned keys from
> the registry,
>
> the file size of the registry will be
> reduced
>

By a few meaningless kilobytes...

> a reduction of file size has a number
> of benefits.
>


Name one. Provide scientific evidence to support this assertion. (We
know you can't, because you've been asked before, and have always failed
to even make an attempt.)





--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:19:47 -0800, Ezeloe Blanche Cloeiss wrote:

> "ray" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:40:56 -0500, Artreid wrote:
>>
>>> I am reading in this NG and all over the internet that cleaning the
>>> registry is a no, no. I am also informed that the registry can/does
>>> get all messed up/cluttered with all sorts of stuff, from removed
>>> programs, old pointers, etc, over time.
>>>
>>> So what/how do you fix this if you shouldn't use a registry cleaner???
>>
>> I can see two rather obvious solutions:
>>
>> 1) reinstall
>> 2) switch to Linux (no registry)
>
> Your number 2 is completely worthless. Why would someone ditch Windows
> for that crappy Ubuntu that nobody wants? You must be an idiot.

I must be an idiot - I didn't say one word about Ubuntu - that was your
'leap of faith'.

"ray" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:19:47 -0800, Ezeloe Blanche Cloeiss wrote:
>
>> "ray" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:40:56 -0500, Artreid wrote:
>>>
>>>> I am reading in this NG and all over the internet that cleaning the
>>>> registry is a no, no. I am also informed that the registry can/does
>>>> get all messed up/cluttered with all sorts of stuff, from removed
>>>> programs, old pointers, etc, over time.
>>>>
>>>> So what/how do you fix this if you shouldn't use a registry cleaner???
>>>
>>> I can see two rather obvious solutions:
>>>
>>> 1) reinstall
>>> 2) switch to Linux (no registry)
>>
>> Your number 2 is completely worthless. Why would someone ditch Windows
>> for that crappy Ubuntu that nobody wants? You must be an idiot.
>
> I must be an idiot - I didn't say one word about Ubuntu - that was your
> 'leap of faith'.

Linux/Ubuntu - Same crap different package.

"Death" <-x> wrote in message
news:4b10139d$...
> Ezeloe Blanche Cloeiss wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "ray" <> wrote in message
>> news:...
>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:19:47 -0800, Ezeloe Blanche Cloeiss wrote:
>>>
>>>> "ray" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:...
>>>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:40:56 -0500, Artreid wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I am reading in this NG and all over the internet that cleaning the
>>>>>> registry is a no, no. I am also informed that the registry can/does
>>>>>> get all messed up/cluttered with all sorts of stuff, from removed
>>>>>> programs, old pointers, etc, over time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So what/how do you fix this if you shouldn't use a registry
>>>>>> cleaner???
>>>>>
>>>>> I can see two rather obvious solutions:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) reinstall
>>>>> 2) switch to Linux (no registry)
>>>>
>>>> Your number 2 is completely worthless. Why would someone ditch Windows
>>>> for that crappy Ubuntu that nobody wants? You must be an idiot.
>>>
>>> I must be an idiot - I didn't say one word about Ubuntu - that was your
>>> 'leap of faith'.
>>
>> Linux/Ubuntu - Same crap different package.
>
> Ah, like Vista/Win7 - Same crap different package.
>
Not at all. I guess you haven't used Windows 7. I am using Windows 7 and
it's solid.

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:02:40 -0800, Ezeloe Blanche Cloeiss wrote:

> "Death" <-x> wrote in message
> news:4b10139d$...
>> Ezeloe Blanche Cloeiss wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> "ray" <> wrote in message
>>> news:...
>>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:19:47 -0800, Ezeloe Blanche Cloeiss wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "ray" <> wrote in message
>>>>> news:...
>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:40:56 -0500, Artreid wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am reading in this NG and all over the internet that cleaning
>>>>>>> the registry is a no, no. I am also informed that the registry
>>>>>>> can/does get all messed up/cluttered with all sorts of stuff, from
>>>>>>> removed programs, old pointers, etc, over time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So what/how do you fix this if you shouldn't use a registry
>>>>>>> cleaner???
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can see two rather obvious solutions:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) reinstall
>>>>>> 2) switch to Linux (no registry)
>>>>>
>>>>> Your number 2 is completely worthless. Why would someone ditch
>>>>> Windows for that crappy Ubuntu that nobody wants? You must be an
>>>>> idiot.
>>>>
>>>> I must be an idiot - I didn't say one word about Ubuntu - that was
>>>> your 'leap of faith'.
>>>
>>> Linux/Ubuntu - Same crap different package.
>>
>> Ah, like Vista/Win7 - Same crap different package.
>>
> Not at all. I guess you haven't used Windows 7. I am using Windows 7
> and it's solid.

Ah - so you're telling us vista isn't?

"ray" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 10:02:40 -0800, Ezeloe Blanche Cloeiss wrote:
>
>> "Death" <-x> wrote in message
>> news:4b10139d$...
>>> Ezeloe Blanche Cloeiss wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "ray" <> wrote in message
>>>> news:...
>>>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:19:47 -0800, Ezeloe Blanche Cloeiss wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> "ray" <> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:...
>>>>>>> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 01:40:56 -0500, Artreid wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am reading in this NG and all over the internet that cleaning
>>>>>>>> the registry is a no, no. I am also informed that the registry
>>>>>>>> can/does get all messed up/cluttered with all sorts of stuff, from
>>>>>>>> removed programs, old pointers, etc, over time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So what/how do you fix this if you shouldn't use a registry
>>>>>>>> cleaner???
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I can see two rather obvious solutions:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) reinstall
>>>>>>> 2) switch to Linux (no registry)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your number 2 is completely worthless. Why would someone ditch
>>>>>> Windows for that crappy Ubuntu that nobody wants? You must be an
>>>>>> idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>> I must be an idiot - I didn't say one word about Ubuntu - that was
>>>>> your 'leap of faith'.
>>>>
>>>> Linux/Ubuntu - Same crap different package.
>>>
>>> Ah, like Vista/Win7 - Same crap different package.
>>>
>> Not at all. I guess you haven't used Windows 7. I am using Windows 7
>> and it's solid.
>
> Ah - so you're telling us vista isn't?

Windows 7 is a rewrite of most of the major components. The look and feel
are the same and that's about it.