Registry Cleaning?

"Charlie Tame" <> wrote in message
news:...
> Hehe, to quote :-
>
>> They do not comprehend the fact that when an application starts up and
>> reads entries from the registry, that this takes TIME.
>
> Seconds at most, it is after all a computer. It takes a lot MORE time to
> try and figure out why got broke and how to fix it.
>
>



You'd have to multiply those seconds by the number of times you open and
close it each day.

Then consider the lost seconds over a one / two / three year period.

Add in the twiddling of the thumbs, the 'how long do I have to wait'
frustration factor, and you're done.

Example

4 seconds X opened 3 times a day X 365 = 73 minutes lost per year (+ an
unquantifiable frustration factor).

--
Jon

And if your cleaner breaks Windows how long does a reinstall take? Go
for it, educate me...


Please post back if you find the solution, it helps others. Thanks.

Charlie Tame



Jon wrote:
> "Charlie Tame" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>> Hehe, to quote :-
>>
>>> They do not comprehend the fact that when an application starts up
>>> and reads entries from the registry, that this takes TIME.
>>
>> Seconds at most, it is after all a computer. It takes a lot MORE time
>> to try and figure out why got broke and how to fix it.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> You'd have to multiply those seconds by the number of times you open and
> close it each day.
>
> Then consider the lost seconds over a one / two / three year period.
>
> Add in the twiddling of the thumbs, the 'how long do I have to wait'
> frustration factor, and you're done.
>
> Example
>
> 4 seconds X opened 3 times a day X 365 = 73 minutes lost per year (+ an
> unquantifiable frustration factor).
>

Jon wrote:
> "John John - MVP" <> wrote in message
> news:%...
>
>>
>> You don't understand the hiearchal nature of the registry and how
>> applications use the registry. Applications don't go searching for
>> keys and values, they look for or ask to read or write to
>> *specific* keys or values or to verify their presence, the number
>> of keys or values present makes no difference at all because none
>> of these other keys are even looked at. The only time it makes any
>> difference is if you want to do extensive searches through the
>> registry, like using Regedit to find strings, applications don't do
>> this, they don't rummage through the registry, any Windows
>> programmer would know this.
>>
>
>
>
> Actually that's incorrect. An application can easily, and often does,
> ask for all values contained within a particular key (eg a set of
> folder paths), without knowing beforehand the number of entries it
> will retrieve back. If it retrieves and processes 6000, then this
> will necessarily take longer than if it retrieves and processes 20.
> Simple. It aint rocket science.
>
> Now if it so happens that a proportion, or even a majority, of those
> 6000 are superfluous invalid entries, then this is an example of
> where a registry cleaner can save the day.

You are deliberately trying to mislead the readers. An application may
read all the values in in the key(s) that it owns, it doesn't read keys
for other programs and it wouldn't read a whole hive like the software
hive for example. An application like Lotus Smart Suite for example
wouldn't read the Microsoft Office or the Mozilla Thunderbird keys, it
reads the keys for its own application and those in the current user
hive which concerns it. Although it is conceivably possible that some
massive application might have a whopping 6000 registry values I
personally don't know of any such applications, this made up bogus and
large number of entries is another one of these attempts to mislead
readers and to make them believe that a few errant entries in the
registry hurts performance. These kinds of exaggerations and bogus
claims are often made by those who push the need for registry cleaners
or those who otherwise believe that these cleaners are useful. And for
all it's worth few of these useless cleaners would ever find such a
large number of invalid entries in the registry. Registry cleaners are
next to utterly useless and for most part they create more harm than
good. The purposed non existent benefits claimed by the vendors and fans
of these programs are simply not worth the risk of the real damages that
these programs can and do at times cause.

John

db wrote:
> you're still barking up my tree
>
> however your record is not very
> good with me because you don't
> know how to do your homework.
>
> you really don't have an argument
> against my rationale for keeping the
> registry tuned up.
>
> instead argue with the handful
> of software developers at
> microsoft.
>
> you can start by bulleting the
> issues found here:
>
> http://onecare.live.com/site/en-US/a...leaner_why.htm
>
> then you can protest the use
> of the registry cleaner that is
> utilized here:
>
> http://onecare.live.com/site/en-US/center/whatsnew.htm
>
> then let us know if microsoft
> agrees with you and I'll be happy
> to change my tune.
>
>

You mean the one that _killed_ by UltraVNC install?

Carl

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:03:17 -0400, John John - MVP wrote:

> Jon wrote:
>> "John John - MVP" <> wrote in message
>> news:%...
>>
>>>
>>> You don't understand the hiearchal nature of the registry and how
>>> applications use the registry. Applications don't go searching for
>>> keys and values, they look for or ask to read or write to
>>> *specific* keys or values or to verify their presence, the number
>>> of keys or values present makes no difference at all because none
>>> of these other keys are even looked at. The only time it makes any
>>> difference is if you want to do extensive searches through the
>>> registry, like using Regedit to find strings, applications don't do
>>> this, they don't rummage through the registry, any Windows
>>> programmer would know this.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Actually that's incorrect. An application can easily, and often does,
>> ask for all values contained within a particular key (eg a set of
>> folder paths), without knowing beforehand the number of entries it
>> will retrieve back. If it retrieves and processes 6000, then this
>> will necessarily take longer than if it retrieves and processes 20.
>> Simple. It aint rocket science.
>>
>> Now if it so happens that a proportion, or even a majority, of those
>> 6000 are superfluous invalid entries, then this is an example of
>> where a registry cleaner can save the day.
>
> You are deliberately trying to mislead the readers. An application may
> read all the values in in the key(s) that it owns, it doesn't read keys
> for other programs and it wouldn't read a whole hive like the software
> hive for example. An application like Lotus Smart Suite for example
> wouldn't read the Microsoft Office or the Mozilla Thunderbird keys, it
> reads the keys for its own application and those in the current user
> hive which concerns it. Although it is conceivably possible that some
> massive application might have a whopping 6000 registry values I
> personally don't know of any such applications, this made up bogus and
> large number of entries is another one of these attempts to mislead
> readers and to make them believe that a few errant entries in the
> registry hurts performance. These kinds of exaggerations and bogus
> claims are often made by those who push the need for registry cleaners
> or those who otherwise believe that these cleaners are useful. And for
> all it's worth few of these useless cleaners would ever find such a
> large number of invalid entries in the registry. Registry cleaners are
> next to utterly useless and for most part they create more harm than
> good. The purposed non existent benefits claimed by the vendors and fans
> of these programs are simply not worth the risk of the real damages that
> these programs can and do at times cause.
>
> John

Jon neglected to mention *how much* time it would take to read 6000
entries...

He also neglected to mention the name of any registry cleaner that he might
recommend.

'Nuff said.

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom