Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Registry cleaner for XP Pro?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
November 7, 2004 10:02:56 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

I am torn between JV16 registry cleaner (Mace) and Registry Mechanic

I've used the old JV16 for years but it has now been upgraded so it's
time to decide which to purchase.

Thoughts - experiences?

TIA

Louise

More about : registry cleaner pro

Anonymous
November 7, 2004 10:46:00 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"Louise" <none@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bf792ac8cd8b84d989774@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
>I am torn between JV16 registry cleaner (Mace) and Registry Mechanic
>
> I've used the old JV16 for years but it has now been upgraded so it's
> time to decide which to purchase.
>
> Thoughts - experiences?
>
> TIA
>
> Louise

Neither are needed; both are nothing but placebos, despite what some
vociferous advocates may claim.
Anonymous
November 7, 2004 10:47:58 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Unless you have some compelling reason to do so it's best to leave the
registry intact.

--
Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"Louise" wrote:
|I am torn between JV16 registry cleaner (Mace) and Registry Mechanic
|
| I've used the old JV16 for years but it has now been upgraded so it's
| time to decide which to purchase.
|
| Thoughts - experiences?
|
| TIA
|
| Louise
Related resources
Anonymous
November 7, 2004 1:02:47 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Hi Louise

The XP Registry manages itself very well. Using one of these so-called
Registry 'cleaners' can cause more problems than they're worth - in some
cases rendering a PC unbootable. I would suggest that you let XP manage the
Registry and not use a 'cleaner'.

--

Will Denny
MS-MVP - Windows Shell/User
Please reply to the News Groups


"Louise" <none@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bf792ac8cd8b84d989774@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
>I am torn between JV16 registry cleaner (Mace) and Registry Mechanic
>
> I've used the old JV16 for years but it has now been upgraded so it's
> time to decide which to purchase.
>
> Thoughts - experiences?
>
> TIA
>
> Louise
November 7, 2004 4:18:09 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Depends how you use your system.
If you do not test/try/uninstall programs, you do not need to clean the
registry - unless you are a perfectionist.
However, if you install and uninstall all kinds of software, your registry
will 'clog' with unnecessary entries that might slow down (albeit
imperceptibly) your system. I don't know of any single registry utility to
clean it really good, thus I use 2 or 3 utilities to do a decent job.
1. Manually: search the registry for the name of whatever programs you
uninstalled - ex. Netscape, AOL (some programs will install AOL without your
knowledege) etc. If you are a masochist, you can remove/defrag manually a
text file of the registry as per MS site instructions.
2. Ontrack's Registry Repair, and Registry Defragmenter; these 2 are in
Ontrack Utilities 3.0 and up. 3.0 is old and should be cheap to buy, but
it's not worth to buy a newer version from V Com.
3. RegCleaner 4.3 (the old, free JV16) is still working OK for me. I tried
the new RegSupreme but I messed up.
4. Other registry cleaners that you can download from the web - don't bother
to buy any, but you can use the free ones.
5. Old MS RegClean after messing with w/ other registry cleaners - at least
fixes possible major errors so that you can boot.
Search the web for "registry fixer cleaner reviews" for more info; PC Mag
found Ontrack to be the best (removes most useless keys).
All in all, I would not bother upgrading.
Michael


"Louise" <none@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bf792ac8cd8b84d989774@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
>I am torn between JV16 registry cleaner (Mace) and Registry Mechanic
>
> I've used the old JV16 for years but it has now been upgraded so it's
> time to decide which to purchase.
>
> Thoughts - experiences?
>
> TIA
>
> Louise
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 1:38:32 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Neither are needed. Windows XP does a good job of maintaining the registry.
Most registry maintenance products tend to cause more damage than anything
else!

Thanks In Advance

Specialist David W
"Louise" <none@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1bf792ac8cd8b84d989774@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
>I am torn between JV16 registry cleaner (Mace) and Registry Mechanic
>
> I've used the old JV16 for years but it has now been upgraded so it's
> time to decide which to purchase.
>
> Thoughts - experiences?
>
> TIA
>
> Louise
Anonymous
November 8, 2004 3:44:43 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Inline...
"Michael" <afn18721@afn.org> wrote in message
news:o USLYYPxEHA.2316@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Depends how you use your system.
> If you do not test/try/uninstall programs, you do not need to clean the
> registry - unless you are a perfectionist.

Read: unless you are suffering from O/C disorder.

> However, if you install and uninstall all kinds of software, your registry
> will 'clog' with unnecessary entries that might slow down (albeit
> imperceptibly) your system.

If the difference is can't be perceived, how do you know there's a
difference and why would you care unless...

>I don't know of any single registry utility to
> clean it really good, thus I use 2 or 3 utilities to do a decent job.

There you go--O/C disorder at work. Do you also wash your hands fifty times
an hour?

> 1. Manually: search the registry for the name of whatever programs you
> uninstalled - ex. Netscape, AOL (some programs will install AOL without
>your knowledege) etc.

What programs will "install" AOL without your knowledge? Will they also
implant microchips under your skin while you're sleeping?

>If you are a masochist,

Or if you're suffering from some other neurotic disorder...

>you can remove/defrag manually a text file of the registry as per MS site
>instructions.

What???

> 2. Ontrack's Registry Repair, and Registry Defragmenter; these 2 are in
> Ontrack Utilities 3.0 and up. 3.0 is old and should be cheap to buy, but
> it's not worth to buy a newer version from V Com.
> 3. RegCleaner 4.3 (the old, free JV16) is still working OK for me. I tried
> the new RegSupreme but I messed up.
> 4. Other registry cleaners that you can download from the web - don't
bother
> to buy any, but you can use the free ones.
> 5. Old MS RegClean after messing with w/ other registry cleaners - at
least
> fixes possible major errors so that you can boot.
> Search the web for "registry fixer cleaner reviews" for more info; PC Mag
> found Ontrack to be the best (removes most useless keys).
> All in all, I would not bother upgrading.
> Michael



> "Louise" <none@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1bf792ac8cd8b84d989774@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> >I am torn between JV16 registry cleaner (Mace) and Registry Mechanic
> >
> > I've used the old JV16 for years but it has now been upgraded so it's
> > time to decide which to purchase.
> >
> > Thoughts - experiences?
> >
> > TIA
> >
> > Louise
>
>
Anonymous
November 10, 2004 8:54:18 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Louise <none@nospam.com> wrote:

>I am torn between JV16 registry cleaner (Mace) and Registry Mechanic
>
>I've used the old JV16 for years but it has now been upgraded so it's
>time to decide which to purchase.
>
>Thoughts - experiences?
>

I have used RegSeeker (free) from
http://www.snapfiles.com/get/regseeker.html and it has worked well for
me.

As others have said, there is less need to clean the Windows XP
registry than there was with Windows 95/98/Me but situations still do
arise where it is needed. Uninstalling Norton products is one
example where there is a ton of crud left behind in the registry.

Other situations where I have needed regsitry cleaners include
recovering from botched/crashed program installs where system restore
was not a viable option. And some months ago I had an additional
hard drive die on me with some major apps installed on it (Visual
Studio for example). I decided not to replace the drive or to
reinstall those apps so I used RegSeeker to remove well over 15,000
registry entries relating to the non-existant apps.

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 10:10:32 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:l3l4p0hu6ntcooehdmdis5chvudtr1lf6u@4ax.com...
> Louise <none@nospam.com> wrote:
>
snip>

> I have used RegSeeker (free) from
> http://www.snapfiles.com/get/regseeker.html and it has worked well for
> me.
>
> As others have said, there is less need to clean the Windows XP
> registry than there was with Windows 95/98/Me but situations still do
> arise where it is needed. Uninstalling Norton products is one
> example where there is a ton of crud left behind in the registry.
>
> Other situations where I have needed regsitry cleaners include
> recovering from botched/crashed program installs where system restore
> was not a viable option. And some months ago I had an additional
> hard drive die on me with some major apps installed on it (Visual
> Studio for example). I decided not to replace the drive or to
> reinstall those apps so I used RegSeeker to remove well over 15,000
> registry entries relating to the non-existant apps.
>
> Good luck
>
>
> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
snip

With reference to the examples you cite, what difference would it have made
if you had not removed the redundant entries, other than reduncing the size
of the Registry? Precious little I would guess.
November 11, 2004 6:57:17 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

It speeds up the computer slightly. Not so much junk to search/scan/read
through.
"Edward W. Thompson" <thomeduk1@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:%23O7mM27xEHA.2196@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
> "Ron Martell" <ron.martell@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:l3l4p0hu6ntcooehdmdis5chvudtr1lf6u@4ax.com...
>> Louise <none@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
> snip>
>
>> I have used RegSeeker (free) from
>> http://www.snapfiles.com/get/regseeker.html and it has worked well for
>> me.
>>
>> As others have said, there is less need to clean the Windows XP
>> registry than there was with Windows 95/98/Me but situations still do
>> arise where it is needed. Uninstalling Norton products is one
>> example where there is a ton of crud left behind in the registry.
>>
>> Other situations where I have needed regsitry cleaners include
>> recovering from botched/crashed program installs where system restore
>> was not a viable option. And some months ago I had an additional
>> hard drive die on me with some major apps installed on it (Visual
>> Studio for example). I decided not to replace the drive or to
>> reinstall those apps so I used RegSeeker to remove well over 15,000
>> registry entries relating to the non-existant apps.
>>
>> Good luck
>>
>>
>> Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
> snip
>
> With reference to the examples you cite, what difference would it have made
> if you had not removed the redundant entries, other than reduncing the size
> of the Registry? Precious little I would guess.
>
Anonymous
November 11, 2004 6:57:18 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"Unknown" <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> wrote in message
news:xZLkd.7628$mK1.1153@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
> It speeds up the computer slightly. Not so much junk to search/scan/read
> through.

Here we go again. What does "slightly" mean? Can you prove this? Do you have
benchmark data?
November 12, 2004 11:49:45 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

For heavens sake, time something on your system then clean your registry and
retime. You apparently won't believe what many of us have said.
"Wislu Plethora" <wislu@plethora.com> wrote in message
news:%23JV2FsByEHA.2260@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
> "Unknown" <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> wrote in message
> news:xZLkd.7628$mK1.1153@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
>> It speeds up the computer slightly. Not so much junk to search/scan/read
>> through.
>
> Here we go again. What does "slightly" mean? Can you prove this? Do you have
> benchmark data?
>
>
>
Anonymous
November 15, 2004 3:20:34 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"Unknown" <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> wrote in message
news:Jl9ld.18933$Rf1.474@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> For heavens sake, time something on your system then clean your registry
and
> retime. You apparently won't believe what many of us have said.

If you have to use a stopwatch, what's the point? Between "cleaning"
something that isn't effectively dirty and then trying to prove that you've
accomplished something by doing it, you've wasted far more time than you
ever could save by "cleaning" to begin with. You must be a very important
and busy person if a few milliseconds "saved" is meaningful.
November 15, 2004 7:26:22 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

This way, any unused files, dead links, dll's, temp etc don't matter as each
does not affect the system in a perceptible way. This type of error in
reasoning is known as "the composition fallacy" - i.e. small + small =
small. Fact is that that small quantities (size and, inherently, time) add
up in a system and ultimatley make a noticeable difference.
Michael
"Raymond J. Johnson Jr." <RayJay@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:e70RN$zyEHA.3808@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
> "Unknown" <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> wrote in message
> news:Jl9ld.18933$Rf1.474@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>> For heavens sake, time something on your system then clean your registry
> and
>> retime. You apparently won't believe what many of us have said.
>
> If you have to use a stopwatch, what's the point? Between "cleaning"
> something that isn't effectively dirty and then trying to prove that
> you've
> accomplished something by doing it, you've wasted far more time than you
> ever could save by "cleaning" to begin with. You must be a very important
> and busy person if a few milliseconds "saved" is meaningful.
>
>
Anonymous
November 15, 2004 7:46:53 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Using your reasoning, how many "invalid" registry entries would I have to
eliminate before I would notice an increase in performance? My processor can
perform up to 2.26 billion operations per second. Admittedly, it never gets
to work that fast because of my slowpoke FSB, which can't deliver any more
than 533 million operations per second.

--
Ted Zieglar


"Michael" <afn18721@afn.org> wrote in message
news:uGKeDn1yEHA.2656@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> This way, any unused files, dead links, dll's, temp etc don't matter as
each
> does not affect the system in a perceptible way. This type of error in
> reasoning is known as "the composition fallacy" - i.e. small + small =
> small. Fact is that that small quantities (size and, inherently, time) add
> up in a system and ultimatley make a noticeable difference.
> Michael
> "Raymond J. Johnson Jr." <RayJay@nospam.org> wrote in message
> news:e70RN$zyEHA.3808@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> >
> > "Unknown" <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> wrote in message
> > news:Jl9ld.18933$Rf1.474@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> >> For heavens sake, time something on your system then clean your
registry
> > and
> >> retime. You apparently won't believe what many of us have said.
> >
> > If you have to use a stopwatch, what's the point? Between "cleaning"
> > something that isn't effectively dirty and then trying to prove that
> > you've
> > accomplished something by doing it, you've wasted far more time than you
> > ever could save by "cleaning" to begin with. You must be a very
important
> > and busy person if a few milliseconds "saved" is meaningful.
> >
> >
>
>
Anonymous
November 15, 2004 8:14:51 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Michael wrote:

> This way, any unused files, dead links, dll's, temp etc don't matter as each
> does not affect the system in a perceptible way. This type of error in
> reasoning is known as "the composition fallacy" - i.e. small + small =
> small. Fact is that that small quantities (size and, inherently, time) add
> up in a system and ultimatley make a noticeable difference.
> Michael

Composition fallacy, my ass. Prove your contention.
November 15, 2004 11:56:19 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Reread my last sentence.
"Raymond J. Johnson Jr." <RayJay@nospam.org> wrote in message
news:e70RN$zyEHA.3808@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>
> "Unknown" <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> wrote in message
> news:Jl9ld.18933$Rf1.474@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>> For heavens sake, time something on your system then clean your registry
> and
>> retime. You apparently won't believe what many of us have said.
>
> If you have to use a stopwatch, what's the point? Between "cleaning"
> something that isn't effectively dirty and then trying to prove that you've
> accomplished something by doing it, you've wasted far more time than you
> ever could save by "cleaning" to begin with. You must be a very important
> and busy person if a few milliseconds "saved" is meaningful.
>
>
November 16, 2004 7:49:44 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Regardless of your FSB your processor CANNOT perform up to 2.26 billion
operations per second. Don't confuse clock speed with processor speed.
"Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:u3x$kx1yEHA.3656@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Using your reasoning, how many "invalid" registry entries would I have to
> eliminate before I would notice an increase in performance? My processor can
> perform up to 2.26 billion operations per second. Admittedly, it never gets
> to work that fast because of my slowpoke FSB, which can't deliver any more
> than 533 million operations per second.
>
> --
> Ted Zieglar
>
>
> "Michael" <afn18721@afn.org> wrote in message
> news:uGKeDn1yEHA.2656@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> This way, any unused files, dead links, dll's, temp etc don't matter as
> each
>> does not affect the system in a perceptible way. This type of error in
>> reasoning is known as "the composition fallacy" - i.e. small + small =
>> small. Fact is that that small quantities (size and, inherently, time) add
>> up in a system and ultimatley make a noticeable difference.
>> Michael
>> "Raymond J. Johnson Jr." <RayJay@nospam.org> wrote in message
>> news:e70RN$zyEHA.3808@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
>> >
>> > "Unknown" <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> wrote in message
>> > news:Jl9ld.18933$Rf1.474@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>> >> For heavens sake, time something on your system then clean your
> registry
>> > and
>> >> retime. You apparently won't believe what many of us have said.
>> >
>> > If you have to use a stopwatch, what's the point? Between "cleaning"
>> > something that isn't effectively dirty and then trying to prove that
>> > you've
>> > accomplished something by doing it, you've wasted far more time than you
>> > ever could save by "cleaning" to begin with. You must be a very
> important
>> > and busy person if a few milliseconds "saved" is meaningful.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
November 16, 2004 7:52:38 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

The only way to do that is with a stop watch. But since you won't try, forget
it. You won't believe what people tell you.
"Phil McCracken" <Phil@McCracken.com> wrote in message
news:10pie3bevdg06d@corp.supernews.com...
> Michael wrote:
>
>> This way, any unused files, dead links, dll's, temp etc don't matter as
>> each does not affect the system in a perceptible way. This type of error in
>> reasoning is known as "the composition fallacy" - i.e. small + small =
>> small. Fact is that that small quantities (size and, inherently, time) add
>> up in a system and ultimatley make a noticeable difference.
>> Michael
>
> Composition fallacy, my ass. Prove your contention.
>
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 7:52:39 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

I have a bridge for you that you are just going to love.
--
Ted Zieglar


"Unknown" <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> wrote in message
news:qfqmd.29325$Qv5.3792@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
> The only way to do that is with a stop watch. But since you won't try,
forget
> it. You won't believe what people tell you.
> "Phil McCracken" <Phil@McCracken.com> wrote in message
> news:10pie3bevdg06d@corp.supernews.com...
> > Michael wrote:
> >
> >> This way, any unused files, dead links, dll's, temp etc don't matter as
> >> each does not affect the system in a perceptible way. This type of
error in
> >> reasoning is known as "the composition fallacy" - i.e. small + small =
> >> small. Fact is that that small quantities (size and, inherently, time)
add
> >> up in a system and ultimatley make a noticeable difference.
> >> Michael
> >
> > Composition fallacy, my ass. Prove your contention.
> >
>
November 16, 2004 8:37:19 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Does it swing 2.26 billion times per second?
"Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:o GouVAAzEHA.2540@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>I have a bridge for you that you are just going to love.
> --
> Ted Zieglar
>
>
> "Unknown" <Unknown@Somewhere.Kom> wrote in message
> news:qfqmd.29325$Qv5.3792@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>> The only way to do that is with a stop watch. But since you won't try,
> forget
>> it. You won't believe what people tell you.
>> "Phil McCracken" <Phil@McCracken.com> wrote in message
>> news:10pie3bevdg06d@corp.supernews.com...
>> > Michael wrote:
>> >
>> >> This way, any unused files, dead links, dll's, temp etc don't matter as
>> >> each does not affect the system in a perceptible way. This type of
> error in
>> >> reasoning is known as "the composition fallacy" - i.e. small + small =
>> >> small. Fact is that that small quantities (size and, inherently, time)
> add
>> >> up in a system and ultimatley make a noticeable difference.
>> >> Michael
>> >
>> > Composition fallacy, my ass. Prove your contention.
>> >
>>
>
>
!