Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (
More info?)
"AMUSTSoft" <AMUSTSoft@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A62BF6B9-03C2-482C-ADDE-1D9B9A0E1BE0@microsoft.com...
> Kerry, you are quite right. General effect of all cleaner programs is
> negative because they are made by poorly qualified programmers that are
> not
> aware of registry specifics. Also, there're a lot of superstitions about
> the
> registry, and we created an article that should help people make the right
> vision on the registry related issues: 4 Myths about Windows XP Registry
> Cleanup
>
> http://www.amustsoft.com/products/registrycleaner/myths.asp.
>
> We are the company that utilizes years of technical expertise of our
> developers and testers who strive to ensure the product is top quality and
> error free.
> Take the registry compact as an example. One of Windows experts, Mark
> Russinovich, mentions its importance in his article "Inside the Registry"
> (http://www.windowsitpro.com/Windows/Articles/ArticleID/5195/pg.html). The
This link has some interesting reading. Unfortunately it was written about
NT4 while Windows 2000 was in beta. Windows 2000 handles the registry
different from NT4 and Windows XP is different yet again. Can you provide
some current links about how the registry works and what your program does
to solve any problems?
> compact optimizes registry structure and makes your system load and
> perform
> faster.
> Many of the registry cleaners do have this feature, but none of them have
> it
> implemented properly. The main concern about compact is to perform it at
> the
> time when absolutely no processes are accessing the registry to ensure
> that
> it's really compacted.
>
> It's quite hard to achieve and in our software we use code injection to
> winlogon module so that our compact routine would be started just a moment
> before the system goes to shutdown or reboot, and there are no other
> processes (including system services) running.
> This is why our registry compact really works and will not do any harm to
> your services configuration and state data.
>
> Registry compact is just one example of our approach to registry
> cleaning -
> there are a lot more - COM subsystem, Windows Installer etc. By the way do
> you know any of such products which could restore a deleted registry key
> with
> its ACL?
>
> I also would like to mention that our product has already deserved some
> credibility at independent software reviewing sites, for example
> http://www.informationweek.com/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=H3STRJF4RZI0QQSNDBCCKH0CJUMEKJVN?articleID=169400185.
>
This link does not provide any empirical data. It is an opinion piece only.
The author makes quite a point of the fact that although your program has
the capability to back up the registry it doesn't offer any tools to restore
it from a catastrophic failure (i.e. registry so corrupted Windows won't
boot)
> I'll be looking forward to answer any your questions further, and thanks
> for
> showing interest to our product.
>
I would like some empirical data about how much using your program speeds up
Windows, both loading and during normal operation. I would also like some
data as to how much extra physical available memory is made available on a
typical pc after using your program. My own testing, with other programs and
by manual methods, has shown no significant changes to how Windows loads and
operates by optimizing the hive files. The time to load the files is so
small I couldn't measure a change in load time. I'm sure it exists but it is
less than a second which is not significant. I could see no difference in
the physical memory used by a compacted hive file vs. an uncompacted file.
Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. I am still a skeptic.
Kerry
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram