Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

"Free" Rigistry Cleaner any good?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 3:52:35 PM

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

I downloaded the free Registry Cleaner and it "supposedly" found hundreds of
faults, even though my computer, 2.GHz, Windows XP Pro, 512 MB RAM, seems to
run fine.

It fixes 50 of the "faults" free but then wants the upgrade version for $
29.95 to fix anything else.

Does anyone have this program and is satisfied with it?
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 4:10:42 PM

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

I should have said that the program comes from "FreeRegistryFix.com"


"Ritter197@Comcast.net" <Ritter197@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vbidnelh_sTi45beRVn-rw@comcast.com...
>I downloaded the free Registry Cleaner and it "supposedly" found hundreds
>of faults, even though my computer, 2.GHz, Windows XP Pro, 512 MB RAM,
>seems to run fine.
>
> It fixes 50 of the "faults" free but then wants the upgrade version for $
> 29.95 to fix anything else.
>
> Does anyone have this program and is satisfied with it?
>
>
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 5:31:18 PM

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

Ritter197@Comcast.net wrote:
> I downloaded the free Registry Cleaner and it "supposedly" found
> hundreds of faults, even though my computer, 2.GHz, Windows XP Pro,
> 512 MB RAM, seems to run fine.
>
> It fixes 50 of the "faults" free but then wants the upgrade version
> for $29.95 to fix anything else.
>
> Does anyone have this program and is satisfied with it?

facetious mode/on

As long as you have plenty of time on your hands, go ahead. It shouldn't take you more than a few days to re-install everything and get over the loss of your personal data. 8<|

What is the actual name of this wonderful software program?

--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Related resources
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 5:31:19 PM

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

Freeregistryfix.com is the name.


"Ronnie Vernon MVP" <ronv@mvps.org> wrote in message
news:uBJhVGCqFHA.820@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
Ritter197@Comcast.net wrote:
> I downloaded the free Registry Cleaner and it "supposedly" found
> hundreds of faults, even though my computer, 2.GHz, Windows XP Pro,
> 512 MB RAM, seems to run fine.
>
> It fixes 50 of the "faults" free but then wants the upgrade version
> for $29.95 to fix anything else.
>
> Does anyone have this program and is satisfied with it?

facetious mode/on

As long as you have plenty of time on your hands, go ahead. It shouldn't
take you more than a few days to re-install everything and get over the loss
of your personal data. 8<|

What is the actual name of this wonderful software program?

--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 8:01:27 PM

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

Ritter197@Comcast.net wrote:
> Freeregistryfix.com is the name.
<snip>

Here are a couple other threads where you can get more information.

Google Groups : microsoft.public.security.homeusers:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.securit....*&rnum=1#0b2dc15b5c53d71e

Google Groups : microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.win98.g....*&rnum=3#a1579c4dcea64904

--

Ronnie Vernon
Microsoft MVP
Windows Shell/User

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 8:13:33 PM

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

Avoid this scam like the plague.

--
Ted Zieglar
"You can do it if you try."

"Ritter197@Comcast.net" <Ritter197@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:vbidnelh_sTi45beRVn-rw@comcast.com...
> I downloaded the free Registry Cleaner and it "supposedly" found hundreds
of
> faults, even though my computer, 2.GHz, Windows XP Pro, 512 MB RAM, seems
to
> run fine.
>
> It fixes 50 of the "faults" free but then wants the upgrade version for $
> 29.95 to fix anything else.
>
> Does anyone have this program and is satisfied with it?
>
>
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 8:57:05 PM

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

It's a scam. You do not need a registry cleaner for Windows XP.
Using a registry cleaner will not do anything positive for
the performance of your computer.

Many folks who have gone ahead and used a registry cleaner
often visit this newsgroup for help, usually beginning their
question with "Help! Suddenly Windows XP stopped ___________"
(you fill in the blank).

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User
Microsoft Newsgroups

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Ritter197" wrote:

| I downloaded the free Registry Cleaner and it "supposedly" found hundreds of
| faults, even though my computer, 2.GHz, Windows XP Pro, 512 MB RAM, seems to
| run fine.
|
| It fixes 50 of the "faults" free but then wants the upgrade version for $
| 29.95 to fix anything else.
|
| Does anyone have this program and is satisfied with it?
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 10:51:17 PM

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

It might very well be a scam, but the concept of registry cleaning is
a valid one, even in XP.

I use Norton Systemworks, which is a suite, which includes a registry
checker/cleaner.

It finds registry errors all the time, many times finding 20 or 30 per
scan. Most software doesn't install cleanly, even WORD and Pagemaker,
which are supposed to be above suspicion by reputation:>:

I find keys that don't lead anywhere and other assorted problems,
especially activeX problems. I can uninstall almost any piece of
software and run the scanner, it will be guaranteed to find problems!

Even when software isn't uninstalled, there are often 3 or 4 'medium'
rated registry problems found.

There is a website that specializes in listing security threats that
pose as legitimate software. I'll look for it later tonight and email
you directly.

In the meantime, if this is a scam, you MUST consider anything on your
HD has been harvested. I strongly encourage you to get professional
help from a local computer shop.

The problem might be more serious than you think, especially if you
use the computer for online shopping.

T

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:57:05 -0500, "Carey Frisch [MVP]"
<cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote:

>It's a scam. You do not need a registry cleaner for Windows XP.
>Using a registry cleaner will not do anything positive for
>the performance of your computer.
>
>Many folks who have gone ahead and used a registry cleaner
>often visit this newsgroup for help, usually beginning their
>question with "Help! Suddenly Windows XP stopped ___________"
>(you fill in the blank).
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 11:03:58 PM

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

The program is a scam only in the fact that it will fix a "certain" number
of registry problems and then asks you to "upgrade" to the paid version.The
problem with the program is that you really need to be quite knowledgable
about registry keys in order to use it effectively.I was not so I
uninstalled it .
I went back to a more simple program called RegCleaner...........free at
that point in time but now costs and has a name
change............http://www.jv16.org/

just remember that the registry is what starts your system.........if you
screw it up you screw up your system.Which is why most MSVP suggest you
leave it alone!!
So I also use ERUNT
ERUNT - The Emergency Recovery Utility NT
=========================================

Registry Backup and Restore for Windows NT/2000/2003/XP

v1.1h, 03/06/2005, Freeware
Written by Lars Hederer
e-mail: lars.hederer@t-online.de

Look for the latest version here:
http://www.larshederer.homepage.t-online.de/erunt

Before I run the cleaner I backup the registry
good luck
peterk

--
Never trust a computer you can't throw out the window. - Steve Wozniak
"Ritter197@Comcast.net" <Ritter197@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:_ZqdnQac5v9DEZbeRVn-uA@comcast.com...
> Freeregistryfix.com is the name.
>
>
> "Ronnie Vernon MVP" <ronv@mvps.org> wrote in message
> news:uBJhVGCqFHA.820@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Ritter197@Comcast.net wrote:
>> I downloaded the free Registry Cleaner and it "supposedly" found
>> hundreds of faults, even though my computer, 2.GHz, Windows XP Pro,
>> 512 MB RAM, seems to run fine.
>>
>> It fixes 50 of the "faults" free but then wants the upgrade version
>> for $29.95 to fix anything else.
>>
>> Does anyone have this program and is satisfied with it?
>
> facetious mode/on
>
> As long as you have plenty of time on your hands, go ahead. It shouldn't
> take you more than a few days to re-install everything and get over the
> loss of your personal data. 8<|
>
> What is the actual name of this wonderful software program?
>
> --
>
> Ronnie Vernon
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows Shell/User
>
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
>
Anonymous
August 23, 2005 11:58:27 PM

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

Ritter197@Comcast.net wrote:
> I downloaded the free Registry Cleaner and it "supposedly" found hundreds of
> faults, even though my computer, 2.GHz, Windows XP Pro, 512 MB RAM, seems to
> run fine.
>



What specific problem are you experiencing that you *know* beyond
all reasonable doubt will be fixed by using a registry cleaner? If you
do have a problem that is rooted in the registry, it would be far better
to simply edit (after backing up, of course) only the specific key(s)
and/or value(s) that are causing the problem. Why use a shotgun when a
scalpel will do the job? Additionally, the manually changing of one or
two registry entries is far less likely to have the dire consequences of
allowing an automated product to make multiple changes simultaneously.

The registry contains all of the operating system's "knowledge" of
the computer's hardware devices, installed software, the location of the
device drivers, and the computer's configuration. A misstep in the
registry can have severe consequences. One should not even turning
loose a poorly understood automated "cleaner," unless he is fully
confident that he knows *exactly* what is going to happen as a result of
each and every change. Having seen the results of inexperienced people
using automated registry "cleaners," I can only advise all but the most
experienced computer technicians (and/or hobbyists) to avoid them all.
Experience has shown me that such tools simply are not safe in the hands
of the inexperienced user.

The only thing needed to safely clean your registry is knowledge
and Regedit.exe. If you lack the knowledge and experience to maintain
your registry by yourself, then you also lack the knowledge and
experience to safely configure and use any automated registry cleaner,
no matter how safe they claim to be.

Further, no one has ever demonstrated, to my satisfaction, that the
use of an automated registry cleaner, particularly by an untrained,
inexperienced computer user, does any real good. There's certainly been
no empirical evidence offered to demonstrate that the use of such
products to "clean" WinXP's registry improves a computer's performance
or stability.

I always use Regedit.exe. I trust my own experience and judgment
far more than I would any automated registry cleaner. I strongly
encourage others to acquire the knowledge, as well.


> It fixes 50 of the "faults" free but then wants the upgrade version for $
> 29.95 to fix anything else.
>


Ah! So the offer of a "free" product was really just the bait in a
scam? Do you really want to give your money to a company that's so
unscrupulous? Do you really trust such an unethical firm with all of
your personal data?


--

Bruce Chambers

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

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 12:05:05 AM

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

TRABEM wrote:
> It might very well be a scam, but the concept of registry cleaning is
> a valid one, even in XP.
>


No, that's not in the least bit correct. You've been listening to
salesman and marketing lies, rather than experienced, knowledgeable
technicians.


> I use Norton Systemworks, which is a suite, which includes a registry
> checker/cleaner.
>


Actually, SystemWorks' primary function separate your money from your
wallet. Once a useful utility suite, back in the days of MS-DOS, when
Peter Norton was more than a picture on the box, Norton Utilities have
been becoming increasingly useless and redundant over the years.
There's little offered by NU that WinXP cannot already do natively. And
some of Systemworks's features, like CrashGuard and CleanSweep (if
they're still included) cause far more problems then they prevent.


> It finds registry errors all the time, many times finding 20 or 30 per
> scan. Most software doesn't install cleanly, even WORD and Pagemaker,
> which are supposed to be above suspicion by reputation:>:
>

> I find keys that don't lead anywhere and other assorted problems,
> especially activeX problems. I can uninstall almost any piece of
> software and run the scanner, it will be guaranteed to find problems!
>
> Even when software isn't uninstalled, there are often 3 or 4 'medium'
> rated registry problems found.
>



Any thought as to where these registry "errors" are coming from, if
you're finding new ones "all the time?" Oh, and what specific problems
have any orphaned entries actually caused? Come on, name at least one
specific problem that you experienced and couldn't have fixed without
SystemWorks.





--

Bruce Chambers

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

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 12:38:25 AM

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

Bruce,

I think you're leaning a bit too far out on this topic (much like many of
our political organizations today), and the fringe is seldom a good place to
be.

Yes, any working in the Registry is not to be done by someone without some
knowledge, and wholesale housecleaning is not for the faint of heart.

Yes, the Norton/Symantec prodcuts are a pale imitation of what they once
were ( I loved Norton Untilites 4.5 - that was Golden!) Recently, I
undertook the task of removing all Symantec products from our two main PCs -
mainly because the antispam product was just dogging down the system, not
just while working email. Man, what a performance boost!

Now, what could some registry cleaner product do that I could not do with
RegEdit? Find the hundredSSSS of keys and values that
Systemworks/AntiVirus/AntiSpam and especially Live Update left scattered
throughout the registry, even after a supposed complete uninstall. I found
lots on my own, but Registry First Aid found many many more.

The only programs that do a good job of cleaning up after themselves in the
registry with their uninstall are ones that don't make much use of the
registry, and even there simple apps still leave lots of flotsam and jetsam
around.

On a system that's been in use going on 3 years now, lots of programs
installed and removed over that time, Registry First Aid found about 2000
entries that were orphaned, misdirected, or otherwised needed correction or
could be deleted.

The registry gets to be pretty big, and cutting down the junk in it can
improve response time when a program has to go hunt in it for something.

I'm not saying this is necessary for every user, or needed very often, but
in my case it was a useful procedure. And certainly a lot less painful than
wiping the drive and reinstalling everything to have cleaner system.

Val

ps - Bruce, I've seen your posts here for years, and been helped by your
advice more than a few times. Thanks.


~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:utKCABFqFHA.3424@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
TRABEM wrote:
> It might very well be a scam, but the concept of registry cleaning is
> a valid one, even in XP.
>


No, that's not in the least bit correct. You've been listening to
salesman and marketing lies, rather than experienced, knowledgeable
technicians.


> I use Norton Systemworks, which is a suite, which includes a registry
> checker/cleaner.
>


Actually, SystemWorks' primary function separate your money from your
wallet. Once a useful utility suite, back in the days of MS-DOS, when
Peter Norton was more than a picture on the box, Norton Utilities have
been becoming increasingly useless and redundant over the years.
There's little offered by NU that WinXP cannot already do natively. And
some of Systemworks's features, like CrashGuard and CleanSweep (if
they're still included) cause far more problems then they prevent.


> It finds registry errors all the time, many times finding 20 or 30 per
> scan. Most software doesn't install cleanly, even WORD and Pagemaker,
> which are supposed to be above suspicion by reputation:>:
>

> I find keys that don't lead anywhere and other assorted problems,
> especially activeX problems. I can uninstall almost any piece of
> software and run the scanner, it will be guaranteed to find problems!
>
> Even when software isn't uninstalled, there are often 3 or 4 'medium'
> rated registry problems found.
>



Any thought as to where these registry "errors" are coming from, if
you're finding new ones "all the time?" Oh, and what specific problems
have any orphaned entries actually caused? Come on, name at least one
specific problem that you experienced and couldn't have fixed without
SystemWorks.





--

Bruce Chambers

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

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 12:54:22 AM

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

"...the concept of registry cleaning is a valid one, even in XP."

No, it's not, and it's such an old argument that most of us are bored of discussing it. You can read the innumerable threads in Google Groups.

Ted Zieglar

<TRABEM> wrote in message news:ga9ng1d3g534631fnl962v9lqujq81jufa@4ax.com...
> It might very well be a scam, but the concept of registry cleaning is
> a valid one, even in XP.
>
> I use Norton Systemworks, which is a suite, which includes a registry
> checker/cleaner.
>
> It finds registry errors all the time, many times finding 20 or 30 per
> scan. Most software doesn't install cleanly, even WORD and Pagemaker,
> which are supposed to be above suspicion by reputation:>:
>
> I find keys that don't lead anywhere and other assorted problems,
> especially activeX problems. I can uninstall almost any piece of
> software and run the scanner, it will be guaranteed to find problems!
>
> Even when software isn't uninstalled, there are often 3 or 4 'medium'
> rated registry problems found.
>
> There is a website that specializes in listing security threats that
> pose as legitimate software. I'll look for it later tonight and email
> you directly.
>
> In the meantime, if this is a scam, you MUST consider anything on your
> HD has been harvested. I strongly encourage you to get professional
> help from a local computer shop.
>
> The problem might be more serious than you think, especially if you
> use the computer for online shopping.
>
> T
>
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:57:05 -0500, "Carey Frisch [MVP]"
> <cnfrisch@nospamgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>It's a scam. You do not need a registry cleaner for Windows XP.
>>Using a registry cleaner will not do anything positive for
>>the performance of your computer.
>>
>>Many folks who have gone ahead and used a registry cleaner
>>often visit this newsgroup for help, usually beginning their
>>question with "Help! Suddenly Windows XP stopped ___________"
>>(you fill in the blank).
>
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 1:11:17 AM

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

VManes wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> I think you're leaning a bit too far out on this topic (much like many of
> our political organizations today), and the fringe is seldom a good place to
> be.
>


A matter of perspective, I suppose. (I'm not one for sitting on the
fence - something always comes along to knock you off.) This is sort of
a sore subject for me. I've seen far too many people effectively
destroy their system by using these automated "tools." They're simply
not safe for the average computer user to use.


> Yes, any working in the Registry is not to be done by someone without some
> knowledge, and wholesale housecleaning is not for the faint of heart.
>
> Yes, the Norton/Symantec prodcuts are a pale imitation of what they once
> were ( I loved Norton Untilites 4.5 - that was Golden!) Recently, I
> undertook the task of removing all Symantec products from our two main PCs -
> mainly because the antispam product was just dogging down the system, not
> just while working email. Man, what a performance boost!
>

Agreed. Symantec's consumer-grade products are simply too resource-hungry.


> Now, what could some registry cleaner product do that I could not do with
> RegEdit? Find the hundredSSSS of keys and values that
> Systemworks/AntiVirus/AntiSpam and especially Live Update left scattered
> throughout the registry, even after a supposed complete uninstall. I found
> lots on my own, but Registry First Aid found many many more.
>

Regedit's "Find" option has usually been sufficient for me.
Admittedly, however, a very few decent registry cleaners, when used
properly by an experienced and knowledgeable technician, can be time
savers. Unfortunately, these registry cleaners aren't marketed
exclusively to such skilled people; instead, they're touted to the
masses as miracle cures.


> The only programs that do a good job of cleaning up after themselves in the
> registry with their uninstall are ones that don't make much use of the
> registry, and even there simple apps still leave lots of flotsam and jetsam
> around.
>


Perhaps, but so what? No one has ever presented any empirical evidense
proving that the presence of orphaned entries has any measurable
detrimental effect upon WinXP's performance or stability. I'm a firm
believer in the old saw, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."


> On a system that's been in use going on 3 years now, lots of programs
> installed and removed over that time, Registry First Aid found about 2000
> entries that were orphaned, misdirected, or otherwised needed correction or
> could be deleted.
>
> The registry gets to be pretty big, and cutting down the junk in it can
> improve response time when a program has to go hunt in it for something.
>


But, what real, specific *problems* were these 2000 entries causing?
What specific malfunction(s) did their removal fix? Perhaps (maybe even
"probably") you did no harm removing some or most of those entries, but
what good did it do? Was there an immediate, observable performance
improvement?



> I'm not saying this is necessary for every user, or needed very often, but
> in my case it was a useful procedure. And certainly a lot less painful than
> wiping the drive and reinstalling everything to have cleaner system.
>


As I've said, a registry cleaner, in the hands of someone who knows
what he's doing, can be a useful troubleshooting tool and a great time
saver. I've never denied that. I just take issue with those who claim
that automated registry cleaners are perfectly safe and the cure for all
that ails a computer.



>
> ps - Bruce, I've seen your posts here for years, and been helped by your
> advice more than a few times. Thanks.
>
>


Thank you for the kind words.

--

Bruce Chambers

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

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 1:17:02 AM

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

Hello, As stated by most posters you really do not need a "registry cleaner".
Buying a cleaner is a true waste of money. If you want to use one then there
are several free cleaners that do as good a job as any for pay applications.
RegSeeker and jv16 PowerTools (free) still available.
As stated backup registry using "Erunt". Use a search engine to find
applications.
take care.
beamish.

"Ritter197@Comcast.net" wrote:

> I downloaded the free Registry Cleaner and it "supposedly" found hundreds of
> faults, even though my computer, 2.GHz, Windows XP Pro, 512 MB RAM, seems to
> run fine.
>
> It fixes 50 of the "faults" free but then wants the upgrade version for $
> 29.95 to fix anything else.
>
> Does anyone have this program and is satisfied with it?
>
>
>
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 3:12:01 AM

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

"The registry gets to be pretty big, and cutting down the junk in it can improve response time when a program has to go hunt in it for something."

Another widely held misconception (w/r/t Windows XP).

Ted Zieglar

"VManes" <vmanes@N0SP&Mrap.midco.net> wrote in message news:5KednfsOcY8GQJbeRVn-uw@midco.net...
> Bruce,
>
> I think you're leaning a bit too far out on this topic (much like many of
> our political organizations today), and the fringe is seldom a good place to
> be.
>
> Yes, any working in the Registry is not to be done by someone without some
> knowledge, and wholesale housecleaning is not for the faint of heart.
>
> Yes, the Norton/Symantec prodcuts are a pale imitation of what they once
> were ( I loved Norton Untilites 4.5 - that was Golden!) Recently, I
> undertook the task of removing all Symantec products from our two main PCs -
> mainly because the antispam product was just dogging down the system, not
> just while working email. Man, what a performance boost!
>
> Now, what could some registry cleaner product do that I could not do with
> RegEdit? Find the hundredSSSS of keys and values that
> Systemworks/AntiVirus/AntiSpam and especially Live Update left scattered
> throughout the registry, even after a supposed complete uninstall. I found
> lots on my own, but Registry First Aid found many many more.
>
> The only programs that do a good job of cleaning up after themselves in the
> registry with their uninstall are ones that don't make much use of the
> registry, and even there simple apps still leave lots of flotsam and jetsam
> around.
>
> On a system that's been in use going on 3 years now, lots of programs
> installed and removed over that time, Registry First Aid found about 2000
> entries that were orphaned, misdirected, or otherwised needed correction or
> could be deleted.
>
> The registry gets to be pretty big, and cutting down the junk in it can
> improve response time when a program has to go hunt in it for something.
>
> I'm not saying this is necessary for every user, or needed very often, but
> in my case it was a useful procedure. And certainly a lot less painful than
> wiping the drive and reinstalling everything to have cleaner system.
>
> Val
>
> ps - Bruce, I've seen your posts here for years, and been helped by your
> advice more than a few times. Thanks.
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
> news:utKCABFqFHA.3424@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> TRABEM wrote:
>> It might very well be a scam, but the concept of registry cleaning is
>> a valid one, even in XP.
>>
>
>
> No, that's not in the least bit correct. You've been listening to
> salesman and marketing lies, rather than experienced, knowledgeable
> technicians.
>
>
>> I use Norton Systemworks, which is a suite, which includes a registry
>> checker/cleaner.
>>
>
>
> Actually, SystemWorks' primary function separate your money from your
> wallet. Once a useful utility suite, back in the days of MS-DOS, when
> Peter Norton was more than a picture on the box, Norton Utilities have
> been becoming increasingly useless and redundant over the years.
> There's little offered by NU that WinXP cannot already do natively. And
> some of Systemworks's features, like CrashGuard and CleanSweep (if
> they're still included) cause far more problems then they prevent.
>
>
>> It finds registry errors all the time, many times finding 20 or 30 per
>> scan. Most software doesn't install cleanly, even WORD and Pagemaker,
>> which are supposed to be above suspicion by reputation:>:
>>
>
>> I find keys that don't lead anywhere and other assorted problems,
>> especially activeX problems. I can uninstall almost any piece of
>> software and run the scanner, it will be guaranteed to find problems!
>>
>> Even when software isn't uninstalled, there are often 3 or 4 'medium'
>> rated registry problems found.
>>
>
>
>
> Any thought as to where these registry "errors" are coming from, if
> you're finding new ones "all the time?" Oh, and what specific problems
> have any orphaned entries actually caused? Come on, name at least one
> specific problem that you experienced and couldn't have fixed without
> SystemWorks.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> Help us help you:
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
> both at once. - RAH
>
>
Anonymous
August 24, 2005 1:03:01 PM

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

beamish wrote:
> Hello, As stated by most posters you really do not need a "registry cleaner".
> Buying a cleaner is a true waste of money. If you want to use one then there
> are several free cleaners that do as good a job as any for pay applications.
> RegSeeker and jv16 PowerTools (free) still available.
> As stated backup registry using "Erunt". Use a search engine to find
> applications.
> take care.
> beamish.
>
> "Ritter197@Comcast.net" wrote:
>
>
>>I downloaded the free Registry Cleaner and it "supposedly" found hundreds of
>>faults, even though my computer, 2.GHz, Windows XP Pro, 512 MB RAM, seems to
>>run fine.
>>
>>It fixes 50 of the "faults" free but then wants the upgrade version for $
>>29.95 to fix anything else.
>>
>>Does anyone have this program and is satisfied with it?
>>
>>
>>
I use something called ccleaner. Its a great little freeware that
*shows you all the temp files etc and allows you to delete them
*shows any registry links that need fixing (as a result of uninstalling
etc) and allows them to be fixed
*it gives you the option to backup the registry before touching it so if
someone goes wrong (which it hasn't done as a recent of this software in
the last year+ ive been using it!) then you can restore the registry files.
*the other handy thing is you can uninstall and clean up those entries
that linger in the ad/remove list and also view/modify your start up list
*lastly its soo user friendly!

I used a number of these so called "free" softwares and like people have
already mentioned they are scams.

If your gona use one then find one like mind that is free and has a
registry backup system built in.

hope this helps.

Zankhna
Anonymous
August 28, 2005 1:15:58 PM

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

NYMarkM wrote:

>

>

> and then if you compact the registry, the system will run faster, etc.
>

Please provide independent laboratory documentation in support of this
claim. To date, no one else has been able to do do.




>
> if you don't mind the slow deterioration in speed due to registry buildup.


Again, please provide documentation to substantiate this claim.




--

Bruce Chambers

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

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
August 28, 2005 3:58:38 PM

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

Ritter197@Comcast.net wrote:
> *I downloaded the free Registry Cleaner and it "supposedly" found
> hundreds of
> faults, even though my computer, 2.GHz, Windows XP Pro, 512 MB RAM,
> seems to
> run fine.
>
> It fixes 50 of the "faults" free but then wants the upgrade version
> for $
> 29.95 to fix anything else.
>
> Does anyone have this program and is satisfied with it? *

Hi i tried that one but i prefer windows registry repair, as i think
it does a better job and has an extra program that you can run that
defrags the registry and puts all file back in order.



--
thedon57
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via http://www.mcse.ms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
View this thread: http://www.mcse.ms/message1808897.html
Anonymous
August 29, 2005 12:41:53 AM

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

How do you get to the Windows XP Pro Registry cleaner and defrag?


"thedon57" <thedon57.1uhyua@mail.mcse.ms> wrote in message
news:thedon57.1uhyua@mail.mcse.ms...
>
> Ritter197@Comcast.net wrote:
>> *I downloaded the free Registry Cleaner and it "supposedly" found
>> hundreds of
>> faults, even though my computer, 2.GHz, Windows XP Pro, 512 MB RAM,
>> seems to
>> run fine.
>>
>> It fixes 50 of the "faults" free but then wants the upgrade version
>> for $
>> 29.95 to fix anything else.
>>
>> Does anyone have this program and is satisfied with it? *
>
> Hi i tried that one but i prefer windows registry repair, as i think
> it does a better job and has an extra program that you can run that
> defrags the registry and puts all file back in order.
>
>
>
> --
> thedon57
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Posted via http://www.mcse.ms
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> View this thread: http://www.mcse.ms/message1808897.html
>
Anonymous
August 30, 2005 9:52:50 AM

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

Hi Bruce,

I'm just giving my personal experience. The first time that I ever ran a
registry cleaner, speed difference was quite noticable, and the actual size
of registry files after compacting the registry went down by about 15%. The
computer seemed to boot faster and was definitely snappier. I'm not sure
what test would measure this sort of thing, but it was definitely not
"placebo effect". I'm assuming that the time savings amounts to the smaller
size of the registry resulting in faster searches for info within. If you
know of a test that would be appropriate to measure this, please advise and
I'll glady run it the next time I've done a lot of installing/uninstalling
and feel like cleaning and compacting the registry. I'm not looking to
start a big debate or get into a "show me the test" contest --- just adding
my personal observations.

So, I'll add a few more observatios while I'm here...

I definitely agree with your earlier observation and remarks about the
dangers of registry cleaners. Unless the user knows what is being
changed/deleted and why, it's best left alone. That's why, in general, I
leave the ActiveX portion alone with WinDoctor, since it "finds" a lot of
"errors" and it's usually just not worth the time it would take to trace
them all back and make a decision. Just for the heck of it, and after
backing up the registry first, I went ahead with the default action without
checking each first, and it really messed up the machine. So, if I do
delete an entry in ActiveX, I always trace it back first to make sure that
it is safe.

One exception to leaving ActiveX alone and a potential benefit of registry
cleaners is found when uninstalling. If I'm about to uninstall something, I
run Windoctor and Registry Mechanic FIRST. I then tell them to ignore all
findings in ActiveX and carefully trace out the others and delete what I
find safe. I then uninstall the program(s)/game(s) and rerun Windoctor and
Registry Mechanic. At that point, anything that points off into the void is
likely due to an incomplete uninstall and probably serving no purpose. I
suppose that it might be a result of the uninstall doing a bad job of
pointing a reference back to where it was pre-install, but that's less
likely. When I trace these things out, they really do seem to be useless
MOST of the time, but not always. If I'm feeling brave (and lucky), I then
nuke those entries that appear to be useless. All of this is too much for
the average user and is bordering on too much for me (as a
hobbyist/enthusiast) to handle, which is why when people at work ask me to
recommend a "good" registry cleaner, I first advise them to leave it alone.
If they persist, though, I always steer them to Registry Mechanic, since it
seems to avoid almost all of the ActiveX "findings" that other more
agressive cleaners report. I'm not convinced that the old fashioned way of
doing a manual cleaning of individual programs by going in with Regedit is
better or worse. The plus with the registry cleaners is that they flag what
you should/could be looking at, so you don't have to find it all yourself,
so it becomes a matter of semantics. I suppose that I'm an advocate of
using regedit and only deleting or fixing what you know to be problems --- I
just use the various registry cleaners to "cheat" by marking the entries for
me to look at with Regedit !!!

Another way to get around the registry bloat when there is a lot of
installing/uninstalling going on is to simply do a fresh restore of a basic
working image. I've burned to DVD an image of WinXP with MSOffice Pro 2003
and some specialized programs for work, all with the most recent battery of
patches and updates that are available at the time. I just recently
restored that image and only had to reinstall the current version of
firewall and antivirus, etc, plus the one or two games that I'm currently
playing with my kids (Myst fans). This really is less timeconsuming than it
sounds. If it gets to the point that there are just too many patches to
reapply, then I do another fresh install and base image. Building a base
image can be done a few CD's at a time on a spare partition, while keeping
the active partition intact and running. There are more partition managers,
boot managers, and disk imagers out there than you shake the proverbial
stick at, so I'll avoid mentioning any by name, since the differences are
really minor. I also keep a weekly, rotating, full disk image of all my
computers. I put these on USB2 Hard Disks. I have one dedicated to each
computer, plus one hooked to the wireless LAN/internet connection, with
appropriate password protection, etc. The LAN disk allows everyone to sync
and backup their My Documents folder on a daily basis so that they are
covered in between the weekly image. Of note, it's important to power down
the USB disk dedicated to each machine when not actively doing an image,
since a virus strike could otherwise wipe both your hard drive and the
backup image!!! If the USB disk is powered down, then the image is safe.

But I think that the bottom line is to leave the registry alone unless you
know what you are doing (or like to experiment and have the time on your
hands to fix what you mess up). If you do have the knowledge and time to
trace out and confirm the findings of the various cleaners and only
implement those that you can confirm to be safe, then there appears to be a
speed and stability benefit if you do a lot of installing/uninstalling. (I'm
not sure of how to measure this, though, but in a system that has not been
"maintained", the difference IMHO is so big that you can't miss it). If all
of the checking, confirming, and cleaning is too much technically and
time-wise for the end user, then restoring a working base image, or simply a
manual install from the CDs, every couple of years is likely of benefit.
Windows has come a long way since Win95 and a good install/configuration
will remain stable and usuable for years, but WinXP may benefit from
maintanence every so often, but in a conservative manner.

Thanks.

Regards,
Mark
!