Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| reply to Mospaw
Re: One reason why i hate installers! said by Mospaw:http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner
Scrubs it clean. I do it once a month and after uninstalls.
CCleaner is definitely a reputable program but cleaning the registry to improve performance is a debunked myth unless you are troubleshooting a problem and suspect orphaned registry entries.
»lifehacker.com/5033518/debunking···ng-myths
It's usually harmless to do though and if it makes you feel better carry on.
Dave
EDITL Added Lifehacker link.
--
I may have been born yesterday. But it wasn't at night. |
|
 Dude111An Awesome DudePremium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:11 | reply to Xioden
Indeed my friend....... DEFRAGGING is quite good! (And faster doesnt mean better when defragging)
I use the defrag program that came with Windows... I tried using WinME's defrag and i notice it goes TOO FAST and misses some stuff... (Its not as good as 98's defrag)
Speed is not something you should want when DEFRAGGING,you want a good job done!! |
|
davePremium,MVM
join:2000-05-04
not in ohio
kudos:8 | reply to BigBlarg
Re: One reason why i hate installers! said by BigBlarg:I never cleaned my registers It's important. The CPU has several registers, and when you shut down the computer, they are left containing whatever crap was last there.
You should always run a program to zero out all registers after system shutdown, otherwise it's harder for the CPU to write new values into them.
It's the same principle as erasing a blackboard now and then. Or at least, I think it is.
The same is true of RAM. It takes more effort to write on top of words that aren't zero; the computer has to press harder on the RAM chips. |
|
|
|
 BigBlarg
join:2008-02-10
Longueuil, QC
kudos:1
1 edit | If that's the case, the computer would only benefit from cleaning the registers for the first few minutes it runs.
Edit : And defrag is done in the background since XP I think. |
|
 fatnesssubtleJanitor
join:2000-11-17
fishing
kudos:14
Bright House Netwo..
TekSavvy
Forum Feature Requ..
Need Site Help
Rants, Raves, and ..
| reply to NormanS
Re: said by NormanS:I recently had a case of "slow browsing"; similar to a saturated upload. Ran a number of diagnostics, but found no evidence of mystery applications uploading stuff. It finally hit me, after a 'tracert' failed for trying to trace to an IPv6 address: I had attempted, unsuccessfully, to establish a '6in4' tunnel to HE. Apparently, the TCP/IP stack decided I was on a pure IPv6 network, and was trying to resolve AAAA records (IPv6) before falling back to A records (IPv4).
I doubt if a registry cleaner could have fixed that.
It wouldn't have. It wouldn't have have added air to a tire with a slow leak, or fixed a squeaky door either. 
--
my pants are parched and thirsty |
|
Reviews:
 ·HughesNet Satell..
| reply to Dude111
Re: One reason why i hate installers! I use all 4 of Piriform's free apps quite regular especially CCleaner.
Defraggler is nice.
Speccy is good.
CCleaner is awesome.
Recuva is brilliant.
In fact I like them so much I install them on some customers PC's and tell them they should use them.
While Registry Cleaning may be a bit of Snake Oil pitches and sales. I do like to clean it out if I have done a lot of free ware experimenting.
CCleaner is not mainly a Registery cleaner by the way. It is a Temp Folders and History Cleaner. |
|
Dude111An Awesome DudePremium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:11 | reply to Dude111
I opened regseeker tonight and searched for CLSID in the reg and i went to that branch,went thru all the IDs and i had a few "Value not set" so i googled them and discovered I dont have the programs that are assigned to them anymore.. (Regvac and something else) so i deleted them..... Then i ran regseeker and it found a couple now INVALID ACTIVE-X ENTRIES (Since the keys are now gone that reffered to them)
Responsible reg cleaning helps performance  (I guess thats why some ppl just reinstall thier OS now and then right?? (They think its easier than manually cleaning the reg)) |
|
 NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Dude111:Responsible reg cleaning helps performance (I guess thats why some ppl just reinstall thier OS now and then right?? (They think its easier than manually cleaning the reg))
May be true for Windows 9x systems; but I've had no performance issues with Windows XP or Windows 7 which could be attributed to "gunk" in the registry. I only reinstalled Windows 7 to go from x64 to x86, and then only because hardware limitations made x64 pretty useless.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
Dude111An Awesome DudePremium
join:2003-08-04
USA
kudos:11 | reply to Dude111
Its all pretty interesting Norm!!!!
How would 98,XP respond if they didnt have a reg?? (If every file had its settings LOCALLY in its folder) |
|
 Santa FeI use Xfce, don't you wish Everyone did?Premium,ExMod 2002-7
join:2000-08-22
Freight Yard
kudos:2
·Mediacom
| reply to Dude111
Re: One reason why i hate installers!
Not meaning to De-Rail this post... |
 's long lost clock!
And now back to our regularly scheduled post.....
--
Explore Xubuntu. Like It? Install It. [Love It]! |
|
Santa FeI use Xfce, don't you wish Everyone did?Premium,ExMod 2002-7
join:2000-08-22
Freight Yard
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Mediacom
| reply to Dude111
I tried using jv16 PowerTools once to clean the Registry. Even though I had it set to Beginner mode which they claimed was there so one couldn't mess up the registry, it did anyway.  Oh Well, Xubuntu 12.04's nice.
--
Explore Xubuntu. Like It? Install It. [Love It]! |
|
| reply to NormanS
Re: said by NormanS:May be true for Windows 9x systems; but I've had no performance issues with Windows XP or Windows 7 which could be attributed to "gunk" in the registry. I only reinstalled Windows 7 to go from x64 to x86, and then only because hardware limitations made x64 pretty useless.
In my case, I went from x86 to x64 and gave the 7 x86 to my roommate.
--
Illegal aliens have always been a problem in the United States. Ask any Indian. Robert Orben
|
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to Dude111
said by Dude111:Its all pretty interesting Norm!!!!
How would 98,XP respond if they didnt have a reg?? (If every file had its settings LOCALLY in its folder)
I am only saying I have never had a performance hit caused by a "dirty" registry.
I reinstalled windows ME a couple of times due to an issue with the Norton Utilities "System Doctor"; before I found out from the gurus in the old Windows newsgroups that it was Norton screwing things up. I did use the NU registry cleaner on that system, but eventually gave it up when I realized two things:
• I was mostly blowing away MRU lists.
• I was not getting any better performance for doing that.
I reinstalled Windows XP exactly once; after I realized I had screwed up the Windows 7 upgrade install. I basically did that to "reset" the computer to its pre-upgrade state so I could start the upgrade process over. I did not install NU under XP, and never used a registry cleaner. Never had a performance issue due to a "dirty" registry.
I reinstalled Windows 7 exactly once. When I noticed that Windows 7 x64 was still seeing only 3.5GB of 4.0GB of installed RAM. Some research pointed to HP "cheaping out", and using a chipset which only had 4.0GB of address lines, max. So I figured there wasn't much I was gaining, and I had a couple of older applications, and one hardware device driver, which didn't work under x64, but did under x86; so I reverted. Never had a performance issue due to a "dirty" registry.
So a little more research and figured it out: Performance issues can be caused by many things, but not by a "dirty" registry.
BTW, 40tude Dialog, all GRC utilities I have used don't place any registry settings, as far as I am aware, and run just fine.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| reply to Boricua65
said by Boricua65:said by NormanS:May be true for Windows 9x systems; but I've had no performance issues with Windows XP or Windows 7 which could be attributed to "gunk" in the registry. I only reinstalled Windows 7 to go from x64 to x86, and then only because hardware limitations made x64 pretty useless.
In my case, I went from x86 to x64 and gave the 7 x86 to my roommate. It is my understanding that my license was to use, "either x64, or use x86"; but not both simultaneously. It was a three-pack, meaning I could install on up to three computers. Not on six.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
 sivranOpera convertPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 | reply to Xioden
I got games. I play them. I also frequently load up some large files--truecrypt file-based volume, movies, etc.
I also defragged a friend's laptop after three years of neglect. No improvement.
--
Think Outside the Fox. |
|
 XiodenPremium
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY
kudos:1 | said by sivran:I got games. I play them. I also frequently load up some large files--truecrypt file-based volume, movies, etc.
I also defragged a friend's laptop after three years of neglect. No improvement.
Stuff like movies you won't notice unless it's extremely bad, since players use buffers. Disable buffering and if the movie is fragmented enough you will have issues viewing it without pauses.
After 3 years of neglect, fragmented files is probably the least of the issues with your friends laptop, or the fragmentation isn't that bad.
Defragmenting will also only yield better load times if the files that are being loaded are fragmented, as well as how they are fragmented. You take a 1GB file, and slip in a 24KB file at the 500MB mark, thus fragmenting the file into 2 pieces, there won't really be any performance hit beyond 1-2ms. Now split that file up all over the drive to where for a single file it has to basically go over the entire disk platter...
Defragmenting can absolutely improve loading times, and oftentimes not just by miniscule amounts. It's not even remotely comparable to registry cleaning. |
|
sivranOpera convertPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 | I think people suffer a lot of confirmation bias when it comes to these things.
That laptop's hard drive was a near-solid mass of yellow (fragged) in MyDefrag.
--
Think Outside the Fox. |
|
XiodenPremium
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY
kudos:1 | Again, just because a file is fragmented does not mean there is going to be a large performance hit due to it.
Having shown quite a few people how to defrag specific files for games so that they are all in the same location on the hard drive has resulted in massive load time reductions for some of them (talking 5+ minute load times down to under a minute).
There is no "confirmation bias" either, you can readily measure the read time of files before and after defragmenting them. |
|
sivranOpera convertPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 | Got a utility for measuring read times? |
|
 Cthen
join:2004-08-01
Detroit, MI
 ·Verizon Wireless..
·Comcast
| reply to Dude111
said by Dude111:Its all pretty interesting Norm!!!!
How would 98,XP respond if they didnt have a reg?? (If every file had its settings LOCALLY in its folder)
Then you would have what happened with Win 3.1 and Win95. Programs could take full control of the machine and run amok even screwing with other programs. Not only that, even lazy developers could sell ya broken software that you would have to fix yourself. Remember the days of just clicking the mouse or a simple keystroke could crash the system?
Win95 was mostly a GUI upgrade and an introduction to the registry. Win98 was the underlying improvements and finally force developers into doing things right.
--
"I like to refer to myself as an Adult Film Efficienato." - Stuart Bondek |
|
