 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) |
|
 NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9
 ·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| 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 |
|
 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 |
|
|
|
 OlegBellsouth FastaccessPremium
join:2003-12-08
Birmingham, AL
kudos:2 | How about good old Windows 2000? |
|
 sivranOpera convertPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 | reply to Cthen
And yet, keeping your settings with your program is making a comeback so to speak--in the form of "portable" software.
Most of my daily-use apps are portable. Portable versions of Opera, Firefox, Q-Dir, Thunderbird... I can reinstall my OS or stuff 'em all on a flash drive and pick right back up where I left off.
--
Think Outside the Fox. |
|
Cthen
join:2004-08-01
Detroit, MI Reviews:
·Verizon Wireless..
·Comcast
| said by sivran:And yet, keeping your settings with your program is making a comeback so to speak--in the form of "portable" software.
Most of my daily-use apps are portable. Portable versions of Opera, Firefox, Q-Dir, Thunderbird... I can reinstall my OS or stuff 'em all on a flash drive and pick right back up where I left off.
Yes but now, it still has to go through the OS for what it can't do. It can't just hijack the whole machine without an exploit of some sort.
--
"I like to refer to myself as an Adult Film Efficienato." - Stuart Bondek |
|
 DustynPremium
join:2003-02-26
Ontario, CAN
kudos:10 | reply to NormanS
said by NormanS: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 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. Wow.
I honestly would have thought it was Windows Me that was screwing things up.
And you say you "RE-installed" Windows Me...? Why? j/k lol
--
Remember that cool hidden "Graffiti Wall" here on BBR? After the name change I became the "owner", so to speak as it became: Dustyn's Wall »[Serious] RIP
|
|
NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:9 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Dustyn:I honestly would have thought it was Windows Me that was screwing things up.
One particular component of NU was creating hundreds of zero byte files. I was told how to manually delete the files, as well as to not use that component. If I had researched the cause of the problem from the beginning, I could have recovered without the re-install.
I played with a relative's Winows 98se box. In only one regard could I see a difference; and in that regard (user resources) I found Windows Me to be superior.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum |
|
