Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Registry cleaning software debunked...
f0dder:
I'm on an XP puter, and I can tell a big difference. As far as why removing unused reg keys would make a difference, the registry is constantly being accessed by the system and running apps where most all preferences are stored, the difference between scanning a registry that's 60 or 80 MB to scanning one that's been cleaned down to 47 MB AND optimized (defragmentation) makes a whole lot of difference, the CPU don't have to work as hard.-Tinman57 (March 31, 2013, 06:02 PM)
--- End quote ---
That's plain silly - keys are alphabetically sorted, so they can be searched with binary search... which means that doubling your registry size would require all but one extra comparison. And that's for infrequently-accessed keys, stuff that's used frequently is cached.
40hz:
I've generally found the only place where a decent quality registry cleaner might offer significant benefit is when attempting to cure some persistent oddball system problem in order to avoid a reinstall of Windows.
As a routine maintenance tool, I haven't found them to bring much to the party performance-wise since Win98. With XP they possibly made some marginal performance improvements. But for Win7, I don't suggest using them for anything other than cleaning out recent lists, temp, and junk files like CCleaner's default settings do. Win7 generally seems (to me at least) to work best when you just let it perform its job its own way. Microsoft did a very nice job with Win7 in that regard AFAIC.
For Win7 I keep regular maintenance to a minimum. I'll religiously stay on top of Microsoft's updates - and keep my security software current at all times for obvious reasons. But beyond that, an occasional CCleaner run, and possibly an overnight system disk optimization followed by a full antimalware scan (no more than once a month if that) has proven more than sufficient to keep everything clean and running smoothly on my own machines. YMMV.
Win8 hasn't been out long enough that I'd trust any 3rd party system utility that directly tinkers with the internals or registry settings right now.
8)
app103:
've generally found the only place where a decent quality registry cleaner might offer significant benefit is when attempting to cure some persistent oddball system problem in order to avoid a reinstall of Windows.
-40hz (April 01, 2013, 10:51 AM)
--- End quote ---
Yeah, a last ditch effort to save Windows...because by that point, if the cleaner messes anything up, it really doesn't matter.
The only other time I'd consider a registry cleaner is under some very special circumstances, in which most (if not all) of the following apply:
* It is an application specific cleaner.
* It removes only keys related to that application.
* It was created by the developer of that application.
* It was created to address a specific problem, such as a botched uninstall resulting in some stuck keys that prevent subsequent reinstalls.
Usually a .reg file would suffice, but some companies will release an .exe, just to avoid support issues from less experienced computer users, that wouldn't know what to do with a .reg file.
Tinman57:
Because:
1. SSD has negligible seek time.
2. You can not defrag a SSD.
-tslim (April 01, 2013, 07:17 AM)
--- End quote ---
Agreed, but neither of those had anything to do with my reason for partitioning the SSD.
I too have PerfectDisk which I still use on XP, after trying several others first I have never found a better program for the job.
I also use Defraggler, again on XP, for individual files. -pilgrim-online (April 01, 2013, 07:37 AM)
--- End quote ---
I use Defraggler myself. Really great program that's small and remarkably fast.
Tinman57:
I'm on an XP puter, and I can tell a big difference. As far as why removing unused reg keys would make a difference, the registry is constantly being accessed by the system and running apps where most all preferences are stored, the difference between scanning a registry that's 60 or 80 MB to scanning one that's been cleaned down to 47 MB AND optimized (defragmentation) makes a whole lot of difference, the CPU don't have to work as hard.-Tinman57 (March 31, 2013, 06:02 PM)
--- End quote ---
That's plain silly - keys are alphabetically sorted, so they can be searched with binary search... which means that doubling your registry size would require all but one extra comparison. And that's for infrequently-accessed keys, stuff that's used frequently is cached.
-f0dder (April 01, 2013, 10:32 AM)
--- End quote ---
Well it might be silly in your mind. But if your on an XP machine and using a process viewer or monitor, you can see where there are constant reads & writes to the registry. When those writes happen, the cache has to be refreshed as well, though there are some exceptions depending on the app.
Either way, it works for me on my system, and when my system starts getting sluggish a good cleaning always speeds things up. If something were to break, though I've never had it happen with XP, that's why I use ERUNT.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version