Author Topic: What's the best registry cleaner? Ask Leo says: none (Read 92859 times)

Darwin · « **Reply #100 on:** January 31, 2010, 12:50 PM »

You can perfectly go through the city without being hit by a car. Leaving the house doesn't imply death.
-Tuxman (January 31, 2010, 11:30 AM)

Of course! But you can also install software on your computer without polluting your registry. This is an English language thing, I think. There is a saying in English that if you want to avoid the negative consequences of some action you should simply avoid that action altogether. For example, if you don't want to die in a plane crash, don't fly! To make some other examples: if you want to avoid slipping and hurting yourself in the shower, don't shower! Don't want to choke on a chicken bone? Don't eat chicken. Scared about a paper cut? Avoid paper.

I suppose, really, I read your comment in haste and interpreted it in light of the English saying described above. So I read it like this: ANYTHING we do on a Windows computer is going to affect, and potentially pollute, the registry. Therefore, if you want to avoid polluting your registry you shouldn't install any software on your computer. Now I realize that you probably meant it in the way that I rephrased it: just be careful about what you install on your system.

EDIT: corrected some atrocious grammatical errors introduced in my last edit!

Tuxman · « **Reply #101 on:** January 31, 2010, 12:53 PM »

just be careful about what you install on your system.
-Darwin (January 31, 2010, 12:50 PM)

Right.

Registry cleaners are just like every other kind of "tuning software": Breaking things, basically. They require a certain knowledge of system internals (Sysinternals, lol), but anyone with such a knowledge does not actually need a tool for that.

J-Mac · « **Reply #102 on:** January 31, 2010, 02:09 PM »

EDIT: corrected some atrocious grammatical errors introduced in my last edit!
-Darwin (January 31, 2010, 12:50 PM)

If you don’t want to make atrocious grammatical errors, don’t post!!

Jim

Darwin · « **Reply #103 on:** January 31, 2010, 03:14 PM »

EDIT: corrected some atrocious grammatical errors introduced in my last edit!
-Darwin (January 31, 2010, 12:50 PM)

If you don’t want to make atrocious grammatical errors, don’t post!!

Jim
-J-Mac (January 31, 2010, 02:09 PM)

Damn! I walked that into one, I didn't?

Curt · « **Reply #104 on:** August 09, 2012, 02:48 AM »

http://windowssecret...scan-tune-up-suites/

Langa is telling what most of us already know, but without the exaggerations...

Test-driving ‘free scan’ tune-up suites

By Fred Langa on August 8, 2012 in Top Story

(...) Just as with the previously-discussed tools, when I drilled down to examine these problems, some (such as junk files) were real, with most of the rest either exaggerated or simply wrong. (...) WinZip System Utilities Suite (and the other scanners discussed below) seems to deliberately inflate the seriousness of some items — for example, calling its own website’s harmless cookies “privacy traces.” (...)

(...) ... the software I test-drove for this article clearly seems aimed at inexperienced users who are more likely to purchase “repairs” when confronted with frightening reports of critical and numerous system problems.

Those, however, are relatively minor transgressions compared to reporting serious problems where none exist, such as flagging fully up-to-date drivers as “ancient.”

All of this seems designed to make your PC appear to be in dire need of paid-for repairs, when in fact there appear to be no real operational problems.

http://windowssecret...scan-tune-up-suites/
-windowssecrets

kyrathaba · « **Reply #105 on:** August 15, 2012, 08:13 PM »

I've used Ccleaner for years (including its "registry cleaner" -- and yes, I make a backup first), and it's never hosed any of my systems.

iphigenie · « **Reply #106 on:** August 16, 2012, 01:32 AM »

I too have had CCleaner but recently (since win7 at least) whenever I run it and look at the keys, they are minor things that arent worth removing (associations that have no associated app, so what?), things I dont want removed because I know what they are (placeholders and references)

So I pretty much dont that mode at all except now and then after an uninstall or upgrade to see if there's old junk (very rare)

Tuxman · « **Reply #107 on:** August 16, 2012, 02:16 AM »

Yesterday I saw that even WinZip has a registry cleaner.

I wonder when Microsoft will bring out their own.

IainB · « **Reply #108 on:** August 16, 2012, 05:36 AM »

I've used Ccleaner for years (including its "registry cleaner" -- and yes, I make a backup first), and it's never hosed any of my systems.
-kyrathaba (August 15, 2012, 08:13 PM)

^ ditto, and it seems to be very good at what it does.
The only problem though is that something - and I suspect CCleaner, but cannot prove it (i.e, it's not repeatable) - sometimes seem to zap some of my bookmarks in xplorer².
Since the xplorer² bookmarks and other settings are held in the registry, my workaround is to periodically export a copy of the xplorer² settings, to a .reg file, so that I can reset/reinstall them after they get zapped.

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #109 on:** August 16, 2012, 06:37 AM »

I wonder when Microsoft will bring out their own.
-Tuxman (August 16, 2012, 02:16 AM)

Sometime in 1997 (icon was a green package with a red ribbon IIRC), however they dropped in in the Win2000 era because it was no longer needed/useful/necessary.

IainB · « **Reply #110 on:** August 16, 2012, 09:04 AM »

I have long been a faithful student of Koroush Ghazi's TweakGuides Tweaking Companion 01 v3.0 - Windows XP (2006-01).pdf and later TweakGuides Tweaking Companion 02 v1.2 - Windows 7 (2011-02).pdf (click on links to view/download).

In both, he suggests the registry-cleaning and tweaking software to use, but it does seem that there was potentially more to be gained from deliberate maintenance/cleaning of the XP registry than of the Win 7 registry. He doesn't say to not use maintenance/cleaning tools in Win 7, but suggests which to use - which fitted with my theoretical approach that the registry is just a database and so could benefit from its obsolete records being periodically weeded-out and the database size being optimised/compressed. Makes it more efficient.
It's really just part of what I was taught as being good "system housekeeping" practice. Sure, it's a nuisance and it's unproductive maintenance, but that's the point - it is maintenance, as is maintaining efficient Group Policy through tweaks using the group policy editor.

f0dder · « **Reply #111 on:** August 16, 2012, 02:20 PM »

I've used Ccleaner for years (including its "registry cleaner" -- and yes, I make a backup first), and it's never hosed any of my systems.
-kyrathaba (August 15, 2012, 08:13 PM)

Why do you use it, though? Except for a few specialized situations, doing "registry cleanups" is almost entirely superfluous on NT based Windows versions. The space savings are negligible, and because of the data structures and algorithms involved in the registry, you're unlikely to see any speed gains.

You'll want to make sure the hive files aren't too fragmented, but that's about it.

Yesterday I saw that even WinZip has a registry cleaner.
-Tuxman (August 16, 2012, 02:16 AM)

Yeah, and it's one of those foul scareware kind of things. Congratulations on Corel for totally ruining the WinZip brand - not that anybody should use that awful program when WinRAR and 7-zip are around.

Tuxman · « **Reply #112 on:** August 16, 2012, 02:23 PM »

Why should anyone still use WinRAR?

That said, WinZip is still pretty good, it is only a bit too pricey.

Corel, all good software's graveyard. *sigh*
(Before someone mentions Oracle: I said good software.)

f0dder · « **Reply #113 on:** August 16, 2012, 03:21 PM »

Why should anyone still use WinRAR?
-Tuxman (August 16, 2012, 02:23 PM)

Because it's a decent piece of software that's decently priced. If you only need basic archive operation, you should probably go for 7-zip (it's file manager misses a few convenience things here and there which would annoy me in the long run, but it's good enough that I don't have WinRAR on my work laptop) - but WinRAR does have a bunch of additional features (NTFS streams and ACLs and pretty darn comprehensive command line features).

That said, WinZip is still pretty good, it is only a bit too pricey.
-Tuxman (August 16, 2012, 02:23 PM)

IMHO it sucks. The zip format, even with the various extensions that aren't universally supported, just isn't very good... and WinZip has become bloatware and it's GUI was never particularly good.

Tuxman · « **Reply #114 on:** August 16, 2012, 03:38 PM »

NTFS streams and ACLs
-f0dder (August 16, 2012, 03:21 PM)

Do you really use them? I know no one who does.

and pretty darn comprehensive command line features
-f0dder (August 16, 2012, 03:21 PM)

Well...

7-Zip [64] 9.27 alpha Copyright (c) 1999-2012 Igor Pavlov 2012-06-02

Usage: 7z <command> [<switches>...] <archive_name> [<file_names>...]
[<@listfiles...>]

<Commands>
a: Add files to archive
b: Benchmark
d: Delete files from archive
e: Extract files from archive (without using directory names)
h: Calculate hash values for files
l: List contents of archive
t: Test integrity of archive
u: Update files to archive
x: eXtract files with full paths
<Switches>
-ai[r[-|0]]{@listfile|!wildcard}: Include archives
-ax[r[-|0]]{@listfile|!wildcard}: eXclude archives
-bd: Disable percentage indicator
-i[r[-|0]]{@listfile|!wildcard}: Include filenames
-m{Parameters}: set compression Method
-o{Directory}: set Output directory
-p{Password}: set Password
-r[-|0]: Recurse subdirectories
-scs{UTF-8 | WIN | DOS}: set charset for list files
-sfx[{name}]: Create SFX archive
-si[{name}]: read data from stdin
-slt: show technical information for l (List) command
-so: write data to stdout
-ssc[-]: set sensitive case mode
-ssw: compress shared files
-t{Type}: Set type of archive
-u[-][p#][q#][r#][x#][y#][z#][!newArchiveName]: Update options
-v{Size}[b|k|m|g]: Create volumes
-w[{path}]: assign Work directory. Empty path means a temporary directory
-x[r[-|0]]]{@listfile|!wildcard}: eXclude filenames
-y: assume Yes on all queries

What exactly is it lacking for you?

IMHO it sucks. The zip format, even with the various extensions that aren't universally supported, just isn't very good...
-f0dder (August 16, 2012, 03:21 PM)

You missed the .zipx format, obviously. Also, if you prefer WinRAR, remember that .rar is a proprietary format too.

f0dder · « **Reply #115 on:** August 16, 2012, 04:25 PM »

NTFS streams and ACLs
-f0dder (August 16, 2012, 03:21 PM)
Do you really use them? I know no one who does.
-Tuxman (August 16, 2012, 03:38 PM)

For most of my files? No. But it's definitely nice being able to, say, archive up a htdocs/wwwroot folder with custom ACLs and indexing metadata.

and pretty darn comprehensive command line features
-f0dder (August 16, 2012, 03:21 PM)
What exactly is it lacking for you?
-Tuxman (August 16, 2012, 03:38 PM)

Things like date/time specifiers in the output filename, and "clear Archive attribute" combined with "only add files with Archive attribute set". (Those are features I've used a fair amount - but it supports a lot more stuff from the command line, including features that can be useful for scripting).

Also, format wise, RARs Recovery Records have saved my ass, and native multi-volume support (rather than 7z's split/reassemble) is nice when dealing with unreliable protocols like FTP or HTTP.

IMHO it sucks. The zip format, even with the various extensions that aren't universally supported, just isn't very good...
-f0dder (August 16, 2012, 03:21 PM)
You missed the .zipx format, obviously. Also, if you prefer WinRAR, remember that .rar is a proprietary format too.
-Tuxman (August 16, 2012, 03:38 PM)

No, I didn't miss the ".zipx" format, it's those "not universally supported extensions". On a lot of platforms, zip support means info-zip zip/unzip, which doesn't handle those. And while RAR isn't open source, it does at least have source code for the decompression, with a liberal-enough license that it's a usable format. (Is there any source around for the zipx extensions yet, or just the half-assed "technote"?)

Tuxman · « **Reply #116 on:** August 16, 2012, 04:28 PM »

And while RAR isn't open source, it does at least have source code for the decompression, with a liberal-enough license that it's a usable format.

According to this logic, ZPAQ should be your format of choice: open-sourced and a high compression rate.

IainB · « **Reply #117 on:** August 16, 2012, 05:21 PM »

Using CCleaner:
I use CCleaner:
(a) for the simple reason that it theoretically allows for good practice in system housekeeping, and my training is to take this practice approach (belts and braces).
(b) because experience has led me to trust that Koroush Ghazi is probably qualified regarding what he discusses in his technical handbooks.

It's really all about risk avoidance. For this reason, I would recommend using CCleaner or another reputable registry cleaner.
I don't have an opinion on whether CCleaner (or any other registry cleaner) is good or necessary though, as I am not qualified to judge, not having researched the field.

f0dder · « **Reply #118 on:** August 16, 2012, 05:31 PM »

IainB, it seems a lot of people are still stuck in the Win9x era regarding some things. "I've always done this, it mattered back then, so I'm just going to continue mindlessly doing it without researching if it's any use" kinda of mindset. I'm not familiar with Koroush Gazi (nor tweakguides), so he might very well have reasonable things to say - but recommending to run registry cleaners would not be one of them.

It's really all about risk avoidance. For this reason, I would recommend using CCleaner or another reputable registry cleaner.
-IainB (August 16, 2012, 05:21 PM)

You're more likely to run into trouble if you use a registry cleaner than if you don't. CCleaner might opt on the safe side, but still you're hardly going to prevent problems by running a registry cleaner (CCleaner can do other stuff as well, which might be more useful).

IainB · « **Reply #119 on:** August 17, 2012, 05:57 AM »

...You're more likely to run into trouble if you use a registry cleaner than if you don't...
-f0dder (August 16, 2012, 05:31 PM)

Thanks @f0dder, I would be very interested to know whether (and how) this statement is something that you can substantiate.
Getting rid of even one tedious housekeeping exercise (i.e., registry "cleaning") would be beneficial, and I certainly would not want to continue doing it if it actually increased risks, as you seem to be suggesting.
Need to know more please!

f0dder · « **Reply #120 on:** August 17, 2012, 06:44 AM »

Getting rid of even one tedious housekeeping exercise (i.e., registry "cleaning") would be beneficial, and I certainly would not want to continue doing it if it actually increased risks, as you seem to be suggesting.
-IainB (August 17, 2012, 05:57 AM)

It might not be a very large risk, when you use a cleaner that isn't overly aggressive - in that case, it's just a case of not really gaining anything, plus the (slightly theoretical) argument that it's more risk doing changes than not doing them.

As for why registry cleaning doesn't gain you much (apart from some situations where software has actually broken stuff), there's two points:
1) you won't gain a lot of disk space. On my work laptop, my current user hive is 7 megabytes... that's a drop in the ocean on today's harddrives. Besides, if you compact the hive, adding new nodes will cause file fragmentation, whereas while not shrinking internal slack space can possibly be re-used.
2) node lookups are pretty darn efficient. Iirc, it uses a binary tree structure, so node lookups are fast, even if there's a huge amount of them. (OK, you can gain some speed on during full-registry searches, but that's not a very typical usecase

).

Stoic Joker · « **Reply #121 on:** August 17, 2012, 06:51 AM »

Registry cleaners remove things that are (perceived as not being necessary) not being used. The problem is many of these items are imperative for things that one frequently needs later. I'd say that easily 80% of the times I've worked a call where a .NET based business application install/update went down in flames were directly caused by someone there deciding to "Tidy-up" a bit with a registry cleaner.

Registry cleaning is best compared to garage cleaning ... Sure the place sparkles when you're done, but... You typically end up needing something you threw out about a month later.

Curt · « **Reply #122 on:** July 16, 2015, 02:57 AM »

http://windowssecret...cleaners-worthwhile/

The Top Story: "Are system/Registry cleaners worthwhile?" (spoiler: surprisingly one of them is!)

Are system/Registry cleaners worthwhile?
By Fred Langa on July 15, 2015 in Top Story

As Windows and third-party software have evolved over the years, Windows Secrets has periodically put various Registry- and system-cleanup products through their paces to examine the claims made by and about them.

For example, most cleanup software claims to streamline and shrink the Registry by removing obsolete, erroneous data and broken links stored there. Other products claim to do more, such as removing junk files, reducing boot times, and improving overall system performance.

Back in the days of Windows XP, third-party system cleaners were of real value in removing detritus from the operating system. But the current versions of Windows have many more built-in tuning and self-repair options. So do third-party cleaners still deliver any real-world benefit? Do they live up to their impressive claims?
-Windows Secrets

conclusions

If you follow the recommendations in ##those articles##, then your PC will most likely also be lean, clean, and running well — without the assistance of any third-party cleaning tool.

A second related takeaway from these tests: If your PC is at all healthy, it’s unlikely you’ll see miraculous results from any commercial cleaning tool — and certainly no “47 percent faster boot times.”

My third and final takeaway: I’ll continue using — and recommending — lightweight tools such as CCleaner for routine cleanups. As mentioned earlier, this test (one cycle of software setup and knockdown on already-clean systems) didn’t leave a lot to clean up. But each cycle of software installs, upgrades, and uninstalls leaves behind some digital debris. Over time, it adds up and can become a significant source of slowdowns and clutter.

These tests tend to confirm that the manual cleaning methods mentioned above, plus lightweight cleaning from third-party tools such as CCleaner, might be all you need to keep a PC operating at or near best-available levels of performance.

I also worry about over-cleaning. I have to wonder about the high fault numbers reported by jv16 PowerTools X and Advanced SystemCare and what the two products are actually cleaning. (In some cases, the cure might be worse than the disease.)(...)

It's summer, so the article is a cook-up from their articles last August.
http://windowssecret...cleaners-worthwhile/