B
Brad
Hi,
Doesn't WinXP have a built in "SCANREG" as does Windows 98SE?
On a Win98 computer, I have often used the command (in Dos mode),
"SCANREG /FIX /OPT" . Only recently, I bought a WinXP laptop, but I didn't
search for a SCANREG or it's equivalent yet.
Brad
On Tue, 6 May 2008 17:42:11 -0400, in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general you
wrote:
>"Malke" wrote...
>> Tony wrote:
>>
>> > One thing I did that really stopped WinXP from crashing was a program
>> > called RegSeeker. You can download it from most reputable free download
>> > websites. It has a "Clean the Registry" feature that gets rid of lots of
>> > crap that affect performance and crashes systems.
>>
>> This is terrible advice. Registry cleaners are snake oil at best, at worst
>> they will hose Windows entirely. You may have had luck using RegSeeker but
>> you were indeed one of the lucky few. The registry does not need cleaning.
>> There is no "crap" in XP's registry that will affect performance and crash
>> systems that sounds good but it isn't how Windows works. Having some extra
>> entries in the registry doesn't matter.
>
>Sorry, but there can be plenty of crap in the registry. There are two cases that are
>easy to make, and they are both due to stuff left over by uninstalled programs that had
>not been properly uninstalled.
>
>First:
>You can have programs that were uninstalled that left crap in the registry. Some of them
>are leftover ActiveX controls that are still loaded and still use resources. And some of
>these leftover ActiveX controls can cause conflicts that can cause the computer to
>become unstable - which possibly was why the program was uninstalled in the first
>place - and if the program's designer couldn't even uninstall his program correctly,
>it's possible that he couldn't write an ActiveX control properly.
>
>Second:
>In most cases, when the registry needs to be accessed, it is accessed directly from
>disk. It's easy to understand that the bigger the registry, the longer it takes to
>access the desired registry key. Now, of course by this logic it always speeds up the
>computer by removing any unneeded entries, but the issue can be one of diminishing
>returns - in a 5Meg NTUSER.DAT file, cleaning out a only dozen unloaded entries won't
>cause a speedup that is perceptible by any human.
>
>But you might see a noticable effect by cleaning out 100 unused entries - and I have
>recently used RegSeeker to clean over 700 entries on an old WinXP machine that has given
>the computer new life. BTW, the time difference in accessing the registry is not at the
>CPU clock speed (would can be nanoseconds) but milliseconds - and that can really does
>add up to seconds when your registry is bloated.
>
>Having said all that, I will admit that most registry cleaners fall into one of two
>categories - either they clean too little to be of any use at all (as in Symantec's
>WinDoctor) or they clean too damn much and can render some programs unusable (as in
>V-COM's RegistryFixer). I feel that RegSeeker is "just right" however, I have only
>cleaned out registry entries marked as "green" (it weighs the danger of removing an
>entry as green, yellow, red).
>
>And if you know the history of the system, and if you've never uninstalled any programs,
>a registry cleaner won't do much good.
>
>Oh, I almost forgot - if you uninstall Norton AntiVirus, if you run a registry cleaner
>and then re-install Norton, your antivirus subscription can be reset (assuming that you
>are silly enough to use Norton in the first place).
>
>FYI, I am a hardware design engineer so I tend to see these things from the hardware
>standpoint.
>
>Tony
>
Doesn't WinXP have a built in "SCANREG" as does Windows 98SE?
On a Win98 computer, I have often used the command (in Dos mode),
"SCANREG /FIX /OPT" . Only recently, I bought a WinXP laptop, but I didn't
search for a SCANREG or it's equivalent yet.
Brad
On Tue, 6 May 2008 17:42:11 -0400, in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general you
wrote:
>"Malke" wrote...
>> Tony wrote:
>>
>> > One thing I did that really stopped WinXP from crashing was a program
>> > called RegSeeker. You can download it from most reputable free download
>> > websites. It has a "Clean the Registry" feature that gets rid of lots of
>> > crap that affect performance and crashes systems.
>>
>> This is terrible advice. Registry cleaners are snake oil at best, at worst
>> they will hose Windows entirely. You may have had luck using RegSeeker but
>> you were indeed one of the lucky few. The registry does not need cleaning.
>> There is no "crap" in XP's registry that will affect performance and crash
>> systems that sounds good but it isn't how Windows works. Having some extra
>> entries in the registry doesn't matter.
>
>Sorry, but there can be plenty of crap in the registry. There are two cases that are
>easy to make, and they are both due to stuff left over by uninstalled programs that had
>not been properly uninstalled.
>
>First:
>You can have programs that were uninstalled that left crap in the registry. Some of them
>are leftover ActiveX controls that are still loaded and still use resources. And some of
>these leftover ActiveX controls can cause conflicts that can cause the computer to
>become unstable - which possibly was why the program was uninstalled in the first
>place - and if the program's designer couldn't even uninstall his program correctly,
>it's possible that he couldn't write an ActiveX control properly.
>
>Second:
>In most cases, when the registry needs to be accessed, it is accessed directly from
>disk. It's easy to understand that the bigger the registry, the longer it takes to
>access the desired registry key. Now, of course by this logic it always speeds up the
>computer by removing any unneeded entries, but the issue can be one of diminishing
>returns - in a 5Meg NTUSER.DAT file, cleaning out a only dozen unloaded entries won't
>cause a speedup that is perceptible by any human.
>
>But you might see a noticable effect by cleaning out 100 unused entries - and I have
>recently used RegSeeker to clean over 700 entries on an old WinXP machine that has given
>the computer new life. BTW, the time difference in accessing the registry is not at the
>CPU clock speed (would can be nanoseconds) but milliseconds - and that can really does
>add up to seconds when your registry is bloated.
>
>Having said all that, I will admit that most registry cleaners fall into one of two
>categories - either they clean too little to be of any use at all (as in Symantec's
>WinDoctor) or they clean too damn much and can render some programs unusable (as in
>V-COM's RegistryFixer). I feel that RegSeeker is "just right" however, I have only
>cleaned out registry entries marked as "green" (it weighs the danger of removing an
>entry as green, yellow, red).
>
>And if you know the history of the system, and if you've never uninstalled any programs,
>a registry cleaner won't do much good.
>
>Oh, I almost forgot - if you uninstall Norton AntiVirus, if you run a registry cleaner
>and then re-install Norton, your antivirus subscription can be reset (assuming that you
>are silly enough to use Norton in the first place).
>
>FYI, I am a hardware design engineer so I tend to see these things from the hardware
>standpoint.
>
>Tony
>