Which Registry Cleaner?

  • Thread starter Thread starter clintonG
  • Start date Start date
> Okay, thanks everybody for comments. I have agreed with the general
> consensus for the most part and have avoided the use of such "cleaners"

but
> performance has become so poor and remained that way despite cache control
> and defrag and so on that Ive started reaching for straws.
>


A reinstall is always good, as several have
already noted. If you have pre-installed Windows
it's even better to use disk image backup, so that
a re-install doesn't also include a day of cleaning
up advertising and "shovelware" that came pre-installed.

One other thing worth checking, which I didn't see
mentioned, is to delete the Temp. Internet Files through
the IE Internet Options window. Then set the cache level
very low. There doesn't seem to be a default cache
size, so it just keeps growing. On a high speed connection
where IE is used it can grow fairly quickly. There's
no direct connection between the IE cache and
Explorer, but the two do seem to be linked through
Microsoft's unfortunate decision to tangle their browser
up with the system. I've seen an extremely large cache
slow down a system dramatically. It's as though Windows
is searching the cache when displaying Explorer windows
or Desktop changes.

Of course, a hundred other things can slow you down,
but that's one of the hundred worth checking. Other
than that there's the obvious XP bloat that can be trimmed:

* Shut off the graphical "skins" - which require a great
deal of memory and computation - and use the "classic"
Desktop - especially if you don't have a lot of RAM to
spare.

* Turn off services. I was looking into that recently and
found a total of 58 (!) common services that are either
expendable, wasteful, or downright risky on a standalone
PC. Microsoft sets a number of services to run by default
that are irrelevant or even risky for many people.

* Download Autoruns:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/Utilities/AutoRuns.mspx

Run it and carefully look through the list of software
that runs at startup. There are a large number of
small utilities that will set themselves to start
unnecessarily. There are also large programs like
MS Office and OpenOffice that are so bloated they
virtually load themselves in the background so that
they'll seem responsive if and when you run them.
And one of the worst offenders in terms of startup
bloat is hardware. Something like a printer or CD
writer software will often install 2 or 3 useless utilities
without asking.
With someone who installs software and hardware
without carefully monitoring startup programs, it's
easy to end up with a couple dozen useless
parasites running in the background. And that's on top
of useless services. It can all result in a large load on
the system.
 
clintonG wrote:
> Windows Rot is killing me. XP Pro SP2 needs a good
> house
> cleaning after these years of install and uninstalls.
> I
> have never used this type of utility though. Any
> recommendations? I'm also running Vista now too if
> anybody has any comments in that context. The
> "reviews"
> on the web appear to be old from 2003-2004 so what's
> up?


cccleaner (windows crap cleaner) is a decent one that
seems to do well. Before you run it, create a Restore
Point, and back up at least your system state or,
better yet, the entire drive, just in case.
If it's been as long as you imply, you might have
hundreds of things found which can be a routine for
further problems, so be certain you can get back to
where you were.
Cleaning the registry -might- help things some, but
I doubt it's the answer to all your problems.
cccleaner will do much more than just clean the
registry for you too; all good stuff.
FWIW, cccleaner has NEVER created a problem for me:
But, I still make sure of my backup status before I run
it and any other ts apps on ANY machine.

More importantly, IMO, are you certain you have no
malware? Or file corruption? How do you know? How
did you test & with what apps?
Have you tried a chkdsk? Updated and run AV and spyware
apps? Lots of things you can try.
But first, you /always/ have to be sure you have a
good backup in case things go awry. Never skip the
backup step before starting to ts issues like this; it
could be disastrous to your data to not have it backed
up.

Cleaning the registry is amost never the root cause of
slow operation as long as there are no boot errors
appearing and even those often come from other sources.

HTH

Pop`
 
"Poprivet`" <poprivet@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:OVzIQpYRIHA.5164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> clintonG wrote:
>> Windows Rot is killing me. XP Pro SP2 needs a good house
>> cleaning after these years of install and uninstalls. I
>> have never used this type of utility though. Any
>> recommendations? I'm also running Vista now too if
>> anybody has any comments in that context. The "reviews"
>> on the web appear to be old from 2003-2004 so what's up?

>

snip.
> Cleaning the registry -might- help things some, but I doubt it's the
> answer to all your problems. cccleaner will do much more than just clean
> the registry for you too; all good stuff.
> FWIW, cccleaner has NEVER created a problem for me: But, I still make
> sure of my backup status before I run it and any other ts apps on ANY
> machine.
>

snip>
> Cleaning the registry is amost never the root cause of slow operation as
> long as there are no boot errors appearing and even those often come from
> other sources.
>

Correction: removing redundant entries from the Registry (aka Cleaning)
will not solve any problems whatsoever other than shrinking the size of the
Registry by a very insignificant amount.
 
I think the other posters are for the most part against them. <g>

--
HTH,
Curt

Windows Support Center
http://www.aumha.org/


"clintonG" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:uoLhe3LRIHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Windows Rot is killing me. XP Pro SP2 needs a good house cleaning after
> these years of install and uninstalls. I have never used this type of
> utility though. Any recommendations? I'm also running Vista now too if
> anybody has any comments in that context. The "reviews" on the web appear
> to be old from 2003-2004 so what's up?
>
>
>
 
Back
Top