Re: registry cleaner
- From: "Stephen" <none>
- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 15:54:25 +0100
"Pegasus (MVP)" <I.can@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O4QtjhcBIHA.4476@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Alias" <iamalias@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fe03fq$kog$1@xxxxxxxxxxx
Pegasus (MVP) wrote:
"Alias" <iamalias@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:udaAJ2aBIHA.4712@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Pegasus (MVP) wrote:
Unless you know exactly what you're doing, you should relyTrue.
on the add/remove tool when removing programs from your
PC. The amount of disk space used by left-over registry
entries is so small that it would require tens of thousands of
programs to make a noticeable difference on the amount of
free disk space.
Registry cleaners often claim to speed up your machine byFalse. I see a marked improvement in performance and boot up time,
removing such entries. The claim is false: There is no difference
in speed before and after.
especially when using CCleaner and SystemSuite5 after a clean install
of XP and Office.
--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes
Let's have some details:
- What exactly did you measure, i.e. what was your benchmark test?
- How did you measure it? Did it "feel" faster? Did you use a stopwatch?
- What was the improvement?
- Was this a once of test or were you able to see a consistent
improvement
on many different machines?
Unless you supply full details it won't be possible for other
readers to duplicate your tests and confirm your results.
Stop watch. Dozens and dozens of machines. I just cleaned up a computer
that took TEN MINUTES to boot up. Now it boots up in 46 seconds. Enough
of a benchmark for you? I removed almost a THOUSAND errant registry
entries.
--
Alias
To email me, remove shoes
Unless you supply full details, we have to take your word for it
since we cannot repeat your tests. It therefore becomes an
issue of belief rather than scientific proof.
This is getting silly. You may well be correct in your assertion that
registry cleaning is unnecessary. However, nobody could supply full details
of such a test so that it could be repeated (in a 'scientific' fashion), as
this would entail knowing exactly what state the computer was in before
cleaning.
We do not need to descend into a 'religion versus science' argument. I would
rather ask "Alias" (on a non-confrontational basis) if he has any idea
whether it is the number of errant entries that makes such a difference, or
some particular entry or type of entry, or what. If we could make progress
in narrowing down the source of the reported performance improvement,
perhaps we could learn something useful.
As one who doesn't know that much about registry entries, I just wonder if
one could be trying to access a (now non-existent) mapped drive, or
something similar, and so waiting for a timeout. If this kind of behaviour
is possible, presumably removing this particular registry entry could have a
significant effect on performance, especially boot-up time. I would welcome
advice on this.
Stephen
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: registry cleaner
- From: Gerry
- Re: registry cleaner
- From: Pegasus \(MVP\)
- Re: registry cleaner
- From: Alias
- Re: registry cleaner
- References:
- Re: registry cleaner
- From: Pegasus \(MVP\)
- Re: registry cleaner
- From: Alias
- Re: registry cleaner
- From: Pegasus \(MVP\)
- Re: registry cleaner
- From: Alias
- Re: registry cleaner
- From: Pegasus \(MVP\)
- Re: registry cleaner
- Prev by Date: Re: add new destination in the SendTo menu
- Next by Date: Re: Disk Cleanup.
- Previous by thread: Re: registry cleaner
- Next by thread: Re: registry cleaner
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading