This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Registry cleaner article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page makes no reference to any product or service, it is only relating to the term Registry Fix, no products are mentioned or discussed in the article? Nor are any external links added to any software or company.
I don't know if it's kosher for me to remove a db-spam template that I added myself, but I did to allow the author a chance to fix this article after corresponding with him via email. The article needs a lot of cleanup to avoid db-spam being added again, however. It reads too much like ad copy.-- Hatch68 03:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I have tidied up this article but I suggest it be merged with Registry cleaner. Biscuittin 09:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
---
'is closed source, so registry cleaner designers can not know for sure whether any particular key is still being used by Windows or what detrimental effects removing it may have; leading to examples of registry cleaners causing loss of functionality and, potentially, system instability'
What does closed source have to do with all this? I am mean the keys that Windows uses are only a small part of the registry, mostly all modern programs, services, server+client applications, tools, ... also use the registry to store information and configuration, so the fact, that Windows is closed source does not make life really harder. Plus, using utilities like REGMON you can quite easily check what keys are used by Windows or any given application. Lofote ( talk) 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
--- Incorrect. You're confusing the internal storage structure of the registry (proprietary to Microsoft) with the metadata contained in it. The underlying storage structure is closed, but the data stored in it is open. If you have a link in your registry startup group to \\somedeadmachine\somemissingshare\somefile.exe and that server isn't available, its requires no mystic power to figure out that's a suspect link. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
207.115.84.2 (
talk)
00:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
This section seems a little contradictory in light of the references to Mark Russinovich's article and Microsoft's own registry cleaner. If registry cleaners are of dubious benefit, then Microsoft itself is profiting from it with their own products and services, and their own archtiect has explained when and where they can have benefit. Seems odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.199.188 ( talk) 19:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I've temporarily removed this section. It is unclear whether or not MS's scanner is actually "cleaning" the registry of invalid entries, or whether or not it is scanning and cleaning out entries added by possible malware. Even more importantly, if it scanning and cleaning out the registry of invalid entries, it is important to note if the program is in fact only scanning limited sections of the registry, that MS knows for a fact what is valid and what is not. If that is the case, then it is not "proof" of the importance of general registry cleaners.
"In 2006 Microsoft introduced a registry cleaner feature as part of its OneCare tuneup process, which may just be a proof of the importance of Registry Cleaner for Windows. [1]"
No, Microsoft's (at least from watching it with Regmon) does the same thing as they all do: recursively walks the tree, looks for stale or dead links, prunes them. It parties right down into third party ISV sections as well, so its not based on any secret internal Microsoft data.
This isn't rocket science. You could do the same thing (metaphorically) with a phone book by going through and calling every number, verifying the information, and crossing out invalid entries. There's neither magic nor malice nor misrepresentation in a basic registry cleaner, they do a useful function. As for the 50 of them out there that do nothing but sell you the privilege of removing their advertisements, that's another story... 207.115.84.2 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC).
As someone who wrote a handful of the Windows registry APIs, this entire article is full of original research, and someone (Socrates?) appears to be on a mission to enumerate supposed "disadvantages" without actually knowing in full what they're talking about. The section on virtualization eliminating their usefulness is laughable, clearly inserted by someone who's on a mission but doesn't actually know how applications use the registry. That said, I think 80% of the registry cleaners out there are indeed snake oil, half of those that remain overstate the seriousness of errors, but there are maybe 3 commercial ones I think are useful. I won't enumerate them here, of course. But methinks the mission to discredit the 90% is taking the 10% down with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.183.28 ( talk) 03:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
References
The image Image:Registry Editor Vista.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 06:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Should this be linked as an external link: http://www.macecraft.com/registry_cleaner_comparison/
It seems to offer some good insight on how some of the most popular registry cleaner products work, without the usual hype. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.48.136.88 ( talk) 22:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I went to add an external link but saw the note so I'm posting here for review first.
I found this list: http://pcsupport.about.com/od/toolsofthetrade/tp/free-registry-cleaner-programs.htm that I think would be a good external link. All of the registry cleaners listed are freeware and it seems like a neutral comparison - of course I could be wrong.
I had a horrible time filtering through Google results for freeware registry cleaners. Most of them were not. I think people would like to have access to a list like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.30.39 ( talk) 17:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
"Registry cleaners cannot repair scenarios such as undeletable registry keys caused by embedded null characters in their names; only the RegDelNull utility from Sysinternals (now Microsoft) is able to do this." According to the vendor's 3 or more year old documentation. Rich Farmbrough, 17:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC).
I don't have time to pound on this, but I'd like to make note of what I think is wrong with it, in case someone else is interested or for people who read the discussion as well as the article.
It should link to the windows registry articles, and discuss the types of things that are scanned for and removed.
It should link to articles on common or historic utilities, including microsoft's (defunct?) regclean.exe, CCleaner, eusing, etc.
I also think the picture is not appropriate. It is a view of a registry editor, not a cleaner. It is not illustrative of the "issues" or the cleanup process.
I wanted to add a link to this website but saw the note to ask here first - http://theregistryoffice.com/winxp-registry-cleaner/ For people less technical minded it offers advice on selecting a registry cleaner which should keep them away from the snake-oil salesmen. 84.92.190.95 ( talk) 12:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The article should probably have some links to free registry cleaners. It could either be in the main article itself, or as links in External Links or Further Reading section. One link for free registry cleaners has already been submitted above. Here is another link (this does not do any comparison, so no conflict of interest): 6 Best Free Registry Cleaners Ishan101b ( talk) 16:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that all the talk about "defragmenting" the registry here is actually better described as "removing invalid/problematic/un-needed/whatever entries". The point being that the files containing the hives themselves will still be prone to fragmentation, even though the registry will be purged of the entries and thus smaller. I think there should be some clarification that the description of "defragmenting" here is not the same as "defragmenting the files containing the registry" MrZoolook ( talk) 21:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I actually AM an IT professional and I can honestly say almost this entire article is biased and does not point out any of the actual stability or positive benefits that can actually come from using a registry cleaner that is more advanced. It fails to mention for example that some programs leave information behind when uninstalled or partially uninstalled that, without a marathon search through the registry by hand will not even let you reinstall them. Most Microsoft software falls under this realm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.178.129 ( talk) 19:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Not true. Microsoft made one called RegClean. ( Screenshot)
Most registry cleaners do the simple process of finding a key that lists a file path. The file path is then checked. If it no longer exists, then obviously the registry key is an orphan. Also, when that key is deleted, it might reference a COM component via a GUID and so therefore this COM component would be invalid as well, due to the dependency.
Microsoft officially does not support the use of registry cleaners ([ [1]]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.173.109 ( talk) 03:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
References
CCleaner and all other cleaners can be very destructive. The use of these to clean excessively can lead to increase wear on SSDs when temp file are constantly being written and deleted.
The use of any registry ‘cleaner’ can also be detrimental to a machine there is never a good reason to ‘clean’ a registry, it is not a source of load on the system in any way.
https://rtech.support/docs/recommendations/maintenance.html#cleaners CaptainHisDudeness ( talk) 16:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Registry cleaner article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page makes no reference to any product or service, it is only relating to the term Registry Fix, no products are mentioned or discussed in the article? Nor are any external links added to any software or company.
I don't know if it's kosher for me to remove a db-spam template that I added myself, but I did to allow the author a chance to fix this article after corresponding with him via email. The article needs a lot of cleanup to avoid db-spam being added again, however. It reads too much like ad copy.-- Hatch68 03:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I have tidied up this article but I suggest it be merged with Registry cleaner. Biscuittin 09:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
---
'is closed source, so registry cleaner designers can not know for sure whether any particular key is still being used by Windows or what detrimental effects removing it may have; leading to examples of registry cleaners causing loss of functionality and, potentially, system instability'
What does closed source have to do with all this? I am mean the keys that Windows uses are only a small part of the registry, mostly all modern programs, services, server+client applications, tools, ... also use the registry to store information and configuration, so the fact, that Windows is closed source does not make life really harder. Plus, using utilities like REGMON you can quite easily check what keys are used by Windows or any given application. Lofote ( talk) 18:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
--- Incorrect. You're confusing the internal storage structure of the registry (proprietary to Microsoft) with the metadata contained in it. The underlying storage structure is closed, but the data stored in it is open. If you have a link in your registry startup group to \\somedeadmachine\somemissingshare\somefile.exe and that server isn't available, its requires no mystic power to figure out that's a suspect link. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
207.115.84.2 (
talk)
00:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
This section seems a little contradictory in light of the references to Mark Russinovich's article and Microsoft's own registry cleaner. If registry cleaners are of dubious benefit, then Microsoft itself is profiting from it with their own products and services, and their own archtiect has explained when and where they can have benefit. Seems odd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.199.188 ( talk) 19:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I've temporarily removed this section. It is unclear whether or not MS's scanner is actually "cleaning" the registry of invalid entries, or whether or not it is scanning and cleaning out entries added by possible malware. Even more importantly, if it scanning and cleaning out the registry of invalid entries, it is important to note if the program is in fact only scanning limited sections of the registry, that MS knows for a fact what is valid and what is not. If that is the case, then it is not "proof" of the importance of general registry cleaners.
"In 2006 Microsoft introduced a registry cleaner feature as part of its OneCare tuneup process, which may just be a proof of the importance of Registry Cleaner for Windows. [1]"
No, Microsoft's (at least from watching it with Regmon) does the same thing as they all do: recursively walks the tree, looks for stale or dead links, prunes them. It parties right down into third party ISV sections as well, so its not based on any secret internal Microsoft data.
This isn't rocket science. You could do the same thing (metaphorically) with a phone book by going through and calling every number, verifying the information, and crossing out invalid entries. There's neither magic nor malice nor misrepresentation in a basic registry cleaner, they do a useful function. As for the 50 of them out there that do nothing but sell you the privilege of removing their advertisements, that's another story... 207.115.84.2 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC).
As someone who wrote a handful of the Windows registry APIs, this entire article is full of original research, and someone (Socrates?) appears to be on a mission to enumerate supposed "disadvantages" without actually knowing in full what they're talking about. The section on virtualization eliminating their usefulness is laughable, clearly inserted by someone who's on a mission but doesn't actually know how applications use the registry. That said, I think 80% of the registry cleaners out there are indeed snake oil, half of those that remain overstate the seriousness of errors, but there are maybe 3 commercial ones I think are useful. I won't enumerate them here, of course. But methinks the mission to discredit the 90% is taking the 10% down with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.197.183.28 ( talk) 03:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
References
The image Image:Registry Editor Vista.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 06:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Should this be linked as an external link: http://www.macecraft.com/registry_cleaner_comparison/
It seems to offer some good insight on how some of the most popular registry cleaner products work, without the usual hype. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.48.136.88 ( talk) 22:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I went to add an external link but saw the note so I'm posting here for review first.
I found this list: http://pcsupport.about.com/od/toolsofthetrade/tp/free-registry-cleaner-programs.htm that I think would be a good external link. All of the registry cleaners listed are freeware and it seems like a neutral comparison - of course I could be wrong.
I had a horrible time filtering through Google results for freeware registry cleaners. Most of them were not. I think people would like to have access to a list like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.30.39 ( talk) 17:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
"Registry cleaners cannot repair scenarios such as undeletable registry keys caused by embedded null characters in their names; only the RegDelNull utility from Sysinternals (now Microsoft) is able to do this." According to the vendor's 3 or more year old documentation. Rich Farmbrough, 17:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC).
I don't have time to pound on this, but I'd like to make note of what I think is wrong with it, in case someone else is interested or for people who read the discussion as well as the article.
It should link to the windows registry articles, and discuss the types of things that are scanned for and removed.
It should link to articles on common or historic utilities, including microsoft's (defunct?) regclean.exe, CCleaner, eusing, etc.
I also think the picture is not appropriate. It is a view of a registry editor, not a cleaner. It is not illustrative of the "issues" or the cleanup process.
I wanted to add a link to this website but saw the note to ask here first - http://theregistryoffice.com/winxp-registry-cleaner/ For people less technical minded it offers advice on selecting a registry cleaner which should keep them away from the snake-oil salesmen. 84.92.190.95 ( talk) 12:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The article should probably have some links to free registry cleaners. It could either be in the main article itself, or as links in External Links or Further Reading section. One link for free registry cleaners has already been submitted above. Here is another link (this does not do any comparison, so no conflict of interest): 6 Best Free Registry Cleaners Ishan101b ( talk) 16:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that all the talk about "defragmenting" the registry here is actually better described as "removing invalid/problematic/un-needed/whatever entries". The point being that the files containing the hives themselves will still be prone to fragmentation, even though the registry will be purged of the entries and thus smaller. I think there should be some clarification that the description of "defragmenting" here is not the same as "defragmenting the files containing the registry" MrZoolook ( talk) 21:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I actually AM an IT professional and I can honestly say almost this entire article is biased and does not point out any of the actual stability or positive benefits that can actually come from using a registry cleaner that is more advanced. It fails to mention for example that some programs leave information behind when uninstalled or partially uninstalled that, without a marathon search through the registry by hand will not even let you reinstall them. Most Microsoft software falls under this realm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.178.129 ( talk) 19:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Not true. Microsoft made one called RegClean. ( Screenshot)
Most registry cleaners do the simple process of finding a key that lists a file path. The file path is then checked. If it no longer exists, then obviously the registry key is an orphan. Also, when that key is deleted, it might reference a COM component via a GUID and so therefore this COM component would be invalid as well, due to the dependency.
Microsoft officially does not support the use of registry cleaners ([ [1]]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.173.109 ( talk) 03:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
References
CCleaner and all other cleaners can be very destructive. The use of these to clean excessively can lead to increase wear on SSDs when temp file are constantly being written and deleted.
The use of any registry ‘cleaner’ can also be detrimental to a machine there is never a good reason to ‘clean’ a registry, it is not a source of load on the system in any way.
https://rtech.support/docs/recommendations/maintenance.html#cleaners CaptainHisDudeness ( talk) 16:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)