Prev: alt.comp.freeware links at Tue Feb 2 21:20:02 2010
Next: CD burning software for Win98 SE
From: John Corliss on 4 Feb 2010 09:37
Hank Scorpio wrote:
> Possible a naive question, but here goes: registry cleaners, it seems, don't
> do anything useful or significant; that seems to be the consensus. But most
> tech writers also seem to agree that from time to time a reinstall of
> Windows is a good thing. I'd assumed that was because such a reinstall would
> free your computer of accumulated detritus. If that detritus isn't in the
> registry, where is it and can it be got rid of other than by reinstalling
> Windows? Or is my assumption wrong? Thanks in advance.

Currently, the ERUNT backup of my registry is 44.2 mb.

44.2 mb!!!! What in the WORLD can account for what's supposed to be a
simple settings file repository being that large? I've heard two things:

1. There are parts of the registry that you aren't allowed access to

2. Microsoft has made it possible to embed executable files in the registry.

IMO if true, the latter is reprehensible and there's simply no possible
excuse for that being the situation.

I would really like to be able to know just *exactly* what's going on in
my registry.

--
John Corliss BS206. I block all Google Groups posts due to Googlespam,
and as many posts from anonymous remailers (like x-privat.org for eg.)
as possible due to forgeries posted through them.

No ad, CD, commercial, cripple, demo, nag, share, spy, time-limited,
trial or web wares OR warez for me, please.
From: HeyBub on 4 Feb 2010 10:11
John Corliss wrote:
> Hank Scorpio wrote:
>> Possible a naive question, but here goes: registry cleaners, it
>> seems, don't do anything useful or significant; that seems to be the
>> consensus. But most tech writers also seem to agree that from time
>> to time a reinstall of Windows is a good thing. I'd assumed that was
>> because such a reinstall would free your computer of accumulated
>> detritus. If that detritus isn't in the registry, where is it and
>> can it be got rid of other than by reinstalling Windows? Or is my
>> assumption wrong? Thanks in advance.
>
> Currently, the ERUNT backup of my registry is 44.2 mb.
>
> 44.2 mb!!!! What in the WORLD can account for what's supposed to be a
> simple settings file repository being that large? I've heard two
> things:
> 1. There are parts of the registry that you aren't allowed access to
>
> 2. Microsoft has made it possible to embed executable files in the
> registry.
> IMO if true, the latter is reprehensible and there's simply no
> possible excuse for that being the situation.
>
> I would really like to be able to know just *exactly* what's going on
> in my registry.

It gets better.

Since time immemorial, MS has asserted that the registry is no place for
program-specific, dynamic, data. With Vista they enforced that rule!
Quickbooks, for example, could no longer store the last check-number (or
whatever) in the registry which rendered all prior versions incompatible
with Vista.

The bloating of the registry, I suspect, will diminish with Vista and
subsequent Windows releases. Not that there's anything wrong with bloat.


From: Gordon Darling on 4 Feb 2010 10:12
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 06:37:42 -0800, John Corliss wrote:

<snip>

> Currently, the ERUNT backup of my registry is 44.2 mb.
>
> 44.2 mb!!!! What in the WORLD can account for what's supposed to be a
> simple settings file repository being that large? I've heard two things:
>
> 1. There are parts of the registry that you aren't allowed access to
>
> 2. Microsoft has made it possible to embed executable files in the
> registry.
>
> IMO if true, the latter is reprehensible and there's simply no possible
> excuse for that being the situation.
>
> I would really like to be able to know just *exactly* what's going on in
> my registry.

All you ever wanted to know about the registry (and the some!).

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms724871(VS.85).aspx

Regards
Gordon

From: Gordon Darling on 4 Feb 2010 10:13
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:12:34 +0000, Gordon Darling wrote:

Sorry, meant (and then some!).

From: Craig on 4 Feb 2010 11:33
On 02/04/2010 07:13 AM, Gordon Darling wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 15:12:34 +0000, Gordon Darling wrote:
>
> Sorry, meant (and then some!).
>

It read better the first time. Kind of a wry commentary on-the-fly.

<grin>
--
-Craig
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: alt.comp.freeware links at Tue Feb 2 21:20:02 2010
Next: CD burning software for Win98 SE