Reg Cleaner
in [Freeware]
|
Prev: PhraseExpress ?
Next: Astro-related freeware
From: UnsteadyKen on 1 Apr 2010 18:09 Ron said... > 20mb???? Were you independently wealthy? Mercifully, I've forgotten the > size of the HD on my 286 machine. (Not my first computer, just the first > one that would run Windows 3.11) Wealthy? I wished, it was a lucky find in 1988. I'd traveled the typical British micro route of Sinclair ZX81 then a Spectrum and on to a QL. One day I was at at a general auction sale looking for some furniture and one of the lots that came up was described as "A computer, sold as is, no reserve", nobody else showed any interest and I got it for a song. It turned out to be an IBM PS/2 model 30. 8MHz 8086, 640k, MCGA graphics and in perfect order. Built like a Rolls Royce, I used and abused it for 5 years and it never missed a beat. I still miss the keyboard, a wonderful individually switched solid thing with a great action. They don't make them like that any more. In 1998 I had moved on to this: http://goo.gl/fPxZ -- Ken O'Meara http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/
From: Ron on 1 Apr 2010 19:19 On 4/1/2010 3:09 PM, UnsteadyKen wrote: > Ron said... > >> 20mb???? Were you independently wealthy? Mercifully, I've forgotten the >> size of the HD on my 286 machine. (Not my first computer, just the first >> one that would run Windows 3.11) > > Wealthy? I wished, it was a lucky find in 1988. I'd traveled the > typical British micro route of Sinclair ZX81 then a Spectrum and on to > a QL. One day I was at at a general auction sale looking for some > furniture and one of the lots that came up was described as "A > computer, sold as is, no reserve", nobody else showed any interest and > I got it for a song. It turned out to be an IBM PS/2 model 30. 8MHz > 8086, 640k, MCGA graphics and in perfect order. Built like a Rolls > Royce, I used and abused it for 5 years and it never missed a beat. I > still miss the keyboard, a wonderful individually switched solid thing > with a great action. They don't make them like that any more. > > In 1998 I had moved on to this: http://goo.gl/fPxZ > Those *were* the days... The first computer I assembled was based on Synertek's KIM-1 board. Based on the 6502 processor, it had 1K of RAM and an onboard keypad. I had to supply power to it, and save all the data to a cassette deck. Yup, cassettes. I used an old B&W TV with an RF adapter for a monitor. Had to have been in the mid-70's, not long before the first Apple and Commodore machines arrived. Seems like I had to learn assembly language or BASIC to use it, but I don't remember. (happily!) It was mostly a pastime in those days, since I was a working photographer more concerned with photo shoots and clients than anything else.
From: VanguardLH on 2 Apr 2010 14:15 John Corliss wrote: > VanguardLH wrote: >> >> We are also stuck using regedit.exe which, as you mention, will not show >> registry entries that exceed 256 characters in length. > > I consider that to be a HUGE problem, especially from a security > standpoint. Except that software that calls system APIs to access the registry are not similarly restricted in parsing the registry. This is a defect of regedit.exe, not of the registry. Any anti-malware program that scans the registry is not going to use regedit.exe. It will use its own functions to read the registry. Any limitations, if any, in reading the registry will then be incorporate within that anti-malware program. regedit.exe will also deliberately not show you some entries in the registry. There are key to which even administrators are not allowed access. That is because they are system values that admins should never touch. Similarly, there are records for which you cannot change their permissions because, again, administrators - which are users - are not supposed to touch them. They are there for use by the OS, not for you to reconfigure them. Some limitations in regedit.exe for your use were deliberate. Some were unintentional and Microsoft should address them (but obviously hasn't in over a decade). If you are using security software that is as limited as regedit.exe to obtain values from the registry, you need to toss that software and get something better. For educated users familiar with the registry, and because using system APIs is not limited in parsing registry entries as is regedit.exe, your registry cleaner tool should also be able to access all those over-256 character entries.
From: John Corliss on 2 Apr 2010 17:50 VanguardLH wrote: > John Corliss wrote: >> VanguardLH wrote: >>> >>> We are also stuck using regedit.exe which, as you mention, will not show >>> registry entries that exceed 256 characters in length. >> >> I consider that to be a HUGE problem, especially from a security >> standpoint. > > Except that software that calls system APIs to access the registry are not > similarly restricted in parsing the registry. This is a defect of > regedit.exe, not of the registry. Any anti-malware program that scans the > registry is not going to use regedit.exe. It will use its own functions to > read the registry. Any limitations, if any, in reading the registry will > then be incorporate within that anti-malware program. > > regedit.exe will also deliberately not show you some entries in the > registry. There are key to which even administrators are not allowed > access. That is because they are system values that admins should never > touch. Similarly, there are records for which you cannot change their > permissions because, again, administrators - which are users - are not > supposed to touch them. They are there for use by the OS, not for you to > reconfigure them. Some limitations in regedit.exe for your use were > deliberate. Some were unintentional and Microsoft should address them (but > obviously hasn't in over a decade). > > If you are using security software that is as limited as regedit.exe to > obtain values from the registry, you need to toss that software and get > something better. For educated users familiar with the registry, and > because using system APIs is not limited in parsing registry entries as is > regedit.exe, your registry cleaner tool should also be able to access all > those over-256 character entries. Well, I'd just like to find freeware that would go through the registry and list all entries that are over 256 characters in length. As for being protected from myself, I'm a big boy and am willing to take chances. If I screw up, there's always format &reinstall, as well as backed up data. -- 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. Adobe Flash sucks, DivX rules.
From: Johnw on 3 Apr 2010 20:06
John Corliss presented the following explanation : > Well, I'd just like to find freeware that would go through the registry and > list all entries that are over 256 characters in length. > Can't help on that one. > > As for being protected from myself, I'm a big boy and am willing to take > chances. If I screw up, there's always format &reinstall, as well as backed > up data. > Did you try Vit Registry Fix Free Edition as per my earlier post & compare your before & after registry sizes? |