Uniblue
in [Windows XP]
|
Prev: Mouse and keyboard has stopped working completely in one of the installations of Windows XP Pro
Next: Add-ons
From: Twayne on 19 Dec 2009 20:55 In news:%23QMMICLgKHA.2184(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl, Daave <daave(a)example.com> typed: > Jose wrote: >> On Dec 17, 6:18 pm, "Twayne" <nob...(a)spamcop.net> wrote: >>> Just curious: >>> Has anyone checked out Winzip's "Uniblue RegistryBooster"? >>> I don't have the time to do an analysis of the product yet so >>> thought I'd see if there were any head-start opinions here. Well, >>> with the exception of the misinformationists anyway - >>> misinformationists need not respond. >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> >>> Twayne >> >> I will install it. >> >> I have tried at least a dozen registry >> cleaners/optimizers/compactors/ compressors/defragmenters/remove >> unnecessary thingers. > > Have you noticed any performance impovement from any of them? So far, > no one has been able to offer convincing evidence that registry > "cleaners" or "optimizers" speed up a PC appreciably (unless the PC > is still running Windows 95 or 98). I do realize that in rare > circumstances, they can be beneficial in quickly identifying problem > spots, but to date I have never come across any evidence to support > the claim they significantly boost performance. It's the unusual case IME where an optimizer actually results in noticeable/appreciable boost in performance. It's really only when a 20 second delay (the default) occurs while the registry searches for a component before deciding it's not available (and doesn't warrant an error message) that I've seen noticeable changes, and that case would be for booting. It would often take a stopwatch to tell if there was any change in performance timing. Again, they're special cases IMO. Oh, there was one I just recalled: It manifested itself in an iterative situation where the operation repeated many thousands of times in succession. I've never noticed a perfrmance boost on my own machines but on occasion I have seen it help in customer's machines. I don't look for it either as a rule because it's not my purpose in running such a program. Even then you have to be purposely looking for it though, since an A-B comparison can't be made. At the same time I've never seen a mfr taken to task for his claims of performance boosts either; assuming you could get them to respond, I wonder what they would say? Well, i wonder what those past the marketing peons would say, really. Marketing types only know what they're told. I don't dispute that performance boosts don't happen, but I do dispute that they are NOTICEABLE. Most of us don't consider a few hundred micro-Seconds or milliseconds to be much of a performance boost. Twayne -- -- Live in the moment; be open to the possibilities that life has to offer.
From: VanguardLH on 20 Dec 2009 02:43 Twayne wrote: > That's a good set of links; thanks. They surprised me as a couple were more > positive than I expected, and the others followed the expected hype > channels. It isn't hype when someone disagrees with you. Otherwise, everything you say is hype. Don't fall into the Alan Connor syndrome where either everythig that agrees with you is saintly and everyone that disagrees with you is satanic. Would you really want to live in a world of Twayne clones?
From: Twayne on 20 Dec 2009 23:54 In news:hgkkj9$cp4$1(a)news.albasani.net, VanguardLH <V(a)nguard.LH> typed: > Twayne wrote: > >> That's a good set of links; thanks. They surprised me as a couple >> were more positive than I expected, and the others followed the >> expected hype channels. > > It isn't hype when someone disagrees with you. Otherwise, everything > you say is hype. Don't fall into the Alan Connor syndrome where > either everythig that agrees with you is saintly and everyone that > disagrees with you is satanic. Would you really want to live in a > world of Twayne clones? LOL, that's not quite what I intended to convey, but ... close enough! I'd NEVER think that everyone agreeing with me as saintly; smart maybe, but not saintly<G>! I'm sure that'll draw a few comments. As for a world full of Twaynes, nah, but I could use one or two now and then. Cheers, Twayne -- -- Live in the moment; be open to the possibilities that life has to offer.
From: Paul on 22 Dec 2009 11:49 Twayne wrote: > > Was there a point to all that Paul? Yes. 1) Does anyone in these discussions understand how the registry "database engine" actually works ? And what percentage of time or compute cycles on average, involve accesses to that engine ? 2) Is there any article which benchmarks the database engine, to show how sensitive it is to size, compaction and the like ? Rather than just accepting what the registry product claims on its status screen ? Most of the discussions I see about the Registry, seem to involve "feel good" comparison. Even if I look for web articles, they still just accept what the tool tells them, of some percentage improvement. http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1351988&seqNum=2 How many problems posted in these groups, come from people who buy products to "polish" their OS, and then live to regret it ? At the very least, there should be an honest expression about what is known or not known. As in "I use registry cleaners to remove entries that don't look correctly formed" but "I don't know whether it makes any difference in the long run". At least then, the potential person buying these things, has an honest appraisal of what is known. As opposed to just accepting every claim made by the product manufacturer. ******* One thing which has bothered me about this topic, is reading articles like the one by Russinovich, where you can see there was some care and attention to efficiency in the design. And then, doing a search on the registry with Regedit, and it takes an eternity. There seems to be s disconnect between the two (the theory and the observation). The performance on a search, isn't consistent with something which is mainly stored in memory. It should run a lot faster than it does. And I've yet to see explanations for that behavior. Paul
From: Bob I on 22 Dec 2009 12:49
Paul wrote: > Twayne wrote: > >> >> Was there a point to all that Paul? > > > Yes. > > 1) Does anyone in these discussions understand how the > registry "database engine" actually works ? And what > percentage of time or compute cycles on average, involve > accesses to that engine ? > > 2) Is there any article which benchmarks the database > engine, to show how sensitive it is to size, compaction > and the like ? Rather than just accepting what the > registry product claims on its status screen ? > > Most of the discussions I see about the Registry, seem > to involve "feel good" comparison. Even if I look for > web articles, they still just accept what the tool > tells them, of some percentage improvement. > > http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1351988&seqNum=2 > > How many problems posted in these groups, come from > people who buy products to "polish" their OS, and then > live to regret it ? At the very least, there should be > an honest expression about what is known or not known. > As in "I use registry cleaners to remove entries that > don't look correctly formed" but "I don't know whether > it makes any difference in the long run". At least then, > the potential person buying these things, has an honest > appraisal of what is known. > > As opposed to just accepting every claim made by the > product manufacturer. > > ******* > > One thing which has bothered me about this topic, is > reading articles like the one by Russinovich, where you > can see there was some care and attention to efficiency > in the design. And then, doing a search on the registry > with Regedit, and it takes an eternity. There seems to be > s disconnect between the two (the theory and the observation). > The performance on a search, isn't consistent with something > which is mainly stored in memory. It should run a lot faster > than it does. And I've yet to see explanations for that behavior. > > Paul I'd say the difference is like driving to a known address, vs. driving around looking for a blue house with white shutters and a detached garage. |