Talk:Registry cleaner

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)

Merge?

I have tidied up this article but I suggest it be merged with Registry cleaner. Biscuittin 09:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Closed source?

'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)

These tools are not supported or endorsed by Microsoft because their writers don't have the inside information required so that the changes they make don't break anything. Every Microsoft knowledgebase article with even the smallest Registry change carries a warning about potentially fatal damage can be done by editing the Registry. You're incorrect about how much of the Registry is used by applications - most of the configuration data on modern versions of Windows is NOT application specific unless you've installed thousands of COM-based components. Socrates2008 (Talk) 22:32, 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)

Marginal performance benefit section

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)

Removed

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."

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).

Funny how often Registry cleaners get it wrong then, isn't it? You're basing your original research on onproven, inferred behaviour of closed source code. Also, there is considerably more (proprietary) data in the Registry than only the 3rd party COM registrations that your comment infers. As for the example, the phone book does not stop working when you delete certain critical numbers from it that you never knew were any different to any other number. Socrates2008 (Talk) 01:17, 6 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

Image copyright problem with Image:Registry Editor Vista.png

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

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

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)

Study of registry cleaners

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)

Not a good idea, it's a comparison from the winner of the comparison. Definatly not neutral! --85.127.105.90 (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What about this list?

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)

Looks acceptable for an external link or for a further reading section. Fleet Command (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Undeletable registry keys

"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 have a key with nulls and weird symbols in HKLM, and Regdelnull is of no use. --Bstard12 (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Needs Work

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.

—Długosz (talk)

Yes, the image was so unsuitable that violated Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria clause 8: Contextual significance. I removed the image. Fleet Command (talk) 10:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

How about this website?

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)

Does not meet neutrality, conflict of interest or reliable source guidelines. Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Free Registry Cleaners?

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)

Oppose. Registry cleaners are unreliable and unstable software. We cannot afford to jeopardize Wikipedia's good reputation by adding such hazardous material. Even if we do make such a list it must only contain notable software that already have an article in Wikipedia, whose reliability is already proven through multiple secondary reliable sources. Fleet Command (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Not completely correct. I do not agree with the statement that Registry Cleaners are unreliable and unstable. This is true for some bad registry cleaners, but this statement is not true in general. This statement makes it even more important to provide a list of good registry cleaners. I agree that the sources in the list should be reliable, that have Wikipedia article of their own, and are probably endorsed by multiple websites like Cnet.com, sourceforge.net, and softpedia.com. Ishan (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Please indent your comments properly; also please do not make "Not completely correct" bold because it is not an editorial verdict. As for sourceforge.net, it does not offer any expert reviews; it is merely a source-code repository. Fleet Command (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

For - Don't particularly agree with "links to free registry cleaners", but certainly popular / notable registry cleaners should be included. A good analogy is; in an article about cars, we should include notable cars / car brands (such as first mass produced Ford model). I strongly disagree with FleetCommand on registry cleaners on the basis of sources; various notable tech sites such as CNET, PCWorld oft gives good review to registry cleaners (i.e. Ccleaner and Advanced Systemcare on CNET). Personally I wouldn't recommend registry cleaners as a whole, but unfortunately Wikipedia isn't a venue for my opinions. 58.27.115.118 (talk) 04:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment I think drugs would be a better analogy than cars. :-) CNET is paid by its advertisers - WP should giving the greatest weighting to what Microsoft says about this, as it's the creator, vendor and ultimate source of knowledege of the operating system in question. Socrates2008 (Talk) 06:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point bro. Microsoft doesn't recommend it here and here, but notably accepts the possibility of the registry becoming corrupt. Perhaps we should include something about what Microsoft says in this article. Back to the list though, I'm taking my cues from articles like: Cigarette, OSes, Web browsers (which pushes the list of browsers onto another article). We're not being comprehensive if we don't at least make mention of notable registry cleaners (this is their article after all). Given some of these products already have WP articles, I'd say that satisfies notability, no? 58.27.115.118 (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - this will be nothing more than a spamming opportunity for purveyors of snake oil, and would suggest endorsement by Wikipedia Socrates2008 (Talk) 20:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

For The shop tech's opinion is that they are all spyware. If so I want the details. I have been using Eusing Registry Cleaner may be since very first versions from win98 to Win XP and I feel much safer with a more stable, functioning OS. And I'll run it after heavy use or every week until the finds are fundamental. I feel I am lucky to fish Eusing out of the internet jungle. No thanks to wikipedia. I agree, there is a lot of questionable service software but how are we going to know the legitimate ones? Statusquo is punishing the ones in good standing. Even for the ones I approve I want to read others experiences. Dissemination of information is prime reason for Wikipedia and for anyone's prejudiced concerns, Wikipedia has the editors. Lesse faire.. (I am grateful to Eusing). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.17.83 (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Defragmenting vs. Cleaning

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)

Defragmenting refers to 1) ensuring that the underlying files that constitute the hives are contiguous on the filesystem (what PageDefrag does), and to a lesser extent, 2) "packing" the contents the database to remove records previously marked for deletion. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The point I was making was that a casual reader may assume that cleaning and defragmenting are the same thing. Cleaning would only be #2 in your post. A reader may think that a registry cleaner would do both, while it will not. In fact I know of only 2 products that will defragment the hive files. In contrast there are at least a dozen (and likely dozens more) of individual 'cleaners'. As an encyclopaedic entry, I just think a distinction will help the reader. Not least because PageDefrag, a defragmenter, is prominantly mentioned in this registry CLEANING article. MrZoolook (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, my original statement was mainly in reference to the talk page, but could (in my opinion) help the article anyway. MrZoolook (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

"Cleaning" encompasses neither file defragmentation nor database packing. Cleaning = removal of orphaned configuration items in the registry that are not used by any applications anymore. PageDefrag is mentioned as an example of a tool that recognised experts (including Microsoft itself) recommend will bring actual benefit, in contrast to many of the questionable claims put foward by vendors of cleaners.

The reason that there are only 2 products that will defragment a hive is that this is of little, if any, value from a performance point of view, particularly as the underlying database is indexed and cached in memory. Furthermore, there are bigger and more measurable gains to be had in other software-configurable areas such as optimizing the boot files on the filesystem, placing the pagefile in a more optimal location on the disk, ensuring that disk alignment is correct, delay-starting non-essential services, removing auto-start applications, installing correct drivers, using a 64-bit operating system, profiling a system to find bottlenecks etc. etc. Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Top marks for completely missing the point. Mentioning a defragmenter on a page dedicated to cleaning (which you yourself have just admitted are two different things) without clarifying in the article the difference between the two, could lead readers to believe the two are the same thing. MrZoolook (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

The meaning has changed somewhat from what I initially added - I've copedited it to restore the original meaning and linked the key term. OK? Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I should apologise. I have been feeling a bit down lately and took it out on anyone who said anything I didn't like. That said, I do appreciate your edit, and honestly feel it helps the article to present a more clear and concise reference for the reader. And that is what matters in the end. Once again, my apologies. My temper gets the better of me sometimes :( MrZoolook (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

How is this article even remotely unbiased?

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)

Registry cleaners are not supported by Microsoft

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 ([]) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.173.109 (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Should be updated to state they statically add little to no benefit and can cause more issues down the line

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)