CCleaner

[someone]

Concerning your original question, using %temp%, before I downloaded
cccleaner, I always typed ".temp" to remove the temporary files. But I also
used ".tmp." I don't think "temp" will delete any "tmp." Since I now use
cccleaner, I don't manually delete any of them now, but let cccleaner do it.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

I can only give you my experience on two computers. (Current one is number
3). I used a registry cleaner written by someone in Finland on my first
Windows 95 computer. It was a free download. I deleted about 370 items from
the registry with no problem whatsoever. I noticed the computer ran faster.
On my second computer (Windows 98) I did the same and result was the same.

Not relevant to discussion of WinXP's registry. The operatiung
systems, and their registries, are vastly different.

However I kept a note of some of the items I removed and later installed
them with no problem. I also noticed a speedup but not as much.
My present computer is Windows XP. I do not use the registry cleaner because
it is no longer free. I did use a free registry cleaner (which cleaned out
about 250 entries) and then manually searched for and deleted many items I
do not want and will not use. Some were Netscape, Norton, AOL, Symantec,
Yahoo etc. I did not notice any improvement in computer speed. I must also
point out that a re-install of XP puts all of them back in.

Pretty much proving my points, thank you.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

 

[Poprivet]

On a fresh install, there are *no* orphaned registry entries, by
definition. There are currently unused entries intended to provide
backwards compatibility with commonly used third party applications. If
you know with 100% certainty that you will never, ever install the
related application, the entry is safe to delete its corresponding
registry entry. Doing so won't gain you any performance, but if it
helps your peace of mind, go ahead.

A more important question would be: Why do purported registry
"cleaners" invariably identified designed-in parts of the registry as
"problems" or "issues?" Have none of the makers of these utilities
ever actually looked at a freshly installed OS to see what's supposed
to be there? It would be so simple for them to start at that base
point, list those entries as "safe," and proceed from there.

Even though I realize I'm talking to a close mind, I find I still have to
remind you that perhaps you should look into the machinations of apps like
cc cleaner. It's no great mystery how they work and what they do. If you
fully and clearly understood that, you would also understand a lot of other
things you're closed-minded about.

As it turns out, I was able to run a "fresh" install of Win 2k Pro Xeon
dials on my test bed recently, so I took the opportunity to see what kind of
chaff was in the Registry and system files while it was "pristine" as you
called it. There was a lot of it; mostly for things I didn't install, and a
bunch afterwards from the install of SP's. There'll be another crop after
it's finished auto updating too, I'm certain. Also, "orphaned" is a word
that's open to interpretation by many, and it's apparent your version
doesn't match the OP's, so anything in that arena isn't relevant.
What IS relevant though, is that you're right, there won't be much
noticeable speed (another subjective word) penalty, they don't hurt
anything, BUT, unlike your comments' inuendo, if they were removed, they'll
simply be replaced when the features are added at a later time. So, in the
case I had, cc cleaner did what it was purported to do, nothing bad came
from it of course, and nothing was lost in the present or in the future as a
result of using it.
If you would try to be a little less myopic you could see most of these
things for what they are: They have pros and cons like anything else, and
are quite useful apps.

Regards,

Pop`

 

[Stan Brown]

Sat, 01 Sep 2007 09:45:35 -0600 from Bruce Chambers

Since you didn't care to divulge which other "Web Browser" you use, I
can't very well tell you where it stores it's temporary files. It'll
obviously be in a different location. Check it's settings.

It's Mozilla, and I know where it stores its [sic] temporary files.
I've got the cache size set comfortably low.

Your earlier article seemed to imply that there were lots of places
where temporary files would be stored, and that therefore a program
like CCleaner was a good idea to clean them up.

My own preference is to manage this myself. Part of my logon batch
file looks at temp files that are more than a day old and offers to
delete them. I was just wondering if there were other locations I
should be concerned with.

 

[Stan Brown]

Sat, 01 Sep 2007 09:52:10 -0600 from Bruce Chambers

On a fresh install, there are *no* orphaned registry entries, by
definition.

With respect, I think that's pretty optimistic. In any piece of
software above the toy level, there will be bugs. One fertile source
is where Programmer A puts in something to interface with what
Programmer B intends to do, then Programmer B changes plans but
doesn't tell Programmer A.

I don't have knowledge of any specific orphaned registry entry
created in this way, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that
there was one. While it's clear that a fresh install of XP starts
with a working registry, I don't think we can be certain that it
starts with a perfectly non-redundant one.

That is *not* to say that the orphaned entries need to be cleaned
out. As has been posted many times, unused registry entries usually
do no harm. (I suppose if 99% of the Registry was unused entries,
performance for retrieving the 1% wanted entries might suffer, but
that's not likely to happen in reality.)

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Sat, 01 Sep 2007 09:52:10 -0600 from Bruce Chambers


With respect, I think that's pretty optimistic.

Not at all. I think we've a semantic difference here. By definition,
an "orphaned" entry is one placed there by the installation of an
application, and then left behind when said application is uninstalled.
If no applications have ever been installed and removed, there cannot
possibly "orphaned" entries.

In any piece of
software above the toy level, there will be bugs. One fertile source
is where Programmer A puts in something to interface with what
Programmer B intends to do, then Programmer B changes plans but
doesn't tell Programmer A.

Oh, certainly this will happen to any OS "built by committee," or by
different teams working on different modules or aspects of the OS, but
these aren't what is meant by "orphaned."

I don't have knowledge of any specific orphaned registry entry
created in this way, but it wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that
there was one.

Unnecessary entries, almost certainly. "Orphaned?" Not by definition.

While it's clear that a fresh install of XP starts
with a working registry, I don't think we can be certain that it
starts with a perfectly non-redundant one.


Agreed.


That is *not* to say that the orphaned entries need to be cleaned
out. As has been posted many times, unused registry entries usually
do no harm. (I suppose if 99% of the Registry was unused entries,
performance for retrieving the 1% wanted entries might suffer, but
that's not likely to happen in reality.)

Also agreed. Only in very rare circumstances will a truly orphaned
registry entry cause any sort of problem.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Sat, 01 Sep 2007 09:45:35 -0600 from Bruce Chambers

Since you didn't care to divulge which other "Web Browser" you use, I
can't very well tell you where it stores it's temporary files. It'll
obviously be in a different location. Check it's settings.

It's Mozilla, and I know where it stores its [sic] temporary files.
I've got the cache size set comfortably low.

Your earlier article seemed to imply that there were lots of places
where temporary files would be stored, and that therefore a program
like CCleaner was a good idea to clean them up.

Well, perhaps "lots" is a bit strong. There are separate temporary
stores for each user profile, but the importance of this depends
entirely upon the number of users. Also, some applications to create
temporary files in the strangest of places. I've even found some that
actually create "Temp" folders of their own within the C:\Program Files\
tree.

My own preference is to manage this myself. Part of my logon batch
file looks at temp files that are more than a day old and offers to
delete them. I was just wondering if there were other locations I
should be concerned with.

You clearly have a better handle on your computer than most people, and
very likely don't need to use any 3rd party applications. My point is
that sometimes such utilities can be handy aids and time-savers. I
didn't mean to imply that I think them essential.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell

 

[Unknown]

A manufacturer can leave hundreds of orphaned entries in the registry..

 

[Stan Brown]

Sun, 02 Sep 2007 11:13:11 -0600 from Bruce Chambers

My point is
that sometimes such utilities can be handy aids and time-savers. I
didn't mean to imply that I think them essential.

Thanks for clarifying.