What do you mean by "registry organiser"?

Do you mean "registry cleaner"?

DO NOT use registry cleaners! See this:
http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=28099

Replace Norton with the free AVG http://free.grisoft.com/ or Avast
http://www.avast.com/eng/avast_4_home.html, and Windows Firewall and Windows
Defender. Norton is known to cause many problems in Vista which don’t always
appear immediately.

Download and run the Norton Removal Tool.

http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT...05033108162039

It's called "360" because Symantec's goal is complete ownership of your
computer, and with even less communication about what it's trying to do or
ways to configure it than ever before (which would only interfere with its
goal.) That, along with Symantec's famous technical support, makes Norton
360 a disaster that I would only install on Granny's computer if she was
going to disinherit me.

-------
*Report back, please*
[When responding to posts, please include the post(s) you are replying to so
that others may learn and benefit from the issue]

[How to ask a question]
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

"asmodeus" <asmodeus@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:AC876A68-0C29-4BA5-9955-82C4A7215D46@microsoft.com...
> Could someone give me some plain language help please? When I bought
> Norton
> 360, I thought it would replace the Windows defender series and that this
> would be a good thing to do. Clearly some people do not rate Norton, so
> would
> it be best for me to:
>
> 1) Use Windows Defender only, for firewall, anti-virus etc etc, or 2) Use
> Norton for anti-virus and windows for everything else? or 3) Find another
> anti-virus and use it alongside Windows Defender for everything else?
> Should
> I then also discard the other packages I have bought, including my
> registry
> organiser and the ant-Spyware package. There is so much stuff on the
> market,
> some guidance on an effective line-up would be great. Thank you.
>
> "SG" wrote:
>
>> >>>I never suggested to use ERUNT<<<
>>
>> Nope you didn't and I missed that, my apologies.
>>
>> >>>Based on what...your thinking? You've got to be kidding!<<<
>>
>> Well lets see here Kayman, maybe I should have said something besides
>> "THINK" and suggested after my 18 some years with computer experience,
>> would
>> that suite you better?
>>
>> >>>(but *I* use both utilities without any problems)<<<
>>
>> So, because you didn't have problems that makes these two programs SAFE?,
>> you got to be kidding :>). I wasn't after you Kayman for what you posted,
>> not sure why, but it seems to me you took this personally and that's not
>> the
>> case at all. When I see these snake oil programs and that's all they are,
>> I
>> simply point out they are dangerous. It's been debated for years and
>> probably always will be about compacting the registry and in my
>> professional
>> opinion it doesn't amount to a grain of salt. Do some of these programs
>> really work? I'm sure some do and I know in Win98 Scanreg /Fix and Opt
>> did
>> indeed reduce the size of the Registry. The question was, is it
>> noticeable
>> enough for the user to tell and in many test done by me and many others
>> years was no. BTW, in Win98 and WinMe if the Registry contain more than
>> 500
>> KB of empty data blocks, Windows Registry Checker automatically optimized
>> it.
>>
>> When I see things like:
>> "You may want to disable the tracker to avoid this message in the future
>> (see the Windows help for information on how to do this)" this is
>> referring
>> to the NTREGOPT sometimes fails with error 1450.
>>
>> Right, now lets turn off Tracker so we can run his program without the
>> error
>> not really knowing what other problems this my cause the user and if it
>> did
>> no one would know what or where this new error may be coming from.
>>
>>
>> " To make sure the programs are executed with proper administrative
>> privileges, you should however turn off User Account Control in Vista's
>> system settings "
>>
>> Nothing at all about turning off UAC and the dangers this can cause, for
>> example, the problem lies when turning off UAC after Vista has been used
>> for
>> a while with UAC turned on. Vista intercepts any file operations that
>> attempts to write to a Program Files directory for a specific app, like
>> when
>> a program tries to create a saved file for example. These files are
>> virtualized to a special Program Data folder instead. If you save a file
>> and
>> then turn off UAC, virtualization is also turned off. So then the program
>> can not find the saved file. This can also happen with anything else the
>> application tries to store in its program files directory. You can Google
>> "dangers turning off UAC" and find many reasons NOT to turn it off. I
>> find
>> it amazing the author suggest totally disabling one of the best security
>> features ever in windows only to compact the Registry that supposedly
>> speeds
>> up the system. WOW what a trade off, lets all get infected with Spyware,
>> Trojans and Viruses, but not to worry, with our Registry compacted it
>> will
>> make getting rid of these pest much faster.
>>
>>
>> "Should I disable Windows XP's System Restore function when using ERUNT?
>> Yes! Though System Restore backs up more than just the registry, the
>> registry is essentially all you need to revert your system to a previous
>> state."
>>
>> Now you ask me if I was kidding and you should have ask the author.
>> Disable
>> XP's System Restore for what? to save a little hard drive space? man this
>> is
>> unbelievable. He says the registry is essentially all you need to revert
>> your system to a previous state. Humm, well I guess MS screwed up when
>> they
>> added all the other features that go along with System Restore eh? Hard
>> Drive space is just about a thing of the past and as cheap as they are
>> now
>> no one should be to worried about space. DVD's, CD Writers, Memory Cards
>> and
>> 8 Gig pocket drives at Wal-Mart for $79.00, USB to IDE/SATA cables drives
>> makes it easy for more than enough backup space.
>>
>> Well enough said and again I do apologize if I worded my post to the
>> extent
>> if offended you, it surely wasn't meant to be that way. You can have the
>> last word as I will be moving on and sorry to the OP for high-jacking
>> this
>> thread.
>>
>>
>> --
>> All the best,
>> SG
>>
>> ALEX NICHOL
>> (1935-2005)
>> http://www.aumha.org/alex.htm
>> You will never be forgotten my friend
>>
>> "Kayman" <kaymanDeleteThis@operamail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ea4FW7yeIHA.4476@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>>