Wise Registry Cleaner vs AusLogics Registry Defrag vs CCLeaner?

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:24:20 +0100, "John Barnett MVP"
<freelance@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Defragmenting the Registry is worth doing. As for registry cleaner's they
>are, to be honest, a waste of space. After I replied to your post yesterday
>I downloaded Wise registry cleaner, and Auslogic.
>
>A quick test produced the following:
>
>Auslogic could claim back 11% of my registry by defragmenting it: Ok that
>was fine I allowed it to do that. Having said that I didn't detect any
>increase in startup speed.
>
>CCleaner. This I already use, but have never used the registry cleaner. On
>using the registry cleaner it flagged 4 errors. All 4 errors were MRU (most
>recently used) website URL's. I knew what they were so allowed CCleaner to
>remove them.

Only 4? That's very difficult to believe, unless you've never
installed/uninstalled anything much in the way of software on that
machine. Did you have it set to check everything? I am running only a
4-month-old installation and I get over 100 hits. System is trim and
tight as a new drum.

>Wise Registry Cleaner. I ran this and I flagged well over 100 errors. At
>least 50 of these it wasn't sure whether it could remove them safely or not.
>The remaining 50 it said could be deleted but as most of the entries were
>CLID's (which basically include a long string of numbers) without me
>actually noting the CLID and then manually checking the registry I wasn't
>prepared to let Wise registry cleaner remove them.
>
>That was a simple, quick, test, nothing scientific. But why did Wise
>registry cleaner flag so many registry problems compared to CCleaner? The
>chances are that Wise registry cleaner hit so many 'false positives' that
>removing them 'may' have caused more problems or me than leaving them.

A more plausible answer: CCleaner is not set to make very aggressive
checks, or it makes less complete checks than WRC does.

>And
>why did Wise registry cleaner advise me that 50% of the flagged errors
>needed further consideration before 'I' took the decision to remove them. If
>the registry cleaner was any good it should make the decision for me not, as
>has happened here, start dithering!
>
>While I agree 'it would make life easier' there is still an element of doubt
>and, personally, I feel that that element of doubt isn't worth taking.
>
>--

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:32:32 -0500, Paul Montgomery
<i.m.nonnymous@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>Only 4? That's very difficult to believe, unless you've never
>installed/uninstalled anything much in the way of software on that
>machine. Did you have it set to check everything? I am running only a
>4-month-old installation and I get over 100 hits. System is trim and
>tight as a new drum.

It wasn't over 100 hits... it was over 300 hits.

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:32:32 -0500, Paul Montgomery
<i.m.nonnymous@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>>That was a simple, quick, test, nothing scientific. But why did Wise
>>registry cleaner flag so many registry problems compared to CCleaner? The
>>chances are that Wise registry cleaner hit so many 'false positives' that
>>removing them 'may' have caused more problems or me than leaving them.
>
>A more plausible answer: CCleaner is not set to make very aggressive
>checks, or it makes less complete checks than WRC does.

I just ran my own test.

I let CCleaner run its check - took maybe 30 seconds. I let it delete
what it found (about 300 items).

Then I ran WRC using the default setup - it took 8 minutes and found
an additional 495 items with 97 being "unsafe" to fix.

I ran it again and had it run ALL checks - it took 11 minutes and
found 838 items with 156 being "unsafe".

It definitely checks more items than CCleaner.

I don't plan on letting it fix a damned thing ;-)

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:19:44 -0500, Paul Montgomery
<i.m.nonnymous@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:32:32 -0500, Paul Montgomery
><i.m.nonnymous@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>That was a simple, quick, test, nothing scientific. But why did Wise
>>>registry cleaner flag so many registry problems compared to CCleaner? The
>>>chances are that Wise registry cleaner hit so many 'false positives' that
>>>removing them 'may' have caused more problems or me than leaving them.
>>
>>A more plausible answer: CCleaner is not set to make very aggressive
>>checks, or it makes less complete checks than WRC does.
>
>I just ran my own test.
>
>I let CCleaner run its check - took maybe 30 seconds. I let it delete
>what it found (about 300 items).
>
>Then I ran WRC using the default setup - it took 8 minutes and found
>an additional 495 items with 97 being "unsafe" to fix.
>
>I ran it again and had it run ALL checks - it took 11 minutes and
>found 838 items with 156 being "unsafe".
>
>It definitely checks more items than CCleaner.
>
>I don't plan on letting it fix a damned thing ;-)

Uninstalled WRC, restarted, ran CCleaner... it found six entries left
over from the uninstall.

Testing completed :-)

"John Barnett MVP" <freelance@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:Og9kTU1HJHA.4232@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:

> Defragmenting the Registry is worth doing. As for registry cleaner's
> they are, to be honest, a waste of space. After I replied to your post
> yesterday I downloaded Wise registry cleaner, and Auslogic.
>
> A quick test produced the following:
>
> Auslogic could claim back 11% of my registry by defragmenting it: Ok
> that was fine I allowed it to do that. Having said that I didn't
> detect any increase in startup speed.
>
> CCleaner. This I already use, but have never used the registry
> cleaner. On using the registry cleaner it flagged 4 errors. All 4
> errors were MRU (most recently used) website URL's. I knew what they
> were so allowed CCleaner to remove them.


FWIW, I have used registry function in CCleaner on numerous occassions
now and AFAIK never had a problem with it. One thing I have noticed
(and not only with CCleaner but also other registry proggies I've tried
out) is that they may not get all the broken links on the first pass;
that is, removal of broken links on the first pass will then seem to
generate other links that also need cleaning up....therefore I run
multiple scans untill all error messages disappear.

.......others MMV. :-)

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:54:10 +0000 (UTC), propman <prop_m@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>"John Barnett MVP" <freelance@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>news:Og9kTU1HJHA.4232@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:
>
>> Defragmenting the Registry is worth doing. As for registry cleaner's
>> they are, to be honest, a waste of space. After I replied to your post
>> yesterday I downloaded Wise registry cleaner, and Auslogic.
>>
>> A quick test produced the following:
>>
>> Auslogic could claim back 11% of my registry by defragmenting it: Ok
>> that was fine I allowed it to do that. Having said that I didn't
>> detect any increase in startup speed.
>>
>> CCleaner. This I already use, but have never used the registry
>> cleaner. On using the registry cleaner it flagged 4 errors. All 4
>> errors were MRU (most recently used) website URL's. I knew what they
>> were so allowed CCleaner to remove them.
>
>
>FWIW, I have used registry function in CCleaner on numerous occassions
>now and AFAIK never had a problem with it. One thing I have noticed
>(and not only with CCleaner but also other registry proggies I've tried
>out) is that they may not get all the broken links on the first pass;
>that is, removal of broken links on the first pass will then seem to
>generate other links that also need cleaning up....

Yet another reason to NOT use a "cleaner". If it can't get things
right on the first pass, it's no good.

>therefore I run
>multiple scans untill all error messages disappear.
>
>......others MMV. :-)
>
>

Paul Montgomery <i.m.nonnymous@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in
news:727od4deegj3dr5tt291kfrnbo9b6d6cal@4ax.com:

>>FWIW, I have used registry function in CCleaner on numerous occassions
>>now and AFAIK never had a problem with it. One thing I have noticed
>>(and not only with CCleaner but also other registry proggies I've tried
>>out) is that they may not get all the broken links on the first pass;
>>that is, removal of broken links on the first pass will then seem to
>>generate other links that also need cleaning up....
>
> Yet another reason to NOT use a "cleaner". If it can't get things
> right on the first pass, it's no good.


Yeah, sure, uh-uh, whatever......*plonk*

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 00:41:54 +0000 (UTC), propman <prop_m@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Paul Montgomery <i.m.nonnymous@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in
>news:727od4deegj3dr5tt291kfrnbo9b6d6cal@4ax.com :
>
>>>FWIW, I have used registry function in CCleaner on numerous occassions
>>>now and AFAIK never had a problem with it. One thing I have noticed
>>>(and not only with CCleaner but also other registry proggies I've tried
>>>out) is that they may not get all the broken links on the first pass;
>>>that is, removal of broken links on the first pass will then seem to
>>>generate other links that also need cleaning up....
>>
>> Yet another reason to NOT use a "cleaner". If it can't get things
>> right on the first pass, it's no good.
>
>
>Yeah, sure, uh-uh, whatever......*plonk*

You're probably better at replacing flapper kits than you are at
optimizing your computer.

Whether you believe it or not, Paul, 4 is the number of registry errors
flagged. All option in the registry cleaner of CCleaner are ticked. Software
is installed and uninstalled on this machine on a regular basis, however, I
am not one for installing 'anything and everything' Software has to come
from a reliable source I don't just pick a website and think 'hey I'll try
that.' Software should also have a reliable uninstall application, that way
most, if not all, of the application will be removed during the uninstall.

I should also point out that a clean image of my hard drive is stored on a
removable drive. This is kept up to date and my drive is re-imaged with the
'clean' image every month or so, depending upon how much software has been
installed or uninstalled.

I agree that CCleaner may not have been as aggressive as WRC, after all, the
registry option in CCleaner is somewhat of an 'after thought.' My test also
wasn't in anyway scientific, if it had have been then I would have done a
clean install of Vista then run CCleaner and WRC to see what was flagged on
the clean system. Then I would have started installing software and checking
again. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do that so my results were
just to let the OP know what happened when using these two applications.

When you ran WRC for a second time you got the results which are synonymous
with most, if not all, registry cleaners - it found a whole lot more errors.
But, at least we agree on one thing 'we don't plan on letting it fix a damn
thing'

--

--
John Barnett MVP
Windows XP Associate Expert
Windows Desktop Experience

Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
Web: http://www.silversurfer-guide.com

The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..


"Paul Montgomery" <i.m.nonnymous@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:4j0od45igo0ocqh72gir1350k5u4ll8o17@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 22:24:20 +0100, "John Barnett MVP"
> <freelance@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Defragmenting the Registry is worth doing. As for registry cleaner's they
>>are, to be honest, a waste of space. After I replied to your post
>>yesterday
>>I downloaded Wise registry cleaner, and Auslogic.
>>
>>A quick test produced the following:
>>
>>Auslogic could claim back 11% of my registry by defragmenting it: Ok that
>>was fine I allowed it to do that. Having said that I didn't detect any
>>increase in startup speed.
>>
>>CCleaner. This I already use, but have never used the registry cleaner. On
>>using the registry cleaner it flagged 4 errors. All 4 errors were MRU
>>(most
>>recently used) website URL's. I knew what they were so allowed CCleaner to
>>remove them.
>
> Only 4? That's very difficult to believe, unless you've never
> installed/uninstalled anything much in the way of software on that
> machine. Did you have it set to check everything? I am running only a
> 4-month-old installation and I get over 100 hits. System is trim and
> tight as a new drum.
>
>>Wise Registry Cleaner. I ran this and I flagged well over 100 errors. At
>>least 50 of these it wasn't sure whether it could remove them safely or
>>not.
>>The remaining 50 it said could be deleted but as most of the entries were
>>CLID's (which basically include a long string of numbers) without me
>>actually noting the CLID and then manually checking the registry I wasn't
>>prepared to let Wise registry cleaner remove them.
>>
>>That was a simple, quick, test, nothing scientific. But why did Wise
>>registry cleaner flag so many registry problems compared to CCleaner? The
>>chances are that Wise registry cleaner hit so many 'false positives' that
>>removing them 'may' have caused more problems or me than leaving them.
>
> A more plausible answer: CCleaner is not set to make very aggressive
> checks, or it makes less complete checks than WRC does.
>
>>And
>>why did Wise registry cleaner advise me that 50% of the flagged errors
>>needed further consideration before 'I' took the decision to remove them.
>>If
>>the registry cleaner was any good it should make the decision for me not,
>>as
>>has happened here, start dithering!
>>
>>While I agree 'it would make life easier' there is still an element of
>>doubt
>>and, personally, I feel that that element of doubt isn't worth taking.
>>
>>--

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:54:13 +0100, "John Barnett MVP"
<freelance@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>Whether you believe it or not, Paul, 4 is the number of registry errors
>flagged. All option in the registry cleaner of CCleaner are ticked. Software
>is installed and uninstalled on this machine on a regular basis, however, I
>am not one for installing 'anything and everything' Software has to come
>from a reliable source I don't just pick a website and think 'hey I'll try
>that.' Software should also have a reliable uninstall application, that way
>most, if not all, of the application will be removed during the uninstall.

I am the same way with software. It's probably the reason I have no
problems with my system and why it runs as fast as XP did on the same
hardware.

However, when I find that I don't like what I've downloaded, I quickly
uninstall it using either its uninstaller or Programs and Features
(which probably uses the same thing),

>I should also point out that a clean image of my hard drive is stored on a
>removable drive. This is kept up to date and my drive is re-imaged with the
>'clean' image every month or so, depending upon how much software has been
>installed or uninstalled.

AHA! That would explain things a bit more.

Thanks for the explanations.

>I agree that CCleaner may not have been as aggressive as WRC, after all, the
>registry option in CCleaner is somewhat of an 'after thought.' My test also
>wasn't in anyway scientific, if it had have been then I would have done a
>clean install of Vista then run CCleaner and WRC to see what was flagged on
>the clean system. Then I would have started installing software and checking
>again. Unfortunately I don't have the time to do that so my results were
>just to let the OP know what happened when using these two applications.
>
>When you ran WRC for a second time you got the results which are synonymous
>with most, if not all, registry cleaners - it found a whole lot more errors.
>But, at least we agree on one thing 'we don't plan on letting it fix a damn
>thing'

The second run used more of the options. The count of items on the
default options didn't change.

There were so many total options that it didn't even occur to me to
try to check each one. And I wasn't about to let it do its thing,
even though I have multiple backups (images AND clones) that are never
more than 12 hours old.