Hi, I'm still adjusting from Windows 98 SE to Windows XP Pro SP2. I have
three questions about XP maintainance.
First of all, did I spell maintainance right?
Question two: Is the analyze feature in XP's defragmenter replacing the
Windows 98 scandisk tool?
Lastly, does anyone have any good recommendations to good freeware registry
tools (registry cleaners and registry defragmenters)?
Okay, I know I said only three question, but this is a bonus question. Is
there a way to compact the size of the XP registry? Does Windows XP come
with such a tool? Thanks in advance!

1.- Close but no cigar. - maintenance

2.- Don't remember

3.- <http://www.auslogics.com/en/software/registry-defrag/download>
- -- ---

<http://www.auslogics.com/en/software/registry-defrag>
- -- ----

Check back later, though. I'm sure someone who remember a lot more than I
do about this will be passing through any time now.

Best wishes,
- -- ----


"Paradoxdb3" wrote:

CHKDSK C: (cmd) runs as scandisk,both are run on start-up.As far as
registry cleaners go, downloads.com Probably has many of them,however,
why fool with it,any time the registry needs to be audited in a microsoft kb
article,its about the only time you'll see a "caution" & "warning".Why let
a 3rd
party utility have access to regedit...

"Paradoxdb3" wrote:

1. No. (maintenance)

2. No. Analyze determines the number of fragments and number of fragmented
files so you can determine whether or not to defrag. Scandisk looks for
errors in a file system.

3. I don't recommend use of a registry cleaner. Others will quickly called
me names and urge you to use the one they think they can't live without
(they are wrong, of course).

4. Don't worry about registry compaction in XP. (more name calling to
follow).

Just a suggestion. Don't try to use XP the way you used Win9x/ME. XP
belongs to the NT branch of Windows and Win9x belongs to the DOS branch.
They are fundamentaly different in spite of the familiarity of the GUI. Let
XP show you its way rather than you forcing XP to act like Win98.

"Paradoxdb3" <Paradoxdb3@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4BE6E599-E6D6-40AC-85BC-20607F16E1AD@microsoft.com...

*Answered inline*

"Paradoxdb3" <Paradoxdb3@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4BE6E599-E6D6-40AC-85BC-20607F16E1AD@microsoft.com...
them makes at best no difference to your PC's performance.
At worst they will cripple your machine. There is one class of
people who derive considerable benefit from registry cleaners.
The sellers."



~Gary

=?Utf-8?B?UGFyYWRveGRiMw==?= wrote:
You're NOT a candidate to mess with the XP resistry.








--
http://www.bootdisk.com/

Paradoxdb3 wrote:
No. You can add a spell-chequer.

No.

No.

No.

You might think on WHY XP does not provide a registry cleaner or compactor.
(Hint: they are not needed.)

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 20:47:01 -0800, Paradoxdb3
<Paradoxdb3@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:


No. It's "maintenance."


No. The XP equivalent of scandisk is called chkdsk.



There are *no* such good tools, whether freeware or not.

I strongly suggest you avoid using any registry cleaning program. They
are *all* snake oil. Cleaning of the registry isn't needed and is
dangerous. Leave the registry alone and don't use any registry
cleaner. Despite what many people think, and what vendors of registry
cleaning software try to convince you of, having unused registry
entries doesn't really hurt you.

The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner erroneously
removing an entry you need is far greater than any potential benefit
it may have.




No. Nor is compaction necessary. The registry does not take up much
disk space at all.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Paradoxdb3 wrote:
Do not use a registry manipulator:
1. Using one may void your warranty.
2. Dozens of hedgehogs will burrow under your house and make hedgehog noises
all night long.
3. You will be met with derision when you post back that you think a
freeware registry cleaner might be the cause of your hedgehog problem.

And you will be caught in a Solar flare without an ice cube.

"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:erUG6HXWIHA.5340@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

HeyBub <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:
I corrected it for you. Just use your spell checker.

Irrelevant; defrag is defrag. Name changed because file system changed.

Reigstry: ccleaner
Optimizer: ntregopt
Search with Google.
Careful; cleaners are seldom actually required.

No. It takes no appreciable disk space and is not just one file, but a
collection of files and parts of files that end up residing in memory.
It would serve no purpose to compact it.

HTH

Twayne

As Colin said in his reply--Stay as far away from "Registry Cleaners",aka
"optimizers", and "Defragmenters".

Windows XP handles the Registry quite nicely on its' own. I too enjoyed
W98SE, but XP does *not* suffer from the same maladies as 98. Including (at
least if you're running NTFS), not needing the somewhat regular "defrag"
that all the 9x machines suffered from.

Some great opinions on "Registry Cleaners" can be found at MS-MVP Jim
Eshelmans site at:

http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?f=62&t=28099


--
Curt

http://dundats.mvps.org/
http://www.aumha.org/





"Paradoxdb3" <Paradoxdb3@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4BE6E599-E6D6-40AC-85BC-20607F16E1AD@microsoft.com...

"Windows XP handles the
Registry quite nicely on
its' own", Curt Christianson.

there is no evidence to
support the above
rubbish.



--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

"Curt Christianson" <curtchristnsn@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:emtBwqtnIHA.4664@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

db ´¯`·.. ><)))º>` .. . wrote:

The mere fact that it works perfecly well without "cleaning,
deframenting or optimizing" is evidence enough.

the registry gets
corrupted and
microsoft provides
numerous methods
to restore and or
repair it.

your so called
fact is erroneous.

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

"Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:%23TetrEynIHA.5884@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...


db ´¯`·.. ><)))º>` .. . wrote:

The mere fact that it works perfecly well without "cleaning,
deframenting or optimizing" is evidence enough.

Please get a clue, "cleaning, defragmenting or optimizing" has
absolutely nothing to do with "repairing a corrupted registry". Your
bogus assertions are exactly that. You continue to be the one in error.

db ´¯`·.. ><)))º>` .. . wrote:

Forget it. He doesn't hear anything.

Bob I wrote:

Yes, you're correct there, it's mostly for the benefit of anyone who
might take him seriously.

Bill in Co. wrote:

"my original response
still stands".

in addition to being
trolls, stop hijacking
threads for your own
personal pleasure.

if you have a suggestion
pursuant to the o.p.'s
question than provide
it to the o.p. and not
to me.

honestly, you guys must
be real morons if you
think i am going to debate
my suggestions with you.

further, if you have any
question, then create a
new thread and again
stop hijacking threads

--

db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

"Bob I" <birelan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eftwCN%23nIHA.4292@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Yes, you're correct there, it's mostly for the benefit of anyone who
might take him seriously.

Bill in Co. wrote: