Registry Defragmenters

[O.J. Newman]

Hello:

There have been a few threads recently on the use of registry cleaners.
While some people like them and have not had any bad experiences with them,
the consensus seems to be that such tools should be avoided by inexperienced
users.

I have also seen registry defragmenter utilities available, both as part of
commercial software, as well as shareware and freeware. Does the advice to
avoid registry cleaners also apply to registry defragmenters - that is to
avoid them?

Is it best simply to not touch the registry (other than using a tool like
System Restore)?

Thanks,
O.J.

 

[Alan Edwards]

Re: Registry Defragmenters

Yes.

....Alan
--
Alan Edwards, MS MVP Windows - Internet Explorer
http://dts-l.com/index.htm



On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 02:26:45 -0500, in
microsoft.public.windowsme.general, "O.J. Newman"
<ojn@zoominternet.net> wrote:


> Does the advice to
>avoid registry cleaners also apply to registry defragmenters - that is to
>avoid them?

 

[Norman]

Re: Registry Defragmenters

Does that also go for scanreg /opt /fix ?
Not really a defragmenter I'd guess, but it does get rid of wasted space.

Norman

"Alan Edwards" <edwards@southcom.com.au> wrote in message
news:55eun3l5i0ge4tpbrhr677kt2svb2lle8u@4ax.com...
> Yes.
>
> ...Alan
> --
> Alan Edwards, MS MVP Windows - Internet Explorer
> http://dts-l.com/index.htm
>
>
>
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 02:26:45 -0500, in
> microsoft.public.windowsme.general, "O.J. Newman"
> <ojn@zoominternet.net> wrote:
>
>
> > Does the advice to
> >avoid registry cleaners also apply to registry defragmenters - that is to
> >avoid them?

 

[Norman]

Re: Registry Defragmenters

I could not agree more that registry cleaners are not for the inexperienced.
I've had my share of problems, even with MSRegClean, which is no longer
supported. It would remove a key that would break your install.
Unfortunately it always ran in automatic mode, but had enough experience
(bad) that I knew what key to replace.
I now use only tools that allow me total control and automatically or
manually make backups of what is removed and allow restoring of single
entries, with one exception and that tool is
http://support.microsoft.com/download/support/mslfiles/ShareDLL.exe

I also use a really old one known as JV16 PowerTools, version 1.3 and
version 1.41. These were free and you may find an archive somewhere.
Also OLE Clean 1.5.
The biggest problem I've seen with such tools is they often want to remove
HKCR keys that MS installed, but may not be currently in use, such as
briefcase, UPNP, some Office keys etc. And when you turn such on via
add/remove, windows setup, or by adding or first use of Office feature, it
ends up broken.
So that is definitely a key you want to look at closely before making a
decision. Did MS put it there, or is it a leftover from something removed.

These tools can be very useful in locating a bad key connection, such as MS
key for mciole.dll. Registry will show it in windows and MS actually
installed it to windows/system.
Also can be very useful for fixing bad install. Too often I've had left over
keys that will not allow a good install from an updated program. One
particularly annoying has been the package on CD for an ATI card. Even ATI's
version of cleaner will not fix.
Sometimes using MS Windows Installer Cleanup has overcome the hurdle of
getting a good install, if MSI was used.

You could spend hours searching for a fix to your particular problem or with
tech support hoping someone there knows. And then still be faced with the
possibility of a format and reinstall. (that is just plain ugly if system
restore or a registry restore was of no help. Maybe you missed window of
opportunity or other situation).

So, when you are backed into the corner of only choice being format and
install, or using risky registry tools, the choice is clear to me. What have
you got to lose? Use with over caution.
Norman

"O.J. Newman" <ojn@zoominternet.net> wrote in message
news:uKGkVx2TIHA.5980@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Hello:
>
> There have been a few threads recently on the use of registry cleaners.
> While some people like them and have not had any bad experiences with
them,
> the consensus seems to be that such tools should be avoided by
inexperienced
> users.
>
> I have also seen registry defragmenter utilities available, both as part
of
> commercial software, as well as shareware and freeware. Does the advice to
> avoid registry cleaners also apply to registry defragmenters - that is to
> avoid them?
>
> Is it best simply to not touch the registry (other than using a tool like
> System Restore)?
>
> Thanks,
> O.J.
>
>

 

[John John]

Re: Registry Defragmenters

We call it compaction. The problem is that if you do a search for
"Registry Defragmenters" what you will mostly get will be a bunch of
returns for registry cleaners, for most parts they are are the only ones
who use the term. They may use it to describe compaction but along with
the ability to compact comes the rest of their cleaning utility which
can cause much more harm than any problems that they claim to fix!

John

Norman wrote:

> Does that also go for scanreg /opt /fix ?
> Not really a defragmenter I'd guess, but it does get rid of wasted space.
>
> Norman
>
> "Alan Edwards" <edwards@southcom.com.au> wrote in message
> news:55eun3l5i0ge4tpbrhr677kt2svb2lle8u@4ax.com...
>
>>Yes.
>>
>>...Alan
>>--
>>Alan Edwards, MS MVP Windows - Internet Explorer
>>http://dts-l.com/index.htm
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 02:26:45 -0500, in
>>microsoft.public.windowsme.general, "O.J. Newman"
>><ojn@zoominternet.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Does the advice to
>>>avoid registry cleaners also apply to registry defragmenters - that is to
>>>avoid them?
>
>
>

 

[Heirloom]

Re: Registry Defragmenters

Norman,
Isn't jv16 ver 1.41 just a crippled version of 1.3??? It's been so
long, I don't remember, but, that comes to mind. I am still using 1.3,
mainly to find leftover detritus from program uninstalls (doesn't happen
very often). I find it easier than doing manual registry searches for a
variety of files, some of which, I don't know to look for! It isn't for
everyone, I know, and the main thing is the backup!...I'll say it
again....BACKUP!!!!!
Heirloom, old and once again, BACKUP!!


"Norman" <nthums1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:etZWrC6TIHA.4440@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I could not agree more that registry cleaners are not for the
>inexperienced.
> I've had my share of problems, even with MSRegClean, which is no longer
> supported. It would remove a key that would break your install.
> Unfortunately it always ran in automatic mode, but had enough experience
> (bad) that I knew what key to replace.
> I now use only tools that allow me total control and automatically or
> manually make backups of what is removed and allow restoring of single
> entries, with one exception and that tool is
> http://support.microsoft.com/download/support/mslfiles/ShareDLL.exe
>
> I also use a really old one known as JV16 PowerTools, version 1.3 and
> version 1.41. These were free and you may find an archive somewhere.
> Also OLE Clean 1.5.
> The biggest problem I've seen with such tools is they often want to remove
> HKCR keys that MS installed, but may not be currently in use, such as
> briefcase, UPNP, some Office keys etc. And when you turn such on via
> add/remove, windows setup, or by adding or first use of Office feature, it
> ends up broken.
> So that is definitely a key you want to look at closely before making a
> decision. Did MS put it there, or is it a leftover from something removed.
> snip>
>>
> So, when you are backed into the corner of only choice being format and
> install, or using risky registry tools, the choice is clear to me. What
> have
> you got to lose? Use with over caution.
> Norman

 

[E_Net_Rider]

Re: Registry Defragmenters

Crippled in what way?
I maintain an archive sometimes with several versions until I'm certain of
newer. Sometimes it is a long time before I get around to cleanup.
Also there seems to a disappearance of some of these which seems to happen
during a Windows install or reinstall so I now try to keep them on an
external drive.
I remember at one point I had a newer version, than 1.3, that would expire
after about 30 days.
But via whatever processes, I now have 1.3 and 1.41. Oops, that magic got me
again. Went to partition holding Utilities/registry/pwr tools and only have
zipped copies. Others disappeared.
But in one of those desperation fixes avoiding format, I decided to give
1.41 a go at it after running 1.3. My thinking, which may be wrong, was that
1.41 would die after 30 days, but did not care at that point. It will
happily install to 1.3 folder but uncertain as to how well it assumes
previous backups. I strongly suggest installing to separate folder until
that is determined with certainty and as to whether it expires on you.
The interface is somewhat changed with maybe a couple of extra features
added before they went retail. Maybe they had a 1.43 that was last before
retail and expired. Only change may have been the timer. But I learned that
you did not want to allow an online update which would make any recent
version expire. I think the update no longer works.
What I have seen is that 1.41 finds many more entries of which many are
really duplicates because of the arrangement of the registry, particularly
as to HKCR and HKLM. But regardless, same cautions apply as to how you use
it.
Norman
"Heirloom" <nobodyhome@noplacelike.hom> wrote in message
news:eVhZ2q6TIHA.4104@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Norman,
> Isn't jv16 ver 1.41 just a crippled version of 1.3??? It's been so
> long, I don't remember, but, that comes to mind. I am still using 1.3,
> mainly to find leftover detritus from program uninstalls (doesn't happen
> very often). I find it easier than doing manual registry searches for a
> variety of files, some of which, I don't know to look for! It isn't for
> everyone, I know, and the main thing is the backup!...I'll say it
> again....BACKUP!!!!!
> Heirloom, old and once again, BACKUP!!
>
>
> "Norman" <nthums1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:etZWrC6TIHA.4440@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >I could not agree more that registry cleaners are not for the
> >inexperienced.
> > I've had my share of problems, even with MSRegClean, which is no longer
> > supported. It would remove a key that would break your install.
> > Unfortunately it always ran in automatic mode, but had enough experience
> > (bad) that I knew what key to replace.
> > I now use only tools that allow me total control and automatically or
> > manually make backups of what is removed and allow restoring of single
> > entries, with one exception and that tool is
> > http://support.microsoft.com/download/support/mslfiles/ShareDLL.exe
> >
> > I also use a really old one known as JV16 PowerTools, version 1.3 and
> > version 1.41. These were free and you may find an archive somewhere.
> > Also OLE Clean 1.5.
> > The biggest problem I've seen with such tools is they often want to
remove
> > HKCR keys that MS installed, but may not be currently in use, such as
> > briefcase, UPNP, some Office keys etc. And when you turn such on via
> > add/remove, windows setup, or by adding or first use of Office feature,
it
> > ends up broken.
> > So that is definitely a key you want to look at closely before making a
> > decision. Did MS put it there, or is it a leftover from something
removed.
> > snip>
> >>
> > So, when you are backed into the corner of only choice being format and
> > install, or using risky registry tools, the choice is clear to me. What
> > have
> > you got to lose? Use with over caution.
> > Norman
>
>

 

[Heirloom]

Re: Registry Defragmenters

Norman,
Mine was not a statement, but, rather, a question. I was under the
impression that the version 1.3 was the last FREE version with full
capabilities. That could very well be incorrect and it is not important
enough, to me, to do a lot of research to determine its' validity. Maybe it
was that 1.41 was a trial issue that, like you said, would expire after a
period of time or number of uses.....I really don't remember. I just know
that there was some reason that I was still using 1.3.
Heirloom, old and let me know if I am wrong

"E_Net_Rider" <E_Net_Rider@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23uJ0E9RUIHA.5016@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Crippled in what way?
> I maintain an archive sometimes with several versions until I'm certain of
> newer. Sometimes it is a long time before I get around to cleanup.
> Also there seems to a disappearance of some of these which seems to happen
> during a Windows install or reinstall so I now try to keep them on an
> external drive.
> I remember at one point I had a newer version, than 1.3, that would expire
> after about 30 days.
> But via whatever processes, I now have 1.3 and 1.41. Oops, that magic got
> me
> again. Went to partition holding Utilities/registry/pwr tools and only
> have
> zipped copies. Others disappeared.
> But in one of those desperation fixes avoiding format, I decided to give
> 1.41 a go at it after running 1.3. My thinking, which may be wrong, was
> that
> 1.41 would die after 30 days, but did not care at that point. It will
> happily install to 1.3 folder but uncertain as to how well it assumes
> previous backups. I strongly suggest installing to separate folder until
> that is determined with certainty and as to whether it expires on you.
> The interface is somewhat changed with maybe a couple of extra features
> added before they went retail. Maybe they had a 1.43 that was last before
> retail and expired. Only change may have been the timer. But I learned
> that
> you did not want to allow an online update which would make any recent
> version expire. I think the update no longer works.
> What I have seen is that 1.41 finds many more entries of which many are
> really duplicates because of the arrangement of the registry, particularly
> as to HKCR and HKLM. But regardless, same cautions apply as to how you use
> it.
> Norman
> "Heirloom" <nobodyhome@noplacelike.hom> wrote in message
> news:eVhZ2q6TIHA.4104@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Norman,
>> Isn't jv16 ver 1.41 just a crippled version of 1.3??? It's been so
>> long, I don't remember, but, that comes to mind. I am still using 1.3,
>> mainly to find leftover detritus from program uninstalls (doesn't happen
>> very often). I find it easier than doing manual registry searches for a
>> variety of files, some of which, I don't know to look for! It isn't for
>> everyone, I know, and the main thing is the backup!...I'll say it
>> again....BACKUP!!!!!
>> Heirloom, old and once again, BACKUP!!
>>
>>
>> "Norman" <nthums1@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:etZWrC6TIHA.4440@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> >I could not agree more that registry cleaners are not for the
>> >inexperienced.
>> > I've had my share of problems, even with MSRegClean, which is no longer
>> > supported. It would remove a key that would break your install.
>> > Unfortunately it always ran in automatic mode, but had enough
>> > experience
>> > (bad) that I knew what key to replace.
>> > I now use only tools that allow me total control and automatically or
>> > manually make backups of what is removed and allow restoring of single
>> > entries, with one exception and that tool is
>> > http://support.microsoft.com/download/support/mslfiles/ShareDLL.exe
>> >
>> > I also use a really old one known as JV16 PowerTools, version 1.3 and
>> > version 1.41. These were free and you may find an archive somewhere.
>> > Also OLE Clean 1.5.
>> > The biggest problem I've seen with such tools is they often want to
> remove
>> > HKCR keys that MS installed, but may not be currently in use, such as
>> > briefcase, UPNP, some Office keys etc. And when you turn such on via
>> > add/remove, windows setup, or by adding or first use of Office feature,
> it
>> > ends up broken.
>> > So that is definitely a key you want to look at closely before making a
>> > decision. Did MS put it there, or is it a leftover from something
> removed.
>> > snip>
>> >>
>> > So, when you are backed into the corner of only choice being format and
>> > install, or using risky registry tools, the choice is clear to me. What
>> > have
>> > you got to lose? Use with over caution.
>> > Norman
>>
>>
>
>

 

[O.J. Newman]

Re: Registry Defragmenters

Hello:

The Pricelessware freeware web site lists v.1.3.0.195 of jv16 PowerTools as
the last uncrippled version, FWIW. It notes that "Version 1.3.0.196 expired
on 2004-01-01."

See:
http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/2007/PL2007SYSTEMUTILITIES.php#3.02RegistryAndFileTools .

Please let me know if this is incorrect.

Thanks,
O.J.


"Heirloom" <nobodyhome@noplacelike.hom> wrote in message
news:%23LAsSzTUIHA.5816@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Norman,
> Mine was not a statement, but, rather, a question. I was under the
> impression that the version 1.3 was the last FREE version with full
> capabilities. That could very well be incorrect and it is not important
> enough, to me, to do a lot of research to determine its' validity. Maybe
> it was that 1.41 was a trial issue that, like you said, would expire after
> a period of time or number of uses.....I really don't remember. I just
> know that there was some reason that I was still using 1.3.
> Heirloom, old and let me know if I am wrong
>

 

[Heirloom]

Re: Registry Defragmenters

That's what I believe.
Heirloom, old and not hard to convince

"O.J. Newman" <ojn@zoominternet.net> wrote in message
news:%23qhycuXUIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Hello:
>
> The Pricelessware freeware web site lists v.1.3.0.195 of jv16 PowerTools
> as the last uncrippled version, FWIW. It notes that "Version 1.3.0.196
> expired on 2004-01-01."
>
> See:
> http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/2007/PL2007SYSTEMUTILITIES.php#3.02RegistryAndFileTools .
>
> Please let me know if this is incorrect.
>
> Thanks,
> O.J.
>
>
> "Heirloom" <nobodyhome@noplacelike.hom> wrote in message
> news:%23LAsSzTUIHA.5816@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Norman,
>> Mine was not a statement, but, rather, a question. I was under the
>> impression that the version 1.3 was the last FREE version with full
>> capabilities. That could very well be incorrect and it is not important
>> enough, to me, to do a lot of research to determine its' validity. Maybe
>> it was that 1.41 was a trial issue that, like you said, would expire
>> after a period of time or number of uses.....I really don't remember. I
>> just know that there was some reason that I was still using 1.3.
>> Heirloom, old and let me know if I am wrong
>>
>
>

 

[Norman]

Re: Registry Defragmenters

1.4.1 has something called Registry Monitor. Take snapshot upon install and
at later times and then allows comparison of snapshot to what current
registry is. Lists all the deviations and allows several actions upon
individual listed items. At least that is the way I understand it is
supposed to work because it appears to have a 100,000 item limit and rolls
back starting over at zero. It continues to search and then eventually
crashes. I seem to remember trying this feature a very long time ago with
similar results. My snapshot was late December and it seems odd I would have
so many changes since that time. I remember that long ago situation where I
created a new snapshot and then it seemed to work, so it seems that part of
it would need to be run routinely.
And your questioning caused me to look more closely at the EULA for each.
Wording in both concerning purchasing a license, maybe to get support. And
wording in later expands on limitation of use and ownership. But the kicker
is the line at the bottom of the one in version 1.4.1 which says "version
1.3".
I'm not a lawyer trying to figure out the full meaning and it almost appears
they did not have one write it either.

Norman

"Heirloom" <nobodyhome@noplacelike.hom> wrote in message
news:%23LAsSzTUIHA.5816@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Norman,
> Mine was not a statement, but, rather, a question. I was under the
> impression that the version 1.3 was the last FREE version with full
> capabilities. That could very well be incorrect and it is not important
> enough, to me, to do a lot of research to determine its' validity. Maybe
it
> was that 1.41 was a trial issue that, like you said, would expire after a
> period of time or number of uses.....I really don't remember. I just know
> that there was some reason that I was still using 1.3.
> Heirloom, old and let me know if I am wrong
>
> "E_Net_Rider" <E_Net_Rider@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23uJ0E9RUIHA.5016@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> > Crippled in what way?
> > I maintain an archive sometimes with several versions until I'm certain
of
> > newer. Sometimes it is a long time before I get around to cleanup.
> > Also there seems to a disappearance of some of these which seems to
happen
> > during a Windows install or reinstall so I now try to keep them on an
> > external drive.
> > I remember at one point I had a newer version, than 1.3, that would
expire
> > after about 30 days.
> > But via whatever processes, I now have 1.3 and 1.41. Oops, that magic
got
> > me
> > again. Went to partition holding Utilities/registry/pwr tools and only
> > have
> > zipped copies. Others disappeared.
> > But in one of those desperation fixes avoiding format, I decided to give
> > 1.41 a go at it after running 1.3. My thinking, which may be wrong, was
> > that
> > 1.41 would die after 30 days, but did not care at that point. It will
> > happily install to 1.3 folder but uncertain as to how well it assumes
> > previous backups. I strongly suggest installing to separate folder until
> > that is determined with certainty and as to whether it expires on you.
> > The interface is somewhat changed with maybe a couple of extra features
> > added before they went retail. Maybe they had a 1.43 that was last
before
> > retail and expired. Only change may have been the timer. But I learned
> > that
> > you did not want to allow an online update which would make any recent
> > version expire. I think the update no longer works.
> > What I have seen is that 1.41 finds many more entries of which many are
> > really duplicates because of the arrangement of the registry,
particularly
> > as to HKCR and HKLM. But regardless, same cautions apply as to how you
use
> > it.
> > Norman
> > "Heirloom" <nobodyhome@noplacelike.hom> wrote in message
> > news:eVhZ2q6TIHA.4104@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >> Norman,
> >> Isn't jv16 ver 1.41 just a crippled version of 1.3??? It's been so
> >> long, I don't remember, but, that comes to mind. I am still using 1.3,
> >> mainly to find leftover detritus from program uninstalls (doesn't
happen
> >> very often). I find it easier than doing manual registry searches for
a
> >> variety of files, some of which, I don't know to look for! It isn't
for
> >> everyone, I know, and the main thing is the backup!...I'll say it
> >> again....BACKUP!!!!!
> >> Heirloom, old and once again, BACKUP!!
> >>
> >>
> >> "Norman" <nthums1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >> news:etZWrC6TIHA.4440@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >> >I could not agree more that registry cleaners are not for the
> >> >inexperienced.
> >> > I've had my share of problems, even with MSRegClean, which is no
longer
> >> > supported. It would remove a key that would break your install.
> >> > Unfortunately it always ran in automatic mode, but had enough
> >> > experience
> >> > (bad) that I knew what key to replace.
> >> > I now use only tools that allow me total control and automatically or
> >> > manually make backups of what is removed and allow restoring of
single
> >> > entries, with one exception and that tool is
> >> > http://support.microsoft.com/download/support/mslfiles/ShareDLL.exe
> >> >
> >> > I also use a really old one known as JV16 PowerTools, version 1.3 and
> >> > version 1.41. These were free and you may find an archive somewhere.
> >> > Also OLE Clean 1.5.
> >> > The biggest problem I've seen with such tools is they often want to
> > remove
> >> > HKCR keys that MS installed, but may not be currently in use, such as
> >> > briefcase, UPNP, some Office keys etc. And when you turn such on via
> >> > add/remove, windows setup, or by adding or first use of Office
feature,
> > it
> >> > ends up broken.
> >> > So that is definitely a key you want to look at closely before making
a
> >> > decision. Did MS put it there, or is it a leftover from something
> > removed.
> >> > snip>
> >> >>
> >> > So, when you are backed into the corner of only choice being format
and
> >> > install, or using risky registry tools, the choice is clear to me.
What
> >> > have
> >> > you got to lose? Use with over caution.
> >> > Norman
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

 

[E_Net_Rider]

Re: Registry Defragmenters

Heirloom,
You are so right. I had not noticed the small line down in the corner saying
I had X days left. I was tinkering with that registry monitor and used a
restore point shortly after JV16 install and it still did not work. So, I'm
guessing there was a 1.4.3 that fixed it and that I long ago deleted it
knowing it would expire. Just forgot that 1.4.1 also expired.
And in process of system restore I discovered new problem. See post in
system tools group, please.
Norman

"Norman" <nthums1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:O1K31QeUIHA.1204@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> 1.4.1 has something called Registry Monitor. Take snapshot upon install
and
> at later times and then allows comparison of snapshot to what current
> registry is. Lists all the deviations and allows several actions upon
> individual listed items. At least that is the way I understand it is
> supposed to work because it appears to have a 100,000 item limit and rolls
> back starting over at zero. It continues to search and then eventually
> crashes. I seem to remember trying this feature a very long time ago with
> similar results. My snapshot was late December and it seems odd I would
have
> so many changes since that time. I remember that long ago situation where
I
> created a new snapshot and then it seemed to work, so it seems that part
of
> it would need to be run routinely.
> And your questioning caused me to look more closely at the EULA for each.
> Wording in both concerning purchasing a license, maybe to get support. And
> wording in later expands on limitation of use and ownership. But the
kicker
> is the line at the bottom of the one in version 1.4.1 which says "version
> 1.3".
> I'm not a lawyer trying to figure out the full meaning and it almost
appears
> they did not have one write it either.
>
> Norman
>
> "Heirloom" <nobodyhome@noplacelike.hom> wrote in message
> news:%23LAsSzTUIHA.5816@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> > Norman,
> > Mine was not a statement, but, rather, a question. I was under the
> > impression that the version 1.3 was the last FREE version with full
> > capabilities. That could very well be incorrect and it is not important
> > enough, to me, to do a lot of research to determine its' validity.
Maybe
> it
> > was that 1.41 was a trial issue that, like you said, would expire after
a
> > period of time or number of uses.....I really don't remember. I just
know
> > that there was some reason that I was still using 1.3.
> > Heirloom, old and let me know if I am wrong
> >
> > "E_Net_Rider" <E_Net_Rider@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23uJ0E9RUIHA.5016@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> > > Crippled in what way?
> > > I maintain an archive sometimes with several versions until I'm
certain
> of
> > > newer. Sometimes it is a long time before I get around to cleanup.
> > > Also there seems to a disappearance of some of these which seems to
> happen
> > > during a Windows install or reinstall so I now try to keep them on an
> > > external drive.
> > > I remember at one point I had a newer version, than 1.3, that would
> expire
> > > after about 30 days.
> > > But via whatever processes, I now have 1.3 and 1.41. Oops, that magic
> got
> > > me
> > > again. Went to partition holding Utilities/registry/pwr tools and only
> > > have
> > > zipped copies. Others disappeared.
> > > But in one of those desperation fixes avoiding format, I decided to
give
> > > 1.41 a go at it after running 1.3. My thinking, which may be wrong,
was
> > > that
> > > 1.41 would die after 30 days, but did not care at that point. It will
> > > happily install to 1.3 folder but uncertain as to how well it assumes
> > > previous backups. I strongly suggest installing to separate folder
until
> > > that is determined with certainty and as to whether it expires on you.
> > > The interface is somewhat changed with maybe a couple of extra
features
> > > added before they went retail. Maybe they had a 1.43 that was last
> before
> > > retail and expired. Only change may have been the timer. But I learned
> > > that
> > > you did not want to allow an online update which would make any recent
> > > version expire. I think the update no longer works.
> > > What I have seen is that 1.41 finds many more entries of which many
are
> > > really duplicates because of the arrangement of the registry,
> particularly
> > > as to HKCR and HKLM. But regardless, same cautions apply as to how you
> use
> > > it.
> > > Norman
> > > "Heirloom" <nobodyhome@noplacelike.hom> wrote in message
> > > news:eVhZ2q6TIHA.4104@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> > >> Norman,
> > >> Isn't jv16 ver 1.41 just a crippled version of 1.3??? It's been
so
> > >> long, I don't remember, but, that comes to mind. I am still using
1.3,
> > >> mainly to find leftover detritus from program uninstalls (doesn't
> happen
> > >> very often). I find it easier than doing manual registry searches
for
> a
> > >> variety of files, some of which, I don't know to look for! It isn't
> for
> > >> everyone, I know, and the main thing is the backup!...I'll say it
> > >> again....BACKUP!!!!!
> > >> Heirloom, old and once again, BACKUP!!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "Norman" <nthums1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > >> news:etZWrC6TIHA.4440@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> > >> >I could not agree more that registry cleaners are not for the
> > >> >inexperienced.
> > >> > I've had my share of problems, even with MSRegClean, which is no
> longer
> > >> > supported. It would remove a key that would break your install.
> > >> > Unfortunately it always ran in automatic mode, but had enough
> > >> > experience
> > >> > (bad) that I knew what key to replace.
> > >> > I now use only tools that allow me total control and automatically
or
> > >> > manually make backups of what is removed and allow restoring of
> single
> > >> > entries, with one exception and that tool is
> > >> > http://support.microsoft.com/download/support/mslfiles/ShareDLL.exe
> > >> >
> > >> > I also use a really old one known as JV16 PowerTools, version 1.3
and
> > >> > version 1.41. These were free and you may find an archive
somewhere.
> > >> > Also OLE Clean 1.5.
> > >> > The biggest problem I've seen with such tools is they often want to
> > > remove
> > >> > HKCR keys that MS installed, but may not be currently in use, such
as
> > >> > briefcase, UPNP, some Office keys etc. And when you turn such on
via
> > >> > add/remove, windows setup, or by adding or first use of Office
> feature,
> > > it
> > >> > ends up broken.
> > >> > So that is definitely a key you want to look at closely before
making
> a
> > >> > decision. Did MS put it there, or is it a leftover from something
> > > removed.
> > >> > snip>
> > >> >>
> > >> > So, when you are backed into the corner of only choice being format
> and
> > >> > install, or using risky registry tools, the choice is clear to me.
> What
> > >> > have
> > >> > you got to lose? Use with over caution.
> > >> > Norman
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

 

[Norman]

Re: Registry Defragmenters

one spirit."

77Gen. 4:7. "Unto thee shall be his desire."

78Office for Holy Saturday. "Which won for us a Saviour."

79Office for Good Friday. "Which won for us God's hallowed members to
embrace."

80Hymn Vexilla regis. "Worthy God's hallowed members to embrace."

81Luke 7:6 "I am not worthy."

821 Cor. 11:29. "Who eateth unworthily."

83Rev. 4:11. "Thou art worthy to receive."

84Office of the Holy Virgin. "Make me worthy."

[85]Matthew, 7:7, "Ask and it shall be given you."

86Is. 45:15.

[87]John 8:30-33. "Many believed on him. Then Jesus said: 'If ye continue...
then ye are my disciples indeed, and the truth shall make you free.' They
answered him: 'We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man.'"

88Rev. 22:11. "He that is righteous, let him be righteous still."

[89]Circumcidentes cor. Rom. 2. "Circumcision is that of the heart."

901 Cor. 15:33. "Evil communications corrupt good manners."

91"What they have found by their curiosity, they have lost by their pride."
Quod curiositate invenerunt, superbia perdiderunt. St. Augustine, Sermon
cxli.

921 Cor. 1:21. "Which... by wisdom knew not... it pleased God by the
foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."

93St. Bernard, Sermones in Cantica Canticorum, lxxxiv. "The better one is,
the worse one becomes, if one attributes the cause of this goodness to one's
self."

[94]Ibid. "Meriting blows more than kisses, I fear not, because I love."

95John 11:33. Et turbarit seipsum. "And he troubled himself."

96Matt. 26:46. "Let us be going."

 

[Norman]

Re: Registry Defragmenters

so often provoked, and who can justly destroy us at any time; in
recognising that we can do nothing without Him, and have deserved nothing
from Him but His displeasure. It consists in knowing that there is an
unconquerable opposition between us and God, and that without a mediator
there can be no communion with Him.

471. It is unjust that men should attach themselves to me, even though they
do it with pleasure and voluntarily. I should deceive those in whom I had
created this desire; for I am not the end of any, and I have not the
wherewithal to satisfy them. Am I not about to die? And thus the object of
their attachment will die. Therefore, as I would be blamable in causing a
falsehood to be believed, though I should employ gentle persuasion, though
it should be believed with pleasure, and though it should give me pleasure;
even so I am blamable in making myself loved and if I attract persons to
attach themselves to me. I ought to warn those who are ready to consent to a
lie that they ought not to believe it, whatever advantage comes to me from
it; and likewise that they ought not to attach themselves to me; for they
ought to spend their life and their care in pleasing God, or in seeking Him.

472. Self-will will never be satisfied, though it should have command of all
it would; but we are satisfied from the moment we renounce it. Without it we
cannot be discontented; with it we cannot be content.

473. Let us imagine a body full of thinking members.

474. Members. To commence with that.--To regulate the love which we owe to

 

[E_Net_Rider]

Re: Registry Defragmenters

Jesuits have not made the truth uncertain, but they have made their own
ungodliness certain.

Contradiction has always been permitted, in order to blind the wicked; for
all that offends truth or love is evil. This is the true principle.

903. All religions and sects in the world have had natural reason for a
guide. Christians alone have been constrained to take their rules from
without themselves, and to acquaint themselves with those which Jesus Christ
bequeathed to men of old to be handed down to true believers. This
constraint wearies these good Fathers. They desire, like other people, to
have liberty to follow their own imaginations. It is in vain that we cry to
them, as the prophets said to the Jews of old: "Enter into the Church;
acquaint yourselves with the precepts which the men of old left to her, and
follow those paths." They have answered like the Jews: "We will not walk in
them; but we will follow the thoughts of our hearts"; and they have said,
"We will be as the other nations."

904. They make a rule of exception.

Have the men of old given absolution before penance? Do this as exceptional.
But of the exception you make a rule without exception, so that you do not
even want the rule to be exceptional.

905. On confessions and absolutions without signs of regret.

God regards only the inward; the Church judges only by the outward.

 

[Norman]

Re: Registry Defragmenters

of the stoutest, sturdiest devil in hell, it would be nothing
to withstand or endure it.

The bow of God's wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string,
and justice bends the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow, and it
is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God,
without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one
moment from being made drunk with your blood. Thus all you that never
passed under a great change of heart, by the mighty power of the Spirit
of God upon your souls; all you that were never born again, and made new
creatures, and raised from being dead in sin, to a state of new, and
before altogether unexperienced light and life, are in the hands of an
angry God. However you may have reformed your life in many things, and
may have had religious affections, and may keep up a form of religion in
your families and closets, and in the house of God, it is nothing but
his mere pleasure that keeps you from being this moment swallowed up in
everlasting destruction. However unconvinced you may now be of the truth
of what you hear, by and by you will be fully convinced of it. Those
that are gone from being in the like circumstances with you, see that it
was so with them; for destruction came suddenly upon most of them; when
they expected nothing of it, and while they were saying, Peace and
safet

 

[O.J. Newman]

Re: Registry Defragmenters

other.

360. What the Stoics propose is so difficult and foolish!

The Stoics lay down that all those who are not at the high degree of wisdom
are equally foolish and vicious, as those who are two inches under water.

361. The sovereign good. Dispute about the sovereign good.--Ut sis contentus
temetipso et ex te nascentibus bonis.48 There is a contradiction, for in the
end they advise suicide. Oh! What a happy life, from which we are to free
ourselves as from the plague!

362. Ex senatus-consultis et plebiscitis...

To ask like passages.

363. Ex senatus-consultis et plebiscitis scelera exercentur. Seneca.
588.[49]

Nihil tam absurde dici potest quod non dicatur ab aliquo philosophorum.50

Quibusdam destinatis sententiis consecrati quae non probant coguntur
defendere.51

Ut omnium rerum sic litterarum quoque intemperantia laboramus.52

Id maxime quemque decet, quod est cujusque suum maxime.53

Hos natura modos primum dedit.54

Paucis opus est litteris ad bonam mentem.55

Si quando turpe non sit, tamen non est non turpe quum id a multitudine
laudetur.56

Mihi sic usus est, tibi ut opus est facto, fac.57

364. Rarum est enim ut satis se quisque vereatur.58

Tot circa unum caput tumultuantes deos.59

Nihil turpius quam cognitioni assertionem praecurrere.60

Nec me pudet

 

[Heirloom]

Re: Registry Defragmenters

in regard to others as those who
have a watch are in regard to others. One says, "It is two hours ago"; the
other says, "It is only three-quarters of an hour." I look at my watch, and
say to the one, "You are weary," and to the other, "Time gallops with you";
for it is only an hour and a half ago, and I laugh at those who tell me that
time goes slowly with me and that I judge by imagination. They do not know
that I judge by my watch.

6. Just as we harm the understanding, we harm the feelings also.

The understanding and the feelings are moulded by intercourse; the
understanding and feelings are corrupted by intercourse. Thus good or bad
society improves or corrupts them. It is, then, all-important to know how to
choose in order to improve and not to corrupt them; and we cannot make this
choice, if they be not already improved and not corrupted. Thus a circle is
formed, and those are fortunate who escape it.

7. The greater intellect one has, the more originality one finds in men.
Ordinary persons find no difference between men.

8. There are many people who listen to a sermon in the same way as they
listen to vespers.

9. When we wish to correct with advantage and to show another that he errs,
we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that side it is
usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to him the side on
which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he sees that he was not
mistaken and that he only failed to see all sides. Now, no one is offended
at not seeing everything; but one does not like to be mistaken, and that
perhaps arises from the fact that man naturally cannot see everything, and
that naturally he cannot err in the side he looks a

 

[Alan Edwards]

Re: Registry Defragmenters

so great wisdom, equity, and judgement, that
the most ancient legislators, Greek and Roman, having had some knowledge of
it, have borrowed from it their principal laws; this is evident from what
are called the Twelve Tables, and from the other proofs which Josephus
gives.

But this law is at the same time the severest and strictest of all in
respect to their religious worship, imposing on this people, in order to
keep them to their duty, a thousand peculiar and painful observances, on
pain of death. Whence it is very astonishing that it has been constantly
preserved during many centuries by a people, rebellious and impatient as
this one was; while all other states have changed their laws from time to
time, although these were far more lenient.

The book which contains this law, the first of all, is itself the most
ancient book in the world, those of Homer, Hesiod, and others, being six or
seven hundred years later.

621. The creation of the deluge being past, and God no longer requiring to
destroy the world, nor to create it anew, nor to give such great signs of
Himself, He began to establish a people on the earth, purposely formed, who
were to last until the coming of the people whom the Messiah should fashion
by His spirit.

622. The creation of the world beginning to be distant, God provided a
singl

 

[E_Net_Rider]

Re: Registry Defragmenters

sense of her own exceeding sinfulness
continued increasing from Thursday till Monday and she gave this account
of it: That it had been her opinion, till now, she was not guilty of
Adam's sin, nor any way concerned in it, because she was not active in
it; but that now she saw she was guilty of that sin, and all over
defiled by it; and the sin which she brought into the world with her,
was alone sufficient to condemn her.

On the Sabbath-day she was so ill, that her friends thought it best that
she should not go to public worship, of which she seemed very desirous:
but when she went to bed on the Sabbath night, she took up a resolution,
that she would the next morning go to the minister, hoping to find some
relief there. As she awakened on Monday morning, a little before day,
she wondered within herself at the easiness and calmness she felt in her
mind, which was of that kind she never felt before. As she thought of
this, such words as these were in her mind: The words of the Lord are
pure words, health to the soul, and marrow to the bones: and then these
words, The blood of Christ cleanses from all sin; which were accompanied
with a lively sense of the excellency of Christ, and His sufficiency to
satisfy for the sins of the whole world. She then thought of tha