Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account



Photo

What to use instead of NTREGOPT?


  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1
bizzybody

bizzybody

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 369 posts
  • Joined 08-May 05

It appears that some recent "security" update to Windows 7 was aimed squarely at blocking good old NTREGOPT from being able to access the Registry.

 

I disabled Avast and turned off UAC and ran ntregopt as Administrator, while logged in with an account with administrator rights. No go, it's still completely blocked.

 

Is there another utility, free of ads and nags for $ for a "pro" version that does the same thing as ntregopt, but hasn't been blocked by Microsoft and anti-virus/malware?




How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#2
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,809 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Try to run NTREGOPT as the "Trusted Installer", instead of as Administrator.



#3
bizzybody

bizzybody

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 369 posts
  • Joined 08-May 05

Not working. I got the runassystem and runastoken and the SetACL and the batch file to change the CLSIDs just sits there doing nothing after displaying its first line.

http://vorck.com/windows/ntauth.html

Edit: removed the -silent options and now it's visibly doing things...

Edit2: Still going, repeatedly saying setacl finished successfully

Edit3: Oh F this. Been running that batch file for about 45 minutes.

 

I put the runas and set acl exes in the same folder as ntregopt. When I run this batch file from an elevated command prompt, it stops and starts trusted installer then flashes another window and quits.

net stop trustedinstaller
net start trustedinstaller
runassystem64.exe "runfromtoken64.exe trustedinstaller.exe ntregopt.exe"
@ECHO OFF
ECHO Processing CLSID permissions
REM SET SETACLX64=C:\windows\system32\setaclx64.exe
FOR /F "tokens=1,2,3,4,5 delims=\" %%A IN ('REG.EXE query HKLM\SOFTWARE\Classes\CLSID\') DO (
    SETACLX64 -on "%%A\%%B\%%C\%%D\%%E" -ot reg -actn setowner -ownr "n:S-1-5-32-544;s:y" -rec yes -silent
    SETACLX64 -on "%%A\%%B\%%C\%%D\%%E" -ot reg -actn ace -ace "n:S-1-5-32-544;p:full;s:y;i:so,sc;m:set;w:dacl" -rec yes -silent
    SETACLX64 -on "%%A\%%B\%%C\%%D\%%E" -ot reg -actn ace -ace "n:S-1-5-80-956008885-3418522649-1831038044-1853292631-2271478464;p:full;s:y;i:so,sc;m:revoke;w:dacl" -rec yes -silent
)

FOR /F "tokens=1,2,3,4,5 delims=\" %%A IN ('REG.EXE query HKCR\CLSID\') DO (
    SETACLX64 -on "%%A\%%B\%%C\%%D\%%E" -ot reg -actn setowner -ownr "n:S-1-5-32-544;s:y" -rec yes -silent
    SETACLX64 -on "%%A\%%B\%%C\%%D\%%E" -ot reg -actn ace -ace "n:S-1-5-32-544;p:full;s:y;i:so,sc;m:set;w:dacl" -rec yes -silent
    SETACLX64 -on "%%A\%%B\%%C\%%D\%%E" -ot reg -actn ace -ace "n:S-1-5-80-956008885-3418522649-1831038044-1853292631-2271478464;p:full;s:y;i:so,sc;m:revoke;w:dacl" -rec yes -silent
)

FOR /F "tokens=1,2,3,4,5,6 delims=\" %%A IN ('REG.EXE query HKLM\SOFTWARE\Classes\Wow6432Node\CLSID\') DO (
    SETACLX64 -on "%%A\%%B\%%C\%%D\%%E\%%F" -ot reg -actn setowner -ownr "n:S-1-5-32-544;s:y" -rec yes -silent
    SETACLX64 -on "%%A\%%B\%%C\%%D\%%E\%%F" -ot reg -actn ace -ace "n:S-1-5-32-544;p:full;s:y;i:so,sc;m:set;w:dacl" -rec yes -silent
    SETACLX64 -on "%%A\%%B\%%C\%%D\%%E\%%F" -ot reg -actn ace -ace "n:S-1-5-80-956008885-3418522649-1831038044-1853292631-2271478464;p:full;s:y;i:so,sc;m:revoke;w:dacl" -rec yes -silent
)

FOR /F "tokens=1,2,3,4,5,6 delims=\" %%A IN ('REG.EXE query HKCR\Wow6432Node\CLSID\') DO (
    SETACLX64 -on "%%A\%%B\%%C\%%D\%%E\%%F" -ot reg -actn setowner -ownr "n:S-1-5-32-544;s:y" -rec yes -silent
    SETACLX64 -on "%%A\%%B\%%C\%%D\%%E\%%F" -ot reg -actn ace -ace "n:S-1-5-32-544;p:full;s:y;i:so,sc;m:set;w:dacl" -rec yes -silent
    SETACLX64 -on "%%A\%%B\%%C\%%D\%%E\%%F" -ot reg -actn ace -ace "n:S-1-5-80-956008885-3418522649-1831038044-1853292631-2271478464;p:full;s:y;i:so,sc;m:revoke;w:dacl" -rec yes -silent
)

ECHO Complete

Edited by bizzybody, 01 May 2015 - 03:05 AM.


#4
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,375 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Wait a minute.
 
Try EXACTLY the example given by Joakim
http://reboot.pro/fi...d-runfromtoken/
 
 

On one of my systems I have this simpel batch on my desktop to get quick access to my special power cmd:
 

net start trustedinstaller
C:\windows\system32\runassystem_x64 "C:\windows\system32\runfromtoken_x64 trustedinstaller.exe 1 cmd"

 

 
jaclaz



#5
cannie

cannie

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 464 posts
  • Joined 04-June 08
  • OS:Windows 7 x86
  • Country: Country Flag

I use since long ago the freeware "Wise Registry Cleanerfor the same purpose. You may try it. Maybe it would be enough for your needs.

 

HTH


Edited by cannie, 01 May 2015 - 03:51 PM.


#6
xpclient

xpclient

    XP was my idea. 3rd party apps make NT6 my idea.

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 341 posts
  • Joined 30-July 05
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Sad. Thankfully ERUNT still works!!


Edited by xpclient, 02 May 2015 - 08:53 PM.

Impossible to run NT6 without third party fixes.


#7
NoelC

NoelC

    Software Engineer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined 08-April 13
  • OS:Windows 8.1 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

It appears that some recent "security" update to Windows 7 was aimed squarely at blocking good old NTREGOPT from being able to access the Registry.

 

I'm just curious...  Why do you think you need to "optimize your registry"?  What goes wrong if you don't?

 

-Noel



#8
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,375 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I'm just curious...  Why do you think you need to "optimize your registry"?  What goes wrong if you don't?

 

NTREGOPT (JFYI) does not really-really "optimize" anything.

 

If you see the Registry as a Filesystem, NTREGOPT is the correponding to the DEFRAG command.

If you see the Registry as a Database, NTREGOPT is corresponding to the COMPACT or ZAP command.

 

The net effect of using regopt is to have a smaller size of the files composing the Registry and, since the entries in it are re-organized it will be (in theory) a tadbit faster (in practice I doubt that it is noticeable on modern machines).

 

@bizzibody

Completely UNLIKE tested (and lesser known):

http://www.winmend.c...egistry-defrag/

a list of similar apps to test:

http://alternativeto...egistry-defrag/

 

jaclaz



#9
NoelC

NoelC

    Software Engineer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined 08-April 13
  • OS:Windows 8.1 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Well, I'm all for maximizing performance.  I just do it in different ways.  It really seems to me mucking around with the structure of the central database that runs everything is just asking for trouble - especially since Microsoft does a lot of its own maintenance at various times (go through the big list of scheduled jobs in a brand new system some time).

 

I'm particularly sensitive to the whole "registry cleaner" genre, because it's the kind of thing that has made its own market where no need really existed.  It's certain that more people have gotten themselves into trouble than have tuned up their systems with such junkware (not applying that to any particular product).  Microsoft is admittedly evil, but in this particular case I don't think they're actively trying to block people from using "registry optimization" software for no reason.

 

Do yourself a favor:  Ignore registry cleaners and invest in SSD storage if you want to see REAL performance gains.  Many things will become much more responsive. 

 

I'm here to tell you from a lot of experience that you really, really don't need to "defrag", "optimize", or "clean" your registry in order to have an efficient running Windows system virtually for forever.

 

-Noel



#10
xpclient

xpclient

    XP was my idea. 3rd party apps make NT6 my idea.

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 341 posts
  • Joined 30-July 05
  • OS:XP Pro x64
  • Country: Country Flag

NTRegOpt is not a Registry cleaner. Registry cleaners are a truly useless trashware/snake oil that everyone should stay away from just like "OS tuning/optimizing tools". NTRegOpt merely rewrites the Registry in a single contiguous way.

 

According to its description "The program works by recreating each registry hive "from scratch", thus removing any slack space that may be left from previously modified or deleted keys. Note that the program does NOT change the contents of the registry in any way, nor does it physically defrag the registry files on the drive (as the PageDefrag program from SysInternals does). The optimization done by NTREGOPT is simply compacting the registry hives to the minimum size possible."

 

But on modern machines and OSes (post Windows XP SP2 where Registry is loaded in the system cache and has built-in optimizations to reduce fragmentation), it wouldn't make much difference even if you don't use it. Windows 2000 and earlier would benefit from NTRegOpt.

 

Now I would be seriously p***ed off if they broke ERUNT.


Edited by xpclient, Yesterday, 05:43 AM.

Impossible to run NT6 without third party fixes.


#11
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,375 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

@NoelC

You completely missed the point. :ph34r:

Too bad :(.

 

NTREGOPT IS NOT a "Registry cleaner", it IS NOT a "Registry optimizer", it is a Registry defragmenter or a Registry compacter.

 

A filesystem (from time to time) is likely to work better if defragmented.

A database (from time to time) is likely to work better if compacted.

 

Whichever way you like to see the Windows Registry, it is better to do some maintenance on it (from time to time).

 

Then, we may want to discuss the opportunity of using an actual "Registry cleaner", which may be better discussed here:

http://www.msfn.org/...n-windows-7-81/

 

 

jaclaz



#12
NoelC

NoelC

    Software Engineer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined 08-April 13
  • OS:Windows 8.1 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

People keep telling me I'm missing points.  I'm not missing anything.

 

I'm telling you that - based on my experience running Windows operating systems for years and maintaining stability and performance - you don't need to compact, defragment, or otherwise optimize your registry in order for it to continue to work and continue to deliver reasonable performance.

 

Thus, in my view a registry defragger is no different than a registry cleaner.  It's simply unnecessary and it comes with substantial risk.

 

-Noel


Edited by NoelC, Yesterday, 09:28 AM.


#13
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,375 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

As long as you don't mix "defragmenting" or "compacting" with "optimizing" or "cleaning" your opinion is as good as anyone else's :thumbup, but it's not like you having run Windows Operating Systems for several years is any different or better qualification than that of anyone else having run Windows Operating Systems for several years :no:.

 

Just as an example I have recklessly used Registry defragmenting as a periodical maintenance task and till today the "substantial risk" you depict has proved to be (at least in my case) equal exactly to 0.

 

You don't like or think unnecessary to defragment the Registry? Good :).

Is it a "substantial risk"? :w00t:: :ph34r:

How do you know if you never did it? :unsure:

 

I have done it many times over the years and never lost a system, nor ever needed to reinstall any OS - EVER - if not due to hardware failure (in which case - to be accurate - I did not reinstall but rather restored a backup image).

 

But obviously this is my anecdotal evidence which is anyway m00t, still it has the same dignity as your anecdotal evidence. 

 

You could well become a good Linux guy and assert how Ext2/3/4 need not defragmenting, or follow MS stating that while a database needs compacting, there is no need on Windows NT to defragment a hard disk (actually file system):

https://support.micr...en-us/kb/288631

With the exception of the Microsoft Windows NT operating system, if you do not defragment your hard disk, the operating system may have to go to several physical locations on the disk to retrieve the database file, making file access slower.

 

 

jaclaz

 



#14
NoelC

NoelC

    Software Engineer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined 08-April 13
  • OS:Windows 8.1 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

My experience may be deeper than most, but hey, if it makes you feel good to do useless things to files on your computer, who am I to criticize?  Knock yourself out.  I do a lot of things because I like to as well.

 

-Noel



#15
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,375 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Sure :), and still people may exist with an even deeper experience than you have :w00t:, but what I do (or not do) while it may well be useless[1] :yes:, it is seemingly not particularly risky, let alone substantially, or at least never caused issues to me, and since still seemingly you never attempted doing it (because it's useless) you have exactly 0 experience about the level of risk it may represent (which was actually tested by me and ended up being coincidentally also exactly 0).

 

However, and JFYI :whistle::

https://support.micr...n-us/kb/2498915

 

 

jaclaz

 

[1] better than useless I would prefer "of limited practical benefit, particularly on modern machines and recent MS OS's", but they are just lexical nuances.


Edited by jaclaz, Yesterday, 12:45 PM.


#16
NoelC

NoelC

    Software Engineer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined 08-April 13
  • OS:Windows 8.1 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

I was going to post and let you know you have the last word, but then mine would be the last word, but I couldn't tell you this without posting, but...  :crazy:

 

-Noel



#17
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,375 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Where are you going?

To the movies.

To see what?

Quo Vadis.

Which means?

Where are you going?

To the movies...

 

jaclaz



#18
bizzybody

bizzybody

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 369 posts
  • Joined 08-May 05

I've seen registry size reduction of up to 25% with NTREGOPT on PCs that had gone a few years without any maintenance at all, not even keeping up with windows update.

 

What NTREGOPT does is what using the /E then the /C commands with command line REGEDIT did in Windows 9x. Write all the valid data out to a new copy of the registry then import that clean copy back, completely replacing the old.

 

If you set up a PC then never change anything, never uninstall software, never do anything that will leave orphan data in the registry, then there is no need to do anything to compact or clear out the junk.

 

Microsoft long ago should have had a rigidly enforced policy in Windows that uninstall of software would be required to remove %100 of everything the install put in. There was a 3rd party program for Windows 95 called Rosenthal Uninstall which did that. It monitored every software install and made notes of all files, folders, registry, ini file changes and everything else the install did. Then after uninstalling the software Rosenthal could be used to remove everything the uninstall didn't delete. But since it relied on a DOS mode TSR loading before Windows it didn't work with Windows 98 and later. :(

 

Microsoft should have bought that and incorporated the method into Windows. It would make it a much more stable OS, especially for people who are always changing the programs on their computer. System Restore does NOT compare to that because you can't use it to just remove one program completely and it often deletes files and software you do not want gone.

 

Last week something partially screwed up audio on one of my Win7 boxes. Some games and programs would play their audio, some would not. WMP12 would play nothing, nor would any other media player yet all the Windows GUI sounds worked, so did any audio and video on YouTube, Yahoo Screen and other websites. Turned out to be DirextX 11 had become corrupted and reinstalling that fixed it. Before I figured that out I tried to System Restore back to the last automatic checkpoint - it failed. Had it worked I would've lost some software installs and bunch of other things that had nothing at all to do with the audio problem.

 

Microsoft's way is not always the best way. :P



#19
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,809 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Microsoft's way is not always the best way. :P

 

'Nuff said! :yes:



#20
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,375 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I've seen registry size reduction of up to 25% with NTREGOPT on PCs that had gone a few years without any maintenance at all, not even keeping up with windows update.
 
What NTREGOPT does is what using the /E then the /C commands with command line REGEDIT did in Windows 9x. Write all the valid data out to a new copy of the registry then import that clean copy back, completely replacing the old.

Sure :yes:.
 

If you set up a PC then never change anything, never uninstall software, never do anything that will leave orphan data in the registry, then there is no need to do anything to compact or clear out the junk.

Well said. :thumbup
 

Microsoft long ago should have had a rigidly enforced policy in Windows that uninstall of software would be required to remove %100 of everything the install put in. There was a 3rd party program for Windows 95 called Rosenthal Uninstall which did that. It monitored every software install and made notes of all files, folders, registry, ini file changes and everything else the install did. Then after uninstalling the software Rosenthal could be used to remove everything the uninstall didn't delete. But since it relied on a DOS mode TSR loading before Windows it didn't work with Windows 98 and later. :(

Wait a minute :unsure:, are you telling me that since very few uninstallers actually remove 100% of the stupid info they wrote to the Registry, in some cases even a Registry "cleaner" or "optimizer" might be needed? :ph34r:

You do understand how this is the opposite of not only what NoelC believes, but also of what dencorso recommends?  :w00t:
http://www.msfn.org/...n-windows-7-81/

http://www.msfn.org/...7-81/?p=1078866

 

jaclaz

 



#21
NoelC

NoelC

    Software Engineer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined 08-April 13
  • OS:Windows 8.1 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

Yes, stuff gets written to the registry that does not always get removed.  So what?  If nothing needs it, it does very little to harm your computing experience.  On the other hand, removing something that IS needed will do terrible things to your system.

 

People here are of the mistaken impression that extra entries in your registry are awful things that are just ruining your computing experience.  While it's easy to argue that a bloated database can't possibly perform as well as a contiguous, clean one, the reality is it makes so little practical difference that it's simply not in the top 10 list of things that you actually SHOULD be worrying about.

 

The whole "need a cleaner tool" genre is a case of people getting all upset about a mental image that isn't real.

 

There is a distinct lack of objective information here of the form:

  • On day xxxx day, before installing yyyy, my system's performance was measured to be zzzz.
     
  • On day xxxx + n my system's performance had dropped to zzzz - m.

 

Note that subjective feelings do not apply.  Humans are terrible at measuring relative performance.  Emotions, "what you've gotten used to", and even how much caffeine you have had all get in the way.

 

While there are certainly reasons Windows slowdowns can occur, most of them have nothing to do with the size or fragmentation of your registry.

 

I actually HAVE made performance measurements throughout the life of my Windows systems, and without having done any registry compaction / defragmenting / cleaning amazingly enough on all my systems the performance just keeps constant.

 

If you're interested in Ask yourself these pertinent questions:

 

  • Have any of my registry files grown to be anywhere near the 2 GB limit?  (the answer will almost certainly be NO).
     
  • Have I used Autoruns or similar to scour my system for (and potentially disable) the many, many "handy" programs added by virtually every application package to run in the background?
     
  • Have I examined the list of running processes to determine which are running but don't need to be (thinking along the lines of BlackViper).
     
  • Do I have sufficient hardware for what I want to do?  "Sufficient" is defined to be more than what's needed at any given moment since it is a general computing device.  If your system disk is more than half full, then you do not have sufficient hardware.  Systems struggling with too little space (RAM or disk) account for most perceived performance issues and trust me, defragmenting your registry on a marginal system isn't going to make it suddenly everything you wanted.

 

It may be that there are some nice programs like CCleaner that will help you keep your system tidy, but I caution you to be VERY conservative about letting some program try to decide what you no longer need.

 

It boils down to this:

 

  • Many people who don't have an in-depth knowledge of how Windows works tout "cleaner" applications as great.
  • Many people believe they have to reinstall their operating system regularly.
  • Noel knows a few things about Windows and says "cleaner" and "registry defragger" applications are unnecessary.
  • Noel never, ever has to reinstall his operating systems and enjoys consistent reliability and performance.

 

If you like running some software because it makes you feel good to take an active role in maintaining your computer, more power to you.  But if you want to espouse the virtues of a particular operation, let's talk about technical, objective performance measurements.  Opinions matter little; measurements matter most.

 

-Noel



#22
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,375 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

It boils down to this:

  • Many people who don't have an in-depth knowledge of how Windows works tout "cleaner" applications as great.
  • Many people believe they have to reinstall their operating system regularly.
  • Noel knows a few things about Windows and says "cleaner" and "registry defragger" applications are unnecessary.
  • Noel never, ever has to reinstall his operating systems and enjoys consistent reliability and performance.
It seems like Noel took back the note about the "substantial risk" involved in not following exactly and to the letter his recommendations, which is good :) and essentially the point on which there was not a general consensus, so once removed the two truisms:
  • Many people who don't have an in-depth knowledge of how Windows works tout "cleaner" applications as great.
  • Many people believe they have to reinstall their operating system regularly.

and the anecdotal evidence:

  • Noel never, ever has to reinstall his operating systems and enjoys consistent reliability and performance.

which is good to know, but irrelevant, what remains should be the "final statement" which boils down to just:

  • Noel knows a few things about Windows and says "cleaner" and "registry defragger" applications are unnecessary.

 
jaclaz

#23
NoelC

NoelC

    Software Engineer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined 08-April 13
  • OS:Windows 8.1 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

It's as though you're trying to pick apart my position on this, while I just don't feel a need to warp reality to make you happy.  But maybe I'm being too blunt for you with my "rule of thumb" recommendations.  Try this on:

 

Running unnecessary things on the central database of your computer can increase the risk of problems.  Whether the added risk of doing what you like instead of what's needed could be considered substantial is up to interpretation.  We're all free to do what we like, but I stand by my statement:

 

You simply don't need to run 3rd party software on your registry.

 

Here's a year's worth of overall system benchmarks on my main Windows 8.1 workstation that's had daily hard use (24/7), and without my using any magic registry performance enhancers

 

Do you see any negative performance trend here?  I don't. 

 

AYearOfBenchmarks.png

 

As the user of this particular system, I am not finding it to be any less responsive or powerful - with one small exception - than it was the day I installed Windows. 

 

The small exception I'm compelled to describe for the sake of completeness is that Microsoft specifically wrecked performance of the Direct 2D subsystem with a Windows update in November 2014.  They briefly un-wrecked it in February 2015, then wrecked it again with the very next updates.  Note the radical changes in Direct 2D performance in November 2014 and February 2015:

 

Direct2DFalloffNov2014.png

 

I am not alone in seeing the above.

 

The above makes comparison of overall benchmarks since November 2014 difficult with those from before, because the one Direct 2D reading affects the overall score a fair bit, but here's the trend after that time.

 

RecentTrend.png

 

Factoring out the Direct 2D anomaly, which as far as I can tell doesn't actually affect anything I personally run other than the benchmark program, you can see my performance has not been degrading in the recent 7 months as well.

 

I also have archived results showing a similar lack of degradation with Windows 7 systems if you're interested in seeing them.

 

Let's have this discussion move to more objective measurements and results, shall we, and stop with the nitpicking of terminology.  I'm certainly willing to be educated by other peoples' actual results.

 

-Noel


Edited by NoelC, Today, 12:28 PM.


#24
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 15,375 posts
  • Joined 23-July 04
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

We're all free to do what we like, but I stand by my statement:
 
You simply don't need to run 3rd party software on your registry.

Well you can do the same (defragment or compact the Registry) without using 3rd party software,as in the given recommendation by the actual guys that wrote and support the OS:
https://support.micr...n-us/kb/2498915
 
Please note how the above (that may well be nonsense nonetheless) has been published by the good MS guys "in response to emerging issues", which should mean three things:
  • someone, somewhere, actually had performance issues that were diagnosed as being related to the Registry being overly fragmented or "bloated"
  • the amount of these issue reports was so large as to prompt the support people to publish a KB
  • the proposed solution does solve the specific problem

Try this on:
 
Running unnecessary things on the central database of your computer can increase the risk of problems.  Whether the added risk of doing what you like instead of what's needed could be considered substantial is up to interpretation.  We're all free to do what we like, but I stand by my statement:

In any case I repeatedly, over the years, did what you consider a substantial risk, on countless machines and installs, when/where I thought it was needed and NEVER had any problem, this is why I consider defragmenting a Registry (generically) and defragmenting a Registry using NTREGOPT (specifically) in my experience (having actually tried it) t as inexistent risk or no risk at all.
 
So, while in your personal experience defragmenting the Registry has never been *necessary* or *needed* there are "other people results" showing how in some cases this is actually *necessary* or *needed* and in any case, even when the defragmenting is not really or actually *necessary* or *needed* (or - as originally stated - not likely to produce in most cases a noticeable difference in speed/performance of the OS) doing it does NOT represent a "substantial risk" or a "risk" at all.

And here, JFYI, is an example of "other people results":
http://blogs.msdn.co...yson-setup.aspx
 
jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz, Today, 01:32 PM.


#25
NoelC

NoelC

    Software Engineer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,083 posts
  • Joined 08-April 13
  • OS:Windows 8.1 x64
  • Country: Country Flag

 

So, while in your personal experience defragmenting the Registry has never been *necessary* or *needed* there are "other people results" showing how in some cases this is actually *necessary* 

 

 

Unfortunately, I see no results, just anecdotes.  If I were to see some objective data, I'd be likely to be more convinced.

 

How big are YOUR registry files, right now?

 

 

The article you mentioned has little to do with this discussion.  It is related to a specific condition on Windows 2003 Server, having to do with registry hives approaching 2 GB in size, and may only be applicable to a particular version with a particular bug.  I don't feel strongly compelled to expand that description to cover end users of Windows.

 

 

 

(that may well be nonsense nonetheless)

 

I believe you have touched on something there...  These are the same Microsoft documentarians who are to this day, via their "FAST PUBLISH" articles, describing Windows Updates that facilitate an "upgrade" to Windows 10 with the text "This update solves issues in Windows".

 

-Noel


Edited by NoelC, Today, 01:38 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users