Sign In
Create Account
Find content
Male
Display name history
Further to AdvancedSetup's excellent guide I have a few questions which I feel remain unanswered in all coverage relating to Windows registry matters. I like playing Devil's Advocate on this subject. Firstly, I don't wish to propose the use of Registry Cleaners and the absurd way they are marketed as a universal panacea for the structural shortcomings of Windows operating systems, but there are clearly a number of issues that can arise in practice when changes are made are made to the registry by adding, removing, updating or overwriting software. Overwhelmingly these issues are of no significance to the performance of the operating system but on rare occasions they cause problems to which the system's inbuilt correction has no solution. This is far less common with post-XP systems but they still exist.
I could give you a number of examples, Nero being the most notorious, where removing the program via Windows Add/Remove or even using Microsoft Installer CleanUp tool would still prevent a replacement software functioning properly. All major AV's (including MBAM) provide a dedicated standalone 'Uninstaller', which are largely targeted registry cleaners. Why is this? If registry entries for non-installed software have no impact on the system. Why do we use or recommend the use of programs like Revo which append software's own uninstallers to remove leftover registry entries if these entries can have no impact. It's reasonable to assume that Microsoft see these 'redundant' entries as harmless otherwise they would apply a task to remove them. In my view the real dichotomy is that if you know how to use a registry cleaner properly you know enough not to need one and if you don't know enough you shouldn't be allowed to.
