Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[larryrup]

Hi all and can use some help.

I run MC on several PC's and the below only applys to my main PC. The otherws are fine.   I attribute this to a new tool (ha!) that cleans registry entrys and hard drive junk I recently used.

Media Center seems to have reverted to (I'll guess) an out of the box (so to speak) configuration and no changes I make in options save.  Other oddities are, I cannot get the program to start with anything other than the internal browser container displaying.  Also,although I have display action window checked, it will not display.  There are many other strange things but you get the jest.  I also tried to restore a stored library with no change.

I suspect I need to un-install, re-install (I already tried just a re-install without sucess).  If I uninstall is there a way of preseving my license?  You guys think this is the way to go about getting this fixed?

Thanks much

LarryRup

[larryrup]

System restore fixed everything.  Sorry for posting so quickly.  Can't believe I trusted an unheard of registry cleaner!

Regards,

Larry

[Hendrik]

Glad its working again for you!

Generally, don't even trust "popular" registry cleaners. All those tools do more harm than good.

[glynor]

Generally, don't even trust "popular" registry cleaners. All those tools do more harm than good.

Yep.  A "clean" registry is probably a broken registry.

Those things are a solution in search of a problem.

[ken-tajalli]

. All those tools do more harm than good.

+1000

[RoderickGI]

Generally, don't even trust "popular" registry cleaners. All those tools do more harm than good.

I certainly agree with that statement for all third party registry cleaners. I mean, they can do so much harm why would you ever trust one? Especially a free one? Virus, call home to download a virus, identity theft, all are possible.

But I do use the Registry Cleaner built in to Norton 360, and it does a good job of finding orphaned records left by poor software that was tried and uninstalled, but didn't uninstall properly. It is good about showing you what it found and did as well. I've never known it to break anything either. Plus from memory the changes can be reversed, though I've never had to. So some Registry Cleaners, or at least one, add some value. Much better than the old refrain "Just reinstall Windows" from so many internet experts! I would so hate to find licences and reinstall all the software I have on my main desktop PC.

But I always create a Restore Point before installing any software, and they can be a life saver. Plus backups. Lots of backups. (I keep a year's worth, in daily, weekly, and monthly time frames.)

[glynor]

it does a good job of finding orphaned records left by poor software that was tried and uninstalled

So some Registry Cleaners, or at least one, add some value.

It does not follow, even "theoretically", that removing orphaned Registry entries does anything of "value".  It risks breaking things, and best case, it frees up a byte or twelve of memory.

The Registry is a database of settings.  Just like having a few one-star files in your MC Library doesn't hurt you if you never play them, if no application ever reads the orphaned entries, they just sit there, hurting nothing.  And, unlike having extra files on disk, the registry entries are absolutely tiny.

Way, way back in the old days, when the Registry was new and broken, software vendors were terrible and cross-referencing each other's registry keys, we hadn't yet solved "DLL Hell", and computer hardware could barely do what we were asking it to do?  Maybe they had some value.

Those days are 15 years in the past.

Targeted registry edits can be useful, if you target them at real problems.  But even then, it is rare anymore.  Anything that scans your registry with its own database and tries to decide what entries are good and bad?  Bound to fail some of the time, and doesn't help anything useful in the best of cases.

[RoderickGI]

Anything that scans your registry with its own database and tries to decide what entries are good and bad?

I agree with you there. I would never use a product that purports to be an expert in third party software, especially when it comes to the Windows registry. Norton 360 is not a Registry Optimisation application, which is an entirely different beast to a Registry Clean-up application.

However, Norton 360 doesn't appear to compare to any internal database. It simply checks if the records in the registry refer to software that actually exists. If the software has been uninstalled, but the registry records still exist for it, then 360 will delete them. It also works for file associations, for example, where a program has associated itself with a file type, then not reverted that setting when it was uninstalled, 360 removes the association.
While a clean-up may only save a few bytes, when I install and test many applications for a period too long to simply be able to use a Restore Point to remove remnants, all those records add up. Windows still checks many of them at boot up time, slowing the system if it tries searching for associated software. Not by much maybe, but a little.

For example, I just ran it for the first time in quite a while, and it found and deleted 59 entries. Despite the fact that I had uninstalled MC18 ages ago, 21 of those entries referred to MC18, mostly invalid commands entries and missing icon files. MC20 still works fine on this PC, despite those key deletions. There were some invalid ActiveX/COM entries, Logitech references to older Java jar file versions, file associations with uninstalled trial software, some outdate Adobe keys changed by updates, and so on.

Granted, things have improved, but when 360 finds something to remove, I can typically recognise what it is, and know that it shouldn't be there any longer. I guess I just like to keep things tidy. For me, that is added value. But I guess the old adage of "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" would apply to most Windows users.

BTW, I am just a 360 user, and have no association with Symantec, in case anyone was wondering.

[glynor]

Not by much maybe, but a little.

Milliseconds, at best. It loads the registry hives into RAM. Loading things into RAM, especially small things, is freaking fast on modern computers. Any performance impact you see from all of the changes you listed above would be absolutely, positively imperceptible to any human (even if you let it go for eons). Mine is 149MB total right now (total data size without compression) on my main server (and it is by no means "clean"). My RAM transfers at 12.8GB/s, and it is DDR3 1600, pretty pokey by today's standards. That's 12.8 GIGABYTES per second, so we're talking 13107MB/s.

Even loading from disk (which it only does once) that is a second, maybe two. If you aren't an animal and have an SSD like you should, it would be, again, a tiny fraction of a second to load ~150MB. And that's my entire registry!

Like I said, targeted edits can be useful (for things like fixing broken file associations, though I'd trust doing it myself more, generally).

Registries do not need "preventative maintenance". That feeling you have that makes you want to? That's someone selling you something* (because they can't sell you disk defragmenter utilities anymore, and Microsoft includes a free anti-virus).

Like I said, back in the day?  Maybe.  But we're talking Windows 95/98/ME kernel era. Now? No. If you're careful, sure, it won't do any harm. But it also provides no benefit other than a nice warm fuzzy.

* I'm not saying Symantec is terrible. I'm sure they make a decently executed registry cleaner. But registry cleaners, to work, you have to run them extremely skeptically (like it seems RoderickGI is doing). That's all fine and good, but even then it is a risk. So, you're doing that, and spending your time, and risking a mess up, for... What, exactly?

[Hendrik]

I certainly agree with that statement for all third party registry cleaners. [snip]

But I do use the Registry Cleaner built in to Norton 360

How is that not third party. It would only not be if Microsoft built it.  
I prefer simply re-installing my OS once a year or so to start with a fresh and neat registry.

[RoderickGI]

How is that not third party. It would only not be if Microsoft built it.  

Okay, I wasn't using the legalistic definition of third party. I should have said "unknown or untrustworthy supplier" of a registry cleaner. I was taking myself as the first party, Symantec as the second party, because I have an existing relationship with them. My bad.

Based on my good experience with Norton 360, I tried and now trust the Norton Registry Cleaner. Simple as that. I don't really care if other people use them or not, I was just commenting that there are still some reliable registry cleaners about, and they still have some use.

You are welcome to reinstalling your OS once a year.   I avoid the hassle that involves and just maintain my system instead. In the last 15 years I have only done one reinstall of the OS and applications on my primary desktop PC, which in the same period has gone through three major and many minor hardware upgrades. Plus one major and many minor OS upgrades, of course.

[CountryBumkin]

If you aren't an animal and have an SSD like you should,....

 A little off topic - but these SSDs are not without their problems too.  http://www.myce.com/news/ssds-rapidly-lose-data-when-powered-off-enterprise-ssds-much-quicker-than-consumer-drives-76016/

[JimH]

I don't see the point of registry cleaners.  Is the theory that having cruft in your registry slows your machine down or makes it misbehave?  Horse feathers, I say.

I don't use them and I don't recommend them.  I've seen too many problems caused by them.

I never reinstall my OS either.

[mwillems]

A little off topic - but these SSDs are not without their problems too.  http://www.myce.com/news/ssds-rapidly-lose-data-when-powered-off-enterprise-ssds-much-quicker-than-consumer-drives-76016/

Those charts are a little hard to read, but if I'm reading them right, I'm not sure they should be cause for concern for any normal user of SSDs.  The data retention issue only appears in the short term with very high temperatures and when the drive has no access to power whatsoever.  

My SSD active temps are between 30 and 35 degrees C, and they are not enterprise drives.  According to the chart, at any temperature that my house is likely to be (i.e. typically less than 30 degrees C), they'd need to be without power for between 32 and 39 weeks to show problems.  At normal "room temperature" (25 degrees C), it would take well over a year.  So yeah, if you plan to leave them unplugged for 8 months to a year at a time, you'll lose data, and it's good to know that.  But in normal use how often does that happen?

To get to the "1 week" data loss with consumer drives, you need ambient temps of 55 degrees C!  So if you left an SSD unplugged in a toaster oven for a week you'd probably get data loss, but, frankly, I would expect the same result with a mechanical drive.

[glynor]

Those charts are a little hard to read, but if I'm reading them right, I'm not sure they should be cause for concern for any normal user of SSDs.  The data retention issue only appears in the short term with very high temperatures and when the drive has no access to power whatsoever.  

My SSD active temps are between 30 and 35 degrees C, and they are not enterprise drives.  According to the chart, at any temperature that my house is likely to be (i.e. typically less than 30 degrees C), they'd need to be without power for between 32 and 39 weeks to show problems.  At normal "room temperature" (25 degrees C), it would take well over a year.  So yeah, if you plan to leave them unplugged for 8 months to a year at a time, you'll lose data, and it's good to know that.  But in normal use how often does that happen?

Yes, that and, I don't believe it until I see additional real-world tests, with... You know, methods to reproduce listed?*

Tech Report's test found no data retention issues with SSDs unpowered for three weeks:
http://techreport.com/review/26058/the-ssd-endurance-experiment-data-retention-after-600tb

They had one issue in the entire course of their tests with data retention, and the drive also logged a bunch of uncorrectable errors right at the time of the initial write (before unplugging it), so I think that's more to do with the drive messing up, than anything with the lack of power for a week.

Are they a good archival format?  Maybe not, but I don't think anyone is selling them that way, and maybe they just used some bunk drives for their tests.

* EDIT: Even more dubious. If you look at the source documents for that article, none of this is based on any real-world tests. This is based on an accelerated model of degradation using generic Intel "flash" specs. This information is, essentially, generic to this "class" of Flash, and isn't based on real-world retention tests of any kind (certainly not with production hardware).

In other words... Interesting from a science perspective (and not surprising at all, considering how flash writes work), but absolutely nothing to be concerned about in your life.  Probably not much to be concerned about even if you are storing drives for a long time. Just don't store them in a 100F room, which seems like good advice anyway.

[ken-tajalli]

But I do use the Registry Cleaner built in to Norton 360, and it does a good job ......

Norton?
Seriously?
Say no more ......
If you want a faster computer - ditch Norton, live with virus infection risk.

[mwillems]

In other words... Interesting from a science perspective (and not surprising at all, considering how flash writes work), but absolutely nothing to be concerned about in your life.  Probably not much to be concerned about even if you are storing drives for a long time. Just don't store them in a 100F room, which seems like good advice anyway.

Well there go all my plans to make a fortune with my combo autoclave/ssd storage rack

[RoderickGI]

I don't see the point of registry cleaners.  Is the theory that having cruft in your registry slows your machine down or makes it misbehave?  Horse feathers, I say.

While I mentioned speed above, and Glynor did the math on load times, it is really about housekeeping for me. If I have to look through the registry for clues about any problem I am trying to diagnose and correct, having lots of cruft in there just makes it harder to find relevant issues. As I mentioned above, MC18 left behind 21 keys when uninstalled, although MC19 seems to have left none. If I was searching for a key used by all versions of MC, then I would have to sort through all the MC18 keys as well as the MCxx keys, if the key name was the same. Just like housework, if you do a little regularly, you don't end up with a huge job later on.

Norton?
Seriously?
Say no more ......
If you want a faster computer - ditch Norton, live with virus infection risk.

You are a long way behind the times. Haven't looked at Norton 360 in years I would assume. After the Symantec takeover Norton products were awful for quite a while, including early Norton 360 versions. But they learned from their mistakes, when they started to get thrashed in the market, and finally took note of the issues users were complaining about. Now it is a very reliable, low profile, efficient and effective product. It works very well for me, and does not slow my PC at all. The only issues are price, and their future product plans. On price; I have only paid for about two of the last five years I have used it, as I query their renewal price every time and while they won't discount, they will extend the coverage for the same price. So my last renewal was for about three years, but I paid for one year. The statement some time back, by the CEO I believe, that virus scanners are a thing of the past and they will be getting out of the business, that is of more concern. I like the Norton 360 product, but Symantec as I company I'm not real happy with.

A little off topic - but these SSDs are not without their problems too.

The one time I reinstalled Windows in the last fifteen years was due to an SSD failure, but not due to data loss caused by lack of power or heat. The OCZ SSD just failed. Twice. At the same time I had a mechanical data drive failure, a space shortage for backups, and a backup software failure. Now I won't use OCZ SSDs again, and I have a better backup solution with lots of space.