Tech Myths B.U.S.T.E.D. Rev. 1.1!

[dbarrow]

http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=346

*You may want to bookmark this one to follow this thread as it evolves ... more to come.

Myth
1.The More Processing Power A Sound Card Has, The Better It Sounds!
2.Using Too Much Space Can Corrupt Your Hard Drive!
3.Formatting Your Hard Drive Will Kill It!
4.AMD Processors Are Hotter Than Intel Processors!
5.Intel Processors Are More Stable Then AMD Processors!

[dbarrow]

*and an excerpt I like...

...Hard drives don't get overloaded because they have a limited size. The only thing that seems unlimited in causing trouble when overloaded is the Windows registry. That's because there is really has no limit to its size.

As we shove and delete programs from our computers, the hard drive tags deleted data and allow them to be discarded or overwritten, but the Windows registry isn't that smart. It seems pretty content to retain data even back when Neil Armstrong landed on the moon. Since the registry is loaded every time the operating system boots up, and every time a DLL or system function is accessed, wow, a bloated registry can give you a really bad day.

That's why most Windows users are forced to format their PCs after a year or two. It's not because the hard drive is about to blow up the system. Rather, it's because the slowdown has become unbearable. So, don't blame the poor hard drive, blame Microsoft and Bill Gates ...
...Here are some tips to avoid overloading the registry :

* Uninstall a program, don't just delete the directory and consider it gone. It worked fine with DOS, but DOS didn't have a registry.
* Get a super uninstaller. There are tons of them out there. Heck, we might be able to get a few in for tests and reviews. These generally annihilate a program's presence. Hasta la vista, baby.
* System rollbacks are fine ways of getting back performance without the hassle of formatting. Install all the drivers and basic software you need, and then take a snapshot of the installation. Easy peasy.

Do yourself a favor and get a good registry cleaner. Many of them are available as freeware and they are easy to use. ...

*A word of caution on this one ... key word "GOOD" registry cleaner.
Be cautious that any reg cleaner:
Does not do everything on auto-pilot without user control
Makes backups of anything it removes
Can easily restore anything it does

Be sure to make and verify an IMAGE FILE of/containing your OS before any aggressive reg cleaning

That said, JV16 is still and will remain my reg cleaner of choice.

[Seth]

Those are pretty obvious myths, but it would be cool to have a list of the less obvious ones such as:

1) Defraging will fix errors and speed up the computer.
2) A reg cleaner will boost computer speed.

Edit: We were typing at the same time Doug. Looks like we have a registry cleaner debate on our hands.

[Seth]

Regarding the registry cleaner myth:

From this (http://www.sysinternals.com/blog/2005/10/registry-junk-windows-fact-of-life.html)article:

"A few hundred kilobytes of unused keys and values causes no noticeable performance impact on system operation..."

From this (http://users.volja.net/tayiper/articles.html) article:

"Well and then I was told on Ars Technical forum (thanks goes to a member/user with nick DriverGuru) that registry cleaning is rather useless... Yes, it surely might save some disk-space, but this is so small amount. And as the most important thing, please remember that as opposed to what various sites offering these products say: the impact of so-called "registry cleaning" on any aspect of computer's performance is only a minor one (or yet better; there is no impact at all), mainly because the registry queries (reads and writes) are not linear, and also the registry is a demand-paged database (whatever that means, lol); in other words, registry cleaning doesn't impact the speed of registry operations (and therefore overall computer's speed) no matter how many of them were left after some program was un-installed, or how "deep" the respective key/entry/value resides in the registry structure. But especially removing unused/orphaned entires will not prevent operating system crashes, or so-called "registry or application conflicts" (because an application in most cases simply rewrites an old registry data i.e. a key, entry or value that's already there) and such. Uhm, on some sites they even state that "cleaning" the registry will prevent BSODs; well this is simply a big pile of bull-****."


In my own tests with registry cleaners, I've never seen any noticle performance increase. Rightfully so, as no one is going to notice a fraction of a second. Saying a registry cleaner will increase performance is like saying a car will go faster if you wash it.

[dbarrow]

I would have to say the opposite...
There are many (hundreds) of reg keys that have values that will change (some of the writing to the reg on XP exit/shutdown) that will be re-created no matter how often you remove them.
This is where some reg cleaners "LOOK" like they are actually doing a lot of work. Within a short time, those keys come right back.

Then there are those keys no longer associated with a program that has been removed or changed that can cause a problem.
A vast majority of software these days fails to adequately clean up after itself and remove entries it made to the registry.
Not that these keys are always called or used...
However, when the registry (and Windows) loads, and a leftover reg key is telling it to load something it can no longer find, that causes delays or calls dlls, activates Services, or otherwise causes chains of events asking Windows to do/perform something it can no longer complete.
Sometimes, these errors can be seen in the Event Log where XXX failed to load.

Often, the only way to resolve these problems is with reg cleaning.

I would not say that regular and routine reg cleaning is a chore you need to perform, however; after installing/ un-installing programs it can make some appreciable difference.
I run JV16 about every 2-3 months or after an uninstall.

There have been times, when things got sluggish, that running JV16 did in fact resolve that problem and did speed things up.
That is, of course, knowing that something else, like adware or infection, is not the cause.

Reg cleaning is just one more tool in the arsenal and something to try when all else has failed.

[Seth]

I would have to say the opposite...
There are many (hundreds) of reg keys that have values that will change (some of the writing to the reg on XP exit/shutdown) that will be re-created no matter how often you remove them.
This is where some reg cleaners "LOOK" like they are actually doing a lot of work. Within a short time, those keys come right back.

Then there are those keys no longer associated with a program that has been removed or changed that can cause a problem.
A vast majority of software these days fails to adequately clean up after itself and remove entries it made to the registry.
Not that these keys are always called or used...
However, when the registry (and Windows) loads, and a leftover reg key is telling it to load something it can no longer find, that causes delays or calls dlls, activates Services, or otherwise causes chains of events asking Windows to do/perform something it can no longer complete.
Sometimes, these errors can be seen in the Event Log where XXX failed to load.

If x failed to load, the slight delay to the boot is insignificant, and it will have no impact on general system performance. Also, if x failed to load, I would be addressing a bad uninstall or an msconfig entry before running something as risky as a registry cleaner.

I agree that uninstalls will leave registry keys, but these keys are almost never called for. Therefore (and since the registry isn't linear) any noticed speed improvement is nothing more than the placebo effect.

My advice:

Stay away from registry cleaners unless you really know what you're doing and you have a specific need to address the registry. Virtually every time, there is no benefit to using such a cleaner, but they can (and often do) cause serious registry corruption. This corruption could be as minor as having to reinstall a program, or major enough that the system won't boot.

There are many easy and safe ways to improve system performance. Registry cleaning is not one of them.

[mylanta]

I would disagree on deframenting also, I think there is no question defragmenting the drive regularly improves perfomrance. I don't think defragmenting will solve problmes, but it will optimize and speed up your pc.

[Seth]

Well, I could explain the defragmentation myth, but instead here's a few explanations that I found on the net. (There are hundreds more). Just like the registry myth, I've never noticed any speed increase even with a heavily fragmented drive.


From this (http://www.kickenhardware.net/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=13867) article:

Myth: Defragging your hard drive will give you a significant increase in performance and/or increase your available free space significantly and/or solve problems you are having.For the most part, this is just not true -- although there is a small grain of truth here. The reality is that the increases you will see in both performance and free space are negligible, and will more than likely be negated after a couple of hours of normal usage. Defrag utilities date back to the early days of computing, when disk drives were small and slow (at least relative to what you see today). And back then, yes -- occasionally defragging your hard drive would yield some sustained benefits. But with the size and speed of today's drives, defragging a drive is for the most part a waste of time.

From this (http://wiki.castlecops.com/Disk_Defragmentation) article:

Myth: Defragging will significantly improve performance.
Fact: Generally speaking, this is not true. You may see some file read and write performance increase after fragmenting a very heavily fragmented drive that is low on free disk space. But, with today’s big, fast drives with 8Mb or more of buffers, it is more likely you will not.

From this (http://www.dansdata.com/sbs22.htm)article:

You don't need to defragment your hard drive very often. Modern drive optimisers like Windows 98's Defrag which position program data according to how often you use it can, indeed, improve performance a bit, but there's no reason for even a heavily used computer to be defragmented every week, or even every month. Yes, it'll be faster if you do. But the difference will probably be tiny.
Hard drive performance in toto makes very little difference to system performance, on machines with adequate physical RAM. The difference in performance between unfragmented and moderately fragmented drives is small.

[Dan18960]

I have to agree with Seth - defragging a drive now doesn't have the same benefits it had in DOS (Norton Utilities back then had a Disk Doctor that actually did a defrag) or in the Win9x environment.

Unless a users is doing a LOT of photo, music, or video copying and deleting the usual user will only have to worry about defragging once a year if even then.

Registry cleaning can have it's benefits - BUT how many remember to delete the PreFetch folder? There is where a lot of the dll searchs are hung up on in XP. Of course, I would advise that when deleting a program always doing a quick regedit to check to see if there are any left over references to the program - if you find one or two, then a good reg cleaning should be implemented. Because apparently the uninstall program only did half it's work. Also checking for left over folders helps determine if the program may have only removed it's self from the Add / Remover program lists.

[dbarrow]

"Optimization" in XP has been built-in from the start.
XP, over time, will optimize or move the most heavily used program files to an optimal position on the platter for faster access. This is tied in with the prefetch and the way XP manages that. (I think I recall an MSKB article on XP disk management that explains in detail how all this is done)

Of course, there are always third party "optimizers" that may do a better job than Windows. There have always been a few out there that did the job better. In the '98 era, Norton Disk Doctor actually did a much better job at defrag than Windows. Severe fragmentation can lead to lost strings and clusters over time as files fet pushed around and have to be fitted into sectors and blocks. This was a major problem in Win9x which is why XP has a more automated "optimization" and defrag process and designed not to require routine defrag like 9x.

Not that it matters, Windows will eventually move stuff around anyway a week after running any third party defrag.

One of the biggest problems in this area is the PAGING FILE. If "Windows managed" , it expands or shrinks depending on need and use. This is a functional part of XP and can't really be changed. It will be used no matter how much physical ram you have, by design.
On a drive with limited space, the PAGING FILE can push things around as it expands and contracts leading to considerable fragmentation of files that would otherwise remain static. Not to mention, there are a few essential functions in XP that will "cannibalize" other files to make room for themselves, therefore; there has to be a certain amount of "overhead" room on the drive or partition to allow for "optimization" and moving files around. (note that if you try to defrag an almost full partition it will demand about 15% free space to run defrag as it requires a temporary parking spot to move files.)

There are several schools of thought on management of the PAGING FILE (SWAP FILE in '98) including moving it to another drive or partition and setting a fixed size.
You can do further research on this.

I give the PAGING FILE a PARTITON of its own P:, slightly larger than amount of physical ram (normal is 1.5x ram) and set the file size to use slightly less than the size of the partition (to avoid "drive full" errors). This yields a PAGING FILE that is one large contiguous file that never fragments and won't push around other things in the OS.

[PeteF]

My advice:

Stay away from registry cleaners unless you really know what you're doing and you have a specific need to address the registry.

I agree with Seth above.
But Doug also makes some good points about how the can affect performance.

On defragging, that was something that improved performance on versions
before WinXP. I still think it's important to defrag, but not for improvements
in speed. You should defrag for less wear and tear on the hard drive. Comon
sense says if the heads are not constantly jumping all over the place, it
will extend the life of the hard drive, or at least it will help to avoid problems
associated with failure of the mechanical parts realted to the heads.
I'll only defrag on partitions that get extremely fragmented and which are
used often.

---pete---

[LOOP]

My Dr. told me that taking a daily multi-vitamin & supplements does not mean i will live longer! Does this analogy also hold true for reg & drive cleaners in relation to a computer?

[PeteF]

My Dr. told me that taking a daily multi-vitamin & supplements does not mean i will live longer! Does this analogy also hold true for reg & drive cleaners in relation to a computer?

First off, don't rely upon doctors to give advise on multi-vitamins
& supplements as they are not well trained in the areas related to
nutrition and non-phamacuticals. :)

However, assuming that your docotr's advice is correct, reg and drive
cleaners should have no significant affect on the life span of your
hardware. They mainly affect how windows performs.

---pete---

[mylanta]

i totally disagree. The use of reg cleaners while it will neither prolong or lengthen the pc hardware life, will most certainly shorten the life of both your OS and you, as the attempts to repair the damage caused by reg cleaners I consider to be life shortening. As for drive cleaners, their existance is completely meaningless in the operation of a pc.

[dbarrow]

As a long time user of JV16, I have to say yes and no to reg cleaners!

There are a bunch of them out there and not all are created equal.
Some are downright dangerous for the novice user, particularly the fully automated ones that have no end user control and make no backups of what they change.
As with various "Tweakers" that make reg changes without end user control, they can immediately hose a system.

JV16 has never done me wrong but, I am an experienced user and know how to ride the beast. It does make backups of changes. Once or twice, I did have to put back a few keys from backup but that was extremely rare and usually related to a program uninstall that had integrated deep in the system.

I would never recommend them for the casual or novice user.
Had to severely beat my son when I found him thrashing away regularly with JV16 for no valid reason.
They have a specific purpose and should be run only when and as needed for that purpose.
Not to mention, they should only be run after a full backup of the OS and setting current Restore Points.

Thorough HD cleaning is almost irrelevant with today's large capacity drives however, it can be necessary with partitions that accumulate crap.
Windows has become excessive in exponential growth with all the garp it retains. Just the "uninstaller" for each update can consume the OS partition. The leftovers in \User\Local Settings\Temp that are not cleaned by CLEANUP really pile up after a while as every install of something leaves behind a load of unused garbage and temp files in there. LOG files pile up all over the place as Windows and other programs want to LOG all kinds of irrelevant junk. Just search *.log and find them sprayed everywhere in great quantity.
I have had to bump up the size of my OS partition several times just for the miscellaneous crap that gets deposited there, even by programs installed on another partition.

I have seen machines filled to capacity with junk files.
This can be problematic on lappys with smaller drives.
Windows has one nasty and hidden habit... it becomes cannibalistic when it runs out of room and will start to eat itself!
It can and will delete its own files to make the necessary room.