Registry Cleaner - Menu order scan

brian49

Some of the start menu items identified as `usless entry' by the Registy Cleaner during a menu order scan are in fact perfectly valid - that is, they are currently on the start menu and correctly point to the executable files of the relevant installed programs. I wonder why this happens, please? Many thanks.

jv16

Could you give an example of such entry?

And there's not much worry about, even if the Registry Cleaner would clean out a valid MenuOrder item the worst thing that could happen is the Start Menu to lose its order and the list would show in an alphabetic order.

But of course, if there is a bug, I want to get it fixed ASAP.

brian49

Sorry, I can't give an example now, because I `custom fixed' those items as not to be shown in future in Registry Cleaner, and I can't see where that information is stored. But the items were valid in every way, including their alphabetical position on the start menu. The scan also correctly found items which no longer appear on the start menu, so no problem there.

tullik

Brian49 wrote
Sorry, I can't give an example now, because I `custom fixed' those items as not to be shown in future in Registry Cleaner, and I can't see where that information is stored. But the items were valid in every way, including their alphabetical position on the start menu. The scan also correctly found items which no longer appear on the start menu, so no problem there.

If you clicked on the Custom Fix button and took backups, the information should be available in one place (the backup).

If you used "Never show again" in the right click menu, it is available in another place (SuperRegIgnoreList.dat in the PT Settings directory.

Or did you mean something else by "custom fix?"

I'm just curious because I hardly ever see menu order errors. XP Pro updates the registry as soon as I make a start menu change, so Reg Cleaner never gets to see an error, apparently.

brian49

Thanks for that. I don't usually create a backup when custom-fixing low-risk items. But now here's an example of a supposedly `useless entry' which is in fact perfectly valid:

76=HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\MenuOrder\Start Menu2\Programs\File Scavenger\{KEY}

By the way, in case I haven't made it clear, it appears that the menu order scan doesn't just look for entries which aren't in alphabetical order, but also for obsolete entries, and it's these I'm talking about. I say this because when I uncheck `menu order scan' in the scan options no entries of any kind are found, but when I check that option the `useless' entries appear. Thanks again.

tullik

I've looked at the structure under HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\MenuOrder\Start Menu2

The subkeys correspond to the folder names in "the" Start Menu. Each subkey has an entry name item called "Order" with a long binary value.

If a subkey had no "Order" entry, it would appear to serve no purpose. Perhaps that is the logic used in RC when it says "useless entry?" -- I don't really know, but seems likely.

jv16

tullik wrote

If a subkey had no "Order" entry, it would appear to serve no purpose. Perhaps that is the logic used in RC when it says "useless entry?" -- I don't really know, but seems likely.

You are correct.

brian49

So where does this leave us? Does it mean that the results I've described are by design?

tullik

If the fully qualified key HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\MenuOrder\Start Menu2\Programs\File Scavenger\ (for example) had no entry name, I'd say that is the case. But jv16 is the expert ... maybe he will tell us.

Oops ... just noticed the post before yours ... he already told us.