JV16 2009 - Reg Cleaner missing things?

wighty

Before this topic gets off on the wrong foot, please know that I'm not trying to start an "us against them" war. I'm just puzzled by some recent observations that I'm hoping I can get to understand why they suggest JV16 might be missing (or possibly avoiding) certain registry problems.

I'm having an IE6 problem with recent intermittent errors involving MSHTML.DLL. So I thought I'd see if using the JV16 PT2009 (v. 1.9.0.540) Reg. Cleaner might help solve the problem. After running the cleaner twice, and fixing the problems found, the DLL error returned - I now believe that this may be some form of DLL compatibility problem.

Yet, additional research led me to the Registry Easy program (praised by CNET). Being free download, I ran it and was completly suprised when it found over 2,900 additional registry problems after getting a clean bill of health from JV16. How can this be? Is there any substance to these additional registry issues?

A scan of the Reg. Easy results details lists things like empty keys, bad paths for software & uninstall programs, bad parameter values, and one HKCU key involves Norton AV - uninstalled 3 years ago.

Is it likely that JV16 is missing this may registry "problems", or is there some other answer? :|

leonardo

Interesting experiment!

After cleaning my register with jvPT 1.9.0.542 AND another licensed tool AND a freeware product, I ran Registry Easy too.

Result is 1576 errors found in different catagoties like: activeX, recently used, uninstalled SW, empty registry entries etc..

It would be interesting for the developper to look into these additionaly found entries and explain why jv16PT does not recognize them as (potential) errors.

roxie

Just curious - what "level" of cleaning were you running? The First Registry Cleaner screen that comes up - "Emphasize safety......." vs "Emphasize number of errors.

I was finding differences in what PT2009 was finding compared to PT2008 (and PT2006), even when setting how agressive the cleaning was at the same level.

I did just run PT2009 at the "default" setting (second notch from the top on the Safety scale) and got 0 errors, then ran it with the full strength and got over 800 errors. Note: the second notch "skips all Windows related data."

It may be that the free scan on Registry Easy is running full strength (they do want you to buy the cleaner so maybe they are finding everything imaginable).

redseujac

Registry Easy is known by Macecraft.

It's one of the registry cleaners included in this test made by the Macecraft Team.

The developer of jv16 PowerTools (Jouni) already explained several times at this forum why some registry cleaners find more so called errors than other registry cleaners, but therefore aren't better nor safer. Some of those cleaners e.g. create (false) errors, list (the same) errors more than once, etc. with just one purpose, i.e. listing more "errors" than other cleaners, so letting believe the user they are the best.

There's just one thing for sure: the number of "found errors" doesn't always prove a registry cleaner is good or better than another.

leonardo

Roxie wrote
Just curious - what "level" of cleaning were you running? The First Registry Cleaner screen that comes up - "Emphasize safety......." vs "Emphasize number of errors.

I was running jv16PT 1.9.0.542 at most aggresive registry cleaning setting (only to be used for test purposes)

Many of the found errors "made sense" referring to products I have or had

wighty

redseujac wrote
Registry Easy is known by Macecraft.

It's one of the registry cleaners included in this test made by the Macecraft Team.

The developer of jv16 PowerTools (Jouni) already explained several times at this forum why some registry cleaners find more so called errors than other registry cleaners, but therefore aren't better nor safer. Some of those cleaners e.g. create (false) errors, list (the same) errors more than once, etc. with just one purpose, i.e. listing more "errors" than other cleaners, so letting believe the user they are the best.

There's just one thing for sure: the number of "found errors" doesn't always prove a registry cleaner is good or better than another.

Thank you for this information. I was not aware of this comparative test, which I will now review. I also agree with your last sentance and that is why I asked the original question - I was somewhat skeptical as to the meaningfullness of Reg. Easy's results...

roxie

Wow, and Registry Easy still found that many more. That is strange.

I wonder what level Wighty was using.

Think I'll give Registry Easy a try and see what happens, too.

roxie

Whew! PT2009 at the most agressive found 617 errors.

Registry Free at the download default settings found 2,693!

And, I agree, the specific categories seems to make sense for the apps installed - Active x, Empty Keys, Invalid File extensions, etc.

This is really strange.

Has anyone been brave enough to "repair" the Registry with one of these other programs that find this many additional errors?

FYI - I'm running WindowsXP Pro.

Really great "comparison" test results. Must be fairly current considering the version number for PT2009. Cool.

wighty

Roxie wrote
I wonder what level Wighty was using.

I was using 1 level less than the maximum (2nd from the bottom slider notch).

redseujac

Look out, guys: remember the rules of this discussion forum here: http://www.macecraft.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=75

Especially rule number 5: "Advertising, promoting or bashing any 3rd party products or services, commercial or non-commercial is not allowed. "

So it's not allowed to promote 3rd party products commercial or not. I'm afraid Registry Easy is such a product. So, I think it's inadvisable to continue this thread at risk of being rapped your knuckles by the developer, jv16. I think he could even remove all the posts advertising or promoting that cleaner...

Look at the possible sanctions in those forum rules:

Violation of these rules may cause your message to be edited or removed or the thread to be locked. If you constantly violate these rules, or if we have a reason to believe you have only joined the discussion to violate these rules (such as to advertise your website or product) we can ban you from this forum.

roxie

No harm intended, I'm sure. I think we were just trying to understand why such a large discrepancy in "results" among products, especially once three users got the same wide-spread result.

I was especially concerned about finding less results with PT2009 when compared to PT2008, run at the same level and was curious if the "cleaner" functions had been changed between the two.

Your pointing us to the Macecaraft comparison study was a big help. Sometimes even a "Search" on the Forum doesn't come up with really great information like those comparisons.

Thanks for the reminder about discussion topics.

parkd1

Was Just looking at the comparison study and did not see two programs in the test that I use. They are Ccleaner from Piriform and Revo Uninstaller from of VS Revo Group. Would be nice to see how they compare to JV18 Power Tools 2009.

tullik

Roxie wrote
. . . I was especially concerned about finding less results with PT2009 when compared to PT2008, run at the same level and was curious if the "cleaner" functions had been changed between the two. . . .

Actually, the "registry scan engine" is different in all the products in my signature line.

Jouni makes improvements regularly, e.g., for safety, for speed.

Windows and technology force other changes, e.g., Vista, x64.

tullik

parkd1 wrote
Was Just looking at the and did not see two programs in the test that I use. They are Ccleaner from Piriform and Revo Uninstaller from of VS Revo Group. Would be nice to see how they compare to JV18 Power Tools 2009.

CCleaner is the fifth product in the tables.

parkd1

tullik wrote
parkd1 wroteWas Just looking at the and did not see two programs in the test that I use. They are Ccleaner from Piriform and Revo Uninstaller from of VS Revo Group. Would be nice to see how they compare to JV18 Power Tools 2009.

CCleaner is the fifth product in the tables.

Oh darn, how could I have missed that? LOL LOL LOL

tullik

Second cee is upper case? :

parkd1

Sorry, we encountered an error while displaying this content. If you're a user, please try again later. If you're an administrator, take a look in your Flarum log files for more information.

parkd1

AML Free Registry Cleaner would be good to add to the test.

http://www.amltools.com/

jv16

Well, as pointed out by redseujac the actual number of found registry errors means pretty much nothing. And it makes no sense to compare registry cleaners based on this value. And based on the test (http://www.macecraft.com/registry_cleaner_comparison2/) Registry Easy finds many false positives which each have potential of wrecking your computer.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that PowerTools' registry cleaner engine is perfect in a way it would detect every single error from the registry nor has this ever been my goal either. As I used to say before, I'd rather leave 100 real registry errors not listed than list 1 valid registry entry as an error. The point being that PowerTools has a major focus on safety, this will mean that it might not list as many errors as other products. But does that make it a less good product? I don't think so.