REGISTRY CLEANER

Page 2 of 4  


A disk editor is hardly a "registry cleaner".
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Nov 15, 6:00 pm, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

== When I started in with DOS based IBM's and their clones we used "registry cleaners" although they were not always named as such. Actually, registries NEVER needed cleaning...just a bit of tweaking. Errors do occur which need remedying. So we had to "manipulate" things a bit. I don't pretend to be an expert, just a user who learned some things well but alas have no formal training. I was too old when I started with computers but nothing ventured...nothing gained. ==
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why would "command line" DOS need "registry cleaners"? Windows have a registry, all flavors.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They never needed cleaning because THEY DIDN'T EXIST.

Obviously nothing learned.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 19:51:34 -0600, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

Some IBM clones did not have a HDD to store these monster sized registries. Might be the poster is talking about a 15 page batch file.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

an art back in the day.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 22:36:24 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Files@
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

Windows 1, 2, 3, 3.1, 95, 98 (and the variants) ran on top of an underlying DOS system.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Clueless.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 15 Nov 2010 22:11:59 -0600, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

NT was the first "windows" that did not run on top of DOS.
See my last post
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 16 Nov 2010 19:39:51 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Wrong.
So you agree that he was NOT right.

That wasn't under discussion.

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Nov 16, 6:19 pm, " snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz"

== You are right...he was NOT right but there were somewhat equivalent functions in the ini, bat, sys, com and dat files. ==
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

They were *.ini (any files a yanky called them)
Edited with a text editor.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

== You are correct...I was thinking in the broader context of "editing" aspects of the operating system. Users have been tinkering with their computers ever since they came into popular usage. ==
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Remember Edlin? :-)
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

== That is correct. There was a small registry in Windows 3.1 as I recall but nothing like the ones following 3.1.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Beginnings of a registry in 3.11, but still called ini-files and scattered all over the system.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

http://articles.webraydian.com/article8404-The_History_of_the_Windows_Registry.html
Let us think back in history to the days of Windows 3.1. Initially, the systems were built with the assumption that only a handful of applications would be installed and that only a few dozens of system and application-wide settings would have to be stored. However, even in 1992, when Windows 3.1 was released, things were changing fast.
The average size of consumer-level hard drives was about 80 MB in 1992. In 1994, when Windows 95 was released, the average size of the hard drives had gone up to 400 MB, and it was not long before every computer sold had at least 1 GB of hard drive memory. While Windows 3.1 was initially targeted at corporate workstations, with each computer used only for one or two significant applications, Windows 95 was already targeted at consumers in the first place, with users expected not only to have a handful of significant applications installed, but also with users expected to be entrusted with performing maintenance on their own.
With the way Windows 3.1 applications stored their settings, this was a sure way towards chaos, as the Windows 3.1 installations deployed to consumers had shown. The original solution was to have each application and the operating system store its own settings in .ini files. However, the .ini model had a few problems.
Although they had several advantages i.e. .ini files were human-readable and almost impossible to become corrupted beyond repair, the operating system did not enforce any rules upon their storage. There was no way to tell where each application would store its settings, since there was no central storage place for them to be placed in. There was also no fair way to manage them, due to the fact that they were scattered all around the hard drive and, as a consequence, they were impossible to optimize.
Microsoft introduced the Windows Registry with Windows 95, but many in house tests had been run prior to this. Rumors that Microsoft was experimenting with a β€˜binary-only’ settings storage solution were circulating even back in 1993, but it was only in 1994, with Windows 95, that this solution was promoted on the market.
In its first incarnation, the Windows Registry was stored in a fairly crude fashion compared to the form it has today. There were only four files though, since Windows was only single-user back then, it did not call for the much more complex incarnation of the registry that we know today.
Initially, the introduction of the registry was met with quite some acclaim, especially by the developers, who now had a unified solution for accessing system and application settings and information. Users and the minority of administrators who fashioned Microsoft Windows also praised the introduction of the registry, which put an end to the struggle with .ini files.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

http://articles.webraydian.com/article8404-The_History_of_the_Windows_Registry.html
And now its come full circle. For TEN YEARS, Microsoft had been ragging on developers to NOT store application specific data in the registry. With Vista, the rule was enforced.
That meant that applications like QuickBooks could not run on Vista nor could the be made to run. QuickBooks - and many other applications - stored piddly stuff in the registry (next check number, date of last backup, etc.) and now the OS said "Not by the hair on my chinney-chin-chin!".
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.