SCANREG /OPT ?

So far it's the only answer anyone knows. So.

--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR

"Ron Badour" wrote in message
...
| No visual cue, just a little longer boot and some drive thrashing
which
| could be an optimization or something totally unrelated. How's that
for a
| weasel answer? G
|
| --
| Regards
|
| Ron Badour, MS MVP Windows 98
| Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour
| Knowledge Base Info:
| http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo
|
| "Kentiguous" wrote in message
| ...
| Ron Badour wrote :
|
| }In that scanreg makes a registry back up on the first boot (or
reboot)
| }of
| }every day, I think (based on observations with my machine) that
once
| }the
| }back up is made, it will run optimize if it detects 500 kb of
space. I
| }know
| }of no way to change the parameters for the amount of space.
|
| Thanks, Ron; does the user have any indication that the
| 'auto-optimization' is occurring?
|
| Ken
|
| --
| Remove the '4' to reply via email
|
|
| }"Kentiguous" wrote in message
| ...
| } Ron Badour wrote :
| } }Yes, when Scanreg detects there is 500 kb of space, it
automatically
| } }compacts the registry.
| } }http://home.satx.rr.com/badour/html/registry.html for details on
the
| } }registry
| }
| } Thanks for the additional info., Ron. Do you know if SCANREG will
| } make a
| } backup, before it 'auto-optimizes'?
| }
| } I see that SCANREG.INI's "Optimize" parameter can be used to
control
| } 'auto-optimization', but I didn't see a parameter that would
allow
| } control over the amount of 'wasted space', after which an
| } 'auto-optimization' will occur. Am I missing something, or, if
not,
| } is
| } there, perhaps, an 'undocumented' parameter that would do so?
|
|
|
|

Trying to give us an easy answer, Ron. g

"Ron Badour" wrote in message
...
: No visual cue, just a little longer boot and some drive thrashing which
: could be an optimization or something totally unrelated. How's that for a
: weasel answer? G
:
: --
: Regards
:
: Ron Badour, MS MVP Windows 98
: Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour
: Knowledge Base Info:
: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo
:
: "Kentiguous" wrote in message
: ...
: Ron Badour wrote :
:
: }In that scanreg makes a registry back up on the first boot (or reboot)
: }of
: }every day, I think (based on observations with my machine) that once
: }the
: }back up is made, it will run optimize if it detects 500 kb of space. I
: }know
: }of no way to change the parameters for the amount of space.
:
: Thanks, Ron; does the user have any indication that the
: 'auto-optimization' is occurring?
:
: Ken
:
: --
: Remove the '4' to reply via email
:
:
: }"Kentiguous" wrote in message
: ...
: } Ron Badour wrote :
: } }Yes, when Scanreg detects there is 500 kb of space, it automatically
: } }compacts the registry.
: } }http://home.satx.rr.com/badour/html/registry.html for details on the
: } }registry
: }
: } Thanks for the additional info., Ron. Do you know if SCANREG will
: } make a
: } backup, before it 'auto-optimizes'?
: }
: } I see that SCANREG.INI's "Optimize" parameter can be used to control
: } 'auto-optimization', but I didn't see a parameter that would allow
: } control over the amount of 'wasted space', after which an
: } 'auto-optimization' will occur. Am I missing something, or, if not,
: } is
: } there, perhaps, an 'undocumented' parameter that would do so?
:
:
:
:

Well, not *entirely* safe--if your system crashes in the middle of
Scanreg /opt or /fix, it's gonna trash that Registry. But that's what
backups are for. Scanreg saves a backup before running those chores, or
before restoring a backup, calling it RBBAD.CAB.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Kentiguous" wrote in message
...
Dan wrote :

}Ken or anyone else, are there problems that are known of with the
98SE
}registry, registry tool or use of the scanreg/anything command --
}refers to all possible variables?

Full circle, Dan! This is exactly what I wanted to know, when I
started
this thread (see the end of this reply). So far, the consensus is that
SCANREG's safe.

Ken

--
Remove the '4' to reply via email

}"Kentiguous" wrote in message
...
}: Bill in Co. wrote :
}: }Kentiguous wrote:
}: } Bill in Co. wrote :
}: } }OK, I lose the bet!
}: }
}: } I hope it wasn't too steep... g
}: }
}: } }At any rate, I think your idea might compact it better, but it
may
}: }be a
}: } }bit overkill - why not just use the more recommended, "scanreg
/opt"
}: }a
}: } }couple of
}: } }times, and see how much that works for ya. I do this on
occasion:
}: } }"scanreg /opt /fix" (I run two or three times), and it usually
}: }compacts
}: }it
}: } }a fair bit. And I think it would be faster (and perhaps
safer),
}: }than
}: }the
}: } }export/import (like if there was a power failure in the middle,
or
}: } }whatever).
}: }
}: } Thanks for the info., Bill. Yes, I would like to try "/opt", but
I
}: } wanted to check first, for possible danger(s). Heretofore, all
my
}: } compacting's been manually done, on my Win95 machine (I wonder
if
}: }
}: }I think you HAD to do it that way with Win95. (I don't think the
}: }scanreg
}: }options I just mentioned were even available on Win95).
}:
}: SCANREG's not in this version (4.00.950) of Win95; that's why I was
}: wondering if the Win98 version would work with Win95.
}:
}: } SCANREG would work on it, too?), in conjunction with a program
called
}: } FIXREG. I've been doing it this way since 1999, without a hitch
}: (still
}: } running the previous owner's install of 95, here). Here's what
its
}: } registry looks like, after all these years:
}: }
}: } USER.DAT 188,448
}: } SYSTEM.DAT 1,667,228
}: }
}: }That seems pretty damn small to me!!
}:
}: Lean and mean; this machine! And, pretty darn reliable, too.
}:
}: }My USER.DAT is about 1000 KB (or 1 MB), and my SYSTEM.DAT is about
7000
}: }KB
}: }(or 7 MB), and I don't really have all that much on this Win 98SE
}: }machine
}: }(admitedly it's Win98SE, instead of Win 95)
}: }
}: } It's worked so well in '95; hence my reluctance to change. But,
if
}: } "/opt" is, indeed, reliable, it would be nice to let the
software
do
}: } the work. g
}: }
}: }Yup - and I think it's safer.
}:
}: Thanks for you opinion, WRT reliablility, Bill; it's my prime
concern,
}: here.
}:
}: } A couple of questions, though; if you're using "/fix", wouldn't
}: }"/opt"
}: } be redundant?
}: }
}: }No. /fix supposedly fixes any serious errors encountered in the
}: }registry
}: }(that it can), and / opt shrinks the registry (if it can). Two
}: }different
}: }things entirely.
}:
}: The documentation I have on the /FIX parameter says:
}:
}: "Repairs any damaged portions of the registry, and
}: optimizes it by rebuilding it without unused space."
}:
}: I can't remember the doc's source, though (it may not be from
}: Microsoft). Do you think it's incorrect?
}:
}: } And, can you actually see additional shrinkage, after each
subsequent
}: } run?
}: }
}: }Sometimes it will reduce the size a bit further when you've run it
more
}: }than
}: }once.
}: }
}: } If that's the case, perhaps the 'old fashioned'
}: } way would be better, after all (if so, would FIXREG still be
needed,
}: } in 98SE?).
}: }
}: }I've never used FIXREG.
}:
}: Win95 Gold's version of REGEDIT is quite buggy, WRT whole-registry
}: imports, so I grabbed the Win95C version, and modified the version
}: check. Even so, there are known problems importing values that
}: are terminated with the carriage return/linefeed sequence, when
using
}: the manual export/import in Win95. FIXREG can find and optionally
fix
}: any problems of this ilk (it's fixed a few things here, over the
years).
}:
}: }The only "fix registry" I know that works is either using a good
}: }registry
}: }backup (there are 5 created in Win98, automatically), or a new,
fresh
}: }install of windows. Relatedly, I don't place much faith in the so
}: }called
}: }registry cleaner programs, although I have played with them a
little
}: }bit - but very cautiously, and NEVER automatically.
}:
}: I've never been able to trust a registry cleaner, either. I've
}: downloaded a couple of the recommended ones, over the years, but
never
}: did wind up trying them.
}:
}: Ken
}:
}: --
}: Remove the '4' to reply via email
}:
}:
}: } }Kentiguous wrote:
}: } } Bill in Co. wrote :
}: } } What do you mean by a "manual compact" of the registry?
}: } }
}: } } A "REGEDIT /E myreg.reg", followed by a "REGEDIT /C
myreg.reg"
}: (from
}: } } a
}: } } DOS boot; after making a backup, of course g).
}: } }
}: } } Kentiguous wrote:
}: } } Is SCANREG /OPT reliable, or would it be safer to do a
manual
}: } } compact
}: } } of the registry?

Kentiguous wrote:
Bill in Co. wrote :

}Not that I've heard about, or experienced (I run that "scanreg /opt
}/fix"
}command every so often over here, and have for some time). It is in
}a
}TOTALLY different category than using ANY "registry cleaner" utility!
}TOTALLY different. As in - SAFE.
}
}But no one has yet (to my recollection) explained EXACTLY what the
}scanreg
}/fix option actually fixes in the registry (and I mean *specifics*
}here),
}and how it checks and does it. I've read what some web sites say
}about
}it, but it's all vague hooey. I would be curious to know what it's
}exact
}algorithm is - what *specifically* it looks for in the keys, and what
}*specifically* it checks in the registry keys and resolves.

Bill, if you do run across that information, I'd like to see it, too.

I've looked, but I don't think it's out there, just as Gary surmised. But
I trust it completely (it seems very innocuous), as I've NEVER had a problem
with it, UNLIKE the old MS regclean program (that was finally removed from
their site).

Thanks for your input, Bill and do let us know if you ever find anything. I
appreciate your work and have a great day!

"Bill in Co." wrote in message
...
: Kentiguous wrote:
: Bill in Co. wrote :
:
: }Not that I've heard about, or experienced (I run that "scanreg /opt
: }/fix"
: }command every so often over here, and have for some time). It is in
: }a
: }TOTALLY different category than using ANY "registry cleaner" utility!
: }TOTALLY different. As in - SAFE.
: }
: }But no one has yet (to my recollection) explained EXACTLY what the
: }scanreg
: }/fix option actually fixes in the registry (and I mean *specifics*
: }here),
: }and how it checks and does it. I've read what some web sites say
: }about
: }it, but it's all vague hooey. I would be curious to know what it's
: }exact
: }algorithm is - what *specifically* it looks for in the keys, and what
: }*specifically* it checks in the registry keys and resolves.
:
: Bill, if you do run across that information, I'd like to see it, too.
:
: I've looked, but I don't think it's out there, just as Gary surmised. But
: I trust it completely (it seems very innocuous), as I've NEVER had a
problem
: with it, UNLIKE the old MS regclean program (that was finally removed from
: their site).
:
:

Gary, if a user has problems and then restores an earlier registry is there a
chance that he/she will have system conflicts?

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...
: Well, not *entirely* safe--if your system crashes in the middle of
: Scanreg /opt or /fix, it's gonna trash that Registry. But that's what
: backups are for. Scanreg saves a backup before running those chores, or
: before restoring a backup, calling it RBBAD.CAB.
:
: --
: Gary S. Terhune
: MS MVP Shell/User
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
:
: "Kentiguous" wrote in message
: ...
: Dan wrote :
:
: }Ken or anyone else, are there problems that are known of with the
: 98SE
: }registry, registry tool or use of the scanreg/anything command --
: }refers to all possible variables?
:
: Full circle, Dan! This is exactly what I wanted to know, when I
: started
: this thread (see the end of this reply). So far, the consensus is that
: SCANREG's safe.
:
: Ken
:
: --
: Remove the '4' to reply via email
:
: }"Kentiguous" wrote in message
: ...
: }: Bill in Co. wrote :
: }: }Kentiguous wrote:
: }: } Bill in Co. wrote :
: }: } }OK, I lose the bet!
: }: }
: }: } I hope it wasn't too steep... g
: }: }
: }: } }At any rate, I think your idea might compact it better, but it
: may
: }: }be a
: }: } }bit overkill - why not just use the more recommended, "scanreg
: /opt"
: }: }a
: }: } }couple of
: }: } }times, and see how much that works for ya. I do this on
: occasion:
: }: } }"scanreg /opt /fix" (I run two or three times), and it usually
: }: }compacts
: }: }it
: }: } }a fair bit. And I think it would be faster (and perhaps
: safer),
: }: }than
: }: }the
: }: } }export/import (like if there was a power failure in the middle,
: or
: }: } }whatever).
: }: }
: }: } Thanks for the info., Bill. Yes, I would like to try "/opt", but
: I
: }: } wanted to check first, for possible danger(s). Heretofore, all
: my
: }: } compacting's been manually done, on my Win95 machine (I wonder
: if
: }: }
: }: }I think you HAD to do it that way with Win95. (I don't think the
: }: }scanreg
: }: }options I just mentioned were even available on Win95).
: }:
: }: SCANREG's not in this version (4.00.950) of Win95; that's why I was
: }: wondering if the Win98 version would work with Win95.
: }:
: }: } SCANREG would work on it, too?), in conjunction with a program
: called
: }: } FIXREG. I've been doing it this way since 1999, without a hitch
: }: (still
: }: } running the previous owner's install of 95, here). Here's what
: its
: }: } registry looks like, after all these years:
: }: }
: }: } USER.DAT 188,448
: }: } SYSTEM.DAT 1,667,228
: }: }
: }: }That seems pretty damn small to me!!
: }:
: }: Lean and mean; this machine! And, pretty darn reliable, too.
: }:
: }: }My USER.DAT is about 1000 KB (or 1 MB), and my SYSTEM.DAT is about
: 7000
: }: }KB
: }: }(or 7 MB), and I don't really have all that much on this Win 98SE
: }: }machine
: }: }(admitedly it's Win98SE, instead of Win 95)
: }: }
: }: } It's worked so well in '95; hence my reluctance to change. But,
: if
: }: } "/opt" is, indeed, reliable, it would be nice to let the
: software
: do
: }: } the work. g
: }: }
: }: }Yup - and I think it's safer.
: }:
: }: Thanks for you opinion, WRT reliablility, Bill; it's my prime
: concern,
: }: here.
: }:
: }: } A couple of questions, though; if you're using "/fix", wouldn't
: }: }"/opt"
: }: } be redundant?
: }: }
: }: }No. /fix supposedly fixes any serious errors encountered in the
: }: }registry
: }: }(that it can), and / opt shrinks the registry (if it can). Two
: }: }different
: }: }things entirely.
: }:
: }: The documentation I have on the /FIX parameter says:
: }:
: }: "Repairs any damaged portions of the registry, and
: }: optimizes it by rebuilding it without unused space."
: }:
: }: I can't remember the doc's source, though (it may not be from
: }: Microsoft). Do you think it's incorrect?
: }:
: }: } And, can you actually see additional shrinkage, after each
: subsequent
: }: } run?
: }: }
: }: }Sometimes it will reduce the size a bit further when you've run it
: more
: }: }than
: }: }once.
: }: }
: }: } If that's the case, perhaps the 'old fashioned'
: }: } way would be better, after all (if so, would FIXREG still be
: needed,
: }: } in 98SE?).
: }: }
: }: }I've never used FIXREG.
: }:
: }: Win95 Gold's version of REGEDIT is quite buggy, WRT whole-registry
: }: imports, so I grabbed the Win95C version, and modified the version
: }: check. Even so, there are known problems importing values that
: }: are terminated with the carriage return/linefeed sequence, when
: using
: }: the manual export/import in Win95. FIXREG can find and optionally
: fix
: }: any problems of this ilk (it's fixed a few things here, over the
: years).
: }:
: }: }The only "fix registry" I know that works is either using a good
: }: }registry
: }: }backup (there are 5 created in Win98, automatically), or a new,
: fresh
: }: }install of windows. Relatedly, I don't place much faith in the so
: }: }called
: }: }registry cleaner programs, although I have played with them a
: little
: }: }bit - but very cautiously, and NEVER automatically.
: }:
: }: I've never been able to trust a registry cleaner, either. I've
: }: downloaded a couple of the recommended ones, over the years, but
: never
: }: did wind up trying them.
: }:
: }: Ken
: }:
: }: --
: }: Remove the '4' to reply via email
: }:
: }:
: }: } }Kentiguous wrote:
: }: } } Bill in Co. wrote :
: }: } } What do you mean by a "manual compact" of the registry?
: }: } }
: }: } } A "REGEDIT /E myreg.reg", followed by a "REGEDIT /C
: myreg.reg"
: }: (from
: }: } } a
: }: } } DOS boot; after making a backup, of course g).
: }: } }
: }: } } Kentiguous wrote:
: }: } } Is SCANREG /OPT reliable, or would it be safer to do a
: manual
: }: } } compact
: }: } } of the registry?
:
:
:
:
:

If he/she has installed new hardware, or even new software in some
cases, the older Registry might cause problems beyond having to
reinstall those items. But it's something to consider, especially if
you're restoring a Registry that's much older than a week.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS MVP Shell/User
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm

"Dan" wrote in message
...
Gary, if a user has problems and then restores an earlier registry is
there a
chance that he/she will have system conflicts?

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...
: Well, not *entirely* safe--if your system crashes in the middle of
: Scanreg /opt or /fix, it's gonna trash that Registry. But that's
what
: backups are for. Scanreg saves a backup before running those chores,
or
: before restoring a backup, calling it RBBAD.CAB.
:
: --
: Gary S. Terhune
: MS MVP Shell/User
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
:
: "Kentiguous" wrote in message
: ...
: Dan wrote :
:
: }Ken or anyone else, are there problems that are known of with the
: 98SE
: }registry, registry tool or use of the scanreg/anything command --
: }refers to all possible variables?
:
: Full circle, Dan! This is exactly what I wanted to know, when I
: started
: this thread (see the end of this reply). So far, the consensus is
that
: SCANREG's safe.
:
: Ken
:
: --
: Remove the '4' to reply via email
:
: }"Kentiguous" wrote in message
: ...
: }: Bill in Co. wrote :
: }: }Kentiguous wrote:
: }: } Bill in Co. wrote :
: }: } }OK, I lose the bet!
: }: }
: }: } I hope it wasn't too steep... g
: }: }
: }: } }At any rate, I think your idea might compact it better, but
it
: may
: }: }be a
: }: } }bit overkill - why not just use the more recommended,
"scanreg
: /opt"
: }: }a
: }: } }couple of
: }: } }times, and see how much that works for ya. I do this on
: occasion:
: }: } }"scanreg /opt /fix" (I run two or three times), and it
usually
: }: }compacts
: }: }it
: }: } }a fair bit. And I think it would be faster (and perhaps
: safer),
: }: }than
: }: }the
: }: } }export/import (like if there was a power failure in the
middle,
: or
: }: } }whatever).
: }: }
: }: } Thanks for the info., Bill. Yes, I would like to try "/opt",
but
: I
: }: } wanted to check first, for possible danger(s). Heretofore,
all
: my
: }: } compacting's been manually done, on my Win95 machine (I
wonder
: if
: }: }
: }: }I think you HAD to do it that way with Win95. (I don't think
the
: }: }scanreg
: }: }options I just mentioned were even available on Win95).
: }:
: }: SCANREG's not in this version (4.00.950) of Win95; that's why I
was
: }: wondering if the Win98 version would work with Win95.
: }:
: }: } SCANREG would work on it, too?), in conjunction with a
program
: called
: }: } FIXREG. I've been doing it this way since 1999, without a
hitch
: }: (still
: }: } running the previous owner's install of 95, here). Here's
what
: its
: }: } registry looks like, after all these years:
: }: }
: }: } USER.DAT 188,448
: }: } SYSTEM.DAT 1,667,228
: }: }
: }: }That seems pretty damn small to me!!
: }:
: }: Lean and mean; this machine! And, pretty darn reliable, too.
: }:
: }: }My USER.DAT is about 1000 KB (or 1 MB), and my SYSTEM.DAT is
about
: 7000
: }: }KB
: }: }(or 7 MB), and I don't really have all that much on this Win
98SE
: }: }machine
: }: }(admitedly it's Win98SE, instead of Win 95)
: }: }
: }: } It's worked so well in '95; hence my reluctance to change.
But,
: if
: }: } "/opt" is, indeed, reliable, it would be nice to let the
: software
: do
: }: } the work. g
: }: }
: }: }Yup - and I think it's safer.
: }:
: }: Thanks for you opinion, WRT reliablility, Bill; it's my prime
: concern,
: }: here.
: }:
: }: } A couple of questions, though; if you're using "/fix",
wouldn't
: }: }"/opt"
: }: } be redundant?
: }: }
: }: }No. /fix supposedly fixes any serious errors encountered in
the
: }: }registry
: }: }(that it can), and / opt shrinks the registry (if it can).
Two
: }: }different
: }: }things entirely.
: }:
: }: The documentation I have on the /FIX parameter says:
: }:
: }: "Repairs any damaged portions of the registry, and
: }: optimizes it by rebuilding it without unused space."
: }:
: }: I can't remember the doc's source, though (it may not be from
: }: Microsoft). Do you think it's incorrect?
: }:
: }: } And, can you actually see additional shrinkage, after each
: subsequent
: }: } run?
: }: }
: }: }Sometimes it will reduce the size a bit further when you've
run it
: more
: }: }than
: }: }once.
: }: }
: }: } If that's the case, perhaps the 'old fashioned'
: }: } way would be better, after all (if so, would FIXREG still be
: needed,
: }: } in 98SE?).
: }: }
: }: }I've never used FIXREG.
: }:
: }: Win95 Gold's version of REGEDIT is quite buggy, WRT
whole-registry
: }: imports, so I grabbed the Win95C version, and modified the
version
: }: check. Even so, there are known problems importing values that
: }: are terminated with the carriage return/linefeed sequence, when
: using
: }: the manual export/import in Win95. FIXREG can find and
optionally
: fix
: }: any problems of this ilk (it's fixed a few things here, over
the
: years).
: }:
: }: }The only "fix registry" I know that works is either using a
good
: }: }registry
: }: }backup (there are 5 created in Win98, automatically), or a
new,
: fresh
: }: }install of windows. Relatedly, I don't place much faith in
the so
: }: }called
: }: }registry cleaner programs, although I have played with them a
: little
: }: }bit - but very cautiously, and NEVER automatically.
: }:
: }: I've never been able to trust a registry cleaner, either. I've
: }: downloaded a couple of the recommended ones, over the years,
but
: never
: }: did wind up trying them.
: }:
: }: Ken
: }:
: }: --
: }: Remove the '4' to reply via email
: }:
: }:
: }: } }Kentiguous wrote:
: }: } } Bill in Co. wrote :
: }: } } What do you mean by a "manual compact" of the registry?
: }: } }
: }: } } A "REGEDIT /E myreg.reg", followed by a "REGEDIT /C
: myreg.reg"
: }: (from
: }: } } a
: }: } } DOS boot; after making a backup, of course g).
: }: } }
: }: } } Kentiguous wrote:
: }: } } Is SCANREG /OPT reliable, or would it be safer to do a
: manual
: }: } } compact
: }: } } of the registry?
:
:
:
:
:

Thanks for the information. I will keep it under consideration when the need
to restore a registry comes about.

"Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
...
: If he/she has installed new hardware, or even new software in some
: cases, the older Registry might cause problems beyond having to
: reinstall those items. But it's something to consider, especially if
: you're restoring a Registry that's much older than a week.
:
: --
: Gary S. Terhune
: MS MVP Shell/User
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
: http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
:
: "Dan" wrote in message
: ...
: Gary, if a user has problems and then restores an earlier registry is
: there a
: chance that he/she will have system conflicts?
:
: "Gary S. Terhune" wrote in message
: ...
: : Well, not *entirely* safe--if your system crashes in the middle of
: : Scanreg /opt or /fix, it's gonna trash that Registry. But that's
: what
: : backups are for. Scanreg saves a backup before running those chores,
: or
: : before restoring a backup, calling it RBBAD.CAB.
: :
: : --
: : Gary S. Terhune
: : MS MVP Shell/User
: : http://www.grystmill.com/articles/cleanboot.htm
: : http://www.grystmill.com/articles/security.htm
: :
: : "Kentiguous" wrote in message
: : ...
: : Dan wrote :
: :
: : }Ken or anyone else, are there problems that are known of with the
: : 98SE
: : }registry, registry tool or use of the scanreg/anything command --
: : }refers to all possible variables?
: :
: : Full circle, Dan! This is exactly what I wanted to know, when I
: : started
: : this thread (see the end of this reply). So far, the consensus is
: that
: : SCANREG's safe.
: :
: : Ken
: :
: : --
: : Remove the '4' to reply via email
: :
: : }"Kentiguous" wrote in message
: : ...
: : }: Bill in Co. wrote :
: : }: }Kentiguous wrote:
: : }: } Bill in Co. wrote :
: : }: } }OK, I lose the bet!
: : }: }
: : }: } I hope it wasn't too steep... g
: : }: }
: : }: } }At any rate, I think your idea might compact it better, but
: it
: : may
: : }: }be a
: : }: } }bit overkill - why not just use the more recommended,
: "scanreg
: : /opt"
: : }: }a
: : }: } }couple of
: : }: } }times, and see how much that works for ya. I do this on
: : occasion:
: : }: } }"scanreg /opt /fix" (I run two or three times), and it
: usually
: : }: }compacts
: : }: }it
: : }: } }a fair bit. And I think it would be faster (and perhaps
: : safer),
: : }: }than
: : }: }the
: : }: } }export/import (like if there was a power failure in the
: middle,
: : or
: : }: } }whatever).
: : }: }
: : }: } Thanks for the info., Bill. Yes, I would like to try "/opt",
: but
: : I
: : }: } wanted to check first, for possible danger(s). Heretofore,
: all
: : my
: : }: } compacting's been manually done, on my Win95 machine (I
: wonder
: : if
: : }: }
: : }: }I think you HAD to do it that way with Win95. (I don't think
: the
: : }: }scanreg
: : }: }options I just mentioned were even available on Win95).
: : }:
: : }: SCANREG's not in this version (4.00.950) of Win95; that's why I
: was
: : }: wondering if the Win98 version would work with Win95.
: : }:
: : }: } SCANREG would work on it, too?), in conjunction with a
: program
: : called
: : }: } FIXREG. I've been doing it this way since 1999, without a
: hitch
: : }: (still
: : }: } running the previous owner's install of 95, here). Here's
: what
: : its
: : }: } registry looks like, after all these years:
: : }: }
: : }: } USER.DAT 188,448
: : }: } SYSTEM.DAT 1,667,228
: : }: }
: : }: }That seems pretty damn small to me!!
: : }:
: : }: Lean and mean; this machine! And, pretty darn reliable, too.
: : }:
: : }: }My USER.DAT is about 1000 KB (or 1 MB), and my SYSTEM.DAT is
: about
: : 7000
: : }: }KB
: : }: }(or 7 MB), and I don't really have all that much on this Win
: 98SE
: : }: }machine
: : }: }(admitedly it's Win98SE, instead of Win 95)
: : }: }
: : }: } It's worked so well in '95; hence my reluctance to change.
: But,
: : if
: : }: } "/opt" is, indeed, reliable, it would be nice to let the
: : software
: : do
: : }: } the work. g
: : }: }
: : }: }Yup - and I think it's safer.
: : }:
: : }: Thanks for you opinion, WRT reliablility, Bill; it's my prime
: : concern,
: : }: here.
: : }:
: : }: } A couple of questions, though; if you're using "/fix",
: wouldn't
: : }: }"/opt"
: : }: } be redundant?
: : }: }
: : }: }No. /fix supposedly fixes any serious errors encountered in
: the
: : }: }registry
: : }: }(that it can), and / opt shrinks the registry (if it can).
: Two
: : }: }different
: : }: }things entirely.
: : }:
: : }: The documentation I have on the /FIX parameter says:
: : }:
: : }: "Repairs any damaged portions of the registry, and
: : }: optimizes it by rebuilding it without unused space."
: : }:
: : }: I can't remember the doc's source, though (it may not be from
: : }: Microsoft). Do you think it's incorrect?
: : }:
: : }: } And, can you actually see additional shrinkage, after each
: : subsequent
: : }: } run?
: : }: }
: : }: }Sometimes it will reduce the size a bit further when you've
: run it
: : more
: : }: }than
: : }: }once.
: : }: }
: : }: } If that's the case, perhaps the 'old fashioned'
: : }: } way would be better, after all (if so, would FIXREG still be
: : needed,
: : }: } in 98SE?).
: : }: }
: : }: }I've never used FIXREG.
: : }:
: : }: Win95 Gold's version of REGEDIT is quite buggy, WRT
: whole-registry
: : }: imports, so I grabbed the Win95C version, and modified the
: version
: : }: check. Even so, there are known problems importing values that
: : }: are terminated with the carriage return/linefeed sequence, when
: : using
: : }: the manual export/import in Win95. FIXREG can find and
: optionally
: : fix
: : }: any problems of this ilk (it's fixed a few things here, over
: the
: : years).
: : }:
: : }: }The only "fix registry" I know that works is either using a
: good
: : }: }registry
: : }: }backup (there are 5 created in Win98, automatically), or a
: new,
: : fresh
: : }: }install of windows. Relatedly, I don't place much faith in
: the so
: : }: }called
: : }: }registry cleaner programs, although I have played with them a
: : little
: : }: }bit - but very cautiously, and NEVER automatically.
: : }:
: : }: I've never been able to trust a registry cleaner, either. I've
: : }: downloaded a couple of the recommended ones, over the years,
: but
: : never
: : }: did wind up trying them.
: : }:
: : }: Ken
: : }:
: : }: --
: : }: Remove the '4' to reply via email
: : }:
: : }:
: : }: } }Kentiguous wrote:
: : }: } } Bill in Co. wrote :
: : }: } } What do you mean by a "manual compact" of the registry?
: : }: } }
: : }: } } A "REGEDIT /E myreg.reg", followed by a "REGEDIT /C
: : myreg.reg"
: : }: (from
: : }: } } a
: : }: } } DOS boot; after making a backup, of course g).
: : }: } }
: : }: } } Kentiguous wrote:
: : }: } } Is SCANREG /OPT reliable, or would it be safer to do a
: : manual
: : }: } } compact
: : }: } } of the registry?
: :
: :
: :
: :
: :
:
:
: