Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 24
  1. #1
    Silver Lounger Bruce K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,876
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    REG addresses (XPP)

    In <big><font face="Georgia">HKEY_CURRENT_USERSoftwareMicrosoftR AS AutodialerAddresses</font face=georgia></big> ,there exists an extensive list of URLs, some I need and many I do not.
    I wish to know what this key is and is it safe to delete the end? These also reside at <big><font face="Georgia">HKEY_USERS</font face=georgia></big>.

  2. #2
    Uranium Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    7,089
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: REG addresses (XPP)

    I think the operative question here is why? Why would you want to delete them? The potential problems that could result offset any gain that you could achieve.
    -Mark

  3. #3
    Silver Lounger Bruce K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,876
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: REG addresses (XPP)

    I am just doing regular reg cleaning and I don't want a bunch of garbage in there that is not otherwise necessary. I don't need fox.com. doubleclick.com, callgirl.com, amazon.com, etc. slowly encroaching on trophy real estate. How could I possibly realize an adverse situation removing them? There are hundreds of them. I perform regular registry cleans after backing up twice,export to compress, then import and the gains I achieve are lightning reflexive response when Fuji is called into action.

  4. #4
    Uranium Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    7,089
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: REG addresses (XPP)

    What I was getting at was that these entries wouldn't have any noticeable impact on performance. It's a myth, just as increasing your processor speed from 700 to 800 MHz doesn't really gain you anything perceptible. If you're getting lightning relfexive responses it's more to do with your overall system configuration than it is to do with anything in the registry, and this is especially true under XP. Modern Windows version optimize the registry for you.

    What you are seeing under HKEY_Current_User is actually a link back to HKEY_Users - it's the same data. Modifying one will change the other.

    Export the REG file, and delete the entries if you think they need pruning. The list is maintained for dial-up connections that are dropped.
    -Mark

  5. #5
    Plutonium Lounger
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    12,107
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: REG addresses (XPP)

    Callgirl.Com ? ?

  6. #6
    Silver Lounger Bruce K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,876
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: REG addresses (XPP)

    I am sure you are right about the impact that these alone would have Mark, but in the big scheme of overall entries combined, I have found that with all the tweaks I've made and overriding a certain number of unnecessary services and defaults M$ includes, I have created a noticeable difference in performance had I not done otherwise. I also have a tendency to install and uninstall new software, demos, trials, and disassembling progz to see how they work.

    Basically, yeah, with this it boils down to some pruning. I like to try and stay on top of it and find I learn quite a bit as I go along. The only thing I dial-up is AT&T ISP.

    RAS = ?

  7. #7
    Silver Lounger Bruce K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,876
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: REG addresses (XPP)

    Yes, callgirl.com. I was going to include a screenshot of the registry, but after looking at some of the address names, I decided against it as it may erroneously incriminate me as a deviant of sorts. I guess those are pop-ups. I'm not sure. <IMG SRC=http://www.krymow.com/images/eyebrowflash.gif>

  8. #8
    Uranium Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    7,089
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: REG addresses (XPP)

    RAS = Remote Access Services, the software implementation chosen by Microsoft for its products. It essentially controls/manages dial-up connections.

    And not to beat on a dead horse, or even to say "you're wrong" - but if pruning the registry makes your system's performance better under XP, then I would start examining the hardware that you're running it on and looking for other bottlenecks. With sufficient memory and a newer motherboard, XP should absolutely sail. If you are running 256MB or less of RAM, it will impact performance in a big way. And speaking from experience, I thought I had a decent mobo until a recent power outage killed it (it was an Asus A7A266). The replacement board is primarily different only in the respect that it uses the VIA KT-266a chipset. That was the bottleneck I couldn't seem to find before. Just a reminder, because the vast majority of problems that people have with the performance of Windows (and Office) is due to outdated hardware that was never designed with all these whiz-bang toys around.

    If you're doing manual pruning of the registry....be careful!!
    -Mark

  9. #9
    Silver Lounger Bruce K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    1,876
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: REG addresses (XPP)

    I have a 1 yr old Fujitsu 7631 series C Lifebook, 1.0 PIII, 256MB RAM, FJNB14B MOBO. This is a top-shelf mobile desktop that outperforms and is more functional and diverse, in my opinion, of most any comparable desktop. (I have other units, but I love this thing!) I only have 30GB of storage, but that is plenty. I use about half and store all else on my server or on media. My equipment and related hardware are all up-to-date and quality. I would like to bump up my RAM in this puppy to 512, but it is maxed at it's current configuration.

    That little bit of pruning, I agree, will make no difference, but it is just one small part of my regular periodic cleaning. The whole is what seems to make the difference. I really don't have any performance problems, but I'm the kinda guy that doesn't just dust around the furniture. As previously mentioned, software I install and uninstall and other routine play/work leave remnants and gaps that I feel are best kept swept up. I don't do spring cleaning as my house is cleaned daily.

    I'm pretty careful in the reg and commit to regular BUs. <IMG SRC=http://www.krymow.com/images/bluescreen.gif>

  10. #10
    Bronze Lounger
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,306
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: REG addresses (XPP)

    Bruce
    'Pruning' the Registry to 'increase' performance is like shortening your toes instead of cutting your toenails. In other words : don't bother - it might hurt, it won't work and it's not the right way to do it.
    The Registry hives don't even take up much room on your hard disk. Unless there's a very specific problem, and you have exact instructions (e.g. virus removal) hacking the Registry is dangerous and unnecessary. In Win2k and XP the registry is not a couple of system files (as it was in 9x) and you can't back it up in any simple way. To install a clean Registry, for instance, without re-installing the OS you need the Start-Up discs. Should you damage it badly (easy to do) you might not even be able to boot into XP to use System Restore, or to Merge that *.reg you so hopefully made.
    One day your 'cleaning' will produce just such an effect, and you'll know what I mean. Unless, of course, you insist on learning the hard way.........

  11. #11
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    214
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: REG addresses (XPP)

    So, MerCurmudgeon,

    You'd suggest that running a registry utility like Norton's Windoctor (which finds broken links and missing Com/ActiveX modules) is a bad idea?

    I'm curious because I just updated to XP over Win2K and there are 125 "errors" according to WinDoctor.

    I used to run RegClean regularly, but I can't find a straight answer on whether or not it works with XP.

    Any registry gurus out there in Wopr land?

  12. #12
    Uranium Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    7,089
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: REG addresses (XPP)

    I like the Windoctor. It's one of the more comprehensive and compelling reasons to shell out the money for this particular software suite. It does manage to find several things in the registry that are normally left alone, such as orphaned entries, invalid classes, and so forth. I've never had a problem running it and letting it repair anything - nothing that I could attribute to WIndowoctor, anyway! <img src=/S/wink.gif border=0 alt=wink width=15 height=15>

    RegClean will work on XP, but it's very limited in what it does. I don't like to use it, really, because Windoctor is a far more thorough program that does several things and does them well - with an easily reversible way out if you cause problems.
    -Mark

  13. #13
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    214
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: REG addresses (XPP)

    Mark, thanks for the response on WinDoctor. I'll back up the registry and give it a go at Repair All.

  14. #14
    Bronze Lounger
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,306
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: REG addresses (XPP)

    <hr>You'd suggest that running a registry utility like Norton's Windoctor.... is a bad idea?<hr>
    I never said, nor, I hope, suggested any such thing. Please re-read the thread. Bruce was talking about manual editing, ('pruning') and was not 100% clear about how the Registry is constructed (who is?). Faffing about in there and trimming things is not something I'd recommend. Conventional wisdom says, no matter what you do with the Registry, one day you will make a mistake and, in spite of System Restore, have to re-install your OS.
    I'd love to know how you are going to 'back up the registry' in XPP.
    Nothing wrong at all with regcleaners like Windoctor - if they do the job for you. Similarly, XTEQ makes Registry changes every time you use it, but I would not advise shunning it for that reason.
    That was not at all the point at issue, though. Using such a utility is not at all the same as hacking the Registry manually. Windoctor is more like cutting your toenails with nail scissors. Such a commercial program is designed for the purpose in hand, and, one would hope, hardly likely to screw-up. I would say this, though. On my Win 2k system I used Norton Utilities frequently - and very useful they were. However, having just used it, if I ran it again there were invariably more problems it found - a never-ending process.

    I cannot, in all consciousness, advise uninformed Registry editing on NT platforms. In 9x you can save copies of System.dat and User.dat and replace them via DOS - there's no such route for 2k and XP.

  15. #15
    2 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    The Hague, Netherlands
    Posts
    125
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: REG addresses (XPP)

    I have a lot of sympathy with Bruce Krymow and I am only 100% happy when I know the source of everything on my PC and there is nothing on my hard disc that hasn't got a good reason to be there. Sadly, I used to be 95% happy with DOS, 80% happy when I installed Windows 3.1 and now I am hard pushed to be 45% happy as an XP user.

    Twenty years ago I was part of a group that used to write and maintain realtime banking software on an NCR Century mainframe. Our boss, an old hand himself, insisted that we screw the last machine cycle out of our current configuration before he would allow us to upgrade. I remember once we tweaked the operating system's polling table because the OS made some invalid assumptions about what it thought we wanted. You can only do this if you know exactly what you have and what it does.

    Bruce, keep your attitude. The machine is supposed to be the servant of the man. Win XP is not sacred. I have learnt twenty-five times as much recovering from my (often stupid) mistakes than by reading how to do it right. After all, there is an infinite number of ways to be wrong and only a small and very finite number of ways of being right.

    Best regards

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •