What is the BEST Registry Cleaner for Win 7 Ultimate or Pro 64 Bit version OS ?

Because we see time after time in these forums, people who have a problem with their system that's been caused by the blind use of a registry cleaner because some website has told them to use it.

"it goes directly to them because it knows where they are... the seek time is exactly the same. That's why orphaned entries have little or no effect on performance.The only time it might have some effect is on boot up.... "

Interesting, and it makes sense that programs would not have to scan the whole registry, but

not something I'd considered.

That's why I like forums. Always learning something.

The part about boot up may explain why I have had error messages that relate to registry keys

that have been left behind after uninstalling a software that may have been in Startup.

This is very rare though,  and as with many error reports (such as for a service I may have disabled, etc.),

it does not really affect performance, because the error, in this instance, is a false positive.

I will say though, that my compulsive nature tends to want me to rid my machine of such errors

(because Windows has made a list two kilometres long for that one item), which has been known

to lead me to regedit to cast the Devil from my machine.

Still... I do this only because of my obsessive compulsive nature, not because I believe I am

improving performance.

.

All derivatives of the original Windows NT have ignored orphans, and the allowable size of the registry has grown to 2gb in Windows 7. That is a lot of orphaned entries (errors if you prefer to think of them as the enemy).

Windows 3 and 9x used to plough the registry at every boot, and if they found bad things, the OS invariably fell over, especially if the miniscule allowable size was in sight. Hence Regclean 4, which took out only the safest of 'errors'.

If you are wondering what happened to Reglean 1 through 3, I think they showed the same destructive tendencies as Regcure Pro and its mates..

You might also remember the warning about having too many fonts installed. Win 9x used to have to check EVERY font before it would finally let you in. Hence the rash of font managers in those heady days.

"Windows 3 and 9x used to plough the registry at every boot, and if they found bad things, the OS invariably fell over, especially if the miniscule allowable size was in sight..."

I'm a newcomer myself - '04 and XP, but even then optimisation was everyone's mind, what with

128/MB RAM and 5-10GB HDD's.  Optimisation must have been all consuming earlier on.

"You might also remember the warning about having too many fonts installed. Win 9x used to have to check EVERY font before it would finally let you in. Hence the rash of font managers in those heady days. "

Sounds like fun - NOT....

I do recall seeing adds for font managers. Never new what they were for though.

Sorry the filing cabinet analogy is wrong, When you start a program, it does NOT sort through the registry (aka filing cabinets) to find the appropriate keys - it goes directly to them because it knows where they are, so it doesn't matter whether you have 2 "filing cabinets" or sixty, the seek time is exactly the same. That's why orphaned entries have little or no effect on performance. The only time it might have some effect is on boot up, but the average user won't normally notice.

So if this is true then the link that groucho43 provided where the so called expert says 

"There are a few misunderstandings about the registry. People seem to think that “cleaning” the registry will make it smaller and easier to manage. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way. What you are doing is creating mini gaps in the registry’s file. These gaps will be reused by new data that inserts itself into your registry. The end result is that the registry becomes fragmented. Searching the data in a fragmented file is way slower than it is within an optimized file. In short, the only way to speed up the handling of the registry is by completely rewriting the file(s)… and even that is marginal at best."

she is incorrect in the above statement? Come on now... you expect me to swallow that windows does not have to search the registry, but if you remove the orphaned keys that it will leave registry fragmented and will perform slower? If what you say is true then if a orphaned key is removed then the gap that is created will not matter either. I do not buy it. It can't be both ways. I have never seen any proof that windows doesn't search the registry. I have been looking with no luck. You point me into a direction that is a credible source then I might change my mind. If Kat, the expert, makes statements like

To be quite frank, if you “clean” your registry often enough, it will become fragmented. That will result in slower system performance…

I have to believe that windows searches through the registry, and in return the orphaned keys will make a difference. I would love nothing more than for you to prove me wrong so there is one less thing I have to do to maintain a healthy system.

Every cleaner I have tested always ask me to make backup first. Most are set to do this as default option. It would be easy to help someone restore there registry and save them from having to do a system restore if you knew what cleaner they used and was able to tell them how to restore the backup the program made.