thanatoid wrote: > "HeyBub" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in > news:u1F1$28mKHA.1548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl: > >> thanatoid wrote: >>> >>> And may I disrespectfully point out to those who keep on >>> beating the dead horse of "improved performance" that >>> neither I nor most of the other pro-RC posters (IIRC) have >>> ever claimed ANY performance increase - in fact I have >>> repeatedly stated there is ZERO performance increase. >>> >> >> I don't know of anybody who has quantified a computer's >> efficiency before and after a 'registry cleaning.' I doubt >> that it's doable. >> >> First, there are always seven registry hives and no cleaner >> is going to reduce that number. In almost all cases, when >> asked, the OS loads an entire hive into memory and searches >> it at RAM speed. Further, the search is not even a >> sequential search but a tree search. The OS has to make, at >> most, maybe five or ten comparisons in the tree to find the >> requested key. >> >> So, whether the registry contains 1,000 entries or five >> million, the difference in access time is unmeasurably >> small. > > Are you attempting to make a point, let alone in reply to my > statement? If the pitchers keep bearing down and the hitters keep swinging for the fences, anything could happen. Everybody knows that and that's what I'm trying to explain. Heck, while I write this I am obliged to keep a gun in each hand and a knife in the other. Fortunately everyone survived except those who were drowned in an adjacent bog.