The review was great
I’m amused that the program didn’t fix the broken file association, and broekn uninstall entry.
Apart from imaging entire HDD’s (before cleanup) and restoring (which is time consuming), then running a different registry cleaner, there’s not really any thing you can do for comparisons sake, and the whole registry thing is over-hyped regardless.
A good defrag will fix it every time. And you can do a pagedefrag which will stick all your swap file, registry files & other important files back together (SystemInternals / freeware) and then a proper full defrag & improve access times on your HDD which will be better regardless - or just upgrade to an SSD
[QUOTE=SeÃ¡n;2538460]However, I do agree with the marketing, as like I mentioned on the advanced tests page, the “Damage level” meter is far too sensitive, reporting maximum level damage on every single PC I tested it on and medium level damage on a fresh Windows XP installation.[/QUOTE]
And they wonder why people are sceptical about these sorts of things
I’m very curious about how the programmers defined the damage levels. Is there some sort of reasoning, or is it based on the error count and a few arbitrary numbers?
The fact that a new install has a medium damage level … seriously?
A clean/fresh install of the Operating System is already seriously messed up?
Either Microsoft is composed of several thousand sub-par programmers … or the damage levels are heavily exagerrated
Since I’m highly sceptical, I’m going to assume a little from column A, a little from column B