I can understand different Registry cleaners reporting different numbers of errors. What I don't understand is how the same errors are not reported consistently. To illustrate, I just downloaded the Registry Booster 2 and ran the scan. It "found" 335 "Problems/Errors". Most were the typical "missing Type library", "missing shortcut", and "empty location" errors. I did not repair them, but instead ran another popular cleaner, RegSeeker, and it found 1212 (!!!) of the same type errors. I then ran CCleaner's Registry cleaner. It found about 80 of the same errors, or "Issues" as it calls them. I backed up my Registry and fixed those errors with CCleaner, ran CCleaner's cleaner again. This time it 6 more; fixed them, and ran it a 3rd time, and it found no errors this time. Note that running 2 or 3 times until no "issues" are found is typical.

Then I ran Registry Booster 2 again. This time, it found 334 errors, only 1 less than before! Why not 80 less? Regseeker this time around found 1062, 140 less. Again, why not 80 less? Why more than 80? This inconsistency convinces me that Registry cleaning is a guessing game, one that I am not willing to play with an aggressive player - and so I stick with CCleaner.

The problem I have with reviews, including the recent review of Registry Booster 2, is they are never thorough and usually involve just 1 or 2 "hand-picked" computers that have typically been used by IT experts, or at least, very experienced users - or more likely user - that is, only one username is setup and used. That does not reflect the real world. Then if nothing breaks, they throw their wholehearted endorsement at the product. I feel that does a DISSERVICE to the common user - who is typically NOT an expert or even an advanced user, but possibly one of several users with various skill-sets using a home computer.

A good, dare I say "professional" evaluation of a product should have a large sample - the more the better. For a critical product like a Registry cleaner, 30 PCs seems realistic to me. Why? Because within 1 hour after initial setup, EVERY PC is different. Every user has their own favorite programs, including all important security applications, desktop configurations, network settings, printers, scanners, USB devices, etc. What if the cleaner broke just 3 out of the 30 PCs - is that acceptable? A 10% failure rate?? Not to me. Is that failure rate realistic? Who knows? No realistic tests were done! And that's the problem.

One of the common measures used to test cleaners is boot times - and that's probably a fair test - one test, though, not a battery of tests. But many variables, besides the Registry entries, can and does affect each and every boot time. These include such things as the status at shutdown (what was still running in the background from manually started programs during that session, for example), cache contents (and there are lots of different caches - MRU lists, menu settings, prefetch data, MUIcache, disk cache/Page File), network connections (including router and firewall), and security application settings (including update and scan schedulers). Even such things as System Tray icons and the last status of those programs at shutdown can affect the next boot time.

The evaluation on Registry Booster 2 done here at WTT reported they booted the system 5 times, I assume 5 times before cleaning and 5 times after cleaning. I think that is a fair sampling and the results are surprising, and good. But are faster boot times significant, in terms of system performance and stability? I don't think so. I keep my systems running 24/7 so I don't find long boot times an annoyance and in fact, I have my BIOS settings set to display boot status, which makes my times even longer. No big deal for me. Many (most?) users who don't leave their systems on 24/7, turn them on in the morning and then off at night. Is less than 10 seconds longer boot time really that important there? Not for the vast majority, I would think. For folks looking for instant boot times, don't. Instant on computers are still quite a few years away.

Is the fact that some programs load up faster after cleaning with Registry Booster significant? I don't know. Is saving 2 seconds during a program load really that important too? Not to me. Program lockups and system stability during use is what matters to me, as well as system response times [U]after[/U] boots and loads are what I feel are important and I've seen no evidence from any independent tests that show any Registry cleaner improves system performance in those areas.

BTW, note that many programs, including MS Office products, have a "Repair" feature, either as a menu option, or as an option in Control Panel > Add and Remove Software and that running these repair features resets all the Registry settings to the correct values too. I personally would rather have the software maker set the correct Registry settings than use a database compiled by some 3rd party.

Maybe Fred Langa should be notified......