10 Types of System Tools and Optimization Programs You Don’t Need on Windows

Have you heard the saying, "there's a ghost in the machine"?

Well I've come across the ghost in the machine 100's of times over the years.

I partly remember 1 instance years ago. I ran into a problem & years ago there wasn't the plethora of wonderful software that's now available. So there was a wide spread command line solution that always worked. Personally this solution worked many times. Except this time I tried this at least 2 dozen times & it didn't work. I called a friend more knowledgeable than me at the time. I have surpassed him now . Told him what I had done & he said try it 1 more time. And it worked!

I have had many different situations in the same vein as above.

I am glad things have always worked out for you. But I've had to use many different programs over the years to fix PCs.

 

Try CC again, i've used it since 2005 on XP and it have never caused any problems.

When did you use/try CC the last time

 

I hold grudges with software. Kinda block-headed about it.
So it is true I haven't used cc in a long time.
I really should forgive cc of past & leave it alone. LOL
But I haven't been willing.

 

So the article doesn't target the type of readers we have here.

Regarding some of the individual items in the list:

Registry cleaners.
For removing program remains, that's what backup images and install logs are for. For cleaning out usage tracks and such, I'd consider them useful, but not real solutions to the problem. Instead of constantly removing usage tracks from the registry, prevent them from being logged in the first place. On NT systems, that can be done by changing the permissions on the keys that store the usage tracks. That's where apps like Privazer can help. Take a registry snashot before and after running it, then compare. The keys it cleans are the ones to modify the permissions for. For me, usage tracks in the registry are a non-issue. My OS stores very few to begin with. That registry is replaced on every reboot with a cleaned and optimized copy. Combined, my registry files are under 3MB.

3rd party uninstallers.
Useful if you didn't make system backups before installing new software or didn't monitor and document the changes an app makes to your system when installed and first run.

Update checker.
I'd rather update manually when I feel it's necessary, especially with apps adopting this rapid update policy. This especially applies to browser extensions with new versions introducing undesirable behaviors.

Outbound firewall.
Not counting system updates, this is the first application I install. I consider an outbound firewall with strong loopback control an absolute necessity, especially in regards to privacy. With properly configured loopback rules, I don't have to worry about some exploit causing my browser to bypass the filtering proxy or connecting directly when using Tor. The firewall won't permit it.

Security suite.
If this referrs to combined packages like NIS or AVs bundled with firewalls, HIPS, and a drain cleaner for the kitchen sink, no thanks. IMO, separate apps that stand on their own do a better job. An exploit that defeats one doesn't affect the rest. Separate, they can be configured to protect each other.

Drivers.
If it isn't broke, don't fix it. If you're not running the latest OS, the newest graphics drivers might not be your best option. Drivers are usually optimized for the latest OS that they support, sometimes at the expense of performance on the previous OS. At times I think this is deliberate in order to make the newest OS appear superior to its predecessor. I'm running one version back on graphics drivers. In addition to having a lot more resolution settings, I can run the earlier driver at full hardware acceleration with excellent results. With the newest driver, full acceleration causes severe lag and 100% processor usage. If what you have works and you're not an obsessed gamer, leave it alone.

 

Nobody has issue with their advice of no automatic updates means no updates needed?

 

My personal experience agrees with a lot of that too.

 

I loved that one, made me laugh.

 

Yes, I have and I could say that about many computers I've worked on. But, I have not had the same experiences that you have.

 

Lucky you.

 

Is there an inconsistency in the position of those who don't use realtime antivirus but do use outbound firewall protection? Granted that no AV is perfect, but can't the same be said of outbound firewall protection?

 

From a theoretical point of view, an outbound firewall should do its job 100% of the time. If we consider the code to be well written, then the firewall will have maximum efficiency. However, for a perfectly written AV the efficiency is almost never 100%, because it has to rely on signatures or other mechanisms of identifying unknown threats that will never have 100% accuracy.

 

A few other considerations too:
1. Malware could have tampered with the firewall.
2. Malware can use sneaky methods to connect out. Does one's firewall and firewall ruleset handle that?

 

Correct. But it could happen the same with an AV. Unfortunately, any security software can be bypassed in some cases...

A properly written firewall will not allow anything to leave the computer, but again, there are corner cases when malware could use a covert tunnel to sneak data outside your computer.

If you ask me, it is a good idea to use both a firewall and an AV in order to lower the probability of a malware infection as much as possible.

 

Maybe I'll try outbound filtering again. Reading through Vista/7 outbound control - not really that hard , I have reservations about proper handling of svchost though.

 

I don't see any inconsistency. AVs and internet firewalls enforce opposite security policies. AVs allow by default, block when identified as malicious. Firewalls block everything not expressly permitted by the rules. Regarding malware disabling or tampering with a firewall, it can just as easily disable an AV if it doesn't recognize it.

Regarding:

I consider the controlling of legitimate traffic to be the firewalls responsibility. Preventing the installation of malicious drivers, an alternate IP stack, hooking or exploiting legitimate apps for internet access, etc is the role of a HIPS, SSM on my PCs. If the firewall and HIPS are a combined package, then it is that package's responsibility. Barring social engineering, if the HIPS enforces the same default-deny policy as the firewall, it's nearly impossible for malicious code that's capable of installing a driver or IP stack to run.

 

Agreed, terrible article. I guess the guy that wrote it hasn't tried CCleaner+CCenhancer, when it removes 4GB of logs from your system. Or RevoUninstaller, when it wipes out 329 files, and 45 registry entries left by a programs uninstaller.

 

But these leftovers will have zero affect on system performance.

 

Depends on how much resources they take up. Some could still be autostarting.

 

True, but this is not a common scenario, usually there will be nothing to autostart, even if the autostart entries remain in the registry.

I'm not saying that there will never be any benefit from removing leftovers, but often it won't make any difference if they are left of removed. Currently I do remove leftovers with IObit Uninstaller, mainly due its batch uninstall mode where you can select multiple programs to uninstall which will be uninstalled one by one, followed by just a single scan for leftovers from all the uninstalled software.

 

Also I just looked at options in IObit uninstaller, and can disable the prompts to uninstall each program, and the prompt to scan for leftovers when the uninstalling is finished, to simplify thing even more.

 

Completely agree with the article. Excellent.
Mrk

 

Whats your opinion on GhostBuster , do you think it fall under the placebo group (registry cleaners/defrag) or it actually helps (on system performance) removing these ghosted devices?

 

I've heard of it before, but have never used it. I guess that if you remove a number of ghosted devices, it could help improve system performance - however this is just a guess.

Maybe someone else here can offer more insight.

 

+1

 

Regarding the defragmenter, it may depend on whether you have a SSD or not. Since I have one, my HDDs are only used to store things like media, documents and backups. I feel that the built-in defragmenter is good enough for that, but something better may help if you need to store your OS on a HDD. And if your system has nothing but a SSD, obviously you won't be using a defragmenter at all.