Core Dump

Today I’m going to give a little warning about programs that claim to “clean” your Windows registry, or people or products that tell you that you “need” to clean your Windows registry.

But first, a little story. The other day I happened to speak to someone who was having some computer problems – some very strange computer problems, in fact.

A little bit of questioning the user revealed the  problem. This person had recently had some so-called “computer experts” come and take a look at his computer. They apparently told him that he “needed” to “clean” his Windows registry, because it was “full of junk” and that was slowing his computer down.

This brings me to the moral of the story, which is basically that all “registry cleaners” are bunk.

Back in the old days (the Windows 9x days), a “registry cleaner” might have made some sense. Back then, you had to keep your registry small due to memory constraints, etc. A “registry cleaner” could remove some invalid entries and basically clean things up a bit to make the registry smaller. If it did this in a very limited manner, it was generally helpful and safe.

However, things have changed a lot since those days.

First off, there’s no longer any real need to worry about the size of your registry, but another thing to keep in mind is that registry cleaners were originally meant to help reduce the size of your registry. Now, how do you think they did that?

That’s right, they just deleted entries from the registry. And more or less, that’s all that registry “cleaners” do to this day – they aren’t really “cleaners” per se, they are “deleters.” And many of these programs don’t even give you the option to backup the entries they are about to delete – they just go ahead and delete them.

This is akin to trying to “clean up” your Windows installation by just going in and randomly deleting files from your Windows directory. Yeah, it’ll “clean it up” in the sense that it’ll take up less disk space – but more than likely you’ll also end up completely boning your Windows installation to the point where it doesn’t work anymore.

Regularly cleaning your Windows registry (which is something that many users of “registry cleaning” software say you have to do) of invalid/unused entries (say, file associations for programs that don’t exist anymore) isn’t going to make your computer any faster. The registry is already optimized for fast loading (that’s the whole reason there is a registry in the first place, instead of slow INI files), and a few extra entries aren’t going to slow anything down.

In fact, regularly cleaning your registry will end up “fragmenting” the files on disk that hold the registry data itself, and as time goes on, those “gaps” that were “cleaned” will be filled with new data, resulting in a registry that’s all out of order (at least on disk). This will actually slow down access to the registry (or, at least, slow down the initial paging of the registry into main memory).

Realistically, if your registry really does need to be “cleaned,” then you are going to have to do it by hand, because no “registry cleaner” program is going to be able to fix it auto-magically. It’s a bit like expecting a gasoline additive for your car to fix the dent in your bumper or your broken radio – it’s just not going to happen.

There’s another reason to be wary of so-called “registry cleaners” as well, and that’s the fact that if you search for a “registry cleaner” program, you are more likely to end up downloading spyware that’s just pretending to be a registry cleaner. Finding a registry cleaner that isn’t actually some sort of spyware/malware in disguise is, to put it simply, really hard, even for an expert.

The bottom line here is that registry “cleaners” actually have no benefit  at best, and at worst can actually slow down or even royally screw up your computer.

So if someone tells you that you need to “run a registry cleaner” or that you should “clean your registry regularly” or you’re about to download a program that claims to “clean” or “optimize” your registry… just say NO!

Colored blocks icon courtesy of the Crystal Icon Set.

So, I’ve been living with my new computer for almost a month now, and that’s given me plenty of time to become familiar with the changes that came with Windows 7.

Previously, I’d only played around with Windows 7 through the betas and release candidates in a virtual machine – which, by its very nature, lacked the power to really let Windows 7 shine.

My new computer, on the other hand, has enough “oomph” to let me turn on all the bells & whistles so I can see how they work and which ones I like. This has allowed me to really get a “feel” for Windows 7 – arguably in an even better way than I did with Vista on my old computer.

So far, I have to say that I am very pleased.

If you’ve read any other Windows 7 reviews, you’ve probably read a lot of praise on how Windows 7 is a great leap forward, it’s so nice, etc.

Well, those people weren’t lying.

Windows 7 is incredibly polished. I’m sort of a details person, so these little details, the “fit & finish” of Windows 7 really impress me.

In any case, let’s get down to the details – in a nice, convenient list format:

• Multitasking: you need a true multi-core CPU to get the benefits of this, but Windows 7 does a superb job of running lots and lots of programs all at once without any sort of trouble between them. And if one program goes down, you can just kill it and keep on truckin’ – no reboot required.
• Stability: Windows 7  has so far been incredibly stable for me – and I tend to push my computers hard, so I’m one to know. Of course, part of this is due to the fact that I’m running the 64-bit version, and the 64-bit versions of Windows don’t allow “unsigned” drivers. And since device drivers are often the biggest contributor to instability in Windows, the fact that only “signed” drivers are allowed means that (overall) the quality of drivers is much higher – which means, in turn, that Windows is more stable.
• UAC: My biggest gripe in Windows Vista was the UAC prompts that would pop up in various places – most annoying to me, personally, was when I tried to drag & drop to re-arrange folders in my start menu (I like to have my start menu nice & neat). If the folder or icon I was dragging & dropping was in the “All users” branch of the start menu, I’d get a UAC prompt when moving it. It was just incredibly annoying. In Windows 7 these prompts come up less often, which makes me very happy!
• New Task bar: This is one place where I found myself unhappy with the default Windows 7 behavior, which is to show programs in the task bar by icon only (even when the program is open). I like being able to read the title of a window at a glance, without having to mouse over it, so I turned that functionality off. Plus, having the task bar buttons be full-sized with titles helps visually distinguish (even more) between running programs and programs that are just “pinned” to the task bar.
• Glass Effects: speaking of the task bar, if you hover your mouse over open programs, you’ll see that the sort of glowing colored highlight follows your mouse pointer – as if your mouse pointer were a light shining on the button. On top of that, the color of the highlight is based on the color of the program’s icon… Niiiiiice. It’s little details like this that really impress me.
• Aero Peek: Though I think the name is a bit pretentious, it is a handy feature. Basically the evolution of the “show desktop” button in that you can just hover over it, and it will make all open Windows 100% transparent so you can see your desktop (any windows that are not full-screen will show a faint outline so you know where they are). Other than that, the button acts just like the old “show desktop” button – click it once to show the desktop, click it again to restore all windows. Simple and easy, but it’s nice to have it permanently attached to the task bar, so you don’t lose it.
• Libraries: I’m not exaggerating here – I love libraries. I’d been wishing for some sort of functionality like this for years, without even realizing it – or even being able to describe what I wanted. But libraries deliver. Got a folder with some pictures in it, in some strange location on your computer? Just add it to your “Pictures” library and now it’ll show up as if you had copied it into your “My Pictures” folder – but without actually having to copy it there! And since things like Windows Media Center and so on use libraries (rather than specific folders), it makes managing a music & movie collection so much easier!
• Windows Media Center: The new UI for Windows Media Center is nice, but I didn’t really mind the UI in Vista either, so this doesn’t really impress me that much. It’s nicer, sure, but not enough for me to sing its praises.
• Windows Media Center Extender Support: OK, so maybe I will sing the praises of the new Media Center UI – at least, as it applies to Windows Media Center Extenders. Because the new UI applies to these little, under-appreciated, under-powered devices. My Media Center Extender (MCE) hasn’t gotten any faster, but it looks nicer and it works more smoothly than it did when it was connected to a Vista computer. So there’s a bonus there.
• Media Sharing & “Play To”: In addition to having a Media Center Extender, my new TV also supports the Digital Living Network Alliance (DLNA) standard, which means it can connect to my computer and stream media (pictures, videos, music) from my computer. Under Vista, the only way to get this media was to browse for it from the TV – and the UI was a bit clunky and sometimes crashed! With Windows 7 however, the game has changed. Although the UI for browsing media directly from the TV is still clunky and slow, it is much more stable. And if that’s not your cup of tea, you can play media directly from the PC to the TV by right-clicking a file and choosing “Play To” and then selecting the TV (Windows detects any DLNA devices on the network automatically – though they do have to be turned on first!). There is just something deeply, geekily cool about selecting a video on your computer and then hearing it start to play in the other room!
• Videos link on the Start Menu: It’s a little thing, but it was always very annoying to me that in Vista there was no “Videos” link option on the Start Menu. You had links to Documents, Pictures, and Music – but no Videos! Thankfully, this little oversight has been corrected in Windows 7. Again, it’s the little things that really add up and make Windows 7 such a pleasure to use.
• Drag and Drop re-arrange of Task bar buttons: I’m not talking about pinned items, but actual task bar buttons for open programs – you can now drag & drop to re-arrange them as you see fit. Previously, you needed a 3rd party program to enable this feature. It’s not a big deal, but it’s nice if you’ve got a lot of windows open and you want them arranged in a certain order.
• Volume control for multiple audio devices: Although Windows Vista handled volume control pretty well (you could adjust volume on a per-program basis), Windows 7 takes this even further. Now, most people will only ever have 1 audio device – their main sound card – in their computer, but increasingly you find people with secondary sound cards – maybe a USB headset, like I have (for Skype, etc.). When you click the “Volume” icon in the taskbar, it shows the “main” volume control, same as always. But, if you are using a secondary audio device (like, say, you have Skype open and are using your headset), when you click the “Volume” icon you get two volume sliders – one for the main volume, and one for the secondary device. Nice! You can control the volume for each individually – very handy!

So those are the big new things I’m very happy about with Windows 7. Suffice it to say, if you have the opportunity, I highly recommend you upgrade. Believe me – it is well worth it!

I was testing out an anti-virus program the other day when I noticed a scan option which… gave me pause. Upon closer examination, I realized just how poorly designed this option was (from a UI perspective).

First off, it was a slider control – a rather unusual choice, but not totally unexpected. Remember that a slider control is good for something that has a range of possible options – like volume, power consumption, process priority, playback position (of audio or video), etc.

The default setting was in the middle and was labeled “Automatic Scan.”

I had a hunch that this slider controlled how fast or slow the scan would be (whether it ran at a high priority and scanned quickly, but your computer was basically unusable while it was running, or whether it ran at a very low priority and took forever, but you could keep using your computer without much impact) – but this was only a hunch based on experience I have from using a lot of anti-virus programs. There was no contextual help or explanation of this option, other than the words “Automatic Scan.”

So, I decided to see what other options there were. I slid the control to the right, only to find that it went right to the end – there was no “in between.”

When I saw this, I had to stop and ask myself, “what exactly is a fast scan, anyway?” On the surface, it seems like it might be obvious, but in fact it’s not – a fast scan might be:

• A scan that runs at high-priority, pre-empting all other tasks on your computer to get the scan done quicker; or,
• A less in-depth scan (i.e., a “quick” scan) that completes quickly, but doesn’t scan as much as a “full” scan does.

Unfortunately, there is no indication which this is – it’s just labeled “Fast scan” and that’s it.

Out of curiosity, I slid the slider to the other end of the scale, where it promptly went all the way to the left side. So, basically this is a slider used to select from 1 of 3 options – hardly the best use for a slider control, don’t you think?

Of course, the option I got when I went to the other side was even worse:

OK now honestly, who in their right mind would choose the “slow scan” option?  “Why, yes, I’d LOVE to slow down this already lengthy scan process even more – my time isn’t valuable AT ALL!”

Once again, there’s no indication as to what a “slow” scan means, or how it is different from any of the other options. And being named “slow scan” makes it extraordinarily unlikely that anyone in their right mind is ever going to use this option (why would they?).

The scan options for this anti-virus program (I won’t say which one, though you can probably figure it out) are a classic case of poor UI design.

• A slider control is a bad choice for something that has just 3 discrete states. A drop-down box would have worked just as well (and would have left room for some more descriptive labels) – even 3 radio buttons (which are arguably the right control for choosing between discrete options) could have been squeezed into the same space given to this control.
• The labels used for the options are ambiguous and give no hint as to their actual effect. It is possible to interpret the slow/fast scan labels in two different ways, both of which are opposites of one another.
• It’s not clear from the labels whether fast scan/slow scan differentiate between priority levels (i.e., same scan, just running at different execution priority levels) or between scan types (i.e., quick surface scan vs. longer in-depth scan).
• Regardless of what the options actually do, the options themselves are largely unnecessary. There’s no real need to change the priority or type of scan – after all, most users won’t be running the scan manually, they’ll let the anti-virus program scan their computer automatically at some scheduled time when they’re not around. And even if they do run a scan manually, they don’t need these kinds of options, because the scan itself has a “pause” button that can be used if you need to do something else with your computer.

When designing user interfaces, it’s tempting to give the user an option to control everything. However, it is always worth taking a moment to evaluate any new option and try to see if it is really necessary. Unnecessary controls just clutter up a UI and detract from its ease of use by bewildering users with choices they aren’t equipped to understand, let alone make informed decisions about.

It’s only natural to wonder why, after all this time and our collective experience, that we still produce buggy, brittle software that breaks and crashes. It’s also only natural to point at “software engineers” and then the other kinds of “engineers” – as in, the people who build bridges, skyscrapers, cars, planes, etc. – who can build things that work for years and don’t (generally) break down and crash, and ask “why can’t we do the same thing with software?”

To answer that question, it’s important to make a distinction between the physical world of bridges, skyscrapers, planes, and such, and the “thought-stuff” world of software.

While software is, to use the words of Frederick Brooks in The Mythical Man-Month, made purely of insubstantial “thought-stuff,” it is, ultimately, made by man – and as man is fallible, so to are the things that he creates. (After all, some bridges fall down, some skyscrapers collapse/leak/shake in the wind, and some planes crash.)

There’s also the “layer” aspect to keep in mind – software may be “thought-stuff,” but it doesn’t exist purely in a vacuum. It relies upon the perfect function of millions (or billions) of tiny, often microscopic physical components, which have been engineered with great specificity and tight tolerances. A few cosmic rays (or a clumsy user pulling out a cord) can screw up the perfect balance of all these components in unimaginable ways – sort of like pulling out the main support for a bridge, or blowing out the tire of a car. (Or, perhaps like having a few large birds fly into the engine of a plane!) When these sorts of things happen, the system – be it bridge, plane, car, or computer – fails, often spectacularly.

So, it’s less accurate to think of a computer system (hardware and software together) as being like a bridge, and more accurate to think of it as being like a giant clockwork mechanism – a huge Rube Goldberg-type device – with hundreds of finely inter-meshing gears and sprockets. If just one gear pops out of place, or one sprocket cracks a tooth, the system stops working properly – perhaps just a little bit, or perhaps so much so that more gears are forced out of place, and more sprockets are broken, until the entire thing collapses in a pile of ruin.

To carry the bridge metaphor in the other direction (as it were), it might be more accurate to think of a computer system as being like a bridge that not only functions like a bridge (gets people from one side to the other), but also functions as a musical instrument capable of producing both classical, jazz, and electronic/techno music; predicts the weather; washes your clothes; generates electrical power; can be quickly reconfigured into a skyscraper home for people or a hospital, as needed; can float up and down the river to a new crossing (dynamically expanding or shortening its length as it goes, of course); and can also fly, carrying everyone on it to a new river, with new road signs that instantly match the new language and traffic patterns of the new location. It also has to do all this while not disturbing the environment around it, while simultaneously accepting any impact its environment puts on it, even if such impact might cause it to function in a manner contrary to the one for which it was designed.

If you were to try to build a physical bridge to do all of these things, it would probably break in much the same ways that software does.

To use a different analogy, consider the difference between a typewriter (a machine designed to do just one thing – type words) and a computer. No one would argue that the computer is a more reliable typing instrument – after all, the typewriter is fairly simple, and because it is designed to do just one thing, it can do it well. Also, when the typewriter fails, the cause is generally immediately apparent (e.g., out of ink ribbon) and can easily be understood – and fixed – by the user.

On the other hand, the computer – while on the surface just the same as the typewriter (keyboard on which you type words), is infinitely more flexible. There is almost an infinite number of other things that the computer could do in addition to typing – it could play music, calculate your taxes, control millions of tiny light-producing elements to display an interactive 3D environment – or a photo of your dog, talk to you using a synthesized voice, control complex machining equipment, participate in a global network, and almost anything else you could imagine.

When you consider that, it’s no wonder that computers have so many ways in which they can break. It’s exactly because they are so flexible that they are so fragile at times – their flexibility is their greatest strength, and at the same time, their greatest weakness. Because they are so generalized, getting them to do any one specific thing involves a lot of re-building of concepts (we call them “metaphors” in the world of software) just to get any useful work done, never mind actually taking care of the main task at hand.

In the end, software breaks because it (and the computers on which it runs) are general purpose machines which we ask to do an enormous number of things (some often contrary to one another!), and even though we might only be asking it to do something simple at the surface (e.g., type a few words onto the screen), in reality there are innumerable hidden complexities involved in getting a general-purpose machine to do something so specific (and, we would hope, do it well) that it’s only natural that there will be errors – both human induced and artifacts of the system itself.

In other words, softare breaks because computers are fantastically flexible general purpose machines that, by their very nature, require complexity in order to do anything specific – and no layers of abstraction, big-M Methodologies, frameworks, or whatever else we come up with – are going to change that simple and immutable fact.

So this weekend I set aside a block of time (roughly 5 hours) when I wouldn’t need my computer so I could take a stab at trying to upgrade from Windows Vista to Windows 7 (again).

This time, I moved my Documents, Music, Pictures, and Videos (which constitute the bulk of my user profile) into a separate folder on my 2nd hard drive for safe keeping, and then used a 2nd user account to delete the directory junction that linked my user profile to my 2nd hard drive. Then, I moved my (now much smaller) user profile back on to the boot drive (C:), and began the upgrade process again.

The last time I tried this, I thought that the reason the upgrade failed was because of my use of a directory junction to put my user profile onto my 2nd hard drive. So this time, I thought I’d have better luck, since the link was gone and everything was back where Windows probably expected it to be.

Unfortunately, the result of this second attempt was the same as my first attempt: FAILURE. The only difference is that this time the upgrade didn’t take as long (probably because my user profile was so much smaller). However, it still failed in exactly the same way – it got all the way to the very last step of the installation, and then quit, saying:

“The upgrade was not successful. Your previous version of Windows is being restored.”

It then spent some time rolling back the upgrade, leaving me back where I started. When my desktop came back up, I was greeted by this message:

“This version of Windows could not be installed. Your previous version of Windows has been restored, and you can continue to use it.”

No clue as to the reason for the failed upgrade – that’s my next task.

I don’t want to admit defeat (i.e., do a clean install) – an upgrade from Vista Ultimate 32-bit to Windows 7 RC 32-bit should work just fine. I guess I’m going to have to spend some time spelunking through arcane log files to see if I can find out the root cause of the failed upgrade – wish me luck!!

UPDATE: I’m not the only one with this problem – Jeff Atwood (of Coding Horror) had a similar problem and asked for help over on the website SuperUser.com (great place for getting help). Sadly, he did not get any further than me!