I really think it is time to fix this issue…it has essentially been ignored, and I really cannot think of any good reason why it has not been corrected.
In the registry cleaner, “unsafe entries to delete” is NOT grammatically correct and it makes no sense! There have been many posts showing that users are confused by your terminology.
In the settings, it should say “extended scan for expert users (deleting these entries may damage your operating system)” This is crystal clear and may help prevent inexperienced users from damaging their system. When these entries are listed in the scan results, they should be listed under the heading “entries for expert users (deleting these entries may damage to your operating system).”
Now, if you actually believe that your registry cleaner is 100% safe, then “unsafe” entries are a clear contradiction. If it is 100% safe, then you should be able to delete any of the entries and a warning such as “deleting these entries may damage your operating system” should not be neccessary.
To me, 100% safe means you warn the user appropriately and clearly that performing a certain action could cause a malfunction (even if the malfunction can be reversed). The solution that I suggested above accomplishes this.
I would have to disagree with you… If they did that then they would be leaving out the other reg’s entries that CRC found… some users (advance and IT Pros) may want to see this…
How can ERRORS - unwanted, obsolete and corrupted entries - be UNSAFE to delete? Does CSC suggest that it might be risky to delete a few of the ERRORS? If CSC flags ERRORS as unsafe, then it can only mean two things - 1] There is a good chance that those entries are false positives or, 2] the characteristics of certain errors make them context sensitive. The first scenario implies that CRC isn’t intelligent enough to distinguish between ERRORS and NOT-ERRORS. The second scenario (taking into consideration, the CRC methodology) indicates that UNSAFE entries are tagged so, based on predefined parameters.
My understanding is that, since CRC has a separate, built-in section that specifically searches for unsafe entries, it must be knowing, beforehand, what exactly it should be looking for - to be recognized as “unsafe”.
If my inferences are true, then, a clear explanation as to why an entry is unsafe will be more helpful to the user in not screwing up his/her PC.
Edit: If CRC cannot distinguish between the bad and the good, then I suggest removing it altogether.
We analyzed and took your requests into consideration and we will create our future versions with your suggestions in mind, but the exclusion of the “Scan for unsafe entries to delete” is not a possibility, as some previous users posted, some or many advanced users will ask for those entries in order to remove them.
How exactly are unsafe entries categorized as “unsafe”? Is it decided by the depth - Does CSC draw a line at a certain depth and say that every entry beyond this line will be flagged as “unsafe”? Is it decided by the type of the entry - Does CSC flag every system related entry as unsafe? Is it decided by the location - Does CSC look at the location at which an entry exists and distinguish between safe and unsafe based on that?
If it is decided by the depth, then it is a poor technique, since it shows that CSC is incapable of detecting errors beyond a certain depth. Tagging an entry unsafe based on the type will be the best method, because CSC is analyzing the entry itself. Deciding by location should be the 2nd best technique - Some of the locations such as “legacy” keys should be very carefully handled, and if entries are decided based on their locations, the user would know that he is dealing with system critical areas.
This scenario arises only if the registry cleaner is tagging entries as unsafe in the first place. Why should an error be unsafe to delete? It basically means that CSC’s detection power should be improved.
Adrian Bosoiu wrote: “the exclusion of the “Scan for unsafe entries to delete” is not a possibility, as some previous users posted, some or many advanced users will ask for those entries in order to remove them.”
Why can’t you just include a user selectable setting to include or exclude the display of those items? It’s really not that deep.
Indeed, that is an useful and efficient option that can prevent unexperienced users from performing unsafe operations without being aware of what they actually do. Your advice will be taken into consideration for future releases.
It’s Comodo they Always work Something out