Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Nomen

Methods or program for reducing registry size?

Recommended Posts

A while back I posted about having a system.dat file that was 15 mb in size. Scanreg /fix /opt from DOS did nothing.

I uninstalled about a dozen (maybe more) programs from control panel, and midway through that I noted that system.dat size did go down to 14 mb, but did not change even though I continued to uninstall more stuff. I ran regclean about 3 or 4 times in a row (until it no longer gave me the "fix" button to click) and I forgot exactly that scanreg (dos) did, but when using the /fix and/or /opt it either did nothing or it hung.

None of those tools did anything to reduce the size of system.dat below 14 mb. I then fired up Norton SystemWorks 2002 and ran either Windoctor or Optimization wizard, but one of them spent a lot of time analyzing the registry, and had a bunch of entries that it wanted to fix (either a drive assignment was changed, or delete the entry). It was only after running the Norton programs that system.dat was reduced to 12.7 mb.

The win-98 version of scanregw doesn't seem to detect anything wrong with the registry, but the win-2k version immediately says there's something wrong and replaces it with an older backup (15 mb version) which it doesn't seem to check before it replaces it.

So is there a program that will run on win-98se that can correctly diagnose if there is a problem with a system.dat registry file (even a LARGE system.dat file)?

Is there a program that can really fix and/or optimize a large system.dat file without hanging?

What exactly is known about how large the system.dat file can be under win-98se without exceeding some limit or causing operational problems?

PS: I have version 4.1a, build 7364.1 of microsoft regclean. It's dated as December 30, 1997. Does a more recent version exist?

Edited by Nomen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly is known about how large the system.dat file can be under win-98se without exceeding some limit or causing operational problems?

There is no specific maximum size. It depends upon other components as well, Gigabit Ethernet in particular.

The Registry is loaded into the DMA area of RAM Memory. The entire area is only 16MiB.

The usual symptom of DMA RAM starvation is a VFAT BSOD during boot.

The /M option of my RAM Limitation Patch moves the Regsitry out of the DMA area.

This eliminates the large Registry issues as well problems when using Gigabit Ethernet.

There is a size limit when using REGEDIT from true DOS. I have not seen a limit when using REGEDIT in Windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS: I have version 4.1a, build 7364.1 of microsoft regclean. It's dated as December 30, 1997. Does a more recent version exist?

No, that should be last version, see:

http://www.createwindow.com/wininfo/regclean.htm

I cannot remember if also on Windows 9x/Me there is the possibility of the Registry becoming fragmented (and a tool to compact it, like ERUNT/Regopt is for NT systems) :unsure:

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Nomen

Take a look here

Yep :thumbup: that's it!

I could not remember the Regcompact name :blushing: .

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I had a look at the CTH thread from 2012, and I obtained regcompact1.0 (file date 12/01/00) and I ran it. Results:

System size 12676kb - Compacted 12652kb - Ratio 0%
User size 1860kb - Compacted 1856kb - Ratio 0%

I killed RegCompact (I use cctask) before it could make any changes. It doesn't seem to have done much to reduce the size. Should it have?

I have on-board ethernet on this system (Davicom 9102/A PCI Fast Ethernet Adapter) it only does 10/100 speed. I have disabled that adapter on my other win-98 PC and have installed a 1000/100/10 PCI ethernet card on that system (offhand I don't know how big system.dat is on that system - I'll check tommorrow).

So what's my next option to compact my registry - since RegCompact did squat? Should I try SmalReg4 (mentioned in the 2012 thread) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AFAIK the only tool that works is RegCon, it's been reuploaded several times but all links are apparently dead so here is a new one (bundled with related RegiStrip registry space analyzer from the same author):

Good :).

Just for the record, those two utils are still online BUT only in the Japanes (original) version.

The Regstrip is here:

http://www.vector.co.jp/soft/dl/win95/util/se097083.html

http://ftp.vector.co.jp/pack/win95/util/env/rgst0052.lzh

The Regcon is here:

http://www.vector.co.jp/soft/dl/win95/util/se106300.html

http://ftp.vector.co.jp/pack/win95/util/env/rgcon311.lzh

This info is posted because at the time jds had issues with the English "patched" version:

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/104871-puzzling-registry-size-issue/?p=967096

it is possible that the "original" works better :unsure:

jaclaz

PS: just in case the mediafire links expires, I am attaching the English version loblo posted :)

RegUtils.7z

Edited by jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think jds' system.dat file was corrupt in some way. I've had registry files corruption undetected by scanreg a few times. As for RegCon, I can't think of a reason why the Japanese version would work better than the (rather poorly but overall understandable) translated one. I've processed registry dat files a few megabytes larger than the 12MB he reports many times without problems with both applications (translated RegCon and translated RegiStrip).

Also, I think this program might be sensitive to memory fragmentation so, in case of failure that's not due to bad/ghost keys it may report, I'd suggest trying using it again straight after rebooting.

Edited by loblo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, the actual contents of the archives seem like very different though all dated 26-12-2001.

RegUtils.7z\RegUtils\RegiStrip\Regstrip.exe is UPXed to 171008 bytes.

once unUPXed it is 477696 bytes

rgst0052.lzh\Regstrip.exe is 478208 bytes

RegUtils.7z\RegUtils\RegCon\Regcon.exe is UPXed to 127488 bytes AND there is also an external UNLHA32.DLL

once unUPXed it is 378880 bytes

rgcon311.lzh\Regcon.exe is 379392 bytes

It wouldn't be the first time than UPXed executable shows memory issues, it is very possible that it's just a matter of unUPXing the "English" executables. :unsure:

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't programs compressed by UPX guaranteed to be 100% functional once they've successfully decompressed and the PE image is loaded in memory?

The thing is I have a few programs that are able to load bigger data files on a freshly booted system than they can on a system that has been in use for some time and RegCon seems to be one of them.

As this issue occurs when there is more than enough free RAM and no significant depletion of any free resources I can monitor I don't know what could be possibly the cause apart from memory fragmentation.

I once read from a photoshop plugin developer that the maximum dimension of an image his plugin was able to process was dependent on the maximum amount of physically contiguous RAM the it was able to use.

I did not believe it as I know an application memory space is virtual and actual physical location is managed at a lower level by the aptly called memory manager and that it shouldn't make any difference whether the RAM an application use is physically contiguous or not. I did not believe it also because when using his plugin I never found it could process a bigger image on a fresh boot than after several days of use and having opened and closed many programs in the meantime.

So now I don't know what to believe about it as I have a few programs that exhibit a behaviour that would fit that. But perhaps there is an other explanation and I just can't figure it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand about UPXed programs (and not necessarily related to the topic at hand or to the specific tools/utilities) is that they use a lot more memory than their "plain" correspondent ones.

As such, it is strongly advised to NOT UPX programs when the scope is to have it run on low-memory machines (at least this is what experiments in PE 1.x's led us to believe)

Also AFAIK there is not a definite answer about UPX, sometimes the compressed file works sometimes it does not, sometimes it may seem to be working but it doesn't actually work when a particular function is called.

As always:

In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try RegCon - once I sort out and unravel which version I should be using based on the convoluted discussion happening about it here.

Regarding Rloew's information regarding large system.dat files and having gigabit ethernet, here's another data point: Another win-98 system I have has a system.dat file with size 13,565kb and D-link DGE-530T Gigabit ethernet adapter. I don't know if the adapter has to be set to 1 gb (or be using jumbo frames, or both) for the "gigabit-ethernet" effect to kick in (in terms of causing problems with large registry files) but I believe the card is working at giga-speed (it is connected to a 24-port switch with giga-speed capability).

Just out of curiosity - what is the registry size of a default install of Win-98, say on an i845 motherboard with nvidia agp graphics, directx 9c, all MS updates and patches applied?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try RegCon - once I sort out and unravel which version I should be using based on the convoluted discussion happening about it here.

Nothing "convoluted" :no:.

Try using the English version loblo posted :yes:.

If it works, good :)

If it doesn't, before giving up :w00t:, risk using the original Japanese version.

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember using KMCS Registry Compressor. (and it worked) :)

Homepage doesn't exist anymore. Webarchive snapshot can be found here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×