Windows 15 - Should Windows Eventually Do Away With Registry

[Lemur]

Do you believe a future Windows version should do away with the registry?

 

[seavixen32]

I don't see how it could be dispensed with in its present format.

Where else would the Windows building blocks be stored?

 

[JimLewandowski]

I don't see how it could be dispensed with in its present format.

Where else would the Windows building blocks be stored?

The mainframe has no concept of a registry. Control blocks are built in protected storage from data on disk somewhere (i.e. parameter files, config files, etc). But, it doesn't have as much GUI stuff.

I was just thinking about this the other day. The registry is really a mechanism to "share storage" but with an API vs. just following "structs" in memory (commonly addressable) and their interrelations (pointers, linked lists, etc.).

 

[logicearth]

There is nothing actually wrong with the registry. Nothing. I don't know where this all started, but going with a completely flat file system with inis scattered all over the place like Linux is not idea for a giant corporate domain. Nor does it save it from corruption, if an important part of a ini file becomes corrupted then the system will fail, just like the registry. The registry can survive corruption as long as the important pieces are correct and the structure remain relatively intact. Furthermore, Windows keeps routine backups of the registry on a daily bases.

Those that keep saying the registry has to go, have no idea. They are just repeating the same BS for years. However, there is nothing wrong with the registry.

 

[Lemur]

Well, in UNIX/Linux, config files are stored in /etc.

OS X saves info in preference files.

Not to bias this survey (yeah, right), but problems with the registry over time have lead to corruption, slower computers, etc. Just wondered if this might be a future direction for MS.

 

[logicearth]

Not to bias this survey (yeah, right), but problems with the registry over time have lead to corruption, slower computers, etc. Just wondered if this might be a future direction for MS.

Well here is the thing, what you listed has nothing to do with the registry, the registry is not a cause nor would removing it fix those issues. 1, corruption, the registry does not cause corruption faulty hardware causes corruption, replacing the registry will not stop corruption. 2, slowing down computers, again the registry is not the cause that would be third-party applications the screw everything up, replacing the registry will not fix third-party software. They will find another way to screw your computer.

Again, nothing wrong with the registry.

 

[DeaconFrost]

I voted yes, but it should have an asterix associated with it. It would create absolute nightmares for software developers and any end users wanting to run old software. This would be a major paradigm shift for Windows.

 

[Coke Robot]

Well, the idea of removing the registry isn't the issue, it's repairing the registry actively. It's like car maintenence, you can't take out maintenence from a car, you have to actively maintain it.

There's a potential to take it out with MinWin technology. I don't know if that can replace the registry, but that is possible.

 

[logicearth]

There's a potential to take it out with MinWin technology. I don't know if that can replace the registry, but that is possible.

It cannot, MinWin and the Registry are two different things. Whether you remove the registry, maintenance will still need to be done. Those configuration options that the registry holds have to go somewhere and you will have to maintain them.

 

[Solidwave]

I think a lot of registry hate from intermediate skilled users stems from software developers using registry editing as a crutch to avoid writing software that works rather than from the registry itself. If a user has to edit the registry to fix a problem with WXYZSoft's SuperDuperApp, then the fault lies with WXYZSoft for not making the relevant settings accessible through a configuration dialog. Contrary to what a too many software developers seem to think, regedit is not a substitute for a preferences dialog that works. Windows network time service, I am looking at you.

From an administration perspective, the registry has several problems but it would be easier to fix them than to replace the registry entirely.

The registry needs harder separation between Windows core configuration settings (e.g. settings that will prevent the system from booting, or prevent software from running, if you break them), Windows cosmetic settings (e.g. fonts, colors, and associations except for .exe), and application preferences. Applications shouldn't be allowed to touch the former two categories without specific UAC approval. Not separating system settings from application settings was excusable when the registry was developed in the relatively benign environment of the mid 1990s, but it's a security and administration headache now.

The registry also needs some way to garbage collect keys that are no longer relevant (e.g. due to an application being uninstalled) and some means to identify keys that have been modified manually or have been modified by applications other than the one which created the key. Firefox's internal registry has the capability to highlight keys that are set to user-specified values and it makes troubleshooting obscure configuration problems much easier. Windows could and should do the same.

Finally, regedit really, really needs an address bar that supports cut and paste.

 

[lehnerus2000]

DRM 1st, Useful Fuctions 2nd

Windows 15?
Isn't that supposed to be arriving in 2036?

It's always been my opinion that the "Registry" was introduced as a DRM mechanism.
What other reason explains all of the "circular" references in it (i.e. A points to B, which points to A).

Any useful functions were tacked on afterwards and that's why various problems occur, it was never initially designed to do useful things.

For example (in XP) storing the folder customisation settings in the "Registry", instead of the desktop.ini file.
"No one will have more than 5000 folders on their machine."
Why was that even included in the "Registry"?

This pictures shows my:

• Windows partition (not including Users)
• Documents partition
• Pictures partition
• Music partition
• Video partition

​

I've got more than 31000 folders on my PC.
That's not including Programs and backup folders (Windows itself has more than 5000 folders).

Dodgy code writers are also to blame (as mentioned by Solidwave).
They even inflict their stupidity on Linux (i.e. not all config files are in /etc)

 

[wanchoo]

If the Registry is dispensed with then the utilization of disk space would increase manifold. The idea of creating the Registry was just brilliant.

 

[rraod]

In future we may not have the registry in it's present form. Evolution in computer technology is going to give us new methods to organize and control the systems and data. The registry may go the way of relational databases.

We may have a new database for this which may be organised in different and most efficient way. And it may not be a hierarchical structure like today's registry. And it may be called by a different name (not registry! ).

My guessing would be separate database for OS (Kernel, GUI, peripherals etc), separate DB for Apps, separate DB for user data which are connected relationally.

Nowadays with Terabyte storages, the user data has become gigantic and needs a method to organise and store efficiently and fast retrieval.

And the Registry in the present form has its own share of problems.

Probably all these things will make the OS manufacturer to try different methods and come out with new technologies similar to WinFS. A compact SQL server may be built in to the OS for all these things.