There is a fact that I should have learned a long time ago, but never did; I was reminded that I did not know the answer by Qiaochu's excellent series of posts, the most recent of which is [this one](http://qchu.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/the-noetherian-condition-as-compactness/).

Let $X$ be a topological space.  I can think of at least four rings of continuous functions to attach to $X$:

 1. $C(X)$ is the ring of continuous functions to $\mathbb R$.
 2. $C_b(X)$ is the ring of bounded functions to $\mathbb R$.
 3. $C_0(X)$ is the ring of continuous functions that "vanish at infinity" in the following sense: $f\in C_0(X)$ iff for every $\epsilon>0$, there is a compact subset $K \subseteq X$ such that $\left|f(x)\right| < \epsilon$ when $x \not\in K$.
 4. The ring $C_c(X)$ of functions with compact support.

Option 2. is not very good.  For example, it cannot distinguish between a space and its Stone-Cech compactification.  My question is what kinds of spaces are distinguished by the others.

For example, I learned from [this question](https://mathoverflow.net/questions/3871/maximal-ideals-in-the-ring-of-continuous-real-valued-functions-on-r) that MaxSpec of $C(X)$ is the Stone-Cech compactification of $X$.  But it seems that $C(X)$ knows a bit more, in that $C(X)$ has residue fields that are not $\mathbb R$ if $X$ is not compact?

On the other hand, my memory from my C\*-algebras class (which was a few years ago and to which I didn't attend well), is that for I think locally-compact Hausdorff spaces $C_0(X)$ knows precisely the space $X$?

So, MOers, what are the exact statements?  And if I believe that the correct notion of "space" is "algebra of observables", are there good arguments for preferring one of these algebras (or one I haven't listed) over the others?