Registry cleaner ?
Jackson
Microcraft's jv Power tools for cleaning the registry. I
believe it's freeware.
Has anyone used this program? Do you have any remarks or
recomendations?
Jack from Taxacola (formerly Pensacola), FL
David H. Lipman
Rulle of thumb...
Do NOT use so-called Registry Cleaners !
--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
Jackson
<jackd...@hotXmail.com> wrote:
>Kim Komando's tip of the day (07 Jan) has good words for
>Microcraft's jv Power tools for cleaning the registry. I
>believe it's freeware.
>
>Has anyone used this program? Do you have any remarks or
>recomendations?
Sorry, I screwed up the name. It's: Macecraft jv16 power
tools.
Smiles
http://personal.inet.fi/business/toniarts/
John John - MVP
more harm than good.
John
Shenan Stanley
> Kim Komando's tip of the day (07 Jan) has good words for
> Microcraft's jv Power tools for cleaning the registry. I
> believe it's freeware.
>
> Has anyone used this program? Do you have any remarks or
> recomendations?
Would you clean your registry manually?
Would you use such a cleaning tool and verify each entry it found and wanted
to remove manually before removing it?
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
thanatoid
news:uaFJ6a6j...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
> Jackson wrote:
>> Kim Komando's tip of the day (07 Jan) has good words for
>> Microcraft's jv Power tools for cleaning the registry. I
>> believe it's freeware.
>>
>> Has anyone used this program? Do you have any remarks or
>> recomendations?
>
> Would you clean your registry manually?
I do and have many times.
> Would you use such a cleaning tool and verify each entry it
> found and wanted to remove manually before removing it?
That is SOME sentence ;-)
JV16 does an amazing job and tells you exactly WHY something
"can go" and it's up to you, It also makes backups - which I
have NEVER needed to use.
Generally, after using my 4 reg cleaners (I only do it once in a
while, like before making an image of C:) I DO manually clean
stuff because NOTHING will do EVERYTHING.
The reg cleaners just make the job faster and more thorough
since they will look through everything, like the entire HKCR
tree, something I have NO patience for.
thanatoid
news:#voSfK6j...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
> Don't bother with these utterly useless registry cleaners,
> they cause more harm than good.
Don't top post.
WHAT, pray tell, has one done to any of YOUR systems that you
could not undo with the backup files (which all the ones I have
used offer to create - and NONE of which I have ever had to use
myself)?
thanatoid
news:#o9an94j...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
> From: "Jackson" <jackd...@hotXmail.com>
>
>| Kim Komando's tip of the day (07 Jan) has good words for
>| Microcraft's jv Power tools for cleaning the registry. I
>| believe it's freeware.
>
>| Has anyone used this program? Do you have any remarks or
>| recomendations?
>| Jack from Taxacola (formerly Pensacola), FL
>
> Rulle of thumb...
>
> Do NOT use so-called Registry Cleaners !
You "rulle" of thumb is as good as its spelling.
thanatoid
news:srhbk5hs4njt6ipt5...@4ax.com:
It's probably the best, or one of the top 3. You will see /no
performance increase/, but it will NOT fuck anything up, in
spite of all the kind warnings from people who have probably
never even tried one.
It WILL clean up left-over useless crap (I have seen MAYBE ten
programs in twenty years that REALLY uninstall EVERYTHING they
dump into the registry) and make your registry smaller and
cleaner - if you care about those things. There are various
other advantages, figure it out.
BTW, I have been using 4 different ones (including an older
version of the main module of JV16 power tools, BTW the one that
comes with this new suite is much better - it tells you EXACTLY
why something in the registry is useless) for over 10 years and
NEVER a problem.
JV16 PT has a suite of other very nice applications included as
well. /Very/ highly recommended.
Twayne
David H. Lipman <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> typed:
> From: "Jackson" <jackd...@hotXmail.com>
>
>> Kim Komando's tip of the day (07 Jan) has good words for
>> Microcraft's jv Power tools for cleaning the registry. I
>> believe it's freeware.
>
>> Has anyone used this program? Do you have any remarks or
>> recomendations?
>> Jack from Taxacola (formerly Pensacola), FL
>
> Rulle of thumb...
>
> Do NOT use so-called Registry Cleaners !
Never used the Komando program.
So-called maybe bad, but legitimate, known reliable registry cleaners are a
godsend sometimes and worst case do nothing to help the user. If you need
free, although I've never heard of it, MS's tool might be worth trying but
remember how MS puts out buggy software<g>.
Ccleaner is one that's good for newbies to use; user friendly and so on.
Only other ones I use are pay-for but excellent programs.
Beware unknown cleaners; some are nothing but malware. Research or ask as
you've done here before using them.
One thing to keep in mind is the reason for running a cleaner and expecting
results you won't get. Most problems are not a result of the registry;
depends on a lot of things.
Twayne
--
--
Often you'll find excellent advice on a newsgroup.
Before you use that advice though, consider the
ramifications of it being wrong or even dangerous;
how important IS that to you?
ALWAYS verify and confirm ANY advice from a
newsgroup!
Twayne
In news:%23voSfK6...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
John John - MVP <aude...@nbnot.nb.ca> typed:
> Don't bother with these utterly useless registry cleaners, they cause
> more harm than good.
Completely untrue. Posted from ignorance and to be a gopher for a small
group of registry cleaner libelists. Like any other program, just source a
reliable program from a reliable web site. They don't do any harm or damage
and they also allow you to undo any changes you make anyway.
Twayne
>
> John
>
> Jackson wrote:
>> Kim Komando's tip of the day (07 Jan) has good words for
>> Microcraft's jv Power tools for cleaning the registry. I
>> believe it's freeware.
>>
>> Has anyone used this program? Do you have any remarks or
>> recomendations?
>> Jack from Taxacola (formerly Pensacola), FL
--
Twayne
Shenan Stanley <newsh...@gmail.com> typed:
> Jackson wrote:
>> Kim Komando's tip of the day (07 Jan) has good words for
>> Microcraft's jv Power tools for cleaning the registry. I
>> believe it's freeware.
>>
>> Has anyone used this program? Do you have any remarks or
>> recomendations?
>
> Would you clean your registry manually?
Would YOU if you had a few hundred entries to work on? If so, you need to
get a life!
> Would you use such a cleaning tool and verify each entry it found and
> wanted to remove manually before removing it?
Not hard to do if one really wants to; plenty of sources around to look that
sort of thing up. But with today's cleaners it's not much needed effort as
long as it's making backups in case a program should depend on one of them.
Twayne
>
> --
> Shenan Stanley
> MS-MVP
Twayne
Twayne
>> Kim Komando's tip of the day (07 Jan) has good words for
>> Microcraft's jv Power tools for cleaning the registry. I
>> believe it's freeware.
>>
>> Has anyone used this program? Do you have any remarks or
>> recomendations?
>
> Would you clean your registry manually?
> Would you use such a cleaning tool and verify each entry it found and
> wanted to remove manually before removing it?
>
> --
> Shenan Stanley
> MS-MVP
What, no Um, Ha! reference yet to your own biased points?
David H. Lipman
>> From: "Jackson" <jackd...@hotXmail.com>
>> Rulle of thumb...
Forget the BS spelling faux pas...
It is contraindicated to use so-called Registry Cleaners !
thanatoid
> From: "thanatoid" <wai...@the.exit.invalid>
>
>| "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
>| news:#o9an94j...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>
>>> From: "Jackson" <jackd...@hotXmail.com>
>
>>>| Kim Komando's tip of the day (07 Jan) has good words for
>>>| Microcraft's jv Power tools for cleaning the registry. I
>>>| believe it's freeware.
>
>>>| Has anyone used this program? Do you have any remarks or
>>>| recomendations?
>>>| Jack from Taxacola (formerly Pensacola), FL
>
>>> Rulle of thumb...
>
>>> Do NOT use so-called Registry Cleaners !
>
>| You "rulle" of thumb is as good as its spelling.
>
> Forget the BS spelling faux pas...
>
> It is contraindicated to use so-called Registry Cleaners !
OK, I'll bite... Why?
VanguardLH
- What is currently wrong or failing with the registry?
- What convinced you that the registry needs to be "cleaned" up?
- What constitutes the "cleaning" actions?
- What do you expect to gain from the cleanup?
- What are you going to do if the registry changes hose over
your computer since a restore may not be possible?
- What is your recovery strategy from the registry changes?
*_Why the uneducated or lazy should never use registry cleaners_*
If YOU are not adept at *manually* editing the registry, don't use a tool
that you don't understand regarding its proposed changes. Regardless of
relinquishing the task to software, YOU are the final authority in allowing
it to make the changes. Any registry cleaner that does not request for YOU
to give permission to make its proposed changes along with listing each
proposed change should be discarded.
Do you have a backup & restore plan in place? When (and not if) the
registry cleaner corrupts your registry and when you can no longer boot into
Windows, just how are you going to restore that OS partition so it is usable
again? Even if you use a registry cleaner that provides for backups of its
changes so you can revert back to the prior state, how are you going to
perform that restore if you cannot boot the OS after hosing over its
registry? What about entries in the registry that look to be orphaned under
the current OS load instance but are used under a different OS environment?
You delete what looks orphaned only to find out that they are required under
a different environment.
Say there was an unusually high amount of orphaned entries in your registry,
like 4MB. By deleting the orphaned entries, you would speed up how long it
takes Windows to load the registry's files when it starts up - by all of
maybe 1 second. Oooh, aaah. All that risk of modifying the registry to
save maybe a second, or less, during the Windows startup. Most folks that
clean the registry end up deleting only 10KB, or less. They are doing
nothing to improve their Windows load time. Since the registry is only read
from the memory copy of it, and since memory is random access, there is no
difference to read one byte of the registry (in memory) from the another
byte in the registry (also in memory). The extra data in memory for
orphaned entries has no effect on the time to retrieve items from the memory
copy of the registry because orphaned entries are never retrieved (if they
were, they aren't orphaned).
Cleaning the registry will NOT improve performance in reading from the
memory copy of the registry. The reduced size of the registry's .dat files
might reduce the load time of Windows by all of a second and probably much
less. And you want to risk the stability of your OS for inconsequential
changes to its registry? The same boobs that get suckered into these
registry cleanup "tools" are the same ones that get suckered into the memory
defragment "tools".
A registry cleaner should only be used if you by yourself can correctly
cleanup the registry. The cleaner is just a tool to automate the same
process but you should know every change that it intends to make and
understand each of those changes. After all, and regardless of the stagnant
expertise that is hard coded into the utility, *YOU* are the final authority
in what registry changes are performed whether you do it manually or with a
utility. If YOU do not understand the proposed change (which requires the
product actually divulge the proposed change before committing that change),
how will you know whether or not to allow that change?
John John - MVP
reading my posts.
What good, pray tell, has a registry cleaner ever done for you? Like
all the other believers out there you put some kind of blind faith or
voodoo trust in them and because your registry cleaner has found and
removed a couple of orphaned registry entries it gives you a warm fuzzy
feeling and you think that it's doing something useful.
Your question says it all, "WHAT, pray tell, has one done to any of YOUR
systems that you could not undo with the backup files...". That is the
gist of it all. Why bother with programs that at best do nothing other
than give you a fuzzy feeling and that at worst will cause problems
requiring you to restore registry files? That is if the registry
cleaner can even restore its own backup (often they can't) or if it
hasn't crippled the installation to the point where the Windows can't
boot properly. These cleaners are next to utterly useless and the
purposed non existent benefits parroted by the vendors and fans of these
programs are simply not worth the risk of the real damages that these
programs can and do sometimes cause.
John
David H. Lipman
| "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
| news:u0FmeX$jKHA...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
>> From: "thanatoid" <wai...@the.exit.invalid>
>>| "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
>>| news:#o9an94j...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>>>> From: "Jackson" <jackd...@hotXmail.com>
>>>>| Kim Komando's tip of the day (07 Jan) has good words for
>>>>| Microcraft's jv Power tools for cleaning the registry. I
>>>>| believe it's freeware.
>>>>| Has anyone used this program? Do you have any remarks or
>>>>| recomendations?
>>>>| Jack from Taxacola (formerly Pensacola), FL
>>>> Rulle of thumb...
>>>> Do NOT use so-called Registry Cleaners !
>>| You "rulle" of thumb is as good as its spelling.
>> Forget the BS spelling faux pas...
>> It is contraindicated to use so-called Registry Cleaners !
| OK, I'll bite... Why?
Because the need for one is a myth
Use can cause MORE problems than they purport to solve. Problems that can be
catastrophic.
John John - MVP
Twayne wrote:
> In news:%23voSfK6...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
> John John - MVP <aude...@nbnot.nb.ca> typed:
>> Don't bother with these utterly useless registry cleaners, they cause
>> more harm than good.
>
> Completely untrue. Posted from ignorance and to be a gopher for a small
> group of registry cleaner libelists. Like any other program, just
> source a reliable program from a reliable web site. They don't do any
> harm or damage and they also allow you to undo any changes you make anyway.
As usual and in your true form when ever these useless programs are
exposed for what they are you are here to defend your beloved cleaners
and to insult all who disagree with you. However, when people post
seeking help with real problems caused by these cleaners you are nowhere
to been seen. Most of us here have noticed that when it comes to posts
about registry cleaners you have a case of selected blindness, and when
you do reply to posts you usually leave your brains and manners parked
somewhere else.
John
Bruce Chambers
Why would you even think you'd ever need to clean your registry?
What specific *problems* are you actually experiencing (not some
program's bogus listing of imaginary problems) that you think can be
fixed by using a registry "cleaner?"
If you do have a problem that is rooted in the registry, it would
be far better to simply edit (after backing up, of course) only the
specific key(s) and/or value(s) that are causing the problem. After
all, why use a chainsaw when a scalpel will do the job? Additionally,
the manually changing of one or two registry entries is far less likely
to have the dire consequences of allowing an automated product to make
multiple changes simultaneously. The only thing needed to safely clean
your registry is knowledge and Regedit.exe.
The registry contains all of the operating system's "knowledge" of
the computer's hardware devices, installed software, the location of the
device drivers, and the computer's configuration. A misstep in the
registry can have severe consequences. One should not even turning
loose a poorly understood automated "cleaner," unless he is fully
confident that he knows *exactly* what is going to happen as a result of
each and every change.
Having repeatedly seen the results of inexperienced people using
automated registry "cleaners," I can only advise all but the most
experienced computer technicians (and/or hobbyists) to avoid them all.
Experience has shown me that such tools simply are not safe in the hands
of the inexperienced user. If you lack the knowledge and experience to
maintain your registry by yourself, then you also lack the knowledge and
experience to safely configure and use any automated registry cleaner,
no matter how safe they claim to be.
More importantly, no one has ever demonstrated that the use of an
automated registry "cleaner," particularly by an untrained,
inexperienced computer user, does any real good, whatsoever. There's
certainly been no empirical evidence offered to demonstrate that the use
of such products to "clean" WinXP's registry improves a computer's
performance or stability. Given the potential for harm, it's just not
worth the risk.
Granted, most registry "cleaners" won't cause problems each and
every time they're used, but the potential for harm is always there.
And, since no registry "cleaner" has ever been demonstrated to do any
good (think of them like treating the flu with chicken soup - there's no
real medicinal value, but it sometimes provides a warming placebo
effect), I always tell people that the risks far out-weigh the
non-existent benefits.
I will concede that a good registry *scanning* tool, in the hands
of an experienced and knowledgeable technician or hobbyist can be a
useful time-saving diagnostic tool, as long as it's not allowed to make
any changes automatically. But I really don't think that there are any
registry "cleaners" that are truly safe for the general public to use.
Experience has proven just the opposite: such tools simply are not safe
in the hands of the inexperienced user.
A little further reading on the subject:
Why I don't use registry cleaners
http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=643
AumHa Forums � View topic - AUMHA Discussion: Should I Use a Registry
Cleaner?
http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=28099
--
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell
The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot
Steve Hayes
<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>From: "Jackson" <jackd...@hotXmail.com>
>
>| Kim Komando's tip of the day (07 Jan) has good words for
>| Microcraft's jv Power tools for cleaning the registry. I
>| believe it's freeware.
>
>| Has anyone used this program? Do you have any remarks or
>| recomendations?
>| Jack from Taxacola (formerly Pensacola), FL
>
>Rulle of thumb...
>
>Do NOT use so-called Registry Cleaners !
So how should you clean the registry, then?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Steve Hayes
wrote:
None of which tells us ANYTHING about why you think we should not use registry
cleaners, and what harm you think they do.
Bruce Chambers
>
>
> So how should you clean the registry, then?
>
>
And the correct answer to that question is: "You shouldn't." There's
no sound technical reason for doing so, but abundant technical reasons
for *not* doing so.
David H. Lipman
| On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 06:48:54 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
| <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>>From: "Jackson" <jackd...@hotXmail.com>
>>| Kim Komando's tip of the day (07 Jan) has good words for
>>| Microcraft's jv Power tools for cleaning the registry. I
>>| believe it's freeware.
>>| Has anyone used this program? Do you have any remarks or
>>| recomendations?
>>| Jack from Taxacola (formerly Pensacola), FL
>>Rulle of thumb...
>>Do NOT use so-called Registry Cleaners !
| So how should you clean the registry, then?
You don't. There is no need to clean the Registry. It is a myth to sell snake oil. Very
often these so-called Registry Cleaners are malware.
John John - MVP
Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:22:54 -0400, John John - MVP <aude...@nbnot.nb.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> Twayne wrote:
>>> In news:%23voSfK6...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
>>> John John - MVP <aude...@nbnot.nb.ca> typed:
>>>> Don't bother with these utterly useless registry cleaners, they cause
>>>> more harm than good.
>>> Completely untrue. Posted from ignorance and to be a gopher for a small
>>> group of registry cleaner libelists. Like any other program, just
>>> source a reliable program from a reliable web site. They don't do any
>>> harm or damage and they also allow you to undo any changes you make anyway.
>> As usual and in your true form when ever these useless programs are
>> exposed for what they are you are here to defend your beloved cleaners
>> and to insult all who disagree with you. However, when people post
>> seeking help with real problems caused by these cleaners you are nowhere
>> to been seen. Most of us here have noticed that when it comes to posts
>> about registry cleaners you have a case of selected blindness, and when
>> you do reply to posts you usually leave your brains and manners parked
>> somewhere else.
>
> None of which tells us ANYTHING about why you think we should not use registry
> cleaners, and what harm you think they do.
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.win2000.registry/browse_thread/thread/7e1c49fc55c84159/f9b2f696ca1b9462#f9b2f696ca1b9462
http://boards.msn.com/safetyboards/thread.aspx?threadid=1009500&boardsparam=PostID%3D28824491
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/topic110399.html
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;299958
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888637
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/247678
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support/browse_thread/thread/6b333372c870ea74/43b0f73c7b89f3ba?q=#
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/951950
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers/browse_thread/thread/ba3b59c688bdaed2/6e931aaebff35bc6?q=WinXP+Prof+system+fonts+changed+to+gobbeldygook+Computer+unusable#6e931aaebff35bc6
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Are-registry-cleaners-necessary
http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000643.html
They do absolutely nothing to improve performance and reliability of NT
installations and they can and do cause problem. Along with that many
of them carry pests and malware and others are fraudware, you install
them and they muck up your computer and the scam artists who wrote these
snake oil programs try to extort money from you to remove their pests
from your computer. Why bother?
John
Steve Hayes
<DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>From: "Steve Hayes" <haye...@telkomsa.net>
>
>| On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 06:48:54 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
>| <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>
>>>From: "Jackson" <jackd...@hotXmail.com>
>
>>>| Kim Komando's tip of the day (07 Jan) has good words for
>>>| Microcraft's jv Power tools for cleaning the registry. I
>>>| believe it's freeware.
>
>>>| Has anyone used this program? Do you have any remarks or
>>>| recomendations?
>>>| Jack from Taxacola (formerly Pensacola), FL
>
>>>Rulle of thumb...
>
>>>Do NOT use so-called Registry Cleaners !
>
>| So how should you clean the registry, then?
>
>
>You don't. There is no need to clean the Registry. It is a myth to sell snake oil. Very
>often these so-called Registry Cleaners are malware.
So it's OK for the registry to grow and grow, with redundant and outdated
entries?
Bruce Hagen
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
news:05kdk5tkntugbk17f...@4ax.com...
Hundreds, or even thousands, of defunct registry entries should not even
be noticed as far as performance is concerned. If you get rid of a
problematic program, Norton for example, then you would want to use the
removal tool for that issue. Many programs have removal tools or
instructions to get rid of all aspects the program.
Registry cleaners sound like a good idea like needless e-mail scanning,
but it is like playing Russian Roulette. Someday, you may well regret it.
Read this before running a registry cleaner and then make your mind up.
http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=28099
--
Bruce Hagen
MS-MVP [Mail]
Imperial Beach, CA
Ol�rin
"thanatoid" <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF9AF136...@188.40.43.245...
<snip>
>>| Jack from Taxacola (formerly Pensacola), FL
>>
>> Rulle of thumb...
>>
>> Do NOT use so-called Registry Cleaners !
>
> You "rulle" of thumb is as good as its spelling.
>
People who make an issue of what is clearly a typo on someone else's part
but make one themselves when they do so - always a giggle.
Try removing the plank from "you" own eye first!
sandy58
Rather a brash statement:
"If YOU are not adept at *manually* editing the registry, don't use a
tool
that you don't understand regarding its proposed changes. "
Does that mean you personally can MANUALLY fix Corrupt files, do a
Spellcheck, do a full Search, take/make a Snapshot, do the job of a
Translator...withOUT using software? Behave, laddie. You MAY be Good
but you AIN'T God......YET!
Unknown
Unknown
You won't live long enough for it to grow and grow and have an effect on
your computer.news:05kdk5tkntugbk17f...@4ax.com...
Unknown
cleaner? How would you the
programmer know unequivocally whether an item is an orphan or not? What
happens if the cleaner
inadvertently deletes something that is absolutely needed. This is usually
the case. AND, if you didn't know
if an entry is valid or not what do you do with it?.news:hvadk5h40nc911foq...@4ax.com...
Unknown
manually don't use a program to do
it for you. His post was well said and educational.
But, Sandy58, this has absolutely nothing to do with fixing corrupt files,
do a spell-check, do a full search,
take/make a snapshot, etc. Perhaps, you have no idea what a registry is?
"sandy58" <alec...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:a1c5608b-ea14-438d...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
thanatoid
<SNIP>
>>>>> Rulle of thumb...
>
>>>>> Do NOT use so-called Registry Cleaners !
>
>>>| You "rulle" of thumb is as good as its spelling.
>
>>> Forget the BS spelling faux pas...
>
>>> It is contraindicated to use so-called Registry Cleaners
>>> !
>
>| OK, I'll bite... Why?
>
> Because the need for one is a myth
I just LOVE specific replies! Bravo!
> Use can cause MORE problems than they purport to solve.
> Problems that can be catastrophic.
I /could/ ask for an example but judging by your "reply" to my
first question, I don't see much point.
thanatoid
> I'll post where ever I want and if you don't like it don't
> bother reading my posts.
Huh? You talkin' to me?
> What good, pray tell, has a registry cleaner ever done for
> you?
At various times, it has removed between 25-500 useless entries,
reduced the registry size by 5%-20%, defragged it, and gave me
the kind of good feeling we anal-retentives enjoy having.
> Like all the other believers out there you put some
> kind of blind faith or voodoo trust in them and because
> your registry cleaner has found and removed a couple
Not "couple", between 25-500 per session, depending on how many
stupid programs written by morons I have tried and "uninstalled"
in the meantime.
> of
> orphaned registry entries it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling
> and you think that it's doing something useful.
I do think that's useful. You are welcome to disagree.
> Your question says it all, "WHAT, pray tell, has one done
> to any of YOUR systems that you could not undo with the
> backup files...".
Too bad you can't answer that question. The truth - as I have
seen it in all my time on the Usenet (this subject tends to be
recurrent) - is that of all the peoploids carping on about how
BAD Reg Cleaners are, not ONE has ever been able to give me an
example of ANYTHING that got fucked up.
> That is the gist of it all. Why bother
> with programs that at best do nothing other than give you a
> fuzzy feeling
Hey, my life sucks, I take what I can get.
> and that at worst will cause problems
> requiring you to restore registry files?
E X A M P L E P L E A S E.
> That is if the
> registry cleaner can even restore its own backup (often
> they can't)
Why do you keep on inventing shit? Admit it, you've never even
used one.
> or if it hasn't crippled the installation to
> the point where the Windows can't boot properly.
And this has happened to you H O W many time, exactly?
Right.
> These
> cleaners are next to utterly useless and the purposed non
> existent benefits parroted by the vendors and fans of these
> programs are simply not worth the risk of the real damages
> that these programs can and do sometimes cause.
A G A I N, E X A M P L E P L E A S E.
Or, just STFU.
And don't top post.
thanatoid
news:#F6#lDFkKH...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
> "thanatoid" <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CF9AF136...@188.40.43.245...
> <snip>
>>>| Jack from Taxacola (formerly Pensacola), FL
>>>
>>> Rulle of thumb...
>>>
>>> Do NOT use so-called Registry Cleaners !
>>
>> You "rulle" of thumb is as good as its spelling.
>>
>
> People who make an issue of what is clearly a typo
"Rulke" would be more of a /typo/. I am sure he knows there's
only one "l" but I am not sure he has heard of spell checkers.
That is one typo any one of them WOULD have caught.
> on someone else's part but make one themselves when they do so
> - always a giggle.
I am always happy to provide amusement.
> Try removing the plank from "you" own eye first!
I likes me planks, Mr. Wizard. And at least I /use/ my spell-
checker.
sandy58
wrote:
> From: "Steve Hayes" <hayes...@telkomsa.net>
>
> | On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 06:48:54 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
>
> >>From: "Jackson" <jackdin...@hotXmail.com>
> >>| Kim Komando's tip of the day (07 Jan) has good words for
> >>| Microcraft's jv Power tools for cleaning the registry. I
> >>| believe it's freeware.
> >>| Has anyone used this program? Do you have any remarks or
> >>| recomendations?
> >>| Jack from Taxacola (formerly Pensacola), FL
> >>Rulle of thumb...
> >>Do NOT use so-called Registry Cleaners !
>
> | So how should you clean the registry, then?
>
> You don't. There is no need to clean the Registry. It is a myth to sell snake oil. Very
> often these so-called Registry Cleaners are malware.
>
> --
> Davehttp://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
> Multi-AV -http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
"Very often these so-called Registry Cleaners are malware. "
As are some AV programs....and your point is? It's a personal choice
whether or not to use a reg program.
You believe in the "snake oil" theory (and that's all it is, a
THEORY.) no-one here has yet mentioned specifics. Name of program/what
it did wrong/resulting chaos etc. It's all very well slagging away
but, like politicians, smoke & mirrors/hot air. A great percentage of
negative posters here have been persuaded by the other negative
posters. Not one of them has a positive example of damage inflicted on
a system.
NOW we should see loads of 2nd- & 3rd-hand examples of how PC's have
been totalled through using Registry Cleaners. :-)
Etaoin Shrdlu
registry cleaning is a good idea. We know that there's always a chance
that a neophyte will "clean" something that will result in trouble, and
even if the chance is remote, there must be something that makes the
risk worthwhile. If you just want to clean out orphaned entries because
their presence bothers you, that's a personal neurosis and not evidence
of efficacy. Do you believe that large numbers of orphaned entries cause
a problem (such as significantly slowing down the system) other than
their mere presence? If so, what objective evidence do you have? Note
that "I know my system's faster after registry cleaning" isn't objective
evidence.
Unknown
You don't see much of anything.
"thanatoid" <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
thanatoid
news:0006c74c$0$1558$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
> What you haven't done, for all of your posturing, is tell
> why you think registry cleaning is a good idea.
Do you have reading comprehension problems? There are adult
education courses available in your area.
<SNIP>
> We know
> that there's always a chance that a neophyte will "clean"
> something that will result in trouble
"We" do? How? OF COURSE, there is a always chance a moron who
just turns ON a computer will blow it up within 3 minutes. So
let's not get silly and stay on a real plane - people with an
IQ of 110 plus who know the difference between "show
hidden/system files" and "hide hidden/system files"
> and even if the chance is remote, there must be something
> that makes the risk worthwhile.
I explained MY reasons for using them, and if you can't
understand them go back to my first sentence. You are also,
of course, free to disagree with me, but please stop making
idiotic statements you have not a single proof for just
because it is fashionable to crap on reg cleaners. I would
also LOVE to get a specific example of a malware reg cleaner.
And even if you CAN provide one, the type of user I am
talking about - ie a person who should NOT be prohibited by
law from owning a computer due to stupidity (sadly, this
means about 75% if not 90% of users worldwide) would know
better than to blindly click on "install our free supercool
reg cleaner NOW!" when visiting an illegal porn site. Sigh.
> If you just want to clean out orphaned
> entries because their presence bothers you, that's a
> personal neurosis and not evidence of efficacy.
No, it is a personal neurosis which can be helped by reg
cleaners and tweaking in general. If you don't have it, be
glad and let others suffer in peace.
> Do you
> believe that large numbers of orphaned entries cause a
> problem (such as significantly slowing down the system)
> other than their mere presence?
No, except reg cleaners do a lot more besides cleaning
orphaned entries. Perhaps you should research a bit more
before further blabbing about what you obviously know nothing
about. I still think you have never used an r.c. yourself,
and are therefore disqualified from making anything but a
totally worthless opinion based on hearsay and FUD.
> If so, what objective
> evidence do you have? Note that "I know my system's faster
> after registry cleaning" isn't objective evidence.
You cretin, I never said it was "faster after". In fact I
said there is 0 (ZERO) performance increase.
I know I said there's no point in asking someone like you for
specific examples, but there is little else left to do except
just ignoring you, and I am too bored to leave a good fight.
So instead of repeating yourself, read my posts again and try
to answer some of the questions I posed to you and others of
your oh-so-educated ilk. Like a specific instance of harm an
r.c. has done to a system you are /personally acquainted
with/ which resulted in a /no-boot situation/.
thanatoid
news:Oi2MfHVk...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
> You don't see much of anything.
What are you talking about? I am not going to read 50 lines of
text I have already read previously just to find out.
<SNIP>
Peter Foldes
> What are you talking about? I am not going to read 50 lines of
> text I have already read previously just to find out.
And there you go. You said it. One reason to Top post so as others do not have to
re-read all 50 chapters over and over as you said above.
Unfortunately bottom posters and almost all of them do not know what a snipping tool
is and as such everything gets reprinted over and over.
--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
"thanatoid" <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9CFBA7E89...@188.40.43.245...
Peter Foldes
Ignore this Steve. He is an ignoramus.
--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
"Unknown" <unk...@unknown.kom> wrote in message
news:%23x%23SsJKk...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Daave
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 23:28:46 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>> You don't. There is no need to clean the Registry. It is a myth to
>> sell snake oil. Very often these so-called Registry Cleaners are
>> malware.
> So it's OK for the registry to grow and grow, with redundant and
> outdated entries?
It depends upon the operating system.
For a system like Windows XP, the answer is yes. Nobody had ever offered
convincing evidence that these outdated entries slow down performance.
thanatoid
news:eZ2t3QYk...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>> What are you talking about? I am not going to read 50
>> lines of text I have already read previously just to find
>> out.
>
> And there you go. You said it. One reason to Top post so as
> others do not have to re-read all 50 chapters over and over
> as you said above.
And have NO clue whWTF the topfeeder is mumbling about.
> Unfortunately bottom posters and almost
> all of them do not know what a snipping tool is and as such
> everything gets reprinted over and over.
I /strongly/ suggest you look in your yellow pages for the
nearest Mental Health Clinic.
And perhaps a remedial English class at a nearby community
college while you're at it.
WWAI, /what/ IS a "snipping tool"?
Steve Hayes
Thanks.
I thoguht that in this ng, unless otherwise stated, that WERE talking about
Windows XP operating system.
And if I reinstall the software, will it just overwrite the old entries, so
that they don't interfere with the new installation?
Daave
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 18:58:53 -0500, "Daave" <da...@example.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 23:28:46 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
>>> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>>
>>>> You don't. There is no need to clean the Registry. It is a myth
>>>> to sell snake oil. Very often these so-called Registry Cleaners
>>>> are malware.
>>
>>> So it's OK for the registry to grow and grow, with redundant and
>>> outdated entries?
>>
>> It depends upon the operating system.
>>
>> For a system like Windows XP, the answer is yes. Nobody had ever
>> offered convincing evidence that these outdated entries slow down
>> performance.
>
> Thanks.
>
> I thoguht that in this ng, unless otherwise stated, that WERE talking
> about Windows XP operating system.
Good point.
The problem is that with earlier operating systems (e.g., Windows 98),
registry cleaning actually *did* produce a certain amount of improvement
in performance. And many people who have had positive experiences with
these registry cleaning utilities had them all those years ago when they
ran those OSes, yours truly included. In fact, the utility that I
preferred was Jouni Vuorio's RegCleaner 4.3. (This is interesting
because the program recommended by Kim Kommando is written by him, too!)
But operating systems from XP onward are designed so differently, and
seemingly countless orphan entries in the registry interestingly cause
no appreciable difference in performance. This is why so many
experienced people caution against the use of these programs. There is
no noticeable benefit and there is a small chance that significant
damage may occur. Yes, although rare, there have been instances reported
in these very newsgroups where people have been unable to boot into
Windows after running these cleaners!
Adding to the confusion is the large number of scams one can find
throughout the Internet. Many of these scams are malware disguised in a
registry cleaning package. A friend of mine fell for one of these scams
about a year ago, panicked, and wound up using his credit card to make
himself $50 poorer!
For advanced people who always have an up-to-date image or clone of
their system hard drive, using the _non-scam_ registry cleaners is not
an issue because even if the rare situation of a non-bootable system
occurs, they're covered. And some people like to play around and clean
house, attempting to rid their registries of as many useless entries (or
entries *perceived* of as useless!) as possible. Some of these people
(hello, Twayne) will insist that the perceived threat of cleaning a
registry is overblown.
But this brings us back to Square One: With systems like Windows XP,
these leftover registry entries simply do not affect performance in any
appreciable way. No one has *ever* offered actual evidence to support
this claim. The closest (and it's not close at all!) I have found is
anecdotal evidence like the following:
> I've never noticed a perfrmance boost on my own machines but on
> occasion
> I have seen it help in customer's machines. I don't look for it either
> as a
> rule because it's not my purpose in running such a program. Even then
> you
> have to be purposely looking for it though, since an A-B comparison
> can't be
> made.
(from a post made by the aforementioned Twayne)
Just because someone on some newsgroup says something like "on occasion
I have seen it help in customer's machines" doesn't mean this is actual
evidence! Human beings are funny creatures and imagination can be a
powerful thing. That is why I always look for actual evidence. All one
would need to do is design an experiment that *would* allow for an A-B
comparison.
> And if I reinstall the software, will it just overwrite the old
> entries, so that they don't interfere with the new installation?
It depends on the software.
If the uninstall and/or reinstall instructions are well-written, old
entries will be written over. Then again, many times old leftover
entries will remain. The point is that these old leftover entries just
sit there doing nothing 99.9% of the time, thereby not affecting
performance. In certain situations, there might be an issue, but it
would be an actual issue like the *inability* to install a newer version
of the same program, *not* a general performance issue. And those
specific issues can be addressed by either a specific removal tool
(Norton and McAfee have these on their sites for download) or by using
Regedit.
That being said, a program like the one written by Jouni Vuorio can have
some benefit in locating *specific* problematic entries quicker. But to
expect that just by running it for no reason will improve performance is
to be let down because it just won't happen.
You might find the following interesting:
http://www.whatthetech.com/2007/11/25/do-i-need-a-registry-cleaner/
Kenneth J. Harris
2. I have used it on my computers
3. It does its job well(removing unwanted registry entries, etc.)
4. Does it make a computer run better? Perhaps a little bit.
5. Does it do any harm? No, as long as you follow the directions for
its use.
thanatoid
> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 18:58:53 -0500, "Daave"
> <da...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>Steve Hayes wrote:
>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 23:28:46 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
>>> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>>
>>>> You don't. There is no need to clean the Registry. It
>>>> is a myth to sell snake oil. Very often these so-called
>>>> Registry Cleaners are malware.
(Still waiting for an example, David.)
<SNIP>
> I thoguht that in this ng, unless otherwise stated, that
> WERE talking about Windows XP operating system.
>
> And if I reinstall the software, will it just overwrite the
> old entries, so that they don't interfere with the new
> installation?
/Very/ good question. Let's see all the people who enjoy
hoarding old registry entries answer that one. Let's specify
"reinstall" and "overwrite" to mean that a newer version of the
same program is being installed, or a /similar/ program which
handles the same types of files.
(If you are reinstalling the /identical/ version of the same
program you had before, the worst that may happen is that you
may end up with old settings you don't want any more or that you
may end up with new settings you didn't want, depending on how
bad the install routine is written. Either way you will have to
do some work.)
Steve Hayes
>But operating systems from XP onward are designed so differently, and
>seemingly countless orphan entries in the registry interestingly cause
>no appreciable difference in performance. This is why so many
>experienced people caution against the use of these programs. There is
>no noticeable benefit and there is a small chance that significant
>damage may occur. Yes, although rare, there have been instances reported
>in these very newsgroups where people have been unable to boot into
>Windows after running these cleaners!
Thanks for that info.
>For advanced people who always have an up-to-date image or clone of
>their system hard drive, using the _non-scam_ registry cleaners is not
>an issue because even if the rare situation of a non-bootable system
>occurs, they're covered. And some people like to play around and clean
>house, attempting to rid their registries of as many useless entries (or
>entries *perceived* of as useless!) as possible. Some of these people
>(hello, Twayne) will insist that the perceived threat of cleaning a
>registry is overblown.
I installed some programs on my second hard disk, which then began
misbehaving. I put in a new disk, restored the partition images from backups,
but the new programs were missing, though the stuff in the registry on the C:
drive will still be there.
I was thinking of reinstalling some of those programs, but wondered if the
existing registry entries might confuse things, so was thinking of using a
registry cleaner (after making a backup of the C: drive) before trying to
reinstall them.
Most registry cleaners I know come on those discs distributed with rputable
computer magazines -- if they are all malware, why isn't there a chorus of
complaints from their readers?
--
Daave
Chances are 99.9% that there will be no confusion. Nothing in life is
100%. But that also goes for altering registry settings as a
preventative measure. There is always a small chance that doing so will
cause significant problems. That is why it is logical to leave well
enough alone.
> Most registry cleaners I know come on those discs distributed with
> rputable computer magazines -- if they are all malware, why isn't
> there a chorus of complaints from their readers?
They are *not* all malware. Most, in fact, are legit programs (which
would explain why there is no "chorus of complaints" :-) ). They just
don't offer any benefit when it comes to increasing performance; it is a
placebo effect.
*Some* programs are malware, however. Here is one example:
http://www.411-spyware.com/remove-registrycleanerpro
Twayne
thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid> typed:
> "Shenan Stanley" <newsh...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:uaFJ6a6j...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
>
>> Jackson wrote:
>>> Kim Komando's tip of the day (07 Jan) has good words for
>>> Microcraft's jv Power tools for cleaning the registry. I
>>> believe it's freeware.
>>>
>>> Has anyone used this program? Do you have any remarks or
>>> recomendations?
>>
>
> I do and have many times.
>
>> Would you use such a cleaning tool and verify each entry it
>> found and wanted to remove manually before removing it?
>
> That is SOME sentence ;-)
>
> JV16 does an amazing job and tells you exactly WHY something
> "can go" and it's up to you, It also makes backups - which I
> have NEVER needed to use.
>
> Generally, after using my 4 reg cleaners (I only do it once in a
> while, like before making an image of C:) I DO manually clean
> stuff because NOTHING will do EVERYTHING.
>
> The reg cleaners just make the job faster and more thorough
> since they will look through everything, like the entire HKCR
> tree, something I have NO patience for.
I'll buy that; it's one step further than I go, but it doesn't hurt anything
as long as you know what you're doing, which you do or you wouldn't be
online< G >. Well, I also only use one cleaner too, but I do have three I
keep available just in case.
You did well, brain-farted sentence and all! :^}
Cheers,
Twayne`
Twayne
John John - MVP <aude...@nbnot.nb.ca> typed:
> I'll post where ever I want and if you don't like it don't bother
> reading my posts.
>
> all the other believers out there you put some kind of blind faith or
> voodoo trust in them and because your registry cleaner has found and
> fuzzy feeling and you think that it's doing something useful.
>
> is the gist of it all. Why bother with programs that at best do
> cause problems requiring you to restore registry files? That is if
> the registry cleaner can even restore its own backup (often they
> the Windows can't boot properly.
>>
>>> Don't bother with these utterly useless registry cleaners,
>>> they cause more harm than good.
>>
>> Don't top post.
>>
>> WHAT, pray tell, has one done to any of YOUR systems that you
>> could not undo with the backup files (which all the ones I have
>> used offer to create - and NONE of which I have ever had to use
>> myself)?
> I'll post where ever I want and if you don't like it don't bother
> reading my posts.
>
I'll do exactly as I please, thank you! And I could not care less whether
maroons read my posts or not. It's your choice.
> What good, pray tell, has a registry cleaner ever done for you? Like
> all the other believers out there you put some kind of blind faith or
> voodoo trust in them and because your registry cleaner has found and
> removed a couple of orphaned registry entries it gives you a warm
> fuzzy feeling and you think that it's doing something useful.
Registry cleaners have done an immense amount of good for me, ranging
from speeding boot times on occastion, getting programs back and working
that were hijacked by a leftover entry the prog just happened to pick up,
faster registry-load times into RAM, etc., all the way to doing nothing
perceptible. That's what they've done for me.
Orphaned entries are irrelevant but apparently the only thing you thing
cleaners do. You are so wrong. It's only intentional ignorance that gives
you your own warm fuzzies, I'm afraid.
I'd love to see you trying to get a machine working right again after say
Office quits working, won't start, won't uninstall and won't reinstall. Do
you even have a hint how many regisry entries you'll find for MS Office?
After replacing msinstaller and ten more minutes, I fired up the registry
cleaner and within a minute or so had MS Office removed from the registry
since I'd deleted all the files it could try to access.
Why bother with programs that at best do
> nothing other than give you a fuzzy feeling and that at worst will
> cause problems requiring you to restore registry files?
NO SENSE at all! But I don't have any such programs, so ... . Oh, and
in over a decade I've never had a cleaner do any damage to a single byte on
my machines. The good ones are just as robust as the registry is these days
but even the first ones didn't damage anything as you like to keep repeating
ad infinitum in your dazed condition.
That is if
> the registry cleaner can even restore its own backup (often they
> can't) or if it hasn't crippled the installation to the point where
> the Windows can't boot properly.
Ahh, there we are: You must download crapola without so much as a thought to
whether the source is going to be legitimate or not. Go looking for no
names and you'll find damaging software in a lot more than registry
cleaners! By contrast, there are very few of them compared to other
possibilities of malware and adware.
I've never had any machine damaged in any way by any of the ones I use.
I've never even had to use the "recovery" functions of any of them, mostly
because I won't use a program that relies on having malware present in order
to run, of which there used to be quite a few of them.
These cleaners are next to utterly
> useless and the purposed non existent benefits parroted by the
> vendors and fans of these programs are simply not worth the risk of
> the real damages that these programs can and do sometimes cause.
Let's see, that long run on sentence says exactly the opposite of what
reality is. There's no more risk than installing any reputable program/s
barring power outages, etc.. THEY - DO - NO - DAMAGE - NOT - EVEN -
SOMETIMES .
It's too bad you insist on keeping your running intentional ignorance and
have absolutely no, nada, not even an inkling of any actual evidence to
support your foolish contentions.
As for benefits parroted by vendors: So now you're saying hype shouldn't be
believed? Hmm, that pretty much puts Microsoft and a lot of other big boys
in the tank! If one doesn't hype their product, how is one to know what the
product even is? You're also a marketing moron in addition to your
misinformation and even the occasional lies.
I feel fer ya! But not much. Thanks for this opportunity to once again
expose you for what you are.
Cheers,
Twayne`
Twayne
In news:u0FmeX$jKHA...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
David H. Lipman <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> typed:
> From: "thanatoid" <wai...@the.exit.invalid>
>
>> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
>> news:#o9an94j...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>
>>> From: "Jackson" <jackd...@hotXmail.com>
>
>>>> Kim Komando's tip of the day (07 Jan) has good words for
>>>> Microcraft's jv Power tools for cleaning the registry. I
>>>> believe it's freeware.
>
>>>> Has anyone used this program? Do you have any remarks or
>>>> recomendations?
>
>
>>> Do NOT use so-called Registry Cleaners !
>
>> You "rulle" of thumb is as good as its spelling.
>
>
> Forget the BS spelling faux pas...
>
> It is contraindicated to use so-called Registry Cleaners !
What're you, practicing to pose as a doctor? Take two pills of whatever
you've got and go to sleep.
Twayne
thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid> typed:
You've got it! Not a single one of the few posters here who spew the same
misinformation over and over have anything they can cite or use to advance
their point other than the occasional anecdotal, unverifiable post and the
um, huh!
Twayne
Twayne
David H. Lipman <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> typed:
> From: "thanatoid" <wai...@the.exit.invalid>
>
>
>>> From: "thanatoid" <wai...@the.exit.invalid>
>
>>>> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in
>
>>>>> From: "Jackson" <jackd...@hotXmail.com>
>
>>>>>> Kim Komando's tip of the day (07 Jan) has good words for
>>>>>> Microcraft's jv Power tools for cleaning the registry. I
>>>>>> believe it's freeware.
>
>>>>>> Has anyone used this program? Do you have any remarks or
>>>>>> recomendations?
>>>>>> Jack from Taxacola (formerly Pensacola), FL
>
>
>>>>> Do NOT use so-called Registry Cleaners !
>
>>>> You "rulle" of thumb is as good as its spelling.
>
>>> Forget the BS spelling faux pas...
>
>>> It is contraindicated to use so-called Registry Cleaners !
>
>> OK, I'll bite... Why?
>
>
> Because the need for one is a myth
>
> that can be catastrophic.
Citations? Detailed, verifiable evidence? Anything besides the very
occasional anecdote? I've never seen one other than the Um, Huh thread
written with extreme bias by one of our participants here.
On what do you base your opinion (which you state as fact)? Oh, that's
right; you're a micro-sap company man.
Twayne`
Twayne
In news:Oi2MfHVk...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
Unknown <unk...@unknown.kom> typed:
Said the almost most ignorant one
Twayne
In news:0006c74c$0$1558$c3e...@news.astraweb.com,
Etaoin Shrdlu <eta...@shrdlu.net> typed:
You're completely wrong. For answers to your own question see one of my
other responses. As usual, you only think about orphaned entries and nothing
else in your myopic state of unreadiness. You parrot but you know nothing
about what you say.
HTH,
Twayne
Twayne
How you come about that preposterous supposition is a question for the ages
I'm afraid. Your'e off topic and off your feed. Redirecting a thread doesn't
work for a lot of people.
Worst are the ones who won't follow what's already been established and
mix the order anyway. So here's your glorious top post; snipped yet.
In news:eZ2t3QYk...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
Peter Foldes <ok...@hotmail.com> typed:
>> What are you talking about? I am not going to read 50 lines of
>> text I have already read previously just to find out.
>
>
> And there you go.
<snip>
Unknown
What an out and out lie! Each and every time a poster posted the damage
caused by a registry
cleaner to their system you completely ignored and wouldn't respond.
"Twayne" <nob...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:uCPhaNwk...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Twayne
>> In news:%23voSfK6...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
>>> cause more harm than good.
>>
>> small group of registry cleaner libelists. Like any other program,
>> just source a reliable program from a reliable web site. They don't do
>> any
>> harm or damage and they also allow you to undo any changes you make
>> anyway.
>
> As usual and in your true form when ever these useless programs are
> exposed for what they are you are here to defend your beloved cleaners
> and to insult all who disagree with you. However, when people post
> seeking help with real problems caused by these cleaners you are
> nowhere to been seen. Most of us here have noticed that when it
> comes to posts about registry cleaners you have a case of selected
> blindness, and when you do reply to posts you usually leave your
> brains and manners parked somewhere else.
>
> John
Wrong. I only address those who make untrue statements without anything to
back themselves up and which I know from education, research and experience
to be completely wrong. e.g. you say "will" cause irrepairale damage, not
"could" cause some kind of minor damage, and so forth. Even a preface of "in
my opinion" in your posts would quiet me down. But that's not your posture
and you know it. Your'e also wrong and you know it.
As for your last sentence, projection won't do you much good; you have to
become an actual thinking person as opposed to a mindless follower without
anything to back up or verify what you claim.
HTH,
Twayne
Twayne
Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> typed:
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:22:54 -0400, John John - MVP
> <aude...@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> Twayne wrote:
>>> In news:%23voSfK6...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
>>> John John - MVP <aude...@nbnot.nb.ca> typed:
>>>> Don't bother with these utterly useless registry cleaners, they
>>>> cause more harm than good.
>>>
>>> Completely untrue. Posted from ignorance and to be a gopher for a
>>> small group of registry cleaner libelists. Like any other program,
>>> just
>>> source a reliable program from a reliable web site. They don't do
>>> any
>>> harm or damage and they also allow you to undo any changes you make
>>> anyway.
>>
>> As usual and in your true form when ever these useless programs are
>> exposed for what they are you are here to defend your beloved
>> cleaners and to insult all who disagree with you. However, when
>> people post seeking help with real problems caused by these cleaners
>> you are nowhere to been seen. Most of us here have noticed that
>> when it comes to posts about registry cleaners you have a case of
>> selected blindness, and when you do reply to posts you usually leave
>> your brains and manners parked somewhere else.
>
> registry cleaners, and what harm you think they do.
And they never will, Steve. I used to gently prod for something, anything,
that would lead them to their decisions and opinions. If there were any
truth to their contentions, there would be a LOT of information all over the
web sites about the subject of how useless they are. But it's only a small
clique here wanting to force their opinions on the newbies and weaker
personalities they might suck in.
Nowadays I just take every opportunity to expose their lies and
misinformation; it's more fun anyway, since they have absolutely nothing but
a few anecdotal messages to back up their claims.
Cheers,
Twayne`
Unknown
Been away for 5 days.
"Twayne" <nob...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:OsocWKwk...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
John John - MVP
> I'd love to see you trying to get a machine working right again after
> say Office quits working, won't start, won't uninstall and won't
> reinstall. Do you even have a hint how many regisry entries you'll find
> for MS Office?
That is quite a joke... it probably quit working because you ran your
useless registry cleaner as Office is one of the applications that is
most often broken by worthless registry cleaners! Where were you when
this was posted:
As usual when these problems are exposed you conveniently disappear.
And if you're such an Office expert you should know by now that
Microsoft has a removal tool just for Office. Next time don't use your
cleaners and you won't break Office, and, if you do break Office,
instead of causing more damages with your cleaners go to the Office site
and get the removal tool!
John
John John - MVP
> In news:uqfhdEAk...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
> John John - MVP <aude...@nbnot.nb.ca> typed:
>> Twayne wrote:
>>> In news:%23voSfK6...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
>>> John John - MVP <aude...@nbnot.nb.ca> typed:
>>>> Don't bother with these utterly useless registry cleaners, they
>>>> cause more harm than good.
>>>
>>> Completely untrue. Posted from ignorance and to be a gopher for a
>>> small group of registry cleaner libelists. Like any other program,
>>> just source a reliable program from a reliable web site. They don't
>>> do any
>>> harm or damage and they also allow you to undo any changes you make
>>> anyway.
>>
>> As usual and in your true form when ever these useless programs are
>> exposed for what they are you are here to defend your beloved cleaners
>> and to insult all who disagree with you. However, when people post
>> seeking help with real problems caused by these cleaners you are
>> nowhere to been seen. Most of us here have noticed that when it
>> comes to posts about registry cleaners you have a case of selected
>> blindness, and when you do reply to posts you usually leave your
>> brains and manners parked somewhere else.
>>
>> John
>
> Wrong.
No, we have all noticed it. When people post with problems brought
about by registry cleaners you *never* offer any help, you simply
disappear. It's so blatant, you are there defending your cleaners 5
minutes earlier but as soon as someone has problems you go blind and see
nothing. Who are you really trying to kid?
John
Unknown
posted the damage done to
his/her machine by a registry cleaner. You conveniently ignore them. Then,
you severely criticize some who
says registry cleaners are 'snakeoil'. Why are you so two faced? Do you work
for the 'snakeoil' developers?
"Twayne" <nob...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:%23qXnrSw...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Peter Foldes
LOL. You are a real gem Twayne
It is so strange that you disappear and do not show up when a poster posts that he
messed up his system after using a Registry Tool. Happens with you time and time
again that you avoid to answer in those posts because you know that you will be
wrong which you are all the time when it comes to Registry Tools and it's effect on
Operating Systems..
The only thing that you can do in posts concerning Registry Cleaners is to blast
everyone that disagrees with your belief that Reg Cleaning tools do magic for
someone's OS
--
Peter
Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
"Unknown" <unk...@unknown.kom> wrote in message
news:uwG9mRwk...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Twayne
Unknown <unk...@unknown.kom> typed:
> What harm they do??? THINK, how would you write or create a registry
> cleaner? How would you the
> programmer know unequivocally whether an item is an orphan or not?
It's simple. And, if it turns out a program needs an on-the-fly that's
referenced, well, that's what the UNDO is for if you didn't recognize it
first time around. Chances of that are very small in contrast. The last one
of those I came across simply threw up a message and asked for the original
media in order to re-register the components. I fixed it with a simple UNDO
though since it named the exact entry. Ain't it great what software can know
about itself? I've seen a couple that pretend to be on-the-fly too but
actually just spilt their data off onto the hard drive into its own temp
directory.
But YOU think! Why do you suppose the manuals spell it out rather clearly
about being careful of entries that may only exist at certain times for
temporarily created uses? Or don't you read?
> What happens if the cleaner
> inadvertently deletes something that is absolutely needed.
Well, that's NOT going to be a case of stopping the machine from booting or
running except for the one application that's now telling you it wants such
and such and can't find it. UNDO takes care of it pretty quickly if and when
that should occur. And, such an occurrence is seldom going to happen on the
machines of anyone participating here. I do notice the cleaners say to watch
out for such things, though; right on the screen if you bother to look at
it. It separates things it doesn't "know" for me. If in doubt, leave it
alone. But like I said, that almost never happens.
This is
> usually the case. AND, if you didn't know
> if an entry is valid or not what do you do with it?.
Me? Depends on my mood. But usually, I simply look it up at one of the many
sites available to see what it is. If you just follow the heirarchy back a
bit, it's going to tell you what application it belongs to. In fact, my
registry cleaner does that for me. If it's my machine and there is no reason
to suspect it's causing a problem, I'll still delete it, just to see what
happens. But if it's a client's machine I'll only delete it long enough to
be sure it's not the cause of the problems I'm looking at, then I'll put the
entry back. Or sometimes I'll reload the whole registry to make comparisons
between various suspicions if it gets to that point. You only need 3 rules:
-- Back up the Registry and System State before doing any work.
-- One change at a time or set of related changes, and test before
proceeding to see if it effected the problem.
-- THINK! Actually read the screen output. All of it.
Oh, and as for orphaned entries; I'll often kill those, too, just for GPs
since I'm already there. They take time to load/unload from RAM so they are
timewasters since they're going to/from the disc and buffers.
Now I guess all I have to do is decide whether to go back and respond to all
the misinformation in all those old posts of yours<g>. Thanks for the head
start.
HTH,
Twayne
> "Steve Hayes" <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
> news:hvadk5h40nc911foq...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:22:54 -0400, John John - MVP
>> <aude...@nbnot.nb.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>> In news:%23voSfK6...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl,
>>>> John John - MVP <aude...@nbnot.nb.ca> typed:
>>>>> Don't bother with these utterly useless registry cleaners, they
>>>>> cause more harm than good.
>>>>
>>>> Completely untrue. Posted from ignorance and to be a gopher for a
>>>> small group of registry cleaner libelists. Like any other
>>>> program, just source a reliable program from a reliable web site.
>>>> They don't do any harm or damage and they also allow you to undo
>>>> any changes you make anyway.
>>>
>>> As usual and in your true form when ever these useless programs are
>>> exposed for what they are you are here to defend your beloved
>>> cleaners and to insult all who disagree with you. However, when
>>> people post seeking help with real problems caused by these
>>> cleaners you are nowhere to been seen. Most of us here have
>>> noticed that when it comes to posts about registry cleaners you
>>> have a case of selected blindness, and when you do reply to posts
>>> you usually leave your brains and manners parked somewhere else.
>>
>> None of which tells us ANYTHING about why you think we should not use
>> registry
>> cleaners, and what harm you think they do.
>>
>>
>>
>>
Twayne
Aha, that's an exact description of YOUR MO! You'll find I either: Offer an
answer to at minimum tell the poster that you are all wet and not to be
taken seriously.
HTH,
Twayne
Twayne
In news:OmDgvywk...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
Unknown <unk...@unknown.kom> typed:
> I have never once, in at least 5 years, seen you respond to someone
> who posted the damage done to
> his/her machine by a registry cleaner.
Well, you'd better go look again. Or put your glasses on. I don't offer
answers to someone if I don't know the answer. But I DO address your
misinformation. K? And, I'm clear about what I'm doing.
You've missed a lot of posts in 5 years.
>... You conveniently ignore them.
But you don't, if you have a chance to spew your misinformation, huh?
> Then, you severely criticize some who
> says registry cleaners are 'snakeoil'. Why are you so two faced? Do
> you work for the 'snakeoil' developers?
I criticize liars, misinformationists and those who lump the entier world
together with one color. I would join your vendetta if even one of you have
any verifiable, legitimate information from an unbiased source to disprove
the functionality of every registry cleaner ever made. It's an extremely
stupid premise to start with and intentionally ignorant besides.
And if you think those are severe criticisms, may I suggest you need a
thicker snake skin?
HTH,
Twayne
Twayne
to load a registry with 4 Meg of orphans. It's considerably longer than 1
second, and also depends on knowing the cpu speed, front buss speed,
pagefile status, latencies and buffers statuses. That time is present during
the load and the unload as it spools everything back to disc, not to mention
the movements that must continually happen in RAM as data is pushed around
to make room for or remove other data. You simply cannot say 1.S without
those numbers because your'e talking about a very fast machine when you do.
"When the registry ... " is pure unadulterated crap if one is using a
branded, reputable cleaner.
Maybe the points below will help the OP:
In news:hi5uan$t7e$1...@news.albasani.net,
VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> typed:
> Jackson wrote:
>
>> Kim Komando's tip of the day (07 Jan) has good words for
>> Microcraft's jv Power tools for cleaning the registry. I
>> believe it's freeware.
>>
>> Has anyone used this program? Do you have any remarks or
>> recomendations?
>> Jack from Taxacola (formerly Pensacola), FL
>
> - What is currently wrong or failing with the registry?
I may have just noticed an increase of about 40, maybe 60, seconds in boot
time. You should know what that indidates.
> - What convinced you that the registry needs to be "cleaned" up?
Depends; The OP didn't say he had a problem; he asked for advice, such as
ccleaner, or Norton tools, or whatever. You provided no such thing and thus
had no business responding.
> - What constitutes the "cleaning" actions?
lol, if you don't know, I'm not about to tell you!
> - What do you expect to gain from the cleanup?
Either repair of an issue, or possibly simply a process of elimination if
it's possible the registry were at fault. But again, the OP asked for
programs, not your drivel advice.
> - What are you going to do if the registry changes hose over
> your computer since a restore may not be possible?
That's fantasy. Only malware or kiddie-code could screw up a machine to the
point where it couldn't boot. It's nearly impossible, unless there is
malware or serious code corruption, to stop a machine from boothing using a
reputable program.
> - What is your recovery strategy from the registry changes?
Restore Points. Save the System State. Etc.
>
> *_Why the uneducated or lazy should never use registry cleaners_*
>
> If YOU are not adept at *manually* editing the registry, don't use a
> tool that you don't understand regarding its proposed changes.
So, don't YOU use a word processor or any office program, because they all
impact the registry with thousands of entries upon install, and if you8
don't know their internal workings completely, don't use it! Or any other
program, for that matter! Just totally ignore the reason any program
exists; to save time and effort.
> Regardless of relinquishing the task to software, YOU are the final
> authority in allowing it to make the changes. Any registry cleaner
> that does not request for YOU to give permission to make its proposed
> changes along with listing each proposed change should be discarded.
I don't believe there is any such thing in any but the most pathetic of
examples of malware and kiddie-code.
...
>
> Say there was an unusually high amount of orphaned entries in your
> registry, like 4MB. By deleting the orphaned entries, you would
> speed up how long it takes Windows to load the registry's files when
> it starts up - by all of maybe 1 second.
Wrong. Measure it, or calculate it. With the given information. You cannot
do it.
Oooh, aaah. All that risk
> of modifying the registry to save maybe a second, or less, during the
> Windows startup.
Wrong again.
...
>
> Cleaning the registry will NOT improve performance in reading from the
> memory copy of the registry.
Why is it you dummies think there is no reason to use a registry cleaner
other than to delete orphaned entries? Even discounting your impossible math
above, you suddenly switch to reading RAM all of a sudden. Huh?
The reduced size of the registry's .dat
> files might reduce the load time of Windows by all of a second and
> probably much less.
Again, something you cannot possibly know based on the info you have.
And you want to risk the stability of your OS
> for inconsequential changes to its registry?
No, the OP asked for WHICH program, which you ignored.
The same boobs that get
> suckered into these registry cleanup "tools" are the same ones that
> get suckered into the memory defragment "tools".
OOF! Now you've clearly shown your ignorance. How the hell do you get from
asking for advice on a registry cleaner to mem defrag? Just another chance
to be condescending, I know. You're a real idiot here.
>
> A registry cleaner should only be used if you by yourself can
> correctly cleanup the registry. The cleaner is just a tool to
> automate the same process but you should know every change that it
> intends to make and understand each of those changes. After all, and
> regardless of the stagnant expertise that is hard coded into the
> utility, *YOU* are the final authority in what registry changes are
> performed whether you do it manually or with a utility. If YOU do
> not understand the proposed change (which requires the product
> actually divulge the proposed change before committing that change),
> how will you know whether or not to allow that change?
Good question and one that's often overlooked because of a refusal to RTFM
by way too many people. Not reading the screen is even worse; most tell you
right on the screen these days; at least all 3 of mine do.
But, you do not have to be a registry expert; what you do need is the
ability to recognize names of your own programs and how to look up whatever
it may be showing you to see whether it's part of one of our own programs or
not.
But again, you've jumped to orphaned entries in your own mind. YOUr
entire post and non-response here are MORONIC. YOU need to seriously get
YOUrself some interpersonal skills on how to work with people and actually
accomplish something good on the groups. As far as I can see YOU're nothing
but a moron.
HTH,
Twayne
Twayne
Unknown <unk...@unknown.kom> typed:
> VanguardLH said it correctly. If you are inept at editing the registry
> manually don't use a program to do
> it for you. His post was well said and educational.
> But, Sandy58, this has absolutely nothing to do with fixing corrupt
> files, do a spell-check, do a full search,
> take/make a snapshot, etc. Perhaps, you have no idea what a registry
> is?
Actually, it does. He very likely does all those things without knowing
exactly how they're performed or executed.
HTH,
Twayne
"sandy58" <alec...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:a1c5608b-ea14-438d...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 8, 1:30 am, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> wrote:
>> Jackson wrote:
>>> Kim Komando's tip of the day (07 Jan) has good words for
>>> Microcraft's jv Power tools for cleaning the registry. I
>>> believe it's freeware.
>>
>>> Has anyone used this program? Do you have any remarks or
>>> recomendations?
>>> Jack from Taxacola (formerly Pensacola), FL
>>
>> - What is currently wrong or failing with the registry?
>> - What convinced you that the registry needs to be "cleaned" up?
>> - What constitutes the "cleaning" actions?
>> - What do you expect to gain from the cleanup?
>> - What are you going to do if the registry changes hose over
>> your computer since a restore may not be possible?
>> - What is your recovery strategy from the registry changes?
>>
>> *_Why the uneducated or lazy should never use registry cleaners_*
>>
>> If YOU are not adept at *manually* editing the registry, don't use a
>> tool that you don't understand regarding its proposed changes.
>> Regardless of relinquishing the task to software, YOU are the final
>> authority in allowing
>> it to make the changes. Any registry cleaner that does not request
>> for YOU to give permission to make its proposed changes along with
>> listing each proposed change should be discarded.
>>
>> Do you have a backup & restore plan in place? When (and not if) the
>> registry cleaner corrupts your registry and when you can no longer
>> boot into
>> Windows, just how are you going to restore that OS partition so it is
>> usable
>> again? Even if you use a registry cleaner that provides for backups
>> of its changes so you can revert back to the prior state, how are
>> you going to perform that restore if you cannot boot the OS after
>> hosing over its registry? What about entries in the registry that
>> look to be orphaned under
>> the current OS load instance but are used under a different OS
>> environment?
>> You delete what looks orphaned only to find out that they are
>> required under
>> a different environment.
>>
>> Say there was an unusually high amount of orphaned entries in your
>> registry,
>> like 4MB. By deleting the orphaned entries, you would speed up how
>> long it takes Windows to load the registry's files when it starts up
>> - by all of maybe 1 second. Oooh, aaah. All that risk of modifying
>> the registry to save maybe a second, or less, during the Windows
>> startup. Most folks that clean the registry end up deleting only
>> 10KB, or less. They are doing nothing to improve their Windows load
>> time. Since the registry is only read
>> from the memory copy of it, and since memory is random access, there
>> is no difference to read one byte of the registry (in memory) from
>> the another byte in the registry (also in memory). The extra data in
>> memory for orphaned entries has no effect on the time to retrieve
>> items from the memory
>> copy of the registry because orphaned entries are never retrieved
>> (if they were, they aren't orphaned).
>>
>> Cleaning the registry will NOT improve performance in reading from
>> the memory copy of the registry. The reduced size of the registry's
>> .dat files might reduce the load time of Windows by all of a second
>> and probably much less. And you want to risk the stability of your
>> OS for inconsequential changes to its registry? The same boobs that
>> get suckered into these registry cleanup "tools" are the same ones
>> that get suckered into the memory
>> defragment "tools".
>>
>> A registry cleaner should only be used if you by yourself can
>> correctly cleanup the registry. The cleaner is just a tool to
>> automate the same process but you should know every change that it
>> intends to make and understand each of those changes. After all, and
>> regardless of the stagnant
>> expertise that is hard coded into the utility, *YOU* are the final
>> authority
>> in what registry changes are performed whether you do it manually or
>> with a
>> utility. If YOU do not understand the proposed change (which
>> requires the product actually divulge the proposed change before
>> committing that change),
>> how will you know whether or not to allow that change?
>
> Rather a brash statement:
> "If YOU are not adept at *manually* editing the registry, don't use a
> tool
> that you don't understand regarding its proposed changes. "
> Does that mean you personally can MANUALLY fix Corrupt files, do a
> Spellcheck, do a full Search, take/make a Snapshot, do the job of a
> Translator...withOUT using software? Behave, laddie. You MAY be Good
> but you AIN'T God......YET!
Twayne
for a chance to make your moronic spiel, eh? You've been exposed so many
times I don't think it's even necessary to go through it all again. You're
wrong now, always have been, and always will be. Your advice here is
complete "snake-oil" by definition.
HTH,
Twayne
In news:etM7NTAk...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
Bruce Chambers <bcha...@cable0ne.n3t> typed:
> Jackson wrote:
>> Kim Komando's tip of the day (07 Jan) has good words for
>> Microcraft's jv Power tools for cleaning the registry. I
>> believe it's freeware.
>>
>> Has anyone used this program? Do you have any remarks or
>> recomendations?
>> Jack from Taxacola (formerly Pensacola), FL
>
>
> Why would you even think you'd ever need to clean your registry?
> What specific *problems* are you actually experiencing (not some
> program's bogus listing of imaginary problems) that you think can be
> fixed by using a registry "cleaner?"
>
> If you do have a problem that is rooted in the registry, it would
> be far better to simply edit (after backing up, of course) only the
> specific key(s) and/or value(s) that are causing the problem. After
> all, why use a chainsaw when a scalpel will do the job? Additionally,
> the manually changing of one or two registry entries is far less
> likely to have the dire consequences of allowing an automated product
> to make multiple changes simultaneously. The only thing needed to
> safely clean your registry is knowledge and Regedit.exe.
>
> The registry contains all of the operating system's "knowledge" of
> the computer's hardware devices, installed software, the location of
> the device drivers, and the computer's configuration. A misstep in
> the registry can have severe consequences. One should not even
> turning loose a poorly understood automated "cleaner," unless he is
> fully confident that he knows *exactly* what is going to happen as a
> result of each and every change.
>
> Having repeatedly seen the results of inexperienced people using
> automated registry "cleaners," I can only advise all but the most
> experienced computer technicians (and/or hobbyists) to avoid them all.
> Experience has shown me that such tools simply are not safe in the
> hands of the inexperienced user. If you lack the knowledge and
> experience to maintain your registry by yourself, then you also lack
> the knowledge and experience to safely configure and use any
> automated registry cleaner, no matter how safe they claim to be.
>
> More importantly, no one has ever demonstrated that the use of an
> automated registry "cleaner," particularly by an untrained,
> inexperienced computer user, does any real good, whatsoever. There's
> certainly been no empirical evidence offered to demonstrate that the
> use of such products to "clean" WinXP's registry improves a computer's
> performance or stability. Given the potential for harm, it's just not
> worth the risk.
>
> Granted, most registry "cleaners" won't cause problems each and
> every time they're used, but the potential for harm is always there.
> And, since no registry "cleaner" has ever been demonstrated to do any
> good (think of them like treating the flu with chicken soup - there's
> no real medicinal value, but it sometimes provides a warming placebo
> effect), I always tell people that the risks far out-weigh the
> non-existent benefits.
>
> I will concede that a good registry *scanning* tool, in the hands
> of an experienced and knowledgeable technician or hobbyist can be a
> useful time-saving diagnostic tool, as long as it's not allowed to
> make any changes automatically. But I really don't think that there
> are any registry "cleaners" that are truly safe for the general
> public to use. Experience has proven just the opposite: such tools
> simply are not safe in the hands of the inexperienced user.
>
> A little further reading on the subject:
>
> Why I don't use registry cleaners
> http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=643
>
> AumHa Forums � View topic - AUMHA Discussion: Should I Use a Registry
> Cleaner?
> http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=28099
Twayne
Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> typed:
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 06:48:54 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>
>> From: "Jackson" <jackd...@hotXmail.com>
>>
>>> Kim Komando's tip of the day (07 Jan) has good words for
>>> Microcraft's jv Power tools for cleaning the registry. I
>>> believe it's freeware.
>>
>>> Has anyone used this program? Do you have any remarks or
>>> recomendations?
>>> Jack from Taxacola (formerly Pensacola), FL
> So how should you clean the registry, then?
Personally I wouldn't use that program for registry cleaning, mainly because
I know nothing about it and never heard of it. I'd opt for ccleaner over
that or better yet a few of the pay-for cleaners that are around.
You're wise to ask for advice here, and I just wish there were responses
from more than a small group of morons here. Those idiots have a lot of
people afraid to even mention a registry cleaner. They're pure idiots,
believe me.
What they should be saying Steve, is that the registry is seldom the root of
computer problems and doesn't need frequent cleaning. It's really a case of
a stubborn problem that can't seem to be fixed otherwise and often is a
last-ditch or process of elimination effort at a fix, simply because it's
not likely to be caused by the registry. There are reasons to immediately
suspect the registry, but it's too much to go into and not write a book<g>.
Experience counts there.
If you decide to use a registry cleaner, be certain to first back up your
registry and preferably the System State so it's easy to get back should you
make a mistake. Any good program comes with UNDO functions too, but it's
best to be safe. It's no different than backing up all your data whenever
you decide to mess around with the OS. Always keep a backup handy.
Luck,
Twayne
Twayne
Bruce Chambers <bcha...@cable0ne.n3t> typed:
> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>
>>
>> So how should you clean the registry, then?
>>
>>
>
>
> no sound technical reason for doing so, but abundant technical reasons
> for *not* doing so.
He asked HOW, dummy! Also:
You typo'd: There ARE sound technical reasons for doing so, and abundant
technical reasons that the problem most likely lies elsewhere also. But as
usual, your are completely wrong and missed the chance for a good response.
HTH,
Twayne
Twayne
Bruce Hagen <Nos...@mymail.invalid> typed:> news:05kdk5tkntugbk17f...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 23:28:46 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
>> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>>
>>> From: "Steve Hayes" <haye...@telkomsa.net>
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 06:48:54 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
>>>> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> From: "Jackson" <jackd...@hotXmail.com>
>>>
>>>>>> Kim Komando's tip of the day (07 Jan) has good words for
>>>>>> Microcraft's jv Power tools for cleaning the registry. I
>>>>>> believe it's freeware.
>>>
>>>>>> Has anyone used this program? Do you have any remarks or
>>>>>> recomendations?
>>>>>> Jack from Taxacola (formerly Pensacola), FL
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Do NOT use so-called Registry Cleaners !
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> sell snake oil. Very
>>> often these so-called Registry Cleaners are malware.
>>
>> So it's OK for the registry to grow and grow, with redundant and
>> outdated
>> entries?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
>> Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
>> Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
>> E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full
>> stop uk
>
>
> even be noticed as far as performance is concerned. If you get rid of
> a problematic program, Norton for example, then you would want to use
> the removal tool for that issue. Many programs have removal tools or
> instructions to get rid of all aspects the program.
>
> Registry cleaners sound like a good idea like needless e-mail
> scanning, but it is like playing Russian Roulette. Someday, you may
> well regret it.
Frist, he won't. Second, even if your threat were true, how do you know he
doesn't have the drives imaged? Or otherwise backed up?
Your ability to give out misinformation is beat only by your ability to make
ASSumptions.
HTH,
Twayne
>
> Read this before running a registry cleaner and then make your mind
> up. http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=28099
Twayne
thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid> typed:> news:5anik5l3qm2hp11p1...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 18:58:53 -0500, "Daave"
>> <da...@example.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Hayes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 23:28:46 -0500, "David H. Lipman"
>>>> <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You don't. There is no need to clean the Registry. It
>>>>> is a myth to sell snake oil. Very often these so-called
>>>>> Registry Cleaners are malware.
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> I thoguht that in this ng, unless otherwise stated, that
>> WERE talking about Windows XP operating system.
>>
>> And if I reinstall the software, will it just overwrite the
>> old entries, so that they don't interfere with the new
>> installation?
>
> /Very/ good question. Let's see all the people who enjoy
> hoarding old registry entries answer that one. Let's specify
> "reinstall" and "overwrite" to mean that a newer version of the
> same program is being installed, or a /similar/ program which
> handles the same types of files.
>
> (If you are reinstalling the /identical/ version of the same
> program you had before, the worst that may happen is that you
> may end up with old settings you don't want any more or that you
> may end up with new settings you didn't want, depending on how
> bad the install routine is written. Either way you will have to
> do some work.)
Nah, just export the whole registry from regedit, then import the whole
registry.
NO DON'T! At least not unless it's a sandbox machine<g>.
HTH,
Twayne
thanatoid
news:ORv#y#vkKHA...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
> In news:Xns9CF9AF0E...@188.40.43.245,
> thanatoid <wai...@the.exit.invalid> typed:
<SNIP>
>> JV16 does an amazing job and tells you exactly WHY
>> something "can go" and it's up to you, It also makes
>> backups - which I have NEVER needed to use.
>>
>> Generally, after using my 4 reg cleaners (I only do it
>> once in a while, like before making an image of C:) I DO
>> manually clean stuff because NOTHING will do EVERYTHING.
>>
>> The reg cleaners just make the job faster and more
>> thorough since they will look through everything, like the
>> entire HKCR tree, something I have NO patience for.
>
> I'll buy that; it's one step further than I go, but it
> doesn't hurt anything as long as you know what you're
> doing, which you do or you wouldn't be online< G >. Well,
> I also only use one cleaner too, but I do have three I keep
> available just in case.
> You did well, brain-farted sentence and all! :^}
Sometimes I sign my posts thanafart ;-) ...
--
There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives
and those that will break later.
- Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/,
not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got
the quote. But it's true.)
thanatoid
news:OkigANtk...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
<SNIP>
> http://www.411-spyware.com/remove-registrycleanerpro
That's a description of why it's "bad".
The /program/ is here:
http://www.ixitools.com/products/
And for malware, it sure has a lot of five star ratings from
software sites - of course, they could be fake. I sure am not
impressed by the fact they also have a "driver updater" and
"driver backuper". Driver utilities are such bullshit.
As always, the bottom line is the user... I scan my security
programs with ESET NOD32 just like I scan any and every other
thing that wasn't on my computer before the last online session.
thanatoid
news:OOZWLjwk...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
<SNIP>
> No, we have all noticed it. When people post with problems
> brought about by registry cleaners you *never* offer any
> help, you simply disappear.
OK, I'm not Twayne, so let /me/ see an example of "damage" done
by a reg cleaner. I'm new to the XP groups and I have not seen
one yet. In my pro-reg cleaners posts I HAVE asked for
examples/links/whatever, and received silence or insults or
both, but not a single specific example.
(As for trusting MS to fully remove Office - pretty funny. It
gets my vote for Joke of the Week. I thought your line would be
"Once installed, it becomes an integral part of they system,
like Internet Explorer is to begin with, and can't be removed" -
which of course is not true either.)
John John - MVP
> John John - MVP <aude...@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in
> news:OOZWLjwk...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> No, we have all noticed it. When people post with problems
>> brought about by registry cleaners you *never* offer any
>> help, you simply disappear.
>
> OK, I'm not Twayne, so let /me/ see an example of "damage" done
> by a reg cleaner. I'm new to the XP groups and I have not seen
> one yet.
I have provided links to the kind of problems that these cleaners can
cause in another post.
At one time I too thought that these cleaners served a purpose. Why?
Because I didn't know any better, everybody was spreading the same
gospel and I believed the vendors of these programs. That was when I
was using Windows 95 on my home machine. I knew next to nothing about
Windows and like everybody else I ran these cleaners just because that's
what folks were doing, I never noticed any improvement when running them
but I ran the cleaners anyway.
After we migrated our work network from Novell over DOS to an NT4
network I thought that I should also run registry cleaners on my NT4
boxes. It didn't take too long for me to realize that the cleaners did
absolutely nothing to improve performance on any of our machines and
that it broke some of our applications. One of my boxes was up to
MFC42.dll but a Xerox printer that we had attached to the box couldn't
work with that MFC version, it required MFC40.dll so this dll was kept
and registered on the NT4 box. Every time a cleaner was run it would
remove the registration for this file and the whole Xerox software would
fall apart and the printer would stop working. That was the last straw,
these cleaners did absolutely nothing to maintain the health of my
machines and they did nothing to improve performance, quite to the
contrary they were breaking our software. By that time I was a bit more
savvy about Windows NT and I came to realize that these cleaners were
really utterly useless and that they were causing more harm than good so
I dumped the whole lot of them. And, oh yes, I tried more than a few or
them, RegClean, CleanSweep, RegCleaner/JV16 and a few others. There all
the same, they're all utterly useless and a complete waste of time,
Windows NT operating systems don't need registry cleaning, running these
cleaners as a maintenance/prevention routine is nothing but a fool's errand.
John
thanatoid
> thanatoid wrote:
>> OK, I'm not Twayne, so let /me/ see an example of "damage"
>> done by a reg cleaner. I'm new to the XP groups and I have
>> not seen one yet.
>
> I have provided links to the kind of problems that these
> cleaners can cause in another post.
GREAT ANSWER! I'd make an MVP joke but they teach you this kind
of shit in /all/ corporations and political organizations. Can't
be a good businessman or politician without knowing the
tricks...
But WTH, I'll bite /one more time/... Let's have the Message ID
of that post...
> At one time I too thought that these cleaners served a
> purpose.
They DO serve a purpose. You may not agree with that purpose,
but that does not mean they are useless to other people or
harmful in general. BION, some people find Rover and Clippy kind
of annoying, but MS thought it was GREAT idea. BOB2, anyone?
Different strokes for different folks.
> Why? Because I didn't know any better, everybody
> was spreading the same gospel and I believed the vendors of
> these programs. That was when I was using Windows 95 on my
> home machine. I knew next to nothing about Windows and
> like everybody else I ran these cleaners just because
> that's what folks were doing, I never noticed any
> improvement when running them but I ran the cleaners
> anyway.
How many times do I have to repeat that they make NO difference
in performance but have other advantages? Are you brain dead or
somethihng?
> After we migrated our work network from Novell over DOS to
> an NT4 network I thought that I should also run registry
> cleaners on my NT4 boxes. It didn't take too long for me
> to realize that the cleaners did absolutely nothing to
> improve performance
See above. S I G H.
> on any of our machines and that it
> broke some of our applications.
I don't suppose there is any point in asking WHAT applications
they "broke" and HOW, is there?
> One of my boxes was up to
> MFC42.dll but a Xerox printer that we had attached to the
> box couldn't work with that MFC version, it required
> MFC40.dll so this dll was kept and registered on the NT4
> box. Every time a cleaner was run it would remove the
> registration for this file and the whole Xerox software
> would fall apart and the printer would stop working.
Finally, an actual example! (Just one, and a lousy one at that -
read on - but it's more than you provided so far.) Except I
don't know if the event classifies as "breaking an application",
let alone the famous "made my machine unbootable" claim. Printer
problems are notorious, and Xerox made/makes the best copiers
but their printers and software were never very good.
In any case, what you tell makes absolutely no sense. I run 98SE
99% of the time, and I just checked my registry. The only two
places MFC4x.dll's are mentioned is "windows installer
components" and "shared DLL's". No good reg cleaner would go
anywhere near those branches let alone remove either of those
entries. Not my fault you choose bad software - but then again
being on the MS bandwagon, it must be automatic.
Also, you always get a list of exactly WHAT the reg cleaner
intends to do and it is up to YOU to tell it "OK" or to uncheck
some items. I don't blindly let mine run while I'm doing
something else in another part of the house.
As always, the USER is the bottom line. If you are too lazy/dumb
to see a bad reg cleaner wants to remove an essential link/reg
of a crucial system file, that's YOUR fault, not the cleaner's.
> That
> was the last straw, these cleaners did absolutely nothing
> to maintain the health of my machines and they did nothing
> to improve performance
Again...
> quite to the contrary they were
> breaking our software. By that time I was a bit more savvy
> about Windows NT and I came to realize that these cleaners
> were really utterly useless and that they were causing more
> harm than good so I dumped the whole lot of them.
I'll say that you MS folk sure are good at repeating yourselves
over and over... Not unlike "I provided that info in another
post"...
> And, oh
> yes, I tried more than a few or them, RegClean, CleanSweep,
> RegCleaner/JV16 and a few others. There all the same,
> they're all utterly useless and a complete waste of time,
Yes, you said that about 30 times by now in your posts.
> Windows NT operating systems don't need registry cleaning,
No system NEEDS registry cleaning (unless the registry has been
bloating for 5 years and there is not enough disk space for
Windows to even run properly) but some people find what they do
useful.
> running these cleaners as a maintenance/prevention routine
> is nothing but a fool's errand.
No one besides me will ever touch my computer, but when I need
to make an Acronis C:\ image or just feel it's time to clean up
the system, I do a variety of things, including running 4 reg
cleaners and then doing a final manual check/sweep. There is no
reason for it - I like to do it because I like to keep things
neat and compact. There is no known reason for why some people
put their left shoe on first instead of the right one. Hey, I've
known people who sometimes put their left shoe on first and
sometimes the right!
Anyway, WHY are you so adamant about this? Are you afraid to
admit the registry was a TERRIBLE idea and that it bloats
continuously and keeps crap that shouldn't be in it (get a file
viewer capable of loading/viewing the registry files "au
naturel" and see what kinds of goodies are dumped all over it -
after all, MS are SO good at programming), and generally makes
what was once a simple thing of editing an ini file an utter
nightmare which requires special software to be dealt with?
Unknown
Unknown
didn't run a registry cleaner?
Does it occur to you that you wouldn't damage your registry if you don't run
a registry cleaner?
You say it's simple to know whether or not an item in the registry is an
orphan. Explain how.
With a possibility of having programs installed on your computer from a
multitude of
sources you're dreaming.news:eL0u$AxkKH...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Unknown
Not ONCE have you responded to someone who damaged their system using a
registry cleaner.news:%23o0C0Bx...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Unknown
cleaners.
To quote you, 'you're wrong now, always have been and always will be.'
Not one MVP on this newsgroup will refute that.
"Twayne" <nob...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:OoAP7Uxk...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> AumHa Forums � View topic - AUMHA Discussion: Should I Use a Registry
>> Cleaner?
>> http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=28099
>
>
Unknown
"Peter Foldes" <ok...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eVmu3SYk...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Unknown
>
> Ignore this Steve. He is an ignoramus.
>
> --
> Peter
>
> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
>
> "Unknown" <unk...@unknown.kom> wrote in message
Unknown
cleaner because you
don't know the answer? Then why do you push them? And you say "I'm clear
Twayne
Unknown <unk...@unknown.kom> typed:
> Not ONCE have you responded to someone who damaged their system using
> a registry cleaner.
You're wrong, but the vast majority of the time any useful answers have
already been given. Adding anything to the muck and lies you create would do
nothing but add to the confusion.
I'm calling you a bald face liar because I have several such examples in my
archives. Let's see YOU prove there has never been such a thing? Saying
something doesn't make it so. In your case, it's just a fantasy and/or wish,
anyway.
Twayne, misinformation exposer/responder
Twayne
Unknown <unk...@unknown.kom> typed:
> On the contrary, YOU"RE the one exposed many times for pushing
> registry cleaners.
> To quote you, 'you're wrong now, always have been and always will be.'
> Not one MVP on this newsgroup will refute that.
No, only a small group if intentionally ignorant ones and some who aren't
actually MVPs but are parrots will "refute" it. You really should increase
the size of your world and try to get a grasp on reality. You try hard to be
a wart on the ass of progress for a lot of things.
>>> AumHa Forums . View topic - AUMHA Discussion: Should I Use a
>>> Registry Cleaner?
>>> http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=28099
Twayne
Unknown <unk...@unknown.kom> typed:
> You never offered answers
Prove I never offered answers.
to someone who damaged their system by a
> registry cleaner
Prove or provide technical, supported proof of each case or an unbiased
investigation and I might believe you. Even Paul Russinovich retracted his
comment that he'd never use a registry cleaner; or didn't you know that?
Kind of splitting hairs, but one has to when dealing with a bush like yours.
because you
> don't know the answer?
Unlike you, I have no problem with admitting that I have little or no
knowledge of some parts of some area. Since you can't read and snipped out
the text, you're not making much of a point. You're like the yellow
journalist who makes a living at the Enquirer or worse rags.
Then why do you push them?
Prove I "push" them. Show me posts I wrote where I pushed them. I only speak
the truth about them and offer at times the extensive knowledge and
experience I have with them. You on the other hand have no such thing.
And you say "I'm
> clear about what I'm doing"
That's right! YOu're not clear about what you're doing. I see you snipped
out those parts too, like a common coward under a bridge somewhere.
> Are you mentally handicapped?
Yes, I am. I have short-term memory retrieval problems left over from a
concussion I suffered many years ago but long after the idiotic debate about
registry cleaners being snake oil and never to be used. I won't remember
this post after I send it until, probably, tomorrow, without reminders, and
then it'll come back to me. Don't you wish that was the ONLY problem YOU
had? It must really suck to be you.
Thanks again for the opportunity to trash you; it's been fun. As long as
it's fun I'll continue to refute the misinformatists, liars and idiot who
are incapable of giving out accurate advice. And, I'll do so without
splitting hairs as you are inclined to do; I'll stick to the subjects and
not try to redirect the OP when it's you or some other idiot that is giving
out the bad information.
Twayne, defender of accuracy in communications
Twayne
John John - MVP <aude...@nbnot.nb.ca> typed:
Lots of talk and opinion, but nothing of any import. YOU did this, YOU did
that, YOU did the other thing. And still no definitive links to any useful
information on the subject. You apparently also seem to think that XP = NT
which if far from the case; you need to brush up on what's relevant and what
isn't between the two, at least if you keep trying to redirect to literal NT
as you're doing.
How were they all the same? Details? How did you prove your cases?
Twayne
Twayne
In news:OeUHfY6k...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
Unknown <unk...@unknown.kom> typed:
> SOUND technical reasons?????? Just give one. And prove it to be so.
YOU are the one claiming to have the expert knowlege; it's YOU that should
be providing the technical background to change the minds of what you
consider those who use "dangerous" software.
Personally, I've said over and over that I'm willing to read and listen
to any verifiable, technically oriented explanations of what's wrong with
registry cleaners. Since you claim to know so much more than I or anyone
else who disagrees with YOU, it's incumbent upon YOU to provide something
useful and convincing, or shut up. But can't, because no such thing exists.
Even MS, when they admit a compatability issue, never admits it's their
fault; instead preferring to say it's between x and y, someone other than MS
and MS.
Twayne, defender of misinformation and inaccuracy
Twayne
In news:ecHdDi6k...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
Unknown <unk...@unknown.kom> typed:
> Why are you so dense?
No density involved there. IT's pure logic and nothing more.
Did it ever occur to you your UNDO isn't needed
> if you didn't run a registry cleaner?
Neither is defrag, ipconfig, etc. etc. etc. if you never run them. Just how
many things, I have to wonder, should you be limiting? OE and compacting the
database comes to mind; so you won't run OE. I could put together a long
list but it's not going to go anywhere with a closed mind like yours.
> Does it occur to you that you wouldn't damage your registry if you
> don't run a registry cleaner?
And you'd never encounter a bug in ANY software if YOU never ran it.
Especially MS - and going off topic to your intent: I have to wonder why you
aren't on Vista already and then gone to Win7; But you're still using OE,
which has several bugs and openings in it, as does XP.
> You say it's simple to know whether or not an item in the registry is
> an orphan. Explain how.
Wow! If you don't know the answer to that, you're not going to get it from
me! I have no need to be teaching you anything: YOU claim to be the expert;
YOU come up with real details.
> With a possibility of having programs installed on your computer from
> a multitude of
> sources you're dreaming.
Nope, not at all. All it takes is a sense of logic and to learn to be able
to "see" beyond the little piece of space you're looking at. There are some
rather obscure parts of the registry that might require a lookup, but it's
not what one would call rocket science. All that statement tells me is that
you really have almost zip for knowledge of the registry.
Vacuum comes to mind.
Twayne
One who laughs at liars and misinformationists, referring to your previous
lie in another post. And which I called you on. I also suspect that large
pieces of this post are lies too; certain incongruencies tend to give them
away.
John John - MVP
Windows XP is NT5.1 and there is more in common between NT4 and XP than
you will ever know. As for links we have provided many on different
occasion but you simply dismiss them all as 'anecdotal' so don't ask for
anymore links, with you it's only a waste of time. Often times *you*
have been asked to supply links with unbiased and concrete proof that
registry cleaners actually improve performance and not once have you
ever been able to supply any such unbiased information, all that you
have ever been able to do is supply advertising materials from the
sellers of these useless programs. You are in the minority here with
your cleaners, and for a good reason, most of the others here are not
brainwashed by snake oil salesmen.
John
Shenan Stanley
Unknown wrote:
> I have never once, in at least 5 years, seen you respond to
> someone who posted the damage done to
> his/her machine by a registry cleaner. You conveniently ignore
> them. Then, you severely criticize some who
> says registry cleaners are 'snakeoil'. Why are you so two faced? Do
> you work for the 'snakeoil' developers?
Twayne wrote:
> Well, you'd better go look again. Or put your glasses on. I don't
> offer answers to someone if I don't know the answer. But I DO
> address your misinformation. K? And, I'm clear about what I'm
> doing. You've missed a lot of posts in 5 years.
<snipped>
Unknown wrote:
> You never offered answers to someone who damaged their
> system by a registry cleaner because you don't know the
> answer? Then why do you push them? And you say "I'm
> clear about what I'm doing"
>
> Are you mentally handicapped?
Twayne wrote:
> Prove I never offered answers.
<snipped>
Seriously? That's the responses and what this has come to?
You want proof you never did something instead of providing proof you did
something at least a single time which completely resolves that argument?
Go ahead - you can answer that you shouldn't have to prove anything and
stomp your feet and hold your breath and turn blue - because that is what
this conversation has [de]evolved to - or you could prove yourself and give
one link, one solitary web link to one time where you, and I will quote
"unknown" here, "offered answers to someone who damaged their system by a
registry cleaner".
In the whole 'registry cleaner' argument - I could care less in the end. If
someone has the skills to use something and know which things are useful as
tools vs. those that are not - more power to them. If someone does not and
they decide to dive headfirst into something they don't understand and end
up drowning - more power to them. Doesn't matter if it is registry
cleaners, registry editors, antimalware applications, antivirus
applications, duplicate file finders, random advice from people they do not
know or whatever - if someone is willing to do it - I am not going to stand
in their way. I will give them my experience and I will warn them that if
they are not truly prepared - things can and likely will go wrong (get
worse.)
However - stop right there - I do not care - it's their decision. I will
not push them into anything overly complicated or that should not be done
without precise instructions followed to the letter or things could go
wrong. I am careful about what I ask people to do to their system - keeping
it simple and understanding that sometimes - it is better to teach someone
how to backup and go to an expert than how to start going through something
they may never understand and might slip up on - especially given it is
seldom an 'end-of-the-world/last-hope-of-success' scenario.
In any case - I digressed - back to the only reason I responded. This is
why these posts get so long and how come it usually ends up just a couple of
people left in them (usually the same people over and over) - it breaks down
to playground (under the age of 8) antics and taunts. "I know you are, but
what am I?" and instead of one or the other producing the obvious, easy and
simple solution that could end one thread of the conversation - it continues
to break down with, "I'm rubber and you're glue..."
Twayne, if you want to end that part of the discussion - once and for all -
give the single link to answer the question. One Google Groups link or
Microsoft Social link or whatever. That's all it takes to counter a
'never' - just one. Take the high road. You may think, might even say
(maybe not now that I mention it), I don't have to prove anything (it's a
matter of principle, whatever...) and you may be right - but it takes only
one to oust a 'never' argument. Failure to produce that one is not the best
response unless you stop responding ever again and just ignore the other
(even then - it doesn't produce the true results you might desire.)
*shrug*
In the end - I still do not care. It's a newsgroup argument over something
petty and that didn't matter 20 years ago and might not matter 20 years from
now. It's just something to do to fill the gap of time between now and
then. ;-P
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
M.I.5�
M.I.5�
"thanatoid" <wai...@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9CFDBE426...@188.40.43.245...
Unknown
> Unknown <unk...@unknown.kom> typed:
>> SOUND technical reasons?????? Just give one. And prove it to be so.
>
> YOU are the one claiming to have the expert knowlege; it's YOU that should
> be providing the technical background to change the minds of what you
> consider those who use "dangerous" software.
There you go again! You just stated 'there are sound technical reasons'---
I ask for one and you twist and turn.
> Personally, I've said over and over that I'm willing to read and listen
> to any verifiable, technically oriented explanations of what's wrong with
> registry cleaners.
OK, read and listen ---THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF RENDERING
A PC INOPERABLE.. -- Verification---you ignore each one posted.
>.Since you claim to know so much more than I or anyone else who disagrees
>with YOU, it's incumbent upon YOU to provide something useful and
>convincing, or shut up.
I never once (go back and read) claimed anything of the sort. Don't say
it's incumbant on me
because it is you pushing registry cleaners contrary to all the MVPs (and
many others advice) .
> But can't, because no such thing exists. Even MS, when they admit a
> compatability issue, never admits it's their fault; instead preferring to
> say it's between x and y, someone other than MS and MS.
Once again, each and every time someone posts the damage caused by running a
registry
cleaner you completely ignore it. Did you read John Johns recent post? You
ignored it!
What the he-- are you a registry cleaner salesman?