Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!
D. Spencer Hines
Use NTREGOPT.EXE.
It's safe and easy to use.
Freeware.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:50and4ha7n41p0p1r...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:16:18 -0700 (PDT), "voujnb...@yahoo.com"
> <voujnb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Windows Vista Registry Cleaner is one such service
>> provider that is needed to maintain the operating system in good
>> working conditions.
>
>
> Nope!
>
> Registry cleaning programs are *all* snake oil. Cleaning of the
> registry isn't needed and is dangerous. Leave the registry alone and
> don't use any registry cleaner. Despite what many people think, and
> what vendors of registry cleaning software try to convince you of,
> having unused registry entries doesn't really hurt you.
>
> The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner
> erroneously
> removing an entry you need is far greater than any potential benefit
> it may have.
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
John John (MVP)
John
D. Spencer Hines
clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"John John (MVP)" <aude...@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:#lsazUyH...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Bruce Chambers
> Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be
> clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.
CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner. I tried the latest
version on a brand-new OS installation with no additional applications
installed, and certainly none installed and then uninstalled, and
CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred allegedly orphaned
registry entries and dozens of purportedly "suspicious" files, making it
clearly a *worthless* product, in this regard. (Not that any registry
cleaner can ever be anything but worthless, as they don't serve any
*useful* purpose, to start with.)
--
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
Jaelani
especially for non-technical users. Worst is that their ads is
becoming misleading nowadays and luring more users. And the sad part
is that people think that the higher number a cleaner can detect a
junk and clean them, the better it will be. But those softwares are
just preprogrammed cleaners. They'll clean anything without even
knowing what the objects actually means and what will affect. Sure,
they'll clean them right - along with other minor system objects.
They'll cripple the system little by little. When the system has been
noticeably unstable, it would be too late since the damage has been
done all over the place - in small parts. Nuff said.
HeyBub
> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>> Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be
>> clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.
>
>
> CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner. I tried the latest
> version on a brand-new OS installation with no additional applications
> installed, and certainly none installed and then uninstalled, and
> CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred allegedly orphaned
> registry entries and dozens of purportedly "suspicious" files, making
> it clearly a *worthless* product, in this regard. (Not that any
> registry cleaner can ever be anything but worthless, as they don't
> serve any *useful* purpose, to start with.)
Did you check any of the "orphaned entries?" Perhaps the OS installation was
the culprit...
Leonard Grey
wrote the key is gone. Nothing bad can happen from an orphaned entry.
It's just like a channel position on your television that has no station
attached to it.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est
"A Day in the Life of a Web 2.0 Hacker" - PC Magazine
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2330952,00.asp
D. Spencer Hines
CCleaner is an:
Excellent...
Safe...
Registry Cleaner.
I've been using it for several years now with good results.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
> Bruce Chambers wrote:
Bruce Chambers
Yes, of course I checked them; Wouldn't have been much of a test,
otherwise. They weren't remnants of the OS installation; all (dozens,
I'd noticed the trend by then) of the ones I checked were legitimate keys.
Bruce Chambers
> Nonsense...
>
> CCleaner is an:
>
> Excellent...
>
> Safe...
>
> Registry Cleaner.
>
There is *NO* such thing.
> I've been using it for several years now with good results.
Documentation? Benchmarks from before and after? Oh, and make sure
they either been notarized or verified by an independent laboratory. In
other words, only when someone finally produces verifiable scientific
evidence will I give such claims a lick of credence.
Leonard Grey
the first ballot.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est
"A Day in the Life of a Web 2.0 Hacker" - PC Magazine
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2330952,00.asp
D. Spencer Hines
Twaddle & Codswallop.
CCleaner is an:
Excellent...
Safe...
Transparent...
With Excellent GUI Logic...
Continuously Updated...
Registry Cleaner...
Et Alia.
I've been using it for several years now with excellent results and NO
SNAFUS.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
> Bruce Chambers wrote:
db.·.. ><))) ·>` .. .
your wrong again.
you know good and
well that anyone with
due deligence can
compare the before
and after of registry
cleaning....
besides, you have
admitted on several
occassions that you
use cc cleaner.
don't you remember
i called you on it?
perhaps, you should
add into your quote
line: "do as i say and
not as i do"
--
db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
"Bruce Chambers" <bcha...@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message news:%236TsWuA...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
db.·.. ><))) ·>` .. .
too much about
it.
if you search the
archives of the ng,
you will find chambers
admitting to using the
program on a regular
basis.
--
db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message news:OVfa20AI...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
N. Miller
> Nonsense...
>
> CCleaner is an:
>
> Excellent...
>
> Safe...
>
> Registry Cleaner.
>
> I've been using it for several years now with good results.
There is no such thing as a "safe" registry cleaner; except for the one not
used. "Clean" the wrong key from your registry, and your system is hosed.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
AlmostBob
Lung cancer is a fallacy,
My grandmother smoked a pack a day for years, and she'd be 75 if she were
alive today
--
Adaware http://www.lavasoft.de
spybot http://www.safer-networking.org
AVG free antivirus http://www.grisoft.com
Etrust/Vet/CA.online Antivirus scan
http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/virusinfo/scan.aspx
Panda online AntiVirus scan http://www.pandasoftware.com/ActiveScan/
Catalog of removal tools (1)
http://www.pandasoftware.com/download/utilities/
Catalog of removal tools (2)
http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/newsinfo/collateral.aspx?CID=40387
Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts file
http://mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
links provided as a courtesy, read all instructions on the pages before use
Grateful thanks to the authors and webmasters
_
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:OVfa20AI...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
D. Spencer Hines
I approve every single registry change that is made.
If I don't approve it, no change is made.
Perfectly safe.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"N. Miller" <anon...@msnews.aosake.net> wrote in message
news:f5q5g3rj...@msnews.aosake.net...
Bruce Chambers
> Twaddle.
>
> I approve every single registry change that is made.
>
> If I don't approve it, no change is made.
>
> Perfectly safe.
If the registry cleaner is so "perfectly safe," why do you feel the
need to approve each and every change? You do realize, don't you, that
you've just added weight to the position you're trying to argue against?
D. Spencer Hines
Good software has checks and balances built in -- with full input by
the user.
CCleaner does an excellent job of cleaning the registry -- and
incorporating user input -- just as a good physician or attorney does.
Chambers seems to be the resident Village Idiot here.
Does he always provide Great Entertainment like this?
It's like having a pet kigme -- always ready to take a sharp, swift
kick to the derriere.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Bruce Chambers" <bcha...@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:#9zifVMI...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Ildhund
news:#9zifVMI...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
...
Bruce, DNFTEC; you'll only get bitten. See
http://lcngarc.twoshakesofalambstail.com/1998/12/1998120729.html
--
Noel
Bruce Chambers
I see your point, but my primary concern is to ensure that there's a
rebuttal to the deliberately harmful advice these people post, so that
newbies are at least warned of the dangers. If doing so also boosts the
sad little trolls' egos, I think it's a price I'll just have to accept.
Anyway, they generally make themselves look increasingly desperate and
pathetic with each new post.
Edward W. Thompson
> Balderdash...
>
> Good software has checks and balances built in -- with full input by the
> user.
>
> CCleaner does an excellent job of cleaning the registry -- and
> incorporating user input -- just as a good physician or attorney does.
>
What on earth have physicians and attorneys got to do with CCleaner. You are
a really strange person!
I use to be an advocate of Registry Cleaners. I use to try them all and was
quite convinced they were an essential for efficient computer management.
Perhaps in the days pre WINXP they were useful. I read all the cautionary
advice given in the NGs and like you dismissed them. Everytime I
experienced a glitch, time to run a 'cleaner' and I use to have 'glitches'
at regular intervals. I then decided perhaps I should stop running these
Cleaners and see what happens. Now I no longer have these 'glitches' or any
need to restore the Registry (ERUNT) from time to time. My experience has
been sufficient for me to relate machine problems (glitches) with Registry
Cleaners. Before you comment, I do run programs like CCleaner, not the
Registry Cleaner component, and Disk Cleaner regularly to clear out the
'trash' . Actually I think Disk Cleaner is the better of the programs.
What I do question is that Registry Cleaners will or may corrupt the
Registry to the extent of preventing boot up. This statement I simply find
absurd. For a Registry Cleaner to do this it would need to remove/corrupt
Registry entries that are essential to the OS. Even with the most
rudimentary Quality Control the software designer would identify and correct
that before the program was issued. Registry Cleaners certainly do remove
entries that are required by some programs to operate (empty keys no doubt)
and this is where they fall down. I suppose the essential question is, in
what way does the removal of empty and redundant data in the Registry
improve machine performance and/or in what way do empty and redundant keys
impair machine performance. If the machine must read every Registry entry
to permit it to execute a command then the answer is self evident but that
is not the case.
Registry Cleaners are a con. There only value is to give the users of such
programs a 'feel good' feeling. These programs remove entries in the
Registry of entries that do not require removal and by doing so sometimes
'throws the baby out with the bath water'.
D. Spencer Hines
Fact:
My system runs smoother and swifter since I started using the CCleaner
registry cleaner.
I'm not vouching for regcleaners in GENERAL.
So your post was one long non sequitur.
'Nuff Said.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Edward W. Thompson" <thom...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:e0noQzSI...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
<baldersnip>
> Registry Cleaners are a con. There [sic] only value is to give the
> users of such programs a 'feel good' feeling. These programs remove
> entries in the Registry of entries that do not require removal and
> by doing so sometimes [sic] 'throws [sic] the baby out with the bath
> water'.
Kweenie
"Bruce Chambers" <bcha...@cable0ne.n3t> schreef in bericht
news:eLZBdUNI...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
What a lot of crap I read here. cCleaner is not so good as some think. It
produces a lot of problems and there are far better programs available with
much less problems.
John John (MVP)
performance, any increase in performance is more likely due to CC
getting rid of temp files. Given the massive size of the registry,
cleaning it out and claiming that the computer runs faster is akin to
running the vacuum cleaner in your car and then claiming that the car
goes faster because you got rid of a pound of dust and dirt! Once in a
blue moon a registry cleaner may be of help to experienced users trying
to troubleshoot problems, othewise these tools are next to useless or
worse. These tools *do* cause problems but most of the people who use
them don't have enough experience to see the link to the damage done by
the cleaner.
John
N. Miller
> Twaddle.
>
> I approve every single registry change that is made.
>
> If I don't approve it, no change is made.
>
> Perfectly safe.
I don't need a registry cleaner to recommend changes which I then have to
approve. Unless I have some indication that there is a registry change
needed, I don't make changes. I've got a few "dead" keys. I don't see how
they make any difference.
Any tool which offers suggested changes is dangerous in the hands of those
who don't know what the tool does. Anybody who does know what the registry
cleaner is recommending, probably doesn't even need the cleaner.
D. Spencer Hines
even the most rank newbie can NEVER get in trouble with it should be
condemned to use ONLY that software.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum
Twayne
>> Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be
>> clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.
>
>
> CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner.
but it isn't worthless.
I tried the latest
> version on a brand-new OS installation with no additional applications
> installed,
a wasted effort at that point, since all it found were the "in case"
chaff MS sticks in all over the place. Big deal; if they're needed,
they'll get put back with the installs, but ... it's really
counterproductive and a waste of time to run a cleaner at that point.
and certainly none installed and then uninstalled, and
> CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred allegedly orphaned
> registry entries and dozens of purportedly "suspicious" files, making
> it clearly a *worthless* product, in this regard.
The orphaned entries were just that; orphaned. It doesn't take a CRAY
to determine that an entry is an orphan.
Suspicious Files, well, if you RTFM, it told you how to treat those.
(Not that any
> registry cleaner can ever be anything but worthless, as they don't
> serve any *useful* purpose, to start with.)
And that is pure BS and you know it, as surely as you have a closed
mind.
Because of your claims, I did the exact same test you claim to have
done, here on a sandbox XP laptop not too long ago, got rid of the
orphans it was willing to remove, and left the suspicious files alone
since I didn't want to go see what they were. Told it to not be so
picky, reran the test & those didn't show up, just as the instructions
predicted..
After completeion of build, machine ran perfectly. Installed Office,
DVD support, OOo, local Apache Server, PHP, AV and anti-spyware with
several other minor apps & all were quite happy.
Repeated ccleaner, no more issues, no problems. Then once I was
sure all was well I re-imaged the drive, ran ccleaner, no problems
found, and all is well since.
Why you would bother to run a trgistry cleaner immediately after a clean
install is beyond me, though. Talk about a waste of time! But,
speaking of waste ...
If you want to actually help people out in this area, why don't you test
and identify a set of reliable applications and/or offer to give an
opinion on whether a chosen one is reliable or not?
But you won't; it's easier to just parrot your closed minded attitude
that apparently knows very little about the subject. If you were really
knowledgeable, you would also consider normal day to day read/write
sources to the registry and explain how you excuse those when you posit
that anything that touches the registry is bunk? How do you justify
allowing that to happen? I've actually encountered more MS-caused
registry problems over the years than I have from non-MS applications
that use the registry in similar manners.
These aren't for you; they're for the many who enjoy follosing this kind
of link and who might like a little information on the subject. Even
with their own built in biases, these links are a breath of fresh air
compared to yours.
http://download.iolo.net/articles/Registry1.pdf
http://www.raxco.com/products/perfectdiskRxSuite/PDRXSuite_wp.pdf
Twayne
D. Spencer Hines
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Twayne" <nob...@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:OqKahBlI...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Twayne
The orphaned entries aren't actual problems unless their quantity gets
so high it takes noticeable time for the os to traverse them. They are
mostly "in case" type crap that MS puts all over the place for future
use, but they are not necessary to have. It's similar to the stuff left
over after you uninstall an MS program; it leaves the folders and a
bunch of files there on the disk and in the registry "just in case" you
reinstall it or are upgrading something. When their numbers reach a few
thousand after a year or so, there can be noticeably longer boot times
associated with all the crapola strewn all over the place, especially
when you consider that some of the registry hives only exist after boot
time; they are created on the fly during boot up, and then during normal
day to day registry reads/writes they are all excess and useless data
that has to be looked at and discarded. The registry is a database but
it's not really a relational database; it's much closer to a flat
database in most of the ways it runs.
The time to run things like ccleaner is after a machine is installed
and running; it's pretty much a waste of time right after a clean
install of windows anyway. There may not have been near as many after
everything was installed, but I've never been sure whether in
installation uses and already created point in the registry or goes
ahead and creates it own anyway.
If you're so inclined, there are some registry monitoring programs
(regmon for instance) that are interesting to watch at work. An install
usually creates a gazillion temporary files, its own install files get
copied to disk, get uncompressed, the install happens, and then
supposedly they are removed from the disk and from the registry,
although that seldom happens completely. It's an interesting process to
watch at work.
Twayne
Twayne
>
> CCleaner is an:
>
> Excellent...
>
> Safe...
>
> Registry Cleaner.
>
> I've been using it for several years now with good results.
>
>
>>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
>>>> Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be
>>>> clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.
>>>
>>> CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner.
Well, I'll agree they are no less reliable or dangerous than any other
decently written application. "Things happen" so I'm a little careful
of "always", but yes, you're right.
Twayne
Twayne
>> Nonsense...
>>
>> CCleaner is an:
>>
>> Excellent...
>>
>> Safe...
>>
>> Registry Cleaner.
>>
>
> There is *NO* such thing.
>
>
>> I've been using it for several years now with good results.
>
>
> Documentation? Benchmarks from before and after? Oh, and make sure
> they either been notarized or verified by an independent laboratory.
> In other words, only when someone finally produces verifiable
> scientific evidence will I give such claims a lick of credence.
Nice response, but I asked you for that long, long ago and have reminded
you of it several times. I even provided you some documentation and
benchmarks years ago but you were phrasing your questoin differently
then.
Why is it you can not do what you ask of others?
Twayne
Bruce Chambers
>>
>
> The orphaned entries were just that; orphaned. It doesn't take a CRAY
> to determine that an entry is an orphan.
>
You clearly don't even know what an "orphaned" entry is, then.
>
> Because of your claims, I did the exact same test you claim to have
> done, here on a sandbox XP laptop not too long ago, got rid of the
> orphans it was willing to remove, and left the suspicious files alone
> since I didn't want to go see what they were.
You mean you didn't "know" what they were, didn't know how to find out,
and, had you been tghe average user, would have just let CCleaner delete
them. Proving for one and all to see just how dangerous registry
cleaners can be. Thank you.
> Repeated ccleaner, no more issues, no problems. Then once I was
> sure all was well I re-imaged the drive, ran ccleaner, no problems
> found, and all is well since.
>
Were there problems that needed fixing before you ran CCeaner? If not
than having no problems after running CCleaner proves only that your
were lucky, not that running it did any good.
> Why you would bother to run a trgistry cleaner immediately after a clean
> install is beyond me, though.
Because it clearly demonstrates that the registry "cleaner" is listing
nothing but bogus false alarms, as the "problems" it points out are not
problems, at all.
> These aren't for you; they're for the many who enjoy follosing this kind
> of link and who might like a little information on the subject. Even
> with their own built in biases, these links are a breath of fresh air
> compared to yours.
>
Spam snipped
>
Rank advertising copy is a "breath of fresh air?" What are you a used
car salesman?
Twayne
>> Twaddle.
>>
>> I approve every single registry change that is made.
>>
>> If I don't approve it, no change is made.
>>
>> Perfectly safe.
>
>
> If the registry cleaner is so "perfectly safe," why do you feel the
> need to approve each and every change? You do realize, don't you,
> that you've just added weight to the position you're trying to argue
> against?
I did a few years back too, when idiots like you started spewing their
garbage. I was really curious and concerned because I'd never had a
problem. Reasonably written apps are no more prone to creating problems
than any other app. Almost all apps, especially MS app, read/write to
the registry constantly. Odds are, something will corrupt sooner or
later. Somewhere in this mass of archives I even have estimates on the
number of reads/writes I calculated on an average per day basis. My
registry cleaner was barely a blip in the chart.
Twayne
>
> Good software has checks and balances built in -- with full input by
> the user.
>
> CCleaner does an excellent job of cleaning the registry -- and
> incorporating user input -- just as a good physician or attorney does.
>
> Chambers seems to be the resident Village Idiot here.
>
> Does he always provide Great Entertainment like this?
>
> It's like having a pet kigme -- always ready to take a sharp, swift
> kick to the derriere.
Actually he does have a functioning brain cell or two. He's just the
victim of a seriously jaded and closed mind who enjoys these little
battles. He knows full well what the actual situation is but insists on
looking like an idiot over certain things. If it looks like an ... .
At least he's had to use something besides his boilerplate lately.
He's been asked time and again to back up his claims and he can't do it;
obviously.
Twayne
Twayne
If what you say is true, where are the legions of damaged complainers?
I seldom see a problem related to a registry cleaner and when I do it's
seldom the cleaner is the source of the issue.
Twayne
> performance, any increase in performance is more likely due to CC
> getting rid of temp files. Given the massive size of the registry,
> cleaning it out and claiming that the computer runs faster is akin to
> running the vacuum cleaner in your car and then claiming that the car
> goes faster because you got rid of a pound of dust and dirt! Once in
> a blue moon a registry cleaner may be of help to experienced users
> trying to troubleshoot problems, othewise these tools are next to
> useless or worse. These tools *do* cause problems but most of the
> people who use them don't have enough experience to see the link to
> the damage done by the cleaner.
If they cause so many problems, how in the world can they be trusted as
a trouble-shooting tool? If you use it for TS, you're saying you accept
its output.
Twayne
Specifically, what kind of problems did/does it create? What are the
far better programs with less problems? Let's put some meat into this
ether.
Twayne
>> "Bruce Chambers" <bcha...@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
>> news:#9zifVMI...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> ...
>> Bruce, DNFTEC; you'll only get bitten. See
>> http://lcngarc.twoshakesofalambstail.com/1998/12/1998120729.html
>
>
> I see your point, but my primary concern is to ensure that there's a
> rebuttal to the deliberately harmful advice these people post, so that
> newbies are at least warned of the dangers. If doing so also boosts
> the sad little trolls' egos, I think it's a price I'll just have to
> accept. Anyway, they generally make themselves look increasingly
> desperate and pathetic with each new post.
lol, I don't THINK so Bruce. In this thread I'd say you have been
pretty well trodden and returned with nothing of any substance to back
up any of your misinformation. Take up my earlier challenge and let's
see what happens.
Twayne
> too much about
> it.
>
> if you search the
> archives of the ng,
> you will find chambers
> admitting to using the
> program on a regular
> basis.
>> Nonsense...
>>
>> Twaddle & Codswallop.
>>
>>
>> Excellent...
>>
>> Safe...
>>
>>
>> With Excellent GUI Logic...
>>
>> Continuously Updated...
>>
>> Registry Cleaner...
>>
>> Et Alia.
>>
>> I've been using it for several years now with excellent results and
>> DSH
>> Lux et Veritas et Libertas
>> Vires et Honor
>>
>>
>>>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>>
>>>>> Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be
>>>>> clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.
>>>>
>>>> CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner.
That's actually irrelevant. It's his trollishly closed mind and
misinformation spew that gets him in such hot water.
D. Spencer Hines
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Twayne" <nob...@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:#ZnPLJlI...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Twayne
>> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>>>> Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be
>>>> clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.
>>>
>>> CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner. I tried the latest
>>> version on a brand-new OS installation with no additional
>>> applications installed, and certainly none installed and then
>>> uninstalled, and CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred
>>> allegedly orphaned registry entries and dozens of purportedly
>>> "suspicious" files, making it clearly a *worthless* product, in
>>> this regard. (Not that any registry cleaner can ever be anything
>>> but worthless, as they don't serve any *useful* purpose, to start
>>> with.)
>>
>> Did you check any of the "orphaned entries?" Perhaps the OS
>> installation was the culprit...
>>
>>
>
>
> otherwise. They weren't remnants of the OS installation; all (dozens,
> I'd noticed the trend by then) of the ones I checked were legitimate
> keys.
Legitimate keys to WHAT? Boy, you can't provide anything substantive at
all, can you?
I challenge you:
1. Let me pick a situation and we'll work out the problems.
2. Or you pick a situation and we'll work out hte problems.
We'll each accomplish the same set of tests, complete with timing
measurements and reasonalbe, meaningful levels of detail. We can even
collaborate on a registry screw if you wish. You've stated you're
pretty knowledgeable where the registry is concerned, so it should be
easy between the two of us to devise entries that will not compromise
the machine but will fill it with lots of data to simulate a couple
years worth of registry growth. Then we'll image, clean with a chose
cleaner, and report results.
Let's go: I'm ready. How do you want to get started?
Twayne
John John (MVP)
>>Cleaning the registry does absolutely nothing to improve speed and
>>performance, any increase in performance is more likely due to CC
>>getting rid of temp files. Given the massive size of the registry,
>>cleaning it out and claiming that the computer runs faster is akin to
>>running the vacuum cleaner in your car and then claiming that the car
>>goes faster because you got rid of a pound of dust and dirt! Once in
>>a blue moon a registry cleaner may be of help to experienced users
>>trying to troubleshoot problems, othewise these tools are next to
>>useless or worse. These tools *do* cause problems but most of the
>>people who use them don't have enough experience to see the link to
>>the damage done by the cleaner.
>
>
> If they cause so many problems, how in the world can they be trusted as
> a trouble-shooting tool? If you use it for TS, you're saying you accept
> its output.
They can be of limited use in some circumstances when you don't have all
the history of the machine and no, I wouldn't blindly accept its outpt.
If you take it for granted that everything that they dish up are
unneeded entries that are safe to delete then you are asking for trouble
and you will get trouble. Otherwise these cleaners are utterly useless
and they do absolutely nothing to increase computer speed and
performance The indiscriminate use of these programs cause more harm
than good, running registry cleaners as part of a regular maintenance
routine is not a good idea at all.
John
Josh
reliable evidence to back up anything you said... and I know from personal
experience registry cleaners do more harm then good. If they do any good at
all.
But hey, you keep doing these worthless scans and telling yourself it's
totally speeding your computer up.
Haha, and great article btw... "after 6 months HUNDREDS of registry errors
can develop"
"Twayne" <nob...@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:OqKahBlI...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Anteaus
Just my ten cents worth, but what is really needed to keep registries clean
is the Award of the Golden Dyno-rod (inserted wherever appropriate =8-0) for
programmers who spam it with a million 'classes' every time their app
launches.
klunk
"N. Miller" <anon...@msnews.aosake.net> wrote in message
news:2rhbsddu...@msnews.aosake.net...
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:50:57 +0100, D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
>> Twaddle.
>>
>> I approve every single registry change that is made.
>>
>> If I don't approve it, no change is made.
>>
>> Perfectly safe.
>
> I don't need a registry cleaner to recommend changes which I then have to
> approve. Unless I have some indication that there is a registry change
> needed, I don't make changes. I've got a few "dead" keys. I don't see how
> they make any difference.
>
> Any tool which offers suggested changes is dangerous in the hands of those
> who don't know what the tool does. Anybody who does know what the registry
> cleaner is recommending, probably doesn't even need the cleaner.
I do know what the cleaners are recommending and I would not live without
their very valuable service.... but I could do without the registry
altogether... it's nothing more than an unwieldy headache as an attempt to
institute control over the o/s while doing nothing but adding an unnecessary
layer of time-wasting administration without providing any additional
security while just bogging everything down with a ridiculous amount of
system overhead...
okay... I've had my rant... I'm just here to find out what happened to
express' "block sender" feature in live mail... I would have thought it
would be easier to killfile idiots on usenut with more features, but if
"message rules" is supposed to be the "updated solution"... then this just
irks me that much more...