"Add or Remove" won't remove
JimL
Recently, apparently after transplanting my system to a new HD, I've been
unable to remove a number of items via the Add or Remove feature.
Currently I'm trying to remove CDBurnerXP Pro 3 so I can install the 4+
version. Remove failed telling me I must insert the CDBurnerXP installation
CD in order to do that. I've never HAD such an installation CD. As an
alternative to the CD it allows a source file. I have an exe source. It
demands an msi source.
On something else I tried recently it failed telling me it didn't have
access to the network from which it had been installed. I've never
installed anything from any network other than updates from the internet.
What's going on here and what can be done about it?
Thanks
--
JimL
Ǝиçεl
Safe mode prevents some, but by no means all--spyware services from running.
It is an excellent way to get started if something is resistant to cleaning
in normal mode, but it may not be all that is needed.
In Safe mode try to remove it with Revo Uninstaller, then run CCleaner's
registry cleaner.
<http://www.revouninstaller.com/>
Try in Tools -> Optimization -. Junk Files Cleaner – Scan - Delete
<http://www.ccleaner.com>
Note, uncheck Yahoos Toolbar
Download the basic version via
<http://www.ccleaner.com/download/builds.aspx>
The basic version does not contain the disgusted Toolbar
JimL
installation often makes? Revo gets some and the cleaner gets the rest?
Thanks
"??�?l" <l...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:6D6D5F9E-BBA2-49CB...@microsoft.com...
> Restart the computer into Safe Mode to then eradicate the pest
>
> Safe mode prevents some, but by no means all--spyware services from
> running.
> It is an excellent way to get started if something is resistant to
> cleaning
> in normal mode, but it may not be all that is needed.
>
> In Safe mode try to remove it with Revo Uninstaller, then run CCleaner's
> registry cleaner.
>
> <http://www.revouninstaller.com/>
> Try in Tools -> Optimization -. Junk Files Cleaner - Scan - Delete
>
>
> <http://www.ccleaner.com>
> Note, uncheck Yahoos Toolbar
>
> Download the basic version via
> <http://www.ccleaner.com/download/builds.aspx>
> The basic version does not contain the disgusted Toolbar
>
>
> "JimL" wrote:
>
>> XP Pro SP3 + every update I can get
>>
>> Recently, apparently after transplanting my system to a new HD, I've been
>> unable to remove a number of items via the Add or Remove feature.
>>
>> Currently I'm trying to remove CDBurnerXP Pro 3 so I can install the 4+
>> version. Remove failed telling me I must insert the CDBurnerXP
>> installation
>> CD in order to do that. I've never HAD such an installation CD. As an
>> alternative to the CD it allows a source file. I have an exe source. It
>> demands an msi source.
>>
>> On something else I tried recently it failed telling me it didn't have
>> access to the network from which it had been installed. I've never
>> installed anything from any network other than updates from the internet.
>>
>> What's going on here and what can be done about it?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> --
>> JimL
>>
>>
>>
>>
--
JimL
Ken Blake, MVP
wrote:
> So is it Revo or the registry cleaner that removes the dozens of entries an
> installation often makes? Revo gets some and the cleaner gets the rest?
I don't anything about Revo or what it does, but let me address the
question of leftover registry entries when you uninstall an
application.
Those leftover entries don't hurt you at all, and there should be no
urge to remove them. You should especially *not* consider using a
registry cleaner to remove them (or do anything else.
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.
Read http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000643.html
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Twayne
misinformation about registry cleaners. There are several good ones and
as long as you get one from a reputable source, with proper backup and
restore facilities, you should be fine.
This individual and a few others like him have a vendetta against,
and constantly libel and defame many good companies who produce useful
and reliable products of good design.
CCleaner is one such program that is often used and there are several
others too.
He's basically right in that a few leftover registry entries are not
going to hurt anything but he is dead wrong with his allegations that
all registry cleaners are bad and that there are no good ones. In
additon to that, he thinks the ONLY reason people ever use a registry
cleaner is to get rid of leftover, extraneious registry entries, which
almost totally ignores all of the other functions such programs provide.
He has never produced one single iota of information to back up his
allegations against registry cleaners and only makes vague references to
anyhing real, let alone any knowledgeable source of information on the
subject except for their own self-serving edbott and aumha web sites
written by ... guess who? Yup, the very same people spouting the same
crap here in the groups. They only refer to one of two different
websites as "support" for their contentions. But, of course, the
members of their little group of idiots wrote the various parts of the
articles they want you to see. Certainly if there were anything to that
claim about registry cleaners, there would be hundreds if not thousands
of supporting websites. But, there are not.
The risk of a serious problem by erroneously removing a registry entry
you need is so minimal with a good cleaner, especially one with restore
capabilities, as to be no more likely to happen than when installing or
uninstalling any other program on your computer or running any of the
thousands of good programs that people download every day. If you
download crap blindly, that's what you get. If you do so intelligently
and with forethought, your chances of success are good. Many people use
many different registry cleaners all the time and as in my case, have
never had a single problem over more than a decade of using them.
Notice that when that little group responds to my post here, that
none of them will have any real backup for their allegations, they'll
simply rationalize their way through, and maybe add a very biased link
or two to back them up; usually links they had some part in writing,
creating or otherwise supporting by having authored the major portions
of them.
There are enough intelligent and thinking people around that were
their allegations of "snake oil" etc. of any value, there would be a
stink so bad and so loud that not a single person would miss it and the
companies would die out quickly. There would also be an endless stream
os spam trying to sell their wares, but there aren't. Only the junkers
get involved in spamming such wares. This supposed MVP will even tell
you that it's "bad" that these companies hype and support their cleaner
products with lot of praise and self-serving facts, but ... what
company, including Microsoft and a thousand others doesn't do that?
It's called free enterprise.
You lucked out here and almost got a personal reply: Normally all
these people, especially this one, do is push their pre-written
boilerplate at you and attempt to make you feel small. To me, small is
defined in one way as a closed mind with rationalized opinions without
any serious backup or verification provisions. Not to mention the
gigantic egoes and seriously narcissistic attitudes that go along with
them.
As always, I like to thank Ken for providing me the opportunity to
expose him. Again.
Thanks!
HTH,
Twayne`
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:tre685pnd09jfmiif...@4ax.com
JimL
"Twayne" <nob...@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:uWRE696G...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
--
JimL
philo
> Watch out for this bozo and his self-serving closed minded
> misinformation about registry cleaners. There are several good ones and
> as long as you get one from a reputable source, with proper backup and
> restore facilities, you should be fine.
> This individual and a few others like him have a vendetta against,
> and constantly libel and defame many good companies who produce useful
> and reliable products of good design.
Caution: this person is a know troll
I have been getting nothing but superior advice from Ken Blake for
something like ten years now.
Unknown
has been pointed out to you on many many occasions. Even I,
have done that on three occasions. And, each time the evidence
is presented to you, you ignore it.
Then you always say 'not one iota of evidence has been presented'
If you choose to screw up your system with trashy garbage that's
your decision but, to entice others to perform your recklessness
is evil.
Twayne
news:gJOdnXrsab-CRx7X...@ntd.net
Then you haven't been reading his pitches on "snake oil" and ALL
registry cleaners for one.
HTH,
Twayne`
Twayne
news:h5vr6u$ld8$1...@news.eternal-september.org
> No sweat. I use snake oil in my car in place of regular motor oil!
lol, good one! Think it'd work in my '55 Ford Fairlane?
Cheers,
Twayne`
Twayne
news:uNOE3MCH...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl
> Twayne---The crippling of a computer by a registry cleaner
> has been pointed out to you on many many occasions.
Sure, I should believe the vague references to it, just like I should
believe the MVP who told me something was so because he "said so" when I
asked for clarification way back before he became such a closed mind
over a few subjects.
Even I,
> have done that on three occasions. And, each time the evidence
> is presented to you, you ignore it.
Yup, sure you have. That's just another vague reference, as usual. Also
I often don't read YOUR posts because you seldom have anything useful to
say.
> Then you always say 'not one iota of evidence has been presented'
> If you choose to screw up your system with trashy garbage that's
> your decision but, to entice others to perform your recklessness
> is evil.
Woops! You addressed the wrong person there; that was ment for the
closed minds, I'm certain. I'd change my mind quickly if anyone ever
provided any believable support or proof of the allegations of you sock
puppets and your fantASStic leaders. All I can say is, I am in a large
majority of people who use reputable registry cleaners with good to
excellent and results and have never botched a system, any system, with
one. The worst case outcomes I ever had was that no problems were
found.
HTH,
Twayne`
Ken Blake, MVP
Thanks for the kind words, Philo.
Unknown
pushing registry cleaners. Instead of repeating and repeating why they're
'snake oil' just do a Google search for registry cleaners.
Another 'vague reference'?news:OHE63lCH...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
philo
Yes I have read his words.
Years ago when I was using Win98 I did use a registry cleaner from time
to time...and I never noticed any improvement in performance...however
once in a while it caused a problem.
Back when I was using Win98 once in a while I did find a registry
cleaner helpful in removing entries from an application that did not
uninstall properly...
but since I've since moved on to Win2k and XP never again ran into the
the problem of partial uninstallations.
But for the average person who does not know *exactly* what they are
doing...running a registry cleaner could potentially create problems...
philo
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 04:17:53 -0500, philo <ph...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> Twayne wrote:
>>> Watch out for this bozo and his self-serving closed minded
>>> misinformation about registry cleaners. There are several good ones and
>>> as long as you get one from a reputable source, with proper backup and
>>> restore facilities, you should be fine.
>>> This individual and a few others like him have a vendetta against,
>>> and constantly libel and defame many good companies who produce useful
>>> and reliable products of good design.
>> <snip>
>>
>> Caution: this person is a know troll
>>
>> I have been getting nothing but superior advice from Ken Blake for
>> something like ten years now.
>
>
> Thanks for the kind words, Philo.
>
You are very welcome...
Not only has your advice always been excellent...
you are about the only person I've noticed on Usenet who has never lost
their cool!!!!
Ken Blake, MVP
Thanks once more.
Jim
Ken Blake, MVP
And thanks to you too.
JimL
Works fine in my '65 Plymouth Valiant.
--
JimL
JimL
> If you choose to screw up your system with trashy garbage that's
> your decision
I must comment that when anyone makes overly broad statements, like "all
registry clearners are trashy garbage", or "you should not scan for viruses
every day" I look for less sweeping declarations elsewhere.
--
JimL
JimL
> just do a Google search for registry cleaners.
> Another 'vague reference'?
Well, yes; it's vague. I, for one, have done those searches and find
numerous devotees of considerable stature on both sides of the debate. Some
people have anecdotes. Some people have never seen a single problem in "lo
these years." The problem is that both sides often take their own
experience to be universal law. Perhaps that is the reason for the useless
and infuriating occurrances of the statement, "That doesn't happen on my
computer."
--
JimL
Twayne
preposterious misinformation about them. I do not initiate the threads;
I respond to the misinformation. Unlike you, I'm a stickler for
accuracy. If I were to push cleaners, I'd have links for them all over
my sigs and throughout the body of my posts.
Twayne`
"Unknown" <unk...@unknown.kom> wrote in message
news:epSjuDDH...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl
Twayne
>>
>
>
> Yes I have read his words.
>
> Years ago when I was using Win98 I did use a registry cleaner from
> time to time...and I never noticed any improvement in
> performance...however once in a while it caused a problem.
OK. Win98x is apples and oranges, but I guess I see your point.
Depending on whether one insists on carrying forth win98 "stuff", it can
create confusion for them and cause them to assume things in XP et al
that aren't necessarily so. But I suspect you know all that from
previous posts or yours that I've read.
...
> but since I've since moved on to Win2k and XP never again ran into the
> the problem of partial uninstallations.
I don't either on my own machines with the exception of the sandbox
laptop; there, anything goes becasuse it's an easily restored "learning"
machine. That said however, I do have other reasons for using a
registry cleaner even on my own machines and have done so for years.
Most people, and you seem to have avoided the trap, seem to think that
registry cleaners have only one function: To clean out extraneous or
leftover entries. Case in point: I just re-installed MalwareBytes again
to see if it was any better than the previous version I tried; it seems
to be. But ... all of my previous settings from the last installation,
many months ago, "came to life" all of a sudden. I had killed the
folders on the disk, but never cleaned the registry of the leftovers and
now wished I had. I didn't WANT my history from the last install! So I
had to uninstall it and rather than fart around manually scrubbing it, a
registry cleaner made the job quick & easy. THEN I was able to
reinstall it, and test it properly against its prior results.
Unfortunately, it still finds a legitimate setup.exe in the ...\Windows\
directory to be a rogue installer; which it is not. IT's part of an
INNO install routine for a VB program I was testing out. I made the
file and t he INNO installed placed it there. But MalwareBytes insists
on giving it the name "Rogue: Installer". I have never had any other
program detect that as a problem except MalwareBytes. MalwareBytes is
declaring it a problem, I've figured out, due to its unusual location,
NOT from any analysis of the setup that MB looked at. So MB is
declaring things in unusual locations as rogue; it has done absolutely
nothing otherwise to decide whether it was or wasn't a rogue. I can put
that exact same file in another location, and MB will not report it as a
problem. So IMO it's using unreliable information.
OTOH, as long as you watch out for MB's little gotchas like that,
it's a reasonable malware detector but ... not one of my most prized
tools.
Woof! Sorry for the verbosity; that's usually a sign my pain meds
are working<g>. It was just an example of a use for a reputable
registry cleaner I wanted to desribe.
>
> But for the average person who does not know *exactly* what they are
> doing...running a registry cleaner could potentially create
> problems...
We'll have to agree to disagree there, because a well written program
can make life a lot easier for the less than nearly expert level people.
I don't care if a person does or doesn't use such programs; but I do
care when they posit misinformation about them. Or msinformation about
anything else for that matter.
I'm not saying you are wrong, because running ANY program, or even
installing a program, can potentially create problems if it uses the
registry. I simply maintain that reputable, reliable registry cleaners
will not cause any more system problems than any other program used on
the PCs, including Microsoft's own applications. In fact, here on my
own machines, it has created 0 problems over the years, where Microsoft
over the same time span has created many, many issues one could consider
a "problem". Like the fix just prior to this week's onslaught: They
issued the emergency fix, and then a few hours later I received a fix to
fix I'd just allowed to install.
Regards,
Twayne`
Unknown
your arm.
What do you think is correct? Registry cleaners have caused more problems
or registry cleaners have cured more problems?
"JimL" <inv...@invalid.inv> wrote in message
news:h64et9$9ti$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Unknown
THINK is misinformation.
You are a stickler for what you THINK is accuracy.
AND when someone does post a situation caused by a registry cleaner you
completely ignore it.
You have one and only one position and that is registry cleaners are great.
Yet, you even ignore the damage to your own system caused by running a
registry cleaner.
You're one sided PERIOD!news:uznofiRH...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Unknown
Do registry cleaners cause more problems on computers or
fix more problems? Give me facts not your emotional feelings.
"Twayne" <nob...@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:uznofiRH...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
JimL
> Unlike you, I'm a stickler for accuracy.
Now there you go...
--
JimL
JimL
> Completely your option. Do what you think is correct. No-one is twisting
> your arm.
No, no arm twisting - only accusing me of using trashy garbage. In the
world of words, what's the difference?
> What do you think is correct? Registry cleaners have caused more problems
> or registry cleaners have cured more problems?
I refuse to answer on grounds that might tend to be useless. <g>
--
JimL
msnews.microsoft.com
As for Registry cleaners, I swear by them. I test out a lot of programs and
need to clean out the registry on a regular basis. There are several good
ones.
Good luck.
Regards,
JimL
news:%23Dbaexv...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
I think often great pronouncements are made without considering individual
situations and needs.
I have two RC's. They each do a registry backup and a restore point before
making any changes.
--
JimL
All pictures MUST wiggle! Winston Curchhill