Very old Copmuter / Removing Programs
Robert
panel from add and remove. From control panel When I try to remove programs
I don't get the entire program out of the computers system.
To remove programs would anyone know of a free safe piece of software that
I could download to remove programs with in the future? Not programs that I
have tried to remove unsuccessfully. But programs that will be removed soon?
Fuzzy
John Inzer
Maybe Revo would be worth a try:
Revo Uminstaller
http://www.revouninstaller.com/
--
J. Inzer MS-MVP
Digital Media Experience
Notice
This is not tech support
I am a volunteer
Solutions that work for
me may not work for you
Proceed at your own risk
Ken Blake, MVP
> I have old slow computer that I would like to remove programs with
If your expectations are that removing programs will make your
computer faster, that is *not* correct. What you run affects your
speed, not what you have installed.
> by control
> panel from add and remove. From control panel When I try to remove programs
> I don't get the entire program out of the computers system.
Two questions for you:
1. What programs are not being removed entirely?
2. Exactly what parts of them are not removed?
>
> To remove programs would anyone know of a free safe piece of software that
> I could download to remove programs with in the future? Not programs that I
> have tried to remove unsuccessfully. But programs that will be removed soon?
>
>
>
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
db
if the system only has windows
running and if that system has
minimal memory requirements.
the system will run faster with
the above configuration.
--
db���`�...�><)))�>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
- nntp Postologist
~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:eortb5lh2rcmka1d5...@4ax.com...
db
--
db���`�...�><)))�>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
- nntp Postologist
~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
"db" <datab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ur62Ms4P...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
db
and decided to uninstall software to
relieve the bottle neck affect,
then it possible your registry is dirty,
your disk is fragmented and you are
unable to boot cleaning.
also, you would also have a multitude
of "prefetch" files that are not longer
applicable but are loaded into memory
anyways.
so my suggestin is try running this:
http://onecare.live.com/site/en-Us/center/tuneup.htm
--
db���`�...�><)))�>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
- nntp Postologist
~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
"John Inzer" <oo...@doobie.zyx> wrote in message
news:#ebbQlyP...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Shenan Stanley
Robert wrote:
> I have old slow computer that I would like to remove programs with
> remove programs I don't get the entire program out of the
> computers system.
> software that I could download to remove programs with in the
> future? Not programs that I have tried to remove unsuccessfully. But
> programs that will be removed soon?
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> If your expectations are that removing programs will make your
> computer faster, that is *not* correct. What you run affects your
> speed, not what you have installed.
>
> Two questions for you:
>
> 1. What programs are not being removed entirely?
> 2. Exactly what parts of them are not removed?
db wrote:
> I disagree.
>
> if the system only has windows
> running and if that system has
> minimal memory requirements.
>
> the system will run faster with
> the above configuration.
In your response, one would gather that you are assuming everything that the
OP wishes to uninstall is running during the operation of the machine. One
can install 7-ZIP and it will not influence the performance of the machine
unless started up and left running. Same goes for Firefox. Similarly for
Photoshop. Practically any game (of any type) would be the same.
Now - if the hard disk drive space is low (extremely) and the installed
memory is insufficient (not enough to even start up Windows and the
'always-running applications' without dipping into the virtual memory
pool) - then your supposition is correct - uninstalling applications to free
up disk space for use in virtual memory could speed up the system if the
space had been so tight it could not provide sufficient space for the
virtual memory it needed. IMHO, assuming the OP is only wanting to
uninstall applications that run at all times and/or their disk space is so
tight it could be causing the issue I presented is a pretty extreme jump,
IMO.
In the end - being an 'old slow computer' that the OP obviously wants to
improve the performance of and given their desire to uninstall several
things they are obviously having trouble getting rid of - I would suggest
that the biggest benefit (if plausible/possible for the OP to do) would come
from a clean installation of Windows (XP we assume from location of the
posting only) and minimal resident (running actively at all times)
applications. Windows XP with Service Pack 3 and most post-SP3 updates (all
critical/security at least - IMO IE8, Windows/Office Live stuff could safely
be ignored on this machine) and a simple/small AntiVirus application with
the latest hardware drivers available would do nicely. Maybe flash the BIOS
and throw a little extra memory (RAM) at the computer if it is really that
short on resources (being old, it may be - could have less than 512MB
memory - and although it can be argued that is enough for some - it can be
argued that having 'extraneous' memory, unused at a given point in time, may
not necessarily be a waste - as it is possible every so often one might
benefit from the extra (maybe 512MB-1GB for Windows XP - especially in this
case.))
However - I believe the answer was given to the OP directly for what they
asked elsewhere. I will not repeat the answer, as it is easily found and I
don't want to imply that I believe it may be right for this poster. In
truth - I don't know - as I would need more information (some idea of the
hardware specs of the machine - processor speed, amount of memory, amount of
HDD space (total/free) - some of the applications trying to be removed from
the machine (the ones that have failed to be fully removed, in particular),
the OS actually installed, the OPs ability (or inability) to cleanly install
the OS/needed applications back on the machine in question if
needed/desired, etc.)
--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
db
sorry john.
inadverdently posted to
your thread.
--
db���`�...�><)))�>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
- nntp Postologist
~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
"db" <datab...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OtMgt74P...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
db
if your system was short on resources
and decided to uninstall software to
relieve the bottle neck affect,
then it possible your registry is dirty,
your disk is fragmented and you are
unable to boot cleaning.
also, you would also have a multitude
of "prefetch" files that are not longer
applicable but are loaded into memory
anyways.
so my suggestin is try running this:
http://onecare.live.com/site/en-Us/center/tuneup.htm
--
db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
- nntp Postologist
~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
"Robert" <Rob...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C6ED3122-5849-439A...@microsoft.com...
Jose
Provide more information about your system:
Click Start, Run and in the box enter:
msinfo32
Click OK, and when the System Summary info appears, click Edit, Select
All, Copy and then paste
back here.
There would be some personal information (like System Name and User
Name) or whatever appears to
be only your business that you can delete from the paste.
What is the issue you are trying to resolve?
What makes you think the programs are not being removed? What does
this mean:
"I don't get the entire program out of the computers system."
After using Add or Remove Programs to remove the program is the
program still listed?
If you see "traces" of the program, where do you see them?
Revo Uninstaller looks in the same place Windows does for things to
uninstall. If you don't see it in Add or Remove Programs, you won't
see it in Revo either. If you look at what Revo does when you tell it
to uninstall, it goes through the same uninstall process Windows
does. It looks different and installs yet another program on your
system though, but you may like it better. It does have some other
features besides an alternate uninstall GUI.
Unfortunatelty, some programs do not install or uninstall as cleanly
as others. Some programs are installed and don't show up in Add or
Remove Programs at all, but do under Start, Programs.
If there is something about an uninstall that you don't think is quite
right - what is the afflicted program and try to describe what is
going wrong.
db
therefore I don't completely agree with your
rationale.
--------------------------------
the o.p.s isn't optimal, thus the reason for uninstalling
programs.
if the o.p's computer was running fine, then there
would be no bother with uninstalling programs and
the inversly the o.p. would install even more programs.
therefore, because my conclusion is that o.p.'s computer
is below par I provided an argument to ken's observation
based on my rationale for "baseline performance"
baseline performance dictates, that if "1" program
is running on a computer,
the computer will be logically faster than having
two or more programs and their processes running.
thus, there is correlation to the amount of processes
running and the amount of resources available.
--
db���`�...�><)))�>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
- nntp Postologist
~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
"Shenan Stanley" <newsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uaqra84P...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Shenan Stanley
> I have old slow computer that I would like to remove programs with
> by control panel from add and remove. From control panel When I try to
> remove programs I don't get the entire program out of the
> computers system.
> To remove programs would anyone know of a free safe piece of
> software that I could download to remove programs with in the
> future? Not programs that I have tried to remove unsuccessfully. But
> programs that will be removed soon?
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> If your expectations are that removing programs will make your
> computer faster, that is *not* correct. What you run affects your
> speed, not what you have installed.
>
> Two questions for you:
>
> 1. What programs are not being removed entirely?
> 2. Exactly what parts of them are not removed?
db wrote:
> I disagree.
>
> if the system only has windows
> running and if that system has
> minimal memory requirements.
>
> the system will run faster with
> the above configuration.
db wrote:
> you are correct "if" the computer is optimal.
> therefore I don't completely agree with your
> rationale.
>
> --------------------------------
>
> the o.p.s isn't optimal, thus the reason for uninstalling
> programs.
>
> if the o.p's computer was running fine, then there
> would be no bother with uninstalling programs and
> the inversly the o.p. would install even more programs.
>
> therefore, because my conclusion is that o.p.'s computer
> is below par I provided an argument to ken's observation
> based on my rationale for "baseline performance"
>
> baseline performance dictates, that if "1" program
> is running on a computer,
>
> the computer will be logically faster than having
> two or more programs and their processes running.
>
> thus, there is correlation to the amount of processes
> running and the amount of resources available.
Optimal, eh?
Actually - the op could have a computer that was running horribly and
uninstalling 7-Zip, FireFox, etc (anything that did not have an active
component running at all times) would have no effect (good or bad) on the
total performance of the machine (except in the case of space - like I had
pointed out.) If the program is not running, it is not affecting
performance beyond the use of space. If the machine has sufficient space
(which was my other point - we need more information to properly assist the
OP) - a non-running installed application has the same impact on the system
performance as a non-opened text file sitting on the desktop.
Uninstalling applications that do not run unless you call upon them to do so
will not assist in improving the performance of the machine unless space is
the issue.
Ken's original statement,
"If your expectations are that removing programs will make your
computer faster, that is *not* correct. What you run affects your
speed, not what you have installed."
Matches with what you have said in *this* response.
Ken was speaking of the same difference I am. An installed application (not
running) will not affect your performance (unless you are low on space) and
that is *exactly* what you seem to be saying as well.
The OP (and you) have to understand the difference between an installed
application (a bunch of static, unused files) versus an installed and
running application (what you deem "amount of processes running"). Unless
the appllication is running 0 it is not affecting the performance of the
machine. Not all applications have parts that run at all times - it seems
to me that Ken may have just been letting the OP know that uninstalling
random software packages is not the solution to a performance issue -
especially if said applications are never run.
Now - having said that it is *always* my suggestion for people to properly
uninstall any applications they do not plan to use - not because of
performance issues but for two simple reasons:
1) Cleanliness and organization - the less stuff on their hard drive, the
less time some maintenenace tasks (like backups and defragmentations and the
likes) will take. That is not a measure of performance. Your vehicle may
perform perfectly, be perfectly tuned - but if you take the crowded/long
route to work (even though the speed limit is the same as the shorter/less
crowded route) - then the performance of your car is not the problem - it
still had the same perfectly running engine, nicely tuned, with the same
amount of weight - it's just a bad-decision on your part - not a reflection
of a flaw in the machine.
2) Future compatibility issue elimination - the less things you have
installed, the less the chance something else you install in the future
might break either the original application or be broken by the current
installed application. Some applications want to share DLLs, etc - and some
will replace these DLLs with their version the one they need) upon
installation. This is not a performance issue - but a incompatibility
between two applications issue.
In other words, your response to Ken was *not* a disagreement at all. You
agreed. You said you disagreed, and *that* I disagree with.
Ken said,
"If your expectations are that removing programs will make your
computer faster, that is *not* correct. What you run affects your
speed, not what you have installed."
You said,
"if the system only has windows
running and if that system has
minimal memory requirements.
the system will run faster with
the above configuration."
Same thing.
What is affecting the speed of the computer is what is running/open
processes - not what is installed. If it is not running - it is not
affecting the speed of the computer. Uninstalling something that does not
run unless told to will not increase the speed of the computer.
Technically - nothing short of new hardware and/or modification of the
hardware timing will actually increase the speed - it is merely increasing
the resultant use of the maximum speed - the observation the user has when
using the computer. A 1.0GHz single core processor is still a 1.0GHz single
core processor - but it can finish one thing with a given processor
utilization need level faster than two things of same given processor
utilization need level at the same time - if that processor utilization need
level is above 50% of the processor's time (say 75%).
Ken Blake, MVP
<newsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ken was speaking of the same difference I am.
Exactly.
> An installed application (not
> running) will not affect your performance (unless you are low on space) and
> that is *exactly* what you seem to be saying as well.
>
> The OP (and you) have to understand the difference between an installed
> application (a bunch of static, unused files) versus an installed and
> running application (what you deem "amount of processes running"). Unless
> the appllication is running 0 it is not affecting the performance of the
> machine. Not all applications have parts that run at all times - it seems
> to me that Ken may have just been letting the OP know that uninstalling
> random software packages is not the solution to a performance issue -
> especially if said applications are never run.
Yes, my point exactly!
> Now - having said that it is *always* my suggestion for people to properly
> uninstall any applications they do not plan to use - not because of
> performance issues but for two simple reasons:
No argument from me. But given the first five words of the OP's first
sentence, "I have old slow computer that I would like to remove
programs with ...," it certainly appeared to me that he thought that
removing programs would speed up his computer.
--
db
an old computer is baseline
for todays programs.
--
db���`�...�><)))�>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
- nntp Postologist
~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:bagvb592ctnjdmlhf...@4ax.com...
db
then running todays applications
require modern resources,
-----------------
why are you and ken second
guessing the o.p.'s "Need" to
uninstall incompatiable programs!
I believe both of you should stop
dictating what the o.p. should or
should not do
and simply comply and assist
with the issue at hand, ie the o.,p.'s
hand, and not your own.
--
db���`�...�><)))�>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
- nntp Postologist
~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
"Shenan Stanley" <newsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:#s1Z6a6P...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
db
btw:
you are not accurate when you
say that simply having programs
installed on the disk and used is
detrimental to the system.
in addition to loading the prefetch
files of those presumed unused
program, into memory at start-up
and in addition that some of those
programs installed their sneeky
startups
and in addition to the dozens,
perhaps hundreds of registy
entries inputted by the programs,
I not only disagree but "totally"
disagree with the delusion that
unused program are simply an
issue with disk space only.
--
db���`�...�><)))�>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
- nntp Postologist
~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
"Shenan Stanley" <newsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:#s1Z6a6P...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
db
it's better to agree with the experts
that built windows:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/maintain/removeprog.mspx
--
db���`�...�><)))�>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
- nntp Postologist
~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:bagvb592ctnjdmlhf...@4ax.com...
Shenan Stanley
Entire archived conversation:
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.general/browse_frm/thread/1a309c39441c4e61/
db wrote:
> I disagree.
>
> an old computer is baseline
> for todays programs.
Expand please.
What exactly do you disagree with?
Please point out the phrasing/sentence/paragraph you disagree with and the
reason(s) you disagree with it.
(The link to the entire conversation is above.)
Shenan Stanley
> and btw4u:
>
> it's better to agree with the experts
> that built windows:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/setup/maintain/removeprog.mspx
"btw4u" noted (meaning your response was meant for Ken exclusively, I
assume...)
Assuming you are referring to, "... and some programs slow your computer
down (even if you don't use them)." --> Isn't that the very point I have
been pushing? Not *all* programs run resident or have any component that
runs resident - unistalling such applications will have no benefit/detriment
in the speed observation results. Some programs *do* have a component or
two that runs resident - if so - uninstalling that program will benefit the
speed observation results.
So - just uninstalling programs at random will not have the results the op
wants - but a researched and carefully executed uninstallation might.
Shenan Stanley
> if the o.p. has an old computer
> then running todays applications
> require modern resources,
>
> -----------------
>
> why are you and ken second
> guessing the o.p.'s "Need" to
> uninstall incompatiable programs!
>
> I believe both of you should stop
> dictating what the o.p. should or
> should not do
>
> and simply comply and assist
> with the issue at hand, ie the o.,p.'s
> hand, and not your own.
Where was running today's applications mentioned by the OP. Only
uninstalling things and getting the computer running the best it could with
the OPs current OS. Anything else is assumption until the OP comes back and
clarifies.
Clarification and second-guessing are not the same thing.
- How come you think you are the OP?
- How do *you* know what the OP wants?
All I have done is asked for clarification and expansion on the problem at
hand and given "if you" scenarios and suggestions based off the limited
information given. A little clarification and expansion on the problem can
often change the methodology in tackling the problem greatly.
Sometimes people just don't *know* there are options.
Shenan Stanley
> btw:
>
> you are not accurate when you
> say that simply having programs
> installed on the disk and used is
> detrimental to the system.
>
> in addition to loading the prefetch
> files of those presumed unused
> program, into memory at start-up
>
> and in addition that some of those
> programs installed their sneeky
> startups
>
> and in addition to the dozens,
> perhaps hundreds of registy
> entries inputted by the programs,
>
> I not only disagree but "totally"
> disagree with the delusion that
> unused program are simply an
> issue with disk space only.
Good - because I never said, "... simply having programs installed on the
disk and used is detrimental to the system." In fact - I said the exact
*opposite*. ;-)
Now that you corrected yourself in the end - unused programs that do not
have running components do not effect the speed of the system. I covered
the 'sneaky starups' by stating 'Not all applications have parts that run at
all times' <- these are the programs that are *not* affecting the system
performance.
It might affect how long a search or a backup takes.
It might affect how long a CHKDSK or a defragmentation takes.
It will not affect the system startup or the speed at which other programs
run on the machine. It will certainly not affect the speed of the
processor - which is a hardware constant.
I'm still waiting on the OP to return and give more information on their
situation (system specs, their needs and desires for this system, etc.)
With that - anyone can help them clear this up in the most efficient way
possible - without it - it's one guess against another's guess. ;-P
Twayne
> I disagree.
>
> if the system only has windows
> running and if that system has
> minimal memory requirements.
>
> the system will run faster with
> the above configuration.
WHAT above configuration? There's nothing "above". Over-snipped?
Twayne
John John - MVP
> btw:
>
> you are not accurate when you
> say that simply having programs
> installed on the disk and used is
> detrimental to the system.
>
> in addition to loading the prefetch
> files of those presumed unused
> program, into memory at start-up
Prefetch doesn't load any application pages unless the application is
actually started. If the application is set to start when Windows boots
the prefetcher will load pages to help the application load faster. If
the application doesn't start during the boot process there will be no
prefetching for the application, there will be no prefetching unless and
until the application is actually started, if you do not start the
application it has no prefetched files in memory.
John
db
o.p. has installed.
just provide the op with what
was asked for and stop the
argument.
--
db�ｿｽ�ｿｽ�ｿｽ`�ｿｽ...�ｿｽ><)))�ｿｽ>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
- nntp Postologist
~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
"Shenan Stanley" <newsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e5n4uP7P...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Shenan Stanley
> its not your business what the
> o.p. has installed.
>
> just provide the op with what
> was asked for and stop the
> argument.
I did not start said argument.
I believe that it is only the OPs call, not yours or mine, what information
the OP provides.
db
programs on the system "only" took up
disk space.
your argument was unfounded thus I
spent the time with the discussion.
you failed to realize all the other factors
involved with having unused programs
installed on the disk.
in addition to what I "thought" in the
previous thread, you also have to learn that
unused programs also bloat the system
restore points which further decreases
disk space.
unused program also create more fragmentation
thus old hard drives will be slower.
unused programs also increase the mft
and
unused programs have the propencity to have
spywares and trojans incorporated in them
SO IF, you and ken elude that unused
programs have not detrimental affect or
have minimal affect on a system,
I will disgree again and again and again,
until you both stop trying to manipulate
the o.p. and sabatoge the responses made
by me or others.
lastly, don't tread on my subthread.
if you have a suggestion then post it to
the one who is asking for it.
--
db���`�...�><)))�>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
- nntp Postologist
~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
"Shenan Stanley" <newsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eTAjwW7P...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
db
btw:
thanks for the link.
too bad the response to the
original question isnt a direct
one.
--
db���`�...�><)))�>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
- nntp Postologist
~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
"Shenan Stanley" <newsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:OL4DzK7P...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
db
--
db���`�...�><)))�>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
- nntp Postologist
~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
"Shenan Stanley" <newsh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ut9q73DQ...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Shenan Stanley
Addressing only the last thing - I will respond when/where/how I feel like
it and expect you to do the same.