Registry Cleaners
JohnD
freebie, but doesn't bring in a lot of unwanted stuff with it? (XP Pro SP3)
Thanks
SPAMCOP User
Never use a registry cleaner!!!!
--
SPAMCOP User
"JohnD" <Jo...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7B93D4B4-0493-4BCE...@microsoft.com...
Alias
It is not advisable to use any, free or for pay. They can do a lot more
harm than good. What problems are you having that makes you think you
need one?
Alias
John John - MVP
John
John Barnett MVP
for that reason they are best left well alone.
--
John Barnett MVP
Windows XP Associate Expert
Windows Desktop Experience
Web: http://www.winuser.co.uk
Web: http://www.silversurfer-guide.com
Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org
The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..
"JohnD" <Jo...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7B93D4B4-0493-4BCE...@microsoft.com...
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
> signature database 4080 (20090515) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 4080 (20090515) __________
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
JohnD
with two "Threatware" items that I was asked to advise them of. Vboxs430.DLL
and vboxt430en-us.vboxlm. These files remain in the vbox folder inside the
Windows folder.
So I located a program called RegCure that purported to come from a
Microsoft certified guy and was advertised as free, downloaded it , ran it
and it found over 800 "problems", but would only fix one until I bought the
program.
Something about this whole thing said "scam" to me, partly because only a
couple of weeks ago I reformatted my hard drive and re-installed everything,
so there didn't seem to have been time to build up so many problems.
Anyway, since I was concerned about the "Threatware" items I thought I
should do something.
Alias
Try these programs instead:
Malwarebytes:
http://www.malwarebytes.org/mbam/program/mbam-setup.exe
SuperAntispyware:
http://www.superantispyware.com/superantispywarefreevspro.html
Spybot, Search and Destroy:
http://www.safer-networking.org/index2.html
All free.
AdAware is pretty much useless nowadays. It used to be good but not any
more. Download the above programs, update them and run them one at a
time in Safe Mode to get rid of those "Threat wares".
Alias
ColTom2
http://download.cnet.com/Malwarebytes-Anti-Malware/3000-8022_4-10804572.htmlto counter any concern about Threatware etc.The other related postings gave you some great advice about RegCleaners....just leave them be.ColTom2"JohnD" <Jo...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in messagenews:D876D2D9-3BFF-4B0B...@microsoft.com...After running AdAware it said it had removed all suspect files, but left mewith two "Threatware" items that I was asked to advise them of.Vboxs430.DLLand vboxt430en-us.vboxlm. These files remain in the vbox folder inside theWindows folder.So I located a program called RegCure that purported to come from aMicrosoft certified guy and was advertised as free, downloaded it , ran itand it found over 800 "problems", but would only fix one until I bought theprogram.Something about this whole thing said "scam" to me, partly because only acouple of weeks ago I reformatted my hard drive and re-installed everything,so there didn't seem to have been time to build up so many problems.Anyway, since I was concerned about the "Threatware" items I thought Ishould do something.
John John - MVP
> After running AdAware it said it had removed all suspect files, but left me
> with two "Threatware" items that I was asked to advise them of. Vboxs430.DLL
> and vboxt430en-us.vboxlm. These files remain in the vbox folder inside the
> Windows folder.
> So I located a program called RegCure that purported to come from a
> Microsoft certified guy and was advertised as free, downloaded it , ran it
> and it found over 800 "problems", but would only fix one until I bought the
> program.
The "strange" thing about that particular program is that almost
everyone who reports using it almost always post saying the exact same
thing as what you've just told us, the program seems to always find
about *800* problems! Something is fishy indeed, how can all computers
have an almost identical number of problems? If the program were legit
it would report different number of problems and on many machines it
wouldn't find any more than a handful of so called "problems", problems
that aren't really problems at all.
In this case the "scamware" in question may be a bit a bit less
obnoxious and aggressive than others. Some of these programs will try
to hide and set themselves to automatically start and always run on your
computer. Then, even if you didn't run the program, it will give you
popups saying that you have problems with your computer. Problems
indeed, the only problem you will have will be the annoying popup
telling you to pay the authors of the scamware if you want to fix the
problem! Some of these pests can be difficult to remove and some of
them are very obnoxious. At first you may only get a popup when you
start the computer but if you ignore the request to pay the popups will
increase in frequency, to the point where they may be so frequent as to
make it next to impossible to properly run your computer.
John
JohnD
"Thanks everybody!"
Ken Blake, MVP
No, nobody can. That's because there are *no* good, safe registry
cleaners.
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
Bruce Chambers
There's no such thing.
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
Bruce Chambers
> After running AdAware it said it had removed all suspect files, but left me
> with two "Threatware" items that I was asked to advise them of. Vboxs430.DLL
> and vboxt430en-us.vboxlm. These files remain in the vbox folder inside the
> Windows folder.
So, why not just delete to two suspicious files? Or, if unsure that
they're really malware (sound like it to me), simply rename them to see
if something "breaks."
> So I located a program called RegCure that purported to come from a
> Microsoft certified guy and was advertised as free, downloaded it , ran it
> and it found over 800 "problems", but would only fix one until I bought the
> program.
>
> Something about this whole thing said "scam" to me,
And you were 100% correct. It is a scam.
> ... partly because only a
> couple of weeks ago I reformatted my hard drive and re-installed everything,
> so there didn't seem to have been time to build up so many problems.
>
Yes, that's a pretty clear demonstration of the worthlessness of such
products.
> Anyway, since I was concerned about the "Threatware" items I thought I
> should do something.
>
Again, simply delete the offending files and leave the registry alone.
![PA Bear [MS MVP]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjXsf05hH-R8XChS3fXPPzfoO8FYYxAKhT86KfPnIELr3QJ9tQ=s40-c)
PA Bear [MS MVP]
http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=28099 and draw your own conclusions.
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Client - since 2002
PA Bear [MS MVP]
http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=28099 and draw your own conclusions.
milt
No such thing, none of them are any good. Avoid at all costs.
Alias
> SPAMCOP User wrote:
>> JohnD,
>>
>> Never use a registry cleaner!!!!
>>
>
> http://onecare.live.com/site/en-us/center/cleanup.htm
They LIE. Why do they lie? To sell the product, what else?
Alias
Alias
With Windows 7, it's history and being replaced by Morro. It's not free.
It costs 49.95 US dollars. See:
http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/3/default.htm
So not only do they lie, you do too.
Alias
Bruce Chambers
John John - MVP
>>
>> Never use a registry cleaner!!!!
>>
>
> http://onecare.live.com/site/en-us/center/cleanup.htm
They might not be saying that for too much longer...
HeyBub
A new car costs upwards of $50,000.
A fully-loaded hot-dog may be as much as $7.50.
Neither of these, along with OneCare (at $49.94), have anything to do with
Microsoft's free registry cleaner.
Gerry
Would you go to a Witch Doctor if you weren't feeling very well?
--
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Alias
I stand corrected but wouldn't use it.
Alias
Randem
cleaning just in case... Do not listen to the pundits who keep trying to
scare you from using one. Just ask them for a repeatable example and you
will not get a legitimate response. I just use the registry cleaner to solve
a problem with VB today.
I created a custom dll a few years bac and was updating it. It was not going
to be compatible with the older one so I copied the project then renamed it
for the new dll. Everything was fine until I wated to change the name in the
references of VB and debug it, then there was a problem I could not. It was
because VB had referenced both dll projects as the same and the only way to
get rid of the references was to delete all the custom dlls then clean the
registry so that any reference to the old dll was gone, then it worked. I
could debug the project.
To the pundits, Try doing that without a registry cleaner!
Let the pundits give you a REAL example not just their scare tactics which
have no proof.
--
Randem Systems
Your Installation Specialist
The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938
"JohnD" <Jo...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7B93D4B4-0493-4BCE...@microsoft.com...
Twayne
> If you think your Registry needs to be "cleaned" or "repaired," read
> http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=28099 and draw your own conclusions.
Useless trash - responses by the same ignorants and closed minds that
post here, all feeling cozy in their own little web space.
Unknown
"Twayne" <nob...@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:updJELl1...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
Unknown
dll's.
"Randem" <newsg...@randem.com> wrote in message
news:ugE5x4k1...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
John John - MVP
http://boards.live.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://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/Help/449a5c7d-f9f9-4392-800c-83503145889f1033.mspx
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888637
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/247678
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;969707&sd=rss&spid=11734
An I would like to see you figure out this one if you ever come across it!
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;969707&sd=rss&spid=11734
There are many other post about different applications that get "broken"
by registry cleaners, for example OneCare is known to break some Virtual
Machine software. The problem with these cleaners is that you don't
always immediately see what they might have broken and that makes it
difficult to latter figure out the problems that they might have caused.
I have seen one of these cleaners break dll registrations and
temporary file links. Because the the problem was so obscure and
because the application using the dll and temporary files was only used
once every quarter it made it nearly impossible to connect the dots.
These cleaners cause more harm than good.
John
Bruce Chambers
>
>
> To the pundits, Try doing that without a registry cleaner!
>
You could do that just using Regedit's built-in Find function.
Ken Blake, MVP
wrote:
> I use Registry Cleaner, It does support creating a Restore Point before
> cleaning just in case...
Creating a restore point before using a registry cleaner is certainly
a very good thing to do. If the registry cleaner screws up, and you
can use the restore point, you may be able to undo the damage it has
done.
But if the result of using the registry cleaner is an unbootable
computer (which *does* happen), you are out of luck unless you have
made an image or clone of the drive.
Add that danger of using a registry cleaner to the fact that cleaning
of the registry isn't needed and is dangerous, and it's obvious that
it's a serious mistake to use one. Leave the registry alone and don't
Ken Blake, MVP
> On Sat, 16 May 2009 04:48:05 -0700, JohnD
> <Jo...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone recommend a good, safe registry cleaner that may or may not be a
> >freebie, but doesn't bring in a lot of unwanted stuff with it? (XP Pro SP3)
> >
> >Thanks
>
> If you insist on using one, I've used CCleaner for that purpose.
> It's not as agressive as some and it asked you to backup before the
> changes.
>
> You can go ape with a deep registry cleaner, but they're a little
> dangerous.
>
> Again, if you insist, use Erundt before you clean and you can save
> yourself from yourself.
Yes, having a backup of the registry (for example, with Erunt) reduces
the risk of using a registry cleaner. However, note that it does *not*
eliminate that risk. Using a registry cleaner can leave you with an
unbootable computer.
Tim Meddick
backups with that (or by choosing "Repair with Recovery Console" option if
using the XP Installation disk)
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:oa4u055h4m2h4e2gm...@4ax.com...
Nate Grossman
>PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
>> If you think your Registry needs to be "cleaned" or "repaired," read
>> http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=28099 and draw your own conclusions.
>
>Useless trash - responses by the same ignorants and closed minds that
>post here, all feeling cozy in their own little web space.
Unlike you, of course... who inhabits and even smaller web space.
ANONYMOUS
your HD and reinstall the OS. There aren't any safe products that can "clean"
the registry because there is no need to clean it for a normal computer user.
hth
Bill in Co.
LOL.
Now, now, are you discounting all his "extensive" experience and
"documentation" proving otherwise? (snort!)
Linea Recta
"SPAMCOP User" <spamcop_user@no_mail.haha> schreef in bericht
news:eZZcYxh1...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> JohnD,
>
> Never use a registry cleaner!!!!
>
Then you'll soon have to live with a clogged registry.
--
regards,
|\ /|
| \/ |@rk
\../
\/os
PA Bear [MS MVP]
Linea Recta wrote:
> "SPAMCOP User" <spamcop_user@no_mail.haha> schreef in bericht
> news:eZZcYxh1...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> JohnD,
>>
>> Never use a registry cleaner!!!!
>>
>
>
> Then you'll soon have to live with a clogged registry.
>
>
>
>
Ken Blake, MVP
<mccm...@abc.invalid> wrote:
>
> "SPAMCOP User" <spamcop_user@no_mail.haha> schreef in bericht
> news:eZZcYxh1...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> > JohnD,
> >
> > Never use a registry cleaner!!!!
> >
>
>
> Then you'll soon have to live with a clogged registry.
Complete nonsense. I have *never* used a registry cleaner and I have
never had a clogged registry.
As a matter of fact, there's no such thing as a "clogged registry."
Twayne
> On Sat, 16 May 2009 04:48:05 -0700, JohnD
>
>> Can anyone recommend a good, safe registry cleaner that may or may
>> not be a freebie, but doesn't bring in a lot of unwanted stuff with
>> it? (XP Pro SP3)
>
>
>
> cleaners.
Yes, many people can, and even YOU have commented in the past on
CCleaner, a very good program for newbies to the experience.
>
> Registry cleaning programs are *all* snake oil.
No, they are not.
Cleaning of the
> registry isn't needed and is dangerous.
It is needed on occasion and is often an answer to several different
kinds of problems.
Any reputable registry cleaner will not be dangerous in any way and just
in case something is removed the user didn't want removed, they also
provide undo options. I've never had to use an undo option in the many
years I've used these excellent tools, but it is comforting to know it's
there.
Leave the registry alone and
> don't use any registry cleaner.
That's silly and also a delinquent piece of advice. This person has not
seen a registry cleaner since the days of antiquity I don't think, and
is easily susceptible to a closed minded approach to any subject where
anyone may disagree with him. He can't stand not being right even when
he's wrong as you're likely to see in his retort to this post.
Despite what many people think,
Those people include a lot who are more intelligent, more experienced,
more practical and more sensible than you ever thought of being or you
won't make such rash judgements and even keep a boilerplate handy so you
can do it over and over and over. But that's OK; I enjoy cutting you
down to size.
and
> what vendors of registry cleaning software try to convince you of,
> having unused registry entries doesn't really hurt you.
You cannot seem to wrap your mind around the fact that there is more to
registry problems than "unused registry entries", can you? You always
hype on that, even though no one else mentions it. One of the bennies
of your using boilerplate rater than reading and considering the
querant's situation.
Oh, and BTW I guess that puts Microsoft at a pretty bid disadvantage,
too, since they highly hype their product and even mess around with
registry cleaners. Which, last I knew, you were miserably out of date
on last time I saw you talk about it.
>
> 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.
That's nonsense. It just does not happen, especially when they have the
opportunity to undo their changes. Almost every single program is also
intelligent enough to know what parts may be catastrophic and what parts
may not. It is very difficult to cause any serious problems with a
registry cleaner. In fact, it's nearly impossible with some of the
better ones, two of which I use often as a process of elimination tool.
>
> Read http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000643.html
Another reference to a set of biased information not worth the ether it
occupies, and located at another formerly unheard of web URL. Who knows
what surprises may await a visitor there?
Those closed-minded ignorant with his boilerplated misinformation has
been doing this for a long time and has been proven to be wrong over and
over. His credibility in any area anywhere near this subject is nil and
completely without merit.
Thanks for the opportunity again,
Twayne`
Twayne
> JohnD wrote:
>> Can anyone recommend a good, safe registry cleaner that may or may
>> not be a freebie, but doesn't bring in a lot of unwanted stuff with
>
>
> There's no such thing.
Of course there is.
>
> Why would you even think you'd ever need to clean your registry?
That's condescending and not worthy of an MVP title claimant. Why do
you find there is never a reason to use a registry cleaner? Explain it
clearly, and with valid, verifiable references and someone might be able
to start taking you seriously at least about why you parrot such things
as you do.
> 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?"
See, that's not an actual question: It's rhetorical and a way for you to
be condescending again. You never "educate" but you love to put people
down with your closed minded, ignorant misinformation.
>
> 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.
And in another breath you'll warn them never to touch the registry
without first becoming experienced with it. Brilliant.
After
> all, why use a chainsaw when a scalpel will do the job?
Why use snide remarks when a practical, well thought out response 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.
No, the least likely way to avoid problems is to use a tool that is
designed for the job, has a specific purpose, and is available to the
masses. If even a tiny part of your allegations and misinformation were
true, there would be a LOT more than a few supposed "experts" here
making these claims. If there was the tiniest bit of truth to anything
you say, the 'net would be full of information about it. One would
practically have to use NOT-terms to not see it pop up on search term
results. It'd be all over the e-mags and blogs where finding
verification of your allegations would be a very easy task.
So, why is it then that the ONLY place one sees this kind of
misinformation is here? Because it's misinformation - the questions
provides its own answer.
The only thing needed to
> safely clean your registry is knowledge and Regedit.exe.
Sooo, why aren't you teaching how to use regedit and making references
to learn about the registry? Afraid someone will compare that knowledge
to how registry tools work? If you're not, you should be.
>
> 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.
Gee, I guess you'd better have an undo feature and not change areas that
aren't to be changed! Oh wait! They have been doing that for a long
time!
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.
Wow. You must have one hell of a time whenever you get an update to
anything because they usually make registry changes in the process. How
do you ever stand to install any programs that write to the registry?
It's the same analytic process, after all.
>
> 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.
You've said that a lot of times. How about some proof/evidence of it?
Some specifics of some sort. What damage happened that was so
catastrophic? I submit that the whole paragraph above is a lie and that
you have no proof in any of those cases that it had anything to do with
the registry cleaner but rather was the result of something else in the
systems.
>
> 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.
There has been. I've presented it and watched you weasel around it and
use irrelevant data to prove silly stuff that had nothing to do with the
case. If YOU consider it not worth the risk, fine - but take your
ignorance elsewhere if y ou believe the world at large has to agree with
you.
>
> 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.
Now that little bit of weaseling is in direct opposition to several of
your "all" and "never" allegations preceding this bit. What you spout
is true of ANY piece of code, period. In reality, registry cleaners
have a better record that way than most of Microsoft's software. In
many years I have never h ad a registry cleaner cause a serious problem,
actually never a problem, but I HAVE had Microsoft's own software pretty
well screw things up to the point of non-bootability. But you'd
probably pin that one on a fictional registry cleaner, I'll bet. You
logic just never holds up and turns into nothing but rationalizing.
>
> 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.
Earlier you said there we NO usefulness. You need to redo your
boilerplate for crap like this. Actually what you need is a brain
transplant or a fix for whatever has you so brainwhashed that you
believe your own tripe.
.
>
> A little further reading on the subject: [extremely little, in
> fact]
>
> 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
How many links with similar content/context would you like to see for
why someone DOES use a registry cleaner? There are a LOT more of them
than you can link with your few obscure, biased and self serving links.
It's a little suspect when you discover the same authors there as here;
not exactly a different set of data, you know? And weblogs, well, ...
anyone can do that and I'm sure you'll soon get a couple more blogs
together amongst your ignorant circle to up the URL count, but ... it'll
still be junk. Junk is junk, no matter what you try to make it look
and smell like.
Twayne`
Twayne
> JohnD wrote:
>> Can anyone recommend a good, safe registry cleaner that may or may
>> not be a freebie, but doesn't bring in a lot of unwanted stuff with
>> it? (XP Pro SP3) Thanks
>
That hand up your butt feel good?
Twayne
> If you think your Registry needs to be "cleaned" or "repaired," read
> http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=28099 and draw your own conclusions.
Yeah, right, go read information written by the very same idiots making
the same statments here. That's proof, it sure is, yup, fer sure.
Credibility: -20 more points.
Twayne`
Twayne
>>
>> Never use a registry cleaner!!!!
>>
>
> http://onecare.live.com/site/en-us/center/cleanup.htm
You can't convince closed, ignorant minds of anything. I do like it
when I see people saying MS lies though, then they'll turn and support
them til doomsday. They don't have a single bit of valid evidence to
support their claims and know it, yet they'll support it to their death.
Good attitude, at least in that way!
If you corner them they'll try to weasel-word you and if that fails
they go black-hole. I fight this ignorance every time I see it. Gives
me a break from the boredom for a minute or so.
Twayne`
Twayne
It also doesn't make it unsafe to use.
Twayne`
Twayne
>>>> SPAMCOP User wrote:
>>>>> JohnD,
>>>>>
>>>>> Never use a registry cleaner!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That's not what they say here:
>>>> http://onecare.live.com/site/en-us/center/cleanup.htm
>>>
>>
>
> free. It costs 49.95 US dollars. See:
>
> http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/3/default.htm
>
> So not only do they lie, you do too.
>
LOL! Right!
Parsing input: http://onecare.live.com
Routing details for 207.46.160.201
[refresh/show] Cached whois for 207.46.160.201 : ab...@microsoft.com
Whois will get MS too. THAT is an MS site; sorry! A rose by ...
Twayne
Randem wrote:
> I use Registry Cleaner, It does support creating a Restore Point
> before cleaning just in case... Do not listen to the pundits who keep
> trying to scare you from using one. Just ask them for a repeatable
> example and you will not get a legitimate response. I just use the
> registry cleaner to solve a problem with VB today.
>
> I created a custom dll a few years bac and was updating it. It was
> not going to be compatible with the older one so I copied the project
> then renamed it for the new dll. Everything was fine until I wated to
> change the name in the references of VB and debug it, then there was
> a problem I could not. It was because VB had referenced both dll
> projects as the same and the only way to get rid of the references
> was to delete all the custom dlls then clean the registry so that any
> reference to the old dll was gone, then it worked. I could debug the
> project.
> To the pundits, Try doing that without a registry cleaner!
>
> Let the pundits give you a REAL example not just their scare tactics
> which have no proof.
>
>
Twayne
> no...@home.com wrote:
>> SPAMCOP User wrote:
>>> JohnD,
>>>
>>> Never use a registry cleaner!!!!
>>>
>>
>> That's not what they say here:
>> http://onecare.live.com/site/en-us/center/cleanup.htm
>
You noticed, eh? lol
Twayne
What I said before. Same trash, same boilerplate, same closed minded
ignorance being displayed again. Try using something that's not written
by you guys; someting legitimate from a verifiable source. You can't do
it. UMhaw! is not a verifiable site. And neither are blogs.
Twayne
CAN, but not very likely, very, very unlikely in fact. It CAN in the
same sense that ANY program can do that!
Twayne
> If you really want to clean your registry then the safest thing is to
> reformat your HD and reinstall the OS. There aren't any safe
> products that can "clean" the registry because there is no need to
> clean it for a normal computer user.
Well ... if you're going to rebuild anyway, then what's wrong with
trying a registry cleaner?
That was actually a good point! You've nothing to lose if you're going
to rebuild anyway. It will settle the arguements for a lot of people
wondering about the closed minds here, although not many do anymore.
They've been pretty well "outed".
Glad you said that!
Twayne`
Twayne
> On Sat, 16 May 2009 23:29:54 +0200, "Linea Recta"
> <mccm...@abc.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> "SPAMCOP User" <spamcop_user@no_mail.haha> schreef in bericht
>> news:eZZcYxh1...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> JohnD,
>>>
>>> Never use a registry cleaner!!!!
>>>
>>
>>
>> Then you'll soon have to live with a clogged registry.
>
>
>
>
> Complete nonsense. I have *never* used a registry cleaner and I have
> never had a clogged registry.
>
> As a matter of fact, there's no such thing as a "clogged registry."
You can't possibly know that until you query the OP on what he means by
it. I say there IS such a thing, and I have seen it.
Tim Meddick
slower as it's never quite as fast as when just installed when the registry
is at it's smallest. Then watch as speed decreases as the size of the
registry increases!
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"Twayne" <nob...@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:uDZP$Lo1JH...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
John John - MVP
The speed of the system depends on what is actually running. Other
than taking a bit more virtual memory space the size of the registry
really has no effect on system performance. The complete registry is
mapped into the virtual memory but what isn't actually needed or used
just stays there, performance wise it affects nothing, its about the
same as saying that having lots of files on your hard drive slows down
the computer, other than when defraging or doing searches having lots of
files slows down nothing unless you actually open the files! Other than
when doing registry searches the size of the registry doesn't affect
performance.
John
Tim Meddick
However, after saying such rash things there ARE some things you can't
ignore. One is, right-click on the desktop and choose "New" and see how
long it takes for the list of available new files you can create to come up.
This is directly proportional to the number of entries the system has to go
through in HKEY_CLASSESS_ROOT to look up any second-level keys named
"ShellNew". On a new system - this will be almost immediate, however, on a
much older one, with many more times the number of registered filetypes,
this will be noticeably longer. You people can quote parrot-fashion what
others have said for ever as far as I'm concerned, but I know what I know to
be true, no matter your dogmatic adherence to an indefensible position.
What you say goes against logic. For another instance - registry searches
using the 'Edit' > 'Find' and 'Find Next' options. In a new system it takes
only a few seconds to find a single value, even located at the end of the
registry. But in much older systems in can be literally minutes. What -
you think the CPU can do this instantly?! Why does it not do so then?
There are many more examples that can be directly related to the size of
the registry.
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"John John - MVP" <aude...@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:e1h2PWp1...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
Mike Torello
>It also proves the point that an overblown registry makes the system run
>slower as it's never quite as fast as when just installed when the registry
>is at it's smallest. Then watch as speed decreases as the size of the
>registry increases!
You're never gonna pass Logic 101 with that kind of thinking, bozo.
Bill in Co.
> So YOU say.
> However, after saying such rash things there ARE some things you can't
> ignore. One is, right-click on the desktop and choose "New" and see how
> long it takes for the list of available new files you can create to come
> up.
That has NOTHING to do with the issue at hand. You're talking about two
completely unrelated things here.
> This is directly proportional to the number of entries the system has to
> go
> through in HKEY_CLASSESS_ROOT to look up any second-level keys named
> "ShellNew". On a new system - this will be almost immediate, however, on
> a
> much older one, with many more times the number of registered filetypes,
> this will be noticeably longer. You people can quote parrot-fashion what
> others have said for ever as far as I'm concerned, but I know what I know
> to
> be true, no matter your dogmatic adherence to an indefensible position.
> What you say goes against logic. For another instance - registry searches
> using the 'Edit' > 'Find' and 'Find Next' options. In a new system it
> takes
> only a few seconds to find a single value, even located at the end of the
> registry. But in much older systems in can be literally minutes.
And that behavior has NOTHING to do with the "access time" in the registry.
NOTHING! Totally unrelated.
Quite evidently that's you, bubba. (Self projection noted once again).
Sigh...
Randem
related that need to be removed. It was not the physical dll that was the
problem so removing the name would not help.
--
Randem Systems
Your Installation Specialist
The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938
"Unknown" <unk...@unknown.kom> wrote in message
news:XWDPl.29353$yr3....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> What's so difficult about that? Just do a registry find and delete the old
> dll's.
> "Randem" <newsg...@randem.com> wrote in message
> news:ugE5x4k1...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>I use Registry Cleaner, It does support creating a Restore Point before
>>cleaning just in case... Do not listen to the pundits who keep trying to
>>scare you from using one. Just ask them for a repeatable example and you
>>will not get a legitimate response. I just use the registry cleaner to
>>solve a problem with VB today.
>>
>> I created a custom dll a few years bac and was updating it. It was not
>> going to be compatible with the older one so I copied the project then
>> renamed it for the new dll. Everything was fine until I wated to change
>> the name in the references of VB and debug it, then there was a problem I
>> could not. It was because VB had referenced both dll projects as the same
>> and the only way to get rid of the references was to delete all the
>> custom dlls then clean the registry so that any reference to the old dll
>> was gone, then it worked. I could debug the project.
>>
>> To the pundits, Try doing that without a registry cleaner!
>>
>> Let the pundits give you a REAL example not just their scare tactics
>> which have no proof.
>>
>> --
>> Randem Systems
>> Your Installation Specialist
>> The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
>> http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
>> Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
>> http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938
>>
>>
>>
>> "JohnD" <Jo...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:7B93D4B4-0493-4BCE...@microsoft.com...
Randem
cleaners... Finding the name of a dll is useless for the problem is the
CSLID's and other related entries of which you will not find with the Find
function...
--
Randem Systems
Your Installation Specialist
The Top Inno Setup Script Generator
http://www.randem.com/innoscript.html
Disk Read Error Press Ctl+Alt+Del to Restart
http://www.randem.com/discus/messages/9402/9406.html?1236319938
"Bruce Chambers" <bcha...@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:uWuB9ll1...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Randem wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> To the pundits, Try doing that without a registry cleaner!
>>
>
>
> You could do that just using Regedit's built-in Find function.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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
John John - MVP
"parroting" of their own! You install software, it writes stuff in the
registry, that is a Windows fact of life. If you want the computer to
stay as it was when Windows was installed then don't install anything on
it! What you are saying about registry searches is true, none of us
have ever refuted that the time that it takes to search through the
whole registry increases with the size of the registry, I said that much
in my earlier post. But if you think that removing a few unused or
obsolete entries out of the registry is going to make your searches
noticeably faster you are only kidding yourself. Do you seriously think
that using a registry cleaner to remove few hundred obsolete entries out
of a registry that has more than 100,000 values is going to make any
noticeable difference when you do a registry search? The same with your
argument about the HKCR key, taking a few unused entries out of the key
will not make your computer any faster, taking a handful of obsolete
entries out of the Classes key will not make your context menus any
faster! Because of the hierarchical nature of the registry its size is
inconsequential to the operation of Windows and the applications,
Windows and applications do not do searches through the whole registry.
All of this nonsense about making your computer faster by removing a few
obsolete and unused entries in the registry is nothing but hype from the
ones wanting to sell these next to utterly useless programs. There are
some who buy into this hype and some of those who buy into it parrot and
perpetuate the notions that they were spoon fed by the authors of these
programs. The purposed non existent benefits parroted by the vendors
and fans of these programs is simply not worth the risk of the real
damages that these programs can and do cause.
John
Gerry
Your comments about removing redundant entries causes me to question
whether they are redundant or just not needed at the present time? If in
the second category what problems are caused when the users needs change
and the registry entry is now needed? It is one thing to disable
something but removal can go a step too far.
You get the same situation when users massacre the default settings for
services and then cannot figure out why something does not work. Changes
can often yield little benefit and store up annoying consequences and
problems for the future!
--
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John John - MVP wrote:
John John - MVP
> John
>
> Your comments about removing redundant entries causes me to question
> whether they are redundant or just not needed at the present time? If in
> the second category what problems are caused when the users needs change
> and the registry entry is now needed? It is one thing to disable
> something but removal can go a step too far.
That is the whole crux of the problem with these cleaners, they do at
time remove valid entries and unless you have extensive knowledge of
what is in your registry or unless you want to take the time that it
takes to do the research on the findings you just don't know for sure if
some of the entries are bogus or not, you can't trust these cleaners.
Often the problem caused by the cleaner goes unnoticed for weeks and
often time users don't connect the dots between the cleaner and the
problem. Most people use these cleaners to look for non existent
problems or to provide illusionary performance improvements, when used
for these purposes they can really cause more harm than good!
There are those who adamantly claim that using cleaners improves
performance on their machines therefore cleaning the registry is
beneficial. The improvement might have more to do with compaction than
anything else. Some of these cleaners do compact the registry and
unlike the removal of a few entries in the registry compaction can and
does at time improve performance. This has nothing to do with the
actual size of the registry or with the removal of a few unused entries,
it is just that having holes in the registry structure can affect the
way Windows reads and writes to the registry and this can affect
performance. You don't have to use registry cleaners to compact the
registry, this can be done with tools like PageDefrag or NTRegOpt and
unlike useless registry cleaners these tools are perfectly safe to use!
John
Gerry
So how would you do a before and after test to evaluate the benefits of
using NTRegOpt.
Will the benefits of NTRegOpt be more obvious where the user is
regularly installing and uninstalling applications than a user just adds
an occasional application. Will it help where the user swaps one
anti-virus for another?
--
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John John - MVP wrote:
R. McCarty
Many applications remove the core components but leave user specific
settings/customizations in place. ( In case of a program re-load ). Usually
stored in the local profile's \Application Data path.
The Registry has sections of "White Space" where the data is removed.
On average, a typical PC's Registry will compact from 3 to 9% of it's pre
NTRegOpt size. Even with that it's doubtful the PC's performance will
have any noticeable improvement after being compacted. ( Actually the
program writes out the Registry and then re-imports so no White Space
exists ).
The Registry is like a dictionary. Unless a specific entry is called for
any
other data exists but isn't referenced. The only thing I've ever seen in the
Registry that "MIGHT" cause a system effect is an orphaned service that
is called to load. These can be easily found by using AutoRuns and check
the "Image Path" column for a descriptor "File not Found."
"Gerry" <ge...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:O4gJFOw1...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
John John - MVP
difference was on the boot up time and how quickly you would get to the
working desktop. NT4 was a fast operating system! It didn't have all
the bells and whistles (fluff) that newer Windows versions have.
John
Gerry
--
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John John - MVP wrote:
Gerry
I cannot see how NTRegOpt will change the situation regarding entries
left behind by an ineffective uninstall process. I say this having read
your explanation of how NTRegOpt compacts.
I was aware of the usefulness of Autoruns to remove orphan start up
items. Complaints of error reports of this nature are quite common in
these newsgroups.
--
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
antioch
>
>
> "Thanks everybody!"
Hi John D
This is my standard reply to those asking about Reg Cleaners -
I do not let any registry cleaner etc on my one and only computer.
> If I get a problem then I fix it - if it aint broke I dont fix it.
> If a computer owner, like me, has only basic user skills, and does not
> know
> what goes on in the Registry, then the last thing they should use is a
> tool to do it.
> The problem with me(and thousands of others) of limited techno ability, is
> that I have no idea what goes on in the registry.
> Until I am able to learn the hidden secrets in there I do not enter unless
> held by the hand by somebody far more capable.
> More damage can be caused than good done - it has been widely posted that
> such a prog. gives a user no particular benefit.
> Whether or not one gains any significant performance is questionable - I
> have read more posts/articles to say that performing a registry clean does
> not enhance performance to any degree.
> In every thread I have read in newsgroups/forums in the last 2
> years or more, the advice has come down against these Reg Cleaners.
> I have no problem with those who recommend/support or whatever the use
> of these cleaners. I think they have been lucky.
> I just wish they would point out the other side of the coin to those who
> may not have a clue what they are doing. The more responsible users I
> have found also know what goes on in the registry and pick and choose what
> > is dealt with, rather than just hit the button to clean.
> But most never seem to consider the capabilities of the poster to
> whom they reply.
> When I had my rush of blood to the head and used the top computer
> magazine recommended cleaner, I had not heard of 'backup' and
> there was no such thing as System Restore. I had to get my local comp
> shop to re-install Windows - so for me, never again.
> But if just one scientific test could once and for all prove the overall
> worthwhile of a Reg, cleaner and in particular show that it makes your
> computer go faster, then I would be the first to shout "congratulations".
Added note -
A couple of months ago, Zone Alarm offered me their cleaning utility.
I asked them if the claim that their software improved performance was
backed by any tech/scientific proof/evidence, they replied that it was the
bits that removed TIF, temp folders/files and the like. They added that no
such tests had been done regarding the speed effect with the Reg Cleaner.
Does anybody know if there is any vendor of this snake-oil that can back up
their claim with proof?
Antioch
Ken Blake, MVP
> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> > On Sat, 16 May 2009 07:46:10 -1000, "Randem" <newsg...@randem.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> I use Registry Cleaner, It does support creating a Restore Point before
> >> cleaning just in case...
> >
> >
> > Creating a restore point before using a registry cleaner is certainly
> > a very good thing to do. If the registry cleaner screws up, and you
> > can use the restore point, you may be able to undo the damage it has
> > done.
> >
> > But if the result of using the registry cleaner is an unbootable
> > computer (which *does* happen), you are out of luck unless you have
> > made an image or clone of the drive.
> >
> > Add that danger of using a registry cleaner to the fact that cleaning
> > of the registry isn't needed and is dangerous, and it's obvious that
> > it's a serious mistake to use one. 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
>
> So, if nothing ever needs to be done to the registry, what about
> NTREGOPT? Do you consider that safe?
I have played very slightly with NTREGOPT, but have very little
experience with it. So take my views on it with a grain of salt. Yes,
as far as I know, it's safe to use.
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Tim Meddick
what I do say is to those people who seem to ignore pure logic and
experience that says an overblown registry is responsible for some speed
decrease as time goes on. The items I listed in my last post have been
knocked aside with no qualification of how they are wrong. I know these
effects to be truly visible and nobody can give me a satisfactory
explanation of what otherwise could cause these effects. One day I will
import the HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT hive on my old XP machine to a brand new XP
installation and ultimately prove once and for all that it is responsible
for those time delays that I have cited. (I may try it out on MS VPC very
shortly in fact)
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"John John - MVP" <aude...@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:uH947du1...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Tim Meddick
of your own? Pal.
==
Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"Mike Torello" <tore...@chicoplt.com> wrote in message
news:fp2v051jof16ke2jr...@4ax.com...
Gerry
Are you removing redundant entries or those just not needed at the
present time? If in the second category won't problems be caused when
the users needs change and the registry entry is needed to accomodate
the change? How can automated registry cleaner have a crystal ball to
know what the user might want at a future time?
--
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tim Meddick
Just the fact that an excessively sized registry is linked, or has links to
a certain decrease in overall performance. I think it's of vital importance
to keep the size of the registry down to a minimum by not installing too
many programs that are superfluous to what you are trying to accomplish on
your PC. Once it is of an excessive size there's not too much you can do
with a registry. This is because, quite rightly, even the best reg-cleaners
have to be cautious in what hey remove and the decrease in volume on entries
is not significant. Much more can be achieved by avoidance and the adage
'prevention is better than cure' is very true.
Reg cleaners do, I think, have a place though. I cite Randem's post
where he had so many entries to a .dll file that was preventing a program
from functioning, and the reg cleaner he used automated the clean-up of
these entries. I have tried using Regedit's 'Find' [F3] option to do
something similar, and you can be at it for hours on end...
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"Gerry" <ge...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:uVylnrz1...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
HeyBub
>>
>> Neither of these, along with OneCare (at $49.94), have anything to
>> do with Microsoft's free registry cleaner.
>>
>>
>
> I stand corrected but wouldn't use it.
>
Oh, go ahead.
I don't think it actually DOES anything, but it might make you feel better.
It's called the "Placebo Effect."
HeyBub
> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>> <mccm...@abc.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "SPAMCOP User" <spamcop_user@no_mail.haha> schreef in bericht
>>> news:eZZcYxh1...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> JohnD,
>>>>
>>>> Never use a registry cleaner!!!!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Then you'll soon have to live with a clogged registry.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Complete nonsense. I have *never* used a registry cleaner and I have
>> never had a clogged registry.
>>
>> As a matter of fact, there's no such thing as a "clogged registry."
>
> You can't possibly know that until you query the OP on what he means
> by it. I say there IS such a thing, and I have seen it.
Is it bigger than a bread-box? What color is it?
HeyBub
> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>
>> Why would you even think you'd ever need to clean your registry?
>
> That's condescending and not worthy of an MVP title claimant. Why do
> you find there is never a reason to use a registry cleaner? Explain
> it clearly, and with valid, verifiable references and someone might
> be able to start taking you seriously at least about why you parrot
> such things as you do.
>
Okay, I'll play. What good can come from a general registry cleaner?
Bill in Co.
It's blue. What's the matter with you? :-)
Daave
> For the Nth time.... I have NOT (as yet) said anything about
> reg-cleaners. Just the fact that an excessively sized registry is
> linked, or has links to a certain decrease in overall performance.
I've seen others make that claim, yet I have *never* seen any evidence
to support it.
> I think it's of vital importance to keep the size of the registry down
> to a minimum by not installing too many programs that are superfluous
> to what you are trying to accomplish on your PC. Once it is of an
> excessive size there's not too much you can do with a registry. This
> is because, quite rightly, even the best reg-cleaners have to be
> cautious in what hey remove and the decrease in volume on entries is
> not significant. Much more can be achieved by avoidance and the
> adage 'prevention is better than cure' is very true. Reg cleaners
> do, I think, have a place though. I cite Randem's post where he had
> so many entries to a .dll file that was preventing a
> program from functioning, and the reg cleaner he used automated the
> clean-up of these entries. I have tried using Regedit's 'Find' [F3]
> option to do something similar, and you can be at it for hours on
> end...
Apples and oranges. That example is not an instance of "an excessively
sized registry."
Jose
> John
>
> Would you go to a Witch Doctor if you weren't feeling very well?
>
> --
>
> Gerry
> ~~~~
> FCA
> Stourport, England
> Enquire, plan and execute
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> > Can anyone recommend a good, safe registry cleaner that may or may
> > not be a freebie, but doesn't bring in a lot of unwanted stuff with
> > it? (XP Pro SP3)
>
> > Thanks
Good one.
With your permission I will add that to my list of snappy comeback(s).
So far I have (for XP): "System Restore is not a time machine".
Tim Meddick
There's a new paragraph at:
Reg cleaners do, I think, have a place though. I cite Randem's post
where he had so many entries to a .dll file that was preventing a program
from functioning, and the reg cleaner he used automated the clean-up of
these entries. I have tried using Regedit's 'Find' [F3] option to do
something similar, and you can be at it for hours on end...
...this was because the thread is debating the possible benefits of registry
cleaners. Saying that they [may] have their place is not saying anything
about registry sizes, is it?
But I stand by the first paragraph in my [former] post. When you say you
have seen no "evidence" to support the fact that excessively sized
registries make for a decrease in overall performance, what "evidence" are
you willing to accept? The effects of a sudden large increase in reg size
(in certain areas of the registry, that is - it's not just linked to the
overall size) can, quite often be seen. I have seen it when importing my
'recognized file types' (I exported the HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT hive to a file:
classes.reg and put it on a pen drive before reinstalling XP) to a new XP
installation, and certain functions were definitely slower. Like
'right-clicking' the desktop and choosing "New" - the time it takes for the
list of "new" file types available took much longer to appear. This was
because you could almost 'feel' the system going through HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT
looking for the subkey name "ShellNew" to build it's file-list. Same sort
of thing happens when you open the 'File Types' in 'Folder Options' this
takes even longer, if you have as many extensions registered as file types
as I have. Of course it makes a difference and of course there are many
other things affecting the speed and efficiency of the system.
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"Daave" <da...@example.com> wrote in message
news:%23HxT739...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Carl Kaufmann
Oh, it does something alright ... in my case totally kill my UltraVNC
install.
Carl
Marianne
news:O07hcAA2...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> But I stand by the first paragraph in my [former] post. When you say you
> have seen no "evidence" to support the fact that excessively sized
> registries make for a decrease in overall performance, what "evidence" are
> you willing to accept?
We are willing to accept our own experience and that of a renown Windows
expert like Dr. Russinovich, who says:
"...even if the registry was massively bloated there would be little impact
on the performance of anything other than exhaustive searches."
Here are some of Dr. Russinovich's credentials and some of his work:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/techfellow/Russinovich/default.mspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Russinovich
http://bookprice24.com/author/Mark%20Russinovich
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/
Now let's have your credentials and your research papers....
M
Johnw
> Here are some of Dr. Russinovich's credentials and some of his work:
More from Mark Russinovich.
Registry Junk: A Windows Fact of Life
http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/92764/registry-junk-a-windows-fact-of-life.html
Notes - "Registry Cleaners can fix problems associated with traces of
applications left behind due to incomplete uninstalls. So it seems that
Registry junk is a Windows fact of life and that Registry cleaners will
continue to have a place in the anal-sysadmin's tool chest, at least
until we're all running .NET applications that store their per-user
settings in XML files - and then of course we'll need XML cleaners."
- Mark Russinovich, Ph.D. Computer Engineering, Microsoft Technical
Fellow.
I use Revo Uninstaller in Advanced Mode.
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Tweak/Uninstallers/Revo-Uninstaller.shtml
http://www.softpedia.com/progScreenshots/Revo-Uninstaller-Screenshot-74235.html
http://www.revouninstaller.com/
Bill in Co.
Clearly, clearly you musta "missed" Twayne's!
ROFL!
Tim Meddick
someone shines in your face. While it may well be a good indicator of
someone's intelligence and integrity, to discount or deride someone else's
opinions purely on the fact of the absence of academic achievements. is
short sighted in the extreme. So you are judging me and trying to make me
look small by attempting to have people compare me with someone like Dr.
Russinovich. I am entitled to my opinion and my right to express it.
==
Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London. :-)
"Marianne" <nog...@notvalid.com> wrote in message
news:gusu3m$ph6$1...@aioe.org...
Marianne
> So that is how you judge truth ultimately is it? By what qualifications
> someone shines in your face. While it may well be a good indicator of
> someone's intelligence and integrity, to discount or deride someone else's
> opinions purely on the fact of the absence of academic achievements. is
> short sighted in the extreme. So you are judging me and trying to make me
> look small by attempting to have people compare me with someone like Dr.
> Russinovich. I am entitled to my opinion and my right to express it.
I didn't say that you were not entitled to your opinion. However, in
matters where there is so much divisiveness and debate and outright deceit
from some of the players, (not you, Tim, but from the vendors of these
programs and the nut cases like Twayne), I prefer to believe the well known
and respected experts. Dr. Russinovich is one of the foremost Windows
expert, I'll take my chances with him. You make your point and present your
opinions, others present theirs. I see no wrong in supporting my point with
Dr. Russinovich's comments, they are relevant to the discussion.
M
Cody Jarrett
<timme...@gawab.com> wrote:
>So that is how you judge truth ultimately is it? By what qualifications
>someone shines in your face. While it may well be a good indicator of
>someone's intelligence and integrity, to discount or deride someone else's
>opinions purely on the fact of the absence of academic achievements. is
>short sighted in the extreme. So you are judging me and trying to make me
>look small by attempting to have people compare me with someone like Dr.
>Russinovich. I am entitled to my opinion and my right to express it.
You're an idiot.
Twayne
Russonovich also wrote:
------------
<quote>
Registry Junk: A Windows Fact of Life
Registry cleaners have always been popular, but I never paid much
attention to them. I originally thought that there might be valid
reasons for their existence, but over time changed my mind, only to
recently recognize that even today they can help maintain Registry
hygiene. ...
</quote>
Originally by Mark Russinovich on 10/2/2005 4:09:00 PM
Migrated from original Sysinternals.com/Blog
----------
There's more too, but suffice it to say that when one "researches"
something they need to actually cover the whole realm of the data, not
just the parts that seem to apply to what you're interested in. I'll
bet his name is very new to you and rather than respecting the guy's
works you're simply using him, hoping to prove a point rather
unsuccessfully. One thing you'll come to realize if you do read his
works is that he hasd an open mind, unlike the few socio-paths here that
so erroneously think the whole world must hang on their every thought.
He'd freely admit any mistake or oversight, allowed for other's opinions
and worked factually to convince one otherwise when he knew something
someone else didn't. Rather than try to simply force somethign down
anyone's throat, he would use actual, verifiable examples and methods to
show his points were valid. That's a lot different than the so called
MVPs here do and especially you, who only parrot things someone else
said.
Mark's many papers and articles are a gold mine of information about
windows and many other things.
Twayne`
Unknown
Twayne
> "Tim Meddick" <timme...@gawab.com> wrote in message
> news:OFDBlmB...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> So that is how you judge truth ultimately is it? By what
>> qualifications someone shines in your face. While it may well be a
>> good indicator of someone's intelligence and integrity, to discount
>> or deride someone else's opinions purely on the fact of the absence
>> of academic achievements. is short sighted in the extreme. So you
>> are judging me and trying to make me look small by attempting to
>> have people compare me with someone like Dr. Russinovich. I am
>> entitled to my opinion and my right to express it.
>
> I didn't say that you were not entitled to your opinion. However, in
> matters where there is so much divisiveness and debate and outright
> deceit from some of the players, (not you, Tim, but from the vendors
> of these programs and the nut cases like Twayne), I prefer to believe
> the well known and respected experts. Dr. Russinovich is one of the
> foremost Windows expert, I'll take my chances with him.
Make up your mind: You tried to use Russinovich to prove they aren't any
good. Does that mean that now you are changing your mind like he did?
I don't think there is much you can say that is of any value to this
subject, M; sorry about that.
Twayne`
> M
Twayne
No, Tim's not an idiot, at least in my books; actually even the
misinformationists on the subject aren't idiots. Nor is Mark of course.
I have a feeling we may just have a couple of people here to whom the
name is news so that's probably a good thing. BTW, why the new nick?
Twayne`
John John - MVP
I think she and Tim were talking about the *size* of the registry, that
is what Tim was talking about in his whole thread, or most of it anyway.
As usual you didn't follow anything and then you jump in with your
irrelevant comments.
Mark says that "...Registry cleaners will continue to have a place in
the anal-sysadmin�s tool chest..." After you figure what that means
read Mark's reply to one of the comments:
Comment from Anonymous: "Hi Mark, do you really think that Registry
junk left by uninstalled programs could severely slow down the computer?
I would like to 'hear' your opinion."
Mark: "No, even if the registry was massively bloated there would be
little impact on the performance of anything other than exhaustive
searches."
"On Win2K Terminal Server systems, however, there is a limit on the
total amount of Registry data that can be loaded and so large profile
hives can limit the number of users that can be logged on simultaneously."
"I haven't and never will implement a Registry cleaner since it's of
little practical use on anything other than Win2K terminal servers and
developing one that's both safe and effective requires a huge amount of
application-specific knowledge."
John
Gerry
You make your point well.
--
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~