You are absolutely correct. There is no way I can support that there are
sound technical reasons
for running a registry cleaner.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...
In ,
Unknown typed:
He is in the very lowest of minority since he states there are 'sound
technical reasons
for running a registry cleaner'.

Oh yeah? Let's see you provide ANYTHING to support that. You can't. It
makes for another lie on YOUr part, however.

HTH,

Twayne



"John John - MVP" wrote in message
...
Twayne wrote:
In ,
John John - MVP typed:
thanatoid wrote:
John John - MVP wrote in
:

SNIP

No, we have all noticed it. When people post with problems
brought about by registry cleaners you *never* offer any
help, you simply disappear.

OK, I'm not Twayne, so let /me/ see an example of "damage" done
by a reg cleaner. I'm new to the XP groups and I have not seen
one yet.

I have provided links to the kind of problems that these cleaners
can cause in another post.

At one time I too thought that these cleaners served a purpose. Why?
Because I didn't know any better, everybody was spreading the
same gospel and I believed the vendors of these programs. That
was when I was using Windows 95 on my home machine. I knew next
to nothing about Windows and like everybody else I ran these
cleaners just because that's what folks were doing, I never
noticed any improvement when running them but I ran the cleaners
anyway. After we migrated our work network from Novell over DOS to an
NT4
network I thought that I should also run registry cleaners on my
NT4 boxes. It didn't take too long for me to realize that the
cleaners did absolutely nothing to improve performance on any of our
machines and that it broke some of our applications. One of my
boxes was up to MFC42.dll but a Xerox printer that we had attached
to the box couldn't work with that MFC version, it required
MFC40.dll so this dll was kept and registered on the NT4 box. Every
time a cleaner was run it would remove the registration for
this file and the whole Xerox software would fall apart and the
printer would stop working. That was the last straw, these cleaners
did absolutely nothing to maintain the
health of my machines and they did nothing to improve performance,
quite to the
contrary they were breaking our software. By that time I was a bit
more savvy about Windows NT and I came to realize that these
cleaners were really utterly useless and that they were causing
more harm than good so I dumped the whole lot of them. And, oh
yes, I tried more than a few
or them, RegClean, CleanSweep, RegCleaner/JV16 and a few others.
There all the same, they're all utterly useless and a complete
waste of time, Windows NT operating systems don't need registry
cleaning,
running
these cleaners as a maintenance/prevention routine is nothing but a
fool's errand.
John

Lots of talk and opinion, but nothing of any import. YOU did this,
YOU did that, YOU did the other thing. And still no definitive
links to any useful information on the subject. You apparently also
seem to think that XP = NT which if far from the case; you need to
brush up on what's relevant and what isn't between the two, at
least if you keep trying to redirect to literal NT as you're doing.
How were they all the same? Details? How did you prove your
cases?

Windows XP is NT5.1 and there is more in common between NT4 and XP
than you will ever know. As for links we have provided many on
different occasion but you simply dismiss them all as 'anecdotal' so
don't ask for anymore links, with you it's only a waste of time. Often
times *you* have been asked to supply links with unbiased and
concrete proof that registry cleaners actually improve performance
and not once have you ever been able to supply any such unbiased
information, all that you have ever been able to do is supply
advertising materials from the sellers of these useless programs. You
are in the minority here with your cleaners, and for a good
reason, most of the others here are not brainwashed by snake oil
salesmen. John