If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
You're an ass on wartless progress.
"Twayne" wrote in message ... you're a wart on the ass of progress. |
Ads |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
You're an ass on wartless progress.
"Twayne" wrote in message ... you're a wart on the ass of progress. |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
John John - MVP wrote:
He will never show you proof, the best he has ever been able to do is quote or supply links to advertising material from outfits who sell these useless products. We do at times see posts here with tales of woe from people who are having problems after using these cleaners but to no one's surprise Twayne is no where to be seen when people need help repairing the damages done. Reference one. John Peter Foldes wrote: Twayne I do have to disagree with you on this issue. Show me proof on a hard copy to those facts. Have you seen these Registry Tool issues that were posted by a few OP's lately saying that their Reg Tools messed up their OS. One even could not boot after using a Registry Cleaning Tool. Some posters even remarked that you did not show up in those threads because you were then going to be proven wrong. I was also one that said the same. Automated Reg tools in the hand of persons that do not know computers and what the Registry does have no business using these snake oil remedies My take on this and period |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
John John - MVP wrote:
He will never show you proof, the best he has ever been able to do is quote or supply links to advertising material from outfits who sell these useless products. We do at times see posts here with tales of woe from people who are having problems after using these cleaners but to no one's surprise Twayne is no where to be seen when people need help repairing the damages done. Reference one. John Peter Foldes wrote: Twayne I do have to disagree with you on this issue. Show me proof on a hard copy to those facts. Have you seen these Registry Tool issues that were posted by a few OP's lately saying that their Reg Tools messed up their OS. One even could not boot after using a Registry Cleaning Tool. Some posters even remarked that you did not show up in those threads because you were then going to be proven wrong. I was also one that said the same. Automated Reg tools in the hand of persons that do not know computers and what the Registry does have no business using these snake oil remedies My take on this and period |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
Bruce Chambers wrote:
Unknown wrote: Back that up with facts not idle chatter. "Twayne" wrote in message ... I expected better from you: That's myopic and short sighted. He can't. He's never been able to produce any facts when asked to support his claims. I know, I've ask often enough. In comparison to what you've provided, I have provided infinitely more evidence and even machine-generated results of several runs in the past. But you have zero, zip, nothing. Not a shred of anything but opinions of a small circle of egotists and narcissists IMO. Your also still continue your myopic boilerplates about a single item, coming nowhere near to the overall intent and content of a registry cleaner. From that I long ago deduced that you have no idea what you're talking about and no inkling of the overall picture, nor of anything that's available for registry cleaners. You're probably so expert you'd download a spyware generator instead of an actual registry cleaner because you have no idea who's who in the industry, based on your past comments. You are one of the better rationalizers on the 'net but we all know how valuable that kind of person is. If it weren't for boilerplate, I'm not sure you'd ever be able to come up with a fresh thought to post about anything, you know that? Otherwise, you'd have reasoning and good logic behind your proclamations, not simply parrot the same vague stuff over and over. I haven't seen a fresh online thought from you in what is probably years now. I think you're incapable of it. Thanks again, Bruce! Twayne Twayne |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
Bruce Chambers wrote:
Unknown wrote: Back that up with facts not idle chatter. "Twayne" wrote in message ... I expected better from you: That's myopic and short sighted. He can't. He's never been able to produce any facts when asked to support his claims. I know, I've ask often enough. In comparison to what you've provided, I have provided infinitely more evidence and even machine-generated results of several runs in the past. But you have zero, zip, nothing. Not a shred of anything but opinions of a small circle of egotists and narcissists IMO. Your also still continue your myopic boilerplates about a single item, coming nowhere near to the overall intent and content of a registry cleaner. From that I long ago deduced that you have no idea what you're talking about and no inkling of the overall picture, nor of anything that's available for registry cleaners. You're probably so expert you'd download a spyware generator instead of an actual registry cleaner because you have no idea who's who in the industry, based on your past comments. You are one of the better rationalizers on the 'net but we all know how valuable that kind of person is. If it weren't for boilerplate, I'm not sure you'd ever be able to come up with a fresh thought to post about anything, you know that? Otherwise, you'd have reasoning and good logic behind your proclamations, not simply parrot the same vague stuff over and over. I haven't seen a fresh online thought from you in what is probably years now. I think you're incapable of it. Thanks again, Bruce! Twayne Twayne |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
Bruce Chambers wrote:
Bill Ridgeway wrote: Ken Blake wrote (in response to another thread) - 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. I would agree with the warning of the possibility of (serious) damage to the Registry and the consequence that the computer may not boot up. I would also agree that it may not be necessary to clean the Registry very regularly. No, it's never necessary to use an automated registry cleaner. NOTHING is ever "necessary", not even the SPs or in many cases not even the computer. Typical of your vague statements, Bruce. It's not "necessary" for YOU because you prefer to do everything manually with registry editors. You also mistakenly think your way is the only way. It's clearly not. However, the Registry does become bloated with calls to uninstalled software which does increase the time needed to boot up - at the very least. No, that's not true, at all. The registry is an indexed database; the number of entries are irrelevant to performance or boot time. Yes, it can be true, and you know it. Only your penchant for getting your misinformation and myths plastered all over the internet apparently strike enough fear in you to prevent you from changing your tune. Well, that and a cemented closed mind and an ego too big for most doorways. What prevents you from using logical and sensible resources to prove you point is a mystery though. I wonder if that's because it doesn't exist? Otherwise you would/could have changed many minds about registry cleaners by now. You think it should be enough that you said it, don't you? Anything to verify or backup your contentions is well beyond your capabilities, isn't it? We know you've had no recent or even old personal experience; you've said so many times in your posts, so ... Twayne |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
Bruce Chambers wrote:
Bill Ridgeway wrote: Ken Blake wrote (in response to another thread) - 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. I would agree with the warning of the possibility of (serious) damage to the Registry and the consequence that the computer may not boot up. I would also agree that it may not be necessary to clean the Registry very regularly. No, it's never necessary to use an automated registry cleaner. NOTHING is ever "necessary", not even the SPs or in many cases not even the computer. Typical of your vague statements, Bruce. It's not "necessary" for YOU because you prefer to do everything manually with registry editors. You also mistakenly think your way is the only way. It's clearly not. However, the Registry does become bloated with calls to uninstalled software which does increase the time needed to boot up - at the very least. No, that's not true, at all. The registry is an indexed database; the number of entries are irrelevant to performance or boot time. Yes, it can be true, and you know it. Only your penchant for getting your misinformation and myths plastered all over the internet apparently strike enough fear in you to prevent you from changing your tune. Well, that and a cemented closed mind and an ego too big for most doorways. What prevents you from using logical and sensible resources to prove you point is a mystery though. I wonder if that's because it doesn't exist? Otherwise you would/could have changed many minds about registry cleaners by now. You think it should be enough that you said it, don't you? Anything to verify or backup your contentions is well beyond your capabilities, isn't it? We know you've had no recent or even old personal experience; you've said so many times in your posts, so ... Twayne |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
"Twayne" wrote in message ... Mike Hall - MVP wrote: "Twayne" wrote in message ... Mike Hall - MVP wrote: ... As long as Windows 9x conventions are applied to Windows NT and its successors, the myths regarding how Win 2000, XP, Vista and Win 7 process the registry, fonts and everything else which could be a problem in Win 9x will continue. Myths; good choice, because people applying 9x conventions to 2k & XP is just that. You're good at rationalizing with whatever thought may occur to you but that doesn't make it factual. IME the majority of people here without closed minds see the situation in a clearer and more logical sense than you can. You have mired yourself into a corner with your own XP myths and proclamations made all over the 'net and now you feel that you cannot admit reality because it would make you look less than perfect. In actual fact, you know the situation as it really is but don't dare to admit the reality, reliability and capabilities of today's registry cleaners. You've even tried a few tiny concessions here and there, like cc comments, but ended up conflicting with your own words and rather than appear to have opened your mind a crack, securely locked it down again. Windows NT and its successors ignore orphaned entries. They may fall over if they come across active corrupted entries, but registry cleaners do not fix this type of problem.. So does VB and Python, and PHP and a plethora of other coded works. You are trying to imply (which is all you ever do in your rationalized world) that "orphaned" entries never cause any kind of impact ever in any way, and that is patently untrue. You think that because a key/whatever is never called (and orphans often DO get called, BTW, by other orphans in some situations) it costs zero time. You're trying to imply that the registry is only READ, and that it never executes an instruction or command. IMO your understanding of the registry's internal workings are actually abysmally deficient but good enough for you to grab onto single events and then try to build those into all-encompassing rationalizations to push onto what you consider your "minions". You can occasionally see a tree in the forest but you never address more then one tree and I doubt you ever even notice there is a forest there or your attitudes would be different. Now, an "active" corrupted entry, whatever you mean by that, is not usually going to make the thing "fall". The vast majority of the time, it's going to result in an error message. You then imply that registry cleaners do not fix that "type of problem", but often they do/will, because the cleaner WILL report it not able to execute and offer the normal various possibilities for repair. Thanks to the robustness of the registry, it seldom ever occurs, but when it does a decent registry cleaner will point it out for the user. I only recall that ever happening once, long ago, but I believe I have seen it happen. In that case it wasn't a single corruption; an entire key was corrupted and made no sense in any way. In that case I seriously suspect it was corruption that occurred during the write TO the registry by an installed program; otherwise it wouldn't have been so neatly confined as it was. The registry is a very robust thing and it's actually hard to make it 'fall' on purpose. In fact, many have seen the results of trying to remove something the system needed when the deleted entry is simply re-created by the system. Many parts of it you couldn't corrupt if you wanted to. Even adding unallowed data often won't hurt anything. Enter a 4 where the only possibilities are 0 or 1, and you'll get back a 0 next time you look at it! Add to that the fact that all you guys pushing all these myths have NEVER provided a single authoritative piece of information to support your myths, and it pretty well wraps up your credibility on the subject. Even MS has dabbled with registry cleaners for along time and still are doing so, so obviously they don't buy the "will trash" and "imminent..." this & that attitudes you try to push. You guys need to stick with subjects you can verify, clarify, reproduce and otherwise use factual data for. The lack of anything like that has gone on for so long now that anything that any of you did decide to provide would likely be suspect or it would have been posted long ago. Anyone can write an article on um,ha and then come here and recommend that article as "proof" that what they say is true; I always have to giggle when I see that happen. It has been as serious hit on the credibility of the web site, not to mention the nearly current unrecognized status of being an MVP as some are. I thank you for this opportunity to once more expose the myths being pushed by a small ring of loud and noisy closed minds here and on a few other groups. HTH, Twayne` Finished? Nah, I can go on almost forever when people make the stupid and misinformed comments you do at times. I choose what I do and when I do it, so ... you takes yer chances! I don't condone the use of registry cleaners because the type of person who gets taken in by claims like yours is also the type of person who may not always make the right decisions as to what the registry cleaner removes. I have seen enough instances where a registry cleaner has either had no effect whatsoever, partially clobbered a system, and in some instances where a system has been brought down completely. Huhh, that's so old it has stuff growing on it. Where are the mechanisms and outcomes of any of those documented? They aren't. They simply don't do what you claim, regardless of how many times you say it. You've never experienced a crash due to a registry cleaner if it was a reputable one, and you've never seen one that couldn't recover from a mis-removed item either. In addition you have nothing but hear-say to back up anything you said or say here or any of the other places you wish to confuse people with. You, on the other hand, embark on personal tirades in your defense of registry cleaners, which makes me think that you have a vested interest in one of the registry cleaners presently available. I've been perfectly honest and above-board in every comment I've ever made about registry cleaners. You know that but it offends your ego, doesn't it? That's part of the pleasure of contantly correcting you. Anything that could resemble a "tirade" from me, you'll notice, is also in response to a "tirade" made by another. They are usually inline, point by point comments, in fact. Yes, I do have a vested interest in more than one or the registry cleaners presently available. My vested interest is in their use when it's called for, and clearly and honestly discussing what is reasonable and what is not, unlike anything you have said in a very long time. This post of yours would classify as a "tirade". My response to it more lends itself to the, well, response to a tirade. Misinformation and myths such as you generate belong in, well, myths and misinfomational newsgroups, not where thinking people have to put up with you. You are the ONLY person in these newsgroups who defends the use of registry cleaners to the bitter end, yet you have consistently failed to present ANY proof of your claims. Another old saw, and one that is not true either. You're PO'd because I won't REPOST them so you can tear them apart. Unlike you, I've posted plenty of information. In fact, ratio-wise, if you calculated the ratio of my information to yours, the result would be infinity since a number cannot be divided by zero. Thanks again for the opportunity; it was enjoyable although nothing new was entered. You just spout the same misinformation over and over, with nothing else. Most everyone knows what you are now. You think that persistance will win out but there is one thing that will always trump persistance; that's being right. Twayne You have not produced any proof re the effectiveness of registry cleaners used on Win 2000 and above because there are *non* in existence. Apart from you, the only claims made to the good of registry cleaners are the ads for them.. Yes, I have produced "proof". That's the second time I've said this. There are even a couple of white papers "in existence"; I just checked to be sure they're still there. Learn how to use Google. So it is just YOUR word against many others.. So where is their "proof" if that's what's required? Where's yours? |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
"Twayne" wrote in message ... Mike Hall - MVP wrote: "Twayne" wrote in message ... Mike Hall - MVP wrote: ... As long as Windows 9x conventions are applied to Windows NT and its successors, the myths regarding how Win 2000, XP, Vista and Win 7 process the registry, fonts and everything else which could be a problem in Win 9x will continue. Myths; good choice, because people applying 9x conventions to 2k & XP is just that. You're good at rationalizing with whatever thought may occur to you but that doesn't make it factual. IME the majority of people here without closed minds see the situation in a clearer and more logical sense than you can. You have mired yourself into a corner with your own XP myths and proclamations made all over the 'net and now you feel that you cannot admit reality because it would make you look less than perfect. In actual fact, you know the situation as it really is but don't dare to admit the reality, reliability and capabilities of today's registry cleaners. You've even tried a few tiny concessions here and there, like cc comments, but ended up conflicting with your own words and rather than appear to have opened your mind a crack, securely locked it down again. Windows NT and its successors ignore orphaned entries. They may fall over if they come across active corrupted entries, but registry cleaners do not fix this type of problem.. So does VB and Python, and PHP and a plethora of other coded works. You are trying to imply (which is all you ever do in your rationalized world) that "orphaned" entries never cause any kind of impact ever in any way, and that is patently untrue. You think that because a key/whatever is never called (and orphans often DO get called, BTW, by other orphans in some situations) it costs zero time. You're trying to imply that the registry is only READ, and that it never executes an instruction or command. IMO your understanding of the registry's internal workings are actually abysmally deficient but good enough for you to grab onto single events and then try to build those into all-encompassing rationalizations to push onto what you consider your "minions". You can occasionally see a tree in the forest but you never address more then one tree and I doubt you ever even notice there is a forest there or your attitudes would be different. Now, an "active" corrupted entry, whatever you mean by that, is not usually going to make the thing "fall". The vast majority of the time, it's going to result in an error message. You then imply that registry cleaners do not fix that "type of problem", but often they do/will, because the cleaner WILL report it not able to execute and offer the normal various possibilities for repair. Thanks to the robustness of the registry, it seldom ever occurs, but when it does a decent registry cleaner will point it out for the user. I only recall that ever happening once, long ago, but I believe I have seen it happen. In that case it wasn't a single corruption; an entire key was corrupted and made no sense in any way. In that case I seriously suspect it was corruption that occurred during the write TO the registry by an installed program; otherwise it wouldn't have been so neatly confined as it was. The registry is a very robust thing and it's actually hard to make it 'fall' on purpose. In fact, many have seen the results of trying to remove something the system needed when the deleted entry is simply re-created by the system. Many parts of it you couldn't corrupt if you wanted to. Even adding unallowed data often won't hurt anything. Enter a 4 where the only possibilities are 0 or 1, and you'll get back a 0 next time you look at it! Add to that the fact that all you guys pushing all these myths have NEVER provided a single authoritative piece of information to support your myths, and it pretty well wraps up your credibility on the subject. Even MS has dabbled with registry cleaners for along time and still are doing so, so obviously they don't buy the "will trash" and "imminent..." this & that attitudes you try to push. You guys need to stick with subjects you can verify, clarify, reproduce and otherwise use factual data for. The lack of anything like that has gone on for so long now that anything that any of you did decide to provide would likely be suspect or it would have been posted long ago. Anyone can write an article on um,ha and then come here and recommend that article as "proof" that what they say is true; I always have to giggle when I see that happen. It has been as serious hit on the credibility of the web site, not to mention the nearly current unrecognized status of being an MVP as some are. I thank you for this opportunity to once more expose the myths being pushed by a small ring of loud and noisy closed minds here and on a few other groups. HTH, Twayne` Finished? Nah, I can go on almost forever when people make the stupid and misinformed comments you do at times. I choose what I do and when I do it, so ... you takes yer chances! I don't condone the use of registry cleaners because the type of person who gets taken in by claims like yours is also the type of person who may not always make the right decisions as to what the registry cleaner removes. I have seen enough instances where a registry cleaner has either had no effect whatsoever, partially clobbered a system, and in some instances where a system has been brought down completely. Huhh, that's so old it has stuff growing on it. Where are the mechanisms and outcomes of any of those documented? They aren't. They simply don't do what you claim, regardless of how many times you say it. You've never experienced a crash due to a registry cleaner if it was a reputable one, and you've never seen one that couldn't recover from a mis-removed item either. In addition you have nothing but hear-say to back up anything you said or say here or any of the other places you wish to confuse people with. You, on the other hand, embark on personal tirades in your defense of registry cleaners, which makes me think that you have a vested interest in one of the registry cleaners presently available. I've been perfectly honest and above-board in every comment I've ever made about registry cleaners. You know that but it offends your ego, doesn't it? That's part of the pleasure of contantly correcting you. Anything that could resemble a "tirade" from me, you'll notice, is also in response to a "tirade" made by another. They are usually inline, point by point comments, in fact. Yes, I do have a vested interest in more than one or the registry cleaners presently available. My vested interest is in their use when it's called for, and clearly and honestly discussing what is reasonable and what is not, unlike anything you have said in a very long time. This post of yours would classify as a "tirade". My response to it more lends itself to the, well, response to a tirade. Misinformation and myths such as you generate belong in, well, myths and misinfomational newsgroups, not where thinking people have to put up with you. You are the ONLY person in these newsgroups who defends the use of registry cleaners to the bitter end, yet you have consistently failed to present ANY proof of your claims. Another old saw, and one that is not true either. You're PO'd because I won't REPOST them so you can tear them apart. Unlike you, I've posted plenty of information. In fact, ratio-wise, if you calculated the ratio of my information to yours, the result would be infinity since a number cannot be divided by zero. Thanks again for the opportunity; it was enjoyable although nothing new was entered. You just spout the same misinformation over and over, with nothing else. Most everyone knows what you are now. You think that persistance will win out but there is one thing that will always trump persistance; that's being right. Twayne You have not produced any proof re the effectiveness of registry cleaners used on Win 2000 and above because there are *non* in existence. Apart from you, the only claims made to the good of registry cleaners are the ads for them.. Yes, I have produced "proof". That's the second time I've said this. There are even a couple of white papers "in existence"; I just checked to be sure they're still there. Learn how to use Google. So it is just YOUR word against many others.. So where is their "proof" if that's what's required? Where's yours? |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
John John - MVP wrote:
Bill Ridgeway wrote: It is alleged that using a Registry cleaner is dangerous to the extent of corpsing a computers and that the advantage of using them is outweighed by the danger of using them. I acknowledge that just because I haven't experienced any problems with using two registry cleaners over several years proves not that there are no dangers rather that I just may be lucky. I also acknowledge that cleaning a registry may not produce a reasonable return in terms of decreasing the size of the file or decreasing processing time. I wouldn't wish to doubt the views posted so far. However, in this thread I see nothing more than anecdotal evidence. Just using a computer has hidden dangers from badly behaving software, incomplete installs and uninstalls and even spikes and surges but that isn't a valid view for not using a computer. Is there anything more substantial on this subject? http://groups.google.com/group/micro...b2f696ca1b9462 http://groups.google.com/group/micro...1aaebff35bc 6 http://boards.live.com/safetyboards/...D%3D 28824491 http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/topic110399.html http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;299958 http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Win...5889f1033.mspx http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888637 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/247678 http://support.microsoft.com/default...rss&spid=11734 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/951950 =============== I thought you might have something there in the MS links! But, interesting as it was, the MS links didn't demonstrate unrepairable damage, no system crashes, and in fact many of the referenced programs in a couple of them weren't registry cleaners but av and other sundry programs of questionable resources. Actually, none of the registry cleaners were ones I would ever suggest using anyway, but for reasons entirely different from the articles. What I'm saying is, they don't support the contentions of the misinformationists about being unbootable, imminent system failure or even anything more than annoyances, really, from the viewpoint of what the myth spreaders are on about. What the links did do for me was verify a few things I already knew, which is handy to have. Specifically the first-run scenarios, even if applying a registry cleaner at that time is not advisable. I don't see why anyone would run a scan before a program's installation was completed; something must be missing in that one. I would really love to see something that goes deeper into the problems since according to the misinformationists EVERY registry cleaner is going to cause problems of non-boot, system failure, etc. etc.. That would be very valuable to have. Anedcotal evidence is always good but it won't work at the bank. Twayne |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
John John - MVP wrote:
Bill Ridgeway wrote: It is alleged that using a Registry cleaner is dangerous to the extent of corpsing a computers and that the advantage of using them is outweighed by the danger of using them. I acknowledge that just because I haven't experienced any problems with using two registry cleaners over several years proves not that there are no dangers rather that I just may be lucky. I also acknowledge that cleaning a registry may not produce a reasonable return in terms of decreasing the size of the file or decreasing processing time. I wouldn't wish to doubt the views posted so far. However, in this thread I see nothing more than anecdotal evidence. Just using a computer has hidden dangers from badly behaving software, incomplete installs and uninstalls and even spikes and surges but that isn't a valid view for not using a computer. Is there anything more substantial on this subject? http://groups.google.com/group/micro...b2f696ca1b9462 http://groups.google.com/group/micro...1aaebff35bc 6 http://boards.live.com/safetyboards/...D%3D 28824491 http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/topic110399.html http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;299958 http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Win...5889f1033.mspx http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888637 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/247678 http://support.microsoft.com/default...rss&spid=11734 http://support.microsoft.com/kb/951950 =============== I thought you might have something there in the MS links! But, interesting as it was, the MS links didn't demonstrate unrepairable damage, no system crashes, and in fact many of the referenced programs in a couple of them weren't registry cleaners but av and other sundry programs of questionable resources. Actually, none of the registry cleaners were ones I would ever suggest using anyway, but for reasons entirely different from the articles. What I'm saying is, they don't support the contentions of the misinformationists about being unbootable, imminent system failure or even anything more than annoyances, really, from the viewpoint of what the myth spreaders are on about. What the links did do for me was verify a few things I already knew, which is handy to have. Specifically the first-run scenarios, even if applying a registry cleaner at that time is not advisable. I don't see why anyone would run a scan before a program's installation was completed; something must be missing in that one. I would really love to see something that goes deeper into the problems since according to the misinformationists EVERY registry cleaner is going to cause problems of non-boot, system failure, etc. etc.. That would be very valuable to have. Anedcotal evidence is always good but it won't work at the bank. Twayne |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
Leonard Grey wrote:
"Is there anything more substantial on this subject?" The only way to truly appreciate how useless - and possibly dangerous - is a so-called registry cleaner is to learn more about how your computer works, and the Windows registry in particular. Otherwise, you're pitting one person's word against another. I agree! It sheds the light right where it needs to be! But it won't achieve your expectations for the true researcher. The more you learn, the more you'll understand, and you'll see why these products are marketed to people with little computer knowledge. These are the software equivalent of the diet and multi-vitamin pills you hear advertised on late night infomercials. As in the case of the Windows registry, few people understand what these pills really do in the body, so they can be swayed by arguments that appeal more to human emotion than to the facts. You mean like, XP, Vista, win8, win7, Office, and all the rest of them, right? Therer are more problems with those than even any bogus registry cleaner ever dreamed of. MS is the only company I know of that releases apha-ware and calls it Production. Same for anti-virus, so there's no use in having it by that logic. What do YOU think vendors should do; advertise nothing but problems? That's the lamest bull crap I've heard in quite awhile. Here's one fact: No responsible journal or test lab has published before and after tests that prove the claims a registry cleaner Oh, yes they have! makes, and little wonder: They can't be proven. That depends on the mind and how the holder of that mind wants to define "proven". However, these newsgroups are routinely visited by people who've messed up their computers with a so-called registry cleaner. Or think that anyway. GIGO applies to any such situation. There are many more people who visit these groups who use them, have no problems and no wish to be talked down to and called names by the misinformationists et al who always climb out of the woodwork. That attitude is what actually initiated my campaign over misinformation. --- Leonard Grey Errare humanum est IF one is human, that is. Bill Ridgeway wrote: It is alleged that using a Registry cleaner is dangerous to the extent of corpsing a computers and that the advantage of using them is outweighed by the danger of using them. I acknowledge that just because I haven't experienced any problems with using two registry cleaners over several years proves not that there are no dangers rather that I just may be lucky. I also acknowledge that cleaning a registry may not produce a reasonable return in terms of decreasing the size of the file or decreasing processing time. I wouldn't wish to doubt the views posted so far. However, in this thread I see nothing more than anecdotal evidence. Just using a computer has hidden dangers from badly behaving software, incomplete installs and uninstalls and even spikes and surges but that isn't a valid view for not using a computer. Is there anything more substantial on this subject? Bill Ridgeway Or think, or claim, they have. |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
Leonard Grey wrote:
"Is there anything more substantial on this subject?" The only way to truly appreciate how useless - and possibly dangerous - is a so-called registry cleaner is to learn more about how your computer works, and the Windows registry in particular. Otherwise, you're pitting one person's word against another. I agree! It sheds the light right where it needs to be! But it won't achieve your expectations for the true researcher. The more you learn, the more you'll understand, and you'll see why these products are marketed to people with little computer knowledge. These are the software equivalent of the diet and multi-vitamin pills you hear advertised on late night infomercials. As in the case of the Windows registry, few people understand what these pills really do in the body, so they can be swayed by arguments that appeal more to human emotion than to the facts. You mean like, XP, Vista, win8, win7, Office, and all the rest of them, right? Therer are more problems with those than even any bogus registry cleaner ever dreamed of. MS is the only company I know of that releases apha-ware and calls it Production. Same for anti-virus, so there's no use in having it by that logic. What do YOU think vendors should do; advertise nothing but problems? That's the lamest bull crap I've heard in quite awhile. Here's one fact: No responsible journal or test lab has published before and after tests that prove the claims a registry cleaner Oh, yes they have! makes, and little wonder: They can't be proven. That depends on the mind and how the holder of that mind wants to define "proven". However, these newsgroups are routinely visited by people who've messed up their computers with a so-called registry cleaner. Or think that anyway. GIGO applies to any such situation. There are many more people who visit these groups who use them, have no problems and no wish to be talked down to and called names by the misinformationists et al who always climb out of the woodwork. That attitude is what actually initiated my campaign over misinformation. --- Leonard Grey Errare humanum est IF one is human, that is. Bill Ridgeway wrote: It is alleged that using a Registry cleaner is dangerous to the extent of corpsing a computers and that the advantage of using them is outweighed by the danger of using them. I acknowledge that just because I haven't experienced any problems with using two registry cleaners over several years proves not that there are no dangers rather that I just may be lucky. I also acknowledge that cleaning a registry may not produce a reasonable return in terms of decreasing the size of the file or decreasing processing time. I wouldn't wish to doubt the views posted so far. However, in this thread I see nothing more than anecdotal evidence. Just using a computer has hidden dangers from badly behaving software, incomplete installs and uninstalls and even spikes and surges but that isn't a valid view for not using a computer. Is there anything more substantial on this subject? Bill Ridgeway Or think, or claim, they have. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
Unknown wrote:
You're an ass on wartless progress. "Twayne" wrote in message ... you're a wart on the ass of progress. Thank you! That's quite a concession coming from you. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|