A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » Windows XP Help and Support
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

registry cleaner and back up



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old January 12th 08, 04:24 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Leonard Grey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,064
Default registry cleaner and back up

Quite the contrary, I think Bruce - and I - are quite open-minded on the
subject. Let one of the registry cleaner writers setup a
before-and-after benchmark that proves their registry cleaner lives up
to its marketing. Let them measure for us how their product makes a
computer so much better.

On the contrary, anyone can read for themselves in these newsgroups how
registry cleaners have damaged posters' installations, frequently beyond
repair.

---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Bruce Chambers wrote:
Daave wrote:
Poprivet` wrote:
Daave wrote:
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

1. Hardly anyone actually measures the speed of their computer
before and after running a registry cleaner, in part because
accurate measurement of speed is very difficult. So what they
really mean is that it generally *feels* faster. But just like
taking a placebo, such feelings can be very misleading, and many
people think there's an improvement where none really exists.
Moreover if someone has spent money (or even just time and effort)
on a product, he *wants* to be convinced that it has done something
useful, and that he hasn't wasted his money, time, and effort, and
that placebo effect is therefore greatly enhanced.
That's certainly a distinct possibility.

Another possibility is that the use of a combination temp file
cleaner/registry cleaner very well might speed up one's browsing.
Then again, it's deletion of *temp files* (not "dead wood" in the
registry) that causes this effect.
IMO all it takes to "measure" whether a "cleaner" made any difference
is a wrist watch or cheapie stop watch. If it's a noticeable
improvement, those instruments will readily identify non-negligible
changes.

But there is more to a registry than noticeable machine times and
setting any control for timing is difficult at best anyway. I don't
look at such tools as "tuning" tools, but I do on occasion use them
for some pretty substantial problems. And, being able to "put back"
the changes made creates a neatly verifiable fix-situation. There's
a lot more to the registry than machine cycles.

This thread has taken the OP's simple questions and turned into an
ego-fest of closed-minded tripe that puts some groups to shame. I'm
not saying YOU are a closed mind, BTW; I don't know you and what you
said, though singular, is true enough.


I believe I have a very open mind. What I find frustrating is when
people like D. Spencer Hines make claims but are unwilling to back it
up.

On the one hand, I've read a good deal of posts from those who are
clueless newbs who ruined their PCs by running bad-quality registry
cleaners. The worst offenders, of course, are the ones that cause you to
think that Microsoft itself has notified you of registry errors (false
positives) and then trick you into clicking on a link to download and
install their rogue programs.

On the other hand, I've had positive experiences with RegCleaner (same
as JV Tools). I find it useful for situations like de-McAfeeing a
system. For someone who knows what they're doing (and that's key!), I
feel it's quite safe. Still, I understand why many would generally avoid
recommending registry cleaners.

My point of interest is purely on performance grounds. Many have made
claims that a good registry cleaner can actually speed up a PC. That's
never been my experience. And I've never seen evidence to support this
claim. It is *because* I have an open mind that I'd like to see the
evidence! So, if you do know of any data, please point me to it; I'm
more than willing to agree with you vis--vis speed increases as long as
I see data that supports it.




I'll second all of the above. For years, I've been asking the
registry cleaner advocates to provide some sort of verifiable,
independent evidence and/or documentation to support their claims, but
*none* have ever been able to do so, to date. The best I've gotten are
lines to marketing and advertising crap or so-called "reviews" that
don't actually provide any facts. Absent any evidence or facts to the
contrary, I don't think basing my opinions upon my own years of direct
observation and experience is being "close minded."


Ads
  #122  
Old January 12th 08, 07:18 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Edward W. Thompson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 119
Default registry cleaner and back up


snip
On the contrary, anyone can read for themselves in these newsgroups how
registry cleaners have damaged posters' installations, frequently beyond
repair.

snip

Whereas I agree with the many cautionary remarks concerning Registry
Cleaners and their potential for damaging to the Registry I do not, at
present, agree with the suggestion that they will damage the system beyond
repair.

I have seen no evidence that any Registry Cleaner damages the OS (WINXP et
al). Surely the protection of essential OS files is a prime requisite of
any software. I find it extremely doubtful that any Registry Cleaner would
be so sloppily coded and lack in basic testing to be released when running
it would cause damage to the OS. If I am wrong so be it, please cite a
Registry Cleaner that does damage the OS when run. I do not accept that on
some machines it does/might while or others it will not.

The Program is either coded to remove a particular entry or type of entry or
it is not, perhaps and maybes don't enter into it. It is fair to suggest
that while those that promote the use of Registry Cleaners should show their
effectiveness by objective evidence, those that claim they damage or will
damage the OS should also provide objective evidence to support their
position.

Registry Cleaners certainly have the potential to damage software, other
than the OS, by removing empty entries in the Registry that are required by
the software. That seems to me to be the prime risk. As for that causing
the machine to be beyond repair, all that is requiured is to perform a
System Repair or at worse to reinstall the damaged program.

I certainly think Registry Cleaners are unnecessary and their very name is
grossly misleading. Very simply the Registry does not need to have
redundant entries removed for the machine to operate efficiently. Those who
say otherwise are mistaken and the onus is on them to provide objective
evidence to support their position that the use of Registry Cleaners
improves machine performance. To date no evidence has been posted


  #123  
Old January 12th 08, 04:31 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Ken Blake, MVP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,402
Default registry cleaner and back up

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 06:18:33 -0000, "Edward W. Thompson"
wrote:


snip
On the contrary, anyone can read for themselves in these newsgroups how
registry cleaners have damaged posters' installations, frequently beyond
repair.

snip

Whereas I agree with the many cautionary remarks concerning Registry
Cleaners and their potential for damaging to the Registry I do not, at
present, agree with the suggestion that they will damage the system beyond
repair.



I don't think any of us has ever said that they "*will* damage the
system beyond repair."

The point is only that they *may* do this--That the risk of their
making the system unbootable is always there.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
  #124  
Old January 12th 08, 06:23 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Bruce Chambers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,208
Default registry cleaner and back up

Edward W. Thompson wrote:


Whereas I agree with the many cautionary remarks concerning Registry
Cleaners and their potential for damaging to the Registry I do not, at
present, agree with the suggestion that they will damage the system beyond
repair.


I don't recall anyone ever saying that the use of a registry
cleaner *will invariably* and inevitably damage the OS or render machine
unusable. Rather, we have pointed out that the potential risk is there,
and it just foolish to run such a risk when there is no measurable
benefit to be derived from the use of such products. I derive a
substantial portion of my income helping people recover from the use of
registry "cleaners."

More importantly, no one has ever demonstrated that the use of an
automated registry "cleaner" does any real good, whatsoever. There's
certainly been no independently verifiable, empirical evidence offered
to demonstrate that the use of such products to "clean" WinXP's registry
improves a computer's performance or stability.

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.



Snipped....



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

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
  #125  
Old January 13th 08, 07:45 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Edward W. Thompson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 119
Default registry cleaner and back up


"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 06:18:33 -0000, "Edward W. Thompson"
wrote:


snip
On the contrary, anyone can read for themselves in these newsgroups how
registry cleaners have damaged posters' installations, frequently
beyond
repair.

snip

Whereas I agree with the many cautionary remarks concerning Registry
Cleaners and their potential for damaging to the Registry I do not, at
present, agree with the suggestion that they will damage the system
beyond
repair.



I don't think any of us has ever said that they "*will* damage the
system beyond repair."

The point is only that they *may* do this--That the risk of their
making the system unbootable is always there.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


I do not disagree with much of what you have posted now and in the past
except I find it difficult to accept that sometimes a Registry Cleaner will
damage the system to the extent it is beyond repair and at other times it
does not. Logic tells me that if a Registry Cleaner is so poorly coded to
remove entries that are essential to the OS then that/those entries will be
removed each time the 'Cleaner' is run. Hence the event will be repeatable.
I don't think you can have your cake and eat it :-) by saying the damage
only happens sometimes or on a particular machine, or it depends upon the
phase of the moon.

Your response to my recent post gives me the impression that you believe I
support the indiscriminate use of Registry Cleaners, I do not. However,
those that support their use make wild statements to support their alleged
benefits but equally those that challenge these assertions are also guilty
of making statements that they are failing to support by objective evidence.
To date I have not seen any evidence that says that a certain Registry
Cleaner removes a certain Registry entry which will result in the machine
not booting. Does such evidence exist? If it did I suspect it would
quickly be reported and the author of the program would correct the
shortcoming. As a question, do you have a suggestion that would account for
why after the use of a Registry Cleaner only sometimes a machine would not
be bootable?

The suggestion that because someone seeks help because a machine is not
bootable and it is found the client has used a Registry Cleaner is not
objective evidence it was the Registry Cleaner that caused the problem. I
suggest that there are many occasions when a machine is not bootable after
the client has tinkered with the Registry using Regedit.


  #126  
Old January 13th 08, 04:01 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Leonard Grey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,064
Default registry cleaner and back up

"Logic tells me that if a Registry Cleaner is so poorly coded to
remove entries that are essential to the OS then that/those entries will
be removed each time the 'Cleaner' is run."

Your logic is beyond reproach. However, computers don't operate
according to human logic.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Edward W. Thompson wrote:
"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 06:18:33 -0000, "Edward W. Thompson"
wrote:

snip
On the contrary, anyone can read for themselves in these newsgroups how
registry cleaners have damaged posters' installations, frequently
beyond
repair.

snip

Whereas I agree with the many cautionary remarks concerning Registry
Cleaners and their potential for damaging to the Registry I do not, at
present, agree with the suggestion that they will damage the system
beyond
repair.


I don't think any of us has ever said that they "*will* damage the
system beyond repair."

The point is only that they *may* do this--That the risk of their
making the system unbootable is always there.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


I do not disagree with much of what you have posted now and in the past
except I find it difficult to accept that sometimes a Registry Cleaner will
damage the system to the extent it is beyond repair and at other times it
does not. Logic tells me that if a Registry Cleaner is so poorly coded to
remove entries that are essential to the OS then that/those entries will be
removed each time the 'Cleaner' is run. Hence the event will be repeatable.
I don't think you can have your cake and eat it :-) by saying the damage
only happens sometimes or on a particular machine, or it depends upon the
phase of the moon.

Your response to my recent post gives me the impression that you believe I
support the indiscriminate use of Registry Cleaners, I do not. However,
those that support their use make wild statements to support their alleged
benefits but equally those that challenge these assertions are also guilty
of making statements that they are failing to support by objective evidence.
To date I have not seen any evidence that says that a certain Registry
Cleaner removes a certain Registry entry which will result in the machine
not booting. Does such evidence exist? If it did I suspect it would
quickly be reported and the author of the program would correct the
shortcoming. As a question, do you have a suggestion that would account for
why after the use of a Registry Cleaner only sometimes a machine would not
be bootable?

The suggestion that because someone seeks help because a machine is not
bootable and it is found the client has used a Registry Cleaner is not
objective evidence it was the Registry Cleaner that caused the problem. I
suggest that there are many occasions when a machine is not bootable after
the client has tinkered with the Registry using Regedit.


  #127  
Old January 27th 08, 07:09 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Irritated
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Registry Cleaner

Ya know I came here for information, not a bunch of arguments. Both sided
have good points, so ALL of you just get over yourselves!

"db ´¯`·.. )))º` .. ." wrote:

oh..., back off.

it was he who was
providing a suggestion
and it wasn't provided
to you.

ps: you were baiting him
because you wanted to make
this discussion into an argument.

--

db ·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·..)))º`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯` ...¸)))º¸.
)))º·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. )))º`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸)))



..


"Daave" wrote in message
...
No bait. You're the one who made the claim. I've used Ccleaner and have only
found the clearing of temp files to be beneficial. If you've done more
extensive testing, good for you. But bear in mind that is was YOU who made the
claim in the first place! And I still find it interesting you're unwilling to
back it up.

Belief and knowledge are two different things...


"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
...
Right!

He just wants someone else to do his work for him.

DSH

" db ´¯`·.. )))º` .. ." databaseben.public.newsgroup.microsoft.com wrote
in message news:%23duS%

...

he is a sly one and
was just baiting you.

if he had such an open
mind, he could download
the program and test it
himself.
--

db ·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·..)))º`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯` ...¸)))º¸.
)))º·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. )))º`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸)))

"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
...

I don't give a rat's rear end whether you believe me or not.

I'm not trying to sell anything.

So, it's not worth my time and effort to post elaborate results of the
tests
I ran -- which will simply lead to a long thread of worthless back and
forth
caterwauling.

I can use that time far better in other useful pursuits such as managing my
stock portfolio, working on the car, writing a historical post or email or
doing something nice for my wife -- not necessarily in that order. g

I ran controlled tests on nine different machines with various
configurations -- using the Registry Cleaner in CCleaner.

Performance was improved on all of them -- fewer hangs and pauses, faster
loading of applications, faster executions of commands and faster startups
and shutdowns.

No Glitches -- Removing Something That Should Not Have Been Removed -- No
FUD.

I have no experience of using other Registry Cleaners -- so I can't speak
to
them.

I do, carefully, sometimes manually remove or make changes to the Registry.
So, I'm not a barefoot empiricist.

Your Mileage May Vary...

So, Run Your Own Tests.

Bonne Chance!

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas





  #128  
Old January 28th 08, 01:56 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize,microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support
Twayne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 80
Default Registry Cleaner

Ya know I came here for information, not a bunch of arguments. Both
sided have good points, so ALL of you just get over yourselves!


Patience; if nothing else you've figured out some of the "don't bother
to read" types of names. Lots of ego parades here lately; just ignore
them. Most unmoderated groups have their fair share of them; takes all
kinds & all that.
--
Twayne

Tired of MS Office and their shananigans?
Try this free replacement:
http://www.openoffice.org


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.