Registry Cleaners

You're an ass on wartless progress.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...
you're a wart on the ass of progress.

You're an ass on wartless progress.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...
you're a wart on the ass of progress.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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.