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 |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
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-à-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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#128
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|