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 |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
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 |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
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 |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
"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.. So it is just YOUR word against many others.. -- Mike Hall - MVP Windows Experience http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/ |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
"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.. So it is just YOUR word against many others.. -- Mike Hall - MVP Windows Experience http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/ |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
If you read my pasts posts on this issue you would
remember that I agree to the point that a good registry tool (not a cleaner) is needed. As others have mentioned the registry is a database and as such any database administrator be it Oracle, Mumps and other products have such utilities available to them to help optimize large databases (non of which are called cleaners). Windows does not have anything and registry cleaners only provided a limited solution. As for my knowledge of the registry I do OK and have made a number of .reg files to highly customize applications for end users. -- JS http://www.pagestart.com "Twayne" wrote in message ... JS wrote: "You do not fully comprehend how that system is managed and this nameless registry cleaner sounds like a purposely pulled piece of SH_T you hand picked anyway." No I did not, the cleaner suggested the fix and the suggested fix (if I let it do it automatically) was clearly wrong! Along with a number of other suggested fixes. Something's wrong there because all the decent cleaners out there make more than one "suggested" action for a repair, including to do nothing. That said however, I tend not to believe you based on your past actions and posts. Twayne "Twayne" wrote in message ... JS wrote: Not a good idea. The only good registry cleaner is one that will list what it finds by grouping them into categories. The gives you the option to manually make a change after investigating any information provided by the cleaner. If you can determine the cause for what it found and decide on a fix then in effect you are the registry cleaner and not some automated vacuum cleaner. And programs are the automation of that; good ones are invaluable in some instances. Example #1 Ran a scan to count the number of entries in my PC's registry Total was over 260,000 So if a registry cleaner (if it worked properly) removed say 1,000 entries that would be less than one half of one percent space savings. A single program can have tens of thousands of registry entries. Those "lost" entries can occasionally even be picked up by new installs of other programs and used; creating installation problems. I've only seen it once, but that means it's possible. The numbers aren't the complete issue; lots more to it. Example #2 I while back I ran a registry cleaner knowing in advance what some of the fixes the cleaner should find and the suggested changes. This was based on the fact I had uninstalled an application (knowing it would leave some orphaned registry entries) and then reinstalled the same application to a different directory location. The cleaner's default suggested fix for the application's old directory location (the orphaned entries) was to change these entries to the new location, which was not necessary as you would have to entries point to the same location, so I manually deleted these entries. Should have let the cleaner do it; you wasted time and effort, if it was a decent cleaner. Now here is where a registry cleaner could cause a real problem! A few months ago I removed a large number but not all of the $NtUninstallKBxxxxxx$ folders (these are the folders and associated files left behind each time you install the latest Windows Updates each month) The cleaner reported the broken (orphaned) registry entries but the suggested fix was to point the broken entries to more recent $NtUninstall files still on the hard drive (on a random basis), thus royally screwing up the registry pointers. By that I mean: if you go to uninstall (in rare cases) a MS KB patch that may be giving you problems and due to the screwed up registry entry it may instead removes the wrong patch. You do not fully comprehend how that system is managed and this nameless registry cleaner sounds like a purposely pulled piece of SH_T you hand picked anyway. If the above isn't enough to convince you then read this: AUMHA Discussion: Should I Use a Registry Cleaner? http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=28099 Ah yes, go to the infamous um,ha site, with the responses written by the SAME people who started all the myths and misinformation about registry cleaners right here in the MS groups! Yup, that's sure to be an unbiased look and full of excellent detailed, information to support their myths, right? ! HTH, Twayne` "Bill Ridgeway" wrote in message ... 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. However, the Registry does become bloated with calls to uninstalled software which does increase the time needed to boot up - at the very least. However, the additional space requirement of a bloated Registry may not be significant. I would suggest, say, an annual tidy-up. I have used two Registry cleaners over the years (Max Registry Cleaner and Registry Mechanic) both without any problem. Mind you, my backup system includes a cloned hard disk drive and separate copy of all key files (as at the previous day). I have recently proved that I can get a system with a failed hard disk drive up and running in the time it takes to swap a hard disk, copy key files and update Windows and NIS: About 30 minutes. Bill Ridgeway |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
If you read my pasts posts on this issue you would
remember that I agree to the point that a good registry tool (not a cleaner) is needed. As others have mentioned the registry is a database and as such any database administrator be it Oracle, Mumps and other products have such utilities available to them to help optimize large databases (non of which are called cleaners). Windows does not have anything and registry cleaners only provided a limited solution. As for my knowledge of the registry I do OK and have made a number of .reg files to highly customize applications for end users. -- JS http://www.pagestart.com "Twayne" wrote in message ... JS wrote: "You do not fully comprehend how that system is managed and this nameless registry cleaner sounds like a purposely pulled piece of SH_T you hand picked anyway." No I did not, the cleaner suggested the fix and the suggested fix (if I let it do it automatically) was clearly wrong! Along with a number of other suggested fixes. Something's wrong there because all the decent cleaners out there make more than one "suggested" action for a repair, including to do nothing. That said however, I tend not to believe you based on your past actions and posts. Twayne "Twayne" wrote in message ... JS wrote: Not a good idea. The only good registry cleaner is one that will list what it finds by grouping them into categories. The gives you the option to manually make a change after investigating any information provided by the cleaner. If you can determine the cause for what it found and decide on a fix then in effect you are the registry cleaner and not some automated vacuum cleaner. And programs are the automation of that; good ones are invaluable in some instances. Example #1 Ran a scan to count the number of entries in my PC's registry Total was over 260,000 So if a registry cleaner (if it worked properly) removed say 1,000 entries that would be less than one half of one percent space savings. A single program can have tens of thousands of registry entries. Those "lost" entries can occasionally even be picked up by new installs of other programs and used; creating installation problems. I've only seen it once, but that means it's possible. The numbers aren't the complete issue; lots more to it. Example #2 I while back I ran a registry cleaner knowing in advance what some of the fixes the cleaner should find and the suggested changes. This was based on the fact I had uninstalled an application (knowing it would leave some orphaned registry entries) and then reinstalled the same application to a different directory location. The cleaner's default suggested fix for the application's old directory location (the orphaned entries) was to change these entries to the new location, which was not necessary as you would have to entries point to the same location, so I manually deleted these entries. Should have let the cleaner do it; you wasted time and effort, if it was a decent cleaner. Now here is where a registry cleaner could cause a real problem! A few months ago I removed a large number but not all of the $NtUninstallKBxxxxxx$ folders (these are the folders and associated files left behind each time you install the latest Windows Updates each month) The cleaner reported the broken (orphaned) registry entries but the suggested fix was to point the broken entries to more recent $NtUninstall files still on the hard drive (on a random basis), thus royally screwing up the registry pointers. By that I mean: if you go to uninstall (in rare cases) a MS KB patch that may be giving you problems and due to the screwed up registry entry it may instead removes the wrong patch. You do not fully comprehend how that system is managed and this nameless registry cleaner sounds like a purposely pulled piece of SH_T you hand picked anyway. If the above isn't enough to convince you then read this: AUMHA Discussion: Should I Use a Registry Cleaner? http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=28099 Ah yes, go to the infamous um,ha site, with the responses written by the SAME people who started all the myths and misinformation about registry cleaners right here in the MS groups! Yup, that's sure to be an unbiased look and full of excellent detailed, information to support their myths, right? ! HTH, Twayne` "Bill Ridgeway" wrote in message ... 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. However, the Registry does become bloated with calls to uninstalled software which does increase the time needed to boot up - at the very least. However, the additional space requirement of a bloated Registry may not be significant. I would suggest, say, an annual tidy-up. I have used two Registry cleaners over the years (Max Registry Cleaner and Registry Mechanic) both without any problem. Mind you, my backup system includes a cloned hard disk drive and separate copy of all key files (as at the previous day). I have recently proved that I can get a system with a failed hard disk drive up and running in the time it takes to swap a hard disk, copy key files and update Windows and NIS: About 30 minutes. Bill Ridgeway |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
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. 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. -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 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 |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
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. 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. -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 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 |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
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. -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 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 |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
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. -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 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 |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
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 -- Peter Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged. "Twayne" wrote in message ... Leonard Grey wrote: To add to Gerry's typically good advice: Many people have this vision of the Windows registry: They see Windows scurrying through the registry and getting stuck in all those dead-ends left behind by uninstalled software. They think: "this is surely slowing my computer's performance." However, the registry does not work that way. Applications make specific calls to registry keys; they don't go hunting for data. Another misconception: the "bloated" registry. In theory, if you remove an unused registry key, it will take less time to load the registry into memory. However, since a registry key typically occupies only a few bytes, you would have to remove millions of registry keys to notice the difference. And even if you could remove millions of registry keys, the time needed to load, run and then exit the registry cleaner would outstrip the time saved, by far. In general, the more you know about the registry, the more you understand why we like to poke fun at registry cleaners (and the people who use them.) --- Leonard Grey Errare humanum est Gerry wrote: Touch Base Does Windows Live OneCare have an assured future? It is being dropped by Microsoft! The problem is that using a Registry Cleaner gives negligible gains for a certain risk that any errors it makes are invariably insoluble problems for all but the most expert users. Because it bugs you that someone else understands the registry well enough to write a good program for it, eh? That's nothing but ego and based on myth, nothing concrete. They don't mess up any more, and probably less, than even MS's own programs. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
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 -- Peter Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged. "Twayne" wrote in message ... Leonard Grey wrote: To add to Gerry's typically good advice: Many people have this vision of the Windows registry: They see Windows scurrying through the registry and getting stuck in all those dead-ends left behind by uninstalled software. They think: "this is surely slowing my computer's performance." However, the registry does not work that way. Applications make specific calls to registry keys; they don't go hunting for data. Another misconception: the "bloated" registry. In theory, if you remove an unused registry key, it will take less time to load the registry into memory. However, since a registry key typically occupies only a few bytes, you would have to remove millions of registry keys to notice the difference. And even if you could remove millions of registry keys, the time needed to load, run and then exit the registry cleaner would outstrip the time saved, by far. In general, the more you know about the registry, the more you understand why we like to poke fun at registry cleaners (and the people who use them.) --- Leonard Grey Errare humanum est Gerry wrote: Touch Base Does Windows Live OneCare have an assured future? It is being dropped by Microsoft! The problem is that using a Registry Cleaner gives negligible gains for a certain risk that any errors it makes are invariably insoluble problems for all but the most expert users. Because it bugs you that someone else understands the registry well enough to write a good program for it, eh? That's nothing but ego and based on myth, nothing concrete. They don't mess up any more, and probably less, than even MS's own programs. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
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 |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
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 |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
Bill
If there was real evidence the subject would not controversial. However, you can see where the balance of opinion in the Microsoft newsgroups lies. -- Hope this helps. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|