Registry cleaner ?

Twayne wrote:
In ,
John John - MVP typed:
thanatoid wrote:
John John - MVP wrote in
:

SNIP

No, we have all noticed it. When people post with problems
brought about by registry cleaners you *never* offer any
help, you simply disappear.

OK, I'm not Twayne, so let /me/ see an example of "damage" done
by a reg cleaner. I'm new to the XP groups and I have not seen
one yet.

I have provided links to the kind of problems that these cleaners can
cause in another post.

At one time I too thought that these cleaners served a purpose. Why?
Because I didn't know any better, everybody was spreading the same
gospel and I believed the vendors of these programs. That was when I
was using Windows 95 on my home machine. I knew next to nothing about
Windows and like everybody else I ran these cleaners just because
that's what folks were doing, I never noticed any improvement when
running them but I ran the cleaners anyway.

After we migrated our work network from Novell over DOS to an NT4
network I thought that I should also run registry cleaners on my NT4
boxes. It didn't take too long for me to realize that the cleaners
did absolutely nothing to improve performance on any of our machines
and that it broke some of our applications. One of my boxes was up to
MFC42.dll but a Xerox printer that we had attached to the box couldn't
work with that MFC version, it required MFC40.dll so this dll was kept
and registered on the NT4 box. Every time a cleaner was run it would
remove the registration for this file and the whole Xerox software
would fall apart and the printer would stop working. That was the
last straw, these cleaners did absolutely nothing to maintain the
health of my machines and they did nothing to improve performance,
quite to the
contrary they were breaking our software. By that time I was a bit
more savvy about Windows NT and I came to realize that these cleaners
were really utterly useless and that they were causing more harm than
good so I dumped the whole lot of them. And, oh yes, I tried more
than a few
or them, RegClean, CleanSweep, RegCleaner/JV16 and a few others. There
all the same, they're all utterly useless and a complete waste
of time, Windows NT operating systems don't need registry cleaning,
running
these cleaners as a maintenance/prevention routine is nothing but a
fool's errand.
John

Lots of talk and opinion, but nothing of any import. YOU did this, YOU
did that, YOU did the other thing. And still no definitive links to any
useful information on the subject. You apparently also seem to think
that XP = NT which if far from the case; you need to brush up on what's
relevant and what isn't between the two, at least if you keep trying to
redirect to literal NT as you're doing.
How were they all the same? Details? How did you prove your cases?

Windows XP is NT5.1 and there is more in common between NT4 and XP than
you will ever know. As for links we have provided many on different
occasion but you simply dismiss them all as 'anecdotal' so don't ask for
anymore links, with you it's only a waste of time. Often times *you*
have been asked to supply links with unbiased and concrete proof that
registry cleaners actually improve performance and not once have you
ever been able to supply any such unbiased information, all that you
have ever been able to do is supply advertising materials from the
sellers of these useless programs. You are in the minority here with
your cleaners, and for a good reason, most of the others here are not
brainwashed by snake oil salesmen.

John

Twayne wrote:
In ,
John John - MVP typed:
thanatoid wrote:
John John - MVP wrote in
:

SNIP

No, we have all noticed it. When people post with problems
brought about by registry cleaners you *never* offer any
help, you simply disappear.

OK, I'm not Twayne, so let /me/ see an example of "damage" done
by a reg cleaner. I'm new to the XP groups and I have not seen
one yet.

I have provided links to the kind of problems that these cleaners can
cause in another post.

At one time I too thought that these cleaners served a purpose. Why?
Because I didn't know any better, everybody was spreading the same
gospel and I believed the vendors of these programs. That was when I
was using Windows 95 on my home machine. I knew next to nothing about
Windows and like everybody else I ran these cleaners just because
that's what folks were doing, I never noticed any improvement when
running them but I ran the cleaners anyway.

After we migrated our work network from Novell over DOS to an NT4
network I thought that I should also run registry cleaners on my NT4
boxes. It didn't take too long for me to realize that the cleaners
did absolutely nothing to improve performance on any of our machines
and that it broke some of our applications. One of my boxes was up to
MFC42.dll but a Xerox printer that we had attached to the box couldn't
work with that MFC version, it required MFC40.dll so this dll was kept
and registered on the NT4 box. Every time a cleaner was run it would
remove the registration for this file and the whole Xerox software
would fall apart and the printer would stop working. That was the
last straw, these cleaners did absolutely nothing to maintain the
health of my machines and they did nothing to improve performance,
quite to the
contrary they were breaking our software. By that time I was a bit
more savvy about Windows NT and I came to realize that these cleaners
were really utterly useless and that they were causing more harm than
good so I dumped the whole lot of them. And, oh yes, I tried more
than a few
or them, RegClean, CleanSweep, RegCleaner/JV16 and a few others. There
all the same, they're all utterly useless and a complete waste
of time, Windows NT operating systems don't need registry cleaning,
running
these cleaners as a maintenance/prevention routine is nothing but a
fool's errand.
John

Lots of talk and opinion, but nothing of any import. YOU did this, YOU
did that, YOU did the other thing. And still no definitive links to any
useful information on the subject. You apparently also seem to think
that XP = NT which if far from the case; you need to brush up on what's
relevant and what isn't between the two, at least if you keep trying to
redirect to literal NT as you're doing.
How were they all the same? Details? How did you prove your cases?

Windows XP is NT5.1 and there is more in common between NT4 and XP than
you will ever know. As for links we have provided many on different
occasion but you simply dismiss them all as 'anecdotal' so don't ask for
anymore links, with you it's only a waste of time. Often times *you*
have been asked to supply links with unbiased and concrete proof that
registry cleaners actually improve performance and not once have you
ever been able to supply any such unbiased information, all that you
have ever been able to do is supply advertising materials from the
sellers of these useless programs. You are in the minority here with
your cleaners, and for a good reason, most of the others here are not
brainwashed by snake oil salesmen.

John

snipped

Unknown wrote:
I have never once, in at least 5 years, seen you respond to
someone who posted the damage done to
his/her machine by a registry cleaner. You conveniently ignore
them. Then, you severely criticize some who
says registry cleaners are 'snakeoil'. Why are you so two faced? Do
you work for the 'snakeoil' developers?

Twayne wrote:
Well, you'd better go look again. Or put your glasses on. I don't
offer answers to someone if I don't know the answer. But I DO
address your misinformation. K? And, I'm clear about what I'm
doing. You've missed a lot of posts in 5 years.
snipped

Unknown wrote:
You never offered answers to someone who damaged their
system by a registry cleaner because you don't know the
answer? Then why do you push them? And you say "I'm
clear about what I'm doing"

Are you mentally handicapped?

Twayne wrote:
Prove I never offered answers.
snipped

Seriously? That's the responses and what this has come to?

You want proof you never did something instead of providing proof you did
something at least a single time which completely resolves that argument?

Go ahead - you can answer that you shouldn't have to prove anything and
stomp your feet and hold your breath and turn blue - because that is what
this conversation has [de]evolved to - or you could prove yourself and give
one link, one solitary web link to one time where you, and I will quote
"unknown" here, "offered answers to someone who damaged their system by a
registry cleaner".

In the whole 'registry cleaner' argument - I could care less in the end. If
someone has the skills to use something and know which things are useful as
tools vs. those that are not - more power to them. If someone does not and
they decide to dive headfirst into something they don't understand and end
up drowning - more power to them. Doesn't matter if it is registry
cleaners, registry editors, antimalware applications, antivirus
applications, duplicate file finders, random advice from people they do not
know or whatever - if someone is willing to do it - I am not going to stand
in their way. I will give them my experience and I will warn them that if
they are not truly prepared - things can and likely will go wrong (get
worse.)

However - stop right there - I do not care - it's their decision. I will
not push them into anything overly complicated or that should not be done
without precise instructions followed to the letter or things could go
wrong. I am careful about what I ask people to do to their system - keeping
it simple and understanding that sometimes - it is better to teach someone
how to backup and go to an expert than how to start going through something
they may never understand and might slip up on - especially given it is
seldom an 'end-of-the-world/last-hope-of-success' scenario.

In any case - I digressed - back to the only reason I responded. This is
why these posts get so long and how come it usually ends up just a couple of
people left in them (usually the same people over and over) - it breaks down
to playground (under the age of 8) antics and taunts. "I know you are, but
what am I?" and instead of one or the other producing the obvious, easy and
simple solution that could end one thread of the conversation - it continues
to break down with, "I'm rubber and you're glue..."

Twayne, if you want to end that part of the discussion - once and for all -
give the single link to answer the question. One Google Groups link or
Microsoft Social link or whatever. That's all it takes to counter a
'never' - just one. Take the high road. You may think, might even say
(maybe not now that I mention it), I don't have to prove anything (it's a
matter of principle, whatever...) and you may be right - but it takes only
one to oust a 'never' argument. Failure to produce that one is not the best
response unless you stop responding ever again and just ignore the other
(even then - it doesn't produce the true results you might desire.)

*shrug*

In the end - I still do not care. It's a newsgroup argument over something
petty and that didn't matter 20 years ago and might not matter 20 years from
now. It's just something to do to fill the gap of time between now and
then. ;-P

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

snipped

Unknown wrote:
I have never once, in at least 5 years, seen you respond to
someone who posted the damage done to
his/her machine by a registry cleaner. You conveniently ignore
them. Then, you severely criticize some who
says registry cleaners are 'snakeoil'. Why are you so two faced? Do
you work for the 'snakeoil' developers?

Twayne wrote:
Well, you'd better go look again. Or put your glasses on. I don't
offer answers to someone if I don't know the answer. But I DO
address your misinformation. K? And, I'm clear about what I'm
doing. You've missed a lot of posts in 5 years.
snipped

Unknown wrote:
You never offered answers to someone who damaged their
system by a registry cleaner because you don't know the
answer? Then why do you push them? And you say "I'm
clear about what I'm doing"

Are you mentally handicapped?

Twayne wrote:
Prove I never offered answers.
snipped

Seriously? That's the responses and what this has come to?

You want proof you never did something instead of providing proof you did
something at least a single time which completely resolves that argument?

Go ahead - you can answer that you shouldn't have to prove anything and
stomp your feet and hold your breath and turn blue - because that is what
this conversation has [de]evolved to - or you could prove yourself and give
one link, one solitary web link to one time where you, and I will quote
"unknown" here, "offered answers to someone who damaged their system by a
registry cleaner".

In the whole 'registry cleaner' argument - I could care less in the end. If
someone has the skills to use something and know which things are useful as
tools vs. those that are not - more power to them. If someone does not and
they decide to dive headfirst into something they don't understand and end
up drowning - more power to them. Doesn't matter if it is registry
cleaners, registry editors, antimalware applications, antivirus
applications, duplicate file finders, random advice from people they do not
know or whatever - if someone is willing to do it - I am not going to stand
in their way. I will give them my experience and I will warn them that if
they are not truly prepared - things can and likely will go wrong (get
worse.)

However - stop right there - I do not care - it's their decision. I will
not push them into anything overly complicated or that should not be done
without precise instructions followed to the letter or things could go
wrong. I am careful about what I ask people to do to their system - keeping
it simple and understanding that sometimes - it is better to teach someone
how to backup and go to an expert than how to start going through something
they may never understand and might slip up on - especially given it is
seldom an 'end-of-the-world/last-hope-of-success' scenario.

In any case - I digressed - back to the only reason I responded. This is
why these posts get so long and how come it usually ends up just a couple of
people left in them (usually the same people over and over) - it breaks down
to playground (under the age of 8) antics and taunts. "I know you are, but
what am I?" and instead of one or the other producing the obvious, easy and
simple solution that could end one thread of the conversation - it continues
to break down with, "I'm rubber and you're glue..."

Twayne, if you want to end that part of the discussion - once and for all -
give the single link to answer the question. One Google Groups link or
Microsoft Social link or whatever. That's all it takes to counter a
'never' - just one. Take the high road. You may think, might even say
(maybe not now that I mention it), I don't have to prove anything (it's a
matter of principle, whatever...) and you may be right - but it takes only
one to oust a 'never' argument. Failure to produce that one is not the best
response unless you stop responding ever again and just ignore the other
(even then - it doesn't produce the true results you might desire.)

*shrug*

In the end - I still do not care. It's a newsgroup argument over something
petty and that didn't matter 20 years ago and might not matter 20 years from
now. It's just something to do to fill the gap of time between now and
then. ;-P

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

"thanatoid" wrote in message
...
John John - MVP wrote in
:

SNIP

No, we have all noticed it. When people post with problems
brought about by registry cleaners you *never* offer any
help, you simply disappear.

OK, I'm not Twayne, so let /me/ see an example of "damage" done
by a reg cleaner. I'm new to the XP groups and I have not seen
one yet. In my pro-reg cleaners posts I HAVE asked for
examples/links/whatever, and received silence or insults or
both, but not a single specific example.

(As for trusting MS to fully remove Office - pretty funny. It
gets my vote for Joke of the Week. I thought your line would be
"Once installed, it becomes an integral part of they system,
like Internet Explorer is to begin with, and can't be removed" -
which of course is not true either.)


--
There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives
and those that will break later.
- Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/,
not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got
the quote. But it's true.)

"thanatoid" wrote in message
...
John John - MVP wrote in
:

SNIP

No, we have all noticed it. When people post with problems
brought about by registry cleaners you *never* offer any
help, you simply disappear.

OK, I'm not Twayne, so let /me/ see an example of "damage" done
by a reg cleaner. I'm new to the XP groups and I have not seen
one yet. In my pro-reg cleaners posts I HAVE asked for
examples/links/whatever, and received silence or insults or
both, but not a single specific example.

(As for trusting MS to fully remove Office - pretty funny. It
gets my vote for Joke of the Week. I thought your line would be
"Once installed, it becomes an integral part of they system,
like Internet Explorer is to begin with, and can't be removed" -
which of course is not true either.)


--
There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives
and those that will break later.
- Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/,
not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got
the quote. But it's true.)

"Twayne" wrote in message
...
In ,
Unknown typed:
Not ONCE have you responded to someone who damaged their system using
a registry cleaner.

You're wrong, but the vast majority of the time any useful answers have
already been given. Adding anything to the muck and lies you create would
do nothing but add to the confusion.

I'm calling you a bald face liar because I have several such examples in
my archives. Let's see YOU prove there has never been such a thing? Saying
something doesn't make it so. In your case, it's just a fantasy and/or
wish, anyway.

Twayne, misinformation exposer/responder


"Twayne" wrote in message
...
In ,
John John - MVP typed:
Twayne wrote:
In ,
John John - MVP typed:
Twayne wrote:
In ,
John John - MVP typed:
Don't bother with these utterly useless registry cleaners, they
cause more harm than good.

Completely untrue. Posted from ignorance and to be a gopher for a
small group of registry cleaner libelists. Like any other
program, just source a reliable program from a reliable web
site. They don't do any
harm or damage and they also allow you to undo any changes you
make anyway.

As usual and in your true form when ever these useless programs
are exposed for what they are you are here to defend your beloved
cleaners and to insult all who disagree with you. However, when
people post seeking help with real problems caused by these
cleaners you are nowhere to been seen. Most of us here have
noticed that when it comes to posts about registry cleaners you
have a case of selected blindness, and when you do reply to posts
you usually leave your brains and manners parked somewhere else.

John

Wrong.

No, we have all noticed it. When people post with problems brought
about by registry cleaners you *never* offer any help, you simply
disappear. It's so blatant, you are there defending your cleaners 5
minutes earlier but as soon as someone has problems you go blind and
see nothing. Who are you really trying to kid?

John

Aha, that's an exact description of YOUR MO! You'll find I either:
Offer an answer to at minimum tell the poster that you are all wet
and not to be taken seriously.


HTH,

Twayne

"Twayne" wrote in message
...
In ,
Unknown typed:
Not ONCE have you responded to someone who damaged their system using
a registry cleaner.

You're wrong, but the vast majority of the time any useful answers have
already been given. Adding anything to the muck and lies you create would
do nothing but add to the confusion.

I'm calling you a bald face liar because I have several such examples in
my archives. Let's see YOU prove there has never been such a thing? Saying
something doesn't make it so. In your case, it's just a fantasy and/or
wish, anyway.

Twayne, misinformation exposer/responder


"Twayne" wrote in message
...
In ,
John John - MVP typed:
Twayne wrote:
In ,
John John - MVP typed:
Twayne wrote:
In ,
John John - MVP typed:
Don't bother with these utterly useless registry cleaners, they
cause more harm than good.

Completely untrue. Posted from ignorance and to be a gopher for a
small group of registry cleaner libelists. Like any other
program, just source a reliable program from a reliable web
site. They don't do any
harm or damage and they also allow you to undo any changes you
make anyway.

As usual and in your true form when ever these useless programs
are exposed for what they are you are here to defend your beloved
cleaners and to insult all who disagree with you. However, when
people post seeking help with real problems caused by these
cleaners you are nowhere to been seen. Most of us here have
noticed that when it comes to posts about registry cleaners you
have a case of selected blindness, and when you do reply to posts
you usually leave your brains and manners parked somewhere else.

John

Wrong.

No, we have all noticed it. When people post with problems brought
about by registry cleaners you *never* offer any help, you simply
disappear. It's so blatant, you are there defending your cleaners 5
minutes earlier but as soon as someone has problems you go blind and
see nothing. Who are you really trying to kid?

John

Aha, that's an exact description of YOUR MO! You'll find I either:
Offer an answer to at minimum tell the poster that you are all wet
and not to be taken seriously.


HTH,

Twayne

Unknown typed:
SOUND technical reasons?????? Just give one. And prove it to be so.

YOU are the one claiming to have the expert knowlege; it's YOU that should
be providing the technical background to change the minds of what you
consider those who use "dangerous" software.

There you go again! You just stated 'there are sound technical reasons'---
I ask for one and you twist and turn.

Personally, I've said over and over that I'm willing to read and listen
to any verifiable, technically oriented explanations of what's wrong with
registry cleaners.

OK, read and listen ---THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF RENDERING
A PC INOPERABLE.. -- Verification---you ignore each one posted.

.Since you claim to know so much more than I or anyone else who disagrees
with YOU, it's incumbent upon YOU to provide something useful and
convincing, or shut up.

I never once (go back and read) claimed anything of the sort. Don't say
it's incumbant on me
because it is you pushing registry cleaners contrary to all the MVPs (and
many others advice) .
But can't, because no such thing exists. Even MS, when they admit a
compatability issue, never admits it's their fault; instead preferring to
say it's between x and y, someone other than MS and MS.

Once again, each and every time someone posts the damage caused by running a
registry
cleaner you completely ignore it. Did you read John Johns recent post? You
ignored it!
What the he-- are you a registry cleaner salesman?

Twayne, defender of misinformation and inaccuracy

"Twayne" wrote in message
...
In ,
Bruce Chambers typed:
Steve Hayes wrote:


So how should you clean the registry, then?




And the correct answer to that question is: "You shouldn't." There's no
sound technical reason for doing so, but abundant
technical reasons for *not* doing so.

He asked HOW, dummy! Also:

You typo'd: There ARE sound technical reasons for doing so, and
abundant technical reasons that the problem most likely lies
elsewhere also. But as usual, your are completely wrong and missed
the chance for a good response.

HTH,

Twayne

Unknown typed:
SOUND technical reasons?????? Just give one. And prove it to be so.

YOU are the one claiming to have the expert knowlege; it's YOU that should
be providing the technical background to change the minds of what you
consider those who use "dangerous" software.

There you go again! You just stated 'there are sound technical reasons'---
I ask for one and you twist and turn.

Personally, I've said over and over that I'm willing to read and listen
to any verifiable, technically oriented explanations of what's wrong with
registry cleaners.

OK, read and listen ---THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF RENDERING
A PC INOPERABLE.. -- Verification---you ignore each one posted.

.Since you claim to know so much more than I or anyone else who disagrees
with YOU, it's incumbent upon YOU to provide something useful and
convincing, or shut up.

I never once (go back and read) claimed anything of the sort. Don't say
it's incumbant on me
because it is you pushing registry cleaners contrary to all the MVPs (and
many others advice) .
But can't, because no such thing exists. Even MS, when they admit a
compatability issue, never admits it's their fault; instead preferring to
say it's between x and y, someone other than MS and MS.

Once again, each and every time someone posts the damage caused by running a
registry
cleaner you completely ignore it. Did you read John Johns recent post? You
ignored it!
What the he-- are you a registry cleaner salesman?

Twayne, defender of misinformation and inaccuracy

"Twayne" wrote in message
...
In ,
Bruce Chambers typed:
Steve Hayes wrote:


So how should you clean the registry, then?




And the correct answer to that question is: "You shouldn't." There's no
sound technical reason for doing so, but abundant
technical reasons for *not* doing so.

He asked HOW, dummy! Also:

You typo'd: There ARE sound technical reasons for doing so, and
abundant technical reasons that the problem most likely lies
elsewhere also. But as usual, your are completely wrong and missed
the chance for a good response.

HTH,

Twayne

At the risk of being accused of continuing this discussion I offer the
following:
On 1-11-2010 at 5:39PM Twayne stated 'there are sound technical reasons to
run
a registry cleaner'. When asked to provide just one, he refuses just as he
ignores
all the posters who have damaged their system by running a registry cleaner.
I believe these discussions are important so as to prevent the likes of
Twayne
from misleading new users of PCs..
"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message
...
snipped

Unknown wrote:
I have never once, in at least 5 years, seen you respond to
someone who posted the damage done to
his/her machine by a registry cleaner. You conveniently ignore
them. Then, you severely criticize some who
says registry cleaners are 'snakeoil'. Why are you so two faced? Do
you work for the 'snakeoil' developers?

Twayne wrote:
Well, you'd better go look again. Or put your glasses on. I don't
offer answers to someone if I don't know the answer. But I DO
address your misinformation. K? And, I'm clear about what I'm
doing. You've missed a lot of posts in 5 years.
snipped

Unknown wrote:
You never offered answers to someone who damaged their
system by a registry cleaner because you don't know the
answer? Then why do you push them? And you say "I'm
clear about what I'm doing"

Are you mentally handicapped?

Twayne wrote:
Prove I never offered answers.
snipped

Seriously? That's the responses and what this has come to?

You want proof you never did something instead of providing proof you did
something at least a single time which completely resolves that argument?

Go ahead - you can answer that you shouldn't have to prove anything and
stomp your feet and hold your breath and turn blue - because that is what
this conversation has [de]evolved to - or you could prove yourself and
give one link, one solitary web link to one time where you, and I will
quote "unknown" here, "offered answers to someone who damaged their system
by a registry cleaner".

In the whole 'registry cleaner' argument - I could care less in the end.
If someone has the skills to use something and know which things are
useful as tools vs. those that are not - more power to them. If someone
does not and they decide to dive headfirst into something they don't
understand and end up drowning - more power to them. Doesn't matter if it
is registry cleaners, registry editors, antimalware applications,
antivirus applications, duplicate file finders, random advice from people
they do not know or whatever - if someone is willing to do it - I am not
going to stand in their way. I will give them my experience and I will
warn them that if they are not truly prepared - things can and likely will
go wrong (get worse.)

However - stop right there - I do not care - it's their decision. I will
not push them into anything overly complicated or that should not be done
without precise instructions followed to the letter or things could go
wrong. I am careful about what I ask people to do to their system -
keeping it simple and understanding that sometimes - it is better to teach
someone how to backup and go to an expert than how to start going through
something they may never understand and might slip up on - especially
given it is seldom an 'end-of-the-world/last-hope-of-success' scenario.

In any case - I digressed - back to the only reason I responded. This is
why these posts get so long and how come it usually ends up just a couple
of people left in them (usually the same people over and over) - it breaks
down to playground (under the age of 8) antics and taunts. "I know you
are, but what am I?" and instead of one or the other producing the
obvious, easy and simple solution that could end one thread of the
conversation - it continues to break down with, "I'm rubber and you're
glue..."

Twayne, if you want to end that part of the discussion - once and for
all - give the single link to answer the question. One Google Groups link
or Microsoft Social link or whatever. That's all it takes to counter a
'never' - just one. Take the high road. You may think, might even say
(maybe not now that I mention it), I don't have to prove anything (it's a
matter of principle, whatever...) and you may be right - but it takes only
one to oust a 'never' argument. Failure to produce that one is not the
best response unless you stop responding ever again and just ignore the
other (even then - it doesn't produce the true results you might desire.)

*shrug*

In the end - I still do not care. It's a newsgroup argument over
something petty and that didn't matter 20 years ago and might not matter
20 years from now. It's just something to do to fill the gap of time
between now and then. ;-P

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

At the risk of being accused of continuing this discussion I offer the
following:
On 1-11-2010 at 5:39PM Twayne stated 'there are sound technical reasons to
run
a registry cleaner'. When asked to provide just one, he refuses just as he
ignores
all the posters who have damaged their system by running a registry cleaner.
I believe these discussions are important so as to prevent the likes of
Twayne
from misleading new users of PCs..
"Shenan Stanley" wrote in message
...
snipped

Unknown wrote:
I have never once, in at least 5 years, seen you respond to
someone who posted the damage done to
his/her machine by a registry cleaner. You conveniently ignore
them. Then, you severely criticize some who
says registry cleaners are 'snakeoil'. Why are you so two faced? Do
you work for the 'snakeoil' developers?

Twayne wrote:
Well, you'd better go look again. Or put your glasses on. I don't
offer answers to someone if I don't know the answer. But I DO
address your misinformation. K? And, I'm clear about what I'm
doing. You've missed a lot of posts in 5 years.
snipped

Unknown wrote:
You never offered answers to someone who damaged their
system by a registry cleaner because you don't know the
answer? Then why do you push them? And you say "I'm
clear about what I'm doing"

Are you mentally handicapped?

Twayne wrote:
Prove I never offered answers.
snipped

Seriously? That's the responses and what this has come to?

You want proof you never did something instead of providing proof you did
something at least a single time which completely resolves that argument?

Go ahead - you can answer that you shouldn't have to prove anything and
stomp your feet and hold your breath and turn blue - because that is what
this conversation has [de]evolved to - or you could prove yourself and
give one link, one solitary web link to one time where you, and I will
quote "unknown" here, "offered answers to someone who damaged their system
by a registry cleaner".

In the whole 'registry cleaner' argument - I could care less in the end.
If someone has the skills to use something and know which things are
useful as tools vs. those that are not - more power to them. If someone
does not and they decide to dive headfirst into something they don't
understand and end up drowning - more power to them. Doesn't matter if it
is registry cleaners, registry editors, antimalware applications,
antivirus applications, duplicate file finders, random advice from people
they do not know or whatever - if someone is willing to do it - I am not
going to stand in their way. I will give them my experience and I will
warn them that if they are not truly prepared - things can and likely will
go wrong (get worse.)

However - stop right there - I do not care - it's their decision. I will
not push them into anything overly complicated or that should not be done
without precise instructions followed to the letter or things could go
wrong. I am careful about what I ask people to do to their system -
keeping it simple and understanding that sometimes - it is better to teach
someone how to backup and go to an expert than how to start going through
something they may never understand and might slip up on - especially
given it is seldom an 'end-of-the-world/last-hope-of-success' scenario.

In any case - I digressed - back to the only reason I responded. This is
why these posts get so long and how come it usually ends up just a couple
of people left in them (usually the same people over and over) - it breaks
down to playground (under the age of 8) antics and taunts. "I know you
are, but what am I?" and instead of one or the other producing the
obvious, easy and simple solution that could end one thread of the
conversation - it continues to break down with, "I'm rubber and you're
glue..."

Twayne, if you want to end that part of the discussion - once and for
all - give the single link to answer the question. One Google Groups link
or Microsoft Social link or whatever. That's all it takes to counter a
'never' - just one. Take the high road. You may think, might even say
(maybe not now that I mention it), I don't have to prove anything (it's a
matter of principle, whatever...) and you may be right - but it takes only
one to oust a 'never' argument. Failure to produce that one is not the
best response unless you stop responding ever again and just ignore the
other (even then - it doesn't produce the true results you might desire.)

*shrug*

In the end - I still do not care. It's a newsgroup argument over
something petty and that didn't matter 20 years ago and might not matter
20 years from now. It's just something to do to fill the gap of time
between now and then. ;-P

--
Shenan Stanley
MS-MVP
--
How To Ask Questions The Smart Way
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

He is in the very lowest of minority since he states there are 'sound
technical reasons
for running a registry cleaner'.
"John John - MVP" wrote in message
...
Twayne wrote:
In ,
John John - MVP typed:
thanatoid wrote:
John John - MVP wrote in
:

SNIP

No, we have all noticed it. When people post with problems
brought about by registry cleaners you *never* offer any
help, you simply disappear.

OK, I'm not Twayne, so let /me/ see an example of "damage" done
by a reg cleaner. I'm new to the XP groups and I have not seen
one yet.

I have provided links to the kind of problems that these cleaners can
cause in another post.

At one time I too thought that these cleaners served a purpose. Why?
Because I didn't know any better, everybody was spreading the same
gospel and I believed the vendors of these programs. That was when I
was using Windows 95 on my home machine. I knew next to nothing about
Windows and like everybody else I ran these cleaners just because
that's what folks were doing, I never noticed any improvement when
running them but I ran the cleaners anyway.

After we migrated our work network from Novell over DOS to an NT4
network I thought that I should also run registry cleaners on my NT4
boxes. It didn't take too long for me to realize that the cleaners
did absolutely nothing to improve performance on any of our machines
and that it broke some of our applications. One of my boxes was up to
MFC42.dll but a Xerox printer that we had attached to the box couldn't
work with that MFC version, it required MFC40.dll so this dll was kept
and registered on the NT4 box. Every time a cleaner was run it would
remove the registration for this file and the whole Xerox software
would fall apart and the printer would stop working. That was the
last straw, these cleaners did absolutely nothing to maintain the
health of my machines and they did nothing to improve performance, quite
to the
contrary they were breaking our software. By that time I was a bit
more savvy about Windows NT and I came to realize that these cleaners
were really utterly useless and that they were causing more harm than
good so I dumped the whole lot of them. And, oh yes, I tried more than
a few
or them, RegClean, CleanSweep, RegCleaner/JV16 and a few others. There
all the same, they're all utterly useless and a complete waste
of time, Windows NT operating systems don't need registry cleaning,
running
these cleaners as a maintenance/prevention routine is nothing but a
fool's errand.
John

Lots of talk and opinion, but nothing of any import. YOU did this, YOU
did that, YOU did the other thing. And still no definitive links to any
useful information on the subject. You apparently also seem to think that
XP = NT which if far from the case; you need to brush up on what's
relevant and what isn't between the two, at least if you keep trying to
redirect to literal NT as you're doing.
How were they all the same? Details? How did you prove your cases?

Windows XP is NT5.1 and there is more in common between NT4 and XP than
you will ever know. As for links we have provided many on different
occasion but you simply dismiss them all as 'anecdotal' so don't ask for
anymore links, with you it's only a waste of time. Often times *you* have
been asked to supply links with unbiased and concrete proof that registry
cleaners actually improve performance and not once have you ever been able
to supply any such unbiased information, all that you have ever been able
to do is supply advertising materials from the sellers of these useless
programs. You are in the minority here with your cleaners, and for a good
reason, most of the others here are not brainwashed by snake oil salesmen.

John

He is in the very lowest of minority since he states there are 'sound
technical reasons
for running a registry cleaner'.
"John John - MVP" wrote in message
...
Twayne wrote:
In ,
John John - MVP typed:
thanatoid wrote:
John John - MVP wrote in
:

SNIP

No, we have all noticed it. When people post with problems
brought about by registry cleaners you *never* offer any
help, you simply disappear.

OK, I'm not Twayne, so let /me/ see an example of "damage" done
by a reg cleaner. I'm new to the XP groups and I have not seen
one yet.

I have provided links to the kind of problems that these cleaners can
cause in another post.

At one time I too thought that these cleaners served a purpose. Why?
Because I didn't know any better, everybody was spreading the same
gospel and I believed the vendors of these programs. That was when I
was using Windows 95 on my home machine. I knew next to nothing about
Windows and like everybody else I ran these cleaners just because
that's what folks were doing, I never noticed any improvement when
running them but I ran the cleaners anyway.

After we migrated our work network from Novell over DOS to an NT4
network I thought that I should also run registry cleaners on my NT4
boxes. It didn't take too long for me to realize that the cleaners
did absolutely nothing to improve performance on any of our machines
and that it broke some of our applications. One of my boxes was up to
MFC42.dll but a Xerox printer that we had attached to the box couldn't
work with that MFC version, it required MFC40.dll so this dll was kept
and registered on the NT4 box. Every time a cleaner was run it would
remove the registration for this file and the whole Xerox software
would fall apart and the printer would stop working. That was the
last straw, these cleaners did absolutely nothing to maintain the
health of my machines and they did nothing to improve performance, quite
to the
contrary they were breaking our software. By that time I was a bit
more savvy about Windows NT and I came to realize that these cleaners
were really utterly useless and that they were causing more harm than
good so I dumped the whole lot of them. And, oh yes, I tried more than
a few
or them, RegClean, CleanSweep, RegCleaner/JV16 and a few others. There
all the same, they're all utterly useless and a complete waste
of time, Windows NT operating systems don't need registry cleaning,
running
these cleaners as a maintenance/prevention routine is nothing but a
fool's errand.
John

Lots of talk and opinion, but nothing of any import. YOU did this, YOU
did that, YOU did the other thing. And still no definitive links to any
useful information on the subject. You apparently also seem to think that
XP = NT which if far from the case; you need to brush up on what's
relevant and what isn't between the two, at least if you keep trying to
redirect to literal NT as you're doing.
How were they all the same? Details? How did you prove your cases?

Windows XP is NT5.1 and there is more in common between NT4 and XP than
you will ever know. As for links we have provided many on different
occasion but you simply dismiss them all as 'anecdotal' so don't ask for
anymore links, with you it's only a waste of time. Often times *you* have
been asked to supply links with unbiased and concrete proof that registry
cleaners actually improve performance and not once have you ever been able
to supply any such unbiased information, all that you have ever been able
to do is supply advertising materials from the sellers of these useless
programs. You are in the minority here with your cleaners, and for a good
reason, most of the others here are not brainwashed by snake oil salesmen.

John

"Unknown" wrote in
:

Unknown typed:

SNIP

OK, read and listen ---THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF RENDERING
A PC INOPERABLE.. -- Verification---you ignore each one
posted.

You have not been plonked yet, so YOU give me a solid example.
Toilet Toilet couldn't.

Since you claim to know so much more than I or anyone else
who disagrees with YOU, it's incumbent upon YOU to provide
something useful and convincing, or shut up.

I never once (go back and read) claimed anything of the
sort. Don't say it's incumbant

incumbent

on me
because it is you pushing registry cleaners contrary to all
the MVPs (and many others advice) .
But can't, because no such thing exists. Even MS, when
they admit a compatability issue, never admits it's their
fault; instead preferring to say it's between x and y,
someone other than MS and MS.

Heh heh.

SNIP

--
There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives
and those that will break later.
- Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/,
not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got
the quote. But it's true.)