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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!
"Twayne" wrote in message
... "Doug" wrote in message ... I've been participating in Usenet groups and other computer related forums for a lot of years. BBS's since before the WWW. Long before the Windows registry anyway. I can't even begin to count the number of posts I've read that follow some form of "I used some software name here registry cleaner and now some computer function here doesn't work anymore. How do I get my computer back to the way it was?" I have never seen one, with the exception of obvious spam, where the individual spoke of a measurable performance increase. Of course there's always the occasional person who is just really really excited about registry cleaners for some odd reason. I am able to reach a conclusion about registry cleaners based on years of data. They obviously and undeniably can do more harm than good. Logic would also conclude that these tools are most often sought after by individuals least capable of safely using them. That is to say those looking for a "one click fix" are more likely to have insufficient knowledge to understand the ramifications of changes a registry cleaner may make than those who would, say, use regedit to properly fix an actual known problem. Anecdotally after Win 3.11 I've used Win 95, Win 98, Win XP and now Win 7. (skipped ME and Vista I've never used a registry cleaner of any kind. My computers have always run just fine thank you very much. Use one. Don't use one. Makes me no nevermind. Probably shouldn't be giving people the idea that they are perfectly safe and provide great benefit. Undeniable irrefutable history says that's simply not the case. D Saying it with great conviction doesn't make it so... Hi Doug, That's a well thought out, well assembled post; just thought I'd add a comment here, not that anyone but the fanatics are still readingg. I'm of the camp that registry cleaners CAN be useful and I fully admit to being the one who constantly picks on those I find to have completely closed minds on the issue and wish to make anyone they possibly can avoid and hate registry cleaners via "snake oil" titles and all the rest of it. I have essentially the same background as you, going back to the CP/M days and probably many of the same experiences. I've no problem with your reasoned opinion on cleaners and think if nothing else it's likely quite honest opinion. That's fine. In my case I have found that the registry cleaners I have used on production and client machines has done them no harm. In fact, such cleaners create far fewer problems in my experience than the majority of other Microsoft applications. I don't believe they are any more prone to irrepairable damage to a system than is any other program installation or uninstallation. If I actually said "ALL" are safe, I shouldn't have, but it's more likely the "they all" was in response to something previously qualified in the post. At any rate, it's fine with me that you don't use a cleaner, and it's none of my business anyway. What I DO object to, and react to, are the statements made, which you can find plenty of on most any group on MSnews, is claiming that ALL registry cleaners are "snake oil", none are any good, all will cause unrepairable harm to a system, and all are capable of bringing a system to a non-bootable state, along with the condescending attitudes they use against those that don't know any better, and the put-downs they address to anyone who even asks a question about the subject. Then they offer "proof" (less so lately) by sending people containing posts that they themselves wrote. It's even worse that some of them claim to be MVPs. They're a small group of people with few interpersonal skills and terrible communications skillsets. I don't "report" them because that's not how I operate; libel and defamation will catch up to them or it won't; not worth the trouble IMO. But, as in any such situation, when I come across such intentional and willful misinformation I respond to it. In the sense of information I consider them warts on the ass of progress. By being so closed minded although bereft of supporting information, it brings all of their credibility into question. Well, break's over; on to more important things. Twayne One of the funniest things that I have read all week. The guy takes the exact opposite stance to you but that is ok.. Then you slag off MVPs, all of whom take the stance that this guy does.. I will keep a copy of all of this.. -- Mike Hall - MVP Windows Experience http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/ |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!
What a joke! People who have computer experience don't need useless
registry cleaners to edit the registry, they know and understand the registry the back of their hand! Those who don't know anything about computers and who don't have the knowledge and skills to edit the registry think that useless cleaners will compensate for their ignorance. M "The Real Truth MVP" wrote in message ... That makes me wonder just how much and what kind of computer experience you have. Anyone who says registry cleaners are crap and "Snake Oil" either have little or no experience with computers or the windows registry. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!
What a joke! People who have computer experience don't need useless
registry cleaners to edit the registry, they know and understand the registry the back of their hand! Those who don't know anything about computers and who don't have the knowledge and skills to edit the registry think that useless cleaners will compensate for their ignorance. M "The Real Truth MVP" wrote in message ... That makes me wonder just how much and what kind of computer experience you have. Anyone who says registry cleaners are crap and "Snake Oil" either have little or no experience with computers or the windows registry. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!
"The Real Truth MVP" wrote in message
... That makes me wonder just how much and what kind of computer experience you have. Anyone who says registry cleaners are crap and "Snake Oil" either have little or no experience with computers or the windows registry. -- They call them crap and snake oil because that is what they are. As the 'Real Truth' MVP, you should know that the Windows 9x registry was stored in two files which could become distinctly wobbly as their size increased. This is why Microsoft released Regclean 4/4a. It removed only safe entries in a bid to keep the size down and the chance of falling over to a minimum. As the 'Real Truth' MVP, you should also know that Windows NT stores registry entries in hive format, and that these do not have a tendency to fall over as their size increases. Orphaned entries are totally ignored. So, the use of a registry cleaner which only removes 'safe' entries will have zero impact on the system, but may put the minds at rest of people who can't stand to have stuff on their computers which does not need to be there. Some registry cleaners offer entries for removal which may compromise the system in the event that they were removed. Unfortunately, the section of computer users who are most likely to be taken in by the sales pitch are also the same section who simply do not have the knowledge to make an educated decision. The registry cleaner authors/sellers use arguments that were only valid for Windows 9x operating systems to instill enough fear that people will part with cash for a utility which will do NOTHING for their Windows NT based operating system. Personally, I think that it is unethical to sell a product which does not do all that is claimed. However, it is no surprise to find that you don't agree.. -- Mike Hall - MVP Windows Experience http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/ |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!
"The Real Truth MVP" wrote in message
... That makes me wonder just how much and what kind of computer experience you have. Anyone who says registry cleaners are crap and "Snake Oil" either have little or no experience with computers or the windows registry. -- They call them crap and snake oil because that is what they are. As the 'Real Truth' MVP, you should know that the Windows 9x registry was stored in two files which could become distinctly wobbly as their size increased. This is why Microsoft released Regclean 4/4a. It removed only safe entries in a bid to keep the size down and the chance of falling over to a minimum. As the 'Real Truth' MVP, you should also know that Windows NT stores registry entries in hive format, and that these do not have a tendency to fall over as their size increases. Orphaned entries are totally ignored. So, the use of a registry cleaner which only removes 'safe' entries will have zero impact on the system, but may put the minds at rest of people who can't stand to have stuff on their computers which does not need to be there. Some registry cleaners offer entries for removal which may compromise the system in the event that they were removed. Unfortunately, the section of computer users who are most likely to be taken in by the sales pitch are also the same section who simply do not have the knowledge to make an educated decision. The registry cleaner authors/sellers use arguments that were only valid for Windows 9x operating systems to instill enough fear that people will part with cash for a utility which will do NOTHING for their Windows NT based operating system. Personally, I think that it is unethical to sell a product which does not do all that is claimed. However, it is no surprise to find that you don't agree.. -- Mike Hall - MVP Windows Experience http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/ |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!
Your post is excellent, Mike. I would only add: He doesn't know the
'real truth' nor is he an MVP. --- Leonard Grey Errare humanum est Mike Hall - MVP wrote: "The Real Truth MVP" wrote in message ... That makes me wonder just how much and what kind of computer experience you have. Anyone who says registry cleaners are crap and "Snake Oil" either have little or no experience with computers or the windows registry. -- They call them crap and snake oil because that is what they are. As the 'Real Truth' MVP, you should know that the Windows 9x registry was stored in two files which could become distinctly wobbly as their size increased. This is why Microsoft released Regclean 4/4a. It removed only safe entries in a bid to keep the size down and the chance of falling over to a minimum. As the 'Real Truth' MVP, you should also know that Windows NT stores registry entries in hive format, and that these do not have a tendency to fall over as their size increases. Orphaned entries are totally ignored. So, the use of a registry cleaner which only removes 'safe' entries will have zero impact on the system, but may put the minds at rest of people who can't stand to have stuff on their computers which does not need to be there. Some registry cleaners offer entries for removal which may compromise the system in the event that they were removed. Unfortunately, the section of computer users who are most likely to be taken in by the sales pitch are also the same section who simply do not have the knowledge to make an educated decision. The registry cleaner authors/sellers use arguments that were only valid for Windows 9x operating systems to instill enough fear that people will part with cash for a utility which will do NOTHING for their Windows NT based operating system. Personally, I think that it is unethical to sell a product which does not do all that is claimed. However, it is no surprise to find that you don't agree.. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!
Your post is excellent, Mike. I would only add: He doesn't know the
'real truth' nor is he an MVP. --- Leonard Grey Errare humanum est Mike Hall - MVP wrote: "The Real Truth MVP" wrote in message ... That makes me wonder just how much and what kind of computer experience you have. Anyone who says registry cleaners are crap and "Snake Oil" either have little or no experience with computers or the windows registry. -- They call them crap and snake oil because that is what they are. As the 'Real Truth' MVP, you should know that the Windows 9x registry was stored in two files which could become distinctly wobbly as their size increased. This is why Microsoft released Regclean 4/4a. It removed only safe entries in a bid to keep the size down and the chance of falling over to a minimum. As the 'Real Truth' MVP, you should also know that Windows NT stores registry entries in hive format, and that these do not have a tendency to fall over as their size increases. Orphaned entries are totally ignored. So, the use of a registry cleaner which only removes 'safe' entries will have zero impact on the system, but may put the minds at rest of people who can't stand to have stuff on their computers which does not need to be there. Some registry cleaners offer entries for removal which may compromise the system in the event that they were removed. Unfortunately, the section of computer users who are most likely to be taken in by the sales pitch are also the same section who simply do not have the knowledge to make an educated decision. The registry cleaner authors/sellers use arguments that were only valid for Windows 9x operating systems to instill enough fear that people will part with cash for a utility which will do NOTHING for their Windows NT based operating system. Personally, I think that it is unethical to sell a product which does not do all that is claimed. However, it is no surprise to find that you don't agree.. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!
"Leonard Grey" wrote in message
... Your post is excellent, Mike. I would only add: He doesn't know the 'real truth' nor is he an MVP. --- Leonard Grey Errare humanum est LOL.. he knows the real truth but doesn't want anybody else to find out.. -- Mike Hall - MVP Windows Experience http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/ |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!
"Leonard Grey" wrote in message
... Your post is excellent, Mike. I would only add: He doesn't know the 'real truth' nor is he an MVP. --- Leonard Grey Errare humanum est LOL.. he knows the real truth but doesn't want anybody else to find out.. -- Mike Hall - MVP Windows Experience http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/ |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:26:36 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP"
wrote: "Leonard Grey" wrote in message ... Your post is excellent, Mike. I would only add: He doesn't know the 'real truth' nor is he an MVP. --- Leonard Grey Errare humanum est LOL.. he knows the real truth But only about his not being an MVP ;-) but doesn't want anybody else to find out.. Almost everyone already knows. The only ones he can fool are those who are new here--and he doesn't get to fool them for very long either. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience Please Reply to the Newsgroup |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:26:36 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP"
wrote: "Leonard Grey" wrote in message ... Your post is excellent, Mike. I would only add: He doesn't know the 'real truth' nor is he an MVP. --- Leonard Grey Errare humanum est LOL.. he knows the real truth But only about his not being an MVP ;-) but doesn't want anybody else to find out.. Almost everyone already knows. The only ones he can fool are those who are new here--and he doesn't get to fool them for very long either. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience Please Reply to the Newsgroup |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!
"The Real Truth MVP" wrote in message
news Both you and Marianne just proved what I said. Orphaned entries are NOT ignored. Are orphaned run key entries ignored? Almost all the posts in here about error messages on startup are caused by orphaned run keys entries. How is newbie going to know what or where a run key is?. It has been mentioned several times that MS includes a registry cleaner in it's OneCare yet none of you "registry is snake oil" guru's ever answer why that is. If MS thinks it is necessary then it is necessary and they did not have Win98 in mind when they created OneCare.. That one is easy to answer. One Care was an attempt to get in on the multi-billion dollar AV market. Instead of starting this AV venture from scratch Microsoft purchased an already existing AV software company (Giant). Giant had a registry cleaner and One Care just kept it as a marketing gimmick, they didn't create or develop a cleaner just for One Care. We all know that One Care was (is) a complete flop! The product was consistently rated as one of the poorest AV product out there and it never generated the revenue stream that Microsoft had envisioned, to wit Microsoft has decided to discontinue it, no registry cleaner could save it. You are ignorant of the process which owns and calls the registry run keys, a hint for you: it isn't the applications referred in the keys. You are grasping at straws, using a registry cleaner to clean out the run keys is nonsense, it's akin to using a bazooka to kill a fly, the potential for collateral damage is much greater than the problem being addressed! Instead of telling users that cleaning the run keys is a good reason to use a cleaner why don't you instruct users to use the built-in MSConfig utility to remove these obsolete entries? Because you don't know any better, that is why. Using the MSConfig utility is simpler and much safer than using registry cleaners but you keep on insisting that those who know the least use the most dangerous methods to remove these entries. Why don't you tell the readers what happens when your cleaners remove "orphans" from the Winlogon key? Why don't you tell them what happens when registry cleaners "think" that the Userinit value is "orphaned"? Using a registry cleaner to cleanup a virus or malware problem is sheer stupidity, something that only the most ignorant would ever recommend. You conveniently forget to mention the problems caused by these cleaners, posts with tales of woes and problems caused by registry cleaners do show up in these groups but when they show up you and your ilks in the "registry cleaners are great" stable just put on your blinders and trot right by the hapless folks who desperately need help after heeding your advice to use these cleaners. M |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!
"The Real Truth MVP" wrote in message
news Both you and Marianne just proved what I said. Orphaned entries are NOT ignored. Are orphaned run key entries ignored? Almost all the posts in here about error messages on startup are caused by orphaned run keys entries. How is newbie going to know what or where a run key is?. It has been mentioned several times that MS includes a registry cleaner in it's OneCare yet none of you "registry is snake oil" guru's ever answer why that is. If MS thinks it is necessary then it is necessary and they did not have Win98 in mind when they created OneCare.. That one is easy to answer. One Care was an attempt to get in on the multi-billion dollar AV market. Instead of starting this AV venture from scratch Microsoft purchased an already existing AV software company (Giant). Giant had a registry cleaner and One Care just kept it as a marketing gimmick, they didn't create or develop a cleaner just for One Care. We all know that One Care was (is) a complete flop! The product was consistently rated as one of the poorest AV product out there and it never generated the revenue stream that Microsoft had envisioned, to wit Microsoft has decided to discontinue it, no registry cleaner could save it. You are ignorant of the process which owns and calls the registry run keys, a hint for you: it isn't the applications referred in the keys. You are grasping at straws, using a registry cleaner to clean out the run keys is nonsense, it's akin to using a bazooka to kill a fly, the potential for collateral damage is much greater than the problem being addressed! Instead of telling users that cleaning the run keys is a good reason to use a cleaner why don't you instruct users to use the built-in MSConfig utility to remove these obsolete entries? Because you don't know any better, that is why. Using the MSConfig utility is simpler and much safer than using registry cleaners but you keep on insisting that those who know the least use the most dangerous methods to remove these entries. Why don't you tell the readers what happens when your cleaners remove "orphans" from the Winlogon key? Why don't you tell them what happens when registry cleaners "think" that the Userinit value is "orphaned"? Using a registry cleaner to cleanup a virus or malware problem is sheer stupidity, something that only the most ignorant would ever recommend. You conveniently forget to mention the problems caused by these cleaners, posts with tales of woes and problems caused by registry cleaners do show up in these groups but when they show up you and your ilks in the "registry cleaners are great" stable just put on your blinders and trot right by the hapless folks who desperately need help after heeding your advice to use these cleaners. M |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!
Anything that is the registry run keys is in msconfig. Your own words:
"Almost all the posts in here about error messages on startup are caused by orphaned run keys entries." These banal errors on startup saying that a certain file is missing are all from entries in the run keys and *all* of these run key entries are in msconfig. Your ignorance shows that you don't know the difference between the run keys and startup locations. There is no need for registry cleaners to cleanup these run key entries and only idiots would use cleaners to cleanup malware. The userinit value. There usually aren't any problems with the malware affected value until registry cleaners come by and improperly remove the value, then the computer doesn't start and the user can't properly edit the key. This is well known and many users have posted of this problem with cleaners improperly removing the value, yet as usual you conveniently forget to mention this because you're in denial and you would go to any length to defend these cleaners, that includes recommending them to novice users who can't properly interpret the actions taken by these dangerous tools. Experienced people who are competent and who understand Windows don't recomend registry cleaners, none of the MVPs recomend them, only phony MVPs and ignorant trolls advocate the use of these dangerous tools. M "The Real Truth MVP" wrote in message ... Your ignorance is showing. It is not the registry cleaners that cause problems with userinit key you idiot it's the malware that modifies it and the cheap crappy malware removers that modify it and does not fix it. And then there's that crap you said about what calls the run key. If it is an orphaned key then why is it being read? Mike Hall said they are not read, if they are not read then why is it reading it? You are also wrong about using MSCONFIG. Have you ever used autoruns? probably not, how come all those start up entries found in autoruns is not listed in msconfig? sheeeesh my 3 year old is smarter than you. And MS did not take Giant Antispyware and just put it out there as is, in fact Onecare has NOTHING to do with Giant Antispyware. Windows Defender was built on the restructured version of GIANT Antispyware. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!
Anything that is the registry run keys is in msconfig. Your own words:
"Almost all the posts in here about error messages on startup are caused by orphaned run keys entries." These banal errors on startup saying that a certain file is missing are all from entries in the run keys and *all* of these run key entries are in msconfig. Your ignorance shows that you don't know the difference between the run keys and startup locations. There is no need for registry cleaners to cleanup these run key entries and only idiots would use cleaners to cleanup malware. The userinit value. There usually aren't any problems with the malware affected value until registry cleaners come by and improperly remove the value, then the computer doesn't start and the user can't properly edit the key. This is well known and many users have posted of this problem with cleaners improperly removing the value, yet as usual you conveniently forget to mention this because you're in denial and you would go to any length to defend these cleaners, that includes recommending them to novice users who can't properly interpret the actions taken by these dangerous tools. Experienced people who are competent and who understand Windows don't recomend registry cleaners, none of the MVPs recomend them, only phony MVPs and ignorant trolls advocate the use of these dangerous tools. M "The Real Truth MVP" wrote in message ... Your ignorance is showing. It is not the registry cleaners that cause problems with userinit key you idiot it's the malware that modifies it and the cheap crappy malware removers that modify it and does not fix it. And then there's that crap you said about what calls the run key. If it is an orphaned key then why is it being read? Mike Hall said they are not read, if they are not read then why is it reading it? You are also wrong about using MSCONFIG. Have you ever used autoruns? probably not, how come all those start up entries found in autoruns is not listed in msconfig? sheeeesh my 3 year old is smarter than you. And MS did not take Giant Antispyware and just put it out there as is, in fact Onecare has NOTHING to do with Giant Antispyware. Windows Defender was built on the restructured version of GIANT Antispyware. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|