Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

Twayne wrote:


The orphaned entries were just that; orphaned. It doesn't take a CRAY
to determine that an entry is an orphan.


You clearly don't even know what an "orphaned" entry is, then.



Because of your claims, I did the exact same test you claim to have
done, here on a sandbox XP laptop not too long ago, got rid of the
orphans it was willing to remove, and left the suspicious files alone
since I didn't want to go see what they were.


You mean you didn't "know" what they were, didn't know how to find out,
and, had you been tghe average user, would have just let CCleaner delete
them. Proving for one and all to see just how dangerous registry
cleaners can be. Thank you.


Repeated ccleaner, no more issues, no problems. Then once I was
sure all was well I re-imaged the drive, ran ccleaner, no problems
found, and all is well since.


Were there problems that needed fixing before you ran CCeaner? If not
than having no problems after running CCleaner proves only that your
were lucky, not that running it did any good.


Why you would bother to run a trgistry cleaner immediately after a clean
install is beyond me, though.


Because it clearly demonstrates that the registry "cleaner" is listing
nothing but bogus false alarms, as the "problems" it points out are not
problems, at all.



These aren't for you; they're for the many who enjoy follosing this kind
of link and who might like a little information on the subject. Even
with their own built in biases, these links are a breath of fresh air
compared to yours.


Spam snipped



Rank advertising copy is a "breath of fresh air?" What are you a used
car salesman?

--

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

db.·.. ))) ·` .. . wrote:
tisk tisk tisk,
your wrong again.

you know good and
well that anyone with
due deligence can
compare the before
and after of registry
cleaning....



.... and find absolutely no change for the better. (Provided the
computer boots at all, that is.) If an one had ever found such
evidense, they'd surely have made it public it by now.


besides, you have
admitted on several
occassions that you
use cc cleaner.



Certainly, I've always conceded that CCleaner is quite useful help in
finding and cleaning up temporary files on the hard drive. We're not
discussing that function, but rather it's uselessness as a registry
cleaner, which I merely tested.


don't you remember
i called you on it?



I really don't think that your repeatedly demonstrating a lack of
reading comprehension can truly be considered as "calling" me on
anything, do you?

I have. And I've provided it to you before. Just because you want to
make the requirements such that anyone's response doesn't meet YOUR
requirements is silly.

Why don't you provide some numbers? Be specific and I'll repeat them
here as closely as I can. I do have a sandbox machine I can refresh to
delivery day any time i want to. As near as I can tell you have NEVER
provided a singly bit of any evidence in any way to back up what you say
other than once you mentioned "most MVPs" or something like that. BFD.
Seems like you were an MVP at that time; you spoke a lot for them if you
weren't.

D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Twaddle.

I approve every single registry change that is made.

If I don't approve it, no change is made.

Perfectly safe.


If the registry cleaner is so "perfectly safe," why do you feel the
need to approve each and every change? You do realize, don't you,
that you've just added weight to the position you're trying to argue
against?

I did a few years back too, when idiots like you started spewing their
garbage. I was really curious and concerned because I'd never had a
problem. Reasonably written apps are no more prone to creating problems
than any other app. Almost all apps, especially MS app, read/write to
the registry constantly. Odds are, something will corrupt sooner or
later. Somewhere in this mass of archives I even have estimates on the
number of reads/writes I calculated on an average per day basis. My
registry cleaner was barely a blip in the chart.

Balderdash...

Good software has checks and balances built in -- with full input by
the user.

CCleaner does an excellent job of cleaning the registry -- and
incorporating user input -- just as a good physician or attorney does.

Chambers seems to be the resident Village Idiot here.

Does he always provide Great Entertainment like this?

It's like having a pet kigme -- always ready to take a sharp, swift
kick to the derriere.

Actually he does have a functioning brain cell or two. He's just the
victim of a seriously jaded and closed mind who enjoys these little
battles. He knows full well what the actual situation is but insists on
looking like an idiot over certain things. If it looks like an ... .
At least he's had to use something besides his boilerplate lately.
He's been asked time and again to back up his claims and he can't do it;
obviously.

Twayne



D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Twaddle.

I approve every single registry change that is made.

If I don't approve it, no change is made.

Perfectly safe.

If the registry cleaner is so "perfectly safe," why do you feel the
need to approve each and every change? You do realize, don't you,
that you've just added weight to the position you're trying to argue
against?

"D. Spencer Hines" wrote in message
...
Balderdash...

Good software has checks and balances built in -- with full input by
the user.

CCleaner does an excellent job of cleaning the registry -- and
incorporating user input -- just as a good physician or attorney
does. snip

What on earth have physicians and attorneys got to do with CCleaner.
You are a really strange person!

I use to be an advocate of Registry Cleaners. I use to try them all
and was quite convinced they were an essential for efficient computer
management. Perhaps in the days pre WINXP they were useful. I read
all the cautionary advice given in the NGs and like you dismissed
them. Everytime I experienced a glitch, time to run a 'cleaner' and
I use to have 'glitches' at regular intervals. I then decided
perhaps I should stop running these Cleaners and see what happens. Now
I no longer have these 'glitches' or any need to restore the
Registry (ERUNT) from time to time. My experience has been
sufficient for me to relate machine problems (glitches) with Registry
Cleaners. Before you comment, I do run programs like CCleaner, not
the Registry Cleaner component, and Disk Cleaner regularly to clear
out the 'trash' . Actually I think Disk Cleaner is the better of
the programs.
What I do question is that Registry Cleaners will or may corrupt the
Registry to the extent of preventing boot up. This statement I
simply find absurd. For a Registry Cleaner to do this it would need
to remove/corrupt Registry entries that are essential to the OS. Even
with the most rudimentary Quality Control the software designer
would identify and correct that before the program was issued.
Registry Cleaners certainly do remove entries that are required by
some programs to operate (empty keys no doubt) and this is where they
fall down. I suppose the essential question is, in what way does the
removal of empty and redundant data in the Registry improve machine
performance and/or in what way do empty and redundant keys impair
machine performance. If the machine must read every Registry entry
to permit it to execute a command then the answer is self evident but
that is not the case.
Registry Cleaners are a con. There only value is to give the users
of such programs a 'feel good' feeling. These programs remove
entries in the Registry of entries that do not require removal and by
doing so sometimes 'throws the baby out with the bath water'.

If what you say is true, where are the legions of damaged complainers?
I seldom see a problem related to a registry cleaner and when I do it's
seldom the cleaner is the source of the issue.

Cleaning the registry does absolutely nothing to improve speed and
performance, any increase in performance is more likely due to CC
getting rid of temp files. Given the massive size of the registry,
cleaning it out and claiming that the computer runs faster is akin to
running the vacuum cleaner in your car and then claiming that the car
goes faster because you got rid of a pound of dust and dirt! Once in
a blue moon a registry cleaner may be of help to experienced users
trying to troubleshoot problems, othewise these tools are next to
useless or worse. These tools *do* cause problems but most of the
people who use them don't have enough experience to see the link to
the damage done by the cleaner.

If they cause so many problems, how in the world can they be trusted as
a trouble-shooting tool? If you use it for TS, you're saying you accept
its output.


John

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Never happened to me...

Fact:

My system runs smoother and swifter since I started using the
CCleaner registry cleaner.

I'm not vouching for regcleaners in GENERAL.

So your post was one long non sequitur.

'Nuff Said.

Ildhund wrote:
"Bruce Chambers" wrote in message
...
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
...

...
Bruce, DNFTEC; you'll only get bitten. See
http://lcngarc.twoshakesofalambstail...998120729.html


I see your point, but my primary concern is to ensure that there's a
rebuttal to the deliberately harmful advice these people post, so that
newbies are at least warned of the dangers. If doing so also boosts
the sad little trolls' egos, I think it's a price I'll just have to
accept. Anyway, they generally make themselves look increasingly
desperate and pathetic with each new post.

lol, I don't THINK so Bruce. In this thread I'd say you have been
pretty well trodden and returned with nothing of any substance to back
up any of your misinformation. Take up my earlier challenge and let's
see what happens.

"Bruce Chambers" schreef in bericht
...
Ildhund wrote:
"Bruce Chambers" wrote in message
...
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
...

...
Bruce, DNFTEC; you'll only get bitten. See
http://lcngarc.twoshakesofalambstail...998120729.html


I see your point, but my primary concern is to ensure that there's a
rebuttal to the deliberately harmful advice these people post, so
that newbies are at least warned of the dangers. If doing so also
boosts the sad little trolls' egos, I think it's a price I'll just
have to accept. Anyway, they generally make themselves look
increasingly desperate and pathetic with each new post.



--

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

What a lot of crap I read here. cCleaner is not so good as some
think. It produces a lot of problems and there are far better
programs available with much less problems.

Specifically, what kind of problems did/does it create? What are the
far better programs with less problems? Let's put some meat into this
ether.

You write a lot of Good Sense.
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor

"Twayne" wrote in message
...

f'ups set to reduce silly waste of ether

Bruce Chambers wrote:
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be
clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.


CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner. I tried the
latest
version on a brand-new OS installation with no additional
applications installed, and certainly none installed and then
uninstalled, and CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred
allegedly orphaned registry entries and dozens of purportedly
"suspicious" files, making it clearly a *worthless* product, in
this
regard. (Not that any registry cleaner can ever be anything but
worthless, as they don't serve any *useful* purpose, to start
with.)

Did you check any of the "orphaned entries?" Perhaps the OS
installation was the culprit...

The orphaned entries aren't actual problems unless their quantity
gets so high it takes noticeable time for the os to traverse them.
They are mostly "in case" type crap that MS puts all over the place
for future use, but they are not necessary to have. It's similar to
the stuff left over after you uninstall an MS program; it leaves the
folders and a bunch of files there on the disk and in the registry
"just in case" you reinstall it or are upgrading something. When
their numbers reach a few thousand after a year or so, there can be
noticeably longer boot times associated with all the crapola strewn
all over the place, especially when you consider that some of the
registry hives only exist after boot time; they are created on the
fly during boot up, and then during normal day to day registry
reads/writes they are all excess and useless data that has to be
looked at and discarded. The registry is a database but it's not
really a relational database; it's much closer to a flat database in
most of the ways it runs.
The time to run things like ccleaner is after a machine is
installed and running; it's pretty much a waste of time right after
a clean install of windows anyway. There may not have been near as
many after everything was installed, but I've never been sure
whether in installation uses and already created point in the
registry or goes ahead and creates it own anyway.
If you're so inclined, there are some registry monitoring programs
(regmon for instance) that are interesting to watch at work. An
install usually creates a gazillion temporary files, its own install
files get copied to disk, get uncompressed, the install happens,
and then supposedly they are removed from the disk and from the
registry, although that seldom happens completely. It's an
interesting process to watch at work.

Twayne

HeyBub wrote:
Bruce Chambers wrote:
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be
clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.

CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner. I tried the latest
version on a brand-new OS installation with no additional
applications installed, and certainly none installed and then
uninstalled, and CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred
allegedly orphaned registry entries and dozens of purportedly
"suspicious" files, making it clearly a *worthless* product, in
this regard. (Not that any registry cleaner can ever be anything
but worthless, as they don't serve any *useful* purpose, to start
with.)

Did you check any of the "orphaned entries?" Perhaps the OS
installation was the culprit...




Yes, of course I checked them; Wouldn't have been much of a test,
otherwise. They weren't remnants of the OS installation; all (dozens,
I'd noticed the trend by then) of the ones I checked were legitimate
keys.

Legitimate keys to WHAT? Boy, you can't provide anything substantive at
all, can you?

I challenge you:
1. Let me pick a situation and we'll work out the problems.
2. Or you pick a situation and we'll work out hte problems.

We'll each accomplish the same set of tests, complete with timing
measurements and reasonalbe, meaningful levels of detail. We can even
collaborate on a registry screw if you wish. You've stated you're
pretty knowledgeable where the registry is concerned, so it should be
easy between the two of us to devise entries that will not compromise
the machine but will fill it with lots of data to simulate a couple
years worth of registry growth. Then we'll image, clean with a chose
cleaner, and report results.

Let's go: I'm ready. How do you want to get started?

Twayne

Twayne wrote:

Cleaning the registry does absolutely nothing to improve speed and
performance, any increase in performance is more likely due to CC
getting rid of temp files. Given the massive size of the registry,
cleaning it out and claiming that the computer runs faster is akin to
running the vacuum cleaner in your car and then claiming that the car
goes faster because you got rid of a pound of dust and dirt! Once in
a blue moon a registry cleaner may be of help to experienced users
trying to troubleshoot problems, othewise these tools are next to
useless or worse. These tools *do* cause problems but most of the
people who use them don't have enough experience to see the link to
the damage done by the cleaner.


If they cause so many problems, how in the world can they be trusted as
a trouble-shooting tool? If you use it for TS, you're saying you accept
its output.

They can be of limited use in some circumstances when you don't have all
the history of the machine and no, I wouldn't blindly accept its outpt.
If you take it for granted that everything that they dish up are
unneeded entries that are safe to delete then you are asking for trouble
and you will get trouble. Otherwise these cleaners are utterly useless
and they do absolutely nothing to increase computer speed and
performance The indiscriminate use of these programs cause more harm
than good, running registry cleaners as part of a regular maintenance
routine is not a good idea at all.

John

Hah... well than you keep telling yourself all that. I have yet to see
reliable evidence to back up anything you said... and I know from personal
experience registry cleaners do more harm then good. If they do any good at
all.

But hey, you keep doing these worthless scans and telling yourself it's
totally speeding your computer up.

Haha, and great article btw... "after 6 months HUNDREDS of registry errors
can develop"





"Twayne" wrote in message
...
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be
clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.


CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner.
No, it is not worthless as a registry cleaner. It doesn't clean deep, but
it isn't worthless.

I tried the latest
version on a brand-new OS installation with no additional applications
installed,

a wasted effort at that point, since all it found were the "in case" chaff
MS sticks in all over the place. Big deal; if they're needed, they'll get
put back with the installs, but ... it's really counterproductive and a
waste of time to run a cleaner at that point.

and certainly none installed and then uninstalled, and
CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred allegedly orphaned
registry entries and dozens of purportedly "suspicious" files, making
it clearly a *worthless* product, in this regard.

The orphaned entries were just that; orphaned. It doesn't take a CRAY to
determine that an entry is an orphan.

Suspicious Files, well, if you RTFM, it told you how to treat those.

(Not that any
registry cleaner can ever be anything but worthless, as they don't
serve any *useful* purpose, to start with.)

And that is pure BS and you know it, as surely as you have a closed mind.

Because of your claims, I did the exact same test you claim to have done,
here on a sandbox XP laptop not too long ago, got rid of the orphans it
was willing to remove, and left the suspicious files alone since I didn't
want to go see what they were. Told it to not be so picky, reran the test
& those didn't show up, just as the instructions predicted..
After completeion of build, machine ran perfectly. Installed Office, DVD
support, OOo, local Apache Server, PHP, AV and anti-spyware with several
other minor apps & all were quite happy.
Repeated ccleaner, no more issues, no problems. Then once I was sure
all was well I re-imaged the drive, ran ccleaner, no problems found, and
all is well since.

Why you would bother to run a trgistry cleaner immediately after a clean
install is beyond me, though. Talk about a waste of time! But, speaking
of waste ...

If you want to actually help people out in this area, why don't you test
and identify a set of reliable applications and/or offer to give an
opinion on whether a chosen one is reliable or not?
But you won't; it's easier to just parrot your closed minded attitude
that apparently knows very little about the subject. If you were really
knowledgeable, you would also consider normal day to day read/write
sources to the registry and explain how you excuse those when you posit
that anything that touches the registry is bunk? How do you justify
allowing that to happen? I've actually encountered more MS-caused
registry problems over the years than I have from non-MS applications that
use the registry in similar manners.

These aren't for you; they're for the many who enjoy follosing this kind
of link and who might like a little information on the subject. Even with
their own built in biases, these links are a breath of fresh air compared
to yours.

http://download.iolo.net/articles/Registry1.pdf

http://www.raxco.com/products/perfec...RXSuite_wp.pdf

Twayne

"N. Miller" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:50:57 +0100, D. Spencer Hines wrote:

Twaddle.

I approve every single registry change that is made.

If I don't approve it, no change is made.

Perfectly safe.

I don't need a registry cleaner to recommend changes which I then have to
approve. Unless I have some indication that there is a registry change
needed, I don't make changes. I've got a few "dead" keys. I don't see how
they make any difference.

Any tool which offers suggested changes is dangerous in the hands of those
who don't know what the tool does. Anybody who does know what the registry
cleaner is recommending, probably doesn't even need the cleaner.

I do know what the cleaners are recommending and I would not live without
their very valuable service.... but I could do without the registry
altogether... it's nothing more than an unwieldy headache as an attempt to
institute control over the o/s while doing nothing but adding an unnecessary
layer of time-wasting administration without providing any additional
security while just bogging everything down with a ridiculous amount of
system overhead...

okay... I've had my rant... I'm just here to find out what happened to
express' "block sender" feature in live mail... I would have thought it
would be easier to killfile idiots on usenut with more features, but if
"message rules" is supposed to be the "updated solution"... then this just
irks me that much more...


--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum