A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows XP » The Basics
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Registry cleaner ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181  
Old January 15th 10, 10:54 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
Twayne[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,073
Default OT Registry cleaner ?

In ,
Unknown typed:
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..


Nice mislead, but still wrong, no matter how it's formatted. Most people can
make up their own minds, unlike you. It's obvious and easy to find the
technical reasons for using registry cleaners if you'd bother to so much as
even try to look. Had a newbie and not your idiotness asked the question
I'd have responded in kind, with links and everything. But for you, there
is no accounting for you and it'd be nothing but a waste of time. Oh, and
don't try posing; it si extremely unlikely to work no matter how hard you
try.

Twayne

"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



Ads
  #182  
Old January 15th 10, 10:54 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
Twayne[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,073
Default OT Registry cleaner ?

In ,
Unknown typed:
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..


Nice mislead, but still wrong, no matter how it's formatted. Most people can
make up their own minds, unlike you. It's obvious and easy to find the
technical reasons for using registry cleaners if you'd bother to so much as
even try to look. Had a newbie and not your idiotness asked the question
I'd have responded in kind, with links and everything. But for you, there
is no accounting for you and it'd be nothing but a waste of time. Oh, and
don't try posing; it si extremely unlikely to work no matter how hard you
try.

Twayne

"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



  #183  
Old January 16th 10, 06:25 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
Unknown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,007
Default Registry cleaner ?

You are absolutely correct. There is no way I can support that there are
sound technical reasons
for running a registry cleaner.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...
In ,
Unknown typed:
He is in the very lowest of minority since he states there are 'sound
technical reasons
for running a registry cleaner'.


Oh yeah? Let's see you provide ANYTHING to support that. You can't. It
makes for another lie on YOUr part, however.

HTH,

Twayne



"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





  #184  
Old January 16th 10, 06:25 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
Unknown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,007
Default Registry cleaner ?


You are absolutely correct. There is no way I can support that there are
sound technical reasons
for running a registry cleaner.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...
In ,
Unknown typed:
He is in the very lowest of minority since he states there are 'sound
technical reasons
for running a registry cleaner'.


Oh yeah? Let's see you provide ANYTHING to support that. You can't. It
makes for another lie on YOUr part, however.

HTH,

Twayne



"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





  #185  
Old January 16th 10, 06:34 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
Unknown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,007
Default OT Registry cleaner ?


"Twayne" wrote in message
...
In ,
Shenan Stanley typed:
snipped

However, I will still continue to expose misinformationists and those
who may attempt to in any way pursuade people to not believe the truth in
spirit if not in words.

Twayne

There-in is your problem. You do not recognize or post the truth.

Tis a pity.


  #186  
Old January 16th 10, 06:34 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
Unknown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,007
Default OT Registry cleaner ?


"Twayne" wrote in message
...
In ,
Shenan Stanley typed:
snipped

However, I will still continue to expose misinformationists and those
who may attempt to in any way pursuade people to not believe the truth in
spirit if not in words.

Twayne

There-in is your problem. You do not recognize or post the truth.

Tis a pity.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.