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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
registry cleaner and back up
Quite the contrary, I think Bruce - and I - are quite open-minded on the
subject. Let one of the registry cleaner writers setup a before-and-after benchmark that proves their registry cleaner lives up to its marketing. Let them measure for us how their product makes a computer so much better. On the contrary, anyone can read for themselves in these newsgroups how registry cleaners have damaged posters' installations, frequently beyond repair. --- Leonard Grey Errare humanum est Bruce Chambers wrote: Daave wrote: Poprivet` wrote: Daave wrote: Ken Blake, MVP wrote: 1. Hardly anyone actually measures the speed of their computer before and after running a registry cleaner, in part because accurate measurement of speed is very difficult. So what they really mean is that it generally *feels* faster. But just like taking a placebo, such feelings can be very misleading, and many people think there's an improvement where none really exists. Moreover if someone has spent money (or even just time and effort) on a product, he *wants* to be convinced that it has done something useful, and that he hasn't wasted his money, time, and effort, and that placebo effect is therefore greatly enhanced. That's certainly a distinct possibility. Another possibility is that the use of a combination temp file cleaner/registry cleaner very well might speed up one's browsing. Then again, it's deletion of *temp files* (not "dead wood" in the registry) that causes this effect. IMO all it takes to "measure" whether a "cleaner" made any difference is a wrist watch or cheapie stop watch. If it's a noticeable improvement, those instruments will readily identify non-negligible changes. But there is more to a registry than noticeable machine times and setting any control for timing is difficult at best anyway. I don't look at such tools as "tuning" tools, but I do on occasion use them for some pretty substantial problems. And, being able to "put back" the changes made creates a neatly verifiable fix-situation. There's a lot more to the registry than machine cycles. This thread has taken the OP's simple questions and turned into an ego-fest of closed-minded tripe that puts some groups to shame. I'm not saying YOU are a closed mind, BTW; I don't know you and what you said, though singular, is true enough. I believe I have a very open mind. What I find frustrating is when people like D. Spencer Hines make claims but are unwilling to back it up. On the one hand, I've read a good deal of posts from those who are clueless newbs who ruined their PCs by running bad-quality registry cleaners. The worst offenders, of course, are the ones that cause you to think that Microsoft itself has notified you of registry errors (false positives) and then trick you into clicking on a link to download and install their rogue programs. On the other hand, I've had positive experiences with RegCleaner (same as JV Tools). I find it useful for situations like de-McAfeeing a system. For someone who knows what they're doing (and that's key!), I feel it's quite safe. Still, I understand why many would generally avoid recommending registry cleaners. My point of interest is purely on performance grounds. Many have made claims that a good registry cleaner can actually speed up a PC. That's never been my experience. And I've never seen evidence to support this claim. It is *because* I have an open mind that I'd like to see the evidence! So, if you do know of any data, please point me to it; I'm more than willing to agree with you vis-à-vis speed increases as long as I see data that supports it. I'll second all of the above. For years, I've been asking the registry cleaner advocates to provide some sort of verifiable, independent evidence and/or documentation to support their claims, but *none* have ever been able to do so, to date. The best I've gotten are lines to marketing and advertising crap or so-called "reviews" that don't actually provide any facts. Absent any evidence or facts to the contrary, I don't think basing my opinions upon my own years of direct observation and experience is being "close minded." |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|