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 |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
OT Registry cleaner ?
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 |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
OT Registry cleaner ?
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 |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
Registry cleaner ?
"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.) |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
Registry cleaner ?
"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.) |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
OT Registry cleaner ?
"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 |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
OT Registry cleaner ?
"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 |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
Registry cleaner ?
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 |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
Registry cleaner ?
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 |
#161
|
|||
|
|||
OT Registry cleaner ?
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 |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
OT Registry cleaner ?
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 |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
Registry cleaner ?
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 |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
Registry cleaner ?
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 |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
Registry cleaner ?
"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.) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|