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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Registry cleaner ?
thanatoid wrote:
"David H. Lipman" wrote in : SNIP Rulle of thumb... Do NOT use so-called Registry Cleaners ! | You "rulle" of thumb is as good as its spelling. Forget the BS spelling faux pas... It is contraindicated to use so-called Registry Cleaners ! | OK, I'll bite... Why? Because the need for one is a myth I just LOVE specific replies! Bravo! Use can cause MORE problems than they purport to solve. Problems that can be catastrophic. I /could/ ask for an example but judging by your "reply" to my first question, I don't see much point. What you haven't done, for all of your posturing, is tell why you think registry cleaning is a good idea. We know that there's always a chance that a neophyte will "clean" something that will result in trouble, and even if the chance is remote, there must be something that makes the risk worthwhile. If you just want to clean out orphaned entries because their presence bothers you, that's a personal neurosis and not evidence of efficacy. Do you believe that large numbers of orphaned entries cause a problem (such as significantly slowing down the system) other than their mere presence? If so, what objective evidence do you have? Note that "I know my system's faster after registry cleaning" isn't objective evidence. |
Ads |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Registry cleaner ?
You don't see much of anything.
"thanatoid" wrote in message ... "David H. Lipman" wrote in : SNIP Rulle of thumb... Do NOT use so-called Registry Cleaners ! | You "rulle" of thumb is as good as its spelling. Forget the BS spelling faux pas... It is contraindicated to use so-called Registry Cleaners ! | OK, I'll bite... Why? Because the need for one is a myth I just LOVE specific replies! Bravo! Use can cause MORE problems than they purport to solve. Problems that can be catastrophic. I /could/ ask for an example but judging by your "reply" to my first question, I don't see much point. |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Registry cleaner ?
You don't see much of anything. "thanatoid" wrote in message ... "David H. Lipman" wrote in : SNIP Rulle of thumb... Do NOT use so-called Registry Cleaners ! | You "rulle" of thumb is as good as its spelling. Forget the BS spelling faux pas... It is contraindicated to use so-called Registry Cleaners ! | OK, I'll bite... Why? Because the need for one is a myth I just LOVE specific replies! Bravo! Use can cause MORE problems than they purport to solve. Problems that can be catastrophic. I /could/ ask for an example but judging by your "reply" to my first question, I don't see much point. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Registry cleaner ?
"Unknown" wrote in
: You don't see much of anything. What are you talking about? I am not going to read 50 lines of text I have already read previously just to find out. SNIP |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Registry cleaner ?
"Unknown" wrote in
: You don't see much of anything. What are you talking about? I am not going to read 50 lines of text I have already read previously just to find out. SNIP |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Registry cleaner ?
What are you talking about? I am not going to read 50 lines of
text I have already read previously just to find out. And there you go. You said it. One reason to Top post so as others do not have to re-read all 50 chapters over and over as you said above. Unfortunately bottom posters and almost all of them do not know what a snipping tool is and as such everything gets reprinted over and over. -- Peter Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged. "thanatoid" wrote in message ... |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Registry cleaner ?
What are you talking about? I am not going to read 50 lines of text I have already read previously just to find out. And there you go. You said it. One reason to Top post so as others do not have to re-read all 50 chapters over and over as you said above. Unfortunately bottom posters and almost all of them do not know what a snipping tool is and as such everything gets reprinted over and over. -- Peter Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged. "thanatoid" wrote in message ... |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Registry cleaner ?
Unknown
Ignore this Steve. He is an ignoramus. -- Peter Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged. "Unknown" wrote in message ... |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Registry cleaner ?
Unknown
Ignore this Steve. He is an ignoramus. -- Peter Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged. "Unknown" wrote in message ... |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Registry cleaner ?
Steve Hayes wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 23:28:46 -0500, "David H. Lipman" wrote: You don't. There is no need to clean the Registry. It is a myth to sell snake oil. Very often these so-called Registry Cleaners are malware. So it's OK for the registry to grow and grow, with redundant and outdated entries? It depends upon the operating system. For a system like Windows XP, the answer is yes. Nobody had ever offered convincing evidence that these outdated entries slow down performance. |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
Registry cleaner ?
Steve Hayes wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 23:28:46 -0500, "David H. Lipman" wrote: You don't. There is no need to clean the Registry. It is a myth to sell snake oil. Very often these so-called Registry Cleaners are malware. So it's OK for the registry to grow and grow, with redundant and outdated entries? It depends upon the operating system. For a system like Windows XP, the answer is yes. Nobody had ever offered convincing evidence that these outdated entries slow down performance. |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Registry cleaner ?
"Peter Foldes" wrote in
: What are you talking about? I am not going to read 50 lines of text I have already read previously just to find out. And there you go. You said it. One reason to Top post so as others do not have to re-read all 50 chapters over and over as you said above. And have NO clue whWTF the topfeeder is mumbling about. Unfortunately bottom posters and almost all of them do not know what a snipping tool is and as such everything gets reprinted over and over. I /strongly/ suggest you look in your yellow pages for the nearest Mental Health Clinic. And perhaps a remedial English class at a nearby community college while you're at it. WWAI, /what/ IS a "snipping tool"? |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Registry cleaner ?
"Peter Foldes" wrote in
: What are you talking about? I am not going to read 50 lines of text I have already read previously just to find out. And there you go. You said it. One reason to Top post so as others do not have to re-read all 50 chapters over and over as you said above. And have NO clue whWTF the topfeeder is mumbling about. Unfortunately bottom posters and almost all of them do not know what a snipping tool is and as such everything gets reprinted over and over. I /strongly/ suggest you look in your yellow pages for the nearest Mental Health Clinic. And perhaps a remedial English class at a nearby community college while you're at it. WWAI, /what/ IS a "snipping tool"? |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Registry cleaner ?
Steve Hayes wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 18:58:53 -0500, "Daave" wrote: Steve Hayes wrote: On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 23:28:46 -0500, "David H. Lipman" wrote: You don't. There is no need to clean the Registry. It is a myth to sell snake oil. Very often these so-called Registry Cleaners are malware. So it's OK for the registry to grow and grow, with redundant and outdated entries? It depends upon the operating system. For a system like Windows XP, the answer is yes. Nobody had ever offered convincing evidence that these outdated entries slow down performance. Thanks. I thoguht that in this ng, unless otherwise stated, that WERE talking about Windows XP operating system. Good point. The problem is that with earlier operating systems (e.g., Windows 98), registry cleaning actually *did* produce a certain amount of improvement in performance. And many people who have had positive experiences with these registry cleaning utilities had them all those years ago when they ran those OSes, yours truly included. In fact, the utility that I preferred was Jouni Vuorio's RegCleaner 4.3. (This is interesting because the program recommended by Kim Kommando is written by him, too!) But operating systems from XP onward are designed so differently, and seemingly countless orphan entries in the registry interestingly cause no appreciable difference in performance. This is why so many experienced people caution against the use of these programs. There is no noticeable benefit and there is a small chance that significant damage may occur. Yes, although rare, there have been instances reported in these very newsgroups where people have been unable to boot into Windows after running these cleaners! Adding to the confusion is the large number of scams one can find throughout the Internet. Many of these scams are malware disguised in a registry cleaning package. A friend of mine fell for one of these scams about a year ago, panicked, and wound up using his credit card to make himself $50 poorer! For advanced people who always have an up-to-date image or clone of their system hard drive, using the _non-scam_ registry cleaners is not an issue because even if the rare situation of a non-bootable system occurs, they're covered. And some people like to play around and clean house, attempting to rid their registries of as many useless entries (or entries *perceived* of as useless!) as possible. Some of these people (hello, Twayne) will insist that the perceived threat of cleaning a registry is overblown. But this brings us back to Square One: With systems like Windows XP, these leftover registry entries simply do not affect performance in any appreciable way. No one has *ever* offered actual evidence to support this claim. The closest (and it's not close at all!) I have found is anecdotal evidence like the following: I've never noticed a perfrmance boost on my own machines but on occasion I have seen it help in customer's machines. I don't look for it either as a rule because it's not my purpose in running such a program. Even then you have to be purposely looking for it though, since an A-B comparison can't be made. (from a post made by the aforementioned Twayne) Just because someone on some newsgroup says something like "on occasion I have seen it help in customer's machines" doesn't mean this is actual evidence! Human beings are funny creatures and imagination can be a powerful thing. That is why I always look for actual evidence. All one would need to do is design an experiment that *would* allow for an A-B comparison. And if I reinstall the software, will it just overwrite the old entries, so that they don't interfere with the new installation? It depends on the software. If the uninstall and/or reinstall instructions are well-written, old entries will be written over. Then again, many times old leftover entries will remain. The point is that these old leftover entries just sit there doing nothing 99.9% of the time, thereby not affecting performance. In certain situations, there might be an issue, but it would be an actual issue like the *inability* to install a newer version of the same program, *not* a general performance issue. And those specific issues can be addressed by either a specific removal tool (Norton and McAfee have these on their sites for download) or by using Regedit. That being said, a program like the one written by Jouni Vuorio can have some benefit in locating *specific* problematic entries quicker. But to expect that just by running it for no reason will improve performance is to be let down because it just won't happen. You might find the following interesting: http://www.whatthetech.com/2007/11/2...istry-cleaner/ |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Registry cleaner ?
Steve Hayes wrote:
On Sat, 9 Jan 2010 18:58:53 -0500, "Daave" wrote: Steve Hayes wrote: On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 23:28:46 -0500, "David H. Lipman" wrote: You don't. There is no need to clean the Registry. It is a myth to sell snake oil. Very often these so-called Registry Cleaners are malware. So it's OK for the registry to grow and grow, with redundant and outdated entries? It depends upon the operating system. For a system like Windows XP, the answer is yes. Nobody had ever offered convincing evidence that these outdated entries slow down performance. Thanks. I thoguht that in this ng, unless otherwise stated, that WERE talking about Windows XP operating system. Good point. The problem is that with earlier operating systems (e.g., Windows 98), registry cleaning actually *did* produce a certain amount of improvement in performance. And many people who have had positive experiences with these registry cleaning utilities had them all those years ago when they ran those OSes, yours truly included. In fact, the utility that I preferred was Jouni Vuorio's RegCleaner 4.3. (This is interesting because the program recommended by Kim Kommando is written by him, too!) But operating systems from XP onward are designed so differently, and seemingly countless orphan entries in the registry interestingly cause no appreciable difference in performance. This is why so many experienced people caution against the use of these programs. There is no noticeable benefit and there is a small chance that significant damage may occur. Yes, although rare, there have been instances reported in these very newsgroups where people have been unable to boot into Windows after running these cleaners! Adding to the confusion is the large number of scams one can find throughout the Internet. Many of these scams are malware disguised in a registry cleaning package. A friend of mine fell for one of these scams about a year ago, panicked, and wound up using his credit card to make himself $50 poorer! For advanced people who always have an up-to-date image or clone of their system hard drive, using the _non-scam_ registry cleaners is not an issue because even if the rare situation of a non-bootable system occurs, they're covered. And some people like to play around and clean house, attempting to rid their registries of as many useless entries (or entries *perceived* of as useless!) as possible. Some of these people (hello, Twayne) will insist that the perceived threat of cleaning a registry is overblown. But this brings us back to Square One: With systems like Windows XP, these leftover registry entries simply do not affect performance in any appreciable way. No one has *ever* offered actual evidence to support this claim. The closest (and it's not close at all!) I have found is anecdotal evidence like the following: I've never noticed a perfrmance boost on my own machines but on occasion I have seen it help in customer's machines. I don't look for it either as a rule because it's not my purpose in running such a program. Even then you have to be purposely looking for it though, since an A-B comparison can't be made. (from a post made by the aforementioned Twayne) Just because someone on some newsgroup says something like "on occasion I have seen it help in customer's machines" doesn't mean this is actual evidence! Human beings are funny creatures and imagination can be a powerful thing. That is why I always look for actual evidence. All one would need to do is design an experiment that *would* allow for an A-B comparison. And if I reinstall the software, will it just overwrite the old entries, so that they don't interfere with the new installation? It depends on the software. If the uninstall and/or reinstall instructions are well-written, old entries will be written over. Then again, many times old leftover entries will remain. The point is that these old leftover entries just sit there doing nothing 99.9% of the time, thereby not affecting performance. In certain situations, there might be an issue, but it would be an actual issue like the *inability* to install a newer version of the same program, *not* a general performance issue. And those specific issues can be addressed by either a specific removal tool (Norton and McAfee have these on their sites for download) or by using Regedit. That being said, a program like the one written by Jouni Vuorio can have some benefit in locating *specific* problematic entries quicker. But to expect that just by running it for no reason will improve performance is to be let down because it just won't happen. You might find the following interesting: http://www.whatthetech.com/2007/11/2...istry-cleaner/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|