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
  #61  
Old January 9th 10, 06:26 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
Etaoin Shrdlu[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 50
Default 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  
Old January 9th 10, 06:33 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
Unknown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,007
Default 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  
Old January 9th 10, 06:33 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
Unknown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,007
Default 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  
Old January 9th 10, 11:29 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
thanatoid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 584
Default 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  
Old January 9th 10, 11:29 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
thanatoid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 584
Default 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  
Old January 10th 10, 12:34 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
Peter Foldes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,444
Default 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  
Old January 10th 10, 12:34 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
Peter Foldes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,444
Default 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  
Old January 10th 10, 12:37 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
Peter Foldes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,444
Default 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  
Old January 10th 10, 12:37 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
Peter Foldes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,444
Default 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  
Old January 10th 10, 12:58 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
Daave[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,461
Default 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  
Old January 10th 10, 12:58 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
Daave[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,461
Default 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  
Old January 10th 10, 02:01 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
thanatoid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 584
Default 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  
Old January 10th 10, 02:01 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
thanatoid
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 584
Default 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  
Old January 10th 10, 03:53 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
Daave[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,461
Default 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  
Old January 10th 10, 03:53 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
Daave[_8_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,461
Default 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

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 03:49 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.