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 |
#106
|
|||
|
|||
registry cleaner and back up
Amadeus47 wrote:
Very interesting thread. Has the tinge of some of the 'old' flame wars of the 70's and 80's. One source to consult on the topic is also an 'old timer' around compters, Fred Langa. See his article on registry cleaners at http://windowssecrets.com/2007/03/01...ers-worthwhile JV16 has worked well for me for many years. And what do you mean by 'worked well'? I assume you mean it hasn't damaged the Registry. If that assumption is correct will you explain what benefits you have gained from running JV16 an how you measured those benefits. I do not mean to be critical but the essence of the debate over Registry Cleaners is an objective determination of the benefits, not that they remove redundant entries from the Registry, I don't think anyone disputes that. If the benefits are solely a reduction in the physical size of the Registry, I believe we would all agree but might be tempted to add, so what? Edward, May I respectfully point you to the link to Fred Langa's article. He is among many of the 'ancient' PC experts whose opinion is held in high esteem. Not so. Fred Langa is a journalist, not a technician. He's certainly no expert. I don't know a single IT professional who holds him in "high esteem." Utter contempt is the more common reaction, among those who've read some of his material. -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. ~ Denis Diderot |
Ads |
#107
|
|||
|
|||
registry cleaner and back up
Leonard Grey wrote:
I am familiar with the article and with Langa. The article does not prove that registry cleaners are of any value whatsoever - no before-and-after benchmarks or any other measurements for that matter. Langa starts with the unproven assumption that registry cleaners have value and merely tries to decide which registry cleaner is best. In addition to being a respected writer, Langa is also a businessman. The population of potential subscribers and sponsor-patronizers who have been deceived by registry cleaner hype is substantially larger than the population of those who know better. --- Leonard Grey Errare humanum est Well said. -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. ~ Denis Diderot |
#108
|
|||
|
|||
registry cleaner and back up
"Amadeus47" wrote in message ... Very interesting thread. Has the tinge of some of the 'old' flame wars of the 70's and 80's. One source to consult on the topic is also an 'old timer' around compters, Fred Langa. See his article on registry cleaners at http://windowssecrets.com/2007/03/01...ers-worthwhile JV16 has worked well for me for many years. And what do you mean by 'worked well'? I assume you mean it hasn't damaged the Registry. If that assumption is correct will you explain what benefits you have gained from running JV16 an how you measured those benefits. I do not mean to be critical but the essence of the debate over Registry Cleaners is an objective determination of the benefits, not that they remove redundant entries from the Registry, I don't think anyone disputes that. If the benefits are solely a reduction in the physical size of the Registry, I believe we would all agree but might be tempted to add, so what? Edward, May I respectfully point you to the link to Fred Langa's article. He is among many of the 'ancient' PC experts whose opinion is held in high esteem. One of the points of his article (which, BTW, emulates the sentiments of other experts on the topic) he makes is for heavy computer users (which I am) a good registry cleaner is a necessity and it *does* help keep a machine running under these conditions run faster after use. I suggest others who are interested in this topic will find his article enlightening. As you will note, others do not hold Mr. Langa is such high regard as you. However, don't let us debate Mr. Langa's credentials or lack of credentials. Am I to understand your recommendation with respect to Registry Cleaners is based upon a recommendation from Mr. Langa? If you have objective evidence of your own to show their benefits would you kindly share that evidence with the rest of us? As you seem to understand what these programs do, please explain how removing redundant entries from the Regisry allows your machine to run faster. Exactly how did you determine this? |
#109
|
|||
|
|||
registry cleaner and back up
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:51:22 -0700, Bruce Chambers
wrote: Amadeus47 wrote: JV16 has worked well for me for many years. "Worked well" in what regard, precisely? I mean, other than separate you from some of your money? (Which is its's purpose.) My perception of those (not Amadeus47 in particular) who say this about some registry cleaner is that they mean two things by it: 1. Their computer is faster after they run it. 2. There were no problems after running that were attributable to it. But I have two replies to that: 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. 2. Certainly registry cleaners do *not* cause a problem every time someone uses them. None of us claims that. In fact, it's true that most times someone uses a registry cleaner, no problem results. Many people who have run a registry cleaner, even many times, have never experienced a problem caused by it. It's only *sometimes* that registry cleaners cause a problem. It's a matter of increased risk of problems, not of certainty. The reason not to use a registry cleaner is that the tradeoff of increased risk for no benefit is a very bad bargain. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup |
#110
|
|||
|
|||
registry cleaner and back up
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. |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
registry cleaner and back up
"Another possibility is that the use of a combination temp file
cleaner/registry cleaner very well might speed up one's browsing." I do not believe that is correct. Even with the fastest internet access currently available, it's always quicker to query a hard disk than to query the internet. The reason for advising someone to clear their browser cache is to force the browser to go to the internet. Don't need a registry cleaner for that. --- Leonard Grey Errare humanum est 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. |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
registry cleaner and back up
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 11:33:50 -0500, "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. Yes, excellent point! If two things are done simultaneously (not just those two), it's very easy to mis-attribute an improvement in performance to the wrong one. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User Please Reply to the Newsgroup |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
registry cleaner and back up
Bruce Chambers wrote:
Amadeus47 wrote: Very interesting thread. Has the tinge of some of the 'old' flame wars of the 70's and 80's. One source to consult on the topic is also an 'old timer' around compters, Fred Langa. See his article on registry cleaners at http://windowssecrets.com/2007/03/01...ers-worthwhile Fred Langa is a "journalist" with absolutely no technical education, training, or background. Read his bio. I always tell my customers (those few who are aware of his existence, that is) to pay close attention to what he says, and then do the exact opposite. They're much less likely to go wrong, that way. Just as he's blowing smoke, without providing a shred of supporting independent laboratory evidence, in the article you cite. In the earlier article he cites, he "reviewed" several so-called registry "cleaners," and his *sole* criteria for judging the best, better, etc., was the number of times each one had to be run before it stopped reporting "problems." At no time did he ever state whether or not any of the "problems" found were real problems, nor did he state that any of the "cleaners" improved the computer's performance. JV16 has worked well for me for many years. "Worked well" in what regard, precisely? I mean, other than separate you from some of your money? (Which is its's purpose.) Kind of like those who trot out the "never use a registry cleaner, manually edit the registry instead" closed minded dolts do you mean? Yeah, it's pretty similar, I agree. And do the "opposite" of what Langa says/does? Wow, is that a foolish statement, even if it is meant to be rhetorical. GAK! |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
registry cleaner and back up
Bruce Chambers wrote:
Amadeus47 wrote: Very interesting thread. Has the tinge of some of the 'old' flame wars of the 70's and 80's. One source to consult on the topic is also an 'old timer' around compters, Fred Langa. See his article on registry cleaners at http://windowssecrets.com/2007/03/01...ers-worthwhile JV16 has worked well for me for many years. And what do you mean by 'worked well'? I assume you mean it hasn't damaged the Registry. If that assumption is correct will you explain what benefits you have gained from running JV16 an how you measured those benefits. I do not mean to be critical but the essence of the debate over Registry Cleaners is an objective determination of the benefits, not that they remove redundant entries from the Registry, I don't think anyone disputes that. If the benefits are solely a reduction in the physical size of the Registry, I believe we would all agree but might be tempted to add, so what? Edward, May I respectfully point you to the link to Fred Langa's article. He is among many of the 'ancient' PC experts whose opinion is held in high esteem. Not so. Fred Langa is a journalist, not a technician. He's certainly no expert. I don't know a single IT professional who holds him in "high esteem." Utter contempt is the more common reaction, among those who've read some of his material. You didn't even bother to look at the article to be sure your allegations hold up, did you? FL doesn't claim to be a technician. And the OP was discussing " 'ancient' PC experts" not an "IT professional". And "utter contempt" from those who've read "some of" his material? Now there's an idea: if any single thing is wrong, then all is wrong. Just as the dunderheads with their closed minded attitudes about registry applications. I don't know a "single IT professional" who *DOES* hold Langa in contempt. So, since I don't have a closed mind and you appear to, does that make MY statement any more/less meaningful than the tripe you posted? NOT! However, I with an open mind, would at least have included some verifiable detail to back up any such inane allegations as you make here, some of which border on libel BTW. In MY opinion, FL is a journalist, just like HE says he is (not you). I don't care whether he or anyone else is a "techie"; I only consider one's track record and results. Now in his case, if your'e a newbie, he sometimes does pretty good. Other times not so good. But I'm not supid enough to label anyone (well, except closed minded people I guess) with a single swipe of a brush. |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
registry cleaner and back up
Edward W. Thompson wrote:
"Amadeus47" wrote in message ... Very interesting thread. Has the tinge of some of the 'old' flame wars of the 70's and 80's. One source to consult on the topic is also an 'old timer' around compters, Fred Langa. See his article on registry cleaners at http://windowssecrets.com/2007/03/01...ers-worthwhile JV16 has worked well for me for many years. And what do you mean by 'worked well'? I assume you mean it hasn't damaged the Registry. If that assumption is correct will you explain what benefits you have gained from running JV16 an how you measured those benefits. I do not mean to be critical but the essence of the debate over Registry Cleaners is an objective determination of the benefits, not that they remove redundant entries from the Registry, I don't think anyone disputes that. If the benefits are solely a reduction in the physical size of the Registry, I believe we would all agree but might be tempted to add, so what? Edward, May I respectfully point you to the link to Fred Langa's article. He is among many of the 'ancient' PC experts whose opinion is held in high esteem. One of the points of his article (which, BTW, emulates the sentiments of other experts on the topic) he makes is for heavy computer users (which I am) a good registry cleaner is a necessity and it *does* help keep a machine running under these conditions run faster after use. I suggest others who are interested in this topic will find his article enlightening. As you will note, others do not hold Mr. Langa is such high regard as you. However, don't let us debate Mr. Langa's credentials or lack of credentials. Am I to understand your recommendation with respect to Registry Cleaners is based upon a recommendation from Mr. Langa? If you have objective evidence of your own to show their benefits would you kindly share that evidence with the rest of us? As you seem to understand what these programs do, please explain how removing redundant entries from the Regisry allows your machine to run faster. Exactly how did you determine this? I can, and have, done so in the past when other closed minds challenged the status of "cleaners", provided measurable, verifiable evidence of same. However, not a single one of those closed minds presented so much as an iota of evidence to support their claims over the dangers of "cleaners" OR the lack of any time savings. In fact, my data was completely ignored, the closed minds choosing to stick to confusing the newbies rather than straighten out the misinformation they wish to push on the entire world. I'm not saying reigstry cleaners should be used periodically, although with a decent one it will not cause any problems any more than the registry manipulations of installing and even registry use while running an application does. There *ARE* circumstances where a "cleaner" will make a noticeable and profound difference in machine speed, although they are in the minority of root causes. OTOH periodically "cleaning" the reigistry with a reliable app will do no harm. You guys with your closed minds do more to confuse newbies and neophytes than any other single act I am aware of w/r to managing the Registry. A time or two I've even seen "cleaners" denounced on this group when the "cleaners" under discussion did zero, zip, nada, nothing with respect to the Registry but were more or less just some code to initiate the Disk Cleanup feature. |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
registry cleaner and back up
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. |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
registry cleaner and back up
Poprivet` wrote:
Edward W. Thompson wrote: As you will note, others do not hold Mr. Langa is such high regard as you. However, don't let us debate Mr. Langa's credentials or lack of credentials. Am I to understand your recommendation with respect to Registry Cleaners is based upon a recommendation from Mr. Langa? If you have objective evidence of your own to show their benefits would you kindly share that evidence with the rest of us? As you seem to understand what these programs do, please explain how removing redundant entries from the Regisry allows your machine to run faster. Exactly how did you determine this? I can, and have, done so in the past when other closed minds challenged the status of "cleaners", provided measurable, verifiable evidence of same. However, not a single one of those closed minds presented so much as an iota of evidence to support their claims over the dangers of "cleaners" OR the lack of any time savings. In fact, my data was completely ignored, the closed minds choosing to stick to confusing the newbies rather than straighten out the misinformation they wish to push on the entire world. I would like to see the data you are referring to. Please post a link to it. Thank you. |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
registry cleaner and back up
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. |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
registry cleaner and back up
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." -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. ~ Denis Diderot |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
registry cleaner and back up
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." The fact is, they don't have any documented factual evidence. One thing that is a fact, however, is that by using the automatic registry cleaners, or even the manual ones if you're not extremely knowledgeable and very selective about what you're cutting out, you're playing with fire, and you can really mess up your system. And THAT is a fact. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|