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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
.... As long as Windows 9x conventions are applied to Windows NT and its successors, the myths regarding how Win 2000, XP, Vista and Win 7 process the registry, fonts and everything else which could be a problem in Win 9x will continue. Myths; good choice, because people applying 9x conventions to 2k & XP is just that. You're good at rationalizing with whatever thought may occur to you but that doesn't make it factual. IME the majority of people here without closed minds see the situation in a clearer and more logical sense than you can. You have mired yourself into a corner with your own XP myths and proclamations made all over the 'net and now you feel that you cannot admit reality because it would make you look less than perfect. In actual fact, you know the situation as it really is but don't dare to admit the reality, reliability and capabilities of today's registry cleaners. You've even tried a few tiny concessions here and there, like cc comments, but ended up conflicting with your own words and rather than appear to have opened your mind a crack, securely locked it down again. Windows NT and its successors ignore orphaned entries. They may fall over if they come across active corrupted entries, but registry cleaners do not fix this type of problem.. So does VB and Python, and PHP and a plethora of other coded works. You are trying to imply (which is all you ever do in your rationalized world) that "orphaned" entries never cause any kind of impact ever in any way, and that is patently untrue. You think that because a key/whatever is never called (and orphans often DO get called, BTW, by other orphans in some situations) it costs zero time. You're trying to imply that the registry is only READ, and that it never executes an instruction or command. IMO your understanding of the registry's internal workings are actually abysmally deficient but good enough for you to grab onto single events and then try to build those into all-encompassing rationalizations to push onto what you consider your "minions". You can occasionally see a tree in the forest but you never address more then one tree and I doubt you ever even notice there is a forest there or your attitudes would be different. Now, an "active" corrupted entry, whatever you mean by that, is not usually going to make the thing "fall". The vast majority of the time, it's going to result in an error message. You then imply that registry cleaners do not fix that "type of problem", but often they do/will, because the cleaner WILL report it not able to execute and offer the normal various possibilities for repair. Thanks to the robustness of the registry, it seldom ever occurs, but when it does a decent registry cleaner will point it out for the user. I only recall that ever happening once, long ago, but I believe I have seen it happen. In that case it wasn't a single corruption; an entire key was corrupted and made no sense in any way. In that case I seriously suspect it was corruption that occurred during the write TO the registry by an installed program; otherwise it wouldn't have been so neatly confined as it was. The registry is a very robust thing and it's actually hard to make it 'fall' on purpose. In fact, many have seen the results of trying to remove something the system needed when the deleted entry is simply re-created by the system. Many parts of it you couldn't corrupt if you wanted to. Even adding unallowed data often won't hurt anything. Enter a 4 where the only possibilities are 0 or 1, and you'll get back a 0 next time you look at it! Add to that the fact that all you guys pushing all these myths have NEVER provided a single authoritative piece of information to support your myths, and it pretty well wraps up your credibility on the subject. Even MS has dabbled with registry cleaners for along time and still are doing so, so obviously they don't buy the "will trash" and "imminent..." this & that attitudes you try to push. You guys need to stick with subjects you can verify, clarify, reproduce and otherwise use factual data for. The lack of anything like that has gone on for so long now that anything that any of you did decide to provide would likely be suspect or it would have been posted long ago. Anyone can write an article on um,ha and then come here and recommend that article as "proof" that what they say is true; I always have to giggle when I see that happen. It has been as serious hit on the credibility of the web site, not to mention the nearly current unrecognized status of being an MVP as some are. I thank you for this opportunity to once more expose the myths being pushed by a small ring of loud and noisy closed minds here and on a few other groups. HTH, Twayne` |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
Twayne wrote:
Gerry wrote: Touch Base Does Windows Live OneCare have an assured future? It is being dropped by Microsoft! No, it's beign replaced with something they think is better. But neither work well anyway unfortunately. How would you know how well or not the replacement works? Morro has not yet been release in any form, beta or other, and only Microsoft insiders know what it does or doesn't include. Microsoft is saying that a Beta release is coming soon but as of June 15/09 it had not yet been released. John |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
Twayne wrote:
Gerry wrote: Touch Base Does Windows Live OneCare have an assured future? It is being dropped by Microsoft! No, it's beign replaced with something they think is better. But neither work well anyway unfortunately. How would you know how well or not the replacement works? Morro has not yet been release in any form, beta or other, and only Microsoft insiders know what it does or doesn't include. Microsoft is saying that a Beta release is coming soon but as of June 15/09 it had not yet been released. John |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
"You do not fully comprehend how that system is managed and this nameless
registry cleaner sounds like a purposely pulled piece of SH_T you hand picked anyway." No I did not, the cleaner suggested the fix and the suggested fix (if I let it do it automatically) was clearly wrong! Along with a number of other suggested fixes. -- JS http://www.pagestart.com "Twayne" wrote in message ... JS wrote: Not a good idea. The only good registry cleaner is one that will list what it finds by grouping them into categories. The gives you the option to manually make a change after investigating any information provided by the cleaner. If you can determine the cause for what it found and decide on a fix then in effect you are the registry cleaner and not some automated vacuum cleaner. And programs are the automation of that; good ones are invaluable in some instances. Example #1 Ran a scan to count the number of entries in my PC's registry Total was over 260,000 So if a registry cleaner (if it worked properly) removed say 1,000 entries that would be less than one half of one percent space savings. A single program can have tens of thousands of registry entries. Those "lost" entries can occasionally even be picked up by new installs of other programs and used; creating installation problems. I've only seen it once, but that means it's possible. The numbers aren't the complete issue; lots more to it. Example #2 I while back I ran a registry cleaner knowing in advance what some of the fixes the cleaner should find and the suggested changes. This was based on the fact I had uninstalled an application (knowing it would leave some orphaned registry entries) and then reinstalled the same application to a different directory location. The cleaner's default suggested fix for the application's old directory location (the orphaned entries) was to change these entries to the new location, which was not necessary as you would have to entries point to the same location, so I manually deleted these entries. Should have let the cleaner do it; you wasted time and effort, if it was a decent cleaner. Now here is where a registry cleaner could cause a real problem! A few months ago I removed a large number but not all of the $NtUninstallKBxxxxxx$ folders (these are the folders and associated files left behind each time you install the latest Windows Updates each month) The cleaner reported the broken (orphaned) registry entries but the suggested fix was to point the broken entries to more recent $NtUninstall files still on the hard drive (on a random basis), thus royally screwing up the registry pointers. By that I mean: if you go to uninstall (in rare cases) a MS KB patch that may be giving you problems and due to the screwed up registry entry it may instead removes the wrong patch. You do not fully comprehend how that system is managed and this nameless registry cleaner sounds like a purposely pulled piece of SH_T you hand picked anyway. If the above isn't enough to convince you then read this: AUMHA Discussion: Should I Use a Registry Cleaner? http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=28099 Ah yes, go to the infamous um,ha site, with the responses written by the SAME people who started all the myths and misinformation about registry cleaners right here in the MS groups! Yup, that's sure to be an unbiased look and full of excellent detailed, information to support their myths, right? ! HTH, Twayne` "Bill Ridgeway" wrote in message ... Ken Blake wrote (in response to another thread) - Registry cleaning programs are *all* snake oil. Cleaning of the registry isn't needed and is dangerous. Leave the registry alone and don't use any registry cleaner. Despite what many people think, and what vendors of registry cleaning software try to convince you of, having unused registry entries doesn't really hurt you. The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner erroneously removing an entry you need is far greater than any potential benefit it may have. I would agree with the warning of the possibility of (serious) damage to the Registry and the consequence that the computer may not boot up. I would also agree that it may not be necessary to clean the Registry very regularly. However, the Registry does become bloated with calls to uninstalled software which does increase the time needed to boot up - at the very least. However, the additional space requirement of a bloated Registry may not be significant. I would suggest, say, an annual tidy-up. I have used two Registry cleaners over the years (Max Registry Cleaner and Registry Mechanic) both without any problem. Mind you, my backup system includes a cloned hard disk drive and separate copy of all key files (as at the previous day). I have recently proved that I can get a system with a failed hard disk drive up and running in the time it takes to swap a hard disk, copy key files and update Windows and NIS: About 30 minutes. Bill Ridgeway |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
"You do not fully comprehend how that system is managed and this nameless
registry cleaner sounds like a purposely pulled piece of SH_T you hand picked anyway." No I did not, the cleaner suggested the fix and the suggested fix (if I let it do it automatically) was clearly wrong! Along with a number of other suggested fixes. -- JS http://www.pagestart.com "Twayne" wrote in message ... JS wrote: Not a good idea. The only good registry cleaner is one that will list what it finds by grouping them into categories. The gives you the option to manually make a change after investigating any information provided by the cleaner. If you can determine the cause for what it found and decide on a fix then in effect you are the registry cleaner and not some automated vacuum cleaner. And programs are the automation of that; good ones are invaluable in some instances. Example #1 Ran a scan to count the number of entries in my PC's registry Total was over 260,000 So if a registry cleaner (if it worked properly) removed say 1,000 entries that would be less than one half of one percent space savings. A single program can have tens of thousands of registry entries. Those "lost" entries can occasionally even be picked up by new installs of other programs and used; creating installation problems. I've only seen it once, but that means it's possible. The numbers aren't the complete issue; lots more to it. Example #2 I while back I ran a registry cleaner knowing in advance what some of the fixes the cleaner should find and the suggested changes. This was based on the fact I had uninstalled an application (knowing it would leave some orphaned registry entries) and then reinstalled the same application to a different directory location. The cleaner's default suggested fix for the application's old directory location (the orphaned entries) was to change these entries to the new location, which was not necessary as you would have to entries point to the same location, so I manually deleted these entries. Should have let the cleaner do it; you wasted time and effort, if it was a decent cleaner. Now here is where a registry cleaner could cause a real problem! A few months ago I removed a large number but not all of the $NtUninstallKBxxxxxx$ folders (these are the folders and associated files left behind each time you install the latest Windows Updates each month) The cleaner reported the broken (orphaned) registry entries but the suggested fix was to point the broken entries to more recent $NtUninstall files still on the hard drive (on a random basis), thus royally screwing up the registry pointers. By that I mean: if you go to uninstall (in rare cases) a MS KB patch that may be giving you problems and due to the screwed up registry entry it may instead removes the wrong patch. You do not fully comprehend how that system is managed and this nameless registry cleaner sounds like a purposely pulled piece of SH_T you hand picked anyway. If the above isn't enough to convince you then read this: AUMHA Discussion: Should I Use a Registry Cleaner? http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=28099 Ah yes, go to the infamous um,ha site, with the responses written by the SAME people who started all the myths and misinformation about registry cleaners right here in the MS groups! Yup, that's sure to be an unbiased look and full of excellent detailed, information to support their myths, right? ! HTH, Twayne` "Bill Ridgeway" wrote in message ... Ken Blake wrote (in response to another thread) - Registry cleaning programs are *all* snake oil. Cleaning of the registry isn't needed and is dangerous. Leave the registry alone and don't use any registry cleaner. Despite what many people think, and what vendors of registry cleaning software try to convince you of, having unused registry entries doesn't really hurt you. The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner erroneously removing an entry you need is far greater than any potential benefit it may have. I would agree with the warning of the possibility of (serious) damage to the Registry and the consequence that the computer may not boot up. I would also agree that it may not be necessary to clean the Registry very regularly. However, the Registry does become bloated with calls to uninstalled software which does increase the time needed to boot up - at the very least. However, the additional space requirement of a bloated Registry may not be significant. I would suggest, say, an annual tidy-up. I have used two Registry cleaners over the years (Max Registry Cleaner and Registry Mechanic) both without any problem. Mind you, my backup system includes a cloned hard disk drive and separate copy of all key files (as at the previous day). I have recently proved that I can get a system with a failed hard disk drive up and running in the time it takes to swap a hard disk, copy key files and update Windows and NIS: About 30 minutes. Bill Ridgeway |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
Back that up with facts not idle chatter.
"Twayne" wrote in message ... Ken Blake, MVP wrote: On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:03:21 +0100, "Bill Ridgeway" wrote: Ken Blake wrote (in response to another thread) - Registry cleaning programs are *all* snake oil. Cleaning of the registry isn't needed and is dangerous. Leave the registry alone and don't use any registry cleaner. Despite what many people think, and what vendors of registry cleaning software try to convince you of, having unused registry entries doesn't really hurt you. The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner erroneously removing an entry you need is far greater than any potential benefit it may have. I would agree with the warning of the possibility of (serious) damage to the Registry and the consequence that the computer may not boot up. I would also agree that it may not be necessary to clean the Registry very regularly. However, the Registry does become bloated with calls to uninstalled software which does increase the time needed to boot up - at the very least. What you call "bloated up" is true in the sense that it becomes somewhat bigger. However the extra size is minimal and the significance of that extra size is also minimal, since access to the registry is random. Since most people boot up not much more than once a day, how long it takes to boot up is of very little consequence. My standard statement is "In the overall scheme of things, even a few minutes to start up isn't very important. Personally I power on my computer when I get up in the morning, then go get my coffee. When I come back, it's done booting. I don't know how long it took to boot and I don't care." Moreover, a slightly bigger registry will make such a small difference to the time it takes to boot that it's insignificant. However, the additional space requirement of a bloated Registry may not be significant. Exactly! I would suggest, say, an annual tidy-up. I wouldn't. Using a registry cleaner is dangerous. Using it less often is, of course, less dangerous, but I believe you should eliminate that danger, not reduce it. I have used two Registry cleaners over the years (Max Registry Cleaner and Registry Mechanic) both without any problem. There are *many* people who have had similar experiences. None of us has ever claimed that every time someone uses a registry cleaner, the result is a problem. If that were the case, everyone would know that they couldn't be used, and all registry cleaners would quickly disappear. But although no registry cleaner always causes a problem, there is *always* a risk in using one. Since there is no benefit to using it, running any risk at all is foolhardy. Mind you, my backup system includes a cloned hard disk drive and separate copy of all key files (as at the previous day). I have recently proved that I can get a system with a failed hard disk drive up and running in the time it takes to swap a hard disk, copy key files and update Windows and NIS: About 30 minutes. Good! Then the risk of using a registry cleaner is less to you than it is to most people. But not everyone is as well backed-up as you are. Moreover, there is no point in taking any risk at all for no benefit at all. I expected better from you: That's myopic and short sighted. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
Back that up with facts not idle chatter.
"Twayne" wrote in message ... Ken Blake, MVP wrote: On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 09:03:21 +0100, "Bill Ridgeway" wrote: Ken Blake wrote (in response to another thread) - Registry cleaning programs are *all* snake oil. Cleaning of the registry isn't needed and is dangerous. Leave the registry alone and don't use any registry cleaner. Despite what many people think, and what vendors of registry cleaning software try to convince you of, having unused registry entries doesn't really hurt you. The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner erroneously removing an entry you need is far greater than any potential benefit it may have. I would agree with the warning of the possibility of (serious) damage to the Registry and the consequence that the computer may not boot up. I would also agree that it may not be necessary to clean the Registry very regularly. However, the Registry does become bloated with calls to uninstalled software which does increase the time needed to boot up - at the very least. What you call "bloated up" is true in the sense that it becomes somewhat bigger. However the extra size is minimal and the significance of that extra size is also minimal, since access to the registry is random. Since most people boot up not much more than once a day, how long it takes to boot up is of very little consequence. My standard statement is "In the overall scheme of things, even a few minutes to start up isn't very important. Personally I power on my computer when I get up in the morning, then go get my coffee. When I come back, it's done booting. I don't know how long it took to boot and I don't care." Moreover, a slightly bigger registry will make such a small difference to the time it takes to boot that it's insignificant. However, the additional space requirement of a bloated Registry may not be significant. Exactly! I would suggest, say, an annual tidy-up. I wouldn't. Using a registry cleaner is dangerous. Using it less often is, of course, less dangerous, but I believe you should eliminate that danger, not reduce it. I have used two Registry cleaners over the years (Max Registry Cleaner and Registry Mechanic) both without any problem. There are *many* people who have had similar experiences. None of us has ever claimed that every time someone uses a registry cleaner, the result is a problem. If that were the case, everyone would know that they couldn't be used, and all registry cleaners would quickly disappear. But although no registry cleaner always causes a problem, there is *always* a risk in using one. Since there is no benefit to using it, running any risk at all is foolhardy. Mind you, my backup system includes a cloned hard disk drive and separate copy of all key files (as at the previous day). I have recently proved that I can get a system with a failed hard disk drive up and running in the time it takes to swap a hard disk, copy key files and update Windows and NIS: About 30 minutes. Good! Then the risk of using a registry cleaner is less to you than it is to most people. But not everyone is as well backed-up as you are. Moreover, there is no point in taking any risk at all for no benefit at all. I expected better from you: That's myopic and short sighted. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
Holy cow you finally make some sense.
"Twayne" wrote in message ... Peter Foldes wrote: Bill However, the Registry does become bloated with calls to uninstalled software which does increase the time needed to boot up That is also not true and is a misconception. You need to remove hundreds if not thousands of dead entries to be able to notice even a very small difference. Best advice to anyone is to DO NOT TOUCH the registry Peter F. has written a sensible, decent post. In truth, problems are seldom fixed by changes to the registry. Speed problems are seldom due to the registry in any large way. With a slow computer, any improvement to the registry are nearly guaranteed to be overshadowed by other things. It isn't very often, in fact it's nearly never, the registry is solely at fault for a slow machine and very seldom is a place to start troubleshooting. Regards, Twayne "Bill Ridgeway" wrote in message ... I would agree with the warning of the possibility of (serious) damage to the Registry and the consequence that the computer may not boot up. I would also agree that it may not be necessary to clean the Registry very regularly. However, the Registry does become bloated with calls to uninstalled software which does increase the time needed to boot up - at the very least. However, the additional space requirement of a bloated Registry may not be significant. I would suggest, say, an annual tidy-up. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
Holy cow you finally make some sense.
"Twayne" wrote in message ... Peter Foldes wrote: Bill However, the Registry does become bloated with calls to uninstalled software which does increase the time needed to boot up That is also not true and is a misconception. You need to remove hundreds if not thousands of dead entries to be able to notice even a very small difference. Best advice to anyone is to DO NOT TOUCH the registry Peter F. has written a sensible, decent post. In truth, problems are seldom fixed by changes to the registry. Speed problems are seldom due to the registry in any large way. With a slow computer, any improvement to the registry are nearly guaranteed to be overshadowed by other things. It isn't very often, in fact it's nearly never, the registry is solely at fault for a slow machine and very seldom is a place to start troubleshooting. Regards, Twayne "Bill Ridgeway" wrote in message ... I would agree with the warning of the possibility of (serious) damage to the Registry and the consequence that the computer may not boot up. I would also agree that it may not be necessary to clean the Registry very regularly. However, the Registry does become bloated with calls to uninstalled software which does increase the time needed to boot up - at the very least. However, the additional space requirement of a bloated Registry may not be significant. I would suggest, say, an annual tidy-up. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
"Twayne" wrote in message
... Mike Hall - MVP wrote: ... As long as Windows 9x conventions are applied to Windows NT and its successors, the myths regarding how Win 2000, XP, Vista and Win 7 process the registry, fonts and everything else which could be a problem in Win 9x will continue. Myths; good choice, because people applying 9x conventions to 2k & XP is just that. You're good at rationalizing with whatever thought may occur to you but that doesn't make it factual. IME the majority of people here without closed minds see the situation in a clearer and more logical sense than you can. You have mired yourself into a corner with your own XP myths and proclamations made all over the 'net and now you feel that you cannot admit reality because it would make you look less than perfect. In actual fact, you know the situation as it really is but don't dare to admit the reality, reliability and capabilities of today's registry cleaners. You've even tried a few tiny concessions here and there, like cc comments, but ended up conflicting with your own words and rather than appear to have opened your mind a crack, securely locked it down again. Windows NT and its successors ignore orphaned entries. They may fall over if they come across active corrupted entries, but registry cleaners do not fix this type of problem.. So does VB and Python, and PHP and a plethora of other coded works. You are trying to imply (which is all you ever do in your rationalized world) that "orphaned" entries never cause any kind of impact ever in any way, and that is patently untrue. You think that because a key/whatever is never called (and orphans often DO get called, BTW, by other orphans in some situations) it costs zero time. You're trying to imply that the registry is only READ, and that it never executes an instruction or command. IMO your understanding of the registry's internal workings are actually abysmally deficient but good enough for you to grab onto single events and then try to build those into all-encompassing rationalizations to push onto what you consider your "minions". You can occasionally see a tree in the forest but you never address more then one tree and I doubt you ever even notice there is a forest there or your attitudes would be different. Now, an "active" corrupted entry, whatever you mean by that, is not usually going to make the thing "fall". The vast majority of the time, it's going to result in an error message. You then imply that registry cleaners do not fix that "type of problem", but often they do/will, because the cleaner WILL report it not able to execute and offer the normal various possibilities for repair. Thanks to the robustness of the registry, it seldom ever occurs, but when it does a decent registry cleaner will point it out for the user. I only recall that ever happening once, long ago, but I believe I have seen it happen. In that case it wasn't a single corruption; an entire key was corrupted and made no sense in any way. In that case I seriously suspect it was corruption that occurred during the write TO the registry by an installed program; otherwise it wouldn't have been so neatly confined as it was. The registry is a very robust thing and it's actually hard to make it 'fall' on purpose. In fact, many have seen the results of trying to remove something the system needed when the deleted entry is simply re-created by the system. Many parts of it you couldn't corrupt if you wanted to. Even adding unallowed data often won't hurt anything. Enter a 4 where the only possibilities are 0 or 1, and you'll get back a 0 next time you look at it! Add to that the fact that all you guys pushing all these myths have NEVER provided a single authoritative piece of information to support your myths, and it pretty well wraps up your credibility on the subject. Even MS has dabbled with registry cleaners for along time and still are doing so, so obviously they don't buy the "will trash" and "imminent..." this & that attitudes you try to push. You guys need to stick with subjects you can verify, clarify, reproduce and otherwise use factual data for. The lack of anything like that has gone on for so long now that anything that any of you did decide to provide would likely be suspect or it would have been posted long ago. Anyone can write an article on um,ha and then come here and recommend that article as "proof" that what they say is true; I always have to giggle when I see that happen. It has been as serious hit on the credibility of the web site, not to mention the nearly current unrecognized status of being an MVP as some are. I thank you for this opportunity to once more expose the myths being pushed by a small ring of loud and noisy closed minds here and on a few other groups. HTH, Twayne` Finished? I don't condone the use of registry cleaners because the type of person who gets taken in by claims like yours is also the type of person who may not always make the right decisions as to what the registry cleaner removes. I have seen enough instances where a registry cleaner has either had no effect whatsoever, partially clobbered a system, and in some instances where a system has been brought down completely. You, on the other hand, embark on personal tirades in your defense of registry cleaners, which makes me think that you have a vested interest in one of the registry cleaners presently available. You are the ONLY person in these newsgroups who defends the use of registry cleaners to the bitter end, yet you have consistently failed to present ANY proof of your claims. -- Mike Hall - MVP Windows Experience http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/ |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
"Twayne" wrote in message
... Mike Hall - MVP wrote: ... As long as Windows 9x conventions are applied to Windows NT and its successors, the myths regarding how Win 2000, XP, Vista and Win 7 process the registry, fonts and everything else which could be a problem in Win 9x will continue. Myths; good choice, because people applying 9x conventions to 2k & XP is just that. You're good at rationalizing with whatever thought may occur to you but that doesn't make it factual. IME the majority of people here without closed minds see the situation in a clearer and more logical sense than you can. You have mired yourself into a corner with your own XP myths and proclamations made all over the 'net and now you feel that you cannot admit reality because it would make you look less than perfect. In actual fact, you know the situation as it really is but don't dare to admit the reality, reliability and capabilities of today's registry cleaners. You've even tried a few tiny concessions here and there, like cc comments, but ended up conflicting with your own words and rather than appear to have opened your mind a crack, securely locked it down again. Windows NT and its successors ignore orphaned entries. They may fall over if they come across active corrupted entries, but registry cleaners do not fix this type of problem.. So does VB and Python, and PHP and a plethora of other coded works. You are trying to imply (which is all you ever do in your rationalized world) that "orphaned" entries never cause any kind of impact ever in any way, and that is patently untrue. You think that because a key/whatever is never called (and orphans often DO get called, BTW, by other orphans in some situations) it costs zero time. You're trying to imply that the registry is only READ, and that it never executes an instruction or command. IMO your understanding of the registry's internal workings are actually abysmally deficient but good enough for you to grab onto single events and then try to build those into all-encompassing rationalizations to push onto what you consider your "minions". You can occasionally see a tree in the forest but you never address more then one tree and I doubt you ever even notice there is a forest there or your attitudes would be different. Now, an "active" corrupted entry, whatever you mean by that, is not usually going to make the thing "fall". The vast majority of the time, it's going to result in an error message. You then imply that registry cleaners do not fix that "type of problem", but often they do/will, because the cleaner WILL report it not able to execute and offer the normal various possibilities for repair. Thanks to the robustness of the registry, it seldom ever occurs, but when it does a decent registry cleaner will point it out for the user. I only recall that ever happening once, long ago, but I believe I have seen it happen. In that case it wasn't a single corruption; an entire key was corrupted and made no sense in any way. In that case I seriously suspect it was corruption that occurred during the write TO the registry by an installed program; otherwise it wouldn't have been so neatly confined as it was. The registry is a very robust thing and it's actually hard to make it 'fall' on purpose. In fact, many have seen the results of trying to remove something the system needed when the deleted entry is simply re-created by the system. Many parts of it you couldn't corrupt if you wanted to. Even adding unallowed data often won't hurt anything. Enter a 4 where the only possibilities are 0 or 1, and you'll get back a 0 next time you look at it! Add to that the fact that all you guys pushing all these myths have NEVER provided a single authoritative piece of information to support your myths, and it pretty well wraps up your credibility on the subject. Even MS has dabbled with registry cleaners for along time and still are doing so, so obviously they don't buy the "will trash" and "imminent..." this & that attitudes you try to push. You guys need to stick with subjects you can verify, clarify, reproduce and otherwise use factual data for. The lack of anything like that has gone on for so long now that anything that any of you did decide to provide would likely be suspect or it would have been posted long ago. Anyone can write an article on um,ha and then come here and recommend that article as "proof" that what they say is true; I always have to giggle when I see that happen. It has been as serious hit on the credibility of the web site, not to mention the nearly current unrecognized status of being an MVP as some are. I thank you for this opportunity to once more expose the myths being pushed by a small ring of loud and noisy closed minds here and on a few other groups. HTH, Twayne` Finished? I don't condone the use of registry cleaners because the type of person who gets taken in by claims like yours is also the type of person who may not always make the right decisions as to what the registry cleaner removes. I have seen enough instances where a registry cleaner has either had no effect whatsoever, partially clobbered a system, and in some instances where a system has been brought down completely. You, on the other hand, embark on personal tirades in your defense of registry cleaners, which makes me think that you have a vested interest in one of the registry cleaners presently available. You are the ONLY person in these newsgroups who defends the use of registry cleaners to the bitter end, yet you have consistently failed to present ANY proof of your claims. -- Mike Hall - MVP Windows Experience http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/ |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
John John - MVP wrote:
Twayne wrote: Gerry wrote: Touch Base Does Windows Live OneCare have an assured future? It is being dropped by Microsoft! No, it's beign replaced with something they think is better. But neither work well anyway unfortunately. How would you know how well or not the replacement works? Morro has not yet been release in any form, beta or other, and only Microsoft insiders know what it does or doesn't include. Microsoft is saying that a Beta release is coming soon but as of June 15/09 it had not yet been released. John Just based on history and expectations. MS has failed to meet & consistantly failed to meet, my and many others expectations for a long time now. The surprise would be if it turned out to be better or at least as good as many of the leaders on the scene. I simply don't expect much from MS anymore. Regards, Twayne |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
John John - MVP wrote:
Twayne wrote: Gerry wrote: Touch Base Does Windows Live OneCare have an assured future? It is being dropped by Microsoft! No, it's beign replaced with something they think is better. But neither work well anyway unfortunately. How would you know how well or not the replacement works? Morro has not yet been release in any form, beta or other, and only Microsoft insiders know what it does or doesn't include. Microsoft is saying that a Beta release is coming soon but as of June 15/09 it had not yet been released. John Just based on history and expectations. MS has failed to meet & consistantly failed to meet, my and many others expectations for a long time now. The surprise would be if it turned out to be better or at least as good as many of the leaders on the scene. I simply don't expect much from MS anymore. Regards, Twayne |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
JS wrote:
"You do not fully comprehend how that system is managed and this nameless registry cleaner sounds like a purposely pulled piece of SH_T you hand picked anyway." No I did not, the cleaner suggested the fix and the suggested fix (if I let it do it automatically) was clearly wrong! Along with a number of other suggested fixes. Something's wrong there because all the decent cleaners out there make more than one "suggested" action for a repair, including to do nothing. That said however, I tend not to believe you based on your past actions and posts. Twayne "Twayne" wrote in message ... JS wrote: Not a good idea. The only good registry cleaner is one that will list what it finds by grouping them into categories. The gives you the option to manually make a change after investigating any information provided by the cleaner. If you can determine the cause for what it found and decide on a fix then in effect you are the registry cleaner and not some automated vacuum cleaner. And programs are the automation of that; good ones are invaluable in some instances. Example #1 Ran a scan to count the number of entries in my PC's registry Total was over 260,000 So if a registry cleaner (if it worked properly) removed say 1,000 entries that would be less than one half of one percent space savings. A single program can have tens of thousands of registry entries. Those "lost" entries can occasionally even be picked up by new installs of other programs and used; creating installation problems. I've only seen it once, but that means it's possible. The numbers aren't the complete issue; lots more to it. Example #2 I while back I ran a registry cleaner knowing in advance what some of the fixes the cleaner should find and the suggested changes. This was based on the fact I had uninstalled an application (knowing it would leave some orphaned registry entries) and then reinstalled the same application to a different directory location. The cleaner's default suggested fix for the application's old directory location (the orphaned entries) was to change these entries to the new location, which was not necessary as you would have to entries point to the same location, so I manually deleted these entries. Should have let the cleaner do it; you wasted time and effort, if it was a decent cleaner. Now here is where a registry cleaner could cause a real problem! A few months ago I removed a large number but not all of the $NtUninstallKBxxxxxx$ folders (these are the folders and associated files left behind each time you install the latest Windows Updates each month) The cleaner reported the broken (orphaned) registry entries but the suggested fix was to point the broken entries to more recent $NtUninstall files still on the hard drive (on a random basis), thus royally screwing up the registry pointers. By that I mean: if you go to uninstall (in rare cases) a MS KB patch that may be giving you problems and due to the screwed up registry entry it may instead removes the wrong patch. You do not fully comprehend how that system is managed and this nameless registry cleaner sounds like a purposely pulled piece of SH_T you hand picked anyway. If the above isn't enough to convince you then read this: AUMHA Discussion: Should I Use a Registry Cleaner? http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=28099 Ah yes, go to the infamous um,ha site, with the responses written by the SAME people who started all the myths and misinformation about registry cleaners right here in the MS groups! Yup, that's sure to be an unbiased look and full of excellent detailed, information to support their myths, right? ! HTH, Twayne` "Bill Ridgeway" wrote in message ... Ken Blake wrote (in response to another thread) - Registry cleaning programs are *all* snake oil. Cleaning of the registry isn't needed and is dangerous. Leave the registry alone and don't use any registry cleaner. Despite what many people think, and what vendors of registry cleaning software try to convince you of, having unused registry entries doesn't really hurt you. The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner erroneously removing an entry you need is far greater than any potential benefit it may have. I would agree with the warning of the possibility of (serious) damage to the Registry and the consequence that the computer may not boot up. I would also agree that it may not be necessary to clean the Registry very regularly. However, the Registry does become bloated with calls to uninstalled software which does increase the time needed to boot up - at the very least. However, the additional space requirement of a bloated Registry may not be significant. I would suggest, say, an annual tidy-up. I have used two Registry cleaners over the years (Max Registry Cleaner and Registry Mechanic) both without any problem. Mind you, my backup system includes a cloned hard disk drive and separate copy of all key files (as at the previous day). I have recently proved that I can get a system with a failed hard disk drive up and running in the time it takes to swap a hard disk, copy key files and update Windows and NIS: About 30 minutes. Bill Ridgeway |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Registry Cleaners
JS wrote:
"You do not fully comprehend how that system is managed and this nameless registry cleaner sounds like a purposely pulled piece of SH_T you hand picked anyway." No I did not, the cleaner suggested the fix and the suggested fix (if I let it do it automatically) was clearly wrong! Along with a number of other suggested fixes. Something's wrong there because all the decent cleaners out there make more than one "suggested" action for a repair, including to do nothing. That said however, I tend not to believe you based on your past actions and posts. Twayne "Twayne" wrote in message ... JS wrote: Not a good idea. The only good registry cleaner is one that will list what it finds by grouping them into categories. The gives you the option to manually make a change after investigating any information provided by the cleaner. If you can determine the cause for what it found and decide on a fix then in effect you are the registry cleaner and not some automated vacuum cleaner. And programs are the automation of that; good ones are invaluable in some instances. Example #1 Ran a scan to count the number of entries in my PC's registry Total was over 260,000 So if a registry cleaner (if it worked properly) removed say 1,000 entries that would be less than one half of one percent space savings. A single program can have tens of thousands of registry entries. Those "lost" entries can occasionally even be picked up by new installs of other programs and used; creating installation problems. I've only seen it once, but that means it's possible. The numbers aren't the complete issue; lots more to it. Example #2 I while back I ran a registry cleaner knowing in advance what some of the fixes the cleaner should find and the suggested changes. This was based on the fact I had uninstalled an application (knowing it would leave some orphaned registry entries) and then reinstalled the same application to a different directory location. The cleaner's default suggested fix for the application's old directory location (the orphaned entries) was to change these entries to the new location, which was not necessary as you would have to entries point to the same location, so I manually deleted these entries. Should have let the cleaner do it; you wasted time and effort, if it was a decent cleaner. Now here is where a registry cleaner could cause a real problem! A few months ago I removed a large number but not all of the $NtUninstallKBxxxxxx$ folders (these are the folders and associated files left behind each time you install the latest Windows Updates each month) The cleaner reported the broken (orphaned) registry entries but the suggested fix was to point the broken entries to more recent $NtUninstall files still on the hard drive (on a random basis), thus royally screwing up the registry pointers. By that I mean: if you go to uninstall (in rare cases) a MS KB patch that may be giving you problems and due to the screwed up registry entry it may instead removes the wrong patch. You do not fully comprehend how that system is managed and this nameless registry cleaner sounds like a purposely pulled piece of SH_T you hand picked anyway. If the above isn't enough to convince you then read this: AUMHA Discussion: Should I Use a Registry Cleaner? http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=28099 Ah yes, go to the infamous um,ha site, with the responses written by the SAME people who started all the myths and misinformation about registry cleaners right here in the MS groups! Yup, that's sure to be an unbiased look and full of excellent detailed, information to support their myths, right? ! HTH, Twayne` "Bill Ridgeway" wrote in message ... Ken Blake wrote (in response to another thread) - Registry cleaning programs are *all* snake oil. Cleaning of the registry isn't needed and is dangerous. Leave the registry alone and don't use any registry cleaner. Despite what many people think, and what vendors of registry cleaning software try to convince you of, having unused registry entries doesn't really hurt you. The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner erroneously removing an entry you need is far greater than any potential benefit it may have. I would agree with the warning of the possibility of (serious) damage to the Registry and the consequence that the computer may not boot up. I would also agree that it may not be necessary to clean the Registry very regularly. However, the Registry does become bloated with calls to uninstalled software which does increase the time needed to boot up - at the very least. However, the additional space requirement of a bloated Registry may not be significant. I would suggest, say, an annual tidy-up. I have used two Registry cleaners over the years (Max Registry Cleaner and Registry Mechanic) both without any problem. Mind you, my backup system includes a cloned hard disk drive and separate copy of all key files (as at the previous day). I have recently proved that I can get a system with a failed hard disk drive up and running in the time it takes to swap a hard disk, copy key files and update Windows and NIS: About 30 minutes. Bill Ridgeway |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|