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 » New Users to Windows XP
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Registry Cleaners



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #46  
Old June 17th 09, 12:13 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Twayne[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,276
Default Registry Cleaners

Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
"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?


Nah, I can go on almost forever when people make the stupid and
misinformed comments you do at times. I choose what I do and when I do
it, so ... you takes yer chances!


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.


Huhh, that's so old it has stuff growing on it. Where are the
mechanisms and outcomes of any of those documented? They aren't. They
simply don't do what you claim, regardless of how many times you say it.
You've never experienced a crash due to a registry cleaner if it was a
reputable one, and you've never seen one that couldn't recover from a
mis-removed item either. In addition you have nothing but hear-say to
back up anything you said or say here or any of the other places you
wish to confuse people with.


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.


I've been perfectly honest and above-board in every comment I've ever
made about registry cleaners. You know that but it offends your ego,
doesn't it? That's part of the pleasure of contantly correcting you.
Anything that could resemble a "tirade" from me, you'll notice, is also
in response to a "tirade" made by another. They are usually inline,
point by point comments, in fact.
Yes, I do have a vested interest in more than one or the registry
cleaners presently available. My vested interest is in their use when
it's called for, and clearly and honestly discussing what is reasonable
and what is not, unlike anything you have said in a very long time.
This post of yours would classify as a "tirade". My response to it
more lends itself to the, well, response to a tirade. Misinformation
and myths such as you generate belong in, well, myths and
misinfomational newsgroups, not where thinking people have to put up
with you.

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.


Another old saw, and one that is not true either. You're PO'd because I
won't REPOST them so you can tear them apart. Unlike you, I've posted
plenty of information. In fact, ratio-wise, if you calculated the ratio
of my information to yours, the result would be infinity since a number
cannot be divided by zero.

Thanks again for the opportunity; it was enjoyable although nothing new
was entered. You just spout the same misinformation over and over, with
nothing else. Most everyone knows what you are now. You think that
persistance will win out but there is one thing that will always trump
persistance; that's being right.

Twayne




Ads
  #47  
Old June 17th 09, 12:13 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Twayne[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,276
Default Registry Cleaners

Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
"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?


Nah, I can go on almost forever when people make the stupid and
misinformed comments you do at times. I choose what I do and when I do
it, so ... you takes yer chances!


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.


Huhh, that's so old it has stuff growing on it. Where are the
mechanisms and outcomes of any of those documented? They aren't. They
simply don't do what you claim, regardless of how many times you say it.
You've never experienced a crash due to a registry cleaner if it was a
reputable one, and you've never seen one that couldn't recover from a
mis-removed item either. In addition you have nothing but hear-say to
back up anything you said or say here or any of the other places you
wish to confuse people with.


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.


I've been perfectly honest and above-board in every comment I've ever
made about registry cleaners. You know that but it offends your ego,
doesn't it? That's part of the pleasure of contantly correcting you.
Anything that could resemble a "tirade" from me, you'll notice, is also
in response to a "tirade" made by another. They are usually inline,
point by point comments, in fact.
Yes, I do have a vested interest in more than one or the registry
cleaners presently available. My vested interest is in their use when
it's called for, and clearly and honestly discussing what is reasonable
and what is not, unlike anything you have said in a very long time.
This post of yours would classify as a "tirade". My response to it
more lends itself to the, well, response to a tirade. Misinformation
and myths such as you generate belong in, well, myths and
misinfomational newsgroups, not where thinking people have to put up
with you.

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.


Another old saw, and one that is not true either. You're PO'd because I
won't REPOST them so you can tear them apart. Unlike you, I've posted
plenty of information. In fact, ratio-wise, if you calculated the ratio
of my information to yours, the result would be infinity since a number
cannot be divided by zero.

Thanks again for the opportunity; it was enjoyable although nothing new
was entered. You just spout the same misinformation over and over, with
nothing else. Most everyone knows what you are now. You think that
persistance will win out but there is one thing that will always trump
persistance; that's being right.

Twayne




  #48  
Old June 17th 09, 12:43 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Mike Hall - MVP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 402
Default Registry Cleaners

"Twayne" wrote in message
...
Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
"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?


Nah, I can go on almost forever when people make the stupid and
misinformed comments you do at times. I choose what I do and when I do
it, so ... you takes yer chances!


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.


Huhh, that's so old it has stuff growing on it. Where are the mechanisms
and outcomes of any of those documented? They aren't. They simply don't
do what you claim, regardless of how many times you say it. You've never
experienced a crash due to a registry cleaner if it was a reputable one,
and you've never seen one that couldn't recover from a mis-removed item
either. In addition you have nothing but hear-say to back up anything you
said or say here or any of the other places you wish to confuse people
with.


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.


I've been perfectly honest and above-board in every comment I've ever made
about registry cleaners. You know that but it offends your ego, doesn't
it? That's part of the pleasure of contantly correcting you. Anything
that could resemble a "tirade" from me, you'll notice, is also in response
to a "tirade" made by another. They are usually inline, point by point
comments, in fact.
Yes, I do have a vested interest in more than one or the registry
cleaners presently available. My vested interest is in their use when
it's called for, and clearly and honestly discussing what is reasonable
and what is not, unlike anything you have said in a very long time.
This post of yours would classify as a "tirade". My response to it more
lends itself to the, well, response to a tirade. Misinformation and myths
such as you generate belong in, well, myths and misinfomational
newsgroups, not where thinking people have to put up with you.

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.


Another old saw, and one that is not true either. You're PO'd because I
won't REPOST them so you can tear them apart. Unlike you, I've posted
plenty of information. In fact, ratio-wise, if you calculated the ratio
of my information to yours, the result would be infinity since a number
cannot be divided by zero.

Thanks again for the opportunity; it was enjoyable although nothing new
was entered. You just spout the same misinformation over and over, with
nothing else. Most everyone knows what you are now. You think that
persistance will win out but there is one thing that will always trump
persistance; that's being right.

Twayne






You have not produced any proof re the effectiveness of registry cleaners
used on Win 2000 and above because there are non in existence. Apart from
you, the only claims made to the good of registry cleaners are the ads for
them..

So it is just YOUR word against many others..


--

Mike Hall - MVP Windows Experience
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

  #49  
Old June 17th 09, 12:43 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Mike Hall - MVP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 402
Default Registry Cleaners

"Twayne" wrote in message
...
Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
"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?


Nah, I can go on almost forever when people make the stupid and
misinformed comments you do at times. I choose what I do and when I do
it, so ... you takes yer chances!


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.


Huhh, that's so old it has stuff growing on it. Where are the mechanisms
and outcomes of any of those documented? They aren't. They simply don't
do what you claim, regardless of how many times you say it. You've never
experienced a crash due to a registry cleaner if it was a reputable one,
and you've never seen one that couldn't recover from a mis-removed item
either. In addition you have nothing but hear-say to back up anything you
said or say here or any of the other places you wish to confuse people
with.


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.


I've been perfectly honest and above-board in every comment I've ever made
about registry cleaners. You know that but it offends your ego, doesn't
it? That's part of the pleasure of contantly correcting you. Anything
that could resemble a "tirade" from me, you'll notice, is also in response
to a "tirade" made by another. They are usually inline, point by point
comments, in fact.
Yes, I do have a vested interest in more than one or the registry
cleaners presently available. My vested interest is in their use when
it's called for, and clearly and honestly discussing what is reasonable
and what is not, unlike anything you have said in a very long time.
This post of yours would classify as a "tirade". My response to it more
lends itself to the, well, response to a tirade. Misinformation and myths
such as you generate belong in, well, myths and misinfomational
newsgroups, not where thinking people have to put up with you.

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.


Another old saw, and one that is not true either. You're PO'd because I
won't REPOST them so you can tear them apart. Unlike you, I've posted
plenty of information. In fact, ratio-wise, if you calculated the ratio
of my information to yours, the result would be infinity since a number
cannot be divided by zero.

Thanks again for the opportunity; it was enjoyable although nothing new
was entered. You just spout the same misinformation over and over, with
nothing else. Most everyone knows what you are now. You think that
persistance will win out but there is one thing that will always trump
persistance; that's being right.

Twayne






You have not produced any proof re the effectiveness of registry cleaners
used on Win 2000 and above because there are non in existence. Apart from
you, the only claims made to the good of registry cleaners are the ads for
them..

So it is just YOUR word against many others..


--

Mike Hall - MVP Windows Experience
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

  #50  
Old June 17th 09, 01:04 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
JS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,475
Default Registry Cleaners

If you read my pasts posts on this issue you would
remember that I agree to the point that a good
registry tool (not a cleaner) is needed.

As others have mentioned the registry is a database
and as such any database administrator be it Oracle,
Mumps and other products have such utilities available
to them to help optimize large databases (non of which
are called cleaners). Windows does not have anything
and registry cleaners only provided a limited solution.

As for my knowledge of the registry I do OK and have
made a number of .reg files to highly customize
applications for end users.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"Twayne" wrote in message
...
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






  #51  
Old June 17th 09, 01:04 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
JS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,475
Default Registry Cleaners

If you read my pasts posts on this issue you would
remember that I agree to the point that a good
registry tool (not a cleaner) is needed.

As others have mentioned the registry is a database
and as such any database administrator be it Oracle,
Mumps and other products have such utilities available
to them to help optimize large databases (non of which
are called cleaners). Windows does not have anything
and registry cleaners only provided a limited solution.

As for my knowledge of the registry I do OK and have
made a number of .reg files to highly customize
applications for end users.

--
JS
http://www.pagestart.com



"Twayne" wrote in message
...
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






  #52  
Old June 17th 09, 02:49 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Bruce Chambers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,208
Default Registry Cleaners

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.



No, it's never necessary to use an automated registry cleaner.


However, the Registry does become bloated with calls to
uninstalled software which does increase the time needed to boot up - at the
very least.



No, that's not true, at all. The registry is an indexed database; the
number of entries are irrelevant to performance or boot time.




--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

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
  #53  
Old June 17th 09, 02:49 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Bruce Chambers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,208
Default Registry Cleaners

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.



No, it's never necessary to use an automated registry cleaner.


However, the Registry does become bloated with calls to
uninstalled software which does increase the time needed to boot up - at the
very least.



No, that's not true, at all. The registry is an indexed database; the
number of entries are irrelevant to performance or boot time.




--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

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
  #54  
Old June 17th 09, 02:52 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Bruce Chambers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,208
Default Registry Cleaners

Unknown wrote:
Back that up with facts not idle chatter.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...

I expected better from you: That's myopic and short sighted.





He can't. He's never been able to produce any facts when asked to
support his claims. I know, I've ask often enough.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

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
  #55  
Old June 17th 09, 02:52 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Bruce Chambers
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,208
Default Registry Cleaners

Unknown wrote:
Back that up with facts not idle chatter.
"Twayne" wrote in message
...

I expected better from you: That's myopic and short sighted.





He can't. He's never been able to produce any facts when asked to
support his claims. I know, I've ask often enough.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

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
  #56  
Old June 17th 09, 06:30 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Peter Foldes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,444
Default Registry Cleaners

Twayne

I do have to disagree with you on this issue. Show me proof on a hard copy to those
facts. Have you seen these Registry Tool issues that were posted by a few OP's
lately saying that their Reg Tools messed up their OS. One even could not boot after
using a Registry Cleaning Tool.

Some posters even remarked that you did not show up in those threads because you
were then going to be proven wrong. I was also one that said the same.

Automated Reg tools in the hand of persons that do not know computers and what the
Registry does have no business using these snake oil remedies

My take on this and period

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"Twayne" wrote in message
...
Leonard Grey wrote:
To add to Gerry's typically good advice:

Many people have this vision of the Windows registry: They see Windows
scurrying through the registry and getting stuck in all those
dead-ends left behind by uninstalled software. They think: "this is
surely slowing my computer's performance." However, the registry does
not work that way. Applications make specific calls to registry keys;
they don't go hunting for data.

Another misconception: the "bloated" registry. In theory, if you
remove an unused registry key, it will take less time to load the
registry into memory. However, since a registry key typically
occupies only a few bytes, you would have to remove millions of
registry keys to notice the difference. And even if you could remove
millions of registry keys, the time needed to load, run and then exit
the registry cleaner would outstrip the time saved, by far.

In general, the more you know about the registry, the more you
understand why we like to poke fun at registry cleaners (and the
people who use them.)
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Gerry wrote:
Touch Base

Does Windows Live OneCare have an assured future? It is being
dropped by Microsoft!

The problem is that using a Registry Cleaner gives negligible gains
for a certain risk that any errors it makes are invariably insoluble
problems for all but the most expert users.


Because it bugs you that someone else understands the registry well enough to
write a good program for it, eh? That's nothing but ego and based on myth,
nothing concrete.

They don't mess up any more, and probably less, than even MS's own programs.



  #57  
Old June 17th 09, 06:30 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Peter Foldes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,444
Default Registry Cleaners

Twayne

I do have to disagree with you on this issue. Show me proof on a hard copy to those
facts. Have you seen these Registry Tool issues that were posted by a few OP's
lately saying that their Reg Tools messed up their OS. One even could not boot after
using a Registry Cleaning Tool.

Some posters even remarked that you did not show up in those threads because you
were then going to be proven wrong. I was also one that said the same.

Automated Reg tools in the hand of persons that do not know computers and what the
Registry does have no business using these snake oil remedies

My take on this and period

--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"Twayne" wrote in message
...
Leonard Grey wrote:
To add to Gerry's typically good advice:

Many people have this vision of the Windows registry: They see Windows
scurrying through the registry and getting stuck in all those
dead-ends left behind by uninstalled software. They think: "this is
surely slowing my computer's performance." However, the registry does
not work that way. Applications make specific calls to registry keys;
they don't go hunting for data.

Another misconception: the "bloated" registry. In theory, if you
remove an unused registry key, it will take less time to load the
registry into memory. However, since a registry key typically
occupies only a few bytes, you would have to remove millions of
registry keys to notice the difference. And even if you could remove
millions of registry keys, the time needed to load, run and then exit
the registry cleaner would outstrip the time saved, by far.

In general, the more you know about the registry, the more you
understand why we like to poke fun at registry cleaners (and the
people who use them.)
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Gerry wrote:
Touch Base

Does Windows Live OneCare have an assured future? It is being
dropped by Microsoft!

The problem is that using a Registry Cleaner gives negligible gains
for a certain risk that any errors it makes are invariably insoluble
problems for all but the most expert users.


Because it bugs you that someone else understands the registry well enough to
write a good program for it, eh? That's nothing but ego and based on myth,
nothing concrete.

They don't mess up any more, and probably less, than even MS's own programs.



  #58  
Old June 17th 09, 08:53 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Bill Ridgeway
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 342
Default Registry Cleaners

It is alleged that using a Registry cleaner is dangerous to the extent of
corpsing a computers and that the advantage of using them is outweighed by
the danger of using them. I acknowledge that just because I haven't
experienced any problems with using two registry cleaners over several years
proves not that there are no dangers rather that I just may be lucky. I
also acknowledge that cleaning a registry may not produce a reasonable
return in terms of decreasing the size of the file or decreasing processing
time.

I wouldn't wish to doubt the views posted so far. However, in this thread I
see nothing more than anecdotal evidence. Just using a computer has hidden
dangers from badly behaving software, incomplete installs and uninstalls and
even spikes and surges but that isn't a valid view for not using a computer.
Is there anything more substantial on this subject?

Bill Ridgeway


  #59  
Old June 17th 09, 08:53 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Bill Ridgeway
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 342
Default Registry Cleaners

It is alleged that using a Registry cleaner is dangerous to the extent of
corpsing a computers and that the advantage of using them is outweighed by
the danger of using them. I acknowledge that just because I haven't
experienced any problems with using two registry cleaners over several years
proves not that there are no dangers rather that I just may be lucky. I
also acknowledge that cleaning a registry may not produce a reasonable
return in terms of decreasing the size of the file or decreasing processing
time.

I wouldn't wish to doubt the views posted so far. However, in this thread I
see nothing more than anecdotal evidence. Just using a computer has hidden
dangers from badly behaving software, incomplete installs and uninstalls and
even spikes and surges but that isn't a valid view for not using a computer.
Is there anything more substantial on this subject?

Bill Ridgeway


  #60  
Old June 17th 09, 10:46 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Gerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,437
Default Registry Cleaners

Bill

If there was real evidence the subject would not controversial. However,
you can see where the balance of opinion in the Microsoft newsgroups
lies.



--


Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bill Ridgeway wrote:
It is alleged that using a Registry cleaner is dangerous to the
extent of corpsing a computers and that the advantage of using them
is outweighed by the danger of using them. I acknowledge that just
because I haven't experienced any problems with using two registry
cleaners over several years proves not that there are no dangers
rather that I just may be lucky. I also acknowledge that cleaning a
registry may not produce a reasonable return in terms of decreasing
the size of the file or decreasing processing time.

I wouldn't wish to doubt the views posted so far. However, in this
thread I see nothing more than anecdotal evidence. Just using a
computer has hidden dangers from badly behaving software, incomplete
installs and uninstalls and even spikes and surges but that isn't a
valid view for not using a computer. Is there anything more
substantial on this subject?
Bill Ridgeway


 




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 11:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.