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
  #61  
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


Ads
  #62  
Old June 17th 09, 11:39 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
John John - MVP[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,637
Default Registry Cleaners

He will never show you proof, the best he has ever been able to do is
quote or supply links to advertising material from outfits who sell
these useless products. We do at times see posts here with tales of woe
from people who are having problems after using these cleaners but to no
one's surprise Twayne is no where to be seen when people need help
repairing the damages done.

John

Peter Foldes wrote:
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

  #63  
Old June 17th 09, 11:39 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
John John - MVP[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,637
Default Registry Cleaners

He will never show you proof, the best he has ever been able to do is
quote or supply links to advertising material from outfits who sell
these useless products. We do at times see posts here with tales of woe
from people who are having problems after using these cleaners but to no
one's surprise Twayne is no where to be seen when people need help
repairing the damages done.

John

Peter Foldes wrote:
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

  #64  
Old June 17th 09, 11:47 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
John John - MVP[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,637
Default Registry Cleaners

These programs are utterly useless. The non existent benefits parroted
by the vendors and fans of these programs is simply not worth the risk
of the real damages that these programs can and do at times cause. At
best these useless programs have nothing more than a placebo effect and
at worse they can bug up your computer, why even bother with them?

John

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


  #65  
Old June 17th 09, 11:47 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
John John - MVP[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,637
Default Registry Cleaners

These programs are utterly useless. The non existent benefits parroted
by the vendors and fans of these programs is simply not worth the risk
of the real damages that these programs can and do at times cause. At
best these useless programs have nothing more than a placebo effect and
at worse they can bug up your computer, why even bother with them?

John

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


  #66  
Old June 17th 09, 01:06 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,807
Default Registry Cleaners

John John - MVP wrote:
These programs are utterly useless. The non existent benefits parroted
by the vendors and fans of these programs is simply not worth the risk
of the real damages that these programs can and do at times cause. At
best these useless programs have nothing more than a placebo effect and
at worse they can bug up your computer, why even bother with them?

John

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



Though in general I agree with those who say registry cleaners can
potentially do more harm than good, there is one *possible* use for them:

Cleaning up applications that have failed to uninstall properly.
Of course this assumes one knows exactly what they are doing.


  #67  
Old June 17th 09, 01:06 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
philo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,807
Default Registry Cleaners

John John - MVP wrote:
These programs are utterly useless. The non existent benefits parroted
by the vendors and fans of these programs is simply not worth the risk
of the real damages that these programs can and do at times cause. At
best these useless programs have nothing more than a placebo effect and
at worse they can bug up your computer, why even bother with them?

John

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



Though in general I agree with those who say registry cleaners can
potentially do more harm than good, there is one *possible* use for them:

Cleaning up applications that have failed to uninstall properly.
Of course this assumes one knows exactly what they are doing.


  #68  
Old June 17th 09, 02:40 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
John John - MVP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 780
Default Registry Cleaners

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?


http://groups.google.com/group/micro...b2f696ca1b9462
http://groups.google.com/group/micro...1aaebff35bc 6
http://boards.live.com/safetyboards/...D%3D 28824491
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/topic110399.html
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;299958
http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Win...5889f1033.mspx
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888637
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/247678
http://support.microsoft.com/default...rss&spid=11734
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/951950

  #69  
Old June 17th 09, 02:40 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
John John - MVP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 780
Default Registry Cleaners

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?


http://groups.google.com/group/micro...b2f696ca1b9462
http://groups.google.com/group/micro...1aaebff35bc 6
http://boards.live.com/safetyboards/...D%3D 28824491
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/topic110399.html
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;299958
http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Win...5889f1033.mspx
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888637
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/247678
http://support.microsoft.com/default...rss&spid=11734
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/951950

  #70  
Old June 17th 09, 02:43 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Leonard Grey[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,048
Default Registry Cleaners

"Is there anything more substantial on this subject?"

The only way to truly appreciate how useless - and possibly dangerous -
is a so-called registry cleaner is to learn more about how your computer
works, and the Windows registry in particular. Otherwise, you're pitting
one person's word against another.

The more you learn, the more you'll understand, and you'll see why these
products are marketed to people with little computer knowledge. These
are the software equivalent of the diet and multi-vitamin pills you hear
advertised on late night infomercials. As in the case of the Windows
registry, few people understand what these pills really do in the body,
so they can be swayed by arguments that appeal more to human emotion
than to the facts.

Here's one fact: No responsible journal or test lab has published before
and after tests that prove the claims a registry cleaner makes, and
little wonder: They can't be proven. However, these newsgroups are
routinely visited by people who've messed up their computers with a
so-called registry cleaner.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

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


  #71  
Old June 17th 09, 02:43 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Leonard Grey[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,048
Default Registry Cleaners

"Is there anything more substantial on this subject?"

The only way to truly appreciate how useless - and possibly dangerous -
is a so-called registry cleaner is to learn more about how your computer
works, and the Windows registry in particular. Otherwise, you're pitting
one person's word against another.

The more you learn, the more you'll understand, and you'll see why these
products are marketed to people with little computer knowledge. These
are the software equivalent of the diet and multi-vitamin pills you hear
advertised on late night infomercials. As in the case of the Windows
registry, few people understand what these pills really do in the body,
so they can be swayed by arguments that appeal more to human emotion
than to the facts.

Here's one fact: No responsible journal or test lab has published before
and after tests that prove the claims a registry cleaner makes, and
little wonder: They can't be proven. However, these newsgroups are
routinely visited by people who've messed up their computers with a
so-called registry cleaner.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

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


  #72  
Old June 17th 09, 04:44 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Unknown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,007
Default Registry Cleaners

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!


His comments are not stupid or misinformed. Your responses and touting of
registry cleaners are.

The average computer user should not be taking ridiculous chances as you do.
And you should NOT be enticing them to do so.


  #73  
Old June 17th 09, 04:44 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Unknown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,007
Default Registry Cleaners

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!


His comments are not stupid or misinformed. Your responses and touting of
registry cleaners are.

The average computer user should not be taking ridiculous chances as you do.
And you should NOT be enticing them to do so.


  #74  
Old June 17th 09, 04:50 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Unknown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,007
Default Registry Cleaners

Even that is an extremely poor use for a registry cleaner.
That (cleaning up) can be done easily, manually by anyone knowledgeable
enough to
know what they are doing.
"philo" wrote in message
...
John John - MVP wrote:
These programs are utterly useless. The non existent benefits parroted
by the vendors and fans of these programs is simply not worth the risk of
the real damages that these programs can and do at times cause. At best
these useless programs have nothing more than a placebo effect and at
worse they can bug up your computer, why even bother with them?

John

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



Though in general I agree with those who say registry cleaners can
potentially do more harm than good, there is one *possible* use for them:

Cleaning up applications that have failed to uninstall properly.
Of course this assumes one knows exactly what they are doing.




  #75  
Old June 17th 09, 04:50 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Unknown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,007
Default Registry Cleaners

Even that is an extremely poor use for a registry cleaner.
That (cleaning up) can be done easily, manually by anyone knowledgeable
enough to
know what they are doing.
"philo" wrote in message
...
John John - MVP wrote:
These programs are utterly useless. The non existent benefits parroted
by the vendors and fans of these programs is simply not worth the risk of
the real damages that these programs can and do at times cause. At best
these useless programs have nothing more than a placebo effect and at
worse they can bug up your computer, why even bother with them?

John

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



Though in general I agree with those who say registry cleaners can
potentially do more harm than good, there is one *possible* use for them:

Cleaning up applications that have failed to uninstall properly.
Of course this assumes one knows exactly what they are doing.




 




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 07:34 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.