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

Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old July 20th 09, 12:54 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Mike Hall - MVP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 402
Default Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!

"Twayne" wrote in message
...
"Doug" wrote in message

...


I've been participating in Usenet groups and other computer related
forums for a lot of years. BBS's since before the WWW. Long before
the Windows registry anyway.

I can't even begin to count the number of posts I've read that follow
some form of "I used some software name here registry cleaner and
now some computer function here doesn't work anymore. How do I get
my computer back to the way it was?"

I have never seen one, with the exception of obvious spam, where the
individual spoke of a measurable performance increase. Of course
there's always the occasional person who is just really really
excited about registry cleaners for some odd reason.

I am able to reach a conclusion about registry cleaners based on
years of data. They obviously and undeniably can do more harm than
good.
Logic would also conclude that these tools are most often sought
after by individuals least capable of safely using them. That is to
say those looking for a "one click fix" are more likely to have
insufficient knowledge to understand the ramifications of changes a
registry cleaner may make than those who would, say, use regedit to
properly fix an actual known problem.
Anecdotally after Win 3.11 I've used Win 95, Win 98, Win XP and now
Win 7. (skipped ME and Vista I've never used a registry cleaner of
any kind. My computers have always run just fine thank you very much.

Use one. Don't use one. Makes me no nevermind.

Probably shouldn't be giving people the idea that they are perfectly
safe and provide great benefit. Undeniable irrefutable history says
that's simply not the case.
D

Saying it with great conviction doesn't make it so...


Hi Doug,

That's a well thought out, well assembled post; just thought I'd add a
comment here, not that anyone but the fanatics are still readingg.
I'm of the camp that registry cleaners CAN be useful and I fully admit
to being the one who constantly picks on those I find to have completely
closed minds on the issue and wish to make anyone they possibly can avoid
and hate registry cleaners via "snake oil" titles and all the rest of it.
I have essentially the same background as you, going back to the CP/M
days and probably many of the same experiences. I've no problem with your
reasoned opinion on cleaners and think if nothing else it's likely quite
honest opinion. That's fine.

In my case I have found that the registry cleaners I have used on
production and client machines has done them no harm. In fact, such
cleaners create far fewer problems in my experience than the majority of
other Microsoft applications. I don't believe they are any more prone to
irrepairable damage to a system than is any other program installation or
uninstallation. If I actually said "ALL" are safe, I shouldn't have, but
it's more likely the "they all" was in response to something previously
qualified in the post.

At any rate, it's fine with me that you don't use a cleaner, and it's none
of my business anyway. What I DO object to, and react to, are the
statements made, which you can find plenty of on most any group on MSnews,
is claiming that ALL registry cleaners are "snake oil", none are any good,
all will cause unrepairable harm to a system, and all are capable of
bringing a system to a non-bootable state, along with the condescending
attitudes they use against those that don't know any better, and the
put-downs they address to anyone who even asks a question about the
subject. Then they offer "proof" (less so lately) by sending people
containing posts that they themselves wrote. It's even worse that some of
them claim to be MVPs.
They're a small group of people with few interpersonal skills and
terrible communications skillsets. I don't "report" them because that's
not how I operate; libel and defamation will catch up to them or it won't;
not worth the trouble IMO. But, as in any such situation, when I come
across such intentional and willful misinformation I respond to it. In the
sense of information I consider them warts on the ass of progress. By
being so closed minded although bereft of supporting information, it
brings all of their credibility into question.

Well, break's over; on to more important things.

Twayne




One of the funniest things that I have read all week. The guy takes the
exact opposite stance to you but that is ok..

Then you slag off MVPs, all of whom take the stance that this guy does..

I will keep a copy of all of this..

--

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

Ads
  #32  
Old July 20th 09, 07:38 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Marianne[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!

What a joke! People who have computer experience don't need useless
registry cleaners to edit the registry, they know and understand the
registry the back of their hand! Those who don't know anything about
computers and who don't have the knowledge and skills to edit the registry
think that useless cleaners will compensate for their ignorance.

M

"The Real Truth MVP" wrote in message
...
That makes me wonder just how much and what kind of computer experience
you have. Anyone who says registry cleaners are crap and "Snake Oil"
either have little or no experience with computers or the windows
registry.




  #33  
Old July 20th 09, 07:38 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Marianne[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!

What a joke! People who have computer experience don't need useless
registry cleaners to edit the registry, they know and understand the
registry the back of their hand! Those who don't know anything about
computers and who don't have the knowledge and skills to edit the registry
think that useless cleaners will compensate for their ignorance.

M

"The Real Truth MVP" wrote in message
...
That makes me wonder just how much and what kind of computer experience
you have. Anyone who says registry cleaners are crap and "Snake Oil"
either have little or no experience with computers or the windows
registry.




  #34  
Old July 20th 09, 03:26 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Mike Hall - MVP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 402
Default Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!

"The Real Truth MVP" wrote in message
...
That makes me wonder just how much and what kind of computer experience
you have. Anyone who says registry cleaners are crap and "Snake Oil"
either have little or no experience with computers or the windows
registry.


--



They call them crap and snake oil because that is what they are.

As the 'Real Truth' MVP, you should know that the Windows 9x registry was
stored in two files which could become distinctly wobbly as their size
increased. This is why Microsoft released Regclean 4/4a. It removed only
safe entries in a bid to keep the size down and the chance of falling over
to a minimum.

As the 'Real Truth' MVP, you should also know that Windows NT stores
registry entries in hive format, and that these do not have a tendency to
fall over as their size increases. Orphaned entries are totally ignored.

So, the use of a registry cleaner which only removes 'safe' entries will
have zero impact on the system, but may put the minds at rest of people who
can't stand to have stuff on their computers which does not need to be
there.

Some registry cleaners offer entries for removal which may compromise the
system in the event that they were removed. Unfortunately, the section of
computer users who are most likely to be taken in by the sales pitch are
also the same section who simply do not have the knowledge to make an
educated decision.

The registry cleaner authors/sellers use arguments that were only valid for
Windows 9x operating systems to instill enough fear that people will part
with cash for a utility which will do NOTHING for their Windows NT based
operating system.

Personally, I think that it is unethical to sell a product which does not do
all that is claimed. However, it is no surprise to find that you don't
agree..


--

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

  #35  
Old July 20th 09, 03:26 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Mike Hall - MVP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 402
Default Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!

"The Real Truth MVP" wrote in message
...
That makes me wonder just how much and what kind of computer experience
you have. Anyone who says registry cleaners are crap and "Snake Oil"
either have little or no experience with computers or the windows
registry.


--



They call them crap and snake oil because that is what they are.

As the 'Real Truth' MVP, you should know that the Windows 9x registry was
stored in two files which could become distinctly wobbly as their size
increased. This is why Microsoft released Regclean 4/4a. It removed only
safe entries in a bid to keep the size down and the chance of falling over
to a minimum.

As the 'Real Truth' MVP, you should also know that Windows NT stores
registry entries in hive format, and that these do not have a tendency to
fall over as their size increases. Orphaned entries are totally ignored.

So, the use of a registry cleaner which only removes 'safe' entries will
have zero impact on the system, but may put the minds at rest of people who
can't stand to have stuff on their computers which does not need to be
there.

Some registry cleaners offer entries for removal which may compromise the
system in the event that they were removed. Unfortunately, the section of
computer users who are most likely to be taken in by the sales pitch are
also the same section who simply do not have the knowledge to make an
educated decision.

The registry cleaner authors/sellers use arguments that were only valid for
Windows 9x operating systems to instill enough fear that people will part
with cash for a utility which will do NOTHING for their Windows NT based
operating system.

Personally, I think that it is unethical to sell a product which does not do
all that is claimed. However, it is no surprise to find that you don't
agree..


--

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

  #36  
Old July 20th 09, 04:26 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Leonard Grey[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,048
Default Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!

Your post is excellent, Mike. I would only add: He doesn't know the
'real truth' nor is he an MVP.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
"The Real Truth MVP" wrote in message
...
That makes me wonder just how much and what kind of computer
experience you have. Anyone who says registry cleaners are crap and
"Snake Oil" either have little or no experience with computers or the
windows registry.


--



They call them crap and snake oil because that is what they are.

As the 'Real Truth' MVP, you should know that the Windows 9x registry
was stored in two files which could become distinctly wobbly as their
size increased. This is why Microsoft released Regclean 4/4a. It removed
only safe entries in a bid to keep the size down and the chance of
falling over to a minimum.

As the 'Real Truth' MVP, you should also know that Windows NT stores
registry entries in hive format, and that these do not have a tendency
to fall over as their size increases. Orphaned entries are totally ignored.

So, the use of a registry cleaner which only removes 'safe' entries will
have zero impact on the system, but may put the minds at rest of people
who can't stand to have stuff on their computers which does not need to
be there.

Some registry cleaners offer entries for removal which may compromise
the system in the event that they were removed. Unfortunately, the
section of computer users who are most likely to be taken in by the
sales pitch are also the same section who simply do not have the
knowledge to make an educated decision.

The registry cleaner authors/sellers use arguments that were only valid
for Windows 9x operating systems to instill enough fear that people will
part with cash for a utility which will do NOTHING for their Windows NT
based operating system.

Personally, I think that it is unethical to sell a product which does
not do all that is claimed. However, it is no surprise to find that you
don't agree..


  #37  
Old July 20th 09, 04:26 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Leonard Grey[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,048
Default Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!

Your post is excellent, Mike. I would only add: He doesn't know the
'real truth' nor is he an MVP.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Mike Hall - MVP wrote:
"The Real Truth MVP" wrote in message
...
That makes me wonder just how much and what kind of computer
experience you have. Anyone who says registry cleaners are crap and
"Snake Oil" either have little or no experience with computers or the
windows registry.


--



They call them crap and snake oil because that is what they are.

As the 'Real Truth' MVP, you should know that the Windows 9x registry
was stored in two files which could become distinctly wobbly as their
size increased. This is why Microsoft released Regclean 4/4a. It removed
only safe entries in a bid to keep the size down and the chance of
falling over to a minimum.

As the 'Real Truth' MVP, you should also know that Windows NT stores
registry entries in hive format, and that these do not have a tendency
to fall over as their size increases. Orphaned entries are totally ignored.

So, the use of a registry cleaner which only removes 'safe' entries will
have zero impact on the system, but may put the minds at rest of people
who can't stand to have stuff on their computers which does not need to
be there.

Some registry cleaners offer entries for removal which may compromise
the system in the event that they were removed. Unfortunately, the
section of computer users who are most likely to be taken in by the
sales pitch are also the same section who simply do not have the
knowledge to make an educated decision.

The registry cleaner authors/sellers use arguments that were only valid
for Windows 9x operating systems to instill enough fear that people will
part with cash for a utility which will do NOTHING for their Windows NT
based operating system.

Personally, I think that it is unethical to sell a product which does
not do all that is claimed. However, it is no surprise to find that you
don't agree..


  #38  
Old July 20th 09, 05:26 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Mike Hall - MVP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 402
Default Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!

"Leonard Grey" wrote in message
...
Your post is excellent, Mike. I would only add: He doesn't know the 'real
truth' nor is he an MVP.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est




LOL.. he knows the real truth but doesn't want anybody else to find out..

--

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

  #39  
Old July 20th 09, 05:26 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Mike Hall - MVP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 402
Default Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!

"Leonard Grey" wrote in message
...
Your post is excellent, Mike. I would only add: He doesn't know the 'real
truth' nor is he an MVP.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est




LOL.. he knows the real truth but doesn't want anybody else to find out..

--

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

  #40  
Old July 20th 09, 05:41 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Ken Blake, MVP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,402
Default Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:26:36 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP"
wrote:

"Leonard Grey" wrote in message
...
Your post is excellent, Mike. I would only add: He doesn't know the 'real
truth' nor is he an MVP.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est




LOL.. he knows the real truth



But only about his not being an MVP ;-)


but doesn't want anybody else to find out..



Almost everyone already knows. The only ones he can fool are those who
are new here--and he doesn't get to fool them for very long either.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
  #41  
Old July 20th 09, 05:41 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Ken Blake, MVP
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,402
Default Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!

On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:26:36 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP"
wrote:

"Leonard Grey" wrote in message
...
Your post is excellent, Mike. I would only add: He doesn't know the 'real
truth' nor is he an MVP.
---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est




LOL.. he knows the real truth



But only about his not being an MVP ;-)


but doesn't want anybody else to find out..



Almost everyone already knows. The only ones he can fool are those who
are new here--and he doesn't get to fool them for very long either.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
  #42  
Old July 21st 09, 02:02 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Marianne[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!

"The Real Truth MVP" wrote in message
news
Both you and Marianne just proved what I said. Orphaned entries are NOT
ignored. Are orphaned run key entries ignored? Almost all the posts in
here about error messages on startup are caused by orphaned run keys
entries. How is newbie going to know what or where a run key is?. It has
been mentioned several times that MS includes a registry cleaner in it's
OneCare yet none of you "registry is snake oil" guru's ever answer why
that is. If MS thinks it is necessary then it is necessary and they did
not have Win98 in mind when they created OneCare..


That one is easy to answer. One Care was an attempt to get in on the
multi-billion dollar AV market. Instead of starting this AV venture from
scratch Microsoft purchased an already existing AV software company (Giant).
Giant had a registry cleaner and One Care just kept it as a marketing
gimmick, they didn't create or develop a cleaner just for One Care. We all
know that One Care was (is) a complete flop! The product was consistently
rated as one of the poorest AV product out there and it never generated the
revenue stream that Microsoft had envisioned, to wit Microsoft has decided
to discontinue it, no registry cleaner could save it.

You are ignorant of the process which owns and calls the registry run keys,
a hint for you: it isn't the applications referred in the keys. You are
grasping at straws, using a registry cleaner to clean out the run keys is
nonsense, it's akin to using a bazooka to kill a fly, the potential for
collateral damage is much greater than the problem being addressed!
Instead of telling users that cleaning the run keys is a good reason to use
a cleaner why don't you instruct users to use the built-in MSConfig utility
to remove these obsolete entries? Because you don't know any better, that
is why. Using the MSConfig utility is simpler and much safer than using
registry cleaners but you keep on insisting that those who know the least
use the most dangerous methods to remove these entries.

Why don't you tell the readers what happens when your cleaners remove
"orphans" from the Winlogon key? Why don't you tell them what happens when
registry cleaners "think" that the Userinit value is "orphaned"? Using a
registry cleaner to cleanup a virus or malware problem is sheer stupidity,
something that only the most ignorant would ever recommend. You
conveniently forget to mention the problems caused by these cleaners, posts
with tales of woes and problems caused by registry cleaners do show up in
these groups but when they show up you and your ilks in the "registry
cleaners are great" stable just put on your blinders and trot right by the
hapless folks who desperately need help after heeding your advice to use
these cleaners.

M


  #43  
Old July 21st 09, 02:02 AM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Marianne[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!

"The Real Truth MVP" wrote in message
news
Both you and Marianne just proved what I said. Orphaned entries are NOT
ignored. Are orphaned run key entries ignored? Almost all the posts in
here about error messages on startup are caused by orphaned run keys
entries. How is newbie going to know what or where a run key is?. It has
been mentioned several times that MS includes a registry cleaner in it's
OneCare yet none of you "registry is snake oil" guru's ever answer why
that is. If MS thinks it is necessary then it is necessary and they did
not have Win98 in mind when they created OneCare..


That one is easy to answer. One Care was an attempt to get in on the
multi-billion dollar AV market. Instead of starting this AV venture from
scratch Microsoft purchased an already existing AV software company (Giant).
Giant had a registry cleaner and One Care just kept it as a marketing
gimmick, they didn't create or develop a cleaner just for One Care. We all
know that One Care was (is) a complete flop! The product was consistently
rated as one of the poorest AV product out there and it never generated the
revenue stream that Microsoft had envisioned, to wit Microsoft has decided
to discontinue it, no registry cleaner could save it.

You are ignorant of the process which owns and calls the registry run keys,
a hint for you: it isn't the applications referred in the keys. You are
grasping at straws, using a registry cleaner to clean out the run keys is
nonsense, it's akin to using a bazooka to kill a fly, the potential for
collateral damage is much greater than the problem being addressed!
Instead of telling users that cleaning the run keys is a good reason to use
a cleaner why don't you instruct users to use the built-in MSConfig utility
to remove these obsolete entries? Because you don't know any better, that
is why. Using the MSConfig utility is simpler and much safer than using
registry cleaners but you keep on insisting that those who know the least
use the most dangerous methods to remove these entries.

Why don't you tell the readers what happens when your cleaners remove
"orphans" from the Winlogon key? Why don't you tell them what happens when
registry cleaners "think" that the Userinit value is "orphaned"? Using a
registry cleaner to cleanup a virus or malware problem is sheer stupidity,
something that only the most ignorant would ever recommend. You
conveniently forget to mention the problems caused by these cleaners, posts
with tales of woes and problems caused by registry cleaners do show up in
these groups but when they show up you and your ilks in the "registry
cleaners are great" stable just put on your blinders and trot right by the
hapless folks who desperately need help after heeding your advice to use
these cleaners.

M


  #44  
Old July 21st 09, 06:58 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Marianne[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!

Anything that is the registry run keys is in msconfig. Your own words:
"Almost all the posts in here about error messages on startup are caused by
orphaned run keys entries." These banal errors on startup saying that a
certain file is missing are all from entries in the run keys and *all* of
these run key entries are in msconfig. Your ignorance shows that you don't
know the difference between the run keys and startup locations. There is no
need for registry cleaners to cleanup these run key entries and only idiots
would use cleaners to cleanup malware.

The userinit value. There usually aren't any problems with the malware
affected value until registry cleaners come by and improperly remove the
value, then the computer doesn't start and the user can't properly edit the
key. This is well known and many users have posted of this problem with
cleaners improperly removing the value, yet as usual you conveniently forget
to mention this because you're in denial and you would go to any length to
defend these cleaners, that includes recommending them to novice users who
can't properly interpret the actions taken by these dangerous tools.
Experienced people who are competent and who understand Windows don't
recomend registry cleaners, none of the MVPs recomend them, only phony MVPs
and ignorant trolls advocate the use of these dangerous tools.

M

"The Real Truth MVP" wrote in message
...
Your ignorance is showing. It is not the registry cleaners that cause
problems with userinit key you idiot it's the malware that modifies it and
the cheap crappy malware removers that modify it and does not fix it. And
then there's that crap you said about what calls the run key. If it is an
orphaned key then why is it being read? Mike Hall said they are not read,
if they are not read then why is it reading it? You are also wrong about
using MSCONFIG. Have you ever used autoruns? probably not, how come all
those start up entries found in autoruns is not listed in msconfig?
sheeeesh my 3 year old is smarter than you. And MS did not take Giant
Antispyware and just put it out there as is, in fact Onecare has NOTHING
to do with Giant Antispyware. Windows Defender was built on the
restructured version of GIANT Antispyware.



  #45  
Old July 21st 09, 06:58 PM posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers
Marianne[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 55
Default Newly Updated Chart of Registry Cleaner Reviews!

Anything that is the registry run keys is in msconfig. Your own words:
"Almost all the posts in here about error messages on startup are caused by
orphaned run keys entries." These banal errors on startup saying that a
certain file is missing are all from entries in the run keys and *all* of
these run key entries are in msconfig. Your ignorance shows that you don't
know the difference between the run keys and startup locations. There is no
need for registry cleaners to cleanup these run key entries and only idiots
would use cleaners to cleanup malware.

The userinit value. There usually aren't any problems with the malware
affected value until registry cleaners come by and improperly remove the
value, then the computer doesn't start and the user can't properly edit the
key. This is well known and many users have posted of this problem with
cleaners improperly removing the value, yet as usual you conveniently forget
to mention this because you're in denial and you would go to any length to
defend these cleaners, that includes recommending them to novice users who
can't properly interpret the actions taken by these dangerous tools.
Experienced people who are competent and who understand Windows don't
recomend registry cleaners, none of the MVPs recomend them, only phony MVPs
and ignorant trolls advocate the use of these dangerous tools.

M

"The Real Truth MVP" wrote in message
...
Your ignorance is showing. It is not the registry cleaners that cause
problems with userinit key you idiot it's the malware that modifies it and
the cheap crappy malware removers that modify it and does not fix it. And
then there's that crap you said about what calls the run key. If it is an
orphaned key then why is it being read? Mike Hall said they are not read,
if they are not read then why is it reading it? You are also wrong about
using MSCONFIG. Have you ever used autoruns? probably not, how come all
those start up entries found in autoruns is not listed in msconfig?
sheeeesh my 3 year old is smarter than you. And MS did not take Giant
Antispyware and just put it out there as is, in fact Onecare has NOTHING
to do with Giant Antispyware. Windows Defender was built on the
restructured version of GIANT Antispyware.



 




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 09:18 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.