registry cleaner and back up

Poprivet` wrote:

Enkidu wrote:
The best advice you could give would be to have a good backup regime
and to avoid anything that touches the registry.

Ouch. How do you install most programs then? The vast majority of them
make registry changes, some make very huge numbers of changes. A few
make no changes, but it's a limited set.

Good point. I meant anything that supposedly touches the registry with
the intent of tidying or improving things or that does bulk changes
(even with backups!). And the registry patches that supposedly make the
system run faster or something.

Cheers,

Cliff

--

Have you ever noticed that if something is advertised as 'amusing' or
'hilarious', it usually isn't?

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:11:00 -0800, Linda W Linda
wrote:

Why did I purchase Registry Cleaner last week and tonight when I typed in
www.windows.com I was hit with Registry Smart that found over 1000 errors on
my computer after Registry Cleaner had found errors and fixes them after I
paid them the $39.95 fee last week? Now Registry Smart wants me to pay them
to correct these other 1000 errors. Is all of this a scam?


All registry cleaners are scams at best. At worst, they can completely
hose your system.

I strongly suggest you avoid using any registry cleaning program. They
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.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


Very interesting thread. Has the tinge of some of the 'old' flame wars of
the 70's and 80's. One source to consult on the topic is also an 'old timer'
around compters, Fred Langa. See his article on registry cleaners at
http://windowssecrets.com/2007/03/01...ers-worthwhile
JV16 has worked well for me for many years.

"Amadeus47" wrote in message
...


"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:11:00 -0800, Linda W Linda
wrote:

Why did I purchase Registry Cleaner last week and tonight when I typed
in
www.windows.com I was hit with Registry Smart that found over 1000
errors on
my computer after Registry Cleaner had found errors and fixes them
after I
paid them the $39.95 fee last week? Now Registry Smart wants me to pay
them
to correct these other 1000 errors. Is all of this a scam?


All registry cleaners are scams at best. At worst, they can completely
hose your system.

I strongly suggest you avoid using any registry cleaning program. They
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.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup


Very interesting thread. Has the tinge of some of the 'old' flame wars of
the 70's and 80's. One source to consult on the topic is also an 'old
timer'
around compters, Fred Langa. See his article on registry cleaners at
http://windowssecrets.com/2007/03/01...ers-worthwhile
JV16 has worked well for me for many years.

And what do you mean by 'worked well'? I assume you mean it hasn't damaged
the Registry. If that assumption is correct will you explain what benefits
you have gained from running JV16 an how you measured those benefits.

I do not mean to be critical but the essence of the debate over Registry
Cleaners is an objective determination of the benefits, not that they remove
redundant entries from the Registry, I don't think anyone disputes that. If
the benefits are solely a reduction in the physical size of the Registry, I
believe we would all agree but might be tempted to add, so what?

Very interesting thread. Has the tinge of some of the 'old' flame wars of
the 70's and 80's. One source to consult on the topic is also an 'old
timer'
around compters, Fred Langa. See his article on registry cleaners at
http://windowssecrets.com/2007/03/01...ers-worthwhile
JV16 has worked well for me for many years.

And what do you mean by 'worked well'? I assume you mean it hasn't damaged
the Registry. If that assumption is correct will you explain what benefits
you have gained from running JV16 an how you measured those benefits.

I do not mean to be critical but the essence of the debate over Registry
Cleaners is an objective determination of the benefits, not that they remove
redundant entries from the Registry, I don't think anyone disputes that. If
the benefits are solely a reduction in the physical size of the Registry, I
believe we would all agree but might be tempted to add, so what?



Edward,

May I respectfully point you to the link to Fred Langa's article. He is
among many of the 'ancient' PC experts whose opinion is held in high esteem.
One of the points of his article (which, BTW, emulates the sentiments of
other experts on the topic) he makes is for heavy computer users (which I am)
a good registry cleaner is a necessity and it *does* help keep a machine
running under these conditions run faster after use. I suggest others who
are interested in this topic will find his article enlightening.

I am familiar with the article and with Langa. The article does not
prove that registry cleaners are of any value whatsoever - no
before-and-after benchmarks or any other measurements for that matter.
Langa starts with the unproven assumption that registry cleaners have
value and merely tries to decide which registry cleaner is best.

In addition to being a respected writer, Langa is also a businessman.
The population of potential subscribers and sponsor-patronizers who have
been deceived by registry cleaner hype is substantially larger than the
population of those who know better.

---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Amadeus47 wrote:


Very interesting thread. Has the tinge of some of the 'old' flame wars of
the 70's and 80's. One source to consult on the topic is also an 'old
timer'
around compters, Fred Langa. See his article on registry cleaners at
http://windowssecrets.com/2007/03/01...ers-worthwhile
JV16 has worked well for me for many years.
And what do you mean by 'worked well'? I assume you mean it hasn't damaged
the Registry. If that assumption is correct will you explain what benefits
you have gained from running JV16 an how you measured those benefits.

I do not mean to be critical but the essence of the debate over Registry
Cleaners is an objective determination of the benefits, not that they remove
redundant entries from the Registry, I don't think anyone disputes that. If
the benefits are solely a reduction in the physical size of the Registry, I
believe we would all agree but might be tempted to add, so what?



Edward,

May I respectfully point you to the link to Fred Langa's article. He is
among many of the 'ancient' PC experts whose opinion is held in high esteem.
One of the points of his article (which, BTW, emulates the sentiments of
other experts on the topic) he makes is for heavy computer users (which I am)
a good registry cleaner is a necessity and it *does* help keep a machine
running under these conditions run faster after use. I suggest others who
are interested in this topic will find his article enlightening.

Amadeus47 wrote:


Very interesting thread. Has the tinge of some of the 'old' flame wars of
the 70's and 80's. One source to consult on the topic is also an 'old timer'
around compters, Fred Langa. See his article on registry cleaners at
http://windowssecrets.com/2007/03/01...ers-worthwhile


Fred Langa is a "journalist" with absolutely no technical education,
training, or background. Read his bio. I always tell my customers
(those few who are aware of his existence, that is) to pay close
attention to what he says, and then do the exact opposite. They're much
less likely to go wrong, that way.

Just as he's blowing smoke, without providing a shred of supporting
independent laboratory evidence, in the article you cite. In the
earlier article he cites, he "reviewed" several so-called registry
"cleaners," and his *sole* criteria for judging the best, better, etc.,
was the number of times each one had to be run before it stopped
reporting "problems." At no time did he ever state whether or not any
of the "problems" found were real problems, nor did he state that any of
the "cleaners" improved the computer's performance.


JV16 has worked well for me for many years.


"Worked well" in what regard, precisely? I mean, other than separate
you from some of your money? (Which is its's purpose.)


--

Bruce Chambers

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

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

Amadeus47 wrote:


Very interesting thread. Has the tinge of some of the 'old' flame wars of
the 70's and 80's. One source to consult on the topic is also an 'old
timer'
around compters, Fred Langa. See his article on registry cleaners at
http://windowssecrets.com/2007/03/01...ers-worthwhile
JV16 has worked well for me for many years.
And what do you mean by 'worked well'? I assume you mean it hasn't damaged
the Registry. If that assumption is correct will you explain what benefits
you have gained from running JV16 an how you measured those benefits.

I do not mean to be critical but the essence of the debate over Registry
Cleaners is an objective determination of the benefits, not that they remove
redundant entries from the Registry, I don't think anyone disputes that. If
the benefits are solely a reduction in the physical size of the Registry, I
believe we would all agree but might be tempted to add, so what?



Edward,

May I respectfully point you to the link to Fred Langa's article. He is
among many of the 'ancient' PC experts whose opinion is held in high esteem.


Not so. Fred Langa is a journalist, not a technician. He's certainly
no expert. I don't know a single IT professional who holds him in "high
esteem." Utter contempt is the more common reaction, among those who've
read some of his material.





--

Bruce Chambers

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

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

Leonard Grey wrote:
I am familiar with the article and with Langa. The article does not
prove that registry cleaners are of any value whatsoever - no
before-and-after benchmarks or any other measurements for that matter.
Langa starts with the unproven assumption that registry cleaners have
value and merely tries to decide which registry cleaner is best.

In addition to being a respected writer, Langa is also a businessman.
The population of potential subscribers and sponsor-patronizers who have
been deceived by registry cleaner hype is substantially larger than the
population of those who know better.

---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est



Well said.


--

Bruce Chambers

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

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

"Amadeus47" wrote in message
...





Very interesting thread. Has the tinge of some of the 'old' flame wars
of
the 70's and 80's. One source to consult on the topic is also an 'old
timer'
around compters, Fred Langa. See his article on registry cleaners at
http://windowssecrets.com/2007/03/01...ers-worthwhile
JV16 has worked well for me for many years.

And what do you mean by 'worked well'? I assume you mean it hasn't
damaged
the Registry. If that assumption is correct will you explain what
benefits
you have gained from running JV16 an how you measured those benefits.

I do not mean to be critical but the essence of the debate over Registry
Cleaners is an objective determination of the benefits, not that they
remove
redundant entries from the Registry, I don't think anyone disputes that.
If
the benefits are solely a reduction in the physical size of the Registry,
I
believe we would all agree but might be tempted to add, so what?



Edward,

May I respectfully point you to the link to Fred Langa's article. He is
among many of the 'ancient' PC experts whose opinion is held in high
esteem.
One of the points of his article (which, BTW, emulates the sentiments of
other experts on the topic) he makes is for heavy computer users (which I
am)
a good registry cleaner is a necessity and it *does* help keep a machine
running under these conditions run faster after use. I suggest others who
are interested in this topic will find his article enlightening.

As you will note, others do not hold Mr. Langa is such high regard as you.
However, don't let us debate Mr. Langa's credentials or lack of credentials.
Am I to understand your recommendation with respect to Registry Cleaners is
based upon a recommendation from Mr. Langa? If you have objective evidence
of your own to show their benefits would you kindly share that evidence with
the rest of us? As you seem to understand what these programs do, please
explain how removing redundant entries from the Regisry allows your machine
to run faster. Exactly how did you determine this?

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:51:22 -0700, Bruce Chambers
wrote:

Amadeus47 wrote:

JV16 has worked well for me for many years.


"Worked well" in what regard, precisely? I mean, other than separate
you from some of your money? (Which is its's purpose.)


My perception of those (not Amadeus47 in particular) who say this
about some registry cleaner is that they mean two things by it:

1. Their computer is faster after they run it.

2. There were no problems after running that were attributable to it.

But I have two replies to that:

1. Hardly anyone actually measures the speed of their computer before
and after running a registry cleaner, in part because accurate
measurement of speed is very difficult. So what they really mean is
that it generally *feels* faster. But just like taking a placebo, such
feelings can be very misleading, and many people think there's an
improvement where none really exists. Moreover if someone has spent
money (or even just time and effort) on a product, he *wants* to be
convinced that it has done something useful, and that he hasn't wasted
his money, time, and effort, and that placebo effect is therefore
greatly enhanced.

2. Certainly registry cleaners do *not* cause a problem every time
someone uses them. None of us claims that. In fact, it's true that
most times someone uses a registry cleaner, no problem results. Many
people who have run a registry cleaner, even many times, have never
experienced a problem caused by it. It's only *sometimes* that
registry cleaners cause a problem. It's a matter of increased risk of
problems, not of certainty.

The reason not to use a registry cleaner is that the tradeoff of
increased risk for no benefit is a very bad bargain.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

1. Hardly anyone actually measures the speed of their computer before
and after running a registry cleaner, in part because accurate
measurement of speed is very difficult. So what they really mean is
that it generally *feels* faster. But just like taking a placebo, such
feelings can be very misleading, and many people think there's an
improvement where none really exists. Moreover if someone has spent
money (or even just time and effort) on a product, he *wants* to be
convinced that it has done something useful, and that he hasn't wasted
his money, time, and effort, and that placebo effect is therefore
greatly enhanced.

That's certainly a distinct possibility.

Another possibility is that the use of a combination temp file
cleaner/registry cleaner very well might speed up one's browsing. Then
again, it's deletion of *temp files* (not "dead wood" in the registry)
that causes this effect.

"Another possibility is that the use of a combination temp file
cleaner/registry cleaner very well might speed up one's browsing."

I do not believe that is correct. Even with the fastest internet access
currently available, it's always quicker to query a hard disk than to
query the internet. The reason for advising someone to clear their
browser cache is to force the browser to go to the internet. Don't need
a registry cleaner for that.

---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

Daave wrote:
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

1. Hardly anyone actually measures the speed of their computer before
and after running a registry cleaner, in part because accurate
measurement of speed is very difficult. So what they really mean is
that it generally *feels* faster. But just like taking a placebo, such
feelings can be very misleading, and many people think there's an
improvement where none really exists. Moreover if someone has spent
money (or even just time and effort) on a product, he *wants* to be
convinced that it has done something useful, and that he hasn't wasted
his money, time, and effort, and that placebo effect is therefore
greatly enhanced.

That's certainly a distinct possibility.

Another possibility is that the use of a combination temp file
cleaner/registry cleaner very well might speed up one's browsing. Then
again, it's deletion of *temp files* (not "dead wood" in the registry)
that causes this effect.

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 11:33:50 -0500, "Daave"
wrote:

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

1. Hardly anyone actually measures the speed of their computer before
and after running a registry cleaner, in part because accurate
measurement of speed is very difficult. So what they really mean is
that it generally *feels* faster. But just like taking a placebo, such
feelings can be very misleading, and many people think there's an
improvement where none really exists. Moreover if someone has spent
money (or even just time and effort) on a product, he *wants* to be
convinced that it has done something useful, and that he hasn't wasted
his money, time, and effort, and that placebo effect is therefore
greatly enhanced.

That's certainly a distinct possibility.

Another possibility is that the use of a combination temp file
cleaner/registry cleaner very well might speed up one's browsing. Then
again, it's deletion of *temp files* (not "dead wood" in the registry)
that causes this effect.


Yes, excellent point! If two things are done simultaneously (not just
those two), it's very easy to mis-attribute an improvement in
performance to the wrong one.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Bruce Chambers wrote:
Amadeus47 wrote:


Very interesting thread. Has the tinge of some of the 'old' flame
wars of the 70's and 80's. One source to consult on the topic is
also an 'old timer' around compters, Fred Langa. See his article on
registry cleaners at
http://windowssecrets.com/2007/03/01...ers-worthwhile


Fred Langa is a "journalist" with absolutely no technical education,
training, or background. Read his bio. I always tell my customers
(those few who are aware of his existence, that is) to pay close
attention to what he says, and then do the exact opposite. They're
much less likely to go wrong, that way.

Just as he's blowing smoke, without providing a shred of supporting
independent laboratory evidence, in the article you cite. In the
earlier article he cites, he "reviewed" several so-called registry
"cleaners," and his *sole* criteria for judging the best, better,
etc., was the number of times each one had to be run before it stopped
reporting "problems." At no time did he ever state whether or not any
of the "problems" found were real problems, nor did he state that any
of the "cleaners" improved the computer's performance.


JV16 has worked well for me for many years.


"Worked well" in what regard, precisely? I mean, other than separate
you from some of your money? (Which is its's purpose.)

Kind of like those who trot out the "never use a registry cleaner,
manually edit the registry instead" closed minded dolts do you mean?
Yeah, it's pretty similar, I agree.

And do the "opposite" of what Langa says/does? Wow, is that a foolish
statement, even if it is meant to be rhetorical. GAK!

Bruce Chambers wrote:
Amadeus47 wrote:


Very interesting thread. Has the tinge of some of the 'old' flame
wars of the 70's and 80's. One source to consult on the topic is
also an 'old timer'
around compters, Fred Langa. See his article on registry cleaners
at
http://windowssecrets.com/2007/03/01...ers-worthwhile
JV16 has worked well for me for many years.
And what do you mean by 'worked well'? I assume you mean it hasn't
damaged the Registry. If that assumption is correct will you
explain what benefits you have gained from running JV16 an how you
measured those benefits. I do not mean to be critical but the
essence of the debate over
Registry Cleaners is an objective determination of the benefits,
not that they remove redundant entries from the Registry, I don't
think anyone disputes that. If the benefits are solely a reduction
in the physical size of the Registry, I believe we would all agree
but might be tempted to add, so what?
Edward,

May I respectfully point you to the link to Fred Langa's article. He
is among many of the 'ancient' PC experts whose opinion is held in
high esteem.


Not so. Fred Langa is a journalist, not a technician. He's certainly
no expert. I don't know a single IT professional who holds him in
"high esteem." Utter contempt is the more common reaction, among
those who've read some of his material.

You didn't even bother to look at the article to be sure your
allegations hold up, did you?
FL doesn't claim to be a technician. And the OP was discussing "
'ancient' PC experts" not an "IT professional".
And "utter contempt" from those who've read "some of" his material?
Now there's an idea: if any single thing is wrong, then all is wrong.
Just as the dunderheads with their closed minded attitudes about
registry applications.
I don't know a "single IT professional" who *DOES* hold Langa in
contempt. So, since I don't have a closed mind and you appear to, does
that make MY statement any more/less meaningful than the tripe you
posted? NOT! However, I with an open mind, would at least have
included some verifiable detail to back up any such inane allegations as
you make here, some of which border on libel BTW.

In MY opinion, FL is a journalist, just like HE says he is (not you). I
don't care whether he or anyone else is a "techie"; I only consider
one's track record and results. Now in his case, if your'e a newbie, he
sometimes does pretty good. Other times not so good. But I'm not supid
enough to label anyone (well, except closed minded people I guess) with
a single swipe of a brush.