Guest Bill in Co. Posted June 24, 2008 Posted June 24, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners John John (MVP) wrote: > Twayne wrote: > >>> Twayne wrote: >>> >>>>> Paulo Roberto wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, can you recommend good free windows xp registry cleaners? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No such thing, stay away from registry cleaners, they will do more >>>>> harm than good. >>>> >>>> Perfect parroting there, Milt. Ever had an original thought? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> At least he's "parroting" a correct thought, rather than mindlessly >>> recommending snake oil, as you did. >> >> >> Spoken like a true, closed-minded zealot. Back up your claims and prove >> me wrong, or get off the pot. Make it clear WHY you say what you do and >> and use something other than "I tried them all and ... " crap. >> I have decades of use/experience and occasional research behind me; >> something you obviously do not or you'd trot it out to recover at least >> some modicum of credibility for your reputation over making the sweeping >> claims you tend to issue. It makes everything you say suspect touting >> the silly line you do over registry apps. You're just parroting too, >> I'm afraid. > > He's not parroting, he too is just telling the truth. Ever turn the > argument around and think for a minute that *you* might be the one doing > the "parroting"? The plain and simple fact is that registry cleaning > for no good reason does absolutely nothing to improve your computer > performance and that wholesale registry cleaning done by those > applications provide absolutely no useful benefits, it only introduce a > risk of failure in your computing environment. > > If you have nothing better to do than running registry cleaners you may > as well take a break from your computer and go in the attic to clean out > the cobwebs and risk falling through the ceiling and breaking your > neck... which is a pretty close comparison to what benefits cleaning the > registry will give you. > > John Oh, but wait, John! He said he had "decades of experience and research" with it!! LOL. Well, actually it's not funny. It's kinda pathetic.
Guest Bruce Chambers Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners Twayne wrote: >> Twayne wrote: >>>> Paulo Roberto wrote: >>>>> Hi, can you recommend good free windows xp registry cleaners? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> No such thing, stay away from registry cleaners, they will do more >>>> harm than good. >>> Perfect parroting there, Milt. Ever had an original thought? >>> >>> >> >> At least he's "parroting" a correct thought, rather than mindlessly >> recommending snake oil, as you did. > > Spoken like a true, closed-minded zealot. Back up your claims and prove > me wrong, or get off the pot. Make it clear WHY you say what you do and > and use something other than "I tried them all and ... " crap. I don't need to try them to konw they're crap. Knowing the the registry is an indexed database, I know that there is no possible way for a registry cleaner, even if it did remove only orphaned entries, could have any affect upon performance. > I have decades of use/experience and occasional research behind me; I really, really doubt that, or you'd not resort to name-calling instead of providing some evidence that registry cleaners do any good, whatsoever. (By the way, if you ever do find and produce links to any sort of independent laboratory documentation to support the use of registry cleaners, you'll be the very first person to ever have done so. And I've asked this of every snake oil salesman that's touted registry cleaners.) -- 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
Guest Bruce Chambers Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners Bill in Co. wrote: > John John (MVP) wrote: >> >>>> >>>> At least he's "parroting" a correct thought, rather than mindlessly >>>> recommending snake oil, as you did. >>> >>> Spoken like a true, closed-minded zealot. Back up your claims and prove >>> me wrong, or get off the pot. Make it clear WHY you say what you do and >>> and use something other than "I tried them all and ... " crap. >>> I have decades of use/experience and occasional research behind me; >>> something you obviously do not or you'd trot it out to recover at least >>> some modicum of credibility for your reputation over making the sweeping >>> claims you tend to issue. It makes everything you say suspect touting >>> the silly line you do over registry apps. You're just parroting too, > > Oh, but wait, John! He said he had "decades of experience and research" > with it!! LOL. > Well, actually it's not funny. It's kinda pathetic. > > Oh, I missed the "decades" bit. Now we know he's a liar. WinXP isn't anywhere near that old. -- 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
Guest dor.raba.forums@gmail.com Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners Hi, I have read the following article which explained me alot on registry cleaners and which one to choose. <a href="http://www.squidoo.com/free-regirtsy-cleaners">http:// www.squidoo.com/free-regirtsy-cleaners</a> this is a great article from the home of: <a href="http://topregistrycleanerscenter.com">Http:// www.TopRegistryCleanersCenter.com</a>
Guest Twayne Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners > Hi, > > I have read the following article which explained me alot on registry > cleaners and which one to choose. > > <a href="http://www.squidoo.com/free-regirtsy-cleaners">http:// > www.squidoo.com/free-regirtsy-cleaners</a> > > this is a great article from the home of: > > <a href="http://topregistrycleanerscenter.com">Http:// > www.TopRegistryCleanersCenter.com</a> Never heard of either one but they look a little "off" to me. First article wants you to buy something I never heard of, and second is one I never heard of. IMO ymmv may vary with those; looks like all 3 offers are from the same source, actually and not much of a recommendation. Their "10x faster" etc. claims are all false; it just doesn't work that way 99.9% of the time. Better to stay with named, reputable, experienced products that have a history, as with any other software, IMO. Your links are also borked, BTW.
Guest Twayne Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners > I have the 2006 version of System Works with Ghost. > The best part of System Works is it ability to put registry issues > into groups and the option to choose each key and what is to be done > to repair it. > > JS Same here except 2007 versions. Advice: GoBack isn't necessary if you're using Ghost; I'd uninstall it & free up the drive spacestorage/resources. Twayne > > "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:uwZR6sf1IHA.3884@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>> Yep, I read it all the way to the end. >>> So what Reg tool do you use? >>> I'm always willing to look at another utility. >>> >>> JS >> >> I use SystemWorks (sans GoBack) on this machine, ccleaner on the >> other two. My confidence in both is high, with nary a problem, >> ever. There are others but I can't find my list right now; those >> are the ones I'm currently using. >> >> >> >>> >>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message >>> news:OZ%23NiFY1IHA.4040@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>>> Again: >>>>> Freeware registry cleaners can trash your PC at no cost $$$ to >>>>> you. Those registry cleaner utilities that cost money are best >>>>> known for cleaning your wallet and then trashing your PC. >>>>> >>>>> Have tried freeware, shareware and paid versions, all can get you >>>>> into trouble. >>>>> If there are any registry fixes to be done I do it manually after >>>>> creating a backup. >>>>> >>>>> JS >>>> ... >>>> Good for you; I'll stay away from why that probably happened >>>> because it'll just piss you off and make fodder for an arguement. >>>> >>>> ANYTHING "can" and often does, trash your PC. >>>> I always have to wonder how folks with attitudes like yours can >>>> stand to install/uninstall any software at all, since the majority >>>> of it will (gasp!) make several registry changes, both additions >>>> and deletions. In fact, the registry is under constant change by >>>> the OS anyway; it's impossible to get away from it. >>>> >>>> I've tried "freeware, shareware and paid versions" too, and some >>>> can indeed get you into trouble. In fact, some are designed to >>>> get you into trouble so you'll go and pay THEM to fix it! >>>> But OTOH there are several, with good reputations and outcomes, >>>> that will not trash your machine, and ALL the decent ones these >>>> days provide way to undo the changes in case something does go >>>> wrong or the user misinterprets a message. I have NEVER had even >>>> a glitch with my chosen registry maintenance applications. >>>> The only times I've ever had problems was a couple times I made >>>> changes that had interops I wasn't aware of. But, since I'd >>>> exported those keys, it was simple enough to correct and put things >>>> back. There ARE situations where registry software won't find >>>> problems, but my chosen applications, as I said, have never let me >>>> down. I've asked for, and only found black holes, those who hype >>>> the never let a program touch your registry to back it up with >>>> proof of the damage they can do. NEVER was there any response with >>>> anything that could be verified. I on the other hand have provided >>>> such personal experiences as I had, in detail, to those same >>>> people, and guess what? All of a sudden they weren't responding >>>> anymore. The "compaly liners" and parrot-people who like to bash >>>> attitudes different from their own never have anything intelligent >>>> to say when it gets down to the nitty gritty of proving or at >>>> least showing a preponderance of evidence against any reliable >>>> registry software. You said you did a "backup" before you edited >>>> the registry? A >>>> backup of what? Your entire drive? You should already have that, >>>> if you're any good with data at all. So what are you backing up? >>>> Me, I simple create a copy of the System State. Much smaller, >>>> quicker and easier to reinstate. All my backups are automated, as >>>> should be yours, but it's easier to have a System State handy all >>>> by istelf to grab should it be needed. To date I have never needed >>>> one. Wait: That's not true. I did need a System State once when >>>> file corruption went wild on me. Restored the system state and all >>>> was well. OH well, each to his own, I guess. It just bugs me to >>>> see misinformation about things posted so often by so many people >>>> when the majority know it's not so and simply ignore the closed >>>> minds anymore. But they need to be kept covered so they don't >>>> corrupt and mislead newbies who don't have the advantage of being >>>> able to tell what's junk and what isn't. It's real unfortunate so >>>> many MVPs tout this line as well. A few of them are really good >>>> at their areas too, until someone says "registry cleaner". If >>>> you've read this far, I'll be surprised! <g> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Twayne
Guest Twayne Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners > Twayne wrote: > >>> Twayne wrote: >>> >>>>> Paulo Roberto wrote: .... > > He's not parroting, he too is just telling the truth. Ever turn the > argument around and think for a minute that *you* might be the one > doing the "parroting"? If you'd read my post, you'd know I had. I'm open to any and all new information. Only none is ever presented. The plain and simple fact is that registry > cleaning for no good reason does absolutely nothing to improve your > computer performance and that wholesale registry cleaning done by > those applications provide absolutely no useful benefits, I never said it did. In fact, I said it wouldn't give noticeable improvements most of the time. I can't help that you can't read a post and get the details before engaging your parrot. it only > introduce a risk of failure in your computing environment. And so does each and every other application you install; even those that don't make any registry entries except for an add/remove entry. > > If you have nothing better to do than running registry cleaners you > may as well take a break from your computer and go in the attic to > clean out the cobwebs and risk falling through the ceiling and > breaking your neck... which is a pretty close comparison to what > benefits cleaning the registry will give you. Again you obviously can't read because that's completely contrary to anything I said. You really need some help with reading comprehension. > > John Yup; definitely gotta hit the john; too much coffee.
Guest Twayne Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners > John John (MVP) wrote: >> Twayne wrote: >> >>>> Twayne wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Paulo Roberto wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, can you recommend good free windows xp registry cleaners? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No such thing, stay away from registry cleaners, they will do >>>>>> more harm than good. >>>>> >>>>> Perfect parroting there, Milt. Ever had an original thought? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> At least he's "parroting" a correct thought, rather than mindlessly >>>> recommending snake oil, as you did. >>> >>> >>> Spoken like a true, closed-minded zealot. Back up your claims and >>> prove me wrong, or get off the pot. Make it clear WHY you say what >>> you do and and use something other than "I tried them all and ... " >>> crap. I have decades of use/experience and occasional research >>> behind me; something you obviously do not or you'd trot it out to >>> recover at least some modicum of credibility for your reputation >>> over making the sweeping claims you tend to issue. It makes >>> everything you say suspect touting the silly line you do over >>> registry apps. You're just parroting too, I'm afraid. >> >> He's not parroting, he too is just telling the truth. Ever turn the >> argument around and think for a minute that *you* might be the one >> doing the "parroting"? The plain and simple fact is that registry >> cleaning for no good reason does absolutely nothing to improve your >> computer performance and that wholesale registry cleaning done by >> those applications provide absolutely no useful benefits, it only >> introduce a risk of failure in your computing environment. >> >> If you have nothing better to do than running registry cleaners you >> may as well take a break from your computer and go in the attic to >> clean out the cobwebs and risk falling through the ceiling and >> breaking your neck... which is a pretty close comparison to what >> benefits cleaning the registry will give you. >> >> John > > Oh, but wait, John! He said he had "decades of experience and > research" with it!! LOL. > Well, actually it's not funny. It's kinda pathetic. said the pathetic loser, offering nothing to the contrary, having nothing valid to refute any of the comments made.
Guest Twayne Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners > Bill in Co. wrote: >> John John (MVP) wrote: >>> >>>>> >>>>> At least he's "parroting" a correct thought, rather than >>>>> mindlessly recommending snake oil, as you did. >>>> >>>> Spoken like a true, closed-minded zealot. Back up your claims and >>>> prove me wrong, or get off the pot. Make it clear WHY you say >>>> what you do and and use something other than "I tried them all and >>>> ... " crap. I have decades of use/experience and occasional >>>> research behind me; something you obviously do not or you'd trot >>>> it out to recover at least some modicum of credibility for your >>>> reputation over making the sweeping claims you tend to issue. It >>>> makes everything you say suspect touting the silly line you do >>>> over registry apps. You're just parroting too, > >> >> Oh, but wait, John! He said he had "decades of experience and >> research" with it!! LOL. >> Well, actually it's not funny. It's kinda pathetic. >> >> > > > Oh, I missed the "decades" bit. Now we know he's a liar. WinXP isn't > anywhere near that old. Uhh, I think you lost it too, Bruce; the subject isn't "winXP"; it's registry cleaners. I have experience back through 98, 95, 3.x, 6.22 and CP/M, and used Norton tools with every one of them. In fact, I still have an x86 packed away with single-sided, hard sectored 90k floppies (pre affordable hard drives) and I've use a Norton product on every one of them. Now, let's talk about how far back the Registry goes: do YOU know? It's well over ten years, making it "decades". Let's see, 20 years would make it about 1988; do YOU know when the Registry came about? You can research it easily enough, but it's my bet you do not. You're as big a maroon as the other silly posters you've aligned yourself with here. You know, I'm only doing this because of all the folks lurking here watching you take your blows for being such a closed minded egotistic narcist. Your power-mongering over the masses doesn't work with a thinking people. You simply cannot pursuade those who have facts and real world experience on their side, to believe you simply because you say something is so. A little research at reputable sites and companies will grant you a pretty consistant view of the practices used and how comples such software is NOT! You're also one of only a few these days that will hide behind the ignorance of those facts and who keep your mind clamped so tightly closed that you can't see the red flame that's singing your eyebrows. It's not that you cannot be educated, it's that you choose to not learn anything new. Based on how long you've been touting this mantra against registry applications, I'd hazard a guess that you haven't gone past about the 1990's thinking and when you were an MVP picked up a company line somewhere when MS stopped providing such programs. You believe in management by force; it doesn't work, never has. Managing the registry is simple: there are probably many good registry apps out there that I won't touch anymore simply because I don't have the time or inclination to do the research needed to check them out. So using your line of thinking, I should just call them all 'snake oil' and say none of the are any good. For about the tenth time, I'll tell you to provide valid, verifiable, reliably sourced information and I'll listen to it, especially white papers or known unbiased reports, which is where my background comes from, on top of experience and actual use.
Guest Twayne Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners > > I don't need to try them to konw they're crap. Now, that's a real piece of work there! Knowing the the > registry is an indexed database, I know that there is no possible way > for a registry cleaner, even if it did remove only orphaned entries, > could have any affect upon performance. Really? You know little about databases then. It CAN, under the right circumstances, especially at boot time, make a noticeable speed improvement, but ... I never said it would always improve performance; in fact, I said just the opposite; I said it seldom would. It's just a set of text files on disk and others created on the fly from what is on disk, so it's fast to execute. But even a text file can eventually have an impact on speed, especially at boot time. Interpolate the size of your registry, then increse it ten fold and see if you don't notice some minor differences here and there. Do right and you can pretty much slow things right down. It's very easy; you obviously don't understand the structure and methodology of the reigistry even from a high level. So it's indexed; big deal. > > >> I have decades of use/experience and occasional research behind >> me; > > > I really, really doubt that, or you'd not resort to name-calling > instead of providing some evidence that registry cleaners do any good, Nice set of innuendo by trimming, BTW. But I guess cornered people get like that. I have right and knowledge on my side, unlike you. That's also funny because I sent you plenty of "evidence" some time ago, which you chose to ignore. At that time I just dismissed you as a black hole not liking being called out but now I know what an idiot and closed mind you are, I'm not near as polite anymore. I believe it was just before the XP release if you want a timeframe to look for my post to you. You do archive, right? An important fella like you must. Oh, I forgot, you know everything and dont' need to keep any records. > whatsoever. (By the way, if you ever do find and produce links to any > sort of independent laboratory documentation to support the use of > registry cleaners, you'll be the very first person to ever have done > so. Nice thought, but a lie. I'd love to be "first" but if it exists, which it does, by definition then I cannot be the "first", right? Duhh! I've already sent you same but you chose not to respond to it. It's your turn now. Turn this away from confrontational and initiate some factual dialog; I'll take it into account and even do further research if I feel the need. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize, but not strongly because it'll mean you've had information at hand all along that you never chose to share with anyone, let alone when you're challenged on the subject. Hell, you've never even justified how you can install an application that uses the registry and registers components and objects in the registry and not get you liver quivering. It must really kill you that your registry is in constant flux of reads/writes the whole time you're using your computer. Lots of white papers exist on the subject. Lots of reviews and comparisons exist. Lots of blogs too, but I might's well listen to you if I'm going to use most blogs for a reference. And I've asked this of every snake oil salesman that's touted > registry cleaners.) I'd say that's statistically about a 99+% chance that's: Obviously another sweeping lie. "every", "always", "never", "none", etc.; you sure like those terms, don't you? OTOH, since there is no such thing as a "snake oil salesman" that's "touted registry cleaners", the whole sentence makes no sense and just drifts into oblivion read that way. I know what you wanted me to feel you said though, so you lied. Yes, I'm calling you a liar for that and a lot of other statements you've made. I challenge you to prove your point/s. It's your turn.
Guest John John (MVP) Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners Twayne wrote: > If you'd read my post, you'd know I had. I'm open to any and all new > information. Only none is ever presented. You're not open to new information, you are just parroting your usual opinions about registry cleaners, opinions which in your mind you hold to be facts. There has been plenty of evidence shown about the near uselessness of registry cleaners and the potential risks associated with their use, yet you still go on with your parroting and dismiss the facts presented, although you and the others who tout these products can offer no verifiable evidence of the necessity or benefits of using these cleaners on a regular basis. Read the comments by readers here: http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000643.html and see what kind of problems these things can cause. As if the problems they cause aren't bad enough, at best these programs provide virtually no benefits, a complete waste of time and an only an invitation for problems which would otherwise be avoidable! John
Guest JS Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners Never installed GoBack as had problems with an earlier version (forget when or which version). Thanks JS "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:%23v7dyDs1IHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> I have the 2006 version of System Works with Ghost. >> The best part of System Works is it ability to put registry issues >> into groups and the option to choose each key and what is to be done >> to repair it. >> >> JS > > Same here except 2007 versions. Advice: GoBack isn't necessary if you're > using Ghost; I'd uninstall it & free up the drive spacestorage/resources. > > Twayne > >> >> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message >> news:uwZR6sf1IHA.3884@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>>> Yep, I read it all the way to the end. >>>> So what Reg tool do you use? >>>> I'm always willing to look at another utility. >>>> >>>> JS >>> >>> I use SystemWorks (sans GoBack) on this machine, ccleaner on the >>> other two. My confidence in both is high, with nary a problem, >>> ever. There are others but I can't find my list right now; those >>> are the ones I'm currently using. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message >>>> news:OZ%23NiFY1IHA.4040@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>>>>> Again: >>>>>> Freeware registry cleaners can trash your PC at no cost $$$ to >>>>>> you. Those registry cleaner utilities that cost money are best >>>>>> known for cleaning your wallet and then trashing your PC. >>>>>> >>>>>> Have tried freeware, shareware and paid versions, all can get you >>>>>> into trouble. >>>>>> If there are any registry fixes to be done I do it manually after >>>>>> creating a backup. >>>>>> >>>>>> JS >>>>> ... >>>>> Good for you; I'll stay away from why that probably happened >>>>> because it'll just piss you off and make fodder for an arguement. >>>>> >>>>> ANYTHING "can" and often does, trash your PC. >>>>> I always have to wonder how folks with attitudes like yours can >>>>> stand to install/uninstall any software at all, since the majority >>>>> of it will (gasp!) make several registry changes, both additions >>>>> and deletions. In fact, the registry is under constant change by >>>>> the OS anyway; it's impossible to get away from it. >>>>> >>>>> I've tried "freeware, shareware and paid versions" too, and some >>>>> can indeed get you into trouble. In fact, some are designed to >>>>> get you into trouble so you'll go and pay THEM to fix it! >>>>> But OTOH there are several, with good reputations and outcomes, >>>>> that will not trash your machine, and ALL the decent ones these >>>>> days provide way to undo the changes in case something does go >>>>> wrong or the user misinterprets a message. I have NEVER had even >>>>> a glitch with my chosen registry maintenance applications. >>>>> The only times I've ever had problems was a couple times I made >>>>> changes that had interops I wasn't aware of. But, since I'd >>>>> exported those keys, it was simple enough to correct and put things >>>>> back. There ARE situations where registry software won't find >>>>> problems, but my chosen applications, as I said, have never let me >>>>> down. I've asked for, and only found black holes, those who hype >>>>> the never let a program touch your registry to back it up with >>>>> proof of the damage they can do. NEVER was there any response with >>>>> anything that could be verified. I on the other hand have provided >>>>> such personal experiences as I had, in detail, to those same >>>>> people, and guess what? All of a sudden they weren't responding >>>>> anymore. The "compaly liners" and parrot-people who like to bash >>>>> attitudes different from their own never have anything intelligent >>>>> to say when it gets down to the nitty gritty of proving or at >>>>> least showing a preponderance of evidence against any reliable >>>>> registry software. You said you did a "backup" before you edited the >>>>> registry? A >>>>> backup of what? Your entire drive? You should already have that, >>>>> if you're any good with data at all. So what are you backing up? >>>>> Me, I simple create a copy of the System State. Much smaller, >>>>> quicker and easier to reinstate. All my backups are automated, as >>>>> should be yours, but it's easier to have a System State handy all >>>>> by istelf to grab should it be needed. To date I have never needed >>>>> one. Wait: That's not true. I did need a System State once when >>>>> file corruption went wild on me. Restored the system state and all >>>>> was well. OH well, each to his own, I guess. It just bugs me to >>>>> see misinformation about things posted so often by so many people >>>>> when the majority know it's not so and simply ignore the closed >>>>> minds anymore. But they need to be kept covered so they don't >>>>> corrupt and mislead newbies who don't have the advantage of being >>>>> able to tell what's junk and what isn't. It's real unfortunate so >>>>> many MVPs tout this line as well. A few of them are really good >>>>> at their areas too, until someone says "registry cleaner". If >>>>> you've read this far, I'll be surprised! <g> >>>>> >>>>> Cheers, >>>>> >>>>> Twayne > > >
Guest Unknown Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners If indeed you do have decades of experience with registry cleaners why do you continue to tout them? Are you insane? "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:eo27wfs1IHA.3884@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > > >> I don't need to try them to konw they're crap. > > Now, that's a real piece of work there! > > Knowing the the >> registry is an indexed database, I know that there is no possible way >> for a registry cleaner, even if it did remove only orphaned entries, >> could have any affect upon performance. > > Really? You know little about databases then. > It CAN, under the right circumstances, especially at boot time, make a > noticeable speed improvement, but ... I never said it would always improve > performance; in fact, I said just the opposite; I said it seldom would. > It's just a set of text files on disk and others created on the fly from > what is on disk, so it's fast to execute. But even a text file can > eventually have an impact on speed, especially at boot time. Interpolate > the size of your registry, then increse it ten fold and see if you don't > notice some minor differences here and there. Do right and you can pretty > much slow things right down. > It's very easy; you obviously don't understand the structure and > methodology of the reigistry even from a high level. So it's indexed; big > deal. > >> >> >>> I have decades of use/experience and occasional research behind >>> me; >> >> >> I really, really doubt that, or you'd not resort to name-calling >> instead of providing some evidence that registry cleaners do any good, > > Nice set of innuendo by trimming, BTW. But I guess cornered people get > like that. I have right and knowledge on my side, unlike you. > > That's also funny because I sent you plenty of "evidence" some time ago, > which you chose to ignore. At that time I just dismissed you as a black > hole not liking being called out but now I know what an idiot and closed > mind you are, I'm not near as polite anymore. I believe it was just > before the XP release if you want a timeframe to look for my post to you. > You do archive, right? An important fella like you must. Oh, I forgot, > you know everything and dont' need to keep any records. > >> whatsoever. (By the way, if you ever do find and produce links to any >> sort of independent laboratory documentation to support the use of >> registry cleaners, you'll be the very first person to ever have done >> so. > > Nice thought, but a lie. I'd love to be "first" but if it exists, which > it does, by definition then I cannot be the "first", right? Duhh! > I've already sent you same but you chose not to respond to it. It's > your turn now. Turn this away from confrontational and initiate some > factual dialog; I'll take it into account and even do further research if > I feel the need. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize, but not strongly because > it'll mean you've had information at hand all along that you never chose > to share with anyone, let alone when you're challenged on the subject. > Hell, you've never even justified how you can install an application that > uses the registry and registers components and objects in the registry and > not get you liver quivering. It must really kill you that your registry > is in constant flux of reads/writes the whole time you're using your > computer. > > Lots of white papers exist on the subject. Lots of reviews and > comparisons exist. Lots of blogs too, but I might's well listen to you if > I'm going to use most blogs for a reference. > > And I've asked this of every snake oil salesman that's touted >> registry cleaners.) > > I'd say that's statistically about a 99+% chance that's: Obviously another > sweeping lie. "every", "always", "never", "none", etc.; you sure like > those terms, don't you? OTOH, since there is no such thing as a "snake > oil salesman" that's "touted registry cleaners", the whole sentence makes > no sense and just drifts into oblivion read that way. > I know what you wanted me to feel you said though, so you lied. Yes, > I'm calling you a liar for that and a lot of other statements you've made. > > I challenge you to prove your point/s. It's your turn. > > > >
Guest JS Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners What is needed is a good Registry Editor. As Notepad to MS Word, Regedit should have a higher level tool. Regcleaners (in most cases) are best compared to a vacuum cleaner (it sucks up anything on the floor it finds). It was mentioned in an earlier post that the registry is an "indexed database". If so this database has no SQL like query tool. Select HKLM From: Last Uninstalled Application Where Key = orphaned Group By: Subkey End: What is needed is a truly intelligent editor that once you highlight a key returns all the information known about that key. Some examples: When it was created. What application created it. What permissions are assigned. Is it still viable. Etc., Etc., Etc. Also this editor would automatically make a backup of any key that you edit. Have a log file of any changes made. JS "Paulo Roberto" <paulo.roberto@edt.com.br> wrote in message news:ODjhS9L1IHA.1768@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Hi, can you recommend good free windows xp registry cleaners? >
Guest Daave Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:%23WLZcRs1IHA.2384@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Uhh, I think you lost it too, Bruce; the subject isn't "winXP"; it's > registry cleaners. Actually, the subject is "XP registry cleaners." > I have experience back through 98, 95, 3.x, 6.22 and CP/M <snip> I'm pretty sure the point is that while registry cleaning may have had a place in all the earlier operating systems, there is no evidence supporting the premise that it is beneficial for PCs running XP. If you have a link to a Web page that offers this evidence, I will be happy to read it. I have used search engines a number of times, but I've never been able to find such evidence. If you are able to provide it, I would be interested in reading it.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners Daave wrote: > "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:%23WLZcRs1IHA.2384@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > >> Uhh, I think you lost it too, Bruce; the subject isn't "winXP"; it's >> registry cleaners. > > Actually, the subject is "XP registry cleaners." > >> I have experience back through 98, 95, 3.x, 6.22 and CP/M <snip> > > I'm pretty sure the point is that while registry cleaning may have had a > place in all the earlier operating systems, there is no evidence > supporting the premise that it is beneficial for PCs running XP. If you > have a link to a Web page that offers this evidence, I will be happy to > read it. I have used search engines a number of times, but I've never > been able to find such evidence. If you are able to provide it, I would > be interested in reading it. He is not (obviously). That's why he goes on and on like he does (and he gets a tad upset when he is called on it).
Guest Bill in Co. Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners Twayne wrote: >> John John (MVP) wrote: >>> Twayne wrote: >>> >>>>> Twayne wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Paulo Roberto wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi, can you recommend good free windows xp registry cleaners? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No such thing, stay away from registry cleaners, they will do >>>>>>> more harm than good. >>>>>> >>>>>> Perfect parroting there, Milt. Ever had an original thought? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> At least he's "parroting" a correct thought, rather than mindlessly >>>>> recommending snake oil, as you did. >>>> >>>> >>>> Spoken like a true, closed-minded zealot. Back up your claims and >>>> prove me wrong, or get off the pot. Make it clear WHY you say what >>>> you do and and use something other than "I tried them all and ... " >>>> crap. I have decades of use/experience and occasional research >>>> behind me; something you obviously do not or you'd trot it out to >>>> recover at least some modicum of credibility for your reputation >>>> over making the sweeping claims you tend to issue. It makes >>>> everything you say suspect touting the silly line you do over >>>> registry apps. You're just parroting too, I'm afraid. >>> >>> He's not parroting, he too is just telling the truth. Ever turn the >>> argument around and think for a minute that *you* might be the one >>> doing the "parroting"? The plain and simple fact is that registry >>> cleaning for no good reason does absolutely nothing to improve your >>> computer performance and that wholesale registry cleaning done by >>> those applications provide absolutely no useful benefits, it only >>> introduce a risk of failure in your computing environment. >>> >>> If you have nothing better to do than running registry cleaners you >>> may as well take a break from your computer and go in the attic to >>> clean out the cobwebs and risk falling through the ceiling and >>> breaking your neck... which is a pretty close comparison to what >>> benefits cleaning the registry will give you. >>> >>> John >> >> Oh, but wait, John! He said he had "decades of experience and >> research!" with it!! LOL! >> Well, actually it's not funny. It's kinda pathetic. > > offering nothing to the contrary, having > nothing valid to refute any of the comments made. I think you got the cart before the horse. Is it YOU who haven't posted anything of *substance* on this yet. Just your own opinions. When and if you ever really find something (I mean *authoratively documented*), do be sure to let us know.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners Twayne wrote: >> Bill in Co. wrote: >>> John John (MVP) wrote: >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> At least he's "parroting" a correct thought, rather than >>>>>> mindlessly recommending snake oil, as you did. >>>>> >>>>> Spoken like a true, closed-minded zealot. Back up your claims and >>>>> prove me wrong, or get off the pot. Make it clear WHY you say >>>>> what you do and and use something other than "I tried them all and >>>>> ... " crap. I have decades of use/experience and occasional >>>>> research behind me; something you obviously do not or you'd trot >>>>> it out to recover at least some modicum of credibility for your >>>>> reputation over making the sweeping claims you tend to issue. It >>>>> makes everything you say suspect touting the silly line you do >>>>> over registry apps. You're just parroting too, >> >>> >>> Oh, but wait, John! He said he had "decades of experience and >>> research" with it!! LOL. >>> Well, actually it's not funny. It's kinda pathetic. >>> >>> >> >> >> Oh, I missed the "decades" bit. Now we know he's a liar. WinXP isn't >> anywhere near that old. > > Uhh, I think you lost it too, Bruce; the subject isn't "winXP"; it's > registry cleaners. I have experience back through 98, 95, 3.x, 6.22 and > CP/M, and used Norton tools with every one of them. In fact, I still > have an x86 packed away with single-sided, hard sectored 90k floppies > (pre affordable hard drives) and I've use a Norton product on every one > of them. I predate you a bit, laddie. (quite a bit, actually) Plus - I've actually done some programming (some even in assembly), unlike you. > Now, let's talk about how far back the Registry goes: do YOU know? > It's well over ten years, making it "decades". Let's see, 20 years > would make it about 1988; do YOU know when the Registry came about? You > can research it easily enough, but it's my bet you do not. You're as > big a maroon as the other silly posters you've aligned yourself with here. > > You know, I'm only doing this because of all the folks lurking here > watching you take your blows for being such a closed minded egotistic > narcist. Self projection noted. > Your power-mongering over the masses doesn't work with a thinking > people. You simply cannot pursuade those who have facts and real world > experience on their side, to believe you simply because you say > something is so. A little research at reputable sites and companies will > grant you a pretty consistant view of the practices used and how comples > such software is NOT! You're also one of only a few these days that > will hide behind the ignorance of those facts and who keep your mind > clamped so tightly closed that you can't see the red flame that's > singing your eyebrows. It's not that you cannot be educated, it's that > you choose to not learn anything new. Again, self projection noted. > Based on how long you've been touting this mantra against registry > applications, I'd hazard a guess that you haven't gone past about the > 1990's thinking and when you were an MVP picked up a company line > somewhere when MS stopped providing such programs. > You believe in management by force; it doesn't work, never has. > Managing the registry is simple: there are probably many good > registry apps out there that I won't touch anymore simply because I > don't have the time or inclination to do the research needed to check > them out. So using your line of thinking, I should just call them all > 'snake oil' and say none of the are any good. > For about the tenth time, I'll tell you to provide valid, verifiable, > reliably sourced information and I'll listen to it, especially white > papers or known unbiased reports, which is where my background comes > from, on top of experience and actual use. ROFL!
Guest Bruce Chambers Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners dor.raba.forums@gmail.com wrote: > Hi, > > I have read the following article which explained me alot on registry > cleaners and which one to choose. > > <a href="http://www.squidoo.com/free-regirtsy-cleaners">http:// > www.squidoo.com/free-regirtsy-cleaners</a> > > this is a great article from the home of: > > <a href="http://topregistrycleanerscenter.com">Http:// > www.TopRegistryCleanersCenter.com</a> Those aren't technical analyses, or even "reviews." They'rte nothing but pure marketing hype. This is the one you should have read: http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=643 -- 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
Guest Bruce Chambers Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners Twayne wrote: >> anywhere near that old. > > Uhh, I think you lost it too, Bruce; the subject isn't "winXP"; it's > registry cleaners. Hello? Have you looked art the subject line of this thread? > I have experience back through 98, 95, 3.x, 6.22 and > CP/M, and used Norton tools with every one of them. And none of which is relevant. I've also used all of those operating systems (And there was no Norton product for CP/M, not that Norton products are in any way relevant to the subject of this thread, either). And even if Win9x did have a registry, the utility of registry cleaners on those operating systems, which was always questionable, at best, even in those days, is also completely irrelevant to a discussion of WinXP registry cleaners. What makes you think that anything that applied to Win98 would even be remotely related to WinXP? Other than a superficial similarity in the user interface, the two operating systems are completely and radically different. Apparently, despite your self-proclaimed (and self-contradicted) claims of experience, you've somehow failed to notice that comparing WinXP to Win9x is a lot like comparing a Lexus to a Yugo -- any similarities are entirely superficial and mostly coincidental. > In fact, I still > have an x86 packed away with single-sided, hard sectored 90k floppies > (pre affordable hard drives) and I've use a Norton product on every one > of them. > And some people collect stamps. So what? Why are you trying to change the subject? > Now, let's talk about how far back the Registry goes: do YOU know? > It's well over ten years, making it "decades". Let's see, 20 years > would make it about 1988; do YOU know when the Registry came about? You > can research it easily enough, but it's my bet you do not. You're as > big a maroon as the other silly posters you've aligned yourself with > here. > Whether I chose to do so such research out of idle curiosity, or not, is irrelevant. Why do you persist in trying to drag the thread off-topic? Nothing actually pertinent to say, perhaps? > You know, I'm only doing this because of all the folks lurking here > watching you take your blows for being such a closed minded egotistic > narcist. > "Take blows?" I shouldn't have to point this out, but you're the one embarrassing himself by making patently false claims, and then failing to back them up. I'm not the one "taking any blows." And, Oh dear, more name-calling? Run out of facts, again? Oh, wait, you've *never* presented any to start with. (by the way, what a "narcist?" I can't find the word in any dictionary. Drivel snipped.... > For about the tenth time, I'll tell you to provide valid, verifiable, > reliably sourced information and I'll listen to it, especially white > papers or known unbiased reports, which is where my background comes > from, on top of experience and actual use. > On the contrary, you're the one who has absolutely failed (not even attempted, actually) to offer any evidence that registry cleaners do any good. Neither you, nor any other snake oil salesman, has *ever* produced a single shred of independently verifiable documentation to support your claims. C'mon! Just one "white paper" or unbiased report! Can you do it? I seriously doubt it. I've certainly challenged enough of you over the years, and you've all responded exactly as you have: with nothing but name-calling. And, given the way your earlier preposterous claims of decades of experience with WinXP's registry (see Subject Line again, if you've forgotten) completely undermines any creditability to which you might once have laid claim, any ration person would also have to be very suspicious of any anecdotal evidence (the only kind you admit to having) you might present. -- 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
Guest Twayne Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners > Twayne wrote: > >> If you'd read my post, you'd know I had. I'm open to any and all new >> information. Only none is ever presented. > > You're not open to new information, you are just parroting your usual > opinions about registry cleaners, opinions which in your mind you hold > to be facts. There has been plenty of evidence shown about the near > uselessness of registry cleaners and the potential risks associated > with their use, yet you still go on with your parroting and dismiss > the facts presented, although you and the others who tout these > products can offer no verifiable evidence of the necessity or > benefits of using these cleaners on a regular basis. Read the > comments by readers here: > http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000643.html and see what kind > of problems these things can cause. As if the problems they cause > aren't bad enough, at best these programs provide virtually no > benefits, a complete waste of time and an only an invitation for > problems which would otherwise be avoidable! > John lol, I wouldn't exactly call that a damnation of registry cleaners. You're really reaching there. And besides, it's not news. It's actually rather straight forward and written intelligently enough, and without a lot of bias. As for seeing what kind of problems "these things" can cause, there wasn't much of anything there that way, or that was new or original and that I and others here haven't alluded to with the exception of letting them delete dll files, which I found interesting but without backup or detail. Now if your'e talking about the responses, well, I can take you to a forum/group for almost any application and "prove" it's no good according to your way of thinking. You seem to forget; people without problems don't usually post problems on forums/groups/blogs. They're happy and don't waste their time spreading misinformation as some are wont to do. Other than the fact that I don't consider that blog mainstream, it was reasonable: The author states HIS opinions, says they're his opinions, and gives based on what he says are his opinions. He doesn't even come close to what you want to intimate. And as usual there are no definitive references to anything with any meat. The fact that it's not for the author is a long ways from the crap you and others here toss out as gospel and the end of the world for operating systems. That kind of article can be found all over the place, along with opposing articles and others that flow to extremes on both sides, like the dummies here do. Your jabs that I'm parroting are falling on deaf ears, too. I suspect you know I'm not or you wouldn't work so hard at bringing it up in your posts and being sure you snip it from my posts. Blatherskites & parrots; two of the same thing. Be happy in your ignorance; you're the one paying the price and wanting everyone to believe you just because you say so. I have to wonder just how hard you had to work to find even that one reference you decided to post. I would have posted at least 5 links and made sure they were from both biased (both ways) and unbiased sources so readers can make up their own minds rather than have to follow you like lemmings on the death march but fortunately most people can think for themselves. Do you use a C or a bar clamp on your mind? Twayne
Guest Twayne Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners > "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:%23WLZcRs1IHA.2384@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > >> Uhh, I think you lost it too, Bruce; the subject isn't "winXP"; it's >> registry cleaners. > > Actually, the subject is "XP registry cleaners." > >> I have experience back through 98, 95, 3.x, 6.22 and CP/M <snip> > > I'm pretty sure the point is that while registry cleaning may have > had a place in all the earlier operating systems, there is no evidence > supporting the premise that it is beneficial for PCs running XP. If > you have a link to a Web page that offers this evidence, I will be > happy to read it. I have used search engines a number of times, but > I've never been able to find such evidence. If you are able to > provide it, I would be interested in reading it. Actually, there is valid backing for using registry management on XP. It's not often needed and it usually isn't going to speed things up noticeably, but ... in some circumstances it is a godsend. I'm currently pondering whether to let brucey see some of the white papers and unbiased and even biased reviews in both directions yet. Stay tuned, I do intend to present them, just not quite yet. Call that what you want; I have a very low tolerance for misinformation such as is being spread by brucey & company. Anything presented, no matter how valid at the moment, will be summarily dismissed, just as was the original validating information I've already provided him. He does have a superior mind; a supreriorily closed mind, that is. Regards,
Guest Twayne Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners lol, let's see here: You said you "predate" me. OK, several millions of other people do, too. And you try to use projection as a confrontational remark a couple times. Yawwwwnnnnnn, > Twayne wrote: >>> Bill in Co. wrote: >>>> John John (MVP) wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At least he's "parroting" a correct thought, rather than >>>>>>> mindlessly recommending snake oil, as you did. >>>>>> >>>>>> Spoken like a true, closed-minded zealot. Back up your claims >>>>>> and prove me wrong, or get off the pot. Make it clear WHY you >>>>>> say what you do and and use something other than "I tried them >>>>>> all and ... " crap. I have decades of use/experience and >>>>>> occasional research behind me; something you obviously do not or >>>>>> you'd trot it out to recover at least some modicum of >>>>>> credibility for your reputation over making the sweeping claims >>>>>> you tend to issue. It makes everything you say suspect touting >>>>>> the silly line you do over registry apps. You're just parroting >>>>>> too, >>> >>>> >>>> Oh, but wait, John! He said he had "decades of experience and >>>> research" with it!! LOL. >>>> Well, actually it's not funny. It's kinda pathetic. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> Oh, I missed the "decades" bit. Now we know he's a liar. WinXP >>> isn't anywhere near that old. >> >> Uhh, I think you lost it too, Bruce; the subject isn't "winXP"; it's >> registry cleaners. I have experience back through 98, 95, 3.x, 6.22 >> and CP/M, and used Norton tools with every one of them. In fact, I >> still have an x86 packed away with single-sided, hard sectored 90k >> floppies (pre affordable hard drives) and I've use a Norton product >> on every one of them. > > I predate you a bit, laddie. (quite a bit, actually) > Plus - I've actually done some programming (some even in assembly), > unlike you. > >> Now, let's talk about how far back the Registry goes: do YOU know? >> It's well over ten years, making it "decades". Let's see, 20 years >> would make it about 1988; do YOU know when the Registry came about? >> You can research it easily enough, but it's my bet you do not. You're >> as big a maroon as the other silly posters you've aligned yourself >> with >> here. You know, I'm only doing this because of all the folks lurking >> here >> watching you take your blows for being such a closed minded egotistic >> narcist. > > Self projection noted. > >> Your power-mongering over the masses doesn't work with a thinking >> people. You simply cannot pursuade those who have facts and real >> world experience on their side, to believe you simply because you say >> something is so. A little research at reputable sites and companies >> will grant you a pretty consistant view of the practices used and >> how comples such software is NOT! You're also one of only a few >> these days that will hide behind the ignorance of those facts and >> who keep your mind clamped so tightly closed that you can't see the >> red flame that's singing your eyebrows. It's not that you cannot be >> educated, it's >> that you choose to not learn anything new. > > Again, self projection noted. > >> Based on how long you've been touting this mantra against registry >> applications, I'd hazard a guess that you haven't gone past about the >> 1990's thinking and when you were an MVP picked up a company line >> somewhere when MS stopped providing such programs. >> You believe in management by force; it doesn't work, never has. >> Managing the registry is simple: there are probably many good >> registry apps out there that I won't touch anymore simply because I >> don't have the time or inclination to do the research needed to check >> them out. So using your line of thinking, I should just call them >> all 'snake oil' and say none of the are any good. >> For about the tenth time, I'll tell you to provide valid, >> verifiable, reliably sourced information and I'll listen to it, >> especially white papers or known unbiased reports, which is where my >> background comes from, on top of experience and actual use. > > ROFL!
Guest Twayne Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners > If indeed you do have decades of experience with registry cleaners > why do you continue to tout them? Are you insane? According to my definition of "tout", I don't, and haven't here. And yes, I probably am a little insane. Aren't you? > "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:eo27wfs1IHA.3884@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>> >>> I don't need to try them to konw they're crap. >> >> Now, that's a real piece of work there! >> >> Knowing the the >>> registry is an indexed database, I know that there is no possible >>> way for a registry cleaner, even if it did remove only orphaned >>> entries, could have any affect upon performance. >> >> Really? You know little about databases then. >> It CAN, under the right circumstances, especially at boot time, >> make a noticeable speed improvement, but ... I never said it would >> always improve performance; in fact, I said just the opposite; I >> said it seldom would. It's just a set of text files on disk and >> others created on the fly from what is on disk, so it's fast to >> execute. But even a text file can eventually have an impact on >> speed, especially at boot time. Interpolate the size of your >> registry, then increse it ten fold and see if you don't notice some >> minor differences here and there. Do right and you can pretty much >> slow things right down. It's very easy; you obviously don't >> understand the structure and methodology of the reigistry even from >> a high level. So it's indexed; big deal. >> >>> >>> >>>> I have decades of use/experience and occasional research behind >>>> me; >>> >>> >>> I really, really doubt that, or you'd not resort to name-calling >>> instead of providing some evidence that registry cleaners do any >>> good, >> >> Nice set of innuendo by trimming, BTW. But I guess cornered people >> get like that. I have right and knowledge on my side, unlike you. >> >> That's also funny because I sent you plenty of "evidence" some time >> ago, which you chose to ignore. At that time I just dismissed you >> as a black hole not liking being called out but now I know what an >> idiot and closed mind you are, I'm not near as polite anymore. I >> believe it was just before the XP release if you want a timeframe to >> look for my post to you. You do archive, right? An important fella >> like you must. Oh, I forgot, you know everything and dont' need to >> keep any records. >>> whatsoever. (By the way, if you ever do find and produce links to >>> any sort of independent laboratory documentation to support the use >>> of registry cleaners, you'll be the very first person to ever have >>> done so. >> >> Nice thought, but a lie. I'd love to be "first" but if it exists, >> which it does, by definition then I cannot be the "first", right? >> Duhh! I've already sent you same but you chose not to respond to >> it. It's your turn now. Turn this away from confrontational and >> initiate some >> factual dialog; I'll take it into account and even do further >> research if I feel the need. If I'm wrong, I'll apologize, but not >> strongly because it'll mean you've had information at hand all along >> that you never chose to share with anyone, let alone when you're >> challenged on the subject. Hell, you've never even justified how you >> can install an application that uses the registry and registers >> components and objects in the registry and not get you liver >> quivering. It must really kill you that your registry is in >> constant flux of reads/writes the whole time you're using your >> computer. Lots of white papers exist on the subject. Lots of reviews >> and >> comparisons exist. Lots of blogs too, but I might's well listen to >> you if I'm going to use most blogs for a reference. >> >> And I've asked this of every snake oil salesman that's touted >>> registry cleaners.) >> >> I'd say that's statistically about a 99+% chance that's: Obviously >> another sweeping lie. "every", "always", "never", "none", etc.; you >> sure like those terms, don't you? OTOH, since there is no such >> thing as a "snake oil salesman" that's "touted registry cleaners", >> the whole sentence makes no sense and just drifts into oblivion read >> that way. I know what you wanted me to feel you said though, so >> you lied. Yes, I'm calling you a liar for that and a lot of other >> statements you've >> made. I challenge you to prove your point/s. It's your turn.
Guest Twayne Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 Re: XP registry cleaners > What is needed is a good Registry Editor. Amen to that! Excellent point. Interestingly enough, most of what you mention here are the components of any decent regcleaner already on the market. But that said, an implementation of a regedit based on your comments would even go beyond the existing regcleaners because of the collection of data which would indicate cross-uses and interdependencies, intradependencies, etc.. I think it would even give a guy off the street a shot at being able to use it. Good points. Twayne > As Notepad to MS Word, Regedit should have a higher level tool. > Regcleaners (in most cases) are best compared to a vacuum cleaner > (it sucks up anything on the floor it finds). > > It was mentioned in an earlier post that the registry is an "indexed > database". > If so this database has no SQL like query tool. > > Select HKLM > From: Last Uninstalled Application > Where Key = orphaned > Group By: Subkey > End: > > What is needed is a truly intelligent editor that once you highlight > a key returns all the information known about that key. > Some examples: > When it was created. > What application created it. > What permissions are assigned. > Is it still viable. > Etc., Etc., Etc. > > Also this editor would automatically make a backup of any key that > you edit. Have a log file of any changes made. > > JS > > "Paulo Roberto" <paulo.roberto@edt.com.br> wrote in message > news:ODjhS9L1IHA.1768@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> Hi, can you recommend good free windows xp registry cleaners?
Recommended Posts