Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

September 29, 2008

OT Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

OT Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>> Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be

>> clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.

>

> CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner.

No, it is not worthless as a registry cleaner. It doesn't clean deep,

but it isn't worthless.

I tried the latest

> version on a brand-new OS installation with no additional applications

> installed,

a wasted effort at that point, since all it found were the "in case"

chaff MS sticks in all over the place. Big deal; if they're needed,

they'll get put back with the installs, but ... it's really

counterproductive and a waste of time to run a cleaner at that point.

and certainly none installed and then uninstalled, and

> CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred allegedly orphaned

> registry entries and dozens of purportedly "suspicious" files, making

> it clearly a *worthless* product, in this regard.

The orphaned entries were just that; orphaned. It doesn't take a CRAY

to determine that an entry is an orphan.

Suspicious Files, well, if you RTFM, it told you how to treat those.

(Not that any

> registry cleaner can ever be anything but worthless, as they don't

> serve any *useful* purpose, to start with.)

And that is pure BS and you know it, as surely as you have a closed

mind.

Because of your claims, I did the exact same test you claim to have

done, here on a sandbox XP laptop not too long ago, got rid of the

orphans it was willing to remove, and left the suspicious files alone

since I didn't want to go see what they were. Told it to not be so

picky, reran the test & those didn't show up, just as the instructions

predicted..

After completeion of build, machine ran perfectly. Installed Office,

DVD support, OOo, local Apache Server, PHP, AV and anti-spyware with

several other minor apps & all were quite happy.

Repeated ccleaner, no more issues, no problems. Then once I was

sure all was well I re-imaged the drive, ran ccleaner, no problems

found, and all is well since.

Why you would bother to run a trgistry cleaner immediately after a clean

install is beyond me, though. Talk about a waste of time! But,

speaking of waste ...

If you want to actually help people out in this area, why don't you test

and identify a set of reliable applications and/or offer to give an

opinion on whether a chosen one is reliable or not?

But you won't; it's easier to just parrot your closed minded attitude

that apparently knows very little about the subject. If you were really

knowledgeable, you would also consider normal day to day read/write

sources to the registry and explain how you excuse those when you posit

that anything that touches the registry is bunk? How do you justify

allowing that to happen? I've actually encountered more MS-caused

registry problems over the years than I have from non-MS applications

that use the registry in similar manners.

These aren't for you; they're for the many who enjoy follosing this kind

of link and who might like a little information on the subject. Even

with their own built in biases, these links are a breath of fresh air

compared to yours.

http://download.iolo.net/articles/Registry1.pdf

http://www.raxco.com/products/perfectdiskRxSuite/PDRXSuite_wp.pdf

Twayne

September 29, 2008

Re: OT Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

Re: OT Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

How do you feel about NTREGOPT.EXE?

--

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message

news:OqKahBlIJHA.1968@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>>> Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be

>>> clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.

>>

>> CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner.

> No, it is not worthless as a registry cleaner. It doesn't clean

> deep, but it isn't worthless.

>

> I tried the latest

>> version on a brand-new OS installation with no additional

>> applications

>> installed,

>

> a wasted effort at that point, since all it found were the "in case"

> chaff MS sticks in all over the place. Big deal; if they're needed,

> they'll get put back with the installs, but ... it's really

> counterproductive and a waste of time to run a cleaner at that

> point.

>

> and certainly none installed and then uninstalled, and

>> CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred allegedly orphaned

>> registry entries and dozens of purportedly "suspicious" files,

>> making

>> it clearly a *worthless* product, in this regard.

>

> The orphaned entries were just that; orphaned. It doesn't take a

> CRAY to determine that an entry is an orphan.

>

> Suspicious Files, well, if you RTFM, it told you how to treat those.

>

> (Not that any

>> registry cleaner can ever be anything but worthless, as they don't

>> serve any *useful* purpose, to start with.)

>

> And that is pure BS and you know it, as surely as you have a closed

> mind.

>

> Because of your claims, I did the exact same test you claim to have

> done, here on a sandbox XP laptop not too long ago, got rid of the

> orphans it was willing to remove, and left the suspicious files

> alone since I didn't want to go see what they were. Told it to not

> be so picky, reran the test & those didn't show up, just as the

> instructions predicted..

> After completeion of build, machine ran perfectly. Installed

> Office, DVD support, OOo, local Apache Server, PHP, AV and

> anti-spyware with several other minor apps & all were quite happy.

> Repeated ccleaner, no more issues, no problems. Then once I was

> sure all was well I re-imaged the drive, ran ccleaner, no problems

> found, and all is well since.

>

> Why you would bother to run a trgistry cleaner immediately after a

> clean install is beyond me, though. Talk about a waste of time!

> But, speaking of waste ...

>

> If you want to actually help people out in this area, why don't you

> test and identify a set of reliable applications and/or offer to

> give an opinion on whether a chosen one is reliable or not?

> But you won't; it's easier to just parrot your closed minded

> attitude that apparently knows very little about the subject. If

> you were really knowledgeable, you would also consider normal day to

> day read/write sources to the registry and explain how you excuse

> those when you posit that anything that touches the registry is

> bunk? How do you justify allowing that to happen? I've actually

> encountered more MS-caused registry problems over the years than I

> have from non-MS applications that use the registry in similar

> manners.

>

> These aren't for you; they're for the many who enjoy follosing this

> kind of link and who might like a little information on the subject.

> Even with their own built in biases, these links are a breath of

> fresh air compared to yours.

>

> http://download.iolo.net/articles/Registry1.pdf

>

> http://www.raxco.com/products/perfectdiskRxSuite/PDRXSuite_wp.pdf

>

> Twayne

September 29, 2008

Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

Plato wrote:

>

> I rarely start a pc from scratch just to test out an opinion I read

> here, but in this case I believe I will. I will just take a guess that

> on a fresh install Windows itself adds "useless" aka "currently

> unneeded" entries that do not point to anything useful. Or, perhaps,

> Windows adds entries that may come in handy in the future to help

> install hardware and software.

>

Yes, there are what I suppose one could call "currently useless"

entries, referencing various things like file associations and

installation locations for many well-known legacy (and current)

applications that may not be installed yet. But these are *NOT*

"orphaned entries," as CCLeaner claimed they were. Nor does their

presence have any effect upon performance.

And yes, there are some entries left over from the initail

installation. But these were *NOT* amount those identified as either

"orphaned" or suspicious" by CCleaner.

--

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

September 29, 2008

Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>> Nonsense...

>>

>> CCleaner is an:

>>

>> Excellent...

>>

>> Safe...

>>

>> Registry Cleaner.

>>

>

> There is *NO* such thing.

>

>> I've been using it for several years now with good results.

>

> Documentation? Benchmarks from before and after? Oh, and make sure

> they either been notarized or verified by an independent laboratory.

> In other words, only when someone finally produces verifiable

> scientific evidence will I give such claims a lick of credence.

Nice response, but I asked you for that long, long ago and have reminded

you of it several times. I even provided you some documentation and

benchmarks years ago but you were phrasing your questoin differently

then.

Why is it you can not do what you ask of others?

Twayne

September 29, 2008

Re: OT Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

Re: OT Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

Twayne wrote:

>>

>

> The orphaned entries were just that; orphaned. It doesn't take a CRAY

> to determine that an entry is an orphan.

>

You clearly don't even know what an "orphaned" entry is, then.

>

> Because of your claims, I did the exact same test you claim to have

> done, here on a sandbox XP laptop not too long ago, got rid of the

> orphans it was willing to remove, and left the suspicious files alone

> since I didn't want to go see what they were.

You mean you didn't "know" what they were, didn't know how to find out,

and, had you been tghe average user, would have just let CCleaner delete

them. Proving for one and all to see just how dangerous registry

cleaners can be. Thank you.

> Repeated ccleaner, no more issues, no problems. Then once I was

> sure all was well I re-imaged the drive, ran ccleaner, no problems

> found, and all is well since.

>

Were there problems that needed fixing before you ran CCeaner? If not

than having no problems after running CCleaner proves only that your

were lucky, not that running it did any good.

> Why you would bother to run a trgistry cleaner immediately after a clean

> install is beyond me, though.

Because it clearly demonstrates that the registry "cleaner" is listing

nothing but bogus false alarms, as the "problems" it points out are not

problems, at all.

> These aren't for you; they're for the many who enjoy follosing this kind

> of link and who might like a little information on the subject. Even

> with their own built in biases, these links are a breath of fresh air

> compared to yours.

>

Spam snipped

>

Rank advertising copy is a "breath of fresh air?" What are you a used

car salesman?

--

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

September 29, 2008

Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

> db.·.. ><))) ·>` .. . wrote:

>> tisk tisk tisk,

>> your wrong again.

>>

>> you know good and

>> well that anyone with

>> due deligence can

>> compare the before

>> and after of registry

>> cleaning....

>>

>

> .... and find absolutely no change for the better. (Provided the

> computer boots at all, that is.) If an one had ever found such

> evidense, they'd surely have made it public it by now.

>

>> besides, you have

>> admitted on several

>> occassions that you

>> use cc cleaner.

>>

>

> Certainly, I've always conceded that CCleaner is quite useful help in

> finding and cleaning up temporary files on the hard drive. We're not

> discussing that function, but rather it's uselessness as a registry

> cleaner, which I merely tested.

>

>> don't you remember

>> i called you on it?

>>

>

> I really don't think that your repeatedly demonstrating a lack of

> reading comprehension can truly be considered as "calling" me on

> anything, do you?

I have. And I've provided it to you before. Just because you want to

make the requirements such that anyone's response doesn't meet YOUR

requirements is silly.

Why don't you provide some numbers? Be specific and I'll repeat them

here as closely as I can. I do have a sandbox machine I can refresh to

delivery day any time i want to. As near as I can tell you have NEVER

provided a singly bit of any evidence in any way to back up what you say

other than once you mentioned "most MVPs" or something like that. BFD.

Seems like you were an MVP at that time; you spoke a lot for them if you

weren't.

September 29, 2008

Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>> Twaddle.

>>

>> I approve every single registry change that is made.

>>

>> If I don't approve it, no change is made.

>>

>> Perfectly safe.

>

> If the registry cleaner is so "perfectly safe," why do you feel the

> need to approve each and every change? You do realize, don't you,

> that you've just added weight to the position you're trying to argue

> against?

I did a few years back too, when idiots like you started spewing their

garbage. I was really curious and concerned because I'd never had a

problem. Reasonably written apps are no more prone to creating problems

than any other app. Almost all apps, especially MS app, read/write to

the registry constantly. Odds are, something will corrupt sooner or

later. Somewhere in this mass of archives I even have estimates on the

number of reads/writes I calculated on an average per day basis. My

registry cleaner was barely a blip in the chart.

September 29, 2008

Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

> Balderdash...

>

> Good software has checks and balances built in -- with full input by

> the user.

>

> CCleaner does an excellent job of cleaning the registry -- and

> incorporating user input -- just as a good physician or attorney does.

>

> Chambers seems to be the resident Village Idiot here.

>

> Does he always provide Great Entertainment like this?

>

> It's like having a pet kigme -- always ready to take a sharp, swift

> kick to the derriere.

Actually he does have a functioning brain cell or two. He's just the

victim of a seriously jaded and closed mind who enjoys these little

battles. He knows full well what the actual situation is but insists on

looking like an idiot over certain things. If it looks like an ... .

At least he's had to use something besides his boilerplate lately.

He's been asked time and again to back up his claims and he can't do it;

obviously.

Twayne

>

>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>

>>> Twaddle.

>>>

>>> I approve every single registry change that is made.

>>>

>>> If I don't approve it, no change is made.

>>>

>>> Perfectly safe.

>>

>> If the registry cleaner is so "perfectly safe," why do you feel the

>> need to approve each and every change? You do realize, don't you,

>> that you've just added weight to the position you're trying to argue

>> against?

September 29, 2008

Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

> "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message

> news:e9nt9aMIJHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> Balderdash...

>>

>> Good software has checks and balances built in -- with full input by

>> the user.

>>

>> CCleaner does an excellent job of cleaning the registry -- and

>> incorporating user input -- just as a good physician or attorney

>> does. snip

>

> What on earth have physicians and attorneys got to do with CCleaner.

> You are a really strange person!

>

> I use to be an advocate of Registry Cleaners. I use to try them all

> and was quite convinced they were an essential for efficient computer

> management. Perhaps in the days pre WINXP they were useful. I read

> all the cautionary advice given in the NGs and like you dismissed

> them. Everytime I experienced a glitch, time to run a 'cleaner' and

> I use to have 'glitches' at regular intervals. I then decided

> perhaps I should stop running these Cleaners and see what happens. Now

> I no longer have these 'glitches' or any need to restore the

> Registry (ERUNT) from time to time. My experience has been

> sufficient for me to relate machine problems (glitches) with Registry

> Cleaners. Before you comment, I do run programs like CCleaner, not

> the Registry Cleaner component, and Disk Cleaner regularly to clear

> out the 'trash' . Actually I think Disk Cleaner is the better of

> the programs.

> What I do question is that Registry Cleaners will or may corrupt the

> Registry to the extent of preventing boot up. This statement I

> simply find absurd. For a Registry Cleaner to do this it would need

> to remove/corrupt Registry entries that are essential to the OS. Even

> with the most rudimentary Quality Control the software designer

> would identify and correct that before the program was issued.

> Registry Cleaners certainly do remove entries that are required by

> some programs to operate (empty keys no doubt) and this is where they

> fall down. I suppose the essential question is, in what way does the

> removal of empty and redundant data in the Registry improve machine

> performance and/or in what way do empty and redundant keys impair

> machine performance. If the machine must read every Registry entry

> to permit it to execute a command then the answer is self evident but

> that is not the case.

> Registry Cleaners are a con. There only value is to give the users

> of such programs a 'feel good' feeling. These programs remove

> entries in the Registry of entries that do not require removal and by

> doing so sometimes 'throws the baby out with the bath water'.

If what you say is true, where are the legions of damaged complainers?

I seldom see a problem related to a registry cleaner and when I do it's

seldom the cleaner is the source of the issue.

September 29, 2008

Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

> Cleaning the registry does absolutely nothing to improve speed and

> performance, any increase in performance is more likely due to CC

> getting rid of temp files. Given the massive size of the registry,

> cleaning it out and claiming that the computer runs faster is akin to

> running the vacuum cleaner in your car and then claiming that the car

> goes faster because you got rid of a pound of dust and dirt! Once in

> a blue moon a registry cleaner may be of help to experienced users

> trying to troubleshoot problems, othewise these tools are next to

> useless or worse. These tools *do* cause problems but most of the

> people who use them don't have enough experience to see the link to

> the damage done by the cleaner.

If they cause so many problems, how in the world can they be trusted as

a trouble-shooting tool? If you use it for TS, you're saying you accept

its output.

>

> John

>

> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>

>> Never happened to me...

>>

>> Fact:

>>

>> My system runs smoother and swifter since I started using the

>> CCleaner registry cleaner.

>>

>> I'm not vouching for regcleaners in GENERAL.

>>

>> So your post was one long non sequitur.

>>

>> 'Nuff Said.

September 29, 2008

Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

> Ildhund wrote:

>> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message

>> news:#9zifVMIJHA.2408@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>> ...

>>

>> ...

>> Bruce, DNFTEC; you'll only get bitten. See

>> http://lcngarc.twoshakesofalambstail.com/1998/12/1998120729.html

>

> I see your point, but my primary concern is to ensure that there's a

> rebuttal to the deliberately harmful advice these people post, so that

> newbies are at least warned of the dangers. If doing so also boosts

> the sad little trolls' egos, I think it's a price I'll just have to

> accept. Anyway, they generally make themselves look increasingly

> desperate and pathetic with each new post.

lol, I don't THINK so Bruce. In this thread I'd say you have been

pretty well trodden and returned with nothing of any substance to back

up any of your misinformation. Take up my earlier challenge and let's

see what happens.

September 29, 2008

Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> schreef in bericht

> news:eLZBdUNIJHA.4416@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> Ildhund wrote:

>>> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message

>>> news:#9zifVMIJHA.2408@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>>> ...

>>>

>>> ...

>>> Bruce, DNFTEC; you'll only get bitten. See

>>> http://lcngarc.twoshakesofalambstail.com/1998/12/1998120729.html

>>

>> I see your point, but my primary concern is to ensure that there's a

>> rebuttal to the deliberately harmful advice these people post, so

>> that newbies are at least warned of the dangers. If doing so also

>> boosts the sad little trolls' egos, I think it's a price I'll just

>> have to accept. Anyway, they generally make themselves look

>> increasingly desperate and pathetic with each new post.

>>

>> --

>>

>> 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

>

> What a lot of crap I read here. cCleaner is not so good as some

> think. It produces a lot of problems and there are far better

> programs available with much less problems.

Specifically, what kind of problems did/does it create? What are the

far better programs with less problems? Let's put some meat into this

ether.

September 29, 2008

Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

You write a lot of Good Sense.

--

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Vires et Honor

"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message

news:#ZnPLJlIJHA.4280@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> f'ups set to reduce silly waste of ether

>

>> Bruce Chambers wrote:

>>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>>>> Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be

>>>> clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.

>>>

>>> CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner. I tried the

>>> latest

>>> version on a brand-new OS installation with no additional

>>> applications installed, and certainly none installed and then

>>> uninstalled, and CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred

>>> allegedly orphaned registry entries and dozens of purportedly

>>> "suspicious" files, making it clearly a *worthless* product, in

>>> this

>>> regard. (Not that any registry cleaner can ever be anything but

>>> worthless, as they don't serve any *useful* purpose, to start

>>> with.)

>>

>> Did you check any of the "orphaned entries?" Perhaps the OS

>> installation was the culprit...

>

> The orphaned entries aren't actual problems unless their quantity

> gets so high it takes noticeable time for the os to traverse them.

> They are mostly "in case" type crap that MS puts all over the place

> for future use, but they are not necessary to have. It's similar to

> the stuff left over after you uninstall an MS program; it leaves the

> folders and a bunch of files there on the disk and in the registry

> "just in case" you reinstall it or are upgrading something. When

> their numbers reach a few thousand after a year or so, there can be

> noticeably longer boot times associated with all the crapola strewn

> all over the place, especially when you consider that some of the

> registry hives only exist after boot time; they are created on the

> fly during boot up, and then during normal day to day registry

> reads/writes they are all excess and useless data that has to be

> looked at and discarded. The registry is a database but it's not

> really a relational database; it's much closer to a flat database in

> most of the ways it runs.

> The time to run things like ccleaner is after a machine is

> installed and running; it's pretty much a waste of time right after

> a clean install of windows anyway. There may not have been near as

> many after everything was installed, but I've never been sure

> whether in installation uses and already created point in the

> registry or goes ahead and creates it own anyway.

> If you're so inclined, there are some registry monitoring programs

> (regmon for instance) that are interesting to watch at work. An

> install usually creates a gazillion temporary files, its own install

> files get copied to disk, get uncompressed, the install happens,

> and then supposedly they are removed from the disk and from the

> registry, although that seldom happens completely. It's an

> interesting process to watch at work.

>

> Twayne

September 29, 2008

Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

> HeyBub wrote:

>> Bruce Chambers wrote:

>>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>>>> Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be

>>>> clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.

>>>

>>> CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner. I tried the latest

>>> version on a brand-new OS installation with no additional

>>> applications installed, and certainly none installed and then

>>> uninstalled, and CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred

>>> allegedly orphaned registry entries and dozens of purportedly

>>> "suspicious" files, making it clearly a *worthless* product, in

>>> this regard. (Not that any registry cleaner can ever be anything

>>> but worthless, as they don't serve any *useful* purpose, to start

>>> with.)

>>

>> Did you check any of the "orphaned entries?" Perhaps the OS

>> installation was the culprit...

>>

>

> Yes, of course I checked them; Wouldn't have been much of a test,

> otherwise. They weren't remnants of the OS installation; all (dozens,

> I'd noticed the trend by then) of the ones I checked were legitimate

> keys.

Legitimate keys to WHAT? Boy, you can't provide anything substantive at

all, can you?

I challenge you:

1. Let me pick a situation and we'll work out the problems.

2. Or you pick a situation and we'll work out hte problems.

We'll each accomplish the same set of tests, complete with timing

measurements and reasonalbe, meaningful levels of detail. We can even

collaborate on a registry screw if you wish. You've stated you're

pretty knowledgeable where the registry is concerned, so it should be

easy between the two of us to devise entries that will not compromise

the machine but will fill it with lots of data to simulate a couple

years worth of registry growth. Then we'll image, clean with a chose

cleaner, and report results.

Let's go: I'm ready. How do you want to get started?

Twayne

September 29, 2008

Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

Twayne wrote:

>>Cleaning the registry does absolutely nothing to improve speed and

>>performance, any increase in performance is more likely due to CC

>>getting rid of temp files. Given the massive size of the registry,

>>cleaning it out and claiming that the computer runs faster is akin to

>>running the vacuum cleaner in your car and then claiming that the car

>>goes faster because you got rid of a pound of dust and dirt! Once in

>>a blue moon a registry cleaner may be of help to experienced users

>>trying to troubleshoot problems, othewise these tools are next to

>>useless or worse. These tools *do* cause problems but most of the

>>people who use them don't have enough experience to see the link to

>>the damage done by the cleaner.

>

> If they cause so many problems, how in the world can they be trusted as

> a trouble-shooting tool? If you use it for TS, you're saying you accept

> its output.

They can be of limited use in some circumstances when you don't have all

the history of the machine and no, I wouldn't blindly accept its outpt.

If you take it for granted that everything that they dish up are

unneeded entries that are safe to delete then you are asking for trouble

and you will get trouble. Otherwise these cleaners are utterly useless

and they do absolutely nothing to increase computer speed and

performance The indiscriminate use of these programs cause more harm

than good, running registry cleaners as part of a regular maintenance

routine is not a good idea at all.

John

September 29, 2008

Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

What are 'reasonably written apps' and how does a novice recognize them?

For what purpose would any application have to write to the registry

'constantly'?

"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message

news:%23K%23akQlIJHA.4996@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>>> Twaddle.

>>>

>>> I approve every single registry change that is made.

>>>

>>> If I don't approve it, no change is made.

>>>

>>> Perfectly safe.

>>

>> If the registry cleaner is so "perfectly safe," why do you feel the

>> need to approve each and every change? You do realize, don't you,

>> that you've just added weight to the position you're trying to argue

>> against?

>

> I did a few years back too, when idiots like you started spewing their

> garbage. I was really curious and concerned because I'd never had a

> problem. Reasonably written apps are no more prone to creating problems

> than any other app. Almost all apps, especially MS app, read/write to the

> registry constantly. Odds are, something will corrupt sooner or later.

> Somewhere in this mass of archives I even have estimates on the number of

> reads/writes I calculated on an average per day basis. My registry

> cleaner was barely a blip in the chart.

>

September 30, 2008

Re: OT Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

Re: OT Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

Hah... well than you keep telling yourself all that. I have yet to see

reliable evidence to back up anything you said... and I know from personal

experience registry cleaners do more harm then good. If they do any good at

all.

But hey, you keep doing these worthless scans and telling yourself it's

totally speeding your computer up.

Haha, and great article btw... "after 6 months HUNDREDS of registry errors

can develop"

"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message

news:OqKahBlIJHA.1968@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>>> Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be

>>> clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.

>>

>> CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner.

> No, it is not worthless as a registry cleaner. It doesn't clean deep, but

> it isn't worthless.

>

> I tried the latest

>> version on a brand-new OS installation with no additional applications

>> installed,

>

> a wasted effort at that point, since all it found were the "in case" chaff

> MS sticks in all over the place. Big deal; if they're needed, they'll get

> put back with the installs, but ... it's really counterproductive and a

> waste of time to run a cleaner at that point.

>

> and certainly none installed and then uninstalled, and

>> CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred allegedly orphaned

>> registry entries and dozens of purportedly "suspicious" files, making

>> it clearly a *worthless* product, in this regard.

>

> The orphaned entries were just that; orphaned. It doesn't take a CRAY to

> determine that an entry is an orphan.

>

> Suspicious Files, well, if you RTFM, it told you how to treat those.

>

> (Not that any

>> registry cleaner can ever be anything but worthless, as they don't

>> serve any *useful* purpose, to start with.)

>

> And that is pure BS and you know it, as surely as you have a closed mind.

>

> Because of your claims, I did the exact same test you claim to have done,

> here on a sandbox XP laptop not too long ago, got rid of the orphans it

> was willing to remove, and left the suspicious files alone since I didn't

> want to go see what they were. Told it to not be so picky, reran the test

> & those didn't show up, just as the instructions predicted..

> After completeion of build, machine ran perfectly. Installed Office, DVD

> support, OOo, local Apache Server, PHP, AV and anti-spyware with several

> other minor apps & all were quite happy.

> Repeated ccleaner, no more issues, no problems. Then once I was sure

> all was well I re-imaged the drive, ran ccleaner, no problems found, and

> all is well since.

>

> Why you would bother to run a trgistry cleaner immediately after a clean

> install is beyond me, though. Talk about a waste of time! But, speaking

> of waste ...

>

> If you want to actually help people out in this area, why don't you test

> and identify a set of reliable applications and/or offer to give an

> opinion on whether a chosen one is reliable or not?

> But you won't; it's easier to just parrot your closed minded attitude

> that apparently knows very little about the subject. If you were really

> knowledgeable, you would also consider normal day to day read/write

> sources to the registry and explain how you excuse those when you posit

> that anything that touches the registry is bunk? How do you justify

> allowing that to happen? I've actually encountered more MS-caused

> registry problems over the years than I have from non-MS applications that

> use the registry in similar manners.

>

> These aren't for you; they're for the many who enjoy follosing this kind

> of link and who might like a little information on the subject. Even with

> their own built in biases, these links are a breath of fresh air compared

> to yours.

>

> http://download.iolo.net/articles/Registry1.pdf

>

> http://www.raxco.com/products/perfectdiskRxSuite/PDRXSuite_wp.pdf

>

> Twayne

>

September 30, 2008

Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

Daddy wrote:

>

> If you're really planning on erasing your hard disk and reinstalling Windows from scratch, here's a fun exercise to try:

Are you new to PC trouble shooting?

October 1, 2008

Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

"N. Miller" <anonymous@msnews.aosake.net> wrote in message

news:2rhbsddunw96.dlg@msnews.aosake.net...

> On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:50:57 +0100, D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>

>> Twaddle.

>>

>> I approve every single registry change that is made.

>>

>> If I don't approve it, no change is made.

>>

>> Perfectly safe.

>

> I don't need a registry cleaner to recommend changes which I then have to

> approve. Unless I have some indication that there is a registry change

> needed, I don't make changes. I've got a few "dead" keys. I don't see how

> they make any difference.

>

> Any tool which offers suggested changes is dangerous in the hands of those

> who don't know what the tool does. Anybody who does know what the registry

> cleaner is recommending, probably doesn't even need the cleaner.

I do know what the cleaners are recommending and I would not live without

their very valuable service.... but I could do without the registry

altogether... it's nothing more than an unwieldy headache as an attempt to

institute control over the o/s while doing nothing but adding an unnecessary

layer of time-wasting administration without providing any additional

security while just bogging everything down with a ridiculous amount of

system overhead...

okay... I've had my rant... I'm just here to find out what happened to

express' "block sender" feature in live mail... I would have thought it

would be easier to killfile idiots on usenut with more features, but if

"message rules" is supposed to be the "updated solution"... then this just

irks me that much more...

> --

> Norman

> ~Oh Lord, why have you come

> ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

October 2, 2008

Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

Why don't just try to use registry cleaner?

I use it on a regular basis and it never crashed my pc if I do

everything correctly.

Reference:

http://www.digeus.com

October 2, 2008

Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 09:54:19 -0700 (PDT), seo@digeus.com wrote:

> Why don't just try to use registry cleaner?

> I use it on a regular basis and it never crashed my pc if I do

> everything correctly.

Using one is a very bad idea. Using a registry cleaner doesn't

guarantee a problem, but it greatly increases the risk of getting a

problem. It's a very bad thing to do. Here's my standard message about

them:

Registry cleaning programs are *all* snake oil. Cleaning of the

registry isn't needed and is dangerous. Leave the registry alone and

don't use any registry cleaner. Despite what many people think, and

what vendors of registry cleaning software try to convince you of,

having unused registry entries doesn't really hurt you.

The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner erroneously

removing an entry you need is far greater than any potential benefit

it may have.

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

October 2, 2008

Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

Registry cleaners generally cause more problems than they cure. My

philosophy on the registry is quite simple: If you are not competent enough

to edit the registry manually, then leave well alone.

--

John Barnett MVP

Windows XP Associate Expert

Windows Desktop Experience

Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org

Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org

Web: http://www.silversurfer-guide.com

The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any

kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,

reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for

any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the

use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this

mail/post..

<seo@digeus.com> wrote in message

news:c9aab369-bbdf-49b7-8e15-a40620d22481@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

> Why don't just try to use registry cleaner?

> I use it on a regular basis and it never crashed my pc if I do

> everything correctly.

>

> Reference:

> http://www.digeus.com

Sign In

Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

Recommended Posts

Guest Twayne

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest D. Spencer Hines

Guest Bruce Chambers

Guest Twayne

Guest Bruce Chambers

Guest Twayne

Guest Twayne

Guest Twayne

Guest Twayne

Guest Twayne

Guest Twayne

Guest Twayne

Guest D. Spencer Hines

Guest Twayne

Guest John John (MVP)

Guest Unknown

Guest Josh

Guest Plato

Guest klunk

Guest seo@digeus.com

Guest Ken Blake, MVP

Guest John Barnett MVP

Browse

Activity

Site Info