Guest Ken Blake, MVP Posted October 26, 2008 Posted October 26, 2008 Re: registry cleaners On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:40:11 -0700, "C.Joseph Drayton" <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote: > Sammy Castagna wrote: > > Are registry cleaners a good idea or bad? I have done some reading and some > > say they are bad and some say they are bad. Has any one here had any > > experience with them good or bad. Or are they even necessary looks like > > Microsoft would build it into the operating system if it were needed. > > > > Sammy Castagna > > > > > > Hello Sammy, > > I would like to start by apologizing in the event that you > find this answer offensive. > > Registry cleaners within themselves are a good idea. The > problem is that a lot of people either don't know how to use > a registry cleaner or they want one that does everything > 'automatically'. > > Defragmenting and compacting and removing unused entries in > your registry will in fact make your machine run more > efficiently. The problem is that if you delete an important > entry it can cause problems with your system. > > When certain 'experts' tell you that registry cleaners are > snake-oil, what they are really saying is "The average user > is too stupid or lazy to verify entries before deleting them > and most registry cleaners that work 'automatically' can > stupidly delete important entries because they don't > recognize what they are referring to." > > I think that it is insulting that experts prefer to say to > the user "you are stupid or lazy so just play it safe." Sorry, but I completely disagree with most of your message. Your statements "Registry cleaners within themselves are a good idea" and "Defragmenting and compacting and removing unused entries in your registry will in fact make your machine run more efficiently." In fact, registry cleaning does not accomplish that or anything else useful. It is a wasted effort, and more of a risk than anything else. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Guest Bill in Co. Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners C.Joseph Drayton wrote: > Sammy Castagna wrote: >> Are registry cleaners a good idea or bad? I have done some reading and >> some >> say they are bad and some say they are bad. Has any one here had any >> experience with them good or bad. Or are they even necessary looks like >> Microsoft would build it into the operating system if it were needed. >> >> Sammy Castagna >> >> > > Hello Sammy, > > I would like to start by apologizing in the event that you > find this answer offensive. > > Registry cleaners within themselves are a good idea. The > problem is that a lot of people either don't know how to use > a registry cleaner or they want one that does everything > 'automatically'. > > Defragmenting and compacting and removing unused entries in > your registry will in fact make your machine run more efficiently. That is utter BS. (Besides which, the terminology of "run more efficiently" is in itself meaningless, ambiguous, and completely unscientific. > The problem is that if you delete an important > entry it can cause problems with your system. THAT statement is at least true. > When certain 'experts' tell you that registry cleaners are > snake-oil, what they are really saying is "The average user > is too stupid or lazy to verify entries before deleting them > and most registry cleaners that work 'automatically' can > stupidly delete important entries because they don't > recognize what they are referring to." > > I think that it is insulting that experts prefer to say to > the user "you are stupid or lazy so just play it safe." > > I think 'experts' should take the time to answer questions > and help people learn how to properly maintain their computer. > > Sincerely, > C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T > > CSD Computer Services > > Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/ > E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net
Guest The Real Truth MVP Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners I agree with this post. -- The Real Truth http://pcbutts1-therealtruth.blogspot.com/ "C.Joseph Drayton" <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote in message news:4904f1ce$0$90268$14726298@news.sunsite.dk... > Sammy Castagna wrote: >> Are registry cleaners a good idea or bad? I have done some reading and >> some say they are bad and some say they are bad. Has any one here had any >> experience with them good or bad. Or are they even necessary looks like >> Microsoft would build it into the operating system if it were needed. >> >> Sammy Castagna > > Hello Sammy, > > I would like to start by apologizing in the event that you find this > answer offensive. > > Registry cleaners within themselves are a good idea. The problem is that a > lot of people either don't know how to use a registry cleaner or they want > one that does everything 'automatically'. > > Defragmenting and compacting and removing unused entries in your registry > will in fact make your machine run more efficiently. The problem is that > if you delete an important entry it can cause problems with your system. > > When certain 'experts' tell you that registry cleaners are snake-oil, what > they are really saying is "The average user is too stupid or lazy to > verify entries before deleting them and most registry cleaners that work > 'automatically' can stupidly delete important entries because they don't > recognize what they are referring to." > > I think that it is insulting that experts prefer to say to the user "you > are stupid or lazy so just play it safe." > > I think 'experts' should take the time to answer questions and help people > learn how to properly maintain their computer. > > Sincerely, > C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T > > CSD Computer Services > > Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/ > E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net
Guest Twayne Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners > The Real Truth MVP wrote: >> Microsoft does include a registry cleaner in its OS. > > No, it doesn't. That's a deliberate lie. Wow, kettle ... black ... from a cheap liar at that.
Guest Twayne Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners > Gerry wrote: >> Bruce >> >> Sadly Microsoft do include a Registry Cleaner as a component of >> Windows Live OneCare. > > > I'm aware of that. > > >> This is not bundled with the operating system so in that >> respect you are right. > > > Exactly, and the troll was lying. But since you like throwing the word around so much, you are also lying and have done so repeatedly. > > >> Windows Live OneCare is, however, being marketted >> strongly by Microsoft. I doubt that many of us here think it is a >> good piece of software to have installed; certainly not software to >> be recommended to others. >> >> > > > Agreed. I've never thought of Live OneCare, or any other web-based > subscription service as a good idea. But now that Microsoft has > decided to milk people's superstitious "desire" for a registry > cleaner, it's an even worse deal. Instead of being something that > one simlpy doesn't recommend, Live OneCare is now something whose use > competent and conscientious technicians will have to actively > recommend against.
Guest Twayne Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners > Why on earth do you insist on making an ass of yourself? Please > explain. Week after week it's the same. Yeah, I"ve noticed that about you. > > "The Real Truth MVP" <toidi@tpap.com> wrote in message > news:ol2Nk.4486$as4.4276@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com... >> You've been stating that same thing for years. How can something >> that has had numerous updates, most recently 1 month ago be the >> latest version years ago when you did your "Test". You must think >> I'm a fool to believe that formatted a system just to test the >> latest version of CCleaner or any registry cleaner for that matter. >> Tell us then in your "Tests" did you allow CCleaner to remove what >> it found? Did it crash your system? What hundreds of orphaned >> entries did it find? Could you manually find those entries without >> the use of CCleaner? You know as well as I do that those entries can >> get there by any type of change to software or drivers. I think what >> you are really trying to say is that MS OS is flawed. CCleaner is >> doing exactly what it was designed to when cleaning the registry so >> you can take your snake oil BS elsewhere. -- >> The Real Truth http://pcbutts1-therealtruth.blogspot.com/ >> >> >> >> >> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message >> news:u1y8Fd4NJHA.1552@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> The Real Truth MVP wrote: >>>> Microsoft does include a registry cleaner in its OS. >>> >>> No, it doesn't. That's a deliberate lie. >>> >>>> Why include it if it is not necessary. Registry cleaners are >>>> needed and anyone who tells you differently does not have the >>>> expertise and/or experience in the windows registry or registry >>>> cleaners in general. >>> >>> That's another deliberate lie. The only people who recommend the >>> use of registry cleaners are either tolls like yourself, or sanke >>> oil scam artists looking for a profit. >>> >>> >>>> That said you should not have to pay for any. CCleaner is a good >>>> free registry cleaner which does an excellent job cleaning the >>>> registry http://www.ccleaner.com/. >>> >>> >>> Another falsehood. 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.) As a registry "cleaner," >>> it's not significantly better or worse >>> than any other snake oil product of the same type. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> 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 October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners > Sammy Castagna wrote: >> Are registry cleaners a good idea or bad? I have done some reading >> and some say they are bad and some say they are bad. Has any one >> here had any experience with them good or bad. Or are they even >> necessary looks like Microsoft would build it into the operating >> system if it were needed. Sammy Castagna >> >> > > Hello Sammy, > > I would like to start by apologizing in the event that you > find this answer offensive. > > Registry cleaners within themselves are a good idea. The > problem is that a lot of people either don't know how to use > a registry cleaner or they want one that does everything > 'automatically'. > > Defragmenting and compacting and removing unused entries in > your registry will in fact make your machine run more > efficiently. The problem is that if you delete an important > entry it can cause problems with your system. > > When certain 'experts' tell you that registry cleaners are > snake-oil, what they are really saying is "The average user > is too stupid or lazy to verify entries before deleting them > and most registry cleaners that work 'automatically' can > stupidly delete important entries because they don't > recognize what they are referring to." > > I think that it is insulting that experts prefer to say to > the user "you are stupid or lazy so just play it safe." > > I think 'experts' should take the time to answer questions > and help people learn how to properly maintain their computer. > > Sincerely, > C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T > > CSD Computer Services > > Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/ > E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net That's a refreshingly lucid comment amongst all the trash-talk going on here. KUDOS to you.
Guest Twayne Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners > On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:40:11 -0700, "C.Joseph Drayton" > <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote: > >> Sammy Castagna wrote: >>> Are registry cleaners a good idea or bad? I have done some reading >>> and some say they are bad and some say they are bad. Has any one >>> here had any experience with them good or bad. Or are they even >>> necessary looks like Microsoft would build it into the operating >>> system if it were needed. >>> >>> Sammy Castagna >>> >>> >> >> Hello Sammy, >> >> I would like to start by apologizing in the event that you >> find this answer offensive. >> >> Registry cleaners within themselves are a good idea. The >> problem is that a lot of people either don't know how to use >> a registry cleaner or they want one that does everything >> 'automatically'. >> >> Defragmenting and compacting and removing unused entries in >> your registry will in fact make your machine run more >> efficiently. The problem is that if you delete an important >> entry it can cause problems with your system. >> >> When certain 'experts' tell you that registry cleaners are >> snake-oil, what they are really saying is "The average user >> is too stupid or lazy to verify entries before deleting them >> and most registry cleaners that work 'automatically' can >> stupidly delete important entries because they don't >> recognize what they are referring to." >> >> I think that it is insulting that experts prefer to say to >> the user "you are stupid or lazy so just play it safe." > > > Sorry, but I completely disagree with most of your message. Your > statements "Registry cleaners within themselves are a good idea" and > "Defragmenting and compacting and removing unused entries in your > registry will in fact make your machine run more efficiently." In > fact, registry cleaning does not accomplish that or anything else > useful. It is a wasted effort, and more of a risk than anything else. As is, I suppose ANY Microsoft application, considering all the writes/reads/revisions happening constantly to the registry. Why is it bloatware makes heavy use of the registry while some of the best and most efficient applications hardly touch the registry except for the required add/remove entry? I'll give MS credit for one thing: It might be crapware when it's first released but they do keep on updating/fixing/updating/obsoleting/upgrading/obsoleting/updating until it almost becomes stable and then they move on to the next unstability in their queue. Good registry maintenance is no different than any other well written and stable application. Wondows corrupts its own files a lot more often than a good registry cleaner causes any problems and such cleaners can reverse their changes, something windows is terribly inefficient at doing when you discover the Restore Points of all 5 drive partitions you have being monitored by default when only ONE is necessary, is corrupted, too and restore won't work. You can have the opinion that it's totally wrong, that's your perogative; bue it's not totally wrong. But your comments, IMO, certainly are.
Guest Twayne Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners > C.Joseph Drayton wrote: >> Sammy Castagna wrote: >>> Are registry cleaners a good idea or bad? I have done some reading >>> and some >>> say they are bad and some say they are bad. Has any one here had any >>> experience with them good or bad. Or are they even necessary looks >>> like Microsoft would build it into the operating system if it were >>> needed. Sammy Castagna >>> >>> >> >> Hello Sammy, >> >> I would like to start by apologizing in the event that you >> find this answer offensive. >> >> Registry cleaners within themselves are a good idea. The >> problem is that a lot of people either don't know how to use >> a registry cleaner or they want one that does everything >> 'automatically'. >> >> Defragmenting and compacting and removing unused entries in >> your registry will in fact make your machine run more efficiently. > > That is utter BS. (Besides which, the terminology of "run more > efficiently" is in itself meaningless, ambiguous, and completely > unscientific. Then add some definitions, facts, and scientific and verifiable information to support your claims. Or come down off the mountain and get some good air. > >> The problem is that if you delete an important >> entry it can cause problems with your system. > > THAT statement is at least true. Right: Delete the right entry, file, byte, bit nibble, whatever, and it can cause problems with your system. So, how's that different than any other application or program? It's true of everything eventually, but no more often with cleaners than your favorite application. Walk around the tree and see the forest. > >> When certain 'experts' tell you that registry cleaners are >> snake-oil, what they are really saying is "The average user >> is too stupid or lazy to verify entries before deleting them >> and most registry cleaners that work 'automatically' can >> stupidly delete important entries because they don't >> recognize what they are referring to." >> >> I think that it is insulting that experts prefer to say to >> the user "you are stupid or lazy so just play it safe." >> >> I think 'experts' should take the time to answer questions >> and help people learn how to properly maintain their computer. >> >> Sincerely, >> C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T >> >> CSD Computer Services >> >> Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/ >> E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net
Guest VanguardLH Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners The Real Truth MVP wrote: > Microsoft does include a registry cleaner in its OS. Why include it if it is > not necessary. Registry cleaners are needed and anyone who tells you > differently does not have the expertise and/or experience in the windows > registry or registry cleaners in general. That said you should not have to > pay for any. CCleaner is a good free registry cleaner which does an > excellent job cleaning the registry http://www.ccleaner.com/. It is also > user friendly and shows you each and every thing it is going to remove and > gives you the option remove it or not. It also does backups. pcbutts1 under any name, including Real Truth nonsense, has never been and never will be an MVP. Don't trust info from known liars.
Guest Edward W. Thompson Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners "C.Joseph Drayton" <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote in message news:4904f1ce$0$90268$14726298@news.sunsite.dk... snip> > Defragmenting and compacting and removing unused entries in your registry > will in fact make your machine run more efficiently. The problem is that > if you delete an important entry it can cause problems with your system. > snip > Sincerely, > C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T > > CSD Computer Services > > Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/ > E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net From your post I assume that by not using a 'Registry Cleaner' a machine will run 'inefficiently' due to the many empty and unused keys and other redundant data. Perhaps you will be kind enough to explain why my machines, that have never had the benefit of the application of a Registry Cleaner, run just as 'efficiently' as they did when WINXP was first installed. Incidentally by efficient I mean "effective without wasting time or effort or expense".
Guest John John (MVP) Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Twayne wrote: > A lot of people don't realize it, but simply restarting your XP computer > 3 times in succession is a form of "registry cleaning". Nonsence. John
Guest Unknown Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Talking in a mirror again aren't you. "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:%238Db2r9NJHA.1908@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Why on earth do you insist on making an ass of yourself? Please >> explain. Week after week it's the same. > > Yeah, I"ve noticed that about you. > > >> >> "The Real Truth MVP" <toidi@tpap.com> wrote in message >> news:ol2Nk.4486$as4.4276@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com... >>> You've been stating that same thing for years. How can something >>> that has had numerous updates, most recently 1 month ago be the >>> latest version years ago when you did your "Test". You must think >>> I'm a fool to believe that formatted a system just to test the >>> latest version of CCleaner or any registry cleaner for that matter. >>> Tell us then in your "Tests" did you allow CCleaner to remove what >>> it found? Did it crash your system? What hundreds of orphaned >>> entries did it find? Could you manually find those entries without >>> the use of CCleaner? You know as well as I do that those entries can >>> get there by any type of change to software or drivers. I think what >>> you are really trying to say is that MS OS is flawed. CCleaner is >>> doing exactly what it was designed to when cleaning the registry so >>> you can take your snake oil BS elsewhere. -- >>> The Real Truth http://pcbutts1-therealtruth.blogspot.com/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message >>> news:u1y8Fd4NJHA.1552@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>> The Real Truth MVP wrote: >>>>> Microsoft does include a registry cleaner in its OS. >>>> >>>> No, it doesn't. That's a deliberate lie. >>>> >>>>> Why include it if it is not necessary. Registry cleaners are >>>>> needed and anyone who tells you differently does not have the >>>>> expertise and/or experience in the windows registry or registry >>>>> cleaners in general. >>>> >>>> That's another deliberate lie. The only people who recommend the >>>> use of registry cleaners are either tolls like yourself, or sanke >>>> oil scam artists looking for a profit. >>>> >>>> >>>>> That said you should not have to pay for any. CCleaner is a good >>>>> free registry cleaner which does an excellent job cleaning the >>>>> registry http://www.ccleaner.com/. >>>> >>>> >>>> Another falsehood. 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.) As a registry "cleaner," >>>> it's not significantly better or worse >>>> than any other snake oil product of the same type. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> 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 Unknown Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners You summed it up perfectly when you said "good registry maintenance is no different than any other well written and stable application". WELL WRITTEN AND STABLE APPLICATIONS NEED NO MAINTENANCE. "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:uYZ1Vz9NJHA.728@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:40:11 -0700, "C.Joseph Drayton" >> <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote: >> >>> Sammy Castagna wrote: >>>> Are registry cleaners a good idea or bad? I have done some reading >>>> and some say they are bad and some say they are bad. Has any one >>>> here had any experience with them good or bad. Or are they even >>>> necessary looks like Microsoft would build it into the operating >>>> system if it were needed. >>>> >>>> Sammy Castagna >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Hello Sammy, >>> >>> I would like to start by apologizing in the event that you >>> find this answer offensive. >>> >>> Registry cleaners within themselves are a good idea. The >>> problem is that a lot of people either don't know how to use >>> a registry cleaner or they want one that does everything >>> 'automatically'. >>> >>> Defragmenting and compacting and removing unused entries in >>> your registry will in fact make your machine run more >>> efficiently. The problem is that if you delete an important >>> entry it can cause problems with your system. >>> >>> When certain 'experts' tell you that registry cleaners are >>> snake-oil, what they are really saying is "The average user >>> is too stupid or lazy to verify entries before deleting them >>> and most registry cleaners that work 'automatically' can >>> stupidly delete important entries because they don't >>> recognize what they are referring to." >>> >>> I think that it is insulting that experts prefer to say to >>> the user "you are stupid or lazy so just play it safe." >> >> >> Sorry, but I completely disagree with most of your message. Your >> statements "Registry cleaners within themselves are a good idea" and >> "Defragmenting and compacting and removing unused entries in your >> registry will in fact make your machine run more efficiently." In >> fact, registry cleaning does not accomplish that or anything else >> useful. It is a wasted effort, and more of a risk than anything else. > > As is, I suppose ANY Microsoft application, considering all the > writes/reads/revisions happening constantly to the registry. Why is it > bloatware makes heavy use of the registry while some of the best and most > efficient applications hardly touch the registry except for the required > add/remove entry? I'll give MS credit for one thing: It might be crapware > when it's first released but they do keep on > updating/fixing/updating/obsoleting/upgrading/obsoleting/updating until it > almost becomes stable and then they move on to the next unstability in > their queue. > Good registry maintenance is no different than any other well written and > stable application. Wondows corrupts its own files a lot more often than > a good registry cleaner causes any problems and such cleaners can reverse > their changes, something windows is terribly inefficient at doing when you > discover the Restore Points of all 5 drive partitions you have being > monitored by default when only ONE is necessary, is corrupted, too and > restore won't work. > You can have the opinion that it's totally wrong, that's your > perogative; bue it's not totally wrong. But your comments, IMO, certainly > are. > >
Guest Twayne Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners > "C.Joseph Drayton" <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote in message > news:4904f1ce$0$90268$14726298@news.sunsite.dk... > snip> >> Defragmenting and compacting and removing unused entries in your >> registry will in fact make your machine run more efficiently. The >> problem is that if you delete an important entry it can cause >> problems with your system. > snip > >> Sincerely, >> C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T >> >> CSD Computer Services >> >> Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/ >> E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net > > From your post I assume that by not using a 'Registry Cleaner' a > machine will run 'inefficiently' due to the many empty and unused > keys and other redundant data. Perhaps you will be kind enough to > explain why my machines, that have never had the benefit of the > application of a Registry Cleaner, run just as 'efficiently' as they > did when WINXP was first installed. Incidentally by efficient I mean > "effective without wasting time or effort or expense". Hi Edward, It is definitely possible your machine is running as efficiently as it ever was; the sign of a reasonable person using reasonable sense in operating it. The debate isn't that you MUST use a registry cleaner, the debate is actually one camp saying registry cleaners are useful devices on occasion and another camp that says there is no such thing as a useful registry cleaner and that they are all going to cause problems if they're used. In reality the registry is not usually the source of system slowdowns or problems; it's usually from another source. But I and others here object to the misinformation that no registry cleaner is ever to be used by any but an expert guru type or it's going to cause problems. And it is silly to expect a neophyte to know how to perform such a registry repair manually, which is what he has said time and again. It's actually only one person who makes such silly comments and even has a boilerplate he uses in a tirade against registry cleaners. He's a closed mind with no possibility of it ever being opened so the only recourse is to call him on his baseless, unverifiable from any reputable source, claims. For some reason he insists the whole world follow his lead but can provide nothing to back up his claims. It's a longer story than that, but I'll let it go at that. I've no animosity against him personally; just a very strong dislike for misinformation such as he has been spewing for years now. Regards, Twayne
Guest Twayne Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners > Twayne wrote: > >> A lot of people don't realize it, but simply restarting your XP >> computer 3 times in succession is a form of "registry cleaning". > > Nonsence. > > John Too lazy to look it up? It's right there in black and white on the MS site for you.
Guest John John (MVP) Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Twayne wrote: >>Twayne wrote: >> >> >>>A lot of people don't realize it, but simply restarting your XP >>>computer 3 times in succession is a form of "registry cleaning". >> >>Nonsence. >> >>John > > > Too lazy to look it up? It's right there in black and white on the MS > site for you. Are you too lazy to provide links to support your claim? Don't expect us to go on a wild goose chase on the internet looking for figments of your imagination! Rebooting a computer 3 times (or 54,000 times) does not clean the registry, you are the one who made the claim so it is up to you to provide supporting information, it is not up to us to validate your claims, put up or shut up. John
Guest Twayne Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners > Twayne wrote: > >>> Twayne wrote: >>> >>> >>>> A lot of people don't realize it, but simply restarting your XP >>>> computer 3 times in succession is a form of "registry cleaning". >>> >>> Nonsence. >>> >>> John >> >> >> Too lazy to look it up? It's right there in black and white on the >> MS site for you. > > Are you too lazy to provide links to support your claim? Don't expect > us to go on a wild goose chase on the internet looking for figments of > your imagination! Rebooting a computer 3 times (or 54,000 times) does > not clean the registry, you are the one who made the claim so it is up > to you to provide supporting information, it is not up to us to > validate your claims, put up or shut up. > > John Nope, not too lazy; just not going to do it because of the subject. YOU want the info, YOU go and get it. It's there. If it's something you want, it's up to YOU to do the research. You also need a lesson or two in reading comprehension: go back and READ what I originally said; it'll give you hints to find it. I did not say it "does registry cleaning" now, did I? Remember the claims windows used to make about XP being "self healing"? Cheh kitout.
Guest John John (MVP) Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Twayne wrote: >>Twayne wrote: >> >> >>>>Twayne wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>A lot of people don't realize it, but simply restarting your XP >>>>>computer 3 times in succession is a form of "registry cleaning". >>>> >>>>Nonsense. >>>> >>>>John >>> >>> >>>Too lazy to look it up? It's right there in black and white on the >>>MS site for you. >> >>Are you too lazy to provide links to support your claim? Don't expect >>us to go on a wild goose chase on the internet looking for figments of >>your imagination! Rebooting a computer 3 times (or 54,000 times) does >>not clean the registry, you are the one who made the claim so it is up >>to you to provide supporting information, it is not up to us to >>validate your claims, put up or shut up. >> >>John > > > Nope, not too lazy; just not going to do it because of the subject. YOU > want the info, YOU go and get it. Exactly as I figured. You don't know what you are talking about so once again *YOU* posted FUD and nonsense and you can't provide any information to backup your claim. It doesn't surprise me one bit that is your usual MO, post lies and misinformation then try to weasel your way out of your lies by blaming others. John
Guest Unknown Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners You obviously are suffering from CRS. How old are you anyway? "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:%23MAwDdFOJHA.588@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >> Twayne wrote: >> >>>> Twayne wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> A lot of people don't realize it, but simply restarting your XP >>>>> computer 3 times in succession is a form of "registry cleaning". >>>> >>>> Nonsence. >>>> >>>> John >>> >>> >>> Too lazy to look it up? It's right there in black and white on the >>> MS site for you. >> >> Are you too lazy to provide links to support your claim? Don't expect >> us to go on a wild goose chase on the internet looking for figments of >> your imagination! Rebooting a computer 3 times (or 54,000 times) does >> not clean the registry, you are the one who made the claim so it is up >> to you to provide supporting information, it is not up to us to >> validate your claims, put up or shut up. >> >> John > > Nope, not too lazy; just not going to do it because of the subject. YOU > want the info, YOU go and get it. It's there. If it's something you > want, it's up to YOU to do the research. > You also need a lesson or two in reading comprehension: go back and READ > what I originally said; it'll give you hints to find it. I did not say it > "does registry cleaning" now, did I? Remember the claims windows used to > make about XP being "self healing"? Cheh kitout. > > >
Guest Bill in Co. Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners John John (MVP) wrote: > Twayne wrote: > >>> Twayne wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> Twayne wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> A lot of people don't realize it, but simply restarting your XP >>>>>> computer 3 times in succession is a form of "registry cleaning". >>>>> >>>>> Nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> John >>>> >>>> >>>> Too lazy to look it up? It's right there in black and white on the >>>> MS site for you. >>> >>> Are you too lazy to provide links to support your claim? Don't expect >>> us to go on a wild goose chase on the internet looking for figments of >>> your imagination! Rebooting a computer 3 times (or 54,000 times) does >>> not clean the registry, you are the one who made the claim so it is up >>> to you to provide supporting information, it is not up to us to >>> validate your claims, put up or shut up. >>> >>> John >> >> >> Nope, not too lazy; just not going to do it because of the subject. YOU >> want the info, YOU go and get it. > > Exactly as I figured. You don't know what you are talking about so once > again *YOU* posted FUD and nonsense and you can't provide any > information to backup your claim. It doesn't surprise me one bit that > is your usual MO, post lies and misinformation then try to weasel your > way out of your lies by blaming others. > > John Indeed. Empty glasses make the most noise.
Guest Doug W. Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners When the perennial question arises regarding "registry cleaners", the only answer that is required is: "Use at your own risk." That should be warning enough. No need for preaching or recommendations or whatever. Doug W. ====== "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:ehg9tSGOJHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > John John (MVP) wrote: >> Twayne wrote: >> >>>> Twayne wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Twayne wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> A lot of people don't realize it, but simply restarting >>>>>>> your XP >>>>>>> computer 3 times in succession is a form of "registry >>>>>>> cleaning". >>>>>> >>>>>> Nonsense. >>>>>> >>>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Too lazy to look it up? It's right there in black and >>>>> white on the >>>>> MS site for you. >>>> >>>> Are you too lazy to provide links to support your claim? >>>> Don't expect >>>> us to go on a wild goose chase on the internet looking for >>>> figments of >>>> your imagination! Rebooting a computer 3 times (or 54,000 >>>> times) does >>>> not clean the registry, you are the one who made the claim >>>> so it is up >>>> to you to provide supporting information, it is not up to >>>> us to >>>> validate your claims, put up or shut up. >>>> >>>> John >>> >>> >>> Nope, not too lazy; just not going to do it because of the >>> subject. YOU >>> want the info, YOU go and get it. >> >> Exactly as I figured. You don't know what you are talking >> about so once >> again *YOU* posted FUD and nonsense and you can't provide any >> information to backup your claim. It doesn't surprise me one >> bit that >> is your usual MO, post lies and misinformation then try to >> weasel your >> way out of your lies by blaming others. >> >> John > > Indeed. > Empty glasses make the most noise. >
Guest Bill in Co. Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners C.Joseph Drayton wrote: > Ken Blake, MVP wrote: >> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:40:11 -0700, "C.Joseph Drayton" >> <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote: >> >>> Sammy Castagna wrote: >>>> Are registry cleaners a good idea or bad? I have done some reading and >>>> some >>>> say they are bad and some say they are bad. Has any one here had any >>>> experience with them good or bad. Or are they even necessary looks like >>>> Microsoft would build it into the operating system if it were needed. >>>> >>>> Sammy Castagna >>>> >>>> >>> Hello Sammy, >>> >>> I would like to start by apologizing in the event that you >>> find this answer offensive. >>> >>> Registry cleaners within themselves are a good idea. The >>> problem is that a lot of people either don't know how to use >>> a registry cleaner or they want one that does everything >>> 'automatically'. >>> >>> Defragmenting and compacting and removing unused entries in >>> your registry will in fact make your machine run more >>> efficiently. The problem is that if you delete an important >>> entry it can cause problems with your system. >>> >>> When certain 'experts' tell you that registry cleaners are >>> snake-oil, what they are really saying is "The average user >>> is too stupid or lazy to verify entries before deleting them >>> and most registry cleaners that work 'automatically' can >>> stupidly delete important entries because they don't >>> recognize what they are referring to." >>> >>> I think that it is insulting that experts prefer to say to >>> the user "you are stupid or lazy so just play it safe." >> >> >> Sorry, but I completely disagree with most of your message. Your >> statements "Registry cleaners within themselves are a good idea" and >> "Defragmenting and compacting and removing unused entries in your >> registry will in fact make your machine run more efficiently." In >> fact, registry cleaning does not accomplish that or anything else >> useful. It is a wasted effort, and more of a risk than anything else. >> > > > Blake, > > You could try some 'real' world test. Take a drive that has > had a large number of installs/uninstalls and test if for > speed where a large number of small DLLs are loaded and > unloaded as needed. Take that drive and run a registry > cleaner on it properly and do the same test, you will see > that their is an increase in speed. Subjective and hearsay evidence is just that. But some documented evidence (by some citable, peer-reviewed cites) would be meaningful. If you have any, please post them. And once again, the clause "run more efficiently" is completely ambiguous, at least from my viewpoint (as an EE). > As to risk, one should never allow a registry cleaner to > automatically remove items. A person should look through the > list to confirm that the items the cleaner has flagged as no > longer necessary are in fact no longer necessary. > > I contend and will always favor that users should learn how > to properly maintain there computer . . . which means > learning what the registry does and how it is being used by > applications. There is risk in anything but the risk > diminishes when one equips themselves with knowledge. > > Sincerely, > C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T > > CSD Computer Services > > Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/ > E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net
Guest Bill in Co. Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners One more comment. You seem to be posting from the future. (Your post is dated one hour later than the current time, for some reason). C.Joseph Drayton wrote: > Edward W. Thompson wrote: >> "C.Joseph Drayton" <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote in message >> news:4904f1ce$0$90268$14726298@news.sunsite.dk... >> snip> >>> Defragmenting and compacting and removing unused entries in your >>> registry >>> will in fact make your machine run more efficiently. The problem is that >>> if you delete an important entry it can cause problems with your system. >>> >> snip >> >>> Sincerely, >>> C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T >>> >>> CSD Computer Services >>> >>> Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/ >>> E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net >> >> From your post I assume that by not using a 'Registry Cleaner' a machine >> will run 'inefficiently' due to the many empty and unused keys and other >> redundant data. Perhaps you will be kind enough to explain why my >> machines, >> that have never had the benefit of the application of a Registry Cleaner, >> run just as 'efficiently' as they did when WINXP was first installed. >> Incidentally by efficient I mean "effective without wasting time or >> effort >> or expense". >> >> >> > > Hello Edward, > > For people who do a lot of installing/uninstalling (testing > software for example) of software, find that their machine > becomes sluggish. Part of this is because some uninstallers > do not properly uninstall themselves (which should include > removal of registry entries). > > The other piece of the picture is that it takes a finite > period of time to access an entry in the registry. The > larger the registry the longer it can take to access that entry. > > When I use the word efficiently, my major point was that the > machine loads certain things more slowly because of the fact > that their reference may have to be found in the registry > before it is called. > > As to wasting time or effort or expense, some people believe > that maintenance should be done only when 'needed'. I > believe in 'preventative' maintenance. Which school of > thought in my opinion is right, I 'won't' say. Decisions of > that type are individual and weigh the importance of time > versus the importance of the computer for the users purpose. > > Sincerely, > C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T > > CSD Computer Services > > Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/ > E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net
Guest Twayne Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message news:ge4u1f$e49$1@aioe.org... > Twayne wrote: > >>>Twayne wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>Twayne wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>A lot of people don't realize it, but simply restarting your XP >>>>>>computer 3 times in succession is a form of "registry cleaning". >>>>> >>>>>Nonsense. >>>>> >>>>>John >>>> >>>> >>>>Too lazy to look it up? It's right there in black and white on the >>>>MS site for you. >>> >>>Are you too lazy to provide links to support your claim? Don't >>>expect >>>us to go on a wild goose chase on the internet looking for figments >>>of >>>your imagination! Rebooting a computer 3 times (or 54,000 times) >>>does >>>not clean the registry, you are the one who made the claim so it is >>>up >>>to you to provide supporting information, it is not up to us to >>>validate your claims, put up or shut up. >>> >>>John >> >> >> Nope, not too lazy; just not going to do it because of the subject. >> YOU want the info, YOU go and get it. > > Exactly as I figured. You don't know what you are talking about so > once again *YOU* posted FUD and nonsense and you can't provide any > information to backup your claim. It doesn't surprise me one bit that > is your usual MO, post lies and misinformation then try to weasel your > way out of your lies by blaming others. > > John > Awww, listen to the little child when it can't get everything simply handed to it. If you tried and couldn't find it, that would be one thing, but ... it's a cruel world out there so get used to doing things for yourself or go without.
Recommended Posts