Guest Twayne Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message news:03nNk.1448$%11.279@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com... > You obviously are suffering from CRS. How old are you anyway? You're OT: What, nothing intelligent to say? Yer funneee! You're comedic here, but not funny. Just so I'm not off topic too, , I'll add: Registry cleaners have their definite place in the world of windows computers. Most thinking people know that and many others also share my experience of having used them for years with never a flaw or problem. I have had MS programs crash, the OS crash, file corruption issues, but never with my registry cleaners. That's interesting; must be because it's intelligent enough to monitor itself for any changes, huh? Oh, I forgot: You've never used one. That's OK though; they aren't really needed very often, as I have said tens of time throughout this thread where the closed mind, sock puppets and parrots have sucked a tentacle onto a bottom feeder that can't think. Since you don't know, when you post somethign that is completely off topic to the newsgroup and the topic at hand, you are supposed to indicate so by incluting "OT" at the beginning of the Subject Line. Ah, but that would require a thinking sapience, wouldn't it? I keep forgetting I'm not addressing such a thing here. Go ahead & scratch it; no one's looking. > "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 David H. Lipman Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners From: "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> | 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. Twayne: I respectfully request... Please post the URL. -- Dave http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp
Guest C.Joseph Drayton Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners 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. 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 Twayne Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners "C.Joseph Drayton" <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote in message news:49063038$0$90269$14726298@news.sunsite.dk... > 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. > > 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 That's true CJ, but it's going to fall on deaf ears or minimum ignorant ones with questionable intentions. In addition, the better ones, such as both of the ones I use right now, also give you choices such as 1.Let me show it where the missing data is that it couldn't find, 2., Remove the entry because I don't use that app any more, 3., Try to fix it manually, meaning, jump to the registry entry to look around in it, 4, Don't do anything, and finally, 5, Ignore & don't report this issue in future scans. Seems like I missed something, but that's at least most of it. They both define what will be edited, removed, added or otherwise manipulated based on its own search of the disk drives and possible solutions it found. Oh yeah, it shows a severity level too. These are the specific things that make some of them great tools even for newbies, because they use language that most are goign to understand. I do admit that I don't delete registry change stores until a few weeks after the changes just in case, but it hasn't disappointed me yet. They take so little space it's usually months before I actually delete them and they always end up in my archives the next day anyway, so ... . Although the scenario you gave is a good one, it's fairly possible for the time differences to not be very substantia, depending on a lot of variables. In most cases it won't be the increase in speed that will be as noticeable, IME anyway, as the inprovement in load and cpu intensive applications. I don't mean there will be NO difference, just that, amongst all the other things in a poorly maintained machine, it may not be very noticeable in the overall scheme of things. Just for grins, on a machine I was about to rebuild, I once used Regedit to export the entire registry and then ran that resulting .REG, twice, pulling back in all of those same entries twice. It begs the question why it takes a registry cleaner to notice multiple duplicate entries, especially since the registry is a database, but ... that's how it is. That was on early XP, SP1 I think. The results were not only noticeable, but boot times more than doubled, shut downs took forever, and the odd long pauses cropped up here and there on the machine. I ran out of time and didn't get to verify the "why"s of it all. I have to assume the besides all the extraneous entries I created, that it also sort of baffled the OS on what improprieties were also present in the registry. So if one registry search "miss" had to go thru the 20S timeout, now it went thru it twice or thrice, and so on. Computers are stupid: They can only do what they're told to do, not what we meant to do<g>. Regards, Twayne
Guest C.Joseph Drayton Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners 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 C.Joseph Drayton Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Bill in Co. wrote: > 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 > > Hi Ken, First of all Ken any type of speed test is 'subjective'. If everyone had the exact same computer running the exact same software and used their computer in exactly the same way, your request might be reasonable. In the past I have commented on other 'old wives tales' told here and ended up saying that the bottom line is what works best for the 'individual' user. 'Run more efficiently' is not ambiguous, it is subjective. If you have a 8 cylinder car that is running on 7 cylinders, and compare it to a four cylinder car that is running on all four cylinders, the 8 cylinder car can run faster. If all 8 cylinders were firing then it would run faster still. Basically when I say it will run more efficiently, I am not comparing it to other machines, I am comparing it to itself. If the machine is sifting though unused or incorrect entries than yes it will be less efficient. If it takes 6 megs rather than four megs of RAM to hold its entries than in 'my' opinion it is not running as efficiently as it could be. The major point of my response to the OP is like most tools if properly used can be useful if not then can be useless or damaging. To tell a person not to use a tool rather than say to them learn how to use the tool before using it is what I have a problem with. Sincerely, C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T CSD Computer Services Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/ E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net
Guest BillW50 Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners In news:49063302$0$90266$14726298@news.sunsite.dk, C.Joseph Drayton typed on Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:30:39 -0700: > 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. I totally agree. Although you don't talk about how cleaners can totally screw up your system by removing things it shouldn't. And people who do a lot of installing/uninstalling are not very smart if they don't block writes to their mass storage device anyway. I use MS EWF myself. If that isn't good enough, I use test machines which are restored afterwards anyway. -- Bill Asus EEE PC 8GB Windows XP SP2 and Xandros Linux
Guest Twayne Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:%23mfKAuHOJHA.3520@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > 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). Omighosh, you're an EE?!? WOW! An EE! Gee gosh, that almost makes you a GOD on this subject! Wow, you are SO smart! What does EE stand for in your case: Etrain Engineer? That hearsay evidence of yours then implies that you're able to apply yourself to analytical and technical matters IF you actually have the sheepskin! Why don't YOU do some tests and prove it? Be sure to clearly explain the control/s you set and your full methodology. That way others can repeat the tests on their machines and add even more power to your hearsay claims. Just t hink how great you'd feel if you were right in your parroted comments. Which you are not, unfortunately. Oh, by the way, I'm also an EE plus some more, and before I was forced to retire for health reasons, I was Director of North American Research & Development, respoinsible for R&D departments in Ottawa, NY, Pa, 2 in Tx, Fl, IL, Mexico City, and later on of R&D in Wales, the Support Department in London, and took on all of the North American Support Departments, too eventually. Now, that shoud surely mean I HAVE to be right in everything I say, right? WRONG! While everything I said is true, it has not one single element of anything that relates to or proves my abilities to be right with respect to registry cleaners. Most people use things like that in order to distract the conversation onto a different track and away from that which they know to be true but can not force themselves to admit, nor to find the ambition (if you ever had any) to actually figure out and prove a claim that is SO simple and easy to do that even an idiot could do it. Why, even YOU could do it? So why don't you? I've mentioned several times why I won't repeat msyelf; what's your excuse for not gaining some actual knowldedge? Afraid you're wrong? You are, you know. Twayne > >> 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 Twayne wrote: > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:%23mfKAuHOJHA.3520@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> 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). > > Omighosh, you're an EE?!? WOW! An EE! Gee gosh, that almost makes you > a GOD on this subject! Wow, you are SO smart! What does EE stand for > in your case: Etrain Engineer? > That hearsay evidence of yours then implies that you're able to > apply yourself to analytical and technical matters IF you actually have > the sheepskin! Why don't YOU do some tests and prove it? Be sure to > clearly explain the control/s you set and your full methodology. That > way others can repeat the tests on their machines and add even more > power to your hearsay claims. Just t hink how great you'd feel if you > were right in your parroted comments. Which you are not, unfortunately. > > Oh, by the way, I'm also an EE plus some more, and before I was forced > to retire for health reasons, I was Director of North American Research > & Development, respoinsible for R&D departments in Ottawa, NY, Pa, 2 in > Tx, Fl, IL, Mexico City, and later on of R&D in Wales, the Support > Department in London, and took on all of the North American Support > Departments, too eventually. > Now, that shoud surely mean I HAVE to be right in everything I say, > right? WRONG! > While everything I said is true, it has not one single element of > anything that relates to or proves my abilities to be right with respect > to registry cleaners. Most people use things like that in order to > distract the conversation onto a different track and away from that > which they know to be true but can not force themselves to admit, nor to > find the ambition (if you ever had any) to actually figure out and prove > a claim that is SO simple and easy to do that even an idiot could do it. > Why, even YOU could do it? > So why don't you? I've mentioned several times why I won't repeat > msyelf; what's your excuse for not gaining some actual knowldedge? > Afraid you're wrong? You are, you know. > > Twayne LOL. Keep digging that hole. You're doing an admirable job of it, Bubba. Kudos. >> >>> 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 C.Joseph Drayton wrote: > Bill in Co. wrote: >> 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 >> >> > > Hi Ken, > > First of all Ken any type of speed test is 'subjective'. If > everyone had the exact same computer running the exact same > software and used their computer in exactly the same way, > your request might be reasonable. > > In the past I have commented on other 'old wives tales' told > here and ended up saying that the bottom line is what works > best for the 'individual' user. > > 'Run more efficiently' is not ambiguous, it is subjective. Which makes it a bit ambiguous, essentially by definition. (Unambiguous implies that it is certiable and quantifiable). > If you have a 8 cylinder car that is running on 7 cylinders, > and compare it to a four cylinder car that is running on all > four cylinders, the 8 cylinder car can run faster. If all 8 > cylinders were firing then it would run faster still. > Basically when I say it will run more efficiently, I am not > comparing it to other machines, I am comparing it to itself. But there are no objective, certifiable, and quantifiable tests with results to prove that. > If the machine is sifting though unused or incorrect entries > than yes it will be less efficient. If it takes 6 megs > rather than four megs of RAM to hold its entries than in > 'my' opinion it is not running as efficiently as it could be. But that would be extremely insignificant, and not even noticeable. I mean, if you follow that logic, than removing any extraneous entry in anything is beneficial, end of story (which sounds theoretically :-). ut the problem is what usually happens as a consequence of that, for something unforseen (meaning, that assumed spurious entry really wasn't extraneous, afterall - and no registry program is smart enough to flag and catch all of them). The point is there is nothing really (practically) to be gained using a registry cleaner, unless you are trying to, say, customize something, or perhaps remove a bunch of items from the windows Recent history list, or fix a specific program bug due to an erroneous registry entry, or something like that) that can't otherwise be done. > The major point of my response to the OP is like most tools > if properly used can be useful if not then can be useless or > damaging. To tell a person not to use a tool rather than say > to them learn how to use the tool before using it is what I > have a problem with. > > Sincerely, > C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T > > CSD Computer Services > > Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/ > E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net
Guest Bruce Chambers Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 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". It's always > surprising people that a machine can fix itself; but the 3 Restarts is > one way to speed up that process. Utter nonsense. -- 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 Dave Onex Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Re: registry cleaners The fact that Twayne advocates using regsitry cleaners should tell you folks where he's at.....and what his competency level is. 'nuff said "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:ucUop8HOJHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > > "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message > news:03nNk.1448$%11.279@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com... >> You obviously are suffering from CRS. How old are you anyway? > > You're OT: What, nothing intelligent to say? Yer funneee! You're comedic > here, but not funny. > > Just so I'm not off topic too, , I'll add: Registry cleaners have their > definite place in the world of windows computers. Most thinking people > know that and many others also share my experience of having used them for > years with never a flaw or problem. I have had MS programs crash, the OS > crash, file corruption issues, but never with my registry cleaners. > That's interesting; must be because it's intelligent enough to monitor > itself for any changes, huh? Oh, I forgot: You've never used one. That's > OK though; they aren't really needed very often, as I have said tens of > time throughout this thread where the closed mind, sock puppets and > parrots have sucked a tentacle onto a bottom feeder that can't think. > Since you don't know, when you post somethign that is completely off > topic to the newsgroup and the topic at hand, you are supposed to indicate > so by incluting "OT" at the beginning of the Subject Line. Ah, but that > would require a thinking sapience, wouldn't it? I keep forgetting I'm not > addressing such a thing here. > > Go ahead & scratch it; no one's looking. > > >> "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 Dave Onex Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Re: registry cleaners I think Twayne and The Real Truth should get together and clean each other's registries :-) I mean come on folks - are you really going to listen to someone with a name like The Real Truth? That alone should be enough to set off alarms.... "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:e0y$Hr9NJHA.1144@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> Gerry wrote: >>> Bruce >>> >>> Sadly Microsoft do include a Registry Cleaner as a component of >>> Windows Live OneCare. >> >> >> I'm aware of that. >> >> >>> This is not bundled with the operating system so in that >>> respect you are right. >> >> >> Exactly, and the troll was lying. > > But since you like throwing the word around so much, you are also lying > and have done so repeatedly. > >> >> >>> Windows Live OneCare is, however, being marketted >>> strongly by Microsoft. I doubt that many of us here think it is a >>> good piece of software to have installed; certainly not software to >>> be recommended to others. >>> >>> >> >> >> Agreed. I've never thought of Live OneCare, or any other web-based >> subscription service as a good idea. But now that Microsoft has >> decided to milk people's superstitious "desire" for a registry >> cleaner, it's an even worse deal. Instead of being something that >> one simlpy doesn't recommend, Live OneCare is now something whose use >> competent and conscientious technicians will have to actively >> recommend against. > > >
Guest Dave Onex Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Oh-oh someone hit Twayne's pride button - better go and clean your registry - it's starting to look pretty foul and bloated. Perhaps you should uninstall some of your pride and arrogance. You know when someone starts quoting their resume to show how 'superior' they are the show's almost over. I think we should all chip in and get Twayne some 'tune up in a can' that way he can get his health back ;-) "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:e$JinSIOJHA.728@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > > Omighosh, you're an EE?!? WOW! An EE! Gee gosh, that almost makes you a > GOD on this subject! Wow, you are SO smart! What does EE stand for in > your case: Etrain Engineer? > That hearsay evidence of yours then implies that you're able to apply > yourself to analytical and technical matters IF you actually have the > sheepskin! Why don't YOU do some tests and prove it? Be sure to clearly > explain the control/s you set and your full methodology. That way others > can repeat the tests on their machines and add even more power to your > hearsay claims. Just t hink how great you'd feel if you were right in your > parroted comments. Which you are not, unfortunately. > > Oh, by the way, I'm also an EE plus some more, and before I was forced to > retire for health reasons, I was Director of North American Research & > Development, respoinsible for R&D departments in Ottawa, NY, Pa, 2 in Tx, > Fl, IL, Mexico City, and later on of R&D in Wales, the Support Department > in London, and took on all of the North American Support Departments, too > eventually. > Now, that shoud surely mean I HAVE to be right in everything I say, > right? WRONG! > While everything I said is true, it has not one single element of > anything that relates to or proves my abilities to be right with respect > to registry cleaners. Most people use things like that in order to > distract the conversation onto a different track and away from that which > they know to be true but can not force themselves to admit, nor to find > the ambition (if you ever had any) to actually figure out and prove a > claim that is SO simple and easy to do that even an idiot could do it. > Why, even YOU could do it? > So why don't you? I've mentioned several times why I won't repeat > msyelf; what's your excuse for not gaining some actual knowldedge? Afraid > you're wrong? You are, you know. > > Twayne
Guest Bill in Co. Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Dave Onex wrote: > I think Twayne and The Real Truth should get together and clean each > other's > registries :-) :-) > I mean come on folks - are you really going to listen to someone with a > name > like The Real Truth? Oh, come on now. At least Twain did. That's where he got all his "info". > That alone should be enough to set off alarms.... > > "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:e0y$Hr9NJHA.1144@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>> 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 Edward W. Thompson Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Re: registry cleaners "C.Joseph Drayton" <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote in message news:49063302$0$90266$14726298@news.sunsite.dk... > Edward W. Thompson wrote: >> "C.Joseph Drayton" <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote in message >> news:4904f1ce$0$90268$14726298@news.sunsite.dk... >> snip> >>>snip>>> >> snip >> >>> Sincerely, >>> C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T >>> >>> CSD Computer Services >>> >>> Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/ >>> E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net >> snip>> >> > > Hello Edward, > snip > 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. > snip. > > Sincerely, > C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T > > CSD Computer Services > > Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/ > E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net The essence of this discussion relates to your suggestion that the larger the Registry (number of items) the longer it takes to access an entry required for a particular program (see above). This is contrary to my understanding of how WINXP accesses the Registry, that is a program is able to determine where all relevant data is stored within the Registry and accesses the data directly without having to scan all non relevant data. If your understanding of how the Registry functions is correct then I must concede that reducing the size of the Registry (number of entries) will reduce access time (by how much is another matter). However, if my understanding is correct then Registry size (number of entries) is irrelevant to access time and hence the removal of redundant entries will not improve 'efficiency'.
Guest Gerry Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Edward Start up items that do not connect will slow the computer. However, automated registry cleaners are not from my point of view to be recommended. Someone in this thread suggested going through and checking errors thrown up and then manually removing them as you worked out what they represented. It's not a very practical suggestion, given the sheer number of items these cleaners identify and the time it can take to figure out what the so called "redundant" entry represents. The degree of understanding of users posting in these newsgroups is so variable that anyone suggesting manual removal might help a few but there would be far more getting into all kinds of difficulies. -- Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Edward W. Thompson wrote: > "C.Joseph Drayton" <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote in message > news:49063302$0$90266$14726298@news.sunsite.dk... >> Edward W. Thompson wrote: >>> "C.Joseph Drayton" <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote in message >>> news:4904f1ce$0$90268$14726298@news.sunsite.dk... >>> snip> >>>> snip>>> >>> snip >>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T >>>> >>>> CSD Computer Services >>>> >>>> Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/ >>>> E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net >>> > snip>> >>> >> >> Hello Edward, >> > snip > >> 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. >> > snip. >> >> Sincerely, >> C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T >> >> CSD Computer Services >> >> Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/ >> E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net > > The essence of this discussion relates to your suggestion that the > larger the Registry (number of items) the longer it takes to access > an entry required for a particular program (see above). This is > contrary to my understanding of how WINXP accesses the Registry, that > is a program is able to determine where all relevant data is stored > within the Registry and accesses the data directly without having to > scan all non relevant data. > If your understanding of how the Registry functions is correct then I > must concede that reducing the size of the Registry (number of > entries) will reduce access time (by how much is another matter). > However, if my understanding is correct then Registry size (number of > entries) is irrelevant to access time and hence the removal of > redundant entries will not improve 'efficiency'.
Guest Unknown Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Re: registry cleaners I think you have a cranium, rectum inversion. You stated I never used a registry cleaner, that is BS. What on earth do you base that on? Is that the way YOU think? I don't use one now because of my experience with the one I used. "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:ucUop8HOJHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > > "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message > news:03nNk.1448$%11.279@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com... >> You obviously are suffering from CRS. How old are you anyway? > > You're OT: What, nothing intelligent to say? Yer funneee! You're comedic > here, but not funny. > > Just so I'm not off topic too, , I'll add: Registry cleaners have their > definite place in the world of windows computers. Most thinking people > know that and many others also share my experience of having used them for > years with never a flaw or problem. I have had MS programs crash, the OS > crash, file corruption issues, but never with my registry cleaners. > That's interesting; must be because it's intelligent enough to monitor > itself for any changes, huh? Oh, I forgot: You've never used one. That's > OK though; they aren't really needed very often, as I have said tens of > time throughout this thread where the closed mind, sock puppets and > parrots have sucked a tentacle onto a bottom feeder that can't think. > Since you don't know, when you post somethign that is completely off > topic to the newsgroup and the topic at hand, you are supposed to indicate > so by incluting "OT" at the beginning of the Subject Line. Ah, but that > would require a thinking sapience, wouldn't it? I keep forgetting I'm not > addressing such a thing here. > > Go ahead & scratch it; no one's looking. > > >> "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 Twayne Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Billco wrote: .... >> >> 'Run more efficiently' is not ambiguous, it is subjective. > > Which makes it a bit ambiguous, essentially by definition. > (Unambiguous implies that it is certiable and quantifiable). Boy, you're pathetic: ----------------------- Unambiguous: un·am·big·u·ous (un'am-big'yoo-?s) Pronunciation Key adj. Having or exhibiting no ambiguity or uncertainty; clear. un'am·big'u·ous·ly adv. ------------------------------ ambiguous: am·big·u·ous /æm'b?gyu?s/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [am-big-yoo-uhs] Show IPA Pronunciation –adjective 1. open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal: an ambiguous answer. 2. Linguistics. (of an expression) exhibiting constructional homonymity; having two or more structural descriptions, as the sequence Flying planes can be dangerous. 3. of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend, distinguish, or classify: a rock of ambiguous character. 4. lacking clearness or definiteness; obscure; indistinct: an ambiguous shape; an ambiguous future. -------------------------- > >> If you have a 8 cylinder car that is running on 7 cylinders, >> and compare it to a four cylinder car that is running on all >> four cylinders, the 8 cylinder car can run faster. If all 8 >> cylinders were firing then it would run faster still. >> Basically when I say it will run more efficiently, I am not >> comparing it to other machines, I am comparing it to itself. > > But there are no objective, certifiable, and quantifiable tests with > results to prove that. Speaking of ambiguous, to prove what? > >> If the machine is sifting though unused or incorrect entries >> than yes it will be less efficient. If it takes 6 megs >> rather than four megs of RAM to hold its entries than in >> 'my' opinion it is not running as efficiently as it could be. Efficienty has NOTHING to do with the amount of anything; it's the speed at which the activity can occur. Scanning 6 vs 4 Meg or RAM does nothing to determine efficiency; the scanning process if efficient or not, and does not depend on how MUCH of something has to be scanned. > > But that would be extremely insignificant [NO], and not even > noticeable[WRONG]. > I mean, if you follow that logic, than removing any extraneous entry > in anything is beneficial[OF COURSE IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL; FEWER > COMPONENTS = FEWER CHANCES OF ERROR], end of story (which sounds > theoretically > :-). ut the problem is what usually happens as a consequence of > that, for something unforseen (meaning, that assumed spurious entry > really wasn't extraneous, afterall - and no registry program is smart > enough to flag and catch all of them). You obviously have no concept of what's in the registry nor how simple it is to read a line and see if the corresponding data it wants is available. It's as simple as veryfying that whatever the registry is calling for exists or not in a usable state, really. There are only a very few, specific instances where the registry can legitimately ask for something that isn't yet in existance and it may ask if the user wants to remove those. But every single one of those programs I have ever seen, TELL YOU SO and suggest that you set your scanners to ignore the entry. So again, it boils down to credibility. I run two of those programs in fact, and since it's the registry that's responsible for triggering the program that will create something on the fly, the progam can know that is the case. I don't have to ingore it; the scanner already knows it. The point is there is > nothing really (practically) to be gained using a registry cleaner, Except speed when the reason for loss of speed is contained in the registry. And slow boot times. And failing logoff times. Anytime the 20 second timer has to expire, etc.. So there ARE practical gains to be realized with a registry editor. It's just that the registry isn't usually the culprit and isn't really the first place to bother looking; other sources are much more likely. But once they're eliminated, and it doesn't take much to do that, well ... 2 guesses what I do next and yours don't count. > unless you are trying to, say, customize something, or perhaps remove > a bunch of items from the windows Recent history list, Wrong way to remove Recent History, BTW. Unnecessary and inefficient way, in fact. or fix a > specific program bug due to an erroneous registry entry, or something > like that) that can't otherwise be done. Wrong again. Your lack of information is only outdone by your ignroance. > >> The major point of my response to the OP is like most tools >> if properly used can be useful if not then can be useless or >> damaging. To tell a person not to use a tool rather than say >> to them learn how to use the tool before using it is what I >> have a problem with. Eggzactly! >> >> Sincerely, >> C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T >> >> CSD Computer Services >> >> Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/ >> E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net
Guest Unknown Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Re: registry cleaners But, why tell people to learn to use defective tools? "C.Joseph Drayton" <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote in message news:4906424a$0$90274$14726298@news.sunsite.dk... > Bill in Co. wrote: >> 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 >> >> > > Hi Ken, > > First of all Ken any type of speed test is 'subjective'. If everyone had > the exact same computer running the exact same software and used their > computer in exactly the same way, your request might be reasonable. > > In the past I have commented on other 'old wives tales' told here and > ended up saying that the bottom line is what works best for the > 'individual' user. > > 'Run more efficiently' is not ambiguous, it is subjective. If you have a 8 > cylinder car that is running on 7 cylinders, and compare it to a four > cylinder car that is running on all four cylinders, the 8 cylinder car can > run faster. If all 8 cylinders were firing then it would run faster still. > Basically when I say it will run more efficiently, I am not comparing it > to other machines, I am comparing it to itself. If the machine is sifting > though unused or incorrect entries than yes it will be less efficient. If > it takes 6 megs rather than four megs of RAM to hold its entries than in > 'my' opinion it is not running as efficiently as it could be. > > The major point of my response to the OP is like most tools if properly > used can be useful if not then can be useless or damaging. To tell a > person not to use a tool rather than say to them learn how to use the tool > before using it is what I have a problem with. > > 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 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Dave Onex displays his complete lack of reading comprehension thusly: > Oh-oh someone hit Twayne's pride button - better go and clean your > registry - it's starting to look pretty foul and bloated. > Perhaps you should uninstall some of your pride and arrogance. > > You know when someone starts quoting their resume to show how > 'superior' they are the show's almost over. I think we should all > chip in and get Twayne some 'tune up in a can' that way he can get > his health back ;-) > > "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:e$JinSIOJHA.728@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > >> >> Omighosh, you're an EE?!? WOW! An EE! Gee gosh, that almost makes >> you a GOD on this subject! Wow, you are SO smart! What does EE >> stand for in your case: Etrain Engineer? >> That hearsay evidence of yours then implies that you're able to >> apply yourself to analytical and technical matters IF you actually >> have the sheepskin! Why don't YOU do some tests and prove it? Be >> sure to clearly explain the control/s you set and your full >> methodology. That way others can repeat the tests on their machines >> and add even more power to your hearsay claims. Just t hink how >> great you'd feel if you were right in your parroted comments. Which >> you are not, unfortunately. Oh, by the way, I'm also an EE plus some >> more, and before I was >> forced to retire for health reasons, I was Director of North >> American Research & Development, respoinsible for R&D departments in >> Ottawa, NY, Pa, 2 in Tx, Fl, IL, Mexico City, and later on of R&D >> in Wales, the Support Department in London, and took on all of the >> North American Support Departments, too eventually. >> Now, that shoud surely mean I HAVE to be right in everything I say, >> right? WRONG! >> While everything I said is true, it has not one single element of >> anything that relates to or proves my abilities to be right with >> respect to registry cleaners. Most people use things like that in >> order to distract the conversation onto a different track and away >> from that which they know to be true but can not force themselves to >> admit, nor to find the ambition (if you ever had any) to actually >> figure out and prove a claim that is SO simple and easy to do that >> even an idiot could do it. Why, even YOU could do it? >> So why don't you? I've mentioned several times why I won't repeat >> msyelf; what's your excuse for not gaining some actual knowldedge? >> Afraid you're wrong? You are, you know. >> >> Twayne
Guest Twayne Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Re: registry cleaners > "C.Joseph Drayton" <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote in message > news:49063302$0$90266$14726298@news.sunsite.dk... >> Edward W. Thompson wrote: >>> "C.Joseph Drayton" <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote in message >>> news:4904f1ce$0$90268$14726298@news.sunsite.dk... >>> snip> >>>> snip>>> >>> snip >>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T >>>> >>>> CSD Computer Services >>>> >>>> Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/ >>>> E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net >>> > snip>> >>> >> >> Hello Edward, >> > snip > >> 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. >> > snip. >> >> Sincerely, >> C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T >> >> CSD Computer Services >> >> Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/ >> E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net > > The essence of this discussion relates to your suggestion that the > larger the Registry (number of items) the longer it takes to access > an entry required for a particular program (see above). This is > contrary to my understanding of how WINXP accesses the Registry, that > is a program is able to determine where all relevant data is stored > within the Registry and accesses the data directly without having to > scan all non relevant data. > If your understanding of how the Registry functions is correct then I > must concede that reducing the size of the Registry (number of > entries) will reduce access time (by how much is another matter). > However, if my understanding is correct then Registry size (number of > entries) is irrelevant to access time and hence the removal of > redundant entries will not improve 'efficiency'. It's basically true as originally stated. It isn't really literally a database by the common definition of a database. But it IS used and managed much like a database would be, via the use of indexes (multiple; there are several). You won't be able to use Access or dBase or anything like that on it; but it can be managed with the operating system's files provided for same. If the indexes were indexes as a database knows them, we'd be able to look at an index and tell quickly right where everything is stored around the registryfiles. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way. The index and database nomenclature is actually anecdotal rather than literal, mostly because the whole scheme is proprietary in nature and kept from the masses by MS. Undertstandable, but ... annoyingly it makes for apparent complexity that isn't needed. There IS something to be said for the "direct route" mentioned, but as with all things in life when you come to the real world it's never that simple. If there are multiple identical entries, then each of them will be indexed and each will be part of the goto. In fact, there is never one single goto; it's sometimes to many hundreds of places and then the registry itself has to propogate changes to those certain other places even. To make the most basic change to a registry entry may involce all 5 hives and even multiple places within one or more of the hives, plus the ensuing user hives. This isn't the place to explain it futher than that, but it can be pretty easily researched. If anyone is actually curious, here are some decent starting points about the registry. I do not recommend nor support the accuracy of any of these sites other than on the surface they looked good and none of the domain listed made any attempts to probe or otherwise contact my computer: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/256986 http://pcsupport.about.com/od/termsr/g/registryhive.htm http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Efficient-Registry-Cleanup.html http://www.heat.its.uct.ac.za/fls/heat/5/1/1064/1076/0001076-0000.htm?n=The_Registry http://www.heat.its.uct.ac.za/fls/heat/5/1/1064/1076/1223/0001223-0000.htm?n=Uninstall_programs_manually_in_registry http://www.freelists.org/archives/thin/09-2005/msg00390.html I'm STILL waiting for someone, anyone, to provide any positive evidence that all registry cleanersare snake oil; know whY? Yup; it's not true. Want to be the first? Twayne
Guest Twayne Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Re: registry cleaners > I think you have a cranium, rectum inversion. You stated I never used > a registry cleaner, that is BS. What on earth do you base that on? Is > that the way YOU think? I don't use one now because of my experience > with the one I used. I base my opinion on the fact that you have never referenced anything useful, nor provided anything to support any of your claims. But you do us a lot of other people's words, like you're trying to "belong". Sooo, if I'm wrong in my opinion, correct me. It would appear you used "one", once, who knows from where or what you did, and thus have painted every one in existance black because of your vast experience with a total of one. And with nada for details to boot. Next? Twayne > "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:ucUop8HOJHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> >> "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message >> news:03nNk.1448$%11.279@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com... >>> You obviously are suffering from CRS. How old are you anyway? >> >> You're OT: What, nothing intelligent to say? Yer funneee! You're >> comedic here, but not funny. >> >> Just so I'm not off topic too, , I'll add: Registry cleaners have >> their definite place in the world of windows computers. Most >> thinking people know that and many others also share my experience >> of having used them for years with never a flaw or problem. I have >> had MS programs crash, the OS crash, file corruption issues, but >> never with my registry cleaners. That's interesting; must be because >> it's intelligent enough to monitor itself for any changes, huh? Oh, >> I forgot: You've never used one. That's OK though; they aren't >> really needed very often, as I have said tens of time throughout >> this thread where the closed mind, sock puppets and parrots have >> sucked a tentacle onto a bottom feeder that can't think. Since you >> don't know, when you post somethign that is completely off topic to >> the newsgroup and the topic at hand, you are supposed to indicate so >> by incluting "OT" at the beginning of the Subject Line. Ah, but >> that would require a thinking sapience, wouldn't it? I keep >> forgetting I'm not addressing such a thing here. Go ahead & scratch >> it; no one's looking. >> >> >>> "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 Twayne Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Re: registry cleaners > But, why tell people to learn to use defective tools? I don't. Why do YOU tell people not to use pefectely good, useful tools? Based on your past experience of ONE TIME? > "C.Joseph Drayton" <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote in message > news:4906424a$0$90274$14726298@news.sunsite.dk... >> Bill in Co. wrote: >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >> Hi Ken, >> >> First of all Ken any type of speed test is 'subjective'. If everyone >> had the exact same computer running the exact same software and used >> their computer in exactly the same way, your request might be >> reasonable. In the past I have commented on other 'old wives tales' >> told here and >> ended up saying that the bottom line is what works best for the >> 'individual' user. >> >> 'Run more efficiently' is not ambiguous, it is subjective. If you >> have a 8 cylinder car that is running on 7 cylinders, and compare it >> to a four cylinder car that is running on all four cylinders, the 8 >> cylinder car can run faster. If all 8 cylinders were firing then it >> would run faster still. Basically when I say it will run more >> efficiently, I am not comparing it to other machines, I am comparing >> it to itself. If the machine is sifting though unused or incorrect >> entries than yes it will be less efficient. If it takes 6 megs >> rather than four megs of RAM to hold its entries than in 'my' >> opinion it is not running as efficiently as it could be. The major >> point of my response to the OP is like most tools if >> properly used can be useful if not then can be useless or damaging. >> To tell a person not to use a tool rather than say to them learn how >> to use the tool before using it is what I have a problem with. >> >> 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 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Twayne wrote: > Billco wrote: Ummm, no, I didn't write all of this below, but I did write some of it. Do you understand the concept of attributions? (the term is in the dictionary, too) >>> >>> 'Run more efficiently' is not ambiguous, it is subjective. >> >> Which makes it a bit ambiguous, essentially by definition. >> (Unambiguous implies that it is certiable and quantifiable). > > Boy, you're pathetic: > ----------------------- > Unambiguous: > un·am·big·u·ous (un'am-big'yoo-?s) Pronunciation Key > adj. Having or exhibiting no ambiguity or uncertainty; clear. > > un'am·big'u·ous·ly adv. > ------------------------------ > ambiguous: > am·big·u·ous > /æm'b?gyu?s/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [am-big-yoo-uhs] Show IPA > Pronunciation > > -adjective 1. open to or having several possible meanings or > interpretations; equivocal: an ambiguous answer. > 2. Linguistics. (of an expression) exhibiting constructional > homonymity; having two or more structural descriptions, as the sequence > Flying planes can be dangerous. > 3. of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend, > distinguish, or classify: a rock of ambiguous character. > 4. lacking clearness or definiteness; obscure; indistinct: an > ambiguous shape; an ambiguous future. > > -------------------------- > >> >>> If you have a 8 cylinder car that is running on 7 cylinders, >>> and compare it to a four cylinder car that is running on all >>> four cylinders, the 8 cylinder car can run faster. If all 8 >>> cylinders were firing then it would run faster still. >>> Basically when I say it will run more efficiently, I am not >>> comparing it to other machines, I am comparing it to itself. >> >> But there are no objective, certifiable, and quantifiable tests with >> results to prove that. > > Speaking of ambiguous, to prove what? I didn't write this below. Do you know who did? Missing attribution. >>> If the machine is sifting though unused or incorrect entries >>> than yes it will be less efficient. If it takes 6 megs >>> rather than four megs of RAM to hold its entries than in >>> 'my' opinion it is not running as efficiently as it could be. > > Efficienty has NOTHING to do with the amount of anything; it's the speed > at which the activity can occur. Scanning 6 vs 4 Meg or RAM does > nothing to determine efficiency; the scanning process if efficient or > not, and does not depend on how MUCH of something has to be scanned. > >> >> But that would be extremely insignificant [NO], and not even >> noticeable[WRONG]. >> I mean, if you follow that logic, than removing any extraneous entry >> in anything is beneficial[OF COURSE IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL; FEWER >> COMPONENTS = FEWER CHANCES OF ERROR], end of story (which sounds >> theoretically >> :-). ut the problem is what usually happens as a consequence of >> that, for something unforseen (meaning, that assumed spurious entry >> really wasn't extraneous, afterall - and no registry program is smart >> enough to flag and catch all of them). > > You obviously have no concept of what's in the registry nor how simple > it is to read a line and see if the corresponding data it wants is > available. It's as simple as veryfying that whatever the registry is > calling for exists or not in a usable state, really. There are only a > very few, specific instances where the registry can legitimately ask for > something that isn't yet in existance and it may ask if the user wants > to remove those. But every single one of those programs I have ever > seen, TELL YOU SO and suggest that you set your scanners to ignore the > entry. So again, it boils down to credibility. I run two of those > programs in fact, and since it's the registry that's responsible for > triggering the program that will create something on the fly, the progam > can know that is the case. I don't have to ingore it; the scanner > already knows it. > > The point is there is >> nothing really (practically) to be gained using a registry cleaner, > > Except speed when the reason for loss of speed is contained in the > registry. And slow boot times. And failing logoff times. Anytime the > 20 second timer has to expire, etc.. So there ARE practical gains to be > realized with a registry editor. It's just that the registry isn't > usually the culprit and isn't really the first place to bother looking; > other sources are much more likely. But once they're eliminated, and it > doesn't take much to do that, well ... 2 guesses what I do next and > yours don't count. > > >> unless you are trying to, say, customize something, or perhaps remove >> a bunch of items from the windows Recent history list, > > Wrong way to remove Recent History, BTW. Unnecessary and inefficient > way, in fact. > > or fix a >> specific program bug due to an erroneous registry entry, or something >> like that) that can't otherwise be done. > > Wrong again. Your lack of information is only outdone by your > ignroance. >> >>> The major point of my response to the OP is like most tools >>> if properly used can be useful if not then can be useless or >>> damaging. To tell a person not to use a tool rather than say >>> to them learn how to use the tool before using it is what I >>> have a problem with. > > Eggzactly! > >>> >>> Sincerely, >>> C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T >>> >>> CSD Computer Services >>> >>> Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/ >>> E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net
Recommended Posts