Guest Twayne Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 Re: registry cleaners > In article <uYpelJUOJHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, > DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net says... >> Earlier in this thread you had eluded to a Microsoft URL >> indicatining about a Registry cleaner. You were asked to provide it >> but did not indicating that one can do there own search and find. >> > > David, I know for a fact that MS provided a registry clean-up tool > from their downloads section. > > It's been years since I looked for it or even considered using it, but > I'm 110% positive that MS did provide a registry cleaner tool on their > official website. > > MajorGeeks shows some proof of this: > http://www.majorgeeks.com/download458.html > > Editors Note: The RegClean utility is no longer supported and has been > removed from all Microsoft download sites. Actually, it's back in the form of the Live and/or OneCare thingy too. No recommendation; just saw the notice of the release & checked it out. It was in BETA quite awhile, too. Twayne
Guest Twayne Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 Re: registry cleaners > David H. Lipman wrote: >> From: "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> >> >>>> From: "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> >> >>>>> 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: >> >>>> I again respectfully request... Please post the Microsoft URL. >> >>> I'm sorry, David; I don't keep close track of these things. Which >>> URL are you interested in? >> >>> Regards, >> >>> Twayne >> >> >> Earlier in this thread you had eluded to a Microsoft URL indicating >> about a >> Registry cleaner. You were asked to provide it but did not, >> indicating that >> one can do their own search and find. >> >> I am asking you to provide it... plaese. > > Ain't gonna happen, as he's all hot air on this. Said the sock puppet, wiggling in pleasure at the arm up its ...
Guest Twayne Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 Re: registry cleaners > Precisely your problem-----you always assume. Poor unknown; just can't seem to get known no matter how much it imitates a fish on the dock. Have you EVER contributed anything useful to a thread? > "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:Ok8L94TOJHA.4672@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message >>> news:%23XiQd%23ROJHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>>> >>>>> 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". >>> How do I support my claim that I used a registry cleaner and it >>> fouled up my system? >>> Do I get a witness and make a sworn statement? Get real! >> >> Ohh, I see, a believable description of events is beyond you, right? >> It's a little moot though since it's one out of many millions of >> uses you base your opinion of millions of uses on. You must lead a >> frustrating life; I can only imagine what happens when one tire goes >> flat for no apparent reason, or you switch to ice boxes becuase a >> refrigerator needed a recharge, or your car ... >> >>> >>>> >>>> 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? >>> >>> Yes I used one once and I might add NEVER again. Like others say >>> "snake oil". >> >> Soo, using ONE, ONCE, makes them all snake oil? That's rich! I >> hope you have Bridgestone tires on your vehicle. >> >>> What details satisfy you? I couldn't boot up after using the reg >>> cleaner. But you wouldn't believe that anyway. >>> Your basic problem is erroneous assumptions and opinions. >> >> Well, I assume you only used one unidentified cleaner once on an >> unidentified operating system where there was already an unidentified >> problem, so, that's definitely a great reason for your erroneous >> assumptions and opinions. Nah, don't base anything on reality or do >> any research to KNOW what you're dealing with; just stick with myths >> and love the people that you decide to parrot because it makes you >> feel right, the fact of wheter you are or not being completely >> meaningless to you. You incorrectly spelled a word wrong once that >> I took notice of. Therefore, using your methodology, I must put you >> in the forever ignorant and uneducated category. Right? >> >> lol, why is it you can't think for yourself? Why do you let one >> incident color you for life? I can only wonder what your general >> life must be like. It has to be, well, different. >> >> Twayne >> >> >>>> >>>> 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 Unknown Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Yes, very often. However, I notice the only thing you contribute is bad advice to posters such as running registry cleaners. "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:%23mCtpWfOJHA.3876@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Precisely your problem-----you always assume. > > Poor unknown; just can't seem to get known no matter how much it imitates > a fish on the dock. Have you EVER contributed anything useful to a > thread? > > >> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message >> news:Ok8L94TOJHA.4672@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message >>>> news:%23XiQd%23ROJHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >>>>> >>>>>> 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". >>>> How do I support my claim that I used a registry cleaner and it >>>> fouled up my system? >>>> Do I get a witness and make a sworn statement? Get real! >>> >>> Ohh, I see, a believable description of events is beyond you, right? >>> It's a little moot though since it's one out of many millions of >>> uses you base your opinion of millions of uses on. You must lead a >>> frustrating life; I can only imagine what happens when one tire goes >>> flat for no apparent reason, or you switch to ice boxes becuase a >>> refrigerator needed a recharge, or your car ... >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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? >>>> >>>> Yes I used one once and I might add NEVER again. Like others say >>>> "snake oil". >>> >>> Soo, using ONE, ONCE, makes them all snake oil? That's rich! I >>> hope you have Bridgestone tires on your vehicle. >>> >>>> What details satisfy you? I couldn't boot up after using the reg >>>> cleaner. But you wouldn't believe that anyway. >>>> Your basic problem is erroneous assumptions and opinions. >>> >>> Well, I assume you only used one unidentified cleaner once on an >>> unidentified operating system where there was already an unidentified >>> problem, so, that's definitely a great reason for your erroneous >>> assumptions and opinions. Nah, don't base anything on reality or do >>> any research to KNOW what you're dealing with; just stick with myths >>> and love the people that you decide to parrot because it makes you >>> feel right, the fact of wheter you are or not being completely >>> meaningless to you. You incorrectly spelled a word wrong once that >>> I took notice of. Therefore, using your methodology, I must put you >>> in the forever ignorant and uneducated category. Right? >>> >>> lol, why is it you can't think for yourself? Why do you let one >>> incident color you for life? I can only wonder what your general >>> life must be like. It has to be, well, different. >>> >>> Twayne >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 Unknown Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Up its-------???? Like Bill said; " full of hot air". "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:%2327LFVfOJHA.1012@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> David H. Lipman wrote: >>> From: "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> >>> >>>>> From: "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> >>> >>>>>> 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: >>> >>>>> I again respectfully request... Please post the Microsoft URL. >>> >>>> I'm sorry, David; I don't keep close track of these things. Which >>>> URL are you interested in? >>> >>>> Regards, >>> >>>> Twayne >>> >>> >>> Earlier in this thread you had eluded to a Microsoft URL indicating >>> about a >>> Registry cleaner. You were asked to provide it but did not, >>> indicating that >>> one can do their own search and find. >>> >>> I am asking you to provide it... plaese. >> >> Ain't gonna happen, as he's all hot air on this. > > Said the sock puppet, wiggling in pleasure at the arm up its ... >
Guest Twayne Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Wow, your ego is surpassed only by your ignorance. I have a little time, so here at some answers for you to deny in your typical ignorant way: > If you have read these newsgroups for years, you must be awfully > dense. You haven't learned a thing. To the contrary, I have learned, and verified, many, many things over the years. I also read several professional newsgroups; which ones to you read? > What praytell have you ever programmed? In the CP/M days, Basic and Fortran Later: dBase I, dBase II, dBase III, and dBase IV, MS Access, Visual Basic, PHP4, PHP5, a smattering of machine language for embedded systems, DOS batches, XP Batches, both using XXCopy in the process, FoxPro, VBA in MS and Open Source, a bunch of Inno applications, and lately looking into Python. Now a question for you: How does ANY of that mean that I'd gain knowledge of the registry? Creating and modifying a few registry entries with software has very little to do with whether registry cleaners are any good. What's the connection? None of the serious programming language require much of a knowledge of the registry. In fact, most of them don't even touch the registry by coding. The compilers might, but not the code. And, it's VERY easy to see/check the registry entries any of them DO make simply based on the names you know the language and the compilers etc. are going to place there. Again: How should that mean I'd know the "dangers of registry cleaners"? If you had any programming > experience you would KNOW the dangers of > registry cleaners. Wrong. See the preceding para. Your ignorance is showing, now, for sure. Tell me how "any programming experience" would let me "KNOW the dangers of registry cleaners"? Either back up your bluff or continue to show your ignorance. Which will it be? > Each and every one of your posts is full of assumptions about me. I don't have to assume anything about you. You demonstrate it quite clearly, IMO. Since it's my opinion you cannot give good answers to the above questions, I'll be getting pretty sure of your ignorance, in fact. What you've found here is somone who doesn't make statements they can't back up; ever. And if/when I make a mistake I'll admit it. In fact, I think I had to do that yesterday or the day before. You see, I'm not afraid to be wrong; if/when I'm wrong I appreciate being given correction when it's done by a knowledgeable source. About the only good think I can say about you is that your tantrums are entertaining, your apparent ignorance astounding, and your ability to promulgate it even more astounding when one thinks about it. Well, I can say one more thing: In general you troll less here than I've seen you do on other groups where you appear to actually live under a small, rock bridge near a murky stream. You > just don't know and continue to assume > as you do with registry cleaners.. See, you're wrong there again. I not only "know", but I also use registry cleaners to good advantage. All it takes is probably something you're not used to doing: First, getting a branded, reliable application, and then actually reading what it presents to you on the screen. All that said, it's becoming more and more appaent by the day that you're actually doing nothing but trolling and providing some comedic content during my spare time. If I didn't have the time I would simply relegate you to the bottom-feeding bass turd eating troll I think you are and completely ignore you. Yours must be a pretty sad existence. Twayne > "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:%23tei6AUOJHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>> Pefectely good????? >>> Based on my experience and many others. If you read these newsgroups >>> (or had any programming experience) >>> you would know that. But, you continue to assume. >> >> I've read these newsgroups for years, which you could tell if you >> weren't too lazy to look back at them. You would even find some >> interesting posts about registry cleaners to BC Boy if you looked >> far enough into the archives. >> >> As for programming experience, yes, I do have experience. But what >> does that have to do with anything under discussion? It's just >> another attempt to turn things to another subject on your part and >> depart the purpose of the posts; namely the misinformation that no >> registry cleaner of any kind is, never has been, and never will be >> of any use. There are several good ones out there that are no more >> dangerous to the registry than installing Office or Word of any >> Microsoft application. In fact, I'd go so far as to say less >> dangerous considering a few of MS's missteps over the years. So, I >> read these groups, and have for a long time, and have programming >> experience. So? And I assume nothing, unlike you. I use and have >> used registry cleaners for years and NEVER had one glitch on me for >> any reason. I have never had one damage my system. I've been with >> windows since windows 3.0. And I've always used what research >> showed to be functional, reliable registry cleaners. Unlike you. >> Your lack of knowledge only shows your ignorance of you would have >> made more of a comment about programming, in particular, and how it >> connected. But you don't really know. I dare say you probably have >> no idea what a database actually is either. I do, from the Ashton >> Tate days to today's applications. Many of my Ashton Tate programs >> are still in use, as a matter of fact. It's like DOS in that it >> doesn't die, it just keeps on going. Unlike you, I have experience >> and research behind me. All you have are the assumptions you make >> based on someone else's words you find convenient and nothing of >> your own. You just flat out do not know anything of this subject or >> you would use that knowledge in these so called posts of your. All >> you know is what someone you chose to believe has told you because >> it fits neatly with your "feelings", and facts be damned. >>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message >>> news:%23QbDC$ROJHA.1148@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>>>> 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 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Twayne wrote: >> David H. Lipman wrote: >>> From: "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> >>> >>>>> From: "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> >>> >>>>>> 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: >>> >>>>> I again respectfully request... Please post the Microsoft URL. >>> >>>> I'm sorry, David; I don't keep close track of these things. Which >>>> URL are you interested in? >>> >>>> Regards, >>> >>>> Twayne >>> >>> >>> Earlier in this thread you had eluded to a Microsoft URL indicating >>> about a >>> Registry cleaner. You were asked to provide it but did not, >>> indicating that >>> one can do their own search and find. >>> >>> I am asking you to provide it... plaese. >> >> Ain't gonna happen, as he's all hot air on this. > > Said the sock puppet, wiggling in pleasure at the arm up its ... I notice you still couldn't back it up. So who's really the sock puppet? (rhetorical). As I said ... you're just hot air.
Guest Unknown Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Damn you're stupid answer inline. "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:uK56yjfOJHA.2100@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Wow, your ego is surpassed only by your ignorance. I have a little time, > so here at some answers for you to deny in your typical ignorant way: > > >> If you have read these newsgroups for years, you must be awfully >> dense. You haven't learned a thing. > > To the contrary, I have learned, and verified, many, many things over the > years. I also read several professional newsgroups; which ones to you > read? > >> What praytell have you ever programmed? > > In the CP/M days, Basic and Fortran > Later: > dBase I, dBase II, dBase III, and dBase IV, MS Access, Visual Basic, PHP4, > PHP5, a smattering of machine language for embedded systems, DOS batches, > XP Batches, both using XXCopy in the process, FoxPro, VBA in MS and Open > Source, a bunch of Inno applications, and lately looking into Python. > Now a question for you: How does ANY of that mean that I'd gain > knowledge of the registry? Creating and modifying a few registry entries > with software has very little to do with whether registry cleaners are any > good. Here you go again, assuming----stop and for heavens sake think. > What's the connection? None of the serious programming language require > much of a knowledge of the registry. In fact, most of them don't even > touch the registry by coding. The compilers might, but not the code. > And, it's VERY easy to see/check the registry entries any of them DO make > simply based on the names you know the language and the compilers etc. are > going to place there. > Again: How should that mean I'd know the "dangers of registry > cleaners"? What happens when a registry cleaner erroneously deletes an item? Think man, think. > > > If you had any programming >> experience you would KNOW the dangers of >> registry cleaners. > > Wrong. See the preceding para. Your ignorance is showing, now, for sure. > Tell me how "any programming experience" would let me "KNOW the dangers of > registry cleaners"? Ever program anything with a faulty table or missing constant? What happened? > Either back up your bluff or continue to show your ignorance. Which will > it be? No bluff----you just assume and fail to think. > >> Each and every one of your posts is full of assumptions about me. > > I don't have to assume anything about you. You demonstrate it quite > clearly, IMO. Your opinion is merely an assumption. Since it's my opinion you cannot give good answers to the > above questions, I'll be getting pretty sure of your ignorance, Once again pretty sure is an assumption. in fact. > What you've found here is somone who doesn't make statements they can't > back up; ever. And if/when I make a mistake I'll admit it. You dodge but never admit--------admit it. In fact, I > think I had to do that yesterday or the day before. You see, I'm not > afraid to be wrong; if/when I'm wrong I appreciate being given correction > when it's done by a knowledgeable source. You will not accept corrections. Every one of your posts are excuses or quibbling. > About the only good think I can say about you is that your tantrums are > entertaining, Great----glad you read them. your apparent ignorance astounding, and your ability > to promulgate it even more astounding when one thinks about it. Yeah but you don't ever think. Well, I > can say one more thing: You've said enough! In general you troll less here than I've seen > you do on other groups where you appear to actually live under a small, > rock bridge near a murky stream. > > > You >> just don't know and continue to assume >> as you do with registry cleaners.. > > See, you're wrong there again. I not only "know", but I also use registry > cleaners to good advantage. There is NO good advantage to registry cleaners. But your erroneous assumptions won't let you admit that. All it takes is probably something > you're not used to doing: First, getting a branded, reliable application, > and then actually reading what it presents to you on the screen. I did that! All that said, it's becoming more and more appaent by the day > that you're actually doing nothing but trolling and providing some comedic > content during my spare time. If I didn't have the time I would simply > relegate you to the bottom-feeding bass turd eating troll I think you are > and completely ignore you. Yours must be a pretty sad existence. Why do you make the time? Do you enjoy giving bad advice to posters? > Twayne > > > >> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message >> news:%23tei6AUOJHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>>> Pefectely good????? >>>> Based on my experience and many others. If you read these newsgroups >>>> (or had any programming experience) >>>> you would know that. But, you continue to assume. >>> >>> I've read these newsgroups for years, which you could tell if you >>> weren't too lazy to look back at them. You would even find some >>> interesting posts about registry cleaners to BC Boy if you looked >>> far enough into the archives. >>> >>> As for programming experience, yes, I do have experience. But what >>> does that have to do with anything under discussion? It's just >>> another attempt to turn things to another subject on your part and >>> depart the purpose of the posts; namely the misinformation that no >>> registry cleaner of any kind is, never has been, and never will be >>> of any use. There are several good ones out there that are no more >>> dangerous to the registry than installing Office or Word of any >>> Microsoft application. In fact, I'd go so far as to say less >>> dangerous considering a few of MS's missteps over the years. So, I >>> read these groups, and have for a long time, and have programming >>> experience. So? And I assume nothing, unlike you. I use and have >>> used registry cleaners for years and NEVER had one glitch on me for >>> any reason. I have never had one damage my system. I've been with >>> windows since windows 3.0. And I've always used what research >>> showed to be functional, reliable registry cleaners. Unlike you. Your >>> lack of knowledge only shows your ignorance of you would have >>> made more of a comment about programming, in particular, and how it >>> connected. But you don't really know. I dare say you probably have >>> no idea what a database actually is either. I do, from the Ashton >>> Tate days to today's applications. Many of my Ashton Tate programs >>> are still in use, as a matter of fact. It's like DOS in that it >>> doesn't die, it just keeps on going. Unlike you, I have experience >>> and research behind me. All you have are the assumptions you make >>> based on someone else's words you find convenient and nothing of >>> your own. You just flat out do not know anything of this subject or >>> you would use that knowledge in these so called posts of your. All >>> you know is what someone you chose to believe has told you because >>> it fits neatly with your "feelings", and facts be damned. >>>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message >>>> news:%23QbDC$ROJHA.1148@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>>>>> 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 Dave Onex Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Check it out - Twayne, of all people, is talking about ego...Now that's the pot calling the kettle black! If you want to see what Twayne is all about (just in this thread alone) all you or he needs to do is read what he's already written below....His own workds testify against him. Of course Twanye won't do that - he might see the truth and that's not something he wants to know.... "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:uK56yjfOJHA.2100@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Wow, your ego is surpassed only by your ignorance. I have a little time, > so here at some answers for you to deny in your typical ignorant way: "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 Daave Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 Re: registry cleaners (attempting to reconstruct thread!) David H. Lipman wrote: >>> I again respectfully request... Please post the Microsoft URL. Twayne wrote: > | I'm sorry, David; I don't keep close track of these things. Which > URL > | are you interested in? David H. Lipman wrote: > Earlier in this thread you had eluded to a Microsoft URL indicatining > about a Registry cleaner. You were asked to provide it but did not > indicating that one can do there own search and find. > > I am asking you to provide it... plaese. Actually, Twayne wasn't talking about a registry cleaner at that particular point in the thread. Here is the context: 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". John John (MVP) wrote: >>>Nonsence. Twayne wrote: >> Too lazy to look it up? It's right there in black and white on the >> MS >> site for you. John John (MVP) wrote: > 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. I would like to see a cite for this, too. I had never before heeard that rebooting a PC three times is a "form of 'registry cleaning.'"
Guest Twayne Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Damn you're stupid answer inline. > "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:uK56yjfOJHA.2100@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> Wow, your ego is surpassed only by your ignorance. I have a little >> time, so here at some answers for you to deny in your typical >> ignorant way: >>> If you have read these newsgroups for years, you must be awfully >>> dense. You haven't learned a thing. >> >> To the contrary, I have learned, and verified, many, many things >> over the years. I also read several professional newsgroups; which >> ones to you read? >> >>> What praytell have you ever programmed? >> >> In the CP/M days, Basic and Fortran >> Later: >> dBase I, dBase II, dBase III, and dBase IV, MS Access, Visual Basic, >> PHP4, PHP5, a smattering of machine language for embedded systems, >> DOS batches, XP Batches, both using XXCopy in the process, FoxPro, >> VBA in MS and Open Source, a bunch of Inno applications, and lately >> looking into Python. Now a question for you: How does ANY of that >> mean that I'd gain knowledge of the registry? Creating and >> modifying a few registry entries with software has very little to do >> with whether registry cleaners are any good. > Here you go again, assuming----stop and for heavens sake think. No assumptions there at all. Simple experience; something you profess to have but don't. What's your list? How did it require registry knowledge not mentioned above? > >> What's the connection? None of the serious programming language >> require much of a knowledge of the registry. In fact, most of them >> don't even touch the registry by coding. The compilers might, but >> not the code. And, it's VERY easy to see/check the registry entries >> any of them DO make simply based on the names you know the language >> and the compilers etc. are going to place there. >> Again: How should that mean I'd know the "dangers of registry >> cleaners"? > What happens when a registry cleaner erroneously deletes an item? > Think man, think. Sooo, what's the connection? and Again: How should that mean I'd know the "dangers of registry cleaners"? Can't answer it, can you? > >> >> >> If you had any programming >>> experience you would KNOW the dangers of >>> registry cleaners. >> >> Wrong. See the preceding para. Your ignorance is showing, now, for >> sure. Tell me how "any programming experience" would let me "KNOW >> the dangers of registry cleaners"? > Ever program anything with a faulty table or missing constant? > What happened? > >> Either back up your bluff or continue to show your ignorance. Which >> will it be? > No bluff----you just assume and fail to think. >> >>> Each and every one of your posts is full of assumptions about me. >> >> I don't have to assume anything about you. You demonstrate it quite >> clearly, IMO. > Your opinion is merely an assumption. lol, yer funnee! > > > Since it's my opinion you cannot give good answers to the >> above questions, I'll be getting pretty sure of your ignorance, > Once again pretty sure is an assumption. > in fact. >> What you've found here is somone who doesn't make statements they >> can't back up; ever. And if/when I make a mistake I'll admit it. > You dodge but never admit--------admit it. Don't have to. I'm a thinking person with ethics and scruples. > In fact, I >> think I had to do that yesterday or the day before. You see, I'm not >> afraid to be wrong; if/when I'm wrong I appreciate being given >> correction when it's done by a knowledgeable source. > You will not accept corrections. Every one of your posts are > excuses or quibbling. Misdirection so you won't have to give any answers to the questions, eh? If you knew, you'd say so in order to be all over me, I'm sure of it. You don't know, and if you did, you'd know the truth. > >> About the only good think I can say about you is that your >> tantrums are entertaining, > Great----glad you read them. > your apparent ignorance astounding, and your ability >> to promulgate it even more astounding when one thinks about it. > Yeah but you don't ever think. You shouldn't assume everyone is like yourself. I'm always thinking, unlike you. Rather than provide any answers to some very simple questions that could exonerate your position, you attempt trollish misdirection, display a closed minded attitude like your puppetmaster, and think if you say it enough times it'll be true. Besides, this is just an attempt to misdirect the conversation on your part. > > Well, I >> can say one more thing: > You've said enough! > In general you troll less here than I've seen >> you do on other groups where you appear to actually live under a >> small, rock bridge near a murky stream. >> >> >> You >>> just don't know and continue to assume >>> as you do with registry cleaners.. >> >> See, you're wrong there again. I not only "know", but I also use >> registry cleaners to good advantage. > There is NO good advantage to registry cleaners. But your erroneous > assumptions > won't let you admit that. How so? WHY is that? Give some evidence showing that what you consider my assumptions are wrong. What is it about them that makes them "not good"? But be specific; just saying so doesn't make something so. A broad experience base of one time does not an expert make. What research have you done to show your claims? Do you even had any empirical information? You've never given any. > > All it takes is probably something >> you're not used to doing: First, getting a branded, reliable >> application, and then actually reading what it presents to you on >> the screen. > I did that! Then quit looking so stupid and say something to back up all your claims. Tell us about it. What happened? And what did you do for followup? > > All that said, it's becoming more and more appaent by the day >> that you're actually doing nothing but trolling and providing some >> comedic content during my spare time. If I didn't have the time I >> would simply relegate you to the bottom-feeding bass turd eating >> troll I think you are and completely ignore you. Yours must be a >> pretty sad existence. > Why do you make the time? Do you enjoy giving bad advice to > posters? No, not everyone is like you. I enjoy assisting people. And if you're too incompetent to know the answer to that question when you have just read it, well, what can I say? I make the time, as I said in so many words in what you snipped, because you spew misinformation and it is entertaining to watch your ignorance at work. But you are becoming predictable and I do have to admit less entertaining as all you're doing now is answering for the sake of answering, thinking probably that ifyou get the last word in, you'll have won somehow. I could gas whether you get the last word or not; that's your problem and not mine. But as long as you keep spewing misinformation I'll keep noticing it. That clear enough for you? I know: you don't understand. Afraid I can't help with reading comprehension or lack of education/experience. I abhor misinformation, especially the type of which your spew so vehemently but without any basis of fact. "I did that" isn't much of a response and a great way to say what you likely did not do. If you had any information useful to your case you would have used it by now. Information is easy to find. Unbiased, useful information is also easy to find. Experience is easy to gain. You have shown no sign of any of those. Nada, nothing, zero, nyet, nuttin. So in response you figure you'll just PO off that person who miffed you. Well, that doesn't work with me. I don't let the small things bother me. I do however speak my mind and like I already said, abhor misinformation. Just think of all the posts you've placed on Google now for perpetuity and all to see in the coming millenia. You are a great example of one thing I just realized: Purposelessness. Shears, Twayne >> Twayne >> >> >> >>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message >>> news:%23tei6AUOJHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>>>> Pefectely good????? >>>>> Based on my experience and many others. If you read these >>>>> newsgroups (or had any programming experience) >>>>> you would know that. But, you continue to assume. >>>> >>>> I've read these newsgroups for years, which you could tell if you >>>> weren't too lazy to look back at them. You would even find some >>>> interesting posts about registry cleaners to BC Boy if you looked >>>> far enough into the archives. >>>> >>>> As for programming experience, yes, I do have experience. But what >>>> does that have to do with anything under discussion? It's just >>>> another attempt to turn things to another subject on your part and >>>> depart the purpose of the posts; namely the misinformation that no >>>> registry cleaner of any kind is, never has been, and never will be >>>> of any use. There are several good ones out there that are no more >>>> dangerous to the registry than installing Office or Word of any >>>> Microsoft application. In fact, I'd go so far as to say less >>>> dangerous considering a few of MS's missteps over the years. So, >>>> I read these groups, and have for a long time, and have programming >>>> experience. So? And I assume nothing, unlike you. I use and have >>>> used registry cleaners for years and NEVER had one glitch on me for >>>> any reason. I have never had one damage my system. I've been with >>>> windows since windows 3.0. And I've always used what research >>>> showed to be functional, reliable registry cleaners. Unlike you. >>>> Your lack of knowledge only shows your ignorance of you would have >>>> made more of a comment about programming, in particular, and how it >>>> connected. But you don't really know. I dare say you probably >>>> have no idea what a database actually is either. I do, from the >>>> Ashton Tate days to today's applications. Many of my Ashton Tate >>>> programs are still in use, as a matter of fact. It's like DOS in >>>> that it doesn't die, it just keeps on going. Unlike you, I have >>>> experience and research behind me. All you have are the >>>> assumptions you make based on someone else's words you find >>>> convenient and nothing of your own. You just flat out do not know >>>> anything of this subject >>>> or you would use that knowledge in these so called posts of your. >>>> All you know is what someone you chose to believe has told you >>>> because it fits neatly with your "feelings", and facts be damned. >>>>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:%23QbDC$ROJHA.1148@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>>>>>> 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 Twayne Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Re: registry cleaners > Yes, very often. However, I notice the only thing you contribute is > bad advice to posters > such as running registry cleaners. Yes, I believe in correcting misinformation. Registry cleaners can be a good thing and definitely have their uses. While I've supplied several pieces of supporting information along the way, you have supplied nothing. Where is your contribution?
Guest Twayne Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Re: registry cleaners > Twayne wrote: >>> David H. Lipman wrote: >>>> From: "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> >>>> >>>>>> From: "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> >>>> >>>>>>> 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: >>>> >>>>>> I again respectfully request... Please post the Microsoft URL. >>>> >>>>> I'm sorry, David; I don't keep close track of these things. Which >>>>> URL are you interested in? >>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>> >>>>> Twayne >>>> >>>> >>>> Earlier in this thread you had eluded to a Microsoft URL indicating >>>> about a >>>> Registry cleaner. You were asked to provide it but did not, >>>> indicating that >>>> one can do their own search and find. >>>> >>>> I am asking you to provide it... plaese. >>> >>> Ain't gonna happen, as he's all hot air on this. >> >> Said the sock puppet, wiggling in pleasure at the arm up its ... > > I notice you still couldn't back it up. So who's really the sock > puppet? (rhetorical). As I said ... you're just hot air. You're wrong. The post is there; read it. You're also a trollish dummy. I respond to people who are thinking people. But I wouldn't do it for you.
Guest Twayne Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Re: registry cleaners > Up its-------???? Like Bill said; " full of hot air". lol, what is, it's ... ? LIikely so. > "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:%2327LFVfOJHA.1012@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >>> David H. Lipman wrote: >>>> From: "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> >>>> >>>>>> From: "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> >>>> >>>>>>> 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: >>>> >>>>>> I again respectfully request... Please post the Microsoft URL. >>>> >>>>> I'm sorry, David; I don't keep close track of these things. Which >>>>> URL are you interested in? >>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>> >>>>> Twayne >>>> >>>> >>>> Earlier in this thread you had eluded to a Microsoft URL indicating >>>> about a >>>> Registry cleaner. You were asked to provide it but did not, >>>> indicating that >>>> one can do their own search and find. >>>> >>>> I am asking you to provide it... plaese. >>> >>> Ain't gonna happen, as he's all hot air on this. >> >> Said the sock puppet, wiggling in pleasure at the arm up its ...
Guest Bill in Co. Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Twayne wrote: >> Yes, very often. However, I notice the only thing you contribute is >> bad advice to posters >> such as running registry cleaners. > > Yes, I believe in correcting misinformation. Registry cleaners can be a > good thing and definitely have their uses. While I've supplied several > pieces of supporting information along the way, you have supplied > nothing. Where is your contribution? We're still waiting for your (alleged) MS recommendation site link that encourages the use of a registry cleaner to speed up the machine, and what have you. Anytime you're ready, let us know..... I'll be sure to leave the light on for you.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Twayne wrote: >> Twayne wrote: >>>> David H. Lipman wrote: >>>>> From: "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> >>>>> >>>>>>> From: "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> >>>>> >>>>>>>> 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: >>>>> >>>>>>> I again respectfully request... Please post the Microsoft URL. >>>>> >>>>>> I'm sorry, David; I don't keep close track of these things. Which >>>>>> URL are you interested in? >>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>>> Twayne >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Earlier in this thread you had eluded to a Microsoft URL indicating >>>>> about a >>>>> Registry cleaner. You were asked to provide it but did not, >>>>> indicating that >>>>> one can do their own search and find. >>>>> >>>>> I am asking you to provide it... plaese. >>>> >>>> Ain't gonna happen, as he's all hot air on this. >>> >>> Said the sock puppet, wiggling in pleasure at the arm up its ... >> >> I notice you still couldn't back it up. So who's really the sock >> puppet? (rhetorical). As I said ... you're just hot air. > > You're wrong. The post is there; read it. You're also a trollish > dummy. I respond to people who are thinking people. But I wouldn't do > it for you. More bluster (big surprise). And *still* no valid links. What's the matter, Twayne? Sometimes you remind me of Palin.
Guest Bill in Co. Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Twayne wrote: >> Yes, very often. However, I notice the only thing you contribute is >> bad advice to posters >> such as running registry cleaners. > > Yes, I believe in correcting misinformation. Registry cleaners can be a > good thing "good" is really debateable in this context, considering the damage it can do. > and definitely have their uses. They *can* have some use, in skilled hands, when some entries are manually flagged and individually checked, and only then carefully removed, to obtain a customized result for a program that cannot otherwise be achieved, and that's about it. They do NOT speed up your system, or any other such BS you've been broadcasting. > While I've supplied several pieces of supporting information along the > way, Actually, NO, you have not. (but maybe you think if you say it enough times, it will become true like magic, kinda like McCain and Palin)
Guest Bill in Co. Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Daave wrote: > (attempting to reconstruct thread!) > > David H. Lipman wrote: >>>> I again respectfully request... Please post the Microsoft URL. > > Twayne wrote: >>> I'm sorry, David; I don't keep close track of these things. Which URL >>> are you interested in? > > David H. Lipman wrote: >> Earlier in this thread you had eluded to a Microsoft URL indicatining >> about a Registry cleaner. You were asked to provide it but did not >> indicating that one can do there own search and find. >> >> I am asking you to provide it... plaese. > > Actually, Twayne wasn't talking about a registry cleaner at that > particular point in the thread. Here is the context: > > 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". > > John John (MVP) wrote: >>>> Nonsence. > > Twayne wrote: >>> Too lazy to look it up? It's right there in black and white on the >>> MS >>> site for you. > > John John (MVP) wrote: >> 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. > > I would like to see a cite for this, too. I had never before heeard that > rebooting a PC three times is a "form of 'registry cleaning.'" Don't wait up for it. It's just more of his BS. Like everything else, when called on it, he ducks out of it.
Guest Dave Onex Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Look, the guy not only uses a registry cleaner - he <u>publicly</u> advocated doing so. Maybe we should let it rest... "Friends don't let friends use registry cleaners" "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:OgEQEIjOJHA.2312@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > > More bluster (big surprise). And *still* no valid links. What's the > matter, Twayne? Sometimes you remind me of Palin. > >
Guest Bill in Co. Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Not if he (or anyone else) is going to continually mislead people into these troubled waters. Dave Onex wrote: > Look, the guy not only uses a registry cleaner - he <u>publicly</u> > advocated doing so. > Maybe we should let it rest... > > "Friends don't let friends use registry cleaners" > > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:OgEQEIjOJHA.2312@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> >> More bluster (big surprise). And *still* no valid links. What's the >> matter, Twayne? Sometimes you remind me of Palin.
Guest Unknown Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Re: registry cleaners If you believe in CORRECTING misinformation, why don't you post CORRECT information? You have supplied absolutely no supporting information whatsoever. Do you normally, or abnormally, dream all day? "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:uD%23l9biOJHA.3876@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... >> Yes, very often. However, I notice the only thing you contribute is >> bad advice to posters >> such as running registry cleaners. > > Yes, I believe in correcting misinformation. Registry cleaners can be a > good thing and definitely have their uses. While I've supplied several > pieces of supporting information along the way, you have supplied nothing. > Where is your contribution? >
Guest Unknown Posted October 30, 2008 Posted October 30, 2008 Re: registry cleaners If you really believe I am just trying to get in the last word, you're hopeless. Read the post below from Dave. "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message news:ugo60aiOJHA.1744@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Damn you're stupid answer inline. > >> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message >> news:uK56yjfOJHA.2100@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>> Wow, your ego is surpassed only by your ignorance. I have a little >>> time, so here at some answers for you to deny in your typical >>> ignorant way: >>>> If you have read these newsgroups for years, you must be awfully >>>> dense. You haven't learned a thing. >>> >>> To the contrary, I have learned, and verified, many, many things >>> over the years. I also read several professional newsgroups; which >>> ones to you read? >>> >>>> What praytell have you ever programmed? >>> >>> In the CP/M days, Basic and Fortran >>> Later: >>> dBase I, dBase II, dBase III, and dBase IV, MS Access, Visual Basic, >>> PHP4, PHP5, a smattering of machine language for embedded systems, >>> DOS batches, XP Batches, both using XXCopy in the process, FoxPro, >>> VBA in MS and Open Source, a bunch of Inno applications, and lately >>> looking into Python. Now a question for you: How does ANY of that >>> mean that I'd gain knowledge of the registry? Creating and >>> modifying a few registry entries with software has very little to do >>> with whether registry cleaners are any good. >> Here you go again, assuming----stop and for heavens sake think. > > No assumptions there at all. Simple experience; something you profess to > have but don't. > What's your list? How did it require registry knowledge not mentioned > above? > >> >>> What's the connection? None of the serious programming language >>> require much of a knowledge of the registry. In fact, most of them >>> don't even touch the registry by coding. The compilers might, but >>> not the code. And, it's VERY easy to see/check the registry entries >>> any of them DO make simply based on the names you know the language >>> and the compilers etc. are going to place there. >>> Again: How should that mean I'd know the "dangers of registry >>> cleaners"? >> What happens when a registry cleaner erroneously deletes an item? Think >> man, think. > > Sooo, what's the connection? and Again: How should that mean I'd know > the "dangers of registry > cleaners"? > > Can't answer it, can you? > >> >>> >>> >>> If you had any programming >>>> experience you would KNOW the dangers of >>>> registry cleaners. >>> >>> Wrong. See the preceding para. Your ignorance is showing, now, for >>> sure. Tell me how "any programming experience" would let me "KNOW >>> the dangers of registry cleaners"? >> Ever program anything with a faulty table or missing constant? >> What happened? >> >>> Either back up your bluff or continue to show your ignorance. Which >>> will it be? >> No bluff----you just assume and fail to think. >>> >>>> Each and every one of your posts is full of assumptions about me. >>> >>> I don't have to assume anything about you. You demonstrate it quite >>> clearly, IMO. >> Your opinion is merely an assumption. > > lol, yer funnee! > >> >> >> Since it's my opinion you cannot give good answers to the >>> above questions, I'll be getting pretty sure of your ignorance, >> Once again pretty sure is an assumption. >> in fact. >>> What you've found here is somone who doesn't make statements they >>> can't back up; ever. And if/when I make a mistake I'll admit it. >> You dodge but never admit--------admit it. > > Don't have to. I'm a thinking person with ethics and scruples. > >> In fact, I >>> think I had to do that yesterday or the day before. You see, I'm not >>> afraid to be wrong; if/when I'm wrong I appreciate being given >>> correction when it's done by a knowledgeable source. >> You will not accept corrections. Every one of your posts are >> excuses or quibbling. > > Misdirection so you won't have to give any answers to the questions, eh? > If you knew, you'd say so in order to be all over me, I'm sure of it. You > don't know, and if you did, you'd know the truth. > >> >>> About the only good think I can say about you is that your >>> tantrums are entertaining, >> Great----glad you read them. >> your apparent ignorance astounding, and your ability >>> to promulgate it even more astounding when one thinks about it. >> Yeah but you don't ever think. > > You shouldn't assume everyone is like yourself. I'm always thinking, > unlike you. Rather than provide any answers to some very simple questions > that could exonerate your position, you attempt trollish misdirection, > display a closed minded attitude like your puppetmaster, and think if you > say it enough times it'll be true. > > Besides, this is just an attempt to misdirect the conversation on your > part. > >> >> Well, I >>> can say one more thing: >> You've said enough! >> In general you troll less here than I've seen >>> you do on other groups where you appear to actually live under a >>> small, rock bridge near a murky stream. >>> >>> >>> You >>>> just don't know and continue to assume >>>> as you do with registry cleaners.. >>> >>> See, you're wrong there again. I not only "know", but I also use >>> registry cleaners to good advantage. >> There is NO good advantage to registry cleaners. But your erroneous >> assumptions >> won't let you admit that. > > How so? WHY is that? Give some evidence showing that what you consider > my assumptions are wrong. What is it about them that makes them "not > good"? But be specific; just saying so doesn't make something so. A > broad experience base of one time does not an expert make. What research > have you done to show your claims? Do you even had any empirical > information? You've never given any. >> >> All it takes is probably something >>> you're not used to doing: First, getting a branded, reliable >>> application, and then actually reading what it presents to you on >>> the screen. > >> I did that! > > Then quit looking so stupid and say something to back up all your claims. > Tell us about it. What happened? And what did you do for followup? > >> >> All that said, it's becoming more and more appaent by the day >>> that you're actually doing nothing but trolling and providing some >>> comedic content during my spare time. If I didn't have the time I >>> would simply relegate you to the bottom-feeding bass turd eating >>> troll I think you are and completely ignore you. Yours must be a >>> pretty sad existence. >> Why do you make the time? Do you enjoy giving bad advice to >> posters? > > No, not everyone is like you. I enjoy assisting people. And if you're too > incompetent to know the answer to that question when you have just read > it, well, what can I say? I make the time, as I said in so many words in > what you snipped, because you spew misinformation and it is entertaining > to watch your ignorance at work. But you are becoming predictable and I do > have to admit less entertaining as all you're doing now is answering for > the sake of answering, thinking probably that ifyou get the last word in, > you'll have won somehow. I could gas whether you get the last word or > not; that's your problem and not mine. But as long as you keep spewing > misinformation I'll keep noticing it. That clear enough for you? I know: > you don't understand. Afraid I can't help with reading comprehension or > lack of education/experience. > > I abhor misinformation, especially the type of which your spew so > vehemently but without any basis of fact. "I did that" isn't much of a > response and a great way to say what you likely did not do. If you had > any information useful to your case you would have used it by now. > Information is easy to find. Unbiased, useful information is also easy to > find. Experience is easy to gain. You have shown no sign of any of > those. Nada, nothing, zero, nyet, nuttin. So in response you figure > you'll just PO off that person who miffed you. Well, that doesn't work > with me. I don't let the small things bother me. I do however speak my > mind and like I already said, abhor misinformation. Just think of all the > posts you've placed on Google now for perpetuity and all to see in the > coming millenia. > > You are a great example of one thing I just realized: Purposelessness. > > Shears, > > Twayne > > >>> Twayne >>> >>> >>> >>>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message >>>> news:%23tei6AUOJHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>>>>> Pefectely good????? >>>>>> Based on my experience and many others. If you read these >>>>>> newsgroups (or had any programming experience) >>>>>> you would know that. But, you continue to assume. >>>>> >>>>> I've read these newsgroups for years, which you could tell if you >>>>> weren't too lazy to look back at them. You would even find some >>>>> interesting posts about registry cleaners to BC Boy if you looked >>>>> far enough into the archives. >>>>> >>>>> As for programming experience, yes, I do have experience. But what >>>>> does that have to do with anything under discussion? It's just >>>>> another attempt to turn things to another subject on your part and >>>>> depart the purpose of the posts; namely the misinformation that no >>>>> registry cleaner of any kind is, never has been, and never will be >>>>> of any use. There are several good ones out there that are no more >>>>> dangerous to the registry than installing Office or Word of any >>>>> Microsoft application. In fact, I'd go so far as to say less >>>>> dangerous considering a few of MS's missteps over the years. So, >>>>> I read these groups, and have for a long time, and have programming >>>>> experience. So? And I assume nothing, unlike you. I use and have >>>>> used registry cleaners for years and NEVER had one glitch on me for >>>>> any reason. I have never had one damage my system. I've been with >>>>> windows since windows 3.0. And I've always used what research >>>>> showed to be functional, reliable registry cleaners. Unlike you. >>>>> Your lack of knowledge only shows your ignorance of you would have >>>>> made more of a comment about programming, in particular, and how it >>>>> connected. But you don't really know. I dare say you probably >>>>> have no idea what a database actually is either. I do, from the >>>>> Ashton Tate days to today's applications. Many of my Ashton Tate >>>>> programs are still in use, as a matter of fact. It's like DOS in >>>>> that it doesn't die, it just keeps on going. Unlike you, I have >>>>> experience and research behind me. All you have are the >>>>> assumptions you make based on someone else's words you find >>>>> convenient and nothing of your own. You just flat out do not know >>>>> anything of this subject >>>>> or you would use that knowledge in these so called posts of your. >>>>> All you know is what someone you chose to believe has told you >>>>> because it fits neatly with your "feelings", and facts be damned. >>>>>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message >>>>>> news:%23QbDC$ROJHA.1148@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>>>>>>> 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 > > >
Recommended Posts