Guest Sammy Castagna Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 Some say thet are good and some say they are bad. Sorry. Sammy Castagna
Guest Alan Posted October 25, 2008 Posted October 25, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Hi Sammy, When you wrote: "some say they are bad and some say they are bad" in your original post -- even though you didn't mean to write it that way -- it pretty much sums up the situation. Most people who frequent these newsgroups -- as well as most techs -- feel that nowadays registry cleaners have the capability of doing lots of harm to a PC and confer virtually no benefits. Alan "Sammy Castagna" <sammycastagna@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:u1vWZovNJHA.4928@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Some say thet are good and some say they are bad. > Sorry. > > Sammy Castagna >
Guest Ron Badour Posted October 26, 2008 Posted October 26, 2008 Re: registry cleaners The other posters have told you that registry cleaners should be avoided--here's two specific reasons why: MS made a registry cleaner during the W95/98 time frame and they could not get it to work so that it was not destructive. After a couple of years, they quietly gave up and removed it from their web site. If their programmers (who just happen to know the registry inside out) could not make a safe program, why should you believe that others can? MS has demonstrated over the years that if there is a computer process worth having, they either try to buy it or build their own version. Even an undo feature will not save you in all instances. Let's say that you perform maintenance weekly and your cleaner removes something important. However, whatever is removed is not a function (or it does not belong to a program) that you use frequently. The next week you run your cleaner, still no hint of a problem. The third week you run your cleaner and shortly thereafter you try the function that you seldom use and it doesn't work. Most people will not even think that the problem was caused by the cleaner but let's say you do and you use the undo feature. But guess what, it won't fix the problem because the problem was created during the cleaning that was done two weeks prior. I doubt anyone is going to go through every undo file just to see if it fixes the problem. The only time I recommend that a regcleaner be used is when the only alternative is to format the drive and reinstall the operating system/programs. At this point you have nothing to lose and on the off chance that it actually fixes the problem, you have something to show for the money you invested in a snake oil product. -- Regards Ron Badour MS MVP Windows Desktop Experience "Sammy Castagna" <sammycastagna@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:u1vWZovNJHA.4928@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... > Some say thet are good and some say they are bad. > Sorry. > > Sammy Castagna >
Guest Twayne Posted October 26, 2008 Posted October 26, 2008 Re: registry cleaners > The other posters have told you that registry cleaners should be > avoided--here's two specific reasons why: > > MS made a registry cleaner during the W95/98 time frame and they > could not get it to work so that it was not destructive. After a > couple of years, they quietly gave up and removed it from their web > site. If their programmers (who just happen to know the registry > inside out) could not make a safe program, why should you believe > that others can? MS has demonstrated over the years that if there is > a computer process worth having, they either try to buy it or build > their own version. I went from 3 to 3.1 to WFWG to 95 to 98. Still have a machine running 98 in fact, with all the fixes; it's as or more stable than XP. But I don't ever recall a 95/98 MS product do as you indicate. Can you kindly cite a source for it? > > Even an undo feature will not save you in all instances. Let's say > that you perform maintenance weekly and your cleaner removes > something important. However, whatever is removed is not a function > (or it does not belong to a program) that you use frequently. The > next week you run your cleaner, still no hint of a problem. The > third week you run your cleaner and shortly thereafter you try the > function that you seldom use and it doesn't work. Most people will > not even think that the problem was caused by the cleaner but let's > say you do and you use the undo feature. But guess what, it won't > fix the problem because the problem was created during the cleaning > that was done two weeks prior. I doubt anyone is going to go through > every undo file just to see if it fixes the problem. Well ... I know people that have restored every undo; one of them is my sister. Especially when the restores are properly named, it's not a lot of thought to do so. OTOH in my own case if it appears to take more than a few hours of fumbling and I need the machine, I just re-image the drive. Also, the scenario you envision is about as likely to happen as is file/data corruption IMO so I don't see it as very relevant. I've used such software since pre-Norton days and never once had any issue with it damaging so much as a timestamp let alone anything else. > > The only time I recommend that a regcleaner be used is when the only > alternative is to format the drive and reinstall the operating > system/programs. At this point you have nothing to lose and on the > off chance that it actually fixes the problem, you have something to > show for the money you invested in a snake oil product. Well, that's your perogative to reinstall and rebuild but if in the beginning you had a program that would have taken care of hte problem, you've likely wasted a lot of time and effort. There ARE bad "registry" maintenance programs, just like there are any other kind of software you may find free or for purchase or under any license of any type. Rogue Registry maintenance programs are no more likely to screw up your machine than any other Rogue Application. Besides the reality that cleaning a registry isn't necessary most of the time, there are definitely times when it is called for and will solve a lot of problems. I did so just a few weeks ago in fact, on the Dell dual-Zeon sitting behind me here. An Avira update went astray and I couldn't figure out where the calls for a particular program were coming from and why backup was throwing some pretty strange error messages about what should have been innocuous files. Uninstalling Avira made no difference to it. So: After eliminating all the other possible places where those calls could have come from, I was left with only the registry as a likely suspect. Crapcleaner found someting but was unable to fix it. So out comes my handy dandy paid-for trusty registry maintenance application. About two minutes and a few keyclicks later all was fine and everything was back to normal. Avira looked good to me at the time; it's no longer on any of my machines. I'd say that trumps your vague comments about "snake oil" above here. Oh, and since you like the phrase "snake oil" I can only assume you're a parrot or someone has an arm up your butt; it shows. Twayne > > > "Sammy Castagna" <sammycastagna@hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:u1vWZovNJHA.4928@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >> Some say thet are good and some say they are bad. >> Sorry. >> >> Sammy Castagna
Guest FredW Posted October 26, 2008 Posted October 26, 2008 Re: registry cleaners On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 16:52:40 -0400, "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote: >> The other posters have told you that registry cleaners should be >> avoided--here's two specific reasons why: >> >> MS made a registry cleaner during the W95/98 time frame and they >> could not get it to work so that it was not destructive. After a >> couple of years, they quietly gave up and removed it from their web >> site. If their programmers (who just happen to know the registry >> inside out) could not make a safe program, why should you believe >> that others can? MS has demonstrated over the years that if there is >> a computer process worth having, they either try to buy it or build >> their own version. > >I went from 3 to 3.1 to WFWG to 95 to 98. Still have a machine running >98 in fact, with all the fixes; it's as or more stable than XP. But I >don't ever recall a 95/98 MS product do as you indicate. Can you kindly >cite a source for it? RegClean 4.1a and can still be downloaded here: http://www.download.com/RegClean/3000-2094_4-10007196.html (I used it for Win98se) -- Fred W. (NL)
Guest Twayne Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners > On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 16:52:40 -0400, "Twayne" > <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote: > >>> The other posters have told you that registry cleaners should be >>> avoided--here's two specific reasons why: >>> >>> MS made a registry cleaner during the W95/98 time frame and they >>> could not get it to work so that it was not destructive. After a >>> couple of years, they quietly gave up and removed it from their web >>> site. If their programmers (who just happen to know the registry >>> inside out) could not make a safe program, why should you believe >>> that others can? MS has demonstrated over the years that if there >>> is a computer process worth having, they either try to buy it or >>> build their own version. >> >> I went from 3 to 3.1 to WFWG to 95 to 98. Still have a machine >> running 98 in fact, with all the fixes; it's as or more stable than >> XP. But I don't ever recall a 95/98 MS product do as you indicate. >> Can you kindly cite a source for it? > > > RegClean 4.1a and can still be downloaded here: > http://www.download.com/RegClean/3000-2094_4-10007196.html > > (I used it for Win98se) Woo, shades of yesterday! Somewhere I imagine just about any code that ever existed is still stored somewhere. I was amazed once when I was trying to recover some of WordStar for DOS files, to find a utility at XXCopy.com to do it! Google came through for me on that one.
Guest VanguardLH Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners Sammy Castagna wrote: > Some say thet are good and some say they are bad. > Sorry. > > Sammy Castagna When adding a reply to an existing discussion, add your reply WITHIN that discussion. Do not start a *new* thread.
Guest Bob I Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners FredW wrote: > On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 16:52:40 -0400, "Twayne" > <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote: > > >>>The other posters have told you that registry cleaners should be >>>avoided--here's two specific reasons why: >>> >>>MS made a registry cleaner during the W95/98 time frame and they >>>could not get it to work so that it was not destructive. After a >>>couple of years, they quietly gave up and removed it from their web >>>site. If their programmers (who just happen to know the registry >>>inside out) could not make a safe program, why should you believe >>>that others can? MS has demonstrated over the years that if there is >>>a computer process worth having, they either try to buy it or build >>>their own version. >> >>I went from 3 to 3.1 to WFWG to 95 to 98. Still have a machine running >>98 in fact, with all the fixes; it's as or more stable than XP. But I >>don't ever recall a 95/98 MS product do as you indicate. Can you kindly >>cite a source for it? > > > > RegClean 4.1a and can still be downloaded here: yes and Microsoft removed it from their downloads section precisely because it removed entries incorrectly.
Guest Twayne Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Re: registry cleaners > FredW wrote: > >> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 16:52:40 -0400, "Twayne" >> <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote: >> >> >>>> The other posters have told you that registry cleaners should be >>>> avoided--here's two specific reasons why: >>>> >>>> MS made a registry cleaner during the W95/98 time frame and they >>>> could not get it to work so that it was not destructive. After a >>>> couple of years, they quietly gave up and removed it from their web >>>> site. If their programmers (who just happen to know the registry >>>> inside out) could not make a safe program, why should you believe >>>> that others can? MS has demonstrated over the years that if there >>>> is a computer process worth having, they either try to buy it or >>>> build their own version. >>> >>> I went from 3 to 3.1 to WFWG to 95 to 98. Still have a machine >>> running 98 in fact, with all the fixes; it's as or more stable than >>> XP. But I don't ever recall a 95/98 MS product do as you indicate. >>> Can you kindly cite a source for it? >> >> >> >> RegClean 4.1a and can still be downloaded here: > > yes and Microsoft removed it from their downloads section precisely > because it removed entries incorrectly. Oh, gee, and 95/98 didnt' have another single instance of any other kind of problem either, did it? MS can't even get it all into the urinal, let alone keep their socks dry when it comes to coding. Why remove the link; afraid someone will check it out and find it works on their old 98 machine? Certainly you didn't remove it because you think it was spam for MS! <g> Thanks I don't know what I'd do without these little entertaining excursions to get my mornings started.
Recommended Posts