Guest Alias Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Gerry wrote: > Alias > > You're still not answering the points I asked about! Why go on and rant > about something I was not challenging? > I answered them as best as I could. If my answers aren't good enough for you, conduct the tests yourself or STFU. I am not your employee and have no need or inclination to conduct tests the way you think they should be conducted. -- Alias To email me, remove shoes
Guest Mike Hall - MVP Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner The defrag would have impacted performance more than orphaned registry entries. "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message news:fe2ucg$9pj$1@aioe.org... > Gerry wrote: >> Alias >> >> I cannot see where you did? You might try a little harder instead of >> being evasive. >> >> The only way you can demonstrate your point is to test performance after >> each stage of housekeeping. Unless a registry entry causes a timeout any >> superfluous entry will have so little affect than you would not notice >> any difference in performance. You mention removing 1,000 registry >> entries but how many of those entries would have been accessed when you >> restart the computer? Very few I suspect. If they are accessed to >> provide a false start-up the best solution is to remove them manually >> using Autoruns, having first confirmed what affect they have by >> disabling rather than removing. The processor handles so many >> transactions continuously that a few extra do not make a significant >> difference. Event Viewer Reports generate errors / warnings if there is >> a problem and it is logical to follow up from there. >> >> Based on what you say you have been doing I do not see that you can >> distinguish between the effect on performance of removing unnecessary >> registry entries and defragmenting 4,000 files. Defragmenting in the >> situation you describe will have a noticeable impact. Your approach may >> not pose a significant risk in your hands but if the risk converts to >> reality you can have a major problem which may be very difficult to >> recover from. >> >> >> -- >> Regards. >> >> Gerry >> ~~~~ >> FCA >> Stourport, England >> Enquire, plan and execute >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >> >> >> >> >> Alias wrote: >>> Gerry wrote: >>>> Alias >>>> >>>> You chose not to respond to the specific points I made earlier, >>>> electing only to answer one of a number. Was that because it did not >>>> suit your cause? >>>> >>>> >>> That's because I already addressed them. You just don't accept what I >>> say. I can't prove it to you unless you come here and watch it in >>> action because anything I say that happened, you won't believe. >>> >>> Unfortunately, you can't do it yourself because System Suite 5 is no >>> longer available and 8, the new version, isn't as good due to the fact >>> that someone bought out VCOM and changed the program considerably. >> >> > > Is there an echo in here? I removed a slew of errant registry entries and > the performance was increased and the boot time decreased. Chances are you > don't install and uninstall as many programs as the user of the computer I > worked on did. I doubt you let your hard drive accumulate over 4000 > fragmented files either. > > I am also 100% positive that you've never used System Suite 5 and I > seriously doubt any of the others who sneer at registry fixers have > either. If what you and the others say is true, I would have fuçked up > 100s of computers and none, I repeat none, had anything but positive > results from using System Suite 5. I have a friend who turned me on to SS5 > and he's a repair tech and has used it on thousands of computers with no > ill effects, only positive results. So if thousands of instances with 100% > success rates isn't good enough for you, find someone with SS5 and install > and uninstall a couple of hundred programs, run it and do the tests the > way you think they should be done. Either that or STFU. > > -- > Alias > To email me, remove shoes
Guest Gerry Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Alias Your attitude is an admission of the weakness of your assertions regarding the use of registry cleaners. It clearly obvious to all who read your evasive replies. -- Hope this helps. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Alias wrote: > Gerry wrote: >> Alias >> >> You're still not answering the points I asked about! Why go on and >> rant about something I was not challenging? >> > > I answered them as best as I could. If my answers aren't good enough > for you, conduct the tests yourself or STFU. I am not your employee > and have no need or inclination to conduct tests the way you think > they should be conducted.
Guest Gerry Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Quite Mike, coupled with removing temporary files, emptying recycle bins etc. -- Regards. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Hall - MVP wrote: > The defrag would have impacted performance more than orphaned registry > entries. > > > "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message > news:fe2ucg$9pj$1@aioe.org... >> Gerry wrote: >>> Alias >>> >>> I cannot see where you did? You might try a little harder instead of >>> being evasive. >>> >>> The only way you can demonstrate your point is to test performance >>> after each stage of housekeeping. Unless a registry entry causes a >>> timeout any superfluous entry will have so little affect than you >>> would not notice any difference in performance. You mention >>> removing 1,000 registry entries but how many of those entries >>> would have been accessed when you restart the computer? Very few I >>> suspect. If they are accessed to provide a false start-up the best >>> solution is to remove them manually using Autoruns, having first >>> confirmed what affect they have by disabling rather than removing. >>> The processor handles so many transactions continuously that a few >>> extra do not make a significant difference. Event Viewer Reports >>> generate errors / warnings if there is a problem and it is logical >>> to follow up from there. Based on what you say you have been doing >>> I do not see that you can >>> distinguish between the effect on performance of removing >>> unnecessary registry entries and defragmenting 4,000 files. >>> Defragmenting in the situation you describe will have a noticeable >>> impact. Your approach may not pose a significant risk in your hands >>> but if the risk converts to reality you can have a major problem >>> which may be very difficult to recover from. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards. >>> >>> Gerry >>> ~~~~ >>> FCA >>> Stourport, England >>> Enquire, plan and execute >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Alias wrote: >>>> Gerry wrote: >>>>> Alias >>>>> >>>>> You chose not to respond to the specific points I made earlier, >>>>> electing only to answer one of a number. Was that because it did >>>>> not suit your cause? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> That's because I already addressed them. You just don't accept >>>> what I say. I can't prove it to you unless you come here and watch >>>> it in action because anything I say that happened, you won't >>>> believe. Unfortunately, you can't do it yourself because System >>>> Suite 5 is >>>> no longer available and 8, the new version, isn't as good due to >>>> the fact that someone bought out VCOM and changed the program >>>> considerably. >>> >>> >> >> Is there an echo in here? I removed a slew of errant registry >> entries and the performance was increased and the boot time >> decreased. Chances are you don't install and uninstall as many >> programs as the user of the computer I worked on did. I doubt you >> let your hard drive accumulate over 4000 fragmented files either. >> >> I am also 100% positive that you've never used System Suite 5 and I >> seriously doubt any of the others who sneer at registry fixers have >> either. If what you and the others say is true, I would have fuçked >> up 100s of computers and none, I repeat none, had anything but >> positive results from using System Suite 5. I have a friend who >> turned me on to SS5 and he's a repair tech and has used it on >> thousands of computers with no ill effects, only positive results. >> So if thousands of instances with 100% success rates isn't good >> enough for you, find someone with SS5 and install and uninstall a >> couple of hundred programs, run it and do the tests the way you >> think they should be done. Either that or STFU. -- >> Alias >> To email me, remove shoes
Guest Alias Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Gerry wrote: > Alias > > Your attitude is an admission of the weakness of your assertions > regarding the use of registry cleaners. It clearly obvious to all who > read your evasive replies. > > Ah, the trusty ad hominem attack when you run out of arguments. You should put MVP next to your name. -- Alias To email me, remove shoes
Guest Alias Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Mike Hall - MVP wrote: > The defrag would have impacted performance more than orphaned registry > entries. It booted up quicker and had better performance BEFORE the defrag, right after cleaning up the registry. After the defrag, it got even better. > > > "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message > news:fe2ucg$9pj$1@aioe.org... >> Gerry wrote: >>> Alias >>> >>> I cannot see where you did? You might try a little harder instead of >>> being evasive. >>> >>> The only way you can demonstrate your point is to test performance after >>> each stage of housekeeping. Unless a registry entry causes a timeout any >>> superfluous entry will have so little affect than you would not notice >>> any difference in performance. You mention removing 1,000 registry >>> entries but how many of those entries would have been accessed when you >>> restart the computer? Very few I suspect. If they are accessed to >>> provide a false start-up the best solution is to remove them manually >>> using Autoruns, having first confirmed what affect they have by >>> disabling rather than removing. The processor handles so many >>> transactions continuously that a few extra do not make a significant >>> difference. Event Viewer Reports generate errors / warnings if there is >>> a problem and it is logical to follow up from there. >>> >>> Based on what you say you have been doing I do not see that you can >>> distinguish between the effect on performance of removing unnecessary >>> registry entries and defragmenting 4,000 files. Defragmenting in the >>> situation you describe will have a noticeable impact. Your approach may >>> not pose a significant risk in your hands but if the risk converts to >>> reality you can have a major problem which may be very difficult to >>> recover from. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards. >>> >>> Gerry >>> ~~~~ >>> FCA >>> Stourport, England >>> Enquire, plan and execute >>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Alias wrote: >>>> Gerry wrote: >>>>> Alias >>>>> >>>>> You chose not to respond to the specific points I made earlier, >>>>> electing only to answer one of a number. Was that because it did not >>>>> suit your cause? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> That's because I already addressed them. You just don't accept what I >>>> say. I can't prove it to you unless you come here and watch it in >>>> action because anything I say that happened, you won't believe. >>>> >>>> Unfortunately, you can't do it yourself because System Suite 5 is no >>>> longer available and 8, the new version, isn't as good due to the fact >>>> that someone bought out VCOM and changed the program considerably. >>> >>> >> >> Is there an echo in here? I removed a slew of errant registry entries >> and the performance was increased and the boot time decreased. Chances >> are you don't install and uninstall as many programs as the user of >> the computer I worked on did. I doubt you let your hard drive >> accumulate over 4000 fragmented files either. >> >> I am also 100% positive that you've never used System Suite 5 and I >> seriously doubt any of the others who sneer at registry fixers have >> either. If what you and the others say is true, I would have fuçked up >> 100s of computers and none, I repeat none, had anything but positive >> results from using System Suite 5. I have a friend who turned me on to >> SS5 and he's a repair tech and has used it on thousands of computers >> with no ill effects, only positive results. So if thousands of >> instances with 100% success rates isn't good enough for you, find >> someone with SS5 and install and uninstall a couple of hundred >> programs, run it and do the tests the way you think they should be >> done. Either that or STFU. >> >> -- >> Alias >> To email me, remove shoes > -- Alias To email me, remove shoes
Guest Pegasus \(MVP\) Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner > > Fine. My point is that your "belief" in how bad registry cleaners are is > no better founded than Alias's "belief" in their efficacy. There's nothing > wrong with "belief". Much of what we do in life isn't backed up by firm, > scientifically-repeatable proof, but is based on "belief", often founded > on some kind of evidence that falls short of proof. > > As a matter of interest, I don't use registry cleaners either. I have done > so in the past and never experienced any problems. However, neither did I > see any improvement. I just think it would be better if BOTH sides of this > debate would put forward sensible evidence (not necessarily proof) for > their beliefs, rather than wild (and probably unsupportable) claims. > > Stephen You are entirely correct. However, you probabably think the same way. If you're offered some miracle medicine that has not been proven in a solid scientific way then you will only take it if you ***believe*** in snake oils. If you don't then you go for the medicine that has some solid proof behind it. To me registry cleaners are snake oil until proven otherwise. I'm still waiting for Alias' documented test procedure so that I can test it for myself.
Guest Alias Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Pegasus (MVP) wrote: >> Fine. My point is that your "belief" in how bad registry cleaners are is >> no better founded than Alias's "belief" in their efficacy. There's nothing >> wrong with "belief". Much of what we do in life isn't backed up by firm, >> scientifically-repeatable proof, but is based on "belief", often founded >> on some kind of evidence that falls short of proof. >> >> As a matter of interest, I don't use registry cleaners either. I have done >> so in the past and never experienced any problems. However, neither did I >> see any improvement. I just think it would be better if BOTH sides of this >> debate would put forward sensible evidence (not necessarily proof) for >> their beliefs, rather than wild (and probably unsupportable) claims. >> >> Stephen > > You are entirely correct. However, you probabably think the > same way. If you're offered some miracle medicine that has not > been proven in a solid scientific way then you will only take it if > you ***believe*** in snake oils. If you don't then you go for > the medicine that has some solid proof behind it. > > To me registry cleaners are snake oil until proven otherwise. > I'm still waiting for Alias' documented test procedure so that > I can test it for myself. > > Get SS5 and test it for yourself or would that be too much work, work you want me to do? -- Alias To email me, remove shoes
Guest Pegasus \(MVP\) Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message news:fe36rm$51j$1@aioe.org... > Pegasus (MVP) wrote: >>> Fine. My point is that your "belief" in how bad registry cleaners are is >>> no better founded than Alias's "belief" in their efficacy. There's >>> nothing wrong with "belief". Much of what we do in life isn't backed up >>> by firm, scientifically-repeatable proof, but is based on "belief", >>> often founded on some kind of evidence that falls short of proof. >>> >>> As a matter of interest, I don't use registry cleaners either. I have >>> done so in the past and never experienced any problems. However, neither >>> did I see any improvement. I just think it would be better if BOTH sides >>> of this debate would put forward sensible evidence (not necessarily >>> proof) for their beliefs, rather than wild (and probably unsupportable) >>> claims. >>> >>> Stephen >> >> You are entirely correct. However, you probabably think the >> same way. If you're offered some miracle medicine that has not >> been proven in a solid scientific way then you will only take it if >> you ***believe*** in snake oils. If you don't then you go for >> the medicine that has some solid proof behind it. >> >> To me registry cleaners are snake oil until proven otherwise. >> I'm still waiting for Alias' documented test procedure so that >> I can test it for myself. > > Get SS5 and test it for yourself or would that be too much work, work you > want me to do? > When someone promotes a new medicine, the burden of proof that it works is on him, not on the patient. ***You*** keep claiming that registry cleaners do miracles for your PC's performance - please supply the evidence so that we can repeat your tests.
Guest Mike Hall - MVP Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Now you are making it up as you go along.. "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message news:fe34qf$tvp$2@aioe.org... > Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >> The defrag would have impacted performance more than orphaned registry >> entries. > > It booted up quicker and had better performance BEFORE the defrag, right > after cleaning up the registry. After the defrag, it got even better. > >> >> >> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >> news:fe2ucg$9pj$1@aioe.org... >>> Gerry wrote: >>>> Alias >>>> >>>> I cannot see where you did? You might try a little harder instead of >>>> being evasive. >>>> >>>> The only way you can demonstrate your point is to test performance >>>> after >>>> each stage of housekeeping. Unless a registry entry causes a timeout >>>> any >>>> superfluous entry will have so little affect than you would not notice >>>> any difference in performance. You mention removing 1,000 registry >>>> entries but how many of those entries would have been accessed when >>>> you >>>> restart the computer? Very few I suspect. If they are accessed to >>>> provide a false start-up the best solution is to remove them manually >>>> using Autoruns, having first confirmed what affect they have by >>>> disabling rather than removing. The processor handles so many >>>> transactions continuously that a few extra do not make a significant >>>> difference. Event Viewer Reports generate errors / warnings if there is >>>> a problem and it is logical to follow up from there. >>>> >>>> Based on what you say you have been doing I do not see that you can >>>> distinguish between the effect on performance of removing unnecessary >>>> registry entries and defragmenting 4,000 files. Defragmenting in the >>>> situation you describe will have a noticeable impact. Your approach may >>>> not pose a significant risk in your hands but if the risk converts to >>>> reality you can have a major problem which may be very difficult to >>>> recover from. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards. >>>> >>>> Gerry >>>> ~~~~ >>>> FCA >>>> Stourport, England >>>> Enquire, plan and execute >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Alias wrote: >>>>> Gerry wrote: >>>>>> Alias >>>>>> >>>>>> You chose not to respond to the specific points I made earlier, >>>>>> electing only to answer one of a number. Was that because it did not >>>>>> suit your cause? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> That's because I already addressed them. You just don't accept what I >>>>> say. I can't prove it to you unless you come here and watch it in >>>>> action because anything I say that happened, you won't believe. >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately, you can't do it yourself because System Suite 5 is no >>>>> longer available and 8, the new version, isn't as good due to the fact >>>>> that someone bought out VCOM and changed the program considerably. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Is there an echo in here? I removed a slew of errant registry entries >>> and the performance was increased and the boot time decreased. Chances >>> are you don't install and uninstall as many programs as the user of the >>> computer I worked on did. I doubt you let your hard drive accumulate >>> over 4000 fragmented files either. >>> >>> I am also 100% positive that you've never used System Suite 5 and I >>> seriously doubt any of the others who sneer at registry fixers have >>> either. If what you and the others say is true, I would have fuçked up >>> 100s of computers and none, I repeat none, had anything but positive >>> results from using System Suite 5. I have a friend who turned me on to >>> SS5 and he's a repair tech and has used it on thousands of computers >>> with no ill effects, only positive results. So if thousands of instances >>> with 100% success rates isn't good enough for you, find someone with SS5 >>> and install and uninstall a couple of hundred programs, run it and do >>> the tests the way you think they should be done. Either that or STFU. >>> >>> -- >>> Alias >>> To email me, remove shoes >> > > > -- > Alias > To email me, remove shoes
Guest Alias Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Pegasus (MVP) wrote: > "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message > news:fe36rm$51j$1@aioe.org... >> Pegasus (MVP) wrote: >>>> Fine. My point is that your "belief" in how bad registry cleaners are is >>>> no better founded than Alias's "belief" in their efficacy. There's >>>> nothing wrong with "belief". Much of what we do in life isn't backed up >>>> by firm, scientifically-repeatable proof, but is based on "belief", >>>> often founded on some kind of evidence that falls short of proof. >>>> >>>> As a matter of interest, I don't use registry cleaners either. I have >>>> done so in the past and never experienced any problems. However, neither >>>> did I see any improvement. I just think it would be better if BOTH sides >>>> of this debate would put forward sensible evidence (not necessarily >>>> proof) for their beliefs, rather than wild (and probably unsupportable) >>>> claims. >>>> >>>> Stephen >>> You are entirely correct. However, you probabably think the >>> same way. If you're offered some miracle medicine that has not >>> been proven in a solid scientific way then you will only take it if >>> you ***believe*** in snake oils. If you don't then you go for >>> the medicine that has some solid proof behind it. >>> >>> To me registry cleaners are snake oil until proven otherwise. >>> I'm still waiting for Alias' documented test procedure so that >>> I can test it for myself. >> Get SS5 and test it for yourself or would that be too much work, work you >> want me to do? >> > > When someone promotes a new medicine, the burden of proof > that it works is on him, not on the patient. ***You*** keep > claiming that registry cleaners do miracles for your PC's performance - > please supply the evidence so that we can repeat your tests. > > I am not promoting anything. I am merely giving sharing my experience and feel no need to prove anything to anyone. Take it or leave it. If you feel this need, you prove it or disprove it. -- Alias To email me, remove shoes
Guest Alias Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Mike Hall - MVP wrote: > Now you are making it up as you go along.. I haven't changed anything I've said and stand by all statements. I have done it. Many times. You have never done it so all you have are insults and a sneering techier than thou attitude, typical of those who feel they need to post under the MVP badge. > > > "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message > news:fe34qf$tvp$2@aioe.org... >> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>> The defrag would have impacted performance more than orphaned >>> registry entries. >> >> It booted up quicker and had better performance BEFORE the defrag, >> right after cleaning up the registry. After the defrag, it got even >> better. >> >>> >>> >>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:fe2ucg$9pj$1@aioe.org... >>>> Gerry wrote: >>>>> Alias >>>>> >>>>> I cannot see where you did? You might try a little harder instead >>>>> of being evasive. >>>>> >>>>> The only way you can demonstrate your point is to test performance >>>>> after >>>>> each stage of housekeeping. Unless a registry entry causes a >>>>> timeout any >>>>> superfluous entry will have so little affect than you would not notice >>>>> any difference in performance. You mention removing 1,000 registry >>>>> entries but how many of those entries would have been accessed >>>>> when you >>>>> restart the computer? Very few I suspect. If they are accessed to >>>>> provide a false start-up the best solution is to remove them manually >>>>> using Autoruns, having first confirmed what affect they have by >>>>> disabling rather than removing. The processor handles so many >>>>> transactions continuously that a few extra do not make a significant >>>>> difference. Event Viewer Reports generate errors / warnings if >>>>> there is >>>>> a problem and it is logical to follow up from there. >>>>> >>>>> Based on what you say you have been doing I do not see that you can >>>>> distinguish between the effect on performance of removing unnecessary >>>>> registry entries and defragmenting 4,000 files. Defragmenting in the >>>>> situation you describe will have a noticeable impact. Your approach >>>>> may >>>>> not pose a significant risk in your hands but if the risk converts to >>>>> reality you can have a major problem which may be very difficult to >>>>> recover from. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Regards. >>>>> >>>>> Gerry >>>>> ~~~~ >>>>> FCA >>>>> Stourport, England >>>>> Enquire, plan and execute >>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Alias wrote: >>>>>> Gerry wrote: >>>>>>> Alias >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You chose not to respond to the specific points I made earlier, >>>>>>> electing only to answer one of a number. Was that because it did not >>>>>>> suit your cause? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> That's because I already addressed them. You just don't accept what I >>>>>> say. I can't prove it to you unless you come here and watch it in >>>>>> action because anything I say that happened, you won't believe. >>>>>> >>>>>> Unfortunately, you can't do it yourself because System Suite 5 is no >>>>>> longer available and 8, the new version, isn't as good due to the >>>>>> fact >>>>>> that someone bought out VCOM and changed the program considerably. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Is there an echo in here? I removed a slew of errant registry >>>> entries and the performance was increased and the boot time >>>> decreased. Chances are you don't install and uninstall as many >>>> programs as the user of the computer I worked on did. I doubt you >>>> let your hard drive accumulate over 4000 fragmented files either. >>>> >>>> I am also 100% positive that you've never used System Suite 5 and I >>>> seriously doubt any of the others who sneer at registry fixers have >>>> either. If what you and the others say is true, I would have fuçked >>>> up 100s of computers and none, I repeat none, had anything but >>>> positive results from using System Suite 5. I have a friend who >>>> turned me on to SS5 and he's a repair tech and has used it on >>>> thousands of computers with no ill effects, only positive results. >>>> So if thousands of instances with 100% success rates isn't good >>>> enough for you, find someone with SS5 and install and uninstall a >>>> couple of hundred programs, run it and do the tests the way you >>>> think they should be done. Either that or STFU. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Alias >>>> To email me, remove shoes >>> >> >> >> -- >> Alias >> To email me, remove shoes > -- Alias To email me, remove shoes
Guest Mike Hall - MVP Posted October 4, 2007 Posted October 4, 2007 Re: registry cleaner It has nothing to do with MVP. I have held the same views for many years. Perhaps you would take it better from me if I used my old IBM status? "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message news:fe3t13$b5k$2@aioe.org... > Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >> Now you are making it up as you go along.. > > I haven't changed anything I've said and stand by all statements. I have > done it. Many times. You have never done it so all you have are insults > and a sneering techier than thou attitude, typical of those who feel they > need to post under the MVP badge. >> >> >> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >> news:fe34qf$tvp$2@aioe.org... >>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>>> The defrag would have impacted performance more than orphaned registry >>>> entries. >>> >>> It booted up quicker and had better performance BEFORE the defrag, right >>> after cleaning up the registry. After the defrag, it got even better. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:fe2ucg$9pj$1@aioe.org... >>>>> Gerry wrote: >>>>>> Alias >>>>>> >>>>>> I cannot see where you did? You might try a little harder instead of >>>>>> being evasive. >>>>>> >>>>>> The only way you can demonstrate your point is to test performance >>>>>> after >>>>>> each stage of housekeeping. Unless a registry entry causes a timeout >>>>>> any >>>>>> superfluous entry will have so little affect than you would not >>>>>> notice >>>>>> any difference in performance. You mention removing 1,000 registry >>>>>> entries but how many of those entries would have been accessed when >>>>>> you >>>>>> restart the computer? Very few I suspect. If they are accessed to >>>>>> provide a false start-up the best solution is to remove them manually >>>>>> using Autoruns, having first confirmed what affect they have by >>>>>> disabling rather than removing. The processor handles so many >>>>>> transactions continuously that a few extra do not make a significant >>>>>> difference. Event Viewer Reports generate errors / warnings if there >>>>>> is >>>>>> a problem and it is logical to follow up from there. >>>>>> >>>>>> Based on what you say you have been doing I do not see that you can >>>>>> distinguish between the effect on performance of removing unnecessary >>>>>> registry entries and defragmenting 4,000 files. Defragmenting in the >>>>>> situation you describe will have a noticeable impact. Your approach >>>>>> may >>>>>> not pose a significant risk in your hands but if the risk converts to >>>>>> reality you can have a major problem which may be very difficult to >>>>>> recover from. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Regards. >>>>>> >>>>>> Gerry >>>>>> ~~~~ >>>>>> FCA >>>>>> Stourport, England >>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute >>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Alias wrote: >>>>>>> Gerry wrote: >>>>>>>> Alias >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You chose not to respond to the specific points I made earlier, >>>>>>>> electing only to answer one of a number. Was that because it did >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> suit your cause? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> That's because I already addressed them. You just don't accept what >>>>>>> I >>>>>>> say. I can't prove it to you unless you come here and watch it in >>>>>>> action because anything I say that happened, you won't believe. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unfortunately, you can't do it yourself because System Suite 5 is no >>>>>>> longer available and 8, the new version, isn't as good due to the >>>>>>> fact >>>>>>> that someone bought out VCOM and changed the program considerably. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Is there an echo in here? I removed a slew of errant registry entries >>>>> and the performance was increased and the boot time decreased. Chances >>>>> are you don't install and uninstall as many programs as the user of >>>>> the computer I worked on did. I doubt you let your hard drive >>>>> accumulate over 4000 fragmented files either. >>>>> >>>>> I am also 100% positive that you've never used System Suite 5 and I >>>>> seriously doubt any of the others who sneer at registry fixers have >>>>> either. If what you and the others say is true, I would have fuçked up >>>>> 100s of computers and none, I repeat none, had anything but positive >>>>> results from using System Suite 5. I have a friend who turned me on to >>>>> SS5 and he's a repair tech and has used it on thousands of computers >>>>> with no ill effects, only positive results. So if thousands of >>>>> instances with 100% success rates isn't good enough for you, find >>>>> someone with SS5 and install and uninstall a couple of hundred >>>>> programs, run it and do the tests the way you think they should be >>>>> done. Either that or STFU. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Alias >>>>> To email me, remove shoes >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Alias >>> To email me, remove shoes >> > > > -- > Alias > To email me, remove shoes
Guest Alias Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Mike Hall - MVP wrote: > It has nothing to do with MVP. I have held the same views for many > years. Perhaps you would take it better from me if I used my old IBM > status? Oh, so you've always behaved in this manner, eh? -- Alias To email me, remove shoes > > > "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message > news:fe3t13$b5k$2@aioe.org... >> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>> Now you are making it up as you go along.. >> >> I haven't changed anything I've said and stand by all statements. I >> have done it. Many times. You have never done it so all you have are >> insults and a sneering techier than thou attitude, typical of those >> who feel they need to post under the MVP badge. >>> >>> >>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:fe34qf$tvp$2@aioe.org... >>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>>>> The defrag would have impacted performance more than orphaned >>>>> registry entries. >>>> >>>> It booted up quicker and had better performance BEFORE the defrag, >>>> right after cleaning up the registry. After the defrag, it got even >>>> better. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:fe2ucg$9pj$1@aioe.org... >>>>>> Gerry wrote: >>>>>>> Alias >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I cannot see where you did? You might try a little harder instead >>>>>>> of being evasive. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The only way you can demonstrate your point is to test >>>>>>> performance after >>>>>>> each stage of housekeeping. Unless a registry entry causes a >>>>>>> timeout any >>>>>>> superfluous entry will have so little affect than you would not >>>>>>> notice >>>>>>> any difference in performance. You mention removing 1,000 registry >>>>>>> entries but how many of those entries would have been accessed >>>>>>> when you >>>>>>> restart the computer? Very few I suspect. If they are accessed to >>>>>>> provide a false start-up the best solution is to remove them >>>>>>> manually >>>>>>> using Autoruns, having first confirmed what affect they have by >>>>>>> disabling rather than removing. The processor handles so many >>>>>>> transactions continuously that a few extra do not make a significant >>>>>>> difference. Event Viewer Reports generate errors / warnings if >>>>>>> there is >>>>>>> a problem and it is logical to follow up from there. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Based on what you say you have been doing I do not see that you can >>>>>>> distinguish between the effect on performance of removing >>>>>>> unnecessary >>>>>>> registry entries and defragmenting 4,000 files. Defragmenting in the >>>>>>> situation you describe will have a noticeable impact. Your >>>>>>> approach may >>>>>>> not pose a significant risk in your hands but if the risk >>>>>>> converts to >>>>>>> reality you can have a major problem which may be very difficult to >>>>>>> recover from. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Regards. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Gerry >>>>>>> ~~~~ >>>>>>> FCA >>>>>>> Stourport, England >>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute >>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Alias wrote: >>>>>>>> Gerry wrote: >>>>>>>>> Alias >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You chose not to respond to the specific points I made earlier, >>>>>>>>> electing only to answer one of a number. Was that because it >>>>>>>>> did not >>>>>>>>> suit your cause? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's because I already addressed them. You just don't accept >>>>>>>> what I >>>>>>>> say. I can't prove it to you unless you come here and watch it in >>>>>>>> action because anything I say that happened, you won't believe. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Unfortunately, you can't do it yourself because System Suite 5 >>>>>>>> is no >>>>>>>> longer available and 8, the new version, isn't as good due to >>>>>>>> the fact >>>>>>>> that someone bought out VCOM and changed the program considerably. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Is there an echo in here? I removed a slew of errant registry >>>>>> entries and the performance was increased and the boot time >>>>>> decreased. Chances are you don't install and uninstall as many >>>>>> programs as the user of the computer I worked on did. I doubt you >>>>>> let your hard drive accumulate over 4000 fragmented files either. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am also 100% positive that you've never used System Suite 5 and >>>>>> I seriously doubt any of the others who sneer at registry fixers >>>>>> have either. If what you and the others say is true, I would have >>>>>> fuçked up 100s of computers and none, I repeat none, had anything >>>>>> but positive results from using System Suite 5. I have a friend >>>>>> who turned me on to SS5 and he's a repair tech and has used it on >>>>>> thousands of computers with no ill effects, only positive results. >>>>>> So if thousands of instances with 100% success rates isn't good >>>>>> enough for you, find someone with SS5 and install and uninstall a >>>>>> couple of hundred programs, run it and do the tests the way you >>>>>> think they should be done. Either that or STFU. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Alias >>>>>> To email me, remove shoes >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Alias >>>> To email me, remove shoes >>> >> >> >> -- >> Alias >> To email me, remove shoes >
Guest Gerry Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Alias Do you also always behaved in this manner, eh? -- Hope this helps. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Alias wrote: > Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >> It has nothing to do with MVP. I have held the same views for many >> years. Perhaps you would take it better from me if I used my old IBM >> status? > > Oh, so you've always behaved in this manner, eh? > > >> >> >> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >> news:fe3t13$b5k$2@aioe.org... >>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>>> Now you are making it up as you go along.. >>> >>> I haven't changed anything I've said and stand by all statements. I >>> have done it. Many times. You have never done it so all you have are >>> insults and a sneering techier than thou attitude, typical of those >>> who feel they need to post under the MVP badge. >>>> >>>> >>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:fe34qf$tvp$2@aioe.org... >>>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>>>>> The defrag would have impacted performance more than orphaned >>>>>> registry entries. >>>>> >>>>> It booted up quicker and had better performance BEFORE the defrag, >>>>> right after cleaning up the registry. After the defrag, it got >>>>> even better. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fe2ucg$9pj$1@aioe.org... >>>>>>> Gerry wrote: >>>>>>>> Alias >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I cannot see where you did? You might try a little harder >>>>>>>> instead of being evasive. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The only way you can demonstrate your point is to test >>>>>>>> performance after >>>>>>>> each stage of housekeeping. Unless a registry entry causes a >>>>>>>> timeout any >>>>>>>> superfluous entry will have so little affect than you would not >>>>>>>> notice >>>>>>>> any difference in performance. You mention removing 1,000 >>>>>>>> registry entries but how many of those entries would have >>>>>>>> been accessed when you >>>>>>>> restart the computer? Very few I suspect. If they are accessed >>>>>>>> to provide a false start-up the best solution is to remove them >>>>>>>> manually >>>>>>>> using Autoruns, having first confirmed what affect they have by >>>>>>>> disabling rather than removing. The processor handles so many >>>>>>>> transactions continuously that a few extra do not make a >>>>>>>> significant difference. Event Viewer Reports generate errors / >>>>>>>> warnings if there is >>>>>>>> a problem and it is logical to follow up from there. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Based on what you say you have been doing I do not see that >>>>>>>> you can distinguish between the effect on performance of >>>>>>>> removing unnecessary >>>>>>>> registry entries and defragmenting 4,000 files. Defragmenting >>>>>>>> in the situation you describe will have a noticeable impact. >>>>>>>> Your approach may >>>>>>>> not pose a significant risk in your hands but if the risk >>>>>>>> converts to >>>>>>>> reality you can have a major problem which may be very >>>>>>>> difficult to recover from. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Regards. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gerry >>>>>>>> ~~~~ >>>>>>>> FCA >>>>>>>> Stourport, England >>>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute >>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alias wrote: >>>>>>>>> Gerry wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Alias >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You chose not to respond to the specific points I made >>>>>>>>>> earlier, electing only to answer one of a number. Was that >>>>>>>>>> because it did not >>>>>>>>>> suit your cause? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's because I already addressed them. You just don't accept >>>>>>>>> what I >>>>>>>>> say. I can't prove it to you unless you come here and watch >>>>>>>>> it in action because anything I say that happened, you won't >>>>>>>>> believe. Unfortunately, you can't do it yourself because >>>>>>>>> System Suite 5 >>>>>>>>> is no >>>>>>>>> longer available and 8, the new version, isn't as good due to >>>>>>>>> the fact >>>>>>>>> that someone bought out VCOM and changed the program >>>>>>>>> considerably. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is there an echo in here? I removed a slew of errant registry >>>>>>> entries and the performance was increased and the boot time >>>>>>> decreased. Chances are you don't install and uninstall as many >>>>>>> programs as the user of the computer I worked on did. I doubt >>>>>>> you let your hard drive accumulate over 4000 fragmented files >>>>>>> either. I am also 100% positive that you've never used System >>>>>>> Suite 5 >>>>>>> and I seriously doubt any of the others who sneer at registry >>>>>>> fixers have either. If what you and the others say is true, I >>>>>>> would have fuçked up 100s of computers and none, I repeat none, >>>>>>> had anything but positive results from using System Suite 5. I >>>>>>> have a friend who turned me on to SS5 and he's a repair tech >>>>>>> and has used it on thousands of computers with no ill effects, >>>>>>> only positive results. So if thousands of instances with 100% >>>>>>> success rates isn't good enough for you, find someone with SS5 >>>>>>> and install and uninstall a couple of hundred programs, run it >>>>>>> and do the tests the way you think they should be done. Either >>>>>>> that or STFU. -- >>>>>>> Alias >>>>>>> To email me, remove shoes >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Alias >>>>> To email me, remove shoes >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Alias >>> To email me, remove shoes
Guest Mike Hall - MVP Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 Re: registry cleaner And changing the subject appears to be a specialty of yours when you are losing. "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message news:ejgqBSzBIHA.1356@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >> It has nothing to do with MVP. I have held the same views for many years. >> Perhaps you would take it better from me if I used my old IBM status? > > Oh, so you've always behaved in this manner, eh? > > -- > Alias > To email me, remove shoes > >> >> >> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >> news:fe3t13$b5k$2@aioe.org... >>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>>> Now you are making it up as you go along.. >>> >>> I haven't changed anything I've said and stand by all statements. I have >>> done it. Many times. You have never done it so all you have are insults >>> and a sneering techier than thou attitude, typical of those who feel >>> they need to post under the MVP badge. >>>> >>>> >>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:fe34qf$tvp$2@aioe.org... >>>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>>>>> The defrag would have impacted performance more than orphaned >>>>>> registry entries. >>>>> >>>>> It booted up quicker and had better performance BEFORE the defrag, >>>>> right after cleaning up the registry. After the defrag, it got even >>>>> better. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fe2ucg$9pj$1@aioe.org... >>>>>>> Gerry wrote: >>>>>>>> Alias >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I cannot see where you did? You might try a little harder instead >>>>>>>> of being evasive. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The only way you can demonstrate your point is to test performance >>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>> each stage of housekeeping. Unless a registry entry causes a >>>>>>>> timeout any >>>>>>>> superfluous entry will have so little affect than you would not >>>>>>>> notice >>>>>>>> any difference in performance. You mention removing 1,000 registry >>>>>>>> entries but how many of those entries would have been accessed >>>>>>>> when you >>>>>>>> restart the computer? Very few I suspect. If they are accessed to >>>>>>>> provide a false start-up the best solution is to remove them >>>>>>>> manually >>>>>>>> using Autoruns, having first confirmed what affect they have by >>>>>>>> disabling rather than removing. The processor handles so many >>>>>>>> transactions continuously that a few extra do not make a >>>>>>>> significant >>>>>>>> difference. Event Viewer Reports generate errors / warnings if >>>>>>>> there is >>>>>>>> a problem and it is logical to follow up from there. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Based on what you say you have been doing I do not see that you >>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>> distinguish between the effect on performance of removing >>>>>>>> unnecessary >>>>>>>> registry entries and defragmenting 4,000 files. Defragmenting in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> situation you describe will have a noticeable impact. Your approach >>>>>>>> may >>>>>>>> not pose a significant risk in your hands but if the risk converts >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> reality you can have a major problem which may be very difficult to >>>>>>>> recover from. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Regards. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Gerry >>>>>>>> ~~~~ >>>>>>>> FCA >>>>>>>> Stourport, England >>>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute >>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Alias wrote: >>>>>>>>> Gerry wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Alias >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You chose not to respond to the specific points I made earlier, >>>>>>>>>> electing only to answer one of a number. Was that because it did >>>>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>>>> suit your cause? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That's because I already addressed them. You just don't accept >>>>>>>>> what I >>>>>>>>> say. I can't prove it to you unless you come here and watch it in >>>>>>>>> action because anything I say that happened, you won't believe. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, you can't do it yourself because System Suite 5 is >>>>>>>>> no >>>>>>>>> longer available and 8, the new version, isn't as good due to the >>>>>>>>> fact >>>>>>>>> that someone bought out VCOM and changed the program considerably. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is there an echo in here? I removed a slew of errant registry >>>>>>> entries and the performance was increased and the boot time >>>>>>> decreased. Chances are you don't install and uninstall as many >>>>>>> programs as the user of the computer I worked on did. I doubt you >>>>>>> let your hard drive accumulate over 4000 fragmented files either. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am also 100% positive that you've never used System Suite 5 and I >>>>>>> seriously doubt any of the others who sneer at registry fixers have >>>>>>> either. If what you and the others say is true, I would have fuçked >>>>>>> up 100s of computers and none, I repeat none, had anything but >>>>>>> positive results from using System Suite 5. I have a friend who >>>>>>> turned me on to SS5 and he's a repair tech and has used it on >>>>>>> thousands of computers with no ill effects, only positive results. >>>>>>> So if thousands of instances with 100% success rates isn't good >>>>>>> enough for you, find someone with SS5 and install and uninstall a >>>>>>> couple of hundred programs, run it and do the tests the way you >>>>>>> think they should be done. Either that or STFU. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Alias >>>>>>> To email me, remove shoes >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Alias >>>>> To email me, remove shoes >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Alias >>> To email me, remove shoes >>
Guest Alias Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Mike Hall - MVP wrote: > And changing the subject appears to be a specialty of yours when you are > losing. No loss here. I use System Suite. You're the ones losing out because you don't. > > > "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message > news:ejgqBSzBIHA.1356@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>> It has nothing to do with MVP. I have held the same views for many >>> years. Perhaps you would take it better from me if I used my old IBM >>> status? >> >> Oh, so you've always behaved in this manner, eh? >> >> -- >> Alias >> To email me, remove shoes >> >>> >>> >>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:fe3t13$b5k$2@aioe.org... >>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>>>> Now you are making it up as you go along.. >>>> >>>> I haven't changed anything I've said and stand by all statements. I >>>> have done it. Many times. You have never done it so all you have are >>>> insults and a sneering techier than thou attitude, typical of those >>>> who feel they need to post under the MVP badge. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:fe34qf$tvp$2@aioe.org... >>>>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>>>>>> The defrag would have impacted performance more than orphaned >>>>>>> registry entries. >>>>>> >>>>>> It booted up quicker and had better performance BEFORE the defrag, >>>>>> right after cleaning up the registry. After the defrag, it got >>>>>> even better. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:fe2ucg$9pj$1@aioe.org... >>>>>>>> Gerry wrote: >>>>>>>>> Alias >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I cannot see where you did? You might try a little harder >>>>>>>>> instead of being evasive. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The only way you can demonstrate your point is to test >>>>>>>>> performance after >>>>>>>>> each stage of housekeeping. Unless a registry entry causes a >>>>>>>>> timeout any >>>>>>>>> superfluous entry will have so little affect than you would not >>>>>>>>> notice >>>>>>>>> any difference in performance. You mention removing 1,000 registry >>>>>>>>> entries but how many of those entries would have been accessed >>>>>>>>> when you >>>>>>>>> restart the computer? Very few I suspect. If they are accessed to >>>>>>>>> provide a false start-up the best solution is to remove them >>>>>>>>> manually >>>>>>>>> using Autoruns, having first confirmed what affect they have by >>>>>>>>> disabling rather than removing. The processor handles so many >>>>>>>>> transactions continuously that a few extra do not make a >>>>>>>>> significant >>>>>>>>> difference. Event Viewer Reports generate errors / warnings if >>>>>>>>> there is >>>>>>>>> a problem and it is logical to follow up from there. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Based on what you say you have been doing I do not see that >>>>>>>>> you can >>>>>>>>> distinguish between the effect on performance of removing >>>>>>>>> unnecessary >>>>>>>>> registry entries and defragmenting 4,000 files. Defragmenting >>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>> situation you describe will have a noticeable impact. Your >>>>>>>>> approach may >>>>>>>>> not pose a significant risk in your hands but if the risk >>>>>>>>> converts to >>>>>>>>> reality you can have a major problem which may be very >>>>>>>>> difficult to >>>>>>>>> recover from. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Regards. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Gerry >>>>>>>>> ~~~~ >>>>>>>>> FCA >>>>>>>>> Stourport, England >>>>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute >>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Alias wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Gerry wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Alias >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You chose not to respond to the specific points I made earlier, >>>>>>>>>>> electing only to answer one of a number. Was that because it >>>>>>>>>>> did not >>>>>>>>>>> suit your cause? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That's because I already addressed them. You just don't accept >>>>>>>>>> what I >>>>>>>>>> say. I can't prove it to you unless you come here and watch it in >>>>>>>>>> action because anything I say that happened, you won't believe. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Unfortunately, you can't do it yourself because System Suite 5 >>>>>>>>>> is no >>>>>>>>>> longer available and 8, the new version, isn't as good due to >>>>>>>>>> the fact >>>>>>>>>> that someone bought out VCOM and changed the program >>>>>>>>>> considerably. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is there an echo in here? I removed a slew of errant registry >>>>>>>> entries and the performance was increased and the boot time >>>>>>>> decreased. Chances are you don't install and uninstall as many >>>>>>>> programs as the user of the computer I worked on did. I doubt >>>>>>>> you let your hard drive accumulate over 4000 fragmented files >>>>>>>> either. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am also 100% positive that you've never used System Suite 5 >>>>>>>> and I seriously doubt any of the others who sneer at registry >>>>>>>> fixers have either. If what you and the others say is true, I >>>>>>>> would have fuçked up 100s of computers and none, I repeat none, >>>>>>>> had anything but positive results from using System Suite 5. I >>>>>>>> have a friend who turned me on to SS5 and he's a repair tech and >>>>>>>> has used it on thousands of computers with no ill effects, only >>>>>>>> positive results. So if thousands of instances with 100% success >>>>>>>> rates isn't good enough for you, find someone with SS5 and >>>>>>>> install and uninstall a couple of hundred programs, run it and >>>>>>>> do the tests the way you think they should be done. Either that >>>>>>>> or STFU. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Alias >>>>>>>> To email me, remove shoes >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Alias >>>>>> To email me, remove shoes >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Alias >>>> To email me, remove shoes >>> > -- Alias To email me, remove shoes
Guest Alias Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Gerry wrote: > Alias > > Do you also always behaved in this manner, eh? > Your top post nukes the rest of the post. Please learn how to post on Usenet. To what "manner" are you referring? -- Alias To email me, remove shoes
Guest Gerry Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Alias So much so that you need these diversions to keep you in mischief! -- Hope this helps. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Alias wrote: > Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >> And changing the subject appears to be a specialty of yours when you >> are losing. > > No loss here. I use System Suite. You're the ones losing out because > you don't. > > >> >> >> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >> news:ejgqBSzBIHA.1356@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>>> It has nothing to do with MVP. I have held the same views for many >>>> years. Perhaps you would take it better from me if I used my old >>>> IBM status? >>> >>> Oh, so you've always behaved in this manner, eh? >>> >>> -- >>> Alias >>> To email me, remove shoes >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:fe3t13$b5k$2@aioe.org... >>>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>>>>> Now you are making it up as you go along.. >>>>> >>>>> I haven't changed anything I've said and stand by all statements. >>>>> I have done it. Many times. You have never done it so all you >>>>> have are insults and a sneering techier than thou attitude, >>>>> typical of those who feel they need to post under the MVP badge. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:fe34qf$tvp$2@aioe.org... >>>>>>> Mike Hall - MVP wrote: >>>>>>>> The defrag would have impacted performance more than orphaned >>>>>>>> registry entries. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It booted up quicker and had better performance BEFORE the >>>>>>> defrag, right after cleaning up the registry. After the defrag, >>>>>>> it got even better. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Alias" <iamalias@shoesgmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:fe2ucg$9pj$1@aioe.org... >>>>>>>>> Gerry wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Alias >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I cannot see where you did? You might try a little harder >>>>>>>>>> instead of being evasive. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The only way you can demonstrate your point is to test >>>>>>>>>> performance after >>>>>>>>>> each stage of housekeeping. Unless a registry entry causes a >>>>>>>>>> timeout any >>>>>>>>>> superfluous entry will have so little affect than you would >>>>>>>>>> not notice >>>>>>>>>> any difference in performance. You mention removing 1,000 >>>>>>>>>> registry entries but how many of those entries would have >>>>>>>>>> been accessed when you >>>>>>>>>> restart the computer? Very few I suspect. If they are >>>>>>>>>> accessed to provide a false start-up the best solution is to >>>>>>>>>> remove them manually >>>>>>>>>> using Autoruns, having first confirmed what affect they have >>>>>>>>>> by disabling rather than removing. The processor handles so >>>>>>>>>> many transactions continuously that a few extra do not make a >>>>>>>>>> significant >>>>>>>>>> difference. Event Viewer Reports generate errors / warnings >>>>>>>>>> if there is >>>>>>>>>> a problem and it is logical to follow up from there. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Based on what you say you have been doing I do not see that >>>>>>>>>> you can >>>>>>>>>> distinguish between the effect on performance of removing >>>>>>>>>> unnecessary >>>>>>>>>> registry entries and defragmenting 4,000 files. Defragmenting >>>>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>>>> situation you describe will have a noticeable impact. Your >>>>>>>>>> approach may >>>>>>>>>> not pose a significant risk in your hands but if the risk >>>>>>>>>> converts to >>>>>>>>>> reality you can have a major problem which may be very >>>>>>>>>> difficult to >>>>>>>>>> recover from. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Regards. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Gerry >>>>>>>>>> ~~~~ >>>>>>>>>> FCA >>>>>>>>>> Stourport, England >>>>>>>>>> Enquire, plan and execute >>>>>>>>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Alias wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Gerry wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Alias >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You chose not to respond to the specific points I made >>>>>>>>>>>> earlier, electing only to answer one of a number. Was that >>>>>>>>>>>> because it did not >>>>>>>>>>>> suit your cause? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That's because I already addressed them. You just don't >>>>>>>>>>> accept what I >>>>>>>>>>> say. I can't prove it to you unless you come here and watch >>>>>>>>>>> it in action because anything I say that happened, you >>>>>>>>>>> won't believe. Unfortunately, you can't do it yourself >>>>>>>>>>> because System >>>>>>>>>>> Suite 5 is no >>>>>>>>>>> longer available and 8, the new version, isn't as good due >>>>>>>>>>> to the fact >>>>>>>>>>> that someone bought out VCOM and changed the program >>>>>>>>>>> considerably. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is there an echo in here? I removed a slew of errant registry >>>>>>>>> entries and the performance was increased and the boot time >>>>>>>>> decreased. Chances are you don't install and uninstall as many >>>>>>>>> programs as the user of the computer I worked on did. I doubt >>>>>>>>> you let your hard drive accumulate over 4000 fragmented files >>>>>>>>> either. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am also 100% positive that you've never used System Suite 5 >>>>>>>>> and I seriously doubt any of the others who sneer at registry >>>>>>>>> fixers have either. If what you and the others say is true, I >>>>>>>>> would have fuçked up 100s of computers and none, I repeat >>>>>>>>> none, had anything but positive results from using System >>>>>>>>> Suite 5. I have a friend who turned me on to SS5 and he's a >>>>>>>>> repair tech and has used it on thousands of computers with no >>>>>>>>> ill effects, only positive results. So if thousands of >>>>>>>>> instances with 100% success rates isn't good enough for you, >>>>>>>>> find someone with SS5 and install and uninstall a couple of >>>>>>>>> hundred programs, run it and do the tests the way you think >>>>>>>>> they should be done. Either that or STFU. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Alias >>>>>>>>> To email me, remove shoes >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Alias >>>>>>> To email me, remove shoes >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Alias >>>>> To email me, remove shoes
Guest Gerry Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Mike That's because Evasion is his ( or) her middle name! -- Regards. Gerry ~~~~ FCA Stourport, England Enquire, plan and execute ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mike Hall - MVP wrote: > And changing the subject appears to be a specialty of yours when you > are losing. > >
Guest kermittfroggy@gmail.com Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 Re: registry cleaner I'm new to newsgroup postings.. but Alias is right... some times registry cleaners do speed up system performance. In certain situations where programs were calling .dll files that are no longer in the system, windows will attempt to search whatever directories are set as "system directories" until it finds the .dll file. If it cannot find the files its looking for it will time out and move on. I personally use regvacz and it speeds up windows quite nicely, I especially like to run it after a system has been infected by a virus or spyware. It can make a huge difference especially if a system has been in use for years without any maintenance. I've been using regvacz for many years now without a single problem with any pc I've used it on. Of course I back up the registry just in case because its easy enough just to boot up in recovery mode and import the backed up registry file. Believe who ever you want, but I can actually prove that it does speed it up if you need the proof. I have made a log of the entries regvacz has removed and the boot / program start times from before and after regvacz was run. ______ Ralph Cross Benchmark Electronics Network Support Specialist
Guest Ron H Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Agreed. MVP is nothing but a title given to someone who has nothing better to do in life except to work for nothing for Uncle Bill and his Associates. Some of them also troll around here insulting people who give real solutions based on practical experiences. There is no evidence to suggest that MVP have any practical experience except to spend whole day browsing the p o r n sites. A typical MVP is one who is an octogenarian rejected by old peoples homes due to his/her attitude of "knowing it all". Mike Hall - MVP wrote: > > It has nothing to do with MVP. I have held the same views for many years. > Perhaps you would take it better from me if I used my old IBM status? >
Guest Tom [Pepper] Willett Posted October 5, 2007 Posted October 5, 2007 Re: registry cleaner Typical attitude of one who is jealous. "Ron H" <RonH@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:4706A88F.737B072@NEWSGROUPS.COM... | | Agreed. MVP is nothing but a title given to someone who has nothing | better to do in life except to work for nothing for Uncle Bill and his | Associates. Some of them also troll around here insulting people who | give real solutions based on practical experiences. There is no | evidence to suggest that MVP have any practical experience except to | spend whole day browsing the p o r n sites. A typical MVP is one who is | an octogenarian rejected by old peoples homes due to his/her attitude of | "knowing it all". | | | | Mike Hall - MVP wrote: | > | > It has nothing to do with MVP. I have held the same views for many years. | > Perhaps you would take it better from me if I used my old IBM status? | > | |
Guest antioch Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 Re: registry cleaner "Ron H" <RonH@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:4706A88F.737B072@NEWSGROUPS.COM... > > Agreed. MVP is nothing but a title given to someone who has nothing > better to do in life except to work for nothing for Uncle Bill and his A typical MVP is one who is................................................. an octogenarian rejected by old peoples homes due to his/her attitude of "knowing it all". Prat - god help others if you reach that age. Antioch
Guest Bruce Chambers Posted October 6, 2007 Posted October 6, 2007 Re: registry cleaner kermittfroggy@gmail.com wrote: > I'm new to newsgroup postings.. but Alias is right... some times > registry cleaners do speed up system performance. Not in my expoerience. Have you any independent laboratory reports that you can cite to support this opinion. > In certain > situations where programs were calling .dll files that are no longer > in the system, windows will attempt to search whatever directories are > set as "system directories" until it finds the .dll file. If it > cannot find the files its looking for it will time out and move on. True, but that has noithing whatsoever to do with the registry. That's because the path astatement is wrong or the files have been placed in or moved to the wrong locations. > I > personally use regvacz and it speeds up windows quite nicely, I > especially like to run it after a system has been infected by a virus > or spyware. It can make a huge difference especially if a system has > been in use for years without any maintenance. I've been using regvacz > for many years now without a single problem with any pc I've used it > on. Of course I back up the registry just in case because its easy > enough just to boot up in recovery mode and import the backed up > registry file. Believe who ever you want, but I can actually prove > that it does speed it up if you need the proof. I have made a log of > the entries regvacz has removed and the boot / program start times > from before and after regvacz was run. > One person's anecdotal stories aren't particularly convincing. I've crossed the street without looking several times and haven't been hit by a car; that means I can always cross the street without looking? Can you produce verifiable scientific evidence to support your position? I have to tell you that no one else has *ever* been able to do so, starting with Win95. > ______ > > Ralph Cross > Benchmark Electronics > Network Support Specialist > -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. ~ Denis Diderot
Recommended Posts