Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

--

_________

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

news:eduY226rIHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

| I'm going to modify my answer below... Such cases as you cite should be

| generally be scrapped and replaced. If nothing else, as soon as that

system

| connects to any other system, in any manner, it is a *probable* danger to

| others. If it is so obsolete and unsupported and the user was so

| irresponsible that it is really impossible to rebuild, I say thumbs down.

|

| And I've decided that I like your mention of HJT. From what I see, those

few

| Registry Cleaners that aren't pure scam are JUST as dangerous as HJT. Do

you

| recommend the unassisted use of HJT? Would you not scream DANGER!!! if you

| saw it advertised as a user-friendly, idiot-proof tool?

|

| --

| Gary S. Terhune

| MS-MVP Shell/User

|

| "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| news:OfeA8t6rIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

| >

| > "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| > news:%23thP3H6rIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

| >>

| >> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| >> news:OIlgiP4rIHA.3632@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

| >> | I don't use any such add-on and never have. Yes, I suppose they might

| >> have

| >> | come in handy once or twice, but by the time I thought of grabbing

one

| >> for

| >> | the momentary purpose, I was done.

| >> |

| >> | I don't get involved in detailed spyware and virus removal. With

minor

| >> | exceptions, when I encounter a seriously infested machine, I

recommend

| >> a

| >> | full rebuild. Once a machine is infested, I consider it permanently

| >> suspect.

| >> | Besides, it would seem to me that in the case of viruses and spyware

| >> | removal, the experts should already know EXACTLY what spyware and

| >> virus(es)

| >> | they are dealing with and which Registry entries to remove, and even

| >> have

| >> | REG files for the purpose.

| >>

| >> In part you're right, many do have these reg files; however, as these

| >> things

| >> are constantly being modified [variants] the "cleaning tools* are used

to

| >> locate potential entries and or files which *may be* that variant.

| >> Without

| >> the output of these programs, diagnostics becomes just guesses. One

could

| >> even, under the cleaner aspect, rate hijackthis as in the same class,

yet

| >> without this tool many would be at the mercy of any BHO or other, and

| >> experts would be without the tools necessary to help.

| >

| > Can you provide a list of the most popular of these tools? I'm having a

| > hard time associating any of the usually suggested and widely advertised

| > Registry Cleaners with discovery of virus variants.

| >

| >> They can be far more effective than running tweakUI for other styles of

| >> cleanup as well.

| >

| > I never use TUI, either. What kind of cleanup does TUI do? Are we back

to

| > "cleaning" MRUs, etc.?

| >

| >> | If they are GUESSING to the point that they need

| >> | tools to seek out (intelligently, one presumes) just the signs of

crap,

| >> then

| >> | we're back to a full wipe and reinstall AFAIC. Not to be too blunt

| >> about

| >> it,

| >> | but I consider such pastimes precisely that. Pastimes. Just like a

lot

| >> of

| >> | "fixing" that goes on here, say in the networking and DUN sphere, for

| >> | instance, with the interminable and often unresolved threads, all

your

| >> AT

| >> | commands, blah, blah... The way to FIX a DUN problem is almost ALWAYS

| >> to

| >> | remove all networking and related devices and services and let them

| >> | reinstall themselves.

| >> |

| >> | --

| >> | Gary S. Terhune

| >> | MS-MVP Shell/User

| >> | http://www.grystmill.com

| >>

| >> The full wipe would be the safest, I agree; however, that's just not

| >> possible for many users. Either they no longer have the installation

| >> disks

| >> for their applications, or those applications may no longer be

supported

| >> [leaving them with only the installation disk{s}, but no updates]. Then

| >> you

| >> run against many devices which once had drivers and/or updates posted

| >> upon

| >> the manufacturer's site, which may no longer be offered. Granted, one

can

| >> search the NET for them, but that places one in the hands of whatever

is

| >> found.

| >> Yes, users should understand that they should have obtained and saved

| >> these

| >> during the course of their usage, sadly many don't

| >

| > You're starting to get pretty rarified, there. One in ten million?

| >

| > OK, I'll allow that for particular purposes and in the hands of truly

| > experienced techs, one or more of these tools might come in handy, but

| > that small exception doesn't come close to convincing me to desist in my

| > blanket condemnation of such tools in this forum. Read PA's cite for the

| > real skinny.

| >

| >> I think we agreed on the Network issue in the networking forum, and we

| >> did

| >> offer that as the best test solution, and the other factors were to

work

| >> through the potentials associated.

| >

| > HUH!?!

| >

| > --

| > Gary S. Terhune

| > MS-MVP Shell/User

| > http://www.grystmill.com

| >

| >>

| >> --

| >> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| >> --

| >> _________

| >>

| >> |

| >> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| >> | news:eQZZwCzrIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

| >> | > I'll put the response here, rather than go through all the postings

| >> for

| >> | > individual responses...

| >> | >

| >> | > Locating the issue areas is the primary purpose for which I use the

| >> | > programs for, though I have tested them extensively, which is why I

| >> | > caution

| >> | > not to use the auto cleanup.

| >> | >

| >> | > But for the rest, I suggest a perusal through the archives of this

| >> group;

| >> | > remind the parties of their postings; and direct to the SpyWare and

| >> Virus

| >> | > removal forums and sites.

| >> | > These tools [ccleaner, regseeker, and others] are used regularly

| >> during

| >> | > the

| >> | > process. Granted, under the guidance of people familiar with them

and

| >> the

| >> | > registry, but certainly are used far more often than suggesting

| >> manual

| >> | > editing. Moreover, who in here, doesn't have their favorite regedit

| >> addin

| >> | > or

| >> | > replacement that they use because of the limited capabilities of

the

| >> basic

| >> | > regedit. Is there anyone still that far in the mud?

| >> | >

| >> | > So my statement stands, careful application of these cleaners can

be

| >> of

| >> | > use, but not to those who fail to take the time to understand them.

| >> | >

| >> | > --

| >> | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| >> | > --

| >> | > _________

| >> | >

| >> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| >> | > news:uJJ8wpwrIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

| >> | > | Please provide documentation of Registry bloat causing any

| >> significant

| >> | > | failures". Only such thing I've heard of is SCANREG /FIX failing

to

| >> run

| >> | > on

| >> | > a

| >> | > | large Registry. BFD.

| >> | > |

| >> | > | Yes, sometimes the Registry needs work, usually after a

wide-spread

| >> | > disaster

| >> | > | involving the user doing something that shouldn't have been done,

| >> but

| >> | > only

| >> | > | an expert is likely to know for sure, and while tools *might*

| >> locate a

| >> | > few

| >> | > | of those entries, you know better than most, I think, how much of

| >> any

| >> | > real

| >> | > | Registry *REPAIR*, as opposed to "cleaning", is a painstaking

| >> MANUAL

| >> | > search

| >> | > | and research procedure that few if any tools do well at all.

| >> | > |

| >> | > | I used them regularly for several years, to find "crap" and

delete

| >> it,

| >> | > | ALWAYS having to refuse the deletion of some things I had learned

| >> | > weren't

| >> | > a

| >> | > | good idea to remove (or were unimportant MRUs, etc.), and after

| >> many

| >> | > years

| >> | > | of such experience, I arrived at the stance I take now. I've

never

| >> once

| >> | > had

| >> | > | any success helping anyone else by having them run any Registry

| >> tools,

| >> | > | whereas I have several times dealt with people who were screwed

by

| >> their

| >> | > | Registry tools, even the same ones I'd been using and thought

were

| >> | > | "idiot-proof".

| >> | > |

| >> | > | --

| >> | > | Gary S. Terhune

| >> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

| >> | > | http://www.grystmill.com

| >> | > |

| >> | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| >> | > | news:OnaPSovrIHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

| >> | > | > Ah gosh I hate to do this, BUT,,,,

| >> | > | >

| >> | > | > As we all know, the registry can become quite bloated with

| >> entries

| >> | > which

| >> | > | > relate to nothing of value, from MRU lists to applications

which

| >> fill

| >> | > the

| >> | > | > registry with open files which no longer exist, to applications

| >> | > supposedly

| >> | > | > removed but actually leave, at times, countless worthless

| >> entries;

| >> to

| >> | > any

| >> | > | > number of other things which aren't need, or may have somehow

| >> been

| >> | > changed

| >> | > | > at sometime.

| >> | > | > We also know or should know that the registry will FAIL or be

| >> prone

| >> to

| >> | > | > failure after exceeding a certain size [parsing issues]....

which

| >> then

| >> | > | > becomes an issue which may affect recoverability in a time of

| >> crisis.

| >> | > | >

| >> | > | > All the MVP that I have observed here, have, at some time,

posted

| >> | > methods

| >> | > | > to clean errant registry entries, compact the registry, and

| >> otherwise

| >> | > work

| >> | > | > upon the registry... They also have repeatedly advised, when

| >> | > confronted

| >> | > | > with

| >> | > | > ghost entries, bad drivers or applications or otherwise,,

advised

| >> HOW

| >> | > to

| >> | > | > *manually* search the registry to *clean it*.

| >> | > | >

| >> | > | > I personally have used [and still use] several tools to clean

the

| >> | > | > registry,

| >> | > | > which IF PROPERLY USED can be relied upon to make a system lean

| >> and

| >> | > | > mean,,,

| >> | > | > but the key is PROPERLY USED... ANY use of a cleaner should be

| >> taken

| >> | > with

| >> | > | > *a

| >> | > | > grain of salt*. AUTOMATIC cleaning is not a good idea. IF the

| >> user

| >> is

| >> | > | > unfamiliar with the registry, then damage will likely occur.

IF,

| >> on

| >> | > the

| >> | > | > other hand, the user familiarizes theirselves with the

registry,

| >> makes

| >> | > an

| >> | > | > effort to first increase their knowledge of the entries by

| >> searching

| >> | > first

| >> | > | > to see if they ARE un-needed PRIOR to removal, then the desired

| >> | > results

| >> | > | > can

| >> | > | > be achieved.

| >> | > | >

| >> | > | > Never overlook the KEY, that personal knowledge and

understanding

| >> is

| >> | > YOUR

| >> | > | > responsibility. OR stay away from these cleaners as they MIGHT

| >> cause

| >> | > more

| >> | > | > harm than good.

| >> | > | >

| >> | > | > These things ARE after all, relied upon quite heavily during

| >> cleanup

| >> | > | > activities from SpyWare, Virus, and other such activities...

| >> | > | >

| >> | > | > --

| >> | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| >> | > | > --

| >> | > | > _________

| >> | > | >

| >> | > | > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

| >> | > | > news:O18TzSurIHA.5060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

| >> | > | > | letterman@invalid.com wrote:

| >> | > | > | > On Mon, 5 May 2008 08:54:57 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none>

| >> wrote:

| >> | > | > | >

| >> | > | > | >> ALL registry cleaners are VERY dangerous to your system,

and

| >> will

| >> | > | > | >> actually

| >> | > | > | >> FIX a problem, even just "slowness", approximately NEVER.

| >> | > | > | >

| >> | > | > | > I run Regseeker regularly and never had a problem. I have

| >> never

| >> | > seen

| >> | > | > | > it fix any problems, but it does remove a lot of useless

| >> junk.

| >> | > | > | > Without such programs, it seems to me that the registry

would

| >> get

| >> | > so

| >> | > | > | > huge that it would be crash prone. For example, lets say I

| >> | > created

| >> | > a

| >> | > | > | > folder called "JUNK". I used that folder to temporarily

| >> place a

| >> | > bunch

| >> | > | > | > of things I find on my hard drive, which are everything

from

| >> text,

| >> | > or

| >> | > | > | > Wordpad notes, to downloaded pictures, file downloads, etc.

| >> Then

| >> | > I

| >> | > | > | > begin sorting out the junk, and use winzip to open many of

| >> the

| >> | > | > | > downloads, and some photo viewer to look at the pictures,

and

| >> | > Wordpad

| >> | > | > | > to look at many of the notes. ALL of these things are

| >> documented

| >> | > in

| >> | > | > | > the registry. Wordpad, Winzip, Photo Viewers all store

| >> "recently

| >> | > | > | > opened files".

| >> | > | > | >

| >> | > | > | > Eventually I get everything put on a CD or other media and

I

| >> | > delete

| >> | > | > | > the "Junk" folder. Then I remove several of the demo

| >> downloads

| >> I

| >> | > | > tried.

| >> | > | > | >

| >> | > | > | > Running Regseeker finds multiple references to that JUNK

| >> folder,

| >> | > | > | > references to Winzip, Wordpad, etc opening files, and many

| >> things

| >> | > | > | > relating to the demos I tried and removed. All of that is

| >> removed

| >> | > | > | > from the registry, thus keeping it small and clean. Of

| >> course I

| >> | > | > | > always read what is being cleaned (removed). 99.9% of the

| >> time

| >> | > it's

| >> | > | > | > just this old stuff that is not needed or wanted.

| >> | > | > | >

| >> | > | > | > So how can you say that Reg cleaners are dangerous and

should

| >> not

| >> | > be

| >> | > | > | > used.

| >> | > | > |

| >> | > | > | Because he (and a few others here) know what they're talking

| >> about.

| >> | > | > |

| >> | > | > | > I do agree to be careful what is being removed, but without

| >> | > | > | > them the registry will become a pile of useless garbage.

| >> | > | > |

| >> | > | > | Nonsense.

| >> | > | > |

| >> | > | >

| >> | > |

| >> | >

| >> |

| >>

| >

|

May 7, 2008

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Bottom line: these "registry cleaning" programs are of limited use in

capable hands, and that's it. (even the old MS regclean program had some

problems - BTDT)

(That doesn't mean they are of NO use, however).

And, like I said, if someone hasn't at least used regedit before, they

really are not in the league to be messing around with these programs,

because the consequences of running such "registry cleaning" programs can

be, and often are, *truly* dire (and in some cases, even necessating a

complete reinstall of Windows).

MEB wrote:

> Of course, but they are tools none the less. So naturally I like my

> statement better. At least it doesn't make me sound like NONE of them are

> worthy of use, just that the user should be aware of what can happen when

> used without knowledge.

>

> I have placed several "oh no" posts here when help is needed AFTER

> misuse..

>

> --

> --

> _________

>

> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> news:eduY226rIHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> I'm going to modify my answer below... Such cases as you cite should be

>> generally be scrapped and replaced. If nothing else, as soon as that

>> system

>> connects to any other system, in any manner, it is a *probable* danger to

>> others. If it is so obsolete and unsupported and the user was so

>> irresponsible that it is really impossible to rebuild, I say thumbs down.

>>

>> And I've decided that I like your mention of HJT. From what I see, those

>> few

>> Registry Cleaners that aren't pure scam are JUST as dangerous as HJT. Do

>> you

>> recommend the unassisted use of HJT? Would you not scream DANGER!!! if

>> you

>> saw it advertised as a user-friendly, idiot-proof tool?

>>

>> --

>> Gary S. Terhune

>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>> http://www.grystmill.com

>>

>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>> news:OfeA8t6rIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>

>>> "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:%23thP3H6rIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>>

>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>>>> news:OIlgiP4rIHA.3632@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>> I don't use any such add-on and never have. Yes, I suppose they might

>>>>> have

>>>>> come in handy once or twice, but by the time I thought of grabbing one

>>>>> for

>>>>> the momentary purpose, I was done.

>>>>>

>>>>> I don't get involved in detailed spyware and virus removal. With minor

>>>>> exceptions, when I encounter a seriously infested machine, I recommend

>>>>> a

>>>>> full rebuild. Once a machine is infested, I consider it permanently

>>>>> suspect. Besides, it would seem to me that in the case of viruses and

>>>>> spyware removal, the experts should already know EXACTLY what spyware

>>>>> and

>>>>> virus(es) they are dealing with and which Registry entries to remove,

>>>>> and

>>>>> even have REG files for the purpose.

>>>>

>>>> In part you're right, many do have these reg files; however, as these

>>>> things

>>>> are constantly being modified [variants] the "cleaning tools* are used

>>>> to

>>>> locate potential entries and or files which *may be* that variant.

>>>> Without

>>>> the output of these programs, diagnostics becomes just guesses. One

>>>> could

>>>> even, under the cleaner aspect, rate hijackthis as in the same class,

>>>> yet

>>>> without this tool many would be at the mercy of any BHO or other, and

>>>> experts would be without the tools necessary to help.

>>>

>>> Can you provide a list of the most popular of these tools? I'm having a

>>> hard time associating any of the usually suggested and widely advertised

>>> Registry Cleaners with discovery of virus variants.

>>>

>>>> They can be far more effective than running tweakUI for other styles of

>>>> cleanup as well.

>>>

>>> I never use TUI, either. What kind of cleanup does TUI do? Are we back

>>> to

>>> "cleaning" MRUs, etc.?

>>>

>>>>> If they are GUESSING to the point that they need

>>>>> tools to seek out (intelligently, one presumes) just the signs of

>>>>> crap,

>>>>> then we're back to a full wipe and reinstall AFAIC. Not to be too

>>>>> blunt

>>>> about

>>>> it,

>>>>> but I consider such pastimes precisely that. Pastimes. Just like a lot

>>>>> of

>>>>> "fixing" that goes on here, say in the networking and DUN sphere, for

>>>>> instance, with the interminable and often unresolved threads, all your

>>>>> AT

>>>>> commands, blah, blah... The way to FIX a DUN problem is almost ALWAYS

>>>>> to

>>>>> remove all networking and related devices and services and let them

>>>>> reinstall themselves.

>>>>>

>>>>> --

>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com

>>>>

>>>> The full wipe would be the safest, I agree; however, that's just not

>>>> possible for many users. Either they no longer have the installation

>>>> disks

>>>> for their applications, or those applications may no longer be

>>>> supported

>>>> [leaving them with only the installation disk{s}, but no updates]. Then

>>>> you

>>>> run against many devices which once had drivers and/or updates posted

>>>> upon

>>>> the manufacturer's site, which may no longer be offered. Granted, one

>>>> can

>>>> search the NET for them, but that places one in the hands of whatever

>>>> is

>>>> found.

>>>> Yes, users should understand that they should have obtained and saved

>>>> these

>>>> during the course of their usage, sadly many don't

>>>

>>> You're starting to get pretty rarified, there. One in ten million?

>>>

>>> OK, I'll allow that for particular purposes and in the hands of truly

>>> experienced techs, one or more of these tools might come in handy, but

>>> that small exception doesn't come close to convincing me to desist in my

>>> blanket condemnation of such tools in this forum. Read PA's cite for the

>>> real skinny.

>>>

>>>> I think we agreed on the Network issue in the networking forum, and we

>>>> did

>>>> offer that as the best test solution, and the other factors were to

>>>> work

>>>> through the potentials associated.

>>>

>>> HUH!?!

>>>

>>> --

>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>> http://www.grystmill.com

>>>

>>>>

>>>> --

>>>> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

>>>> --

>>>> _________

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:eQZZwCzrIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>>> I'll put the response here, rather than go through all the postings

>>>>>> for

>>>>>> individual responses...

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Locating the issue areas is the primary purpose for which I use the

>>>>>> programs for, though I have tested them extensively, which is why I

>>>>>> caution

>>>>>> not to use the auto cleanup.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> But for the rest, I suggest a perusal through the archives of this

>>>>>> group;

>>>>>> remind the parties of their postings; and direct to the SpyWare and

>>>>>> Virus

>>>>>> removal forums and sites.

>>>>>> These tools [ccleaner, regseeker, and others] are used regularly

>>>>>> during

>>>>>> the

>>>>>> process. Granted, under the guidance of people familiar with them and

>>>>>> the

>>>>>> registry, but certainly are used far more often than suggesting

>>>>>> manual

>>>>>> editing. Moreover, who in here, doesn't have their favorite regedit

>>>>>> addin

>>>>>> or

>>>>>> replacement that they use because of the limited capabilities of the

>>>>>> basic regedit. Is there anyone still that far in the mud?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> So my statement stands, careful application of these cleaners can be

>>>>>> of

>>>>>> use, but not to those who fail to take the time to understand them.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> --

>>>>>> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

>>>>>> --

>>>>>> _________

>>>>>>

>>>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:uJJ8wpwrIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>> Please provide documentation of Registry bloat causing any

>>>>>>> significant

>>>>>>> failures". Only such thing I've heard of is SCANREG /FIX failing

> to

>>>> run

>>>>>> on

>>>>>> a

>>>>>>> large Registry. BFD.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Yes, sometimes the Registry needs work, usually after a wide-spread

>>>>>>> disaster involving the user doing something that shouldn't have been

>>>>>>> done, but only an expert is likely to know for sure, and while tools

>>>>>>> *might* locate a few of those entries, you know better than most, I

>>>>>>> think, how much of any real Registry *REPAIR*, as opposed to

>>>>>>> "cleaning", is a painstaking MANUAL search and research procedure

>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>> few if any tools do well at all.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I used them regularly for several years, to find "crap" and delete

>>>>>>> it,

>>>>>>> ALWAYS having to refuse the deletion of some things I had learned

>>>>>> weren't

>>>>>> a

>>>>>>> good idea to remove (or were unimportant MRUs, etc.), and after many

>>>>>>> years of such experience, I arrived at the stance I take now. I've

> never

>>>> once

>>>>>> had

>>>>>>> any success helping anyone else by having them run any Registry

>>>>>>> tools,

>>>>>>> whereas I have several times dealt with people who were screwed by

>>>>>>> their

>>>>>>> Registry tools, even the same ones I'd been using and thought were

>>>>>>> "idiot-proof".

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:OnaPSovrIHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>> Ah gosh I hate to do this, BUT,,,,

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> As we all know, the registry can become quite bloated with entries

>>>>>>>> which relate to nothing of value, from MRU lists to applications

> which

>>>> fill

>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>> registry with open files which no longer exist, to applications

>>>>>>>> supposedly removed but actually leave, at times, countless

>>>>>>>> worthless

>>>> entries;

>>>> to

>>>>>> any

>>>>>>>> number of other things which aren't need, or may have somehow been

>>>>>>>> changed at sometime.

>>>>>>>> We also know or should know that the registry will FAIL or be

>>>> prone

>>>> to

>>>>>>>> failure after exceeding a certain size [parsing issues].... which

>>>>>>>> then

>>>>>>>> becomes an issue which may affect recoverability in a time of

>>>>>>>> crisis.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> All the MVP that I have observed here, have, at some time, posted

>>>>>>>> methods to clean errant registry entries, compact the registry, and

>>>>>>>> otherwise work upon the registry... They also have repeatedly

>>>>>>>> advised,

>>>>>>>> when confronted with

>>>>>>>> ghost entries, bad drivers or applications or otherwise,,

> advised

>>>> HOW

>>>>>> to

>>>>>>>> *manually* search the registry to *clean it*.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> I personally have used [and still use] several tools to clean the

>>>>>>>> registry,

>>>>>>>> which IF PROPERLY USED can be relied upon to make a system lean and

>>>>>>>> mean,,,

>>>>>>>> but the key is PROPERLY USED... ANY use of a cleaner should be

>>>>>>>> taken

>>>>>>>> with *a

>>>>>>>> grain of salt*. AUTOMATIC cleaning is not a good idea. IF the

>>>> user

>>>> is

>>>>>>>> unfamiliar with the registry, then damage will likely occur.

> IF,

>>>> on

>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>> other hand, the user familiarizes theirselves with the

> registry,

>>>> makes

>>>>>> an

>>>>>>>> effort to first increase their knowledge of the entries by

>>>>>>>> searching

>>>>>>>> first to see if they ARE un-needed PRIOR to removal, then the

>>>>>>>> desired

>>>>>>>> results can

>>>>>>>> be achieved.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Never overlook the KEY, that personal knowledge and

> understanding

>>>> is

>>>>>> YOUR

>>>>>>>> responsibility. OR stay away from these cleaners as they MIGHT

>>>>>>>> cause

>>>>>>>> more harm than good.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> These things ARE after all, relied upon quite heavily during

>>>>>>>> cleanup

>>>>>>>> activities from SpyWare, Virus, and other such activities...

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>> _________

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:O18TzSurIHA.5060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>> letterman@invalid.com wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 May 2008 08:54:57 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none>

>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> ALL registry cleaners are VERY dangerous to your system, and

>>>>>>>>>>> will

>>>>>>>>>>> actually

>>>>>>>>>>> FIX a problem, even just "slowness", approximately NEVER.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> I run Regseeker regularly and never had a problem. I have never

>>>>>>>>>> seen

>>>>>>>>>> it fix any problems, but it does remove a lot of useless junk.

>>>>>>>>>> Without such programs, it seems to me that the registry

> would

>>>> get

>>>>>> so

>>>>>>>>>> huge that it would be crash prone. For example, lets say I

>>>>>> created

>>>>>> a

>>>>>>>>>> folder called "JUNK". I used that folder to temporarily place a

>>>>>>>>>> bunch of things I find on my hard drive, which are everything

> from

>>>> text,

>>>>>> or

>>>>>>>>>> Wordpad notes, to downloaded pictures, file downloads, etc. Then

>>>>>>>>>> I

>>>>>>>>>> begin sorting out the junk, and use winzip to open many of the

>>>>>>>>>> downloads, and some photo viewer to look at the pictures, and

>>>>>>>>>> Wordpad

>>>>>>>>>> to look at many of the notes. ALL of these things are documented

>>>>>>>>>> in

>>>>>>>>>> the registry. Wordpad, Winzip, Photo Viewers all store "recently

>>>>>>>>>> opened files".

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Eventually I get everything put on a CD or other media and I

>>>>>>>>>> delete

>>>>>>>>>> the "Junk" folder. Then I remove several of the demo

>>>> downloads

>>>> I

>>>>>>>> tried.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Running Regseeker finds multiple references to that JUNK folder,

>>>>>>>>>> references to Winzip, Wordpad, etc opening files, and many things

>>>>>>>>>> relating to the demos I tried and removed. All of that is

>>>>>>>>>> removed

>>>>>>>>>> from the registry, thus keeping it small and clean. Of course I

>>>>>>>>>> always read what is being cleaned (removed). 99.9% of the time

>>>>>>>>>> it's

>>>>>>>>>> just this old stuff that is not needed or wanted.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> So how can you say that Reg cleaners are dangerous and

> should

>>>> not

>>>>>> be

>>>>>>>>>> used.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Because he (and a few others here) know what they're talking

>>>>>>>>> about.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> I do agree to be careful what is being removed, but without

>>>>>>>>>> them the registry will become a pile of useless garbage.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Nonsense.

May 7, 2008

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Yes, but the "good" uses you propose have nothing to do with the advertised

intended use of the tools, and your examples depend on machines too decrepit

to be worth the effort, AFAIC.

If the Registry is in such a state that it needs "cleaning", the tools will

do little if anything to help. In short, as a generally true statement,

proven over and over again, Registry Cleaners are dangerous and worthless.

Please read PA's reference to the Aumha.net thread wherein realities are

revealed after much testing. Hell, the most I've seen tagged by such a

program were several hundred entries (so called "empty" CLSIDs?), which are

a drop in the bucket compared to the entire Registry. In all, except the

most decrepit Windows 98 machine, those entries are perfectly harmless.

Note, too, that "empty" CLSIDs were put there by someone, presumably with

certain future situations in mind. IOW, the context may be missing that

would explain why the CLSID is there in the first place. IOW, if a

programmer put something in the Registry, my suggestion is that you leave it

there, since you have no ide3a what purpose it might be serving, even if

that purpose "breaks the rules" on proper Registry use.

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:O9RLrtAsIHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Of course, but they are tools none the less. So naturally I like my

> statement better. At least it doesn't make me sound like NONE of them are

> worthy of use, just that the user should be aware of what can happen when

> used without knowledge.

>

> I have placed several "oh no" posts here when help is needed AFTER

> misuse..

>

> --

> --

> _________

>

> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> news:eduY226rIHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> | I'm going to modify my answer below... Such cases as you cite should be

> | generally be scrapped and replaced. If nothing else, as soon as that

> system

> | connects to any other system, in any manner, it is a *probable* danger

> to

> | others. If it is so obsolete and unsupported and the user was so

> | irresponsible that it is really impossible to rebuild, I say thumbs

> down.

> |

> | And I've decided that I like your mention of HJT. From what I see, those

> few

> | Registry Cleaners that aren't pure scam are JUST as dangerous as HJT. Do

> you

> | recommend the unassisted use of HJT? Would you not scream DANGER!!! if

> you

> | saw it advertised as a user-friendly, idiot-proof tool?

> |

> | --

> | Gary S. Terhune

> | MS-MVP Shell/User

> |

> | "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> | news:OfeA8t6rIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> | >

> | > "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> | > news:%23thP3H6rIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> | >>

> | >> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> | >> news:OIlgiP4rIHA.3632@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> | >> | I don't use any such add-on and never have. Yes, I suppose they

> might

> | >> have

> | >> | come in handy once or twice, but by the time I thought of grabbing

> one

> | >> for

> | >> | the momentary purpose, I was done.

> | >> |

> | >> | I don't get involved in detailed spyware and virus removal. With

> minor

> | >> | exceptions, when I encounter a seriously infested machine, I

> recommend

> | >> a

> | >> | full rebuild. Once a machine is infested, I consider it permanently

> | >> suspect.

> | >> | Besides, it would seem to me that in the case of viruses and

> spyware

> | >> | removal, the experts should already know EXACTLY what spyware and

> | >> virus(es)

> | >> | they are dealing with and which Registry entries to remove, and

> even

> | >> have

> | >> | REG files for the purpose.

> | >>

> | >> In part you're right, many do have these reg files; however, as these

> | >> things

> | >> are constantly being modified [variants] the "cleaning tools* are

> used

> to

> | >> locate potential entries and or files which *may be* that variant.

> | >> Without

> | >> the output of these programs, diagnostics becomes just guesses. One

> could

> | >> even, under the cleaner aspect, rate hijackthis as in the same class,

> yet

> | >> without this tool many would be at the mercy of any BHO or other, and

> | >> experts would be without the tools necessary to help.

> | >

> | > Can you provide a list of the most popular of these tools? I'm having

> a

> | > hard time associating any of the usually suggested and widely

> advertised

> | > Registry Cleaners with discovery of virus variants.

> | >

> | >> They can be far more effective than running tweakUI for other styles

> of

> | >> cleanup as well.

> | >

> | > I never use TUI, either. What kind of cleanup does TUI do? Are we back

> to

> | > "cleaning" MRUs, etc.?

> | >

> | >> | If they are GUESSING to the point that they need

> | >> | tools to seek out (intelligently, one presumes) just the signs of

> crap,

> | >> then

> | >> | we're back to a full wipe and reinstall AFAIC. Not to be too blunt

> | >> about

> | >> it,

> | >> | but I consider such pastimes precisely that. Pastimes. Just like a

> lot

> | >> of

> | >> | "fixing" that goes on here, say in the networking and DUN sphere,

> for

> | >> | instance, with the interminable and often unresolved threads, all

> your

> | >> AT

> | >> | commands, blah, blah... The way to FIX a DUN problem is almost

> ALWAYS

> | >> to

> | >> | remove all networking and related devices and services and let them

> | >> | reinstall themselves.

> | >> |

> | >> | --

> | >> | Gary S. Terhune

> | >> | MS-MVP Shell/User

> | >> | http://www.grystmill.com

> | >>

> | >> The full wipe would be the safest, I agree; however, that's just not

> | >> possible for many users. Either they no longer have the installation

> | >> disks

> | >> for their applications, or those applications may no longer be

> supported

> | >> [leaving them with only the installation disk{s}, but no updates].

> Then

> | >> you

> | >> run against many devices which once had drivers and/or updates posted

> | >> upon

> | >> the manufacturer's site, which may no longer be offered. Granted, one

> can

> | >> search the NET for them, but that places one in the hands of whatever

> is

> | >> found.

> | >> Yes, users should understand that they should have obtained and saved

> | >> these

> | >> during the course of their usage, sadly many don't

> | >

> | > You're starting to get pretty rarified, there. One in ten million?

> | >

> | > OK, I'll allow that for particular purposes and in the hands of truly

> | > experienced techs, one or more of these tools might come in handy, but

> | > that small exception doesn't come close to convincing me to desist in

> my

> | > blanket condemnation of such tools in this forum. Read PA's cite for

> the

> | > real skinny.

> | >

> | >> I think we agreed on the Network issue in the networking forum, and

> we

> | >> did

> | >> offer that as the best test solution, and the other factors were to

> work

> | >> through the potentials associated.

> | >

> | > HUH!?!

> | >

> | > --

> | > Gary S. Terhune

> | > MS-MVP Shell/User

> | > http://www.grystmill.com

> | >

> | >>

> | >> --

> | >> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

> | >> --

> | >> _________

> | >>

> | >> |

> | >> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> | >> | news:eQZZwCzrIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> | >> | > I'll put the response here, rather than go through all the

> postings

> | >> for

> | >> | > individual responses...

> | >> | >

> | >> | > Locating the issue areas is the primary purpose for which I use

> the

> | >> | > programs for, though I have tested them extensively, which is why

> I

> | >> | > caution

> | >> | > not to use the auto cleanup.

> | >> | >

> | >> | > But for the rest, I suggest a perusal through the archives of

> this

> | >> group;

> | >> | > remind the parties of their postings; and direct to the SpyWare

> and

> | >> Virus

> | >> | > removal forums and sites.

> | >> | > These tools [ccleaner, regseeker, and others] are used regularly

> | >> during

> | >> | > the

> | >> | > process. Granted, under the guidance of people familiar with them

> and

> | >> the

> | >> | > registry, but certainly are used far more often than suggesting

> | >> manual

> | >> | > editing. Moreover, who in here, doesn't have their favorite

> regedit

> | >> addin

> | >> | > or

> | >> | > replacement that they use because of the limited capabilities of

> the

> | >> basic

> | >> | > regedit. Is there anyone still that far in the mud?

> | >> | >

> | >> | > So my statement stands, careful application of these cleaners can

> be

> | >> of

> | >> | > use, but not to those who fail to take the time to understand

> them.

> | >> | >

> | >> | > --

> | >> | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

> | >> | > --

> | >> | > _________

> | >> | >

> | >> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> | >> | > news:uJJ8wpwrIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> | >> | > | Please provide documentation of Registry bloat causing any

> | >> significant

> | >> | > | failures". Only such thing I've heard of is SCANREG /FIX

> failing

> to

> | >> run

> | >> | > on

> | >> | > a

> | >> | > | large Registry. BFD.

> | >> | > |

> | >> | > | Yes, sometimes the Registry needs work, usually after a

> wide-spread

> | >> | > disaster

> | >> | > | involving the user doing something that shouldn't have been

> done,

> | >> but

> | >> | > only

> | >> | > | an expert is likely to know for sure, and while tools *might*

> | >> locate a

> | >> | > few

> | >> | > | of those entries, you know better than most, I think, how much

> of

> | >> any

> | >> | > real

> | >> | > | Registry *REPAIR*, as opposed to "cleaning", is a painstaking

> | >> MANUAL

> | >> | > search

> | >> | > | and research procedure that few if any tools do well at all.

> | >> | > |

> | >> | > | I used them regularly for several years, to find "crap" and

> delete

> | >> it,

> | >> | > | ALWAYS having to refuse the deletion of some things I had

> learned

> | >> | > weren't

> | >> | > a

> | >> | > | good idea to remove (or were unimportant MRUs, etc.), and after

> | >> many

> | >> | > years

> | >> | > | of such experience, I arrived at the stance I take now. I've

> never

> | >> once

> | >> | > had

> | >> | > | any success helping anyone else by having them run any Registry

> | >> tools,

> | >> | > | whereas I have several times dealt with people who were screwed

> by

> | >> their

> | >> | > | Registry tools, even the same ones I'd been using and thought

> were

> | >> | > | "idiot-proof".

> | >> | > |

> | >> | > | --

> | >> | > | Gary S. Terhune

> | >> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

> | >> | > | http://www.grystmill.com

> | >> | > |

> | >> | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> | >> | > | news:OnaPSovrIHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> | >> | > | > Ah gosh I hate to do this, BUT,,,,

> | >> | > | >

> | >> | > | > As we all know, the registry can become quite bloated with

> | >> entries

> | >> | > which

> | >> | > | > relate to nothing of value, from MRU lists to applications

> which

> | >> fill

> | >> | > the

> | >> | > | > registry with open files which no longer exist, to

> applications

> | >> | > supposedly

> | >> | > | > removed but actually leave, at times, countless worthless

> | >> entries;

> | >> to

> | >> | > any

> | >> | > | > number of other things which aren't need, or may have somehow

> | >> been

> | >> | > changed

> | >> | > | > at sometime.

> | >> | > | > We also know or should know that the registry will FAIL or be

> | >> prone

> | >> to

> | >> | > | > failure after exceeding a certain size [parsing issues]....

> which

> | >> then

> | >> | > | > becomes an issue which may affect recoverability in a time of

> | >> crisis.

> | >> | > | >

> | >> | > | > All the MVP that I have observed here, have, at some time,

> posted

> | >> | > methods

> | >> | > | > to clean errant registry entries, compact the registry, and

> | >> otherwise

> | >> | > work

> | >> | > | > upon the registry... They also have repeatedly advised, when

> | >> | > confronted

> | >> | > | > with

> | >> | > | > ghost entries, bad drivers or applications or otherwise,,

> advised

> | >> HOW

> | >> | > to

> | >> | > | > *manually* search the registry to *clean it*.

> | >> | > | >

> | >> | > | > I personally have used [and still use] several tools to clean

> the

> | >> | > | > registry,

> | >> | > | > which IF PROPERLY USED can be relied upon to make a system

> lean

> | >> and

> | >> | > | > mean,,,

> | >> | > | > but the key is PROPERLY USED... ANY use of a cleaner should

> be

> | >> taken

> | >> | > with

> | >> | > | > *a

> | >> | > | > grain of salt*. AUTOMATIC cleaning is not a good idea. IF

> the

> | >> user

> | >> is

> | >> | > | > unfamiliar with the registry, then damage will likely occur.

> IF,

> | >> on

> | >> | > the

> | >> | > | > other hand, the user familiarizes theirselves with the

> registry,

> | >> makes

> | >> | > an

> | >> | > | > effort to first increase their knowledge of the entries by

> | >> searching

> | >> | > first

> | >> | > | > to see if they ARE un-needed PRIOR to removal, then the

> desired

> | >> | > results

> | >> | > | > can

> | >> | > | > be achieved.

> | >> | > | >

> | >> | > | > Never overlook the KEY, that personal knowledge and

> understanding

> | >> is

> | >> | > YOUR

> | >> | > | > responsibility. OR stay away from these cleaners as they

> MIGHT

> | >> cause

> | >> | > more

> | >> | > | > harm than good.

> | >> | > | >

> | >> | > | > These things ARE after all, relied upon quite heavily during

> | >> cleanup

> | >> | > | > activities from SpyWare, Virus, and other such activities...

> | >> | > | >

> | >> | > | > --

> | >> | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

> | >> | > | > --

> | >> | > | > _________

> | >> | > | >

> | >> | > | > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in

> message

> | >> | > | > news:O18TzSurIHA.5060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> | >> | > | > | letterman@invalid.com wrote:

> | >> | > | > | > On Mon, 5 May 2008 08:54:57 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune"

> <none>

> | >> wrote:

> | >> | > | > | >

> | >> | > | > | >> ALL registry cleaners are VERY dangerous to your system,

> and

> | >> will

> | >> | > | > | >> actually

> | >> | > | > | >> FIX a problem, even just "slowness", approximately

> NEVER.

> | >> | > | > | >

> | >> | > | > | > I run Regseeker regularly and never had a problem. I

> have

> | >> never

> | >> | > seen

> | >> | > | > | > it fix any problems, but it does remove a lot of useless

> | >> junk.

> | >> | > | > | > Without such programs, it seems to me that the registry

> would

> | >> get

> | >> | > so

> | >> | > | > | > huge that it would be crash prone. For example, lets say

> I

> | >> | > created

> | >> | > a

> | >> | > | > | > folder called "JUNK". I used that folder to temporarily

> | >> place a

> | >> | > bunch

> | >> | > | > | > of things I find on my hard drive, which are everything

> from

> | >> text,

> | >> | > or

> | >> | > | > | > Wordpad notes, to downloaded pictures, file downloads,

> etc.

> | >> Then

> | >> | > I

> | >> | > | > | > begin sorting out the junk, and use winzip to open many

> of

> | >> the

> | >> | > | > | > downloads, and some photo viewer to look at the pictures,

> and

> | >> | > Wordpad

> | >> | > | > | > to look at many of the notes. ALL of these things are

> | >> documented

> | >> | > in

> | >> | > | > | > the registry. Wordpad, Winzip, Photo Viewers all store

> | >> "recently

> | >> | > | > | > opened files".

> | >> | > | > | >

> | >> | > | > | > Eventually I get everything put on a CD or other media

> and

> I

> | >> | > delete

> | >> | > | > | > the "Junk" folder. Then I remove several of the demo

> | >> downloads

> | >> I

> | >> | > | > tried.

> | >> | > | > | >

> | >> | > | > | > Running Regseeker finds multiple references to that JUNK

> | >> folder,

> | >> | > | > | > references to Winzip, Wordpad, etc opening files, and

> many

> | >> things

> | >> | > | > | > relating to the demos I tried and removed. All of that

> is

> | >> removed

> | >> | > | > | > from the registry, thus keeping it small and clean. Of

> | >> course I

> | >> | > | > | > always read what is being cleaned (removed). 99.9% of

> the

> | >> time

> | >> | > it's

> | >> | > | > | > just this old stuff that is not needed or wanted.

> | >> | > | > | >

> | >> | > | > | > So how can you say that Reg cleaners are dangerous and

> should

> | >> not

> | >> | > be

> | >> | > | > | > used.

> | >> | > | > |

> | >> | > | > | Because he (and a few others here) know what they're

> talking

> | >> about.

> | >> | > | > |

> | >> | > | > | > I do agree to be careful what is being removed, but

> without

> | >> | > | > | > them the registry will become a pile of useless garbage.

> | >> | > | > |

> | >> | > | > | Nonsense.

> | >> | > | > |

> | >> | > | >

> | >> | > |

> | >> | >

> | >> |

> | >>

> | >

> |

>

May 7, 2008

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Aw Gary, too decrepit??? That's like telling everyone to buy new

computers...

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

news:eLILfVGsIHA.5872@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

| Yes, but the "good" uses you propose have nothing to do with the

advertised

| intended use of the tools, and your examples depend on machines too

decrepit

| to be worth the effort, AFAIC.

|

| If the Registry is in such a state that it needs "cleaning", the tools

will

| do little if anything to help. In short, as a generally true statement,

| proven over and over again, Registry Cleaners are dangerous and worthless.

| Please read PA's reference to the Aumha.net thread wherein realities are

| revealed after much testing. Hell, the most I've seen tagged by such a

| program were several hundred entries (so called "empty" CLSIDs?), which

are

| a drop in the bucket compared to the entire Registry. In all, except the

| most decrepit Windows 98 machine, those entries are perfectly harmless.

| Note, too, that "empty" CLSIDs were put there by someone, presumably with

| certain future situations in mind. IOW, the context may be missing that

| would explain why the CLSID is there in the first place. IOW, if a

| programmer put something in the Registry, my suggestion is that you leave

it

| there, since you have no ide3a what purpose it might be serving, even if

| that purpose "breaks the rules" on proper Registry use.

|

| --

| Gary S. Terhune

| MS-MVP Shell/User

Yes, in part. I have cautioned concerning removal pf ActiveX semmingly

blank entries. These ARE place holders,,, which should be left as they are

DISABLED...

As for "leave it there"; that attempts to indicate all programmers know

what they are doing, and make proper installation files and uninstaller

routines... that's a dream world, it would ber nice, but its not a reality.

So again, these types of TOOLS can be of use, but must be used with

caution AND only after making an effort to understand what they might find.

IN FACT, several of these tools now include Search Tools built-in, and

suggest using them BEFORE removal of any items. Its just like any

application or program that a user might have, they MUST learn how to use

it.

|

| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| news:O9RLrtAsIHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

| > Of course, but they are tools none the less. So naturally I like my

| > statement better. At least it doesn't make me sound like NONE of them

are

| > worthy of use, just that the user should be aware of what can happen

when

| > used without knowledge.

| >

| > I have placed several "oh no" posts here when help is needed AFTER

| > misuse..

| >

| > --

| > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| > --

| > _________

| >

| > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > news:eduY226rIHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

| > | I'm going to modify my answer below... Such cases as you cite should

be

| > | generally be scrapped and replaced. If nothing else, as soon as that

| > system

| > | connects to any other system, in any manner, it is a *probable* danger

| > to

| > | others. If it is so obsolete and unsupported and the user was so

| > | irresponsible that it is really impossible to rebuild, I say thumbs

| > down.

| > |

| > | And I've decided that I like your mention of HJT. From what I see,

those

| > few

| > | Registry Cleaners that aren't pure scam are JUST as dangerous as HJT.

Do

| > you

| > | recommend the unassisted use of HJT? Would you not scream DANGER!!! if

| > you

| > | saw it advertised as a user-friendly, idiot-proof tool?

| > |

| > | --

| > | Gary S. Terhune

| > | MS-MVP Shell/User

| > | http://www.grystmill.com

| > |

| > | "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > | news:OfeA8t6rIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

| > | >

| > | > "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| > | > news:%23thP3H6rIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

| > | >>

| > | >> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > | >> news:OIlgiP4rIHA.3632@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

| > | >> | I don't use any such add-on and never have. Yes, I suppose they

| > might

| > | >> have

| > | >> | come in handy once or twice, but by the time I thought of

grabbing

| > one

| > | >> for

| > | >> | the momentary purpose, I was done.

| > | >> |

| > | >> | I don't get involved in detailed spyware and virus removal. With

| > minor

| > | >> | exceptions, when I encounter a seriously infested machine, I

| > recommend

| > | >> a

| > | >> | full rebuild. Once a machine is infested, I consider it

permanently

| > | >> suspect.

| > | >> | Besides, it would seem to me that in the case of viruses and

| > spyware

| > | >> | removal, the experts should already know EXACTLY what spyware and

| > | >> virus(es)

| > | >> | they are dealing with and which Registry entries to remove, and

| > even

| > | >> have

| > | >> | REG files for the purpose.

| > | >>

| > | >> In part you're right, many do have these reg files; however, as

these

| > | >> things

| > | >> are constantly being modified [variants] the "cleaning tools* are

| > used

| > to

| > | >> locate potential entries and or files which *may be* that variant.

| > | >> Without

| > | >> the output of these programs, diagnostics becomes just guesses. One

| > could

| > | >> even, under the cleaner aspect, rate hijackthis as in the same

class,

| > yet

| > | >> without this tool many would be at the mercy of any BHO or other,

and

| > | >> experts would be without the tools necessary to help.

| > | >

| > | > Can you provide a list of the most popular of these tools? I'm

having

| > a

| > | > hard time associating any of the usually suggested and widely

| > advertised

| > | > Registry Cleaners with discovery of virus variants.

| > | >

| > | >> They can be far more effective than running tweakUI for other

styles

| > of

| > | >> cleanup as well.

| > | >

| > | > I never use TUI, either. What kind of cleanup does TUI do? Are we

back

| > to

| > | > "cleaning" MRUs, etc.?

| > | >

| > | >> | If they are GUESSING to the point that they need

| > | >> | tools to seek out (intelligently, one presumes) just the signs of

| > crap,

| > | >> then

| > | >> | we're back to a full wipe and reinstall AFAIC. Not to be too

blunt

| > | >> about

| > | >> it,

| > | >> | but I consider such pastimes precisely that. Pastimes. Just like

a

| > lot

| > | >> of

| > | >> | "fixing" that goes on here, say in the networking and DUN sphere,

| > for

| > | >> | instance, with the interminable and often unresolved threads, all

| > your

| > | >> AT

| > | >> | commands, blah, blah... The way to FIX a DUN problem is almost

| > ALWAYS

| > | >> to

| > | >> | remove all networking and related devices and services and let

them

| > | >> | reinstall themselves.

| > | >> |

| > | >> | --

| > | >> | Gary S. Terhune

| > | >> | MS-MVP Shell/User

| > | >> | http://www.grystmill.com

| > | >>

| > | >> The full wipe would be the safest, I agree; however, that's just

not

| > | >> possible for many users. Either they no longer have the

installation

| > | >> disks

| > | >> for their applications, or those applications may no longer be

| > supported

| > | >> [leaving them with only the installation disk{s}, but no updates].

| > Then

| > | >> you

| > | >> run against many devices which once had drivers and/or updates

posted

| > | >> upon

| > | >> the manufacturer's site, which may no longer be offered. Granted,

one

| > can

| > | >> search the NET for them, but that places one in the hands of

whatever

| > is

| > | >> found.

| > | >> Yes, users should understand that they should have obtained and

saved

| > | >> these

| > | >> during the course of their usage, sadly many don't

| > | >

| > | > You're starting to get pretty rarified, there. One in ten million?

| > | >

| > | > OK, I'll allow that for particular purposes and in the hands of

truly

| > | > experienced techs, one or more of these tools might come in handy,

but

| > | > that small exception doesn't come close to convincing me to desist

in

| > my

| > | > blanket condemnation of such tools in this forum. Read PA's cite for

| > the

| > | > real skinny.

| > | >

| > | >> I think we agreed on the Network issue in the networking forum, and

| > we

| > | >> did

| > | >> offer that as the best test solution, and the other factors were to

| > work

| > | >> through the potentials associated.

| > | >

| > | > HUH!?!

| > | >

| > | > --

| > | > Gary S. Terhune

| > | > MS-MVP Shell/User

| > | > http://www.grystmill.com

| > | >

| > | >>

| > | >> --

| > | >> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| > | >> --

| > | >> _________

| > | >>

| > | >> |

| > | >> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| > | >> | news:eQZZwCzrIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

| > | >> | > I'll put the response here, rather than go through all the

| > postings

| > | >> for

| > | >> | > individual responses...

| > | >> | >

| > | >> | > Locating the issue areas is the primary purpose for which I use

| > the

| > | >> | > programs for, though I have tested them extensively, which is

why

| > I

| > | >> | > caution

| > | >> | > not to use the auto cleanup.

| > | >> | >

| > | >> | > But for the rest, I suggest a perusal through the archives of

| > this

| > | >> group;

| > | >> | > remind the parties of their postings; and direct to the SpyWare

| > and

| > | >> Virus

| > | >> | > removal forums and sites.

| > | >> | > These tools [ccleaner, regseeker, and others] are used

regularly

| > | >> during

| > | >> | > the

| > | >> | > process. Granted, under the guidance of people familiar with

them

| > and

| > | >> the

| > | >> | > registry, but certainly are used far more often than suggesting

| > | >> manual

| > | >> | > editing. Moreover, who in here, doesn't have their favorite

| > regedit

| > | >> addin

| > | >> | > or

| > | >> | > replacement that they use because of the limited capabilities

of

| > the

| > | >> basic

| > | >> | > regedit. Is there anyone still that far in the mud?

| > | >> | >

| > | >> | > So my statement stands, careful application of these cleaners

can

| > be

| > | >> of

| > | >> | > use, but not to those who fail to take the time to understand

| > them.

| > | >> | >

| > | >> | > --

| > | >> | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| > | >> | > --

| > | >> | > _________

| > | >> | >

| > | >> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > | >> | > news:uJJ8wpwrIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

| > | >> | > | Please provide documentation of Registry bloat causing any

| > | >> significant

| > | >> | > | failures". Only such thing I've heard of is SCANREG /FIX

| > failing

| > to

| > | >> run

| > | >> | > on

| > | >> | > a

| > | >> | > | large Registry. BFD.

| > | >> | > |

| > | >> | > | Yes, sometimes the Registry needs work, usually after a

| > wide-spread

| > | >> | > disaster

| > | >> | > | involving the user doing something that shouldn't have been

| > done,

| > | >> but

| > | >> | > only

| > | >> | > | an expert is likely to know for sure, and while tools *might*

| > | >> locate a

| > | >> | > few

| > | >> | > | of those entries, you know better than most, I think, how

much

| > of

| > | >> any

| > | >> | > real

| > | >> | > | Registry *REPAIR*, as opposed to "cleaning", is a painstaking

| > | >> MANUAL

| > | >> | > search

| > | >> | > | and research procedure that few if any tools do well at all.

| > | >> | > |

| > | >> | > | I used them regularly for several years, to find "crap" and

| > delete

| > | >> it,

| > | >> | > | ALWAYS having to refuse the deletion of some things I had

| > learned

| > | >> | > weren't

| > | >> | > a

| > | >> | > | good idea to remove (or were unimportant MRUs, etc.), and

after

| > | >> many

| > | >> | > years

| > | >> | > | of such experience, I arrived at the stance I take now. I've

| > never

| > | >> once

| > | >> | > had

| > | >> | > | any success helping anyone else by having them run any

Registry

| > | >> tools,

| > | >> | > | whereas I have several times dealt with people who were

screwed

| > by

| > | >> their

| > | >> | > | Registry tools, even the same ones I'd been using and thought

| > were

| > | >> | > | "idiot-proof".

| > | >> | > |

| > | >> | > | --

| > | >> | > | Gary S. Terhune

| > | >> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

| > | >> | > | http://www.grystmill.com

| > | >> | > |

| > | >> | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| > | >> | > | news:OnaPSovrIHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

| > | >> | > | > Ah gosh I hate to do this, BUT,,,,

| > | >> | > | >

| > | >> | > | > As we all know, the registry can become quite bloated with

| > | >> entries

| > | >> | > which

| > | >> | > | > relate to nothing of value, from MRU lists to applications

| > which

| > | >> fill

| > | >> | > the

| > | >> | > | > registry with open files which no longer exist, to

| > applications

| > | >> | > supposedly

| > | >> | > | > removed but actually leave, at times, countless worthless

| > | >> entries;

| > | >> to

| > | >> | > any

| > | >> | > | > number of other things which aren't need, or may have

somehow

| > | >> been

| > | >> | > changed

| > | >> | > | > at sometime.

| > | >> | > | > We also know or should know that the registry will FAIL or

be

| > | >> prone

| > | >> to

| > | >> | > | > failure after exceeding a certain size [parsing issues]....

| > which

| > | >> then

| > | >> | > | > becomes an issue which may affect recoverability in a time

of

| > | >> crisis.

| > | >> | > | >

| > | >> | > | > All the MVP that I have observed here, have, at some time,

| > posted

| > | >> | > methods

| > | >> | > | > to clean errant registry entries, compact the registry, and

| > | >> otherwise

| > | >> | > work

| > | >> | > | > upon the registry... They also have repeatedly advised,

when

| > | >> | > confronted

| > | >> | > | > with

| > | >> | > | > ghost entries, bad drivers or applications or otherwise,,

| > advised

| > | >> HOW

| > | >> | > to

| > | >> | > | > *manually* search the registry to *clean it*.

| > | >> | > | >

| > | >> | > | > I personally have used [and still use] several tools to

clean

| > the

| > | >> | > | > registry,

| > | >> | > | > which IF PROPERLY USED can be relied upon to make a system

| > lean

| > | >> and

| > | >> | > | > mean,,,

| > | >> | > | > but the key is PROPERLY USED... ANY use of a cleaner should

| > be

| > | >> taken

| > | >> | > with

| > | >> | > | > *a

| > | >> | > | > grain of salt*. AUTOMATIC cleaning is not a good idea. IF

| > the

| > | >> user

| > | >> is

| > | >> | > | > unfamiliar with the registry, then damage will likely

occur.

| > IF,

| > | >> on

| > | >> | > the

| > | >> | > | > other hand, the user familiarizes theirselves with the

| > registry,

| > | >> makes

| > | >> | > an

| > | >> | > | > effort to first increase their knowledge of the entries by

| > | >> searching

| > | >> | > first

| > | >> | > | > to see if they ARE un-needed PRIOR to removal, then the

| > desired

| > | >> | > results

| > | >> | > | > can

| > | >> | > | > be achieved.

| > | >> | > | >

| > | >> | > | > Never overlook the KEY, that personal knowledge and

| > understanding

| > | >> is

| > | >> | > YOUR

| > | >> | > | > responsibility. OR stay away from these cleaners as they

| > MIGHT

| > | >> cause

| > | >> | > more

| > | >> | > | > harm than good.

| > | >> | > | >

| > | >> | > | > These things ARE after all, relied upon quite heavily

during

| > | >> cleanup

| > | >> | > | > activities from SpyWare, Virus, and other such

activities...

| > | >> | > | >

| > | >> | > | > --

| > | >> | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| > | >> | > | > --

| > | >> | > | > _________

| > | >> | > | >

| > | >> | > | > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in

| > message

| > | >> | > | > news:O18TzSurIHA.5060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

| > | >> | > | > | letterman@invalid.com wrote:

| > | >> | > | > | > On Mon, 5 May 2008 08:54:57 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune"

| > <none>

| > | >> wrote:

| > | >> | > | > | >

| > | >> | > | > | >> ALL registry cleaners are VERY dangerous to your

system,

| > and

| > | >> will

| > | >> | > | > | >> actually

| > | >> | > | > | >> FIX a problem, even just "slowness", approximately

| > NEVER.

| > | >> | > | > | >

| > | >> | > | > | > I run Regseeker regularly and never had a problem. I

| > have

| > | >> never

| > | >> | > seen

| > | >> | > | > | > it fix any problems, but it does remove a lot of

useless

| > | >> junk.

| > | >> | > | > | > Without such programs, it seems to me that the registry

| > would

| > | >> get

| > | >> | > so

| > | >> | > | > | > huge that it would be crash prone. For example, lets

say

| > I

| > | >> | > created

| > | >> | > a

| > | >> | > | > | > folder called "JUNK". I used that folder to

temporarily

| > | >> place a

| > | >> | > bunch

| > | >> | > | > | > of things I find on my hard drive, which are everything

| > from

| > | >> text,

| > | >> | > or

| > | >> | > | > | > Wordpad notes, to downloaded pictures, file downloads,

| > etc.

| > | >> Then

| > | >> | > I

| > | >> | > | > | > begin sorting out the junk, and use winzip to open many

| > of

| > | >> the

| > | >> | > | > | > downloads, and some photo viewer to look at the

pictures,

| > and

| > | >> | > Wordpad

| > | >> | > | > | > to look at many of the notes. ALL of these things are

| > | >> documented

| > | >> | > in

| > | >> | > | > | > the registry. Wordpad, Winzip, Photo Viewers all store

| > | >> "recently

| > | >> | > | > | > opened files".

| > | >> | > | > | >

| > | >> | > | > | > Eventually I get everything put on a CD or other media

| > and

| > I

| > | >> | > delete

| > | >> | > | > | > the "Junk" folder. Then I remove several of the demo

| > | >> downloads

| > | >> I

| > | >> | > | > tried.

| > | >> | > | > | >

| > | >> | > | > | > Running Regseeker finds multiple references to that

JUNK

| > | >> folder,

| > | >> | > | > | > references to Winzip, Wordpad, etc opening files, and

| > many

| > | >> things

| > | >> | > | > | > relating to the demos I tried and removed. All of that

| > is

| > | >> removed

| > | >> | > | > | > from the registry, thus keeping it small and clean. Of

| > | >> course I

| > | >> | > | > | > always read what is being cleaned (removed). 99.9% of

| > the

| > | >> time

| > | >> | > it's

| > | >> | > | > | > just this old stuff that is not needed or wanted.

| > | >> | > | > | >

| > | >> | > | > | > So how can you say that Reg cleaners are dangerous and

| > should

| > | >> not

| > | >> | > be

| > | >> | > | > | > used.

| > | >> | > | > |

| > | >> | > | > | Because he (and a few others here) know what they're

| > talking

| > | >> about.

| > | >> | > | > |

| > | >> | > | > | > I do agree to be careful what is being removed, but

| > without

| > | >> | > | > | > them the registry will become a pile of useless

garbage.

| > | >> | > | > |

| > | >> | > | > | Nonsense.

--

--

_________

May 7, 2008

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

You exaggerate extremely. The numbers of machines I'm talking about amount

to maybe one millionth of one percent of machines out there, or more likely

a millionth of that number. Come on, really... How many drivers really CAN'T

be found, or are you really saying, "Can't be *easily* found?" I'll bet you

can find every driver set ever written out there, somewhere, even if it

requires shelling out some bucks to get them.

Anyway, you're the one who described the machine you chose as an exemplar of

a machine that MUST be repaired in place because there is no way to rebuild

it. The machine(s) you describe are "decrepit" by definition. And just like

decrepit automobiles, they are just as much a danger to society as they are

a nuisance to their owners.

In the case of idiots who didn't save the software that came with their

computer, they deserve to be forced to buy a new machine.

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:OycJifGsIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Aw Gary, too decrepit??? That's like telling everyone to buy new

> computers...

>

> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> news:eLILfVGsIHA.5872@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> | Yes, but the "good" uses you propose have nothing to do with the

> advertised

> | intended use of the tools, and your examples depend on machines too

> decrepit

> | to be worth the effort, AFAIC.

> |

> | If the Registry is in such a state that it needs "cleaning", the tools

> will

> | do little if anything to help. In short, as a generally true statement,

> | proven over and over again, Registry Cleaners are dangerous and

> worthless.

> | Please read PA's reference to the Aumha.net thread wherein realities are

> | revealed after much testing. Hell, the most I've seen tagged by such a

> | program were several hundred entries (so called "empty" CLSIDs?), which

> are

> | a drop in the bucket compared to the entire Registry. In all, except the

> | most decrepit Windows 98 machine, those entries are perfectly harmless.

> | Note, too, that "empty" CLSIDs were put there by someone, presumably

> with

> | certain future situations in mind. IOW, the context may be missing that

> | would explain why the CLSID is there in the first place. IOW, if a

> | programmer put something in the Registry, my suggestion is that you

> leave

> it

> | there, since you have no ide3a what purpose it might be serving, even if

> | that purpose "breaks the rules" on proper Registry use.

> |

> | --

> | Gary S. Terhune

> | MS-MVP Shell/User

>

> Yes, in part. I have cautioned concerning removal pf ActiveX semmingly

> blank entries. These ARE place holders,,, which should be left as they are

> DISABLED...

>

> As for "leave it there"; that attempts to indicate all programmers know

> what they are doing, and make proper installation files and uninstaller

> routines... that's a dream world, it would ber nice, but its not a

> reality.

>

> So again, these types of TOOLS can be of use, but must be used with

> caution AND only after making an effort to understand what they might

> find.

> IN FACT, several of these tools now include Search Tools built-in, and

> suggest using them BEFORE removal of any items. Its just like any

> application or program that a user might have, they MUST learn how to use

> it.

>

> |

> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> | news:O9RLrtAsIHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> | > Of course, but they are tools none the less. So naturally I like my

> | > statement better. At least it doesn't make me sound like NONE of them

> are

> | > worthy of use, just that the user should be aware of what can happen

> when

> | > used without knowledge.

> | >

> | > I have placed several "oh no" posts here when help is needed AFTER

> | > misuse..

> | >

> | > --

> | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

> | > --

> | > _________

> | >

> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> | > news:eduY226rIHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> | > | I'm going to modify my answer below... Such cases as you cite should

> be

> | > | generally be scrapped and replaced. If nothing else, as soon as that

> | > system

> | > | connects to any other system, in any manner, it is a *probable*

> danger

> | > to

> | > | others. If it is so obsolete and unsupported and the user was so

> | > | irresponsible that it is really impossible to rebuild, I say thumbs

> | > down.

> | > |

> | > | And I've decided that I like your mention of HJT. From what I see,

> those

> | > few

> | > | Registry Cleaners that aren't pure scam are JUST as dangerous as

> HJT.

> Do

> | > you

> | > | recommend the unassisted use of HJT? Would you not scream DANGER!!!

> if

> | > you

> | > | saw it advertised as a user-friendly, idiot-proof tool?

> | > |

> | > | --

> | > | Gary S. Terhune

> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

> | > | http://www.grystmill.com

> | > |

> | > | "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> | > | news:OfeA8t6rIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> | > | >

> | > | > "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> | > | > news:%23thP3H6rIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> | > | >>

> | > | >> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> | > | >> news:OIlgiP4rIHA.3632@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> | > | >> | I don't use any such add-on and never have. Yes, I suppose they

> | > might

> | > | >> have

> | > | >> | come in handy once or twice, but by the time I thought of

> grabbing

> | > one

> | > | >> for

> | > | >> | the momentary purpose, I was done.

> | > | >> |

> | > | >> | I don't get involved in detailed spyware and virus removal.

> With

> | > minor

> | > | >> | exceptions, when I encounter a seriously infested machine, I

> | > recommend

> | > | >> a

> | > | >> | full rebuild. Once a machine is infested, I consider it

> permanently

> | > | >> suspect.

> | > | >> | Besides, it would seem to me that in the case of viruses and

> | > spyware

> | > | >> | removal, the experts should already know EXACTLY what spyware

> and

> | > | >> virus(es)

> | > | >> | they are dealing with and which Registry entries to remove, and

> | > even

> | > | >> have

> | > | >> | REG files for the purpose.

> | > | >>

> | > | >> In part you're right, many do have these reg files; however, as

> these

> | > | >> things

> | > | >> are constantly being modified [variants] the "cleaning tools* are

> | > used

> | > to

> | > | >> locate potential entries and or files which *may be* that

> variant.

> | > | >> Without

> | > | >> the output of these programs, diagnostics becomes just guesses.

> One

> | > could

> | > | >> even, under the cleaner aspect, rate hijackthis as in the same

> class,

> | > yet

> | > | >> without this tool many would be at the mercy of any BHO or other,

> and

> | > | >> experts would be without the tools necessary to help.

> | > | >

> | > | > Can you provide a list of the most popular of these tools? I'm

> having

> | > a

> | > | > hard time associating any of the usually suggested and widely

> | > advertised

> | > | > Registry Cleaners with discovery of virus variants.

> | > | >

> | > | >> They can be far more effective than running tweakUI for other

> styles

> | > of

> | > | >> cleanup as well.

> | > | >

> | > | > I never use TUI, either. What kind of cleanup does TUI do? Are we

> back

> | > to

> | > | > "cleaning" MRUs, etc.?

> | > | >

> | > | >> | If they are GUESSING to the point that they need

> | > | >> | tools to seek out (intelligently, one presumes) just the signs

> of

> | > crap,

> | > | >> then

> | > | >> | we're back to a full wipe and reinstall AFAIC. Not to be too

> blunt

> | > | >> about

> | > | >> it,

> | > | >> | but I consider such pastimes precisely that. Pastimes. Just

> like

> a

> | > lot

> | > | >> of

> | > | >> | "fixing" that goes on here, say in the networking and DUN

> sphere,

> | > for

> | > | >> | instance, with the interminable and often unresolved threads,

> all

> | > your

> | > | >> AT

> | > | >> | commands, blah, blah... The way to FIX a DUN problem is almost

> | > ALWAYS

> | > | >> to

> | > | >> | remove all networking and related devices and services and let

> them

> | > | >> | reinstall themselves.

> | > | >> |

> | > | >> | --

> | > | >> | Gary S. Terhune

> | > | >> | MS-MVP Shell/User

> | > | >> | http://www.grystmill.com

> | > | >>

> | > | >> The full wipe would be the safest, I agree; however, that's just

> not

> | > | >> possible for many users. Either they no longer have the

> installation

> | > | >> disks

> | > | >> for their applications, or those applications may no longer be

> | > supported

> | > | >> [leaving them with only the installation disk{s}, but no

> updates].

> | > Then

> | > | >> you

> | > | >> run against many devices which once had drivers and/or updates

> posted

> | > | >> upon

> | > | >> the manufacturer's site, which may no longer be offered. Granted,

> one

> | > can

> | > | >> search the NET for them, but that places one in the hands of

> whatever

> | > is

> | > | >> found.

> | > | >> Yes, users should understand that they should have obtained and

> saved

> | > | >> these

> | > | >> during the course of their usage, sadly many don't

> | > | >

> | > | > You're starting to get pretty rarified, there. One in ten million?

> | > | >

> | > | > OK, I'll allow that for particular purposes and in the hands of

> truly

> | > | > experienced techs, one or more of these tools might come in handy,

> but

> | > | > that small exception doesn't come close to convincing me to desist

> in

> | > my

> | > | > blanket condemnation of such tools in this forum. Read PA's cite

> for

> | > the

> | > | > real skinny.

> | > | >

> | > | >> I think we agreed on the Network issue in the networking forum,

> and

> | > we

> | > | >> did

> | > | >> offer that as the best test solution, and the other factors were

> to

> | > work

> | > | >> through the potentials associated.

> | > | >

> | > | > HUH!?!

> | > | >

> | > | > --

> | > | > Gary S. Terhune

> | > | > MS-MVP Shell/User

> | > | > http://www.grystmill.com

> | > | >

> | > | >>

> | > | >> --

> | > | >> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

> | > | >> --

> | > | >> _________

> | > | >>

> | > | >> |

> | > | >> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> | > | >> | news:eQZZwCzrIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> | > | >> | > I'll put the response here, rather than go through all the

> | > postings

> | > | >> for

> | > | >> | > individual responses...

> | > | >> | >

> | > | >> | > Locating the issue areas is the primary purpose for which I

> use

> | > the

> | > | >> | > programs for, though I have tested them extensively, which is

> why

> | > I

> | > | >> | > caution

> | > | >> | > not to use the auto cleanup.

> | > | >> | >

> | > | >> | > But for the rest, I suggest a perusal through the archives of

> | > this

> | > | >> group;

> | > | >> | > remind the parties of their postings; and direct to the

> SpyWare

> | > and

> | > | >> Virus

> | > | >> | > removal forums and sites.

> | > | >> | > These tools [ccleaner, regseeker, and others] are used

> regularly

> | > | >> during

> | > | >> | > the

> | > | >> | > process. Granted, under the guidance of people familiar with

> them

> | > and

> | > | >> the

> | > | >> | > registry, but certainly are used far more often than

> suggesting

> | > | >> manual

> | > | >> | > editing. Moreover, who in here, doesn't have their favorite

> | > regedit

> | > | >> addin

> | > | >> | > or

> | > | >> | > replacement that they use because of the limited capabilities

> of

> | > the

> | > | >> basic

> | > | >> | > regedit. Is there anyone still that far in the mud?

> | > | >> | >

> | > | >> | > So my statement stands, careful application of these cleaners

> can

> | > be

> | > | >> of

> | > | >> | > use, but not to those who fail to take the time to understand

> | > them.

> | > | >> | >

> | > | >> | > --

> | > | >> | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

> | > | >> | > --

> | > | >> | > _________

> | > | >> | >

> | > | >> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> | > | >> | > news:uJJ8wpwrIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> | > | >> | > | Please provide documentation of Registry bloat causing any

> | > | >> significant

> | > | >> | > | failures". Only such thing I've heard of is SCANREG /FIX

> | > failing

> | > to

> | > | >> run

> | > | >> | > on

> | > | >> | > a

> | > | >> | > | large Registry. BFD.

> | > | >> | > |

> | > | >> | > | Yes, sometimes the Registry needs work, usually after a

> | > wide-spread

> | > | >> | > disaster

> | > | >> | > | involving the user doing something that shouldn't have been

> | > done,

> | > | >> but

> | > | >> | > only

> | > | >> | > | an expert is likely to know for sure, and while tools

> *might*

> | > | >> locate a

> | > | >> | > few

> | > | >> | > | of those entries, you know better than most, I think, how

> much

> | > of

> | > | >> any

> | > | >> | > real

> | > | >> | > | Registry *REPAIR*, as opposed to "cleaning", is a

> painstaking

> | > | >> MANUAL

> | > | >> | > search

> | > | >> | > | and research procedure that few if any tools do well at

> all.

> | > | >> | > |

> | > | >> | > | I used them regularly for several years, to find "crap" and

> | > delete

> | > | >> it,

> | > | >> | > | ALWAYS having to refuse the deletion of some things I had

> | > learned

> | > | >> | > weren't

> | > | >> | > a

> | > | >> | > | good idea to remove (or were unimportant MRUs, etc.), and

> after

> | > | >> many

> | > | >> | > years

> | > | >> | > | of such experience, I arrived at the stance I take now.

> I've

> | > never

> | > | >> once

> | > | >> | > had

> | > | >> | > | any success helping anyone else by having them run any

> Registry

> | > | >> tools,

> | > | >> | > | whereas I have several times dealt with people who were

> screwed

> | > by

> | > | >> their

> | > | >> | > | Registry tools, even the same ones I'd been using and

> thought

> | > were

> | > | >> | > | "idiot-proof".

> | > | >> | > |

> | > | >> | > | --

> | > | >> | > | Gary S. Terhune

> | > | >> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

> | > | >> | > | http://www.grystmill.com

> | > | >> | > |

> | > | >> | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> | > | >> | > | news:OnaPSovrIHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> | > | >> | > | > Ah gosh I hate to do this, BUT,,,,

> | > | >> | > | >

> | > | >> | > | > As we all know, the registry can become quite bloated

> with

> | > | >> entries

> | > | >> | > which

> | > | >> | > | > relate to nothing of value, from MRU lists to

> applications

> | > which

> | > | >> fill

> | > | >> | > the

> | > | >> | > | > registry with open files which no longer exist, to

> | > applications

> | > | >> | > supposedly

> | > | >> | > | > removed but actually leave, at times, countless worthless

> | > | >> entries;

> | > | >> to

> | > | >> | > any

> | > | >> | > | > number of other things which aren't need, or may have

> somehow

> | > | >> been

> | > | >> | > changed

> | > | >> | > | > at sometime.

> | > | >> | > | > We also know or should know that the registry will FAIL

> or

> be

> | > | >> prone

> | > | >> to

> | > | >> | > | > failure after exceeding a certain size [parsing

> issues]....

> | > which

> | > | >> then

> | > | >> | > | > becomes an issue which may affect recoverability in a

> time

> of

> | > | >> crisis.

> | > | >> | > | >

> | > | >> | > | > All the MVP that I have observed here, have, at some

> time,

> | > posted

> | > | >> | > methods

> | > | >> | > | > to clean errant registry entries, compact the registry,

> and

> | > | >> otherwise

> | > | >> | > work

> | > | >> | > | > upon the registry... They also have repeatedly advised,

> when

> | > | >> | > confronted

> | > | >> | > | > with

> | > | >> | > | > ghost entries, bad drivers or applications or otherwise,,

> | > advised

> | > | >> HOW

> | > | >> | > to

> | > | >> | > | > *manually* search the registry to *clean it*.

> | > | >> | > | >

> | > | >> | > | > I personally have used [and still use] several tools to

> clean

> | > the

> | > | >> | > | > registry,

> | > | >> | > | > which IF PROPERLY USED can be relied upon to make a

> system

> | > lean

> | > | >> and

> | > | >> | > | > mean,,,

> | > | >> | > | > but the key is PROPERLY USED... ANY use of a cleaner

> should

> | > be

> | > | >> taken

> | > | >> | > with

> | > | >> | > | > *a

> | > | >> | > | > grain of salt*. AUTOMATIC cleaning is not a good idea.

> IF

> | > the

> | > | >> user

> | > | >> is

> | > | >> | > | > unfamiliar with the registry, then damage will likely

> occur.

> | > IF,

> | > | >> on

> | > | >> | > the

> | > | >> | > | > other hand, the user familiarizes theirselves with the

> | > registry,

> | > | >> makes

> | > | >> | > an

> | > | >> | > | > effort to first increase their knowledge of the entries

> by

> | > | >> searching

> | > | >> | > first

> | > | >> | > | > to see if they ARE un-needed PRIOR to removal, then the

> | > desired

> | > | >> | > results

> | > | >> | > | > can

> | > | >> | > | > be achieved.

> | > | >> | > | >

> | > | >> | > | > Never overlook the KEY, that personal knowledge and

> | > understanding

> | > | >> is

> | > | >> | > YOUR

> | > | >> | > | > responsibility. OR stay away from these cleaners as they

> | > MIGHT

> | > | >> cause

> | > | >> | > more

> | > | >> | > | > harm than good.

> | > | >> | > | >

> | > | >> | > | > These things ARE after all, relied upon quite heavily

> during

> | > | >> cleanup

> | > | >> | > | > activities from SpyWare, Virus, and other such

> activities...

> | > | >> | > | >

> | > | >> | > | > --

> | > | >> | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

> | > | >> | > | > --

> | > | >> | > | > _________

> | > | >> | > | >

> | > | >> | > | > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in

> | > message

> | > | >> | > | > news:O18TzSurIHA.5060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> | > | >> | > | > | letterman@invalid.com wrote:

> | > | >> | > | > | > On Mon, 5 May 2008 08:54:57 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune"

> | > <none>

> | > | >> wrote:

> | > | >> | > | > | >

> | > | >> | > | > | >> ALL registry cleaners are VERY dangerous to your

> system,

> | > and

> | > | >> will

> | > | >> | > | > | >> actually

> | > | >> | > | > | >> FIX a problem, even just "slowness", approximately

> | > NEVER.

> | > | >> | > | > | >

> | > | >> | > | > | > I run Regseeker regularly and never had a problem. I

> | > have

> | > | >> never

> | > | >> | > seen

> | > | >> | > | > | > it fix any problems, but it does remove a lot of

> useless

> | > | >> junk.

> | > | >> | > | > | > Without such programs, it seems to me that the

> registry

> | > would

> | > | >> get

> | > | >> | > so

> | > | >> | > | > | > huge that it would be crash prone. For example, lets

> say

> | > I

> | > | >> | > created

> | > | >> | > a

> | > | >> | > | > | > folder called "JUNK". I used that folder to

> temporarily

> | > | >> place a

> | > | >> | > bunch

> | > | >> | > | > | > of things I find on my hard drive, which are

> everything

> | > from

> | > | >> text,

> | > | >> | > or

> | > | >> | > | > | > Wordpad notes, to downloaded pictures, file

> downloads,

> | > etc.

> | > | >> Then

> | > | >> | > I

> | > | >> | > | > | > begin sorting out the junk, and use winzip to open

> many

> | > of

> | > | >> the

> | > | >> | > | > | > downloads, and some photo viewer to look at the

> pictures,

> | > and

> | > | >> | > Wordpad

> | > | >> | > | > | > to look at many of the notes. ALL of these things

> are

> | > | >> documented

> | > | >> | > in

> | > | >> | > | > | > the registry. Wordpad, Winzip, Photo Viewers all

> store

> | > | >> "recently

> | > | >> | > | > | > opened files".

> | > | >> | > | > | >

> | > | >> | > | > | > Eventually I get everything put on a CD or other

> media

> | > and

> | > I

> | > | >> | > delete

> | > | >> | > | > | > the "Junk" folder. Then I remove several of the demo

> | > | >> downloads

> | > | >> I

> | > | >> | > | > tried.

> | > | >> | > | > | >

> | > | >> | > | > | > Running Regseeker finds multiple references to that

> JUNK

> | > | >> folder,

> | > | >> | > | > | > references to Winzip, Wordpad, etc opening files, and

> | > many

> | > | >> things

> | > | >> | > | > | > relating to the demos I tried and removed. All of

> that

> | > is

> | > | >> removed

> | > | >> | > | > | > from the registry, thus keeping it small and clean.

> Of

> | > | >> course I

> | > | >> | > | > | > always read what is being cleaned (removed). 99.9%

> of

> | > the

> | > | >> time

> | > | >> | > it's

> | > | >> | > | > | > just this old stuff that is not needed or wanted.

> | > | >> | > | > | >

> | > | >> | > | > | > So how can you say that Reg cleaners are dangerous

> and

> | > should

> | > | >> not

> | > | >> | > be

> | > | >> | > | > | > used.

> | > | >> | > | > |

> | > | >> | > | > | Because he (and a few others here) know what they're

> | > talking

> | > | >> about.

> | > | >> | > | > |

> | > | >> | > | > | > I do agree to be careful what is being removed, but

> | > without

> | > | >> | > | > | > them the registry will become a pile of useless

> garbage.

> | > | >> | > | > |

> | > | >> | > | > | Nonsense.

> --

> --

> _________

>

May 7, 2008

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

news:%232UrnNBsIHA.3680@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Bottom line: these "registry cleaning" programs are of limited use in

> capable hands, and that's it. (even the old MS regclean program had some

> problems - BTDT)

For the purposes for which they are advertised, I'd say NONE of them come

any where near close to living up to the hype.

> (That doesn't mean they are of NO use, however).

For the purposes for which they are advertised, I'd say they're useless.

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

> http://www.grystmill.com

> And, like I said, if someone hasn't at least used regedit before, they

> really are not in the league to be messing around with these programs,

> because the consequences of running such "registry cleaning" programs can

> be, and often are, *truly* dire (and in some cases, even necessating a

> complete reinstall of Windows).

>

> MEB wrote:

>> Of course, but they are tools none the less. So naturally I like my

>> statement better. At least it doesn't make me sound like NONE of them are

>> worthy of use, just that the user should be aware of what can happen when

>> used without knowledge.

>>

>> I have placed several "oh no" posts here when help is needed AFTER

>> misuse..

>>

>> --

>> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

>> --

>> _________

>>

>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>> news:eduY226rIHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>> I'm going to modify my answer below... Such cases as you cite should be

>>> generally be scrapped and replaced. If nothing else, as soon as that

>>> system

>>> connects to any other system, in any manner, it is a *probable* danger

>>> to

>>> others. If it is so obsolete and unsupported and the user was so

>>> irresponsible that it is really impossible to rebuild, I say thumbs

>>> down.

>>>

>>> And I've decided that I like your mention of HJT. From what I see, those

>>> few

>>> Registry Cleaners that aren't pure scam are JUST as dangerous as HJT. Do

>>> you

>>> recommend the unassisted use of HJT? Would you not scream DANGER!!! if

>>> you

>>> saw it advertised as a user-friendly, idiot-proof tool?

>>>

>>> --

>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>> http://www.grystmill.com

>>>

>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>>> news:OfeA8t6rIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>

>>>> "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>>> news:%23thP3H6rIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>>>

>>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>>>>> news:OIlgiP4rIHA.3632@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>>> I don't use any such add-on and never have. Yes, I suppose they might

>>>>>> have

>>>>>> come in handy once or twice, but by the time I thought of grabbing

>>>>>> one for

>>>>>> the momentary purpose, I was done.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I don't get involved in detailed spyware and virus removal. With

>>>>>> minor

>>>>>> exceptions, when I encounter a seriously infested machine, I

>>>>>> recommend a

>>>>>> full rebuild. Once a machine is infested, I consider it permanently

>>>>>> suspect. Besides, it would seem to me that in the case of viruses and

>>>>>> spyware removal, the experts should already know EXACTLY what spyware

>>>>>> and

>>>>>> virus(es) they are dealing with and which Registry entries to remove,

>>>>>> and

>>>>>> even have REG files for the purpose.

>>>>>

>>>>> In part you're right, many do have these reg files; however, as these

>>>>> things

>>>>> are constantly being modified [variants] the "cleaning tools* are used

>>>>> to

>>>>> locate potential entries and or files which *may be* that variant.

>>>>> Without

>>>>> the output of these programs, diagnostics becomes just guesses. One

>>>>> could

>>>>> even, under the cleaner aspect, rate hijackthis as in the same class,

>>>>> yet

>>>>> without this tool many would be at the mercy of any BHO or other, and

>>>>> experts would be without the tools necessary to help.

>>>>

>>>> Can you provide a list of the most popular of these tools? I'm having a

>>>> hard time associating any of the usually suggested and widely

>>>> advertised

>>>> Registry Cleaners with discovery of virus variants.

>>>>

>>>>> They can be far more effective than running tweakUI for other styles

>>>>> of

>>>>> cleanup as well.

>>>>

>>>> I never use TUI, either. What kind of cleanup does TUI do? Are we back

>>>> to

>>>> "cleaning" MRUs, etc.?

>>>>

>>>>>> If they are GUESSING to the point that they need

>>>>>> tools to seek out (intelligently, one presumes) just the signs of

>>>>>> crap,

>>>>>> then we're back to a full wipe and reinstall AFAIC. Not to be too

>>>>>> blunt

>>>>> about

>>>>> it,

>>>>>> but I consider such pastimes precisely that. Pastimes. Just like a

>>>>>> lot of

>>>>>> "fixing" that goes on here, say in the networking and DUN sphere, for

>>>>>> instance, with the interminable and often unresolved threads, all

>>>>>> your AT

>>>>>> commands, blah, blah... The way to FIX a DUN problem is almost ALWAYS

>>>>>> to

>>>>>> remove all networking and related devices and services and let them

>>>>>> reinstall themselves.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> --

>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com

>>>>>

>>>>> The full wipe would be the safest, I agree; however, that's just not

>>>>> possible for many users. Either they no longer have the installation

>>>>> disks

>>>>> for their applications, or those applications may no longer be

>>>>> supported

>>>>> [leaving them with only the installation disk{s}, but no updates].

>>>>> Then

>>>>> you

>>>>> run against many devices which once had drivers and/or updates posted

>>>>> upon

>>>>> the manufacturer's site, which may no longer be offered. Granted, one

>>>>> can

>>>>> search the NET for them, but that places one in the hands of whatever

>>>>> is

>>>>> found.

>>>>> Yes, users should understand that they should have obtained and saved

>>>>> these

>>>>> during the course of their usage, sadly many don't

>>>>

>>>> You're starting to get pretty rarified, there. One in ten million?

>>>>

>>>> OK, I'll allow that for particular purposes and in the hands of truly

>>>> experienced techs, one or more of these tools might come in handy, but

>>>> that small exception doesn't come close to convincing me to desist in

>>>> my

>>>> blanket condemnation of such tools in this forum. Read PA's cite for

>>>> the

>>>> real skinny.

>>>>

>>>>> I think we agreed on the Network issue in the networking forum, and we

>>>>> did

>>>>> offer that as the best test solution, and the other factors were to

>>>>> work

>>>>> through the potentials associated.

>>>>

>>>> HUH!?!

>>>>

>>>> --

>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>> http://www.grystmill.com

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> --

>>>>> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

>>>>> --

>>>>> _________

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:eQZZwCzrIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>> I'll put the response here, rather than go through all the postings

>>>>>>> for

>>>>>>> individual responses...

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Locating the issue areas is the primary purpose for which I use the

>>>>>>> programs for, though I have tested them extensively, which is why I

>>>>>>> caution

>>>>>>> not to use the auto cleanup.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> But for the rest, I suggest a perusal through the archives of this

>>>>>>> group;

>>>>>>> remind the parties of their postings; and direct to the SpyWare and

>>>>>>> Virus

>>>>>>> removal forums and sites.

>>>>>>> These tools [ccleaner, regseeker, and others] are used regularly

>>>>>>> during

>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>> process. Granted, under the guidance of people familiar with them

>>>>>>> and the

>>>>>>> registry, but certainly are used far more often than suggesting

>>>>>>> manual

>>>>>>> editing. Moreover, who in here, doesn't have their favorite regedit

>>>>>>> addin

>>>>>>> or

>>>>>>> replacement that they use because of the limited capabilities of the

>>>>>>> basic regedit. Is there anyone still that far in the mud?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> So my statement stands, careful application of these cleaners can be

>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>> use, but not to those who fail to take the time to understand them.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>> _________

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:uJJ8wpwrIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>> Please provide documentation of Registry bloat causing any

>>>>>>>> significant

>>>>>>>> failures". Only such thing I've heard of is SCANREG /FIX failing

>> to

>>>>> run

>>>>>>> on

>>>>>>> a

>>>>>>>> large Registry. BFD.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Yes, sometimes the Registry needs work, usually after a wide-spread

>>>>>>>> disaster involving the user doing something that shouldn't have

>>>>>>>> been

>>>>>>>> done, but only an expert is likely to know for sure, and while

>>>>>>>> tools

>>>>>>>> *might* locate a few of those entries, you know better than most, I

>>>>>>>> think, how much of any real Registry *REPAIR*, as opposed to

>>>>>>>> "cleaning", is a painstaking MANUAL search and research procedure

>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>> few if any tools do well at all.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> I used them regularly for several years, to find "crap" and delete

>>>>>>>> it,

>>>>>>>> ALWAYS having to refuse the deletion of some things I had learned

>>>>>>> weren't

>>>>>>> a

>>>>>>>> good idea to remove (or were unimportant MRUs, etc.), and after

>>>>>>>> many

>>>>>>>> years of such experience, I arrived at the stance I take now. I've

>> never

>>>>> once

>>>>>>> had

>>>>>>>> any success helping anyone else by having them run any Registry

>>>>>>>> tools,

>>>>>>>> whereas I have several times dealt with people who were screwed by

>>>>>>>> their

>>>>>>>> Registry tools, even the same ones I'd been using and thought were

>>>>>>>> "idiot-proof".

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:OnaPSovrIHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>> Ah gosh I hate to do this, BUT,,,,

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> As we all know, the registry can become quite bloated with entries

>>>>>>>>> which relate to nothing of value, from MRU lists to applications

>> which

>>>>> fill

>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>> registry with open files which no longer exist, to applications

>>>>>>>>> supposedly removed but actually leave, at times, countless

>>>>>>>>> worthless

>>>>> entries;

>>>>> to

>>>>>>> any

>>>>>>>>> number of other things which aren't need, or may have somehow been

>>>>>>>>> changed at sometime.

>>>>>>>>> We also know or should know that the registry will FAIL or be

>>>>> prone

>>>>> to

>>>>>>>>> failure after exceeding a certain size [parsing issues].... which

>>>>>>>>> then

>>>>>>>>> becomes an issue which may affect recoverability in a time of

>>>>>>>>> crisis.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> All the MVP that I have observed here, have, at some time, posted

>>>>>>>>> methods to clean errant registry entries, compact the registry,

>>>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>>> otherwise work upon the registry... They also have repeatedly

>>>>>>>>> advised,

>>>>>>>>> when confronted with

>>>>>>>>> ghost entries, bad drivers or applications or otherwise,,

>> advised

>>>>> HOW

>>>>>>> to

>>>>>>>>> *manually* search the registry to *clean it*.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> I personally have used [and still use] several tools to clean the

>>>>>>>>> registry,

>>>>>>>>> which IF PROPERLY USED can be relied upon to make a system lean

>>>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>>> mean,,,

>>>>>>>>> but the key is PROPERLY USED... ANY use of a cleaner should be

>>>>>>>>> taken

>>>>>>>>> with *a

>>>>>>>>> grain of salt*. AUTOMATIC cleaning is not a good idea. IF the

>>>>> user

>>>>> is

>>>>>>>>> unfamiliar with the registry, then damage will likely occur.

>> IF,

>>>>> on

>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>> other hand, the user familiarizes theirselves with the

>> registry,

>>>>> makes

>>>>>>> an

>>>>>>>>> effort to first increase their knowledge of the entries by

>>>>>>>>> searching

>>>>>>>>> first to see if they ARE un-needed PRIOR to removal, then the

>>>>>>>>> desired

>>>>>>>>> results can

>>>>>>>>> be achieved.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Never overlook the KEY, that personal knowledge and

>> understanding

>>>>> is

>>>>>>> YOUR

>>>>>>>>> responsibility. OR stay away from these cleaners as they MIGHT

>>>>>>>>> cause

>>>>>>>>> more harm than good.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> These things ARE after all, relied upon quite heavily during

>>>>>>>>> cleanup

>>>>>>>>> activities from SpyWare, Virus, and other such activities...

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>>> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

>>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>>> _________

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>> news:O18TzSurIHA.5060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>> letterman@invalid.com wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 May 2008 08:54:57 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none>

>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> ALL registry cleaners are VERY dangerous to your system, and

>>>>>>>>>>>> will

>>>>>>>>>>>> actually

>>>>>>>>>>>> FIX a problem, even just "slowness", approximately NEVER.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> I run Regseeker regularly and never had a problem. I have never

>>>>>>>>>>> seen

>>>>>>>>>>> it fix any problems, but it does remove a lot of useless junk.

>>>>>>>>>>> Without such programs, it seems to me that the registry

>> would

>>>>> get

>>>>>>> so

>>>>>>>>>>> huge that it would be crash prone. For example, lets say I

>>>>>>> created

>>>>>>> a

>>>>>>>>>>> folder called "JUNK". I used that folder to temporarily place a

>>>>>>>>>>> bunch of things I find on my hard drive, which are everything

>> from

>>>>> text,

>>>>>>> or

>>>>>>>>>>> Wordpad notes, to downloaded pictures, file downloads, etc. Then

>>>>>>>>>>> I

>>>>>>>>>>> begin sorting out the junk, and use winzip to open many of the

>>>>>>>>>>> downloads, and some photo viewer to look at the pictures, and

>>>>>>>>>>> Wordpad

>>>>>>>>>>> to look at many of the notes. ALL of these things are

>>>>>>>>>>> documented in

>>>>>>>>>>> the registry. Wordpad, Winzip, Photo Viewers all store

>>>>>>>>>>> "recently

>>>>>>>>>>> opened files".

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually I get everything put on a CD or other media and I

>>>>>>>>>>> delete

>>>>>>>>>>> the "Junk" folder. Then I remove several of the demo

>>>>> downloads

>>>>> I

>>>>>>>>> tried.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Running Regseeker finds multiple references to that JUNK folder,

>>>>>>>>>>> references to Winzip, Wordpad, etc opening files, and many

>>>>>>>>>>> things

>>>>>>>>>>> relating to the demos I tried and removed. All of that is

>>>>>>>>>>> removed

>>>>>>>>>>> from the registry, thus keeping it small and clean. Of course I

>>>>>>>>>>> always read what is being cleaned (removed). 99.9% of the time

>>>>>>>>>>> it's

>>>>>>>>>>> just this old stuff that is not needed or wanted.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> So how can you say that Reg cleaners are dangerous and

>> should

>>>>> not

>>>>>>> be

>>>>>>>>>>> used.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Because he (and a few others here) know what they're talking

>>>>>>>>>> about.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> I do agree to be careful what is being removed, but without

>>>>>>>>>>> them the registry will become a pile of useless garbage.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Nonsense.

>

May 7, 2008

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Gary S. Terhune wrote:

> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

> news:%232UrnNBsIHA.3680@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> Bottom line: these "registry cleaning" programs are of limited use in

>> capable hands, and that's it. (even the old MS regclean program had

>> some

>> problems! (BT,DT)

>

> For the purposes for which they are advertised, I'd say NONE of them come

> any where near close to living up to the hype.

Right.

>> (That doesn't mean they are of NO use, however).

>

> For the purposes for which they are advertised, I'd say they're useless.

Indeed. That is pretty much the case.

> --

> Gary S. Terhune

> MS-MVP Shell/User

>

>> And, like I said, if someone hasn't at least used regedit before, they

>> really are not in the league to be messing around with these programs,

>> because the consequences of running such "registry cleaning" programs can

>> be, and often are, *truly* dire (and in some cases, even necessating a

>> complete reinstall of Windows).

>>

>> MEB wrote:

>>> Of course, but they are tools none the less. So naturally I like my

>>> statement better. At least it doesn't make me sound like NONE of them

>>> are

>>> worthy of use, just that the user should be aware of what can happen

>>> when

>>> used without knowledge.

>>>

>>> I have placed several "oh no" posts here when help is needed AFTER

>>> misuse..

>>>

>>> --

>>> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

>>> --

>>> _________

>>>

>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>>> news:eduY226rIHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>> I'm going to modify my answer below... Such cases as you cite should be

>>>> generally be scrapped and replaced. If nothing else, as soon as that

>>>> system

>>>> connects to any other system, in any manner, it is a *probable* danger

>>>> to

>>>> others. If it is so obsolete and unsupported and the user was so

>>>> irresponsible that it is really impossible to rebuild, I say thumbs

>>>> down.

>>>>

>>>> And I've decided that I like your mention of HJT. From what I see,

>>>> those

>>>> few

>>>> Registry Cleaners that aren't pure scam are JUST as dangerous as HJT.

>>>> Do

>>>> you

>>>> recommend the unassisted use of HJT? Would you not scream DANGER!!! if

>>>> you

>>>> saw it advertised as a user-friendly, idiot-proof tool?

>>>>

>>>> --

>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>> http://www.grystmill.com

>>>>

>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>>>> news:OfeA8t6rIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>>

>>>>> "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>> news:%23thP3H6rIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>

>>>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>>>>>> news:OIlgiP4rIHA.3632@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>> I don't use any such add-on and never have. Yes, I suppose they

>>>>>>> might

>>>>>>> have

>>>>>>> come in handy once or twice, but by the time I thought of grabbing

>>>>>>> one for

>>>>>>> the momentary purpose, I was done.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I don't get involved in detailed spyware and virus removal. With

>>>>>>> minor

>>>>>>> exceptions, when I encounter a seriously infested machine, I

>>>>>>> recommend a

>>>>>>> full rebuild. Once a machine is infested, I consider it permanently

>>>>>>> suspect. Besides, it would seem to me that in the case of viruses

>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>> spyware removal, the experts should already know EXACTLY what

>>>>>>> spyware

>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>> virus(es) they are dealing with and which Registry entries to

>>>>>>> remove,

>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>> even have REG files for the purpose.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> In part you're right, many do have these reg files; however, as these

>>>>>> things

>>>>>> are constantly being modified [variants] the "cleaning tools* are

>>>>>> used

>>>>>> to

>>>>>> locate potential entries and or files which *may be* that variant.

>>>>>> Without

>>>>>> the output of these programs, diagnostics becomes just guesses. One

>>>>>> could

>>>>>> even, under the cleaner aspect, rate hijackthis as in the same class,

>>>>>> yet

>>>>>> without this tool many would be at the mercy of any BHO or other, and

>>>>>> experts would be without the tools necessary to help.

>>>>>

>>>>> Can you provide a list of the most popular of these tools? I'm having

>>>>> a

>>>>> hard time associating any of the usually suggested and widely

>>>>> advertised

>>>>> Registry Cleaners with discovery of virus variants.

>>>>>

>>>>>> They can be far more effective than running tweakUI for other styles

>>>>>> of

>>>>>> cleanup as well.

>>>>>

>>>>> I never use TUI, either. What kind of cleanup does TUI do? Are we back

>>>>> to

>>>>> "cleaning" MRUs, etc.?

>>>>>

>>>>>>> If they are GUESSING to the point that they need

>>>>>>> tools to seek out (intelligently, one presumes) just the signs of

>>>>>>> crap,

>>>>>>> then we're back to a full wipe and reinstall AFAIC. Not to be too

>>>>>>> blunt

>>>>>> about

>>>>>> it,

>>>>>>> but I consider such pastimes precisely that. Pastimes. Just like a

>>>>>>> lot of

>>>>>>> "fixing" that goes on here, say in the networking and DUN sphere,

>>>>>>> for

>>>>>>> instance, with the interminable and often unresolved threads, all

>>>>>>> your AT

>>>>>>> commands, blah, blah... The way to FIX a DUN problem is almost

>>>>>>> ALWAYS

>>>>>>> to

>>>>>>> remove all networking and related devices and services and let them

>>>>>>> reinstall themselves.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com

>>>>>>

>>>>>> The full wipe would be the safest, I agree; however, that's just not

>>>>>> possible for many users. Either they no longer have the installation

>>>>>> disks

>>>>>> for their applications, or those applications may no longer be

>>>>>> supported

>>>>>> [leaving them with only the installation disk{s}, but no updates].

>>>>>> Then

>>>>>> you

>>>>>> run against many devices which once had drivers and/or updates posted

>>>>>> upon

>>>>>> the manufacturer's site, which may no longer be offered. Granted, one

>>>>>> can

>>>>>> search the NET for them, but that places one in the hands of whatever

>>>>>> is

>>>>>> found.

>>>>>> Yes, users should understand that they should have obtained and saved

>>>>>> these

>>>>>> during the course of their usage, sadly many don't

>>>>>

>>>>> You're starting to get pretty rarified, there. One in ten million?

>>>>>

>>>>> OK, I'll allow that for particular purposes and in the hands of truly

>>>>> experienced techs, one or more of these tools might come in handy, but

>>>>> that small exception doesn't come close to convincing me to desist in

>>>>> my

>>>>> blanket condemnation of such tools in this forum. Read PA's cite for

>>>>> the

>>>>> real skinny.

>>>>>

>>>>>> I think we agreed on the Network issue in the networking forum, and

>>>>>> we

>>>>>> did

>>>>>> offer that as the best test solution, and the other factors were to

>>>>>> work

>>>>>> through the potentials associated.

>>>>>

>>>>> HUH!?!

>>>>>

>>>>> --

>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> --

>>>>>> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

>>>>>> --

>>>>>> _________

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>> news:eQZZwCzrIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>> I'll put the response here, rather than go through all the postings

>>>>>>>> for

>>>>>>>> individual responses...

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Locating the issue areas is the primary purpose for which I use the

>>>>>>>> programs for, though I have tested them extensively, which is why I

>>>>>>>> caution

>>>>>>>> not to use the auto cleanup.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> But for the rest, I suggest a perusal through the archives of this

>>>>>>>> group;

>>>>>>>> remind the parties of their postings; and direct to the SpyWare and

>>>>>>>> Virus

>>>>>>>> removal forums and sites.

>>>>>>>> These tools [ccleaner, regseeker, and others] are used regularly

>>>>>>>> during

>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>> process. Granted, under the guidance of people familiar with them

>>>>>>>> and the

>>>>>>>> registry, but certainly are used far more often than suggesting

>>>>>>>> manual

>>>>>>>> editing. Moreover, who in here, doesn't have their favorite regedit

>>>>>>>> addin

>>>>>>>> or

>>>>>>>> replacement that they use because of the limited capabilities of

>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>> basic regedit. Is there anyone still that far in the mud?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> So my statement stands, careful application of these cleaners can

>>>>>>>> be

>>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>>> use, but not to those who fail to take the time to understand them.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>> _________

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:uJJ8wpwrIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>> Please provide documentation of Registry bloat causing any

>>>>>>>>> significant

>>>>>>>>> failures". Only such thing I've heard of is SCANREG /FIX failing

>>> to

>>>>>> run

>>>>>>>> on

>>>>>>>> a

>>>>>>>>> large Registry. BFD.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Yes, sometimes the Registry needs work, usually after a

>>>>>>>>> wide-spread

>>>>>>>>> disaster involving the user doing something that shouldn't have

>>>>>>>>> been

>>>>>>>>> done, but only an expert is likely to know for sure, and while

>>>>>>>>> tools

>>>>>>>>> *might* locate a few of those entries, you know better than most,

>>>>>>>>> I

>>>>>>>>> think, how much of any real Registry *REPAIR*, as opposed to

>>>>>>>>> "cleaning", is a painstaking MANUAL search and research procedure

>>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>> few if any tools do well at all.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> I used them regularly for several years, to find "crap" and delete

>>>>>>>>> it,

>>>>>>>>> ALWAYS having to refuse the deletion of some things I had learned

>>>>>>>> weren't

>>>>>>>> a

>>>>>>>>> good idea to remove (or were unimportant MRUs, etc.), and after

>>>>>>>>> many

>>>>>>>>> years of such experience, I arrived at the stance I take now. I've

>>> never

>>>>>> once

>>>>>>>> had

>>>>>>>>> any success helping anyone else by having them run any Registry

>>>>>>>>> tools,

>>>>>>>>> whereas I have several times dealt with people who were screwed by

>>>>>>>>> their

>>>>>>>>> Registry tools, even the same ones I'd been using and thought were

>>>>>>>>> "idiot-proof".

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>> news:OnaPSovrIHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>> Ah gosh I hate to do this, BUT,,,,

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> As we all know, the registry can become quite bloated with

>>>>>>>>>> entries

>>>>>>>>>> which relate to nothing of value, from MRU lists to applications

>>> which

>>>>>> fill

>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>> registry with open files which no longer exist, to applications

>>>>>>>>>> supposedly removed but actually leave, at times, countless

>>>>>>>>>> worthless

>>>>>> entries;

>>>>>> to

>>>>>>>> any

>>>>>>>>>> number of other things which aren't need, or may have somehow

>>>>>>>>>> been

>>>>>>>>>> changed at sometime.

>>>>>>>>>> We also know or should know that the registry will FAIL or be

>>>>>> prone

>>>>>> to

>>>>>>>>>> failure after exceeding a certain size [parsing issues].... which

>>>>>>>>>> then

>>>>>>>>>> becomes an issue which may affect recoverability in a time of

>>>>>>>>>> crisis.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> All the MVP that I have observed here, have, at some time, posted

>>>>>>>>>> methods to clean errant registry entries, compact the registry,

>>>>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>>>> otherwise work upon the registry... They also have repeatedly

>>>>>>>>>> advised,

>>>>>>>>>> when confronted with

>>>>>>>>>> ghost entries, bad drivers or applications or otherwise,,

>>> advised

>>>>>> HOW

>>>>>>>> to

>>>>>>>>>> *manually* search the registry to *clean it*.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> I personally have used [and still use] several tools to clean the

>>>>>>>>>> registry,

>>>>>>>>>> which IF PROPERLY USED can be relied upon to make a system lean

>>>>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>>>> mean,,,

>>>>>>>>>> but the key is PROPERLY USED... ANY use of a cleaner should be

>>>>>>>>>> taken

>>>>>>>>>> with *a

>>>>>>>>>> grain of salt*. AUTOMATIC cleaning is not a good idea. IF the

>>>>>> user

>>>>>> is

>>>>>>>>>> unfamiliar with the registry, then damage will likely occur.

>>> IF,

>>>>>> on

>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>> other hand, the user familiarizes theirselves with the

>>> registry,

>>>>>> makes

>>>>>>>> an

>>>>>>>>>> effort to first increase their knowledge of the entries by

>>>>>>>>>> searching

>>>>>>>>>> first to see if they ARE un-needed PRIOR to removal, then the

>>>>>>>>>> desired

>>>>>>>>>> results can

>>>>>>>>>> be achieved.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Never overlook the KEY, that personal knowledge and

>>> understanding

>>>>>> is

>>>>>>>> YOUR

>>>>>>>>>> responsibility. OR stay away from these cleaners as they MIGHT

>>>>>>>>>> cause

>>>>>>>>>> more harm than good.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> These things ARE after all, relied upon quite heavily during

>>>>>>>>>> cleanup

>>>>>>>>>> activities from SpyWare, Virus, and other such activities...

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>>>> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

>>>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>>>> _________

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>> news:O18TzSurIHA.5060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>>> letterman@invalid.com wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 5 May 2008 08:54:57 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none>

>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> ALL registry cleaners are VERY dangerous to your system, and

>>>>>>>>>>>>> will

>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually

>>>>>>>>>>>>> FIX a problem, even just "slowness", approximately NEVER.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> I run Regseeker regularly and never had a problem. I have

>>>>>>>>>>>> never

>>>>>>>>>>>> seen

>>>>>>>>>>>> it fix any problems, but it does remove a lot of useless junk.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Without such programs, it seems to me that the registry

>>> would

>>>>>> get

>>>>>>>> so

>>>>>>>>>>>> huge that it would be crash prone. For example, lets say I

>>>>>>>> created

>>>>>>>> a

>>>>>>>>>>>> folder called "JUNK". I used that folder to temporarily place

>>>>>>>>>>>> a

>>>>>>>>>>>> bunch of things I find on my hard drive, which are everything

>>> from

>>>>>> text,

>>>>>>>> or

>>>>>>>>>>>> Wordpad notes, to downloaded pictures, file downloads, etc.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Then

>>>>>>>>>>>> I

>>>>>>>>>>>> begin sorting out the junk, and use winzip to open many of the

>>>>>>>>>>>> downloads, and some photo viewer to look at the pictures, and

>>>>>>>>>>>> Wordpad

>>>>>>>>>>>> to look at many of the notes. ALL of these things are

>>>>>>>>>>>> documented in

>>>>>>>>>>>> the registry. Wordpad, Winzip, Photo Viewers all store

>>>>>>>>>>>> "recently

>>>>>>>>>>>> opened files".

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually I get everything put on a CD or other media and I

>>>>>>>>>>>> delete

>>>>>>>>>>>> the "Junk" folder. Then I remove several of the demo

>>>>>> downloads

>>>>>> I

>>>>>>>>>> tried.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Running Regseeker finds multiple references to that JUNK

>>>>>>>>>>>> folder,

>>>>>>>>>>>> references to Winzip, Wordpad, etc opening files, and many

>>>>>>>>>>>> things

>>>>>>>>>>>> relating to the demos I tried and removed. All of that is

>>>>>>>>>>>> removed

>>>>>>>>>>>> from the registry, thus keeping it small and clean. Of course

>>>>>>>>>>>> I

>>>>>>>>>>>> always read what is being cleaned (removed). 99.9% of the time

>>>>>>>>>>>> it's

>>>>>>>>>>>> just this old stuff that is not needed or wanted.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> So how can you say that Reg cleaners are dangerous and

>>> should

>>>>>> not

>>>>>>>> be

>>>>>>>>>>>> used.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Because he (and a few others here) know what they're talking

>>>>>>>>>>> about.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> I do agree to be careful what is being removed, but without

>>>>>>>>>>>> them the registry will become a pile of useless garbage.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Nonsense.

May 8, 2008

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

"glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message

news:%23b$mU$xrIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

| > letterman wrote ...

| >>

| >> I run Regseeker regularly and never had a problem.

| >> snip

|

| That's the same logic as saying:

| "I always smoke cigarettes while I pump gasoline, and I never caused

an explosion"

OTOH, you can put a cigarette out in #1 home heating oil. I saw my oil

man do it! Up until then, I was always standing 3 feet away!

| ;-)

| --

| Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+

| http://dts-l.net/

| http://dts-l.net/goodpost.htm

|

--

Thanks or Good Luck,

There may be humor in this post, and,

Naturally, you will not sue,

Should things get worse after this,

PCR

pcrrcp@netzero.net

May 8, 2008

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Well not really. Just as HP has removed many of their files, so have dozens

of other manufacturers.

when find a supposed file on the NET elsewhere, one is likely to get an

"update driver" which does not contain the full set of files need for proper

installation OR has been placed by someone who put the wrong designation on

the file, e.g., this driver works with the 7452b, when in actuality it was

for the 5452a.

Then you run across the inevitable *software that came installed* that the

user has used for years BUT did not come on any disk or CDROM to replace it

with.

But we can banter back and forth about the variables and never come to

agreement. You think as you do, and I believe in what I have stated. As the

saying goes: we agree to disagree.

--

--

_________

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

news:u6zJ3sGsIHA.1240@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

| You exaggerate extremely. The numbers of machines I'm talking about amount

| to maybe one millionth of one percent of machines out there, or more

likely

| a millionth of that number. Come on, really... How many drivers really

CAN'T

| be found, or are you really saying, "Can't be *easily* found?" I'll bet

you

| can find every driver set ever written out there, somewhere, even if it

| requires shelling out some bucks to get them.

|

| Anyway, you're the one who described the machine you chose as an exemplar

of

| a machine that MUST be repaired in place because there is no way to

rebuild

| it. The machine(s) you describe are "decrepit" by definition. And just

like

| decrepit automobiles, they are just as much a danger to society as they

are

| a nuisance to their owners.

|

| In the case of idiots who didn't save the software that came with their

| computer, they deserve to be forced to buy a new machine.

|

| --

| Gary S. Terhune

| MS-MVP Shell/User

|

| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| news:OycJifGsIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

| > Aw Gary, too decrepit??? That's like telling everyone to buy new

| > computers...

| >

| > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > news:eLILfVGsIHA.5872@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

| > | Yes, but the "good" uses you propose have nothing to do with the

| > advertised

| > | intended use of the tools, and your examples depend on machines too

| > decrepit

| > | to be worth the effort, AFAIC.

| > |

| > | If the Registry is in such a state that it needs "cleaning", the tools

| > will

| > | do little if anything to help. In short, as a generally true

statement,

| > | proven over and over again, Registry Cleaners are dangerous and

| > worthless.

| > | Please read PA's reference to the Aumha.net thread wherein realities

are

| > | revealed after much testing. Hell, the most I've seen tagged by such a

| > | program were several hundred entries (so called "empty" CLSIDs?),

which

| > are

| > | a drop in the bucket compared to the entire Registry. In all, except

the

| > | most decrepit Windows 98 machine, those entries are perfectly

harmless.

| > | Note, too, that "empty" CLSIDs were put there by someone, presumably

| > with

| > | certain future situations in mind. IOW, the context may be missing

that

| > | would explain why the CLSID is there in the first place. IOW, if a

| > | programmer put something in the Registry, my suggestion is that you

| > leave

| > it

| > | there, since you have no ide3a what purpose it might be serving, even

if

| > | that purpose "breaks the rules" on proper Registry use.

| > |

| > | --

| > | Gary S. Terhune

| > | MS-MVP Shell/User

| > | http://www.grystmill.com

| >

| > Yes, in part. I have cautioned concerning removal pf ActiveX semmingly

| > blank entries. These ARE place holders,,, which should be left as they

are

| > DISABLED...

| >

| > As for "leave it there"; that attempts to indicate all programmers know

| > what they are doing, and make proper installation files and uninstaller

| > routines... that's a dream world, it would ber nice, but its not a

| > reality.

| >

| > So again, these types of TOOLS can be of use, but must be used with

| > caution AND only after making an effort to understand what they might

| > find.

| > IN FACT, several of these tools now include Search Tools built-in, and

| > suggest using them BEFORE removal of any items. Its just like any

| > application or program that a user might have, they MUST learn how to

use

| > it.

| >

| > |

| > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| > | news:O9RLrtAsIHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

| > | > Of course, but they are tools none the less. So naturally I like my

| > | > statement better. At least it doesn't make me sound like NONE of

them

| > are

| > | > worthy of use, just that the user should be aware of what can happen

| > when

| > | > used without knowledge.

| > | >

| > | > I have placed several "oh no" posts here when help is needed AFTER

| > | > misuse..

| > | >

| > | > --

| > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| > | > --

| > | > _________

| > | >

| > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > | > news:eduY226rIHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

| > | > | I'm going to modify my answer below... Such cases as you cite

should

| > be

| > | > | generally be scrapped and replaced. If nothing else, as soon as

that

| > | > system

| > | > | connects to any other system, in any manner, it is a *probable*

| > danger

| > | > to

| > | > | others. If it is so obsolete and unsupported and the user was so

| > | > | irresponsible that it is really impossible to rebuild, I say

thumbs

| > | > down.

| > | > |

| > | > | And I've decided that I like your mention of HJT. From what I see,

| > those

| > | > few

| > | > | Registry Cleaners that aren't pure scam are JUST as dangerous as

| > HJT.

| > Do

| > | > you

| > | > | recommend the unassisted use of HJT? Would you not scream

DANGER!!!

| > if

| > | > you

| > | > | saw it advertised as a user-friendly, idiot-proof tool?

| > | > |

| > | > | --

| > | > | Gary S. Terhune

| > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

| > | > | http://www.grystmill.com

| > | > |

| > | > | "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > | > | news:OfeA8t6rIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

| > | > | >

| > | > | > "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| > | > | > news:%23thP3H6rIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

| > | > | >>

| > | > | >> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > | > | >> news:OIlgiP4rIHA.3632@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

| > | > | >> | I don't use any such add-on and never have. Yes, I suppose

they

| > | > might

| > | > | >> have

| > | > | >> | come in handy once or twice, but by the time I thought of

| > grabbing

| > | > one

| > | > | >> for

| > | > | >> | the momentary purpose, I was done.

| > | > | >> |

| > | > | >> | I don't get involved in detailed spyware and virus removal.

| > With

| > | > minor

| > | > | >> | exceptions, when I encounter a seriously infested machine, I

| > | > recommend

| > | > | >> a

| > | > | >> | full rebuild. Once a machine is infested, I consider it

| > permanently

| > | > | >> suspect.

| > | > | >> | Besides, it would seem to me that in the case of viruses and

| > | > spyware

| > | > | >> | removal, the experts should already know EXACTLY what spyware

| > and

| > | > | >> virus(es)

| > | > | >> | they are dealing with and which Registry entries to remove,

and

| > | > even

| > | > | >> have

| > | > | >> | REG files for the purpose.

| > | > | >>

| > | > | >> In part you're right, many do have these reg files; however, as

| > these

| > | > | >> things

| > | > | >> are constantly being modified [variants] the "cleaning tools*

are

| > | > used

| > | > to

| > | > | >> locate potential entries and or files which *may be* that

| > variant.

| > | > | >> Without

| > | > | >> the output of these programs, diagnostics becomes just guesses.

| > One

| > | > could

| > | > | >> even, under the cleaner aspect, rate hijackthis as in the same

| > class,

| > | > yet

| > | > | >> without this tool many would be at the mercy of any BHO or

other,

| > and

| > | > | >> experts would be without the tools necessary to help.

| > | > | >

| > | > | > Can you provide a list of the most popular of these tools? I'm

| > having

| > | > a

| > | > | > hard time associating any of the usually suggested and widely

| > | > advertised

| > | > | > Registry Cleaners with discovery of virus variants.

| > | > | >

| > | > | >> They can be far more effective than running tweakUI for other

| > styles

| > | > of

| > | > | >> cleanup as well.

| > | > | >

| > | > | > I never use TUI, either. What kind of cleanup does TUI do? Are

we

| > back

| > | > to

| > | > | > "cleaning" MRUs, etc.?

| > | > | >

| > | > | >> | If they are GUESSING to the point that they need

| > | > | >> | tools to seek out (intelligently, one presumes) just the

signs

| > of

| > | > crap,

| > | > | >> then

| > | > | >> | we're back to a full wipe and reinstall AFAIC. Not to be too

| > blunt

| > | > | >> about

| > | > | >> it,

| > | > | >> | but I consider such pastimes precisely that. Pastimes. Just

| > like

| > a

| > | > lot

| > | > | >> of

| > | > | >> | "fixing" that goes on here, say in the networking and DUN

| > sphere,

| > | > for

| > | > | >> | instance, with the interminable and often unresolved threads,

| > all

| > | > your

| > | > | >> AT

| > | > | >> | commands, blah, blah... The way to FIX a DUN problem is

almost

| > | > ALWAYS

| > | > | >> to

| > | > | >> | remove all networking and related devices and services and

let

| > them

| > | > | >> | reinstall themselves.

| > | > | >> |

| > | > | >> | --

| > | > | >> | Gary S. Terhune

| > | > | >> | MS-MVP Shell/User

| > | > | >> | http://www.grystmill.com

| > | > | >>

| > | > | >> The full wipe would be the safest, I agree; however, that's

just

| > not

| > | > | >> possible for many users. Either they no longer have the

| > installation

| > | > | >> disks

| > | > | >> for their applications, or those applications may no longer be

| > | > supported

| > | > | >> [leaving them with only the installation disk{s}, but no

| > updates].

| > | > Then

| > | > | >> you

| > | > | >> run against many devices which once had drivers and/or updates

| > posted

| > | > | >> upon

| > | > | >> the manufacturer's site, which may no longer be offered.

Granted,

| > one

| > | > can

| > | > | >> search the NET for them, but that places one in the hands of

| > whatever

| > | > is

| > | > | >> found.

| > | > | >> Yes, users should understand that they should have obtained and

| > saved

| > | > | >> these

| > | > | >> during the course of their usage, sadly many don't

| > | > | >

| > | > | > You're starting to get pretty rarified, there. One in ten

million?

| > | > | >

| > | > | > OK, I'll allow that for particular purposes and in the hands of

| > truly

| > | > | > experienced techs, one or more of these tools might come in

handy,

| > but

| > | > | > that small exception doesn't come close to convincing me to

desist

| > in

| > | > my

| > | > | > blanket condemnation of such tools in this forum. Read PA's cite

| > for

| > | > the

| > | > | > real skinny.

| > | > | >

| > | > | >> I think we agreed on the Network issue in the networking forum,

| > and

| > | > we

| > | > | >> did

| > | > | >> offer that as the best test solution, and the other factors

were

| > to

| > | > work

| > | > | >> through the potentials associated.

| > | > | >

| > | > | > HUH!?!

| > | > | >

| > | > | > --

| > | > | > Gary S. Terhune

| > | > | > MS-MVP Shell/User

| > | > | > http://www.grystmill.com

| > | > | >

| > | > | >>

| > | > | >> --

| > | > | >> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| > | > | >> --

| > | > | >> _________

| > | > | >>

| > | > | >> |

| > | > | >> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| > | > | >> | news:eQZZwCzrIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

| > | > | >> | > I'll put the response here, rather than go through all the

| > | > postings

| > | > | >> for

| > | > | >> | > individual responses...

| > | > | >> | >

| > | > | >> | > Locating the issue areas is the primary purpose for which I

| > use

| > | > the

| > | > | >> | > programs for, though I have tested them extensively, which

is

| > why

| > | > I

| > | > | >> | > caution

| > | > | >> | > not to use the auto cleanup.

| > | > | >> | >

| > | > | >> | > But for the rest, I suggest a perusal through the archives

of

| > | > this

| > | > | >> group;

| > | > | >> | > remind the parties of their postings; and direct to the

| > SpyWare

| > | > and

| > | > | >> Virus

| > | > | >> | > removal forums and sites.

| > | > | >> | > These tools [ccleaner, regseeker, and others] are used

| > regularly

| > | > | >> during

| > | > | >> | > the

| > | > | >> | > process. Granted, under the guidance of people familiar

with

| > them

| > | > and

| > | > | >> the

| > | > | >> | > registry, but certainly are used far more often than

| > suggesting

| > | > | >> manual

| > | > | >> | > editing. Moreover, who in here, doesn't have their favorite

| > | > regedit

| > | > | >> addin

| > | > | >> | > or

| > | > | >> | > replacement that they use because of the limited

capabilities

| > of

| > | > the

| > | > | >> basic

| > | > | >> | > regedit. Is there anyone still that far in the mud?

| > | > | >> | >

| > | > | >> | > So my statement stands, careful application of these

cleaners

| > can

| > | > be

| > | > | >> of

| > | > | >> | > use, but not to those who fail to take the time to

understand

| > | > them.

| > | > | >> | >

| > | > | >> | > --

| > | > | >> | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| > | > | >> | > --

| > | > | >> | > _________

| > | > | >> | >

| > | > | >> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > | > | >> | > news:uJJ8wpwrIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

| > | > | >> | > | Please provide documentation of Registry bloat causing

any

| > | > | >> significant

| > | > | >> | > | failures". Only such thing I've heard of is SCANREG /FIX

| > | > failing

| > | > to

| > | > | >> run

| > | > | >> | > on

| > | > | >> | > a

| > | > | >> | > | large Registry. BFD.

| > | > | >> | > |

| > | > | >> | > | Yes, sometimes the Registry needs work, usually after a

| > | > wide-spread

| > | > | >> | > disaster

| > | > | >> | > | involving the user doing something that shouldn't have

been

| > | > done,

| > | > | >> but

| > | > | >> | > only

| > | > | >> | > | an expert is likely to know for sure, and while tools

| > *might*

| > | > | >> locate a

| > | > | >> | > few

| > | > | >> | > | of those entries, you know better than most, I think, how

| > much

| > | > of

| > | > | >> any

| > | > | >> | > real

| > | > | >> | > | Registry *REPAIR*, as opposed to "cleaning", is a

| > painstaking

| > | > | >> MANUAL

| > | > | >> | > search

| > | > | >> | > | and research procedure that few if any tools do well at

| > all.

| > | > | >> | > |

| > | > | >> | > | I used them regularly for several years, to find "crap"

and

| > | > delete

| > | > | >> it,

| > | > | >> | > | ALWAYS having to refuse the deletion of some things I had

| > | > learned

| > | > | >> | > weren't

| > | > | >> | > a

| > | > | >> | > | good idea to remove (or were unimportant MRUs, etc.), and

| > after

| > | > | >> many

| > | > | >> | > years

| > | > | >> | > | of such experience, I arrived at the stance I take now.

| > I've

| > | > never

| > | > | >> once

| > | > | >> | > had

| > | > | >> | > | any success helping anyone else by having them run any

| > Registry

| > | > | >> tools,

| > | > | >> | > | whereas I have several times dealt with people who were

| > screwed

| > | > by

| > | > | >> their

| > | > | >> | > | Registry tools, even the same ones I'd been using and

| > thought

| > | > were

| > | > | >> | > | "idiot-proof".

| > | > | >> | > |

| > | > | >> | > | --

| > | > | >> | > | Gary S. Terhune

| > | > | >> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

| > | > | >> | > | http://www.grystmill.com

| > | > | >> | > |

| > | > | >> | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| > | > | >> | > | news:OnaPSovrIHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

| > | > | >> | > | > Ah gosh I hate to do this, BUT,,,,

| > | > | >> | > | >

| > | > | >> | > | > As we all know, the registry can become quite bloated

| > with

| > | > | >> entries

| > | > | >> | > which

| > | > | >> | > | > relate to nothing of value, from MRU lists to

| > applications

| > | > which

| > | > | >> fill

| > | > | >> | > the

| > | > | >> | > | > registry with open files which no longer exist, to

| > | > applications

| > | > | >> | > supposedly

| > | > | >> | > | > removed but actually leave, at times, countless

worthless

| > | > | >> entries;

| > | > | >> to

| > | > | >> | > any

| > | > | >> | > | > number of other things which aren't need, or may have

| > somehow

| > | > | >> been

| > | > | >> | > changed

| > | > | >> | > | > at sometime.

| > | > | >> | > | > We also know or should know that the registry will FAIL

| > or

| > be

| > | > | >> prone

| > | > | >> to

| > | > | >> | > | > failure after exceeding a certain size [parsing

| > issues]....

| > | > which

| > | > | >> then

| > | > | >> | > | > becomes an issue which may affect recoverability in a

| > time

| > of

| > | > | >> crisis.

| > | > | >> | > | >

| > | > | >> | > | > All the MVP that I have observed here, have, at some

| > time,

| > | > posted

| > | > | >> | > methods

| > | > | >> | > | > to clean errant registry entries, compact the registry,

| > and

| > | > | >> otherwise

| > | > | >> | > work

| > | > | >> | > | > upon the registry... They also have repeatedly advised,

| > when

| > | > | >> | > confronted

| > | > | >> | > | > with

| > | > | >> | > | > ghost entries, bad drivers or applications or

otherwise,,

| > | > advised

| > | > | >> HOW

| > | > | >> | > to

| > | > | >> | > | > *manually* search the registry to *clean it*.

| > | > | >> | > | >

| > | > | >> | > | > I personally have used [and still use] several tools to

| > clean

| > | > the

| > | > | >> | > | > registry,

| > | > | >> | > | > which IF PROPERLY USED can be relied upon to make a

| > system

| > | > lean

| > | > | >> and

| > | > | >> | > | > mean,,,

| > | > | >> | > | > but the key is PROPERLY USED... ANY use of a cleaner

| > should

| > | > be

| > | > | >> taken

| > | > | >> | > with

| > | > | >> | > | > *a

| > | > | >> | > | > grain of salt*. AUTOMATIC cleaning is not a good idea.

| > IF

| > | > the

| > | > | >> user

| > | > | >> is

| > | > | >> | > | > unfamiliar with the registry, then damage will likely

| > occur.

| > | > IF,

| > | > | >> on

| > | > | >> | > the

| > | > | >> | > | > other hand, the user familiarizes theirselves with the

| > | > registry,

| > | > | >> makes

| > | > | >> | > an

| > | > | >> | > | > effort to first increase their knowledge of the entries

| > by

| > | > | >> searching

| > | > | >> | > first

| > | > | >> | > | > to see if they ARE un-needed PRIOR to removal, then the

| > | > desired

| > | > | >> | > results

| > | > | >> | > | > can

| > | > | >> | > | > be achieved.

| > | > | >> | > | >

| > | > | >> | > | > Never overlook the KEY, that personal knowledge and

| > | > understanding

| > | > | >> is

| > | > | >> | > YOUR

| > | > | >> | > | > responsibility. OR stay away from these cleaners as

they

| > | > MIGHT

| > | > | >> cause

| > | > | >> | > more

| > | > | >> | > | > harm than good.

| > | > | >> | > | >

| > | > | >> | > | > These things ARE after all, relied upon quite heavily

| > during

| > | > | >> cleanup

| > | > | >> | > | > activities from SpyWare, Virus, and other such

| > activities...

| > | > | >> | > | >

| > | > | >> | > | > --

| > | > | >> | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| > | > | >> | > | > --

| > | > | >> | > | > _________

| > | > | >> | > | >

| > | > | >> | > | > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in

| > | > message

| > | > | >> | > | > news:O18TzSurIHA.5060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

| > | > | >> | > | > | letterman@invalid.com wrote:

| > | > | >> | > | > | > On Mon, 5 May 2008 08:54:57 -0700, "Gary S.

Terhune"

| > | > <none>

| > | > | >> wrote:

| > | > | >> | > | > | >

| > | > | >> | > | > | >> ALL registry cleaners are VERY dangerous to your

| > system,

| > | > and

| > | > | >> will

| > | > | >> | > | > | >> actually

| > | > | >> | > | > | >> FIX a problem, even just "slowness", approximately

| > | > NEVER.

| > | > | >> | > | > | >

| > | > | >> | > | > | > I run Regseeker regularly and never had a problem.

I

| > | > have

| > | > | >> never

| > | > | >> | > seen

| > | > | >> | > | > | > it fix any problems, but it does remove a lot of

| > useless

| > | > | >> junk.

| > | > | >> | > | > | > Without such programs, it seems to me that the

| > registry

| > | > would

| > | > | >> get

| > | > | >> | > so

| > | > | >> | > | > | > huge that it would be crash prone. For example,

lets

| > say

| > | > I

| > | > | >> | > created

| > | > | >> | > a

| > | > | >> | > | > | > folder called "JUNK". I used that folder to

| > temporarily

| > | > | >> place a

| > | > | >> | > bunch

| > | > | >> | > | > | > of things I find on my hard drive, which are

| > everything

| > | > from

| > | > | >> text,

| > | > | >> | > or

| > | > | >> | > | > | > Wordpad notes, to downloaded pictures, file

| > downloads,

| > | > etc.

| > | > | >> Then

| > | > | >> | > I

| > | > | >> | > | > | > begin sorting out the junk, and use winzip to open

| > many

| > | > of

| > | > | >> the

| > | > | >> | > | > | > downloads, and some photo viewer to look at the

| > pictures,

| > | > and

| > | > | >> | > Wordpad

| > | > | >> | > | > | > to look at many of the notes. ALL of these things

| > are

| > | > | >> documented

| > | > | >> | > in

| > | > | >> | > | > | > the registry. Wordpad, Winzip, Photo Viewers all

| > store

| > | > | >> "recently

| > | > | >> | > | > | > opened files".

| > | > | >> | > | > | >

| > | > | >> | > | > | > Eventually I get everything put on a CD or other

| > media

| > | > and

| > | > I

| > | > | >> | > delete

| > | > | >> | > | > | > the "Junk" folder. Then I remove several of the

demo

| > | > | >> downloads

| > | > | >> I

| > | > | >> | > | > tried.

| > | > | >> | > | > | >

| > | > | >> | > | > | > Running Regseeker finds multiple references to that

| > JUNK

| > | > | >> folder,

| > | > | >> | > | > | > references to Winzip, Wordpad, etc opening files,

and

| > | > many

| > | > | >> things

| > | > | >> | > | > | > relating to the demos I tried and removed. All of

| > that

| > | > is

| > | > | >> removed

| > | > | >> | > | > | > from the registry, thus keeping it small and clean.

| > Of

| > | > | >> course I

| > | > | >> | > | > | > always read what is being cleaned (removed). 99.9%

| > of

| > | > the

| > | > | >> time

| > | > | >> | > it's

| > | > | >> | > | > | > just this old stuff that is not needed or wanted.

| > | > | >> | > | > | >

| > | > | >> | > | > | > So how can you say that Reg cleaners are dangerous

| > and

| > | > should

| > | > | >> not

| > | > | >> | > be

| > | > | >> | > | > | > used.

| > | > | >> | > | > |

| > | > | >> | > | > | Because he (and a few others here) know what they're

| > | > talking

| > | > | >> about.

| > | > | >> | > | > |

| > | > | >> | > | > | > I do agree to be careful what is being removed, but

| > | > without

| > | > | >> | > | > | > them the registry will become a pile of useless

| > garbage.

| > | > | >> | > | > |

| > | > | >> | > | > | Nonsense.

| > --

| > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| > --

| > _________

| >

|

May 8, 2008

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message

news:%23lmWYNKsIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message

> news:%23b$mU$xrIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> | > letterman wrote ...

> | >>

> | >> I run Regseeker regularly and never had a problem.

> | >> snip

> |

> | That's the same logic as saying:

> | "I always smoke cigarettes while I pump gasoline, and I never caused

> an explosion"

>

> OTOH, you can put a cigarette out in #1 home heating oil. I saw my oil

> man do it! Up until then, I was always standing 3 feet away!

Now you know why it takes so much of the stuff to heat your home!

--

Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+

http://dts-l.net/

May 8, 2008

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

On Wed, 7 May 2008 12:11:49 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:

>"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>news:%232UrnNBsIHA.3680@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> Bottom line: these "registry cleaning" programs are of limited use in

>> capable hands, and that's it. (even the old MS regclean program had some

>> problems - BTDT)

>

>For the purposes for which they are advertised, I'd say NONE of them come

>any where near close to living up to the hype.

>

>> (That doesn't mean they are of NO use, however).

>

>For the purposes for which they are advertised, I'd say they're useless.

This does, however, beg the question, why is the registry so obscure,

convoluted and arcane as to defeat all attempts to manipulate it,

except manually, gingerly, by folks in the know? It's only a couple of

very large files after all. Imagine there being such fuss made about

an mdb, for example. Or a .mid file. If one knows the structure, it

should not be rocket science to edit the data.

Also, given the absolute beating heart requirement for an intact

registry, isn't this fundamental construct of Microsoft Windows a very

bad design "feature"? Imagine a car that could never successfully be

repaired!

Personally, in my programming I avoid the registry like a hooker with

crabs. I use only .ini files.

MM

May 8, 2008

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

You exaggerate. It's not the Registry that's delicate, it's the data

contained therein, and the primary danger to that data is people relying on

bad advice or bad so-called "utilities". If you make a mistake, you can

potentially, easily, stop Windows from opening at all. Or totally trash a

program, possibly in such a way that reinstalling it doesn't fix the

problem. Which is where you depend on a backup. And there's the rub: Is

there a backup? When using Registry tools or just manually tracking some

entries (there's a lot of internal self-referral), it's quite easy to get

lost and forget what all you've edited. Ideally, one makes a backup of EACH

entry before editing, but guess how much that's done, even by the experts.

These precautions I scream out are because no matter how much we insist,

people go into the Registry without proper backup. And then they end up

here. (Caveat 1: The Registry IS delicate in one major way: Because it's

always loaded, and quite regularly being edited by the system, a crash is

more likely to corrupt the Registry than it is likely to corrupt other

documents.)

Seems to me that INI files are probably slower, and imagine if you used

*only* INI files and other individualized settings files. There'd be

hundreds of thousands of them. There would be lots of redundancy, also, that

the Registry is meant to avoid.

I don't find the Registry to be obscure. Arcane, perhaps, convoluted, also,

but much of that is due to the way the programmers use it. And that will

always be so. You use programs that are written in convoluted and arcane

ways (it's practically inherent in programming work.) The only difference

between those and the Registry is that the Registry is a public database

that anyone can read and edit, and thus screw up, whereas most of the rest

of the programming is generally untouchable.

As for your car metaphor, that's why we insist so much on Registry backups,

but it's also not true that the Registry can't be repaired. It's done all

the time, one way or another, but successful repair is VERY unlikely to

include any of the widely advertised Registry Repair tools because they

DON'T truly repair anything, they just try to clean up useless entries,

based upon the "rules" of the Registry, whereas the truth is that unless you

have a perfect database of every application ever written and what the

programmers might have done in the Registry, the tool is BOUND to make

mistakes. That's because programmers are human and don't always follow the

rules. It's also because new ways are found to use the Registry, or because

some SMART programmers are thinking towards the future and stick in things

that aren't "valid" (don't need to be.) Of course, what happens even more

often is that an entry is programmed which is then forgotten and left

behind. That and crap left behind by uninstalls are two of the main things

Registry Cleaners claim to find and delete. Only I've yet to see one that

does that without also potentially removing entries that SHOULDN'T be

removed. And then the user ends up here, to learn about backups.

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

"MM" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:ctv5245667tukrtca2hfoq0ffcc6vfcc3e@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 7 May 2008 12:11:49 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:

>

>>"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message

>>news:%232UrnNBsIHA.3680@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>>> Bottom line: these "registry cleaning" programs are of limited use in

>>> capable hands, and that's it. (even the old MS regclean program had

>>> some

>>> problems - BTDT)

>>

>>For the purposes for which they are advertised, I'd say NONE of them come

>>any where near close to living up to the hype.

>>

>>> (That doesn't mean they are of NO use, however).

>>

>>For the purposes for which they are advertised, I'd say they're useless.

>

> This does, however, beg the question, why is the registry so obscure,

> convoluted and arcane as to defeat all attempts to manipulate it,

> except manually, gingerly, by folks in the know? It's only a couple of

> very large files after all. Imagine there being such fuss made about

> an mdb, for example. Or a .mid file. If one knows the structure, it

> should not be rocket science to edit the data.

>

> Also, given the absolute beating heart requirement for an intact

> registry, isn't this fundamental construct of Microsoft Windows a very

> bad design "feature"? Imagine a car that could never successfully be

> repaired!

>

> Personally, in my programming I avoid the registry like a hooker with

> crabs. I use only .ini files.

>

> MM

May 8, 2008

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

glee wrote:

| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message

| news:%23lmWYNKsIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

|> "glee" <glee29@spamindspring.com> wrote in message

|> news:%23b$mU$xrIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

|> | > letterman wrote ...

|> | >>

|> | >> I run Regseeker regularly and never had a problem.

|> | >> snip

|> |

|> | That's the same logic as saying:

|> | "I always smoke cigarettes while I pump gasoline, and I never

|> | caused an explosion"

|>

|> OTOH, you can put a cigarette out in #1 home heating oil. I saw my

|> oil man do it! Up until then, I was always standing 3 feet away!

|

| Now you know why it takes so much of the stuff to heat your home!

It did, but I switched to ConED gas two/so years ago, when the cost of

oil was DOUBLING on me-- it hit a high of two bucks per gallon back

then! It seemed I immediately spent a 3rd as much using gas! Gas went up

since then, but I still spend half as much as the old oil price it

seems!

But my gas man refuses to try the same experiment!

| --

| Glen Ventura, MS MVP Windows, A+

| http://dts-l.net/

--

Thanks or Good Luck,

There may be humor in this post, and,

Naturally, you will not sue,

Should things get worse after this,

PCR

pcrrcp@netzero.net

May 9, 2008

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

..ini files display NO degradation in performance. Many erstwhile

performance problems have "fixed" themselves over the past few years

simply by dint of PC hardware becoming vastly more powerful. I can

remember working on 8088 PCs. Now that was slow. Recently I spent a

fair bit of time designing a database for 18,000 records. Then I

discovered that even on my relatively low-powered PC a straightforward

sequential search of a text file appears to be just as quick. Now, if

you measured access with a timer, the database version is likely to be

faster in milliseconds, but once it's fast enough, there's no point

making it any faster. If searching is so fast that the user

experiences absolutely no waiting at all on pressing Enter or clicking

a button, why go to the bother and potential risk of installing MDAC

etc?

Anyway, back to the darned registry and I have to say, it seems to me

that quite a few people tend to place the registry, or better, *** The

Registry *** in caps, with gold-plating and flashing lights, on a kind

of exalted pedestal. If it is such an important component (and it is),

then there should be tools galore to fix it when broken. Are you

saying that it is totally impossible to design such a tool? I will

also return to my own car analogy and say there is NOthing that could

not be repaired if it had to be. With modern cars, of course, it's not

a problem to exchange, say, the starter motor, whereas I can still

remember replacing brushes and undercutting commutators. This is why I

believe the registry is a flawed design if one only has to breathe on

it to create a fatal SNAFU.

It should be possible for any competent MSVP to construct a fully

functioning Windows installation on a newly formatted hard drive just

by extracting files from the CABs and building the registry by hand,

just as it is possible to build a Nasa space vehicle by hand.

MM

May 9, 2008

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

"MM" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:isn824tldrn7uko4kvd7i7otdd4ovrm98j@4ax.com...

> .ini files display NO degradation in performance. Many erstwhile

> performance problems have "fixed" themselves over the past few years

> simply by dint of PC hardware becoming vastly more powerful. I can

> remember working on 8088 PCs. Now that was slow. Recently I spent a

> fair bit of time designing a database for 18,000 records. Then I

> discovered that even on my relatively low-powered PC a straightforward

> sequential search of a text file appears to be just as quick. Now, if

> you measured access with a timer, the database version is likely to be

> faster in milliseconds, but once it's fast enough, there's no point

> making it any faster. If searching is so fast that the user

> experiences absolutely no waiting at all on pressing Enter or clicking

> a button, why go to the bother and potential risk of installing MDAC

> etc?

The Registry is already open and functioning. INI files need to be opened

before they can be read. Takes longer.

> Anyway, back to the darned registry and I have to say, it seems to me

> that quite a few people tend to place the registry, or better, *** The

> Registry *** in caps, with gold-plating and flashing lights, on a kind

> of exalted pedestal.

It is thus called for the same reason it's Windows and not windows. A matter

of English. Proper noun and all.

>If it is such an important component (and it is),

> then there should be tools galore to fix it when broken. Are you

> saying that it is totally impossible to design such a tool? I will

> also return to my own car analogy and say there is NOthing that could

> not be repaired if it had to be. With modern cars, of course, it's not

> a problem to exchange, say, the starter motor, whereas I can still

> remember replacing brushes and undercutting commutators. This is why I

> believe the registry is a flawed design if one only has to breathe on

> it to create a fatal SNAFU.

I never said it was impossible to fix the Registry. I just said that ALL of

the so called Registry Cleaning and Repair Tools out there are not capable

of doing so. Go ahead. Find a TOOL that will fix your car all by itself, no

human involvement. OK, maybe in today's day of standardization and

automation, a tool COULD fix a car by itself. But to make the comparison

valid, you have to imagine that even if we grant that they all leave the

factory more or less the same, the car is not yet complete -- it gets a ton

of customisations, none of which follow any "standards" provided by the car

maker very well. Now, go find a tool that can fix that.

> It should be possible for any competent MSVP to construct a fully

> functioning Windows installation on a newly formatted hard drive just

> by extracting files from the CABs and building the registry by hand,

> just as it is possible to build a Nasa space vehicle by hand.

If you mean MS-MVP, you mistake the meaning of the award. Suggest you look

it up. If you're trying to refer to someone who is a super-expert, what you

say isn't true, either. The documentation doesn't exist and that Registry

was built by a million hands. IF what you say were even true, it would take

a lifetime. Besides, all you'd end up with is a semi-worthless fresh

installation of Windows, lacking applications most consider indispensable.

What about those, eh?

Anyway, your vehicle analogies, and your comparison of mechanics are

worthless. Windows isn't a car. Nor is it a space vehicle. These things

exist in different dimensions.

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

May 10, 2008

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

On Fri, 9 May 2008 08:24:26 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:

>

>"MM" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

>news:isn824tldrn7uko4kvd7i7otdd4ovrm98j@4ax.com...

>> .ini files display NO degradation in performance. Many erstwhile

>> performance problems have "fixed" themselves over the past few years

>> simply by dint of PC hardware becoming vastly more powerful. I can

>> remember working on 8088 PCs. Now that was slow. Recently I spent a

>> fair bit of time designing a database for 18,000 records. Then I

>> discovered that even on my relatively low-powered PC a straightforward

>> sequential search of a text file appears to be just as quick. Now, if

>> you measured access with a timer, the database version is likely to be

>> faster in milliseconds, but once it's fast enough, there's no point

>> making it any faster. If searching is so fast that the user

>> experiences absolutely no waiting at all on pressing Enter or clicking

>> a button, why go to the bother and potential risk of installing MDAC

>> etc?

>

>The Registry is already open and functioning. INI files need to be opened

>before they can be read. Takes longer.

Measurable only with a Timer. In practice, instantaneous. After all,

Windows still uses .ini files, does it not? So not even Microsoft can

make its mind up (no change there, then...)

>> Anyway, back to the darned registry and I have to say, it seems to me

>> that quite a few people tend to place the registry, or better, *** The

>> Registry *** in caps, with gold-plating and flashing lights, on a kind

>> of exalted pedestal.

>

>It is thus called for the same reason it's Windows and not windows. A matter

>of English. Proper noun and all.

>

>>If it is such an important component (and it is),

>> then there should be tools galore to fix it when broken. Are you

>> saying that it is totally impossible to design such a tool? I will

>> also return to my own car analogy and say there is NOthing that could

>> not be repaired if it had to be. With modern cars, of course, it's not

>> a problem to exchange, say, the starter motor, whereas I can still

>> remember replacing brushes and undercutting commutators. This is why I

>> believe the registry is a flawed design if one only has to breathe on

>> it to create a fatal SNAFU.

>

>I never said it was impossible to fix the Registry. I just said that ALL of

>the so called Registry Cleaning and Repair Tools out there are not capable

>of doing so. Go ahead. Find a TOOL that will fix your car all by itself, no

>human involvement. OK, maybe in today's day of standardization and

>automation, a tool COULD fix a car by itself. But to make the comparison

>valid, you have to imagine that even if we grant that they all leave the

>factory more or less the same, the car is not yet complete -- it gets a ton

>of customisations, none of which follow any "standards" provided by the car

>maker very well. Now, go find a tool that can fix that.

But the vast majority of cars don't get customised and neither does

the registry. Actually, an *alternative* to the registry, by a

third-party company, might not be such a bad idea. They could even do

a better job at it than Microsoft and provide tools from the get-go.

>> It should be possible for any competent MSVP to construct a fully

>> functioning Windows installation on a newly formatted hard drive just

>> by extracting files from the CABs and building the registry by hand,

>> just as it is possible to build a Nasa space vehicle by hand.

>

>If you mean MS-MVP, you mistake the meaning of the award. Suggest you look

>it up. If you're trying to refer to someone who is a super-expert, what you

>say isn't true, either. The documentation doesn't exist

Well, whaddya know! You mean, Microsoft doesn't want to release a

workshop manual the way Ford or GM does?

> and that Registry

>was built by a million hands. IF what you say were even true, it would take

>a lifetime. Besides, all you'd end up with is a semi-worthless fresh

>installation of Windows, lacking applications most consider indispensable.

>What about those, eh?

How so? If a basic Windows installation were constructed as if from

the Setup.exe, then you'd have a virgin Windows box anyway. You still

have to install apps.

>Anyway, your vehicle analogies, and your comparison of mechanics are

>worthless. Windows isn't a car. Nor is it a space vehicle. These things

>exist in different dimensions.

But I expect, and hope, that someone will have read my words and will

take them as a challenge and is right now avidly working on a tool

that will confound even you!

MM

May 10, 2008

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

I'm done with you. Your intent is to argue you pet peeves, while mine is to

argue only one point -- there is not and can never be a safe Registry

Cleaning or Repair Tool. It is inherently impossible. I've given you the

reasons why, and all you have is pet peeves to answer with. Well, I'm not

here to answer pet peeves or argue nonsense. If what you want to do is argue

your pet peeves, I suggest you go where there are more people who know about

the subject and are willing to argue forever about nothing (like you.) There

are lots of such newsgroups, like the Windows XP one here at Microsoft.

Unless you're too much a coward, that is.

Here's one of the many statements you've made that show you for the absolute

moron you are in so far as Windows programming is concerned:

"But the vast majority of cars don't get customized and neither does the

registry."

The Registry is FOREVER being customized, second by second. In fact, the

ONLY way you get Registries that match is if you clone the disk and the

hardware is identical, and the minute you turn that machine on, it's

Registry will forever more be a UNIQUE document, being continually

customized. Then there's the applications. And settings, and additional

hardware.

You're a loser idiot. Wouldn't be surprised if your real name was 98 Guy.

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

"MM" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:lrna24hul27u0amab4vbos5f0aovedg4n2@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 9 May 2008 08:24:26 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:

>

>>

>>"MM" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

>>news:isn824tldrn7uko4kvd7i7otdd4ovrm98j@4ax.com...

>>> .ini files display NO degradation in performance. Many erstwhile

>>> performance problems have "fixed" themselves over the past few years

>>> simply by dint of PC hardware becoming vastly more powerful. I can

>>> remember working on 8088 PCs. Now that was slow. Recently I spent a

>>> fair bit of time designing a database for 18,000 records. Then I

>>> discovered that even on my relatively low-powered PC a straightforward

>>> sequential search of a text file appears to be just as quick. Now, if

>>> you measured access with a timer, the database version is likely to be

>>> faster in milliseconds, but once it's fast enough, there's no point

>>> making it any faster. If searching is so fast that the user

>>> experiences absolutely no waiting at all on pressing Enter or clicking

>>> a button, why go to the bother and potential risk of installing MDAC

>>> etc?

>>

>>The Registry is already open and functioning. INI files need to be opened

>>before they can be read. Takes longer.

>

> Measurable only with a Timer. In practice, instantaneous. After all,

> Windows still uses .ini files, does it not? So not even Microsoft can

> make its mind up (no change there, then...)

>

>>> Anyway, back to the darned registry and I have to say, it seems to me

>>> that quite a few people tend to place the registry, or better, *** The

>>> Registry *** in caps, with gold-plating and flashing lights, on a kind

>>> of exalted pedestal.

>>

>>It is thus called for the same reason it's Windows and not windows. A

>>matter

>>of English. Proper noun and all.

>>

>>>If it is such an important component (and it is),

>>> then there should be tools galore to fix it when broken. Are you

>>> saying that it is totally impossible to design such a tool? I will

>>> also return to my own car analogy and say there is NOthing that could

>>> not be repaired if it had to be. With modern cars, of course, it's not

>>> a problem to exchange, say, the starter motor, whereas I can still

>>> remember replacing brushes and undercutting commutators. This is why I

>>> believe the registry is a flawed design if one only has to breathe on

>>> it to create a fatal SNAFU.

>>

>>I never said it was impossible to fix the Registry. I just said that ALL

>>of

>>the so called Registry Cleaning and Repair Tools out there are not capable

>>of doing so. Go ahead. Find a TOOL that will fix your car all by itself,

>>no

>>human involvement. OK, maybe in today's day of standardization and

>>automation, a tool COULD fix a car by itself. But to make the comparison

>>valid, you have to imagine that even if we grant that they all leave the

>>factory more or less the same, the car is not yet complete -- it gets a

>>ton

>>of customisations, none of which follow any "standards" provided by the

>>car

>>maker very well. Now, go find a tool that can fix that.

>

> But the vast majority of cars don't get customised and neither does

> the registry. Actually, an *alternative* to the registry, by a

> third-party company, might not be such a bad idea. They could even do

> a better job at it than Microsoft and provide tools from the get-go.

>

>>> It should be possible for any competent MSVP to construct a fully

>>> functioning Windows installation on a newly formatted hard drive just

>>> by extracting files from the CABs and building the registry by hand,

>>> just as it is possible to build a Nasa space vehicle by hand.

>>

>>If you mean MS-MVP, you mistake the meaning of the award. Suggest you look

>>it up. If you're trying to refer to someone who is a super-expert, what

>>you

>>say isn't true, either. The documentation doesn't exist

>

> Well, whaddya know! You mean, Microsoft doesn't want to release a

> workshop manual the way Ford or GM does?

>

>> and that Registry

>>was built by a million hands. IF what you say were even true, it would

>>take

>>a lifetime. Besides, all you'd end up with is a semi-worthless fresh

>>installation of Windows, lacking applications most consider indispensable.

>>What about those, eh?

>

> How so? If a basic Windows installation were constructed as if from

> the Setup.exe, then you'd have a virgin Windows box anyway. You still

> have to install apps.

>

>>Anyway, your vehicle analogies, and your comparison of mechanics are

>>worthless. Windows isn't a car. Nor is it a space vehicle. These things

>>exist in different dimensions.

>

> But I expect, and hope, that someone will have read my words and will

> take them as a challenge and is right now avidly working on a tool

> that will confound even you!

>

> MM

May 11, 2008

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

"MM" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:isn824tldrn7uko4kvd7i7otdd4ovrm98j@4ax.com...

> snip <

> Recently I spent a

> fair bit of time designing a database for 18,000 records. Then I

> discovered that even on my relatively low-powered PC a straightforward

> sequential search of a text file appears to be just as quick.

A straightforward sequential search for a particular item in the database is

only one small way in which the registry is used. You comment completely

ignores issues of adding new entries or changing the informatin in an

existing entry, deleting entries, allowing simultaneous access to the data

in a safe manner, and monitoring data in case it gets changed by the OS or

other applications.

An INI file is quite good for a simple sequential search, for stuff that

gets read once per invocation and written (perhaps) once on shutdwn, and

that's why many applications (and some parts of the OS) still use them. But

it cannot provide the functionality that a database managed by the operating

system can provide.

--

Jeff Richards

MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

May 11, 2008

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:37:01 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:

>I'm done with you.

Bye, then!

> Your intent is to argue you pet peeves,

You make it sound as if it were not a viable peeve, to be interested

in tools to repair, compact, or otherwise manipulate the registry.

Your attitude is kinda, "my way or the highway" and that is not an

option I'm prepared to accept.

> while mine is to

>argue only one point -- there is not and can never be a safe Registry

>Cleaning or Repair Tool. It is inherently impossible.

Inherently? I don't believe it. Just because no-one may have achieved

it yet, does not make it impossible. Would you have said the same

about open-heart surgery? Gene therapy? Television?

> I've given you the

>reasons why, and all you have is pet peeves to answer with. Well, I'm not

>here to answer pet peeves or argue nonsense. If what you want to do is argue

>your pet peeves, I suggest you go where there are more people who know about

>the subject and are willing to argue forever about nothing (like you.) There

>are lots of such newsgroups, like the Windows XP one here at Microsoft.

>Unless you're too much a coward, that is.

I don't think much bravery is needed to challenge entrenched views

about a particular aspect of Windows! Once again, you appear surprised

that someone should dare to question your rock-solid insistence that

the registry is somehow unique, when all it is, is a data file

consisting of bits like any other file. There is no magic "Gates"

button buried deep in there somewhere, to be uncovered by a virtual

Harrison Ford. Just bits and bytes, like we have been used to for

decades.

>Here's one of the many statements you've made that show you for the absolute

>moron you are in so far as Windows programming is concerned:

>"But the vast majority of cars don't get customized and neither does the

>registry."

Customised, as in: addition of non-standard equipment, such as

go-faster stripes, wider tyres, raised compression ratio, booster

rockets. Oops, sorry, the rockets slipped in there somehow while my

attention was diverted. Remove the boosters!

>The Registry is FOREVER being customized, second by second. In fact, the

>ONLY way you get Registries that match is if you clone the disk and the

>hardware is identical, and the minute you turn that machine on, it's

>Registry will forever more be a UNIQUE document, being continually

>customized. Then there's the applications. And settings, and additional

>hardware.

All you are describing there is a data file in the process of having

its data modified or added to. Of course, in a reasonably

well-designed database, one would normally be able to REMOVE data as

well and compact the database. After all, Microsoft is kind enough to

provide an option to do this in the case of an mdb, and other

companies do it, too. But not the registry. It is allowed to grow like

Triffids, yet cannot be successfully trimmed, 'cos no-one knows how,

'cos only Microsoft knows where the "Gates" button is located.

>You're a loser idiot. Wouldn't be surprised if your real name was 98 Guy.

Who he? I don't watch American TV, sorry.

MM

May 11, 2008

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

On Sun, 11 May 2008 11:06:56 +1000, "Jeff Richards"

<JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote:

>"MM" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

>news:isn824tldrn7uko4kvd7i7otdd4ovrm98j@4ax.com...

>> snip <

>> Recently I spent a

>> fair bit of time designing a database for 18,000 records. Then I

>> discovered that even on my relatively low-powered PC a straightforward

>> sequential search of a text file appears to be just as quick.

>

>A straightforward sequential search for a particular item in the database is

>only one small way in which the registry is used. You comment completely

>ignores issues of adding new entries or changing the informatin in an

>existing entry, deleting entries, allowing simultaneous access to the data

>in a safe manner, and monitoring data in case it gets changed by the OS or

>other applications.

Where did I say that the registry should be replaced by an .ini file?

All I did say was that *I* use an .ini file for storing a program's

session values and startup defaults. I don't use the registry. For my

purposes, on modern, very fast PCs, an .ini file is plenty fast enough

for my purposes, even if it has quite a few lines in it.

>An INI file is quite good for a simple sequential search, for stuff that

>gets read once per invocation and written (perhaps) once on shutdwn,

Bingo!

> and

>that's why many applications (and some parts of the OS) still use them.

Bingo! (is there an echo in here....?)

> But

>it cannot provide the functionality that a database managed by the operating

>system can provide.

And I never said it should. That's not to say that some enterprising

soul couldn't redesign the registry so that the existing registry were

just a stub. Maybe the reason Windows gets screwed so easily is why

thousands of new users, including schools, companies and public

bodies, flock to Linux every year. No lack of information or smarts in

the Linux world!

MM

May 11, 2008

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Knew it smelled like troll in here.

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

"MM" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

news:085d245behb22uj31dracdn1o5v62lt6me@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 11 May 2008 11:06:56 +1000, "Jeff Richards"

> <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote:

>

>>"MM" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message

>>news:isn824tldrn7uko4kvd7i7otdd4ovrm98j@4ax.com...

>>> snip <

>>> Recently I spent a

>>> fair bit of time designing a database for 18,000 records. Then I

>>> discovered that even on my relatively low-powered PC a straightforward

>>> sequential search of a text file appears to be just as quick.

>>

>>A straightforward sequential search for a particular item in the database

>>is

>>only one small way in which the registry is used. You comment completely

>>ignores issues of adding new entries or changing the informatin in an

>>existing entry, deleting entries, allowing simultaneous access to the data

>>in a safe manner, and monitoring data in case it gets changed by the OS or

>>other applications.

>

> Where did I say that the registry should be replaced by an .ini file?

> All I did say was that *I* use an .ini file for storing a program's

> session values and startup defaults. I don't use the registry. For my

> purposes, on modern, very fast PCs, an .ini file is plenty fast enough

> for my purposes, even if it has quite a few lines in it.

>

>>An INI file is quite good for a simple sequential search, for stuff that

>>gets read once per invocation and written (perhaps) once on shutdwn,

>

> Bingo!

>

>> and

>>that's why many applications (and some parts of the OS) still use them.

>

> Bingo! (is there an echo in here....?)

>

>> But

>>it cannot provide the functionality that a database managed by the

>>operating

>>system can provide.

>

> And I never said it should. That's not to say that some enterprising

> soul couldn't redesign the registry so that the existing registry were

> just a stub. Maybe the reason Windows gets screwed so easily is why

> thousands of new users, including schools, companies and public

> bodies, flock to Linux every year. No lack of information or smarts in

> the Linux world!

>

> MM

May 11, 2008

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:29:18 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>

wrote:

> As for "leave it there"; that attempts to indicate all programmers know

>what they are doing, and make proper installation files and uninstaller

>routines... that's a dream world, it would ber nice, but its not a reality.

My experience has been that programmers generally fail to clean up

after them when a program is deinstalled. Loads of crud gets left

behind in the registry. Probably why the friggin' thing expands like

Chernobyl.

MM

May 11, 2008

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

I missed the second part of your post. (The following is from memory, and

mine ain't so good, but it's as faithful as I can be to From experience, a

Registry that had LOTS of installs and uninstalls, including MS Office in

three versions (each one removed before the next one was set up) -- my own

98 machine after months of trying things out for other folks (talking 2000,

2001, or so.) Can't remember if the HD was 4GB or 8.

I think, at best, some ~500 total "invalid" entries were discovered by a

handful of the most suggested (and in those days, that was pretty much all

of them -- EasyCleaner, RegClean and a few others I forget now). I'm not

talking about garbage entries like MRUs, etc., I'm talking about leftovers

from the applications. It took me days of individual research on each entry

to discover where it came from, and at least several dozen entries were put

there by apps that were still installed -- entries I assume the programmer

wanted put there because how am I (or a "Registry Cleaning Tool") supposed

to know otherwise? This kind of entry is precisely the kind that cause wise

people to call Registry Cleaners hokum. Because it MAY be required by the

application. It MAY NOT be garbage.

Total, five full time days to be as certain as I could be that those now

significantly less than 500 entries really were garbage left behind by

uninstalled apps. And then I did some general PC health measurements --

speed to load Windows, speed to load apps, etc., just general use for a

while. Then I removed all the invalid entries. Tested performance. Not a bit

of noticeable change, and that was, or rather still is, a puny P200.

I finished up by testing the "invalid" entries, couldn't cause any problem

that I could trace back to the invalid entry, so I finished removing them

all and ran the tools all over again and removed everything that came up.

One of those programs crashed three times in a row a few weeks later, I

replaced that one entry that belonged to it that I'd removed from the

Registry, and it worked again.

That's my history with the topic, best I can recall. The point is, there is

a TON of work involved in following up on the Registry Cleaners' "hits",

work that practically NOBODY would ever bother to do properly, and it all

has pretty much NO positive effect on the Registry and almost always has

SOME negative effect.

Now, you say these tools can be used to find evidence of virus. Sounds far

fetched, but not impossible. But I can't imagine how you REPAIR an

application's Registry entries using any of the cited tools. Can you please

give an example? Note that I'm not talking about REGEDIT enhancements, or

RegSnap or the like, I'm talking about EasyCleaner, et. al., the ones that

advertise themselves in places... Seems like right down to my toilet paper.

Show me a thread where any of these tools were used to diagnose a mistaken

entry in the Registry and then FIX that problem. Because the BLOAT problem

is a false problem under normal and proper computer usage. ALL the MRUs,

etc., are self-cleaning at one point or another and don't even add up to a

single dry spit into the bucket.

What I will say, here, is that SCANREG /FIX can make a significant

difference in performance IF there had recently been huge changes in

programming -- massive changes in the Registry. Otherwise, I found I could

go weeks or months without running it and it wouldn't make much difference

in performance. So, yes, to lose the ability to run that tool due to

Registry size is a sad affair, but I've seen plenty that were in that shape

that still ran just fine for what I consider normal lifespans, including

until the machines died in most cases.

In short, for all practical purposes, the tools we're talking about are

essentially worthless for the purposes for which they are advertised (pretty

much anything you see advertised via SPAM or in fact ANY place other than

where pros and only pros hang out.)

To drag other tools into the sample is dishonorable debate, seems to me, but

if you can show me one that has real value, and show me a sample of people

using these tools to actually accomplish anything serious.

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:OycJifGsIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Aw Gary, too decrepit??? That's like telling everyone to buy new

> computers...

>

> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> news:eLILfVGsIHA.5872@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> | Yes, but the "good" uses you propose have nothing to do with the

> advertised

> | intended use of the tools, and your examples depend on machines too

> decrepit

> | to be worth the effort, AFAIC.

> |

> | If the Registry is in such a state that it needs "cleaning", the tools

> will

> | do little if anything to help. In short, as a generally true statement,

> | proven over and over again, Registry Cleaners are dangerous and

> worthless.

> | Please read PA's reference to the Aumha.net thread wherein realities are

> | revealed after much testing. Hell, the most I've seen tagged by such a

> | program were several hundred entries (so called "empty" CLSIDs?), which

> are

> | a drop in the bucket compared to the entire Registry. In all, except the

> | most decrepit Windows 98 machine, those entries are perfectly harmless.

> | Note, too, that "empty" CLSIDs were put there by someone, presumably

> with

> | certain future situations in mind. IOW, the context may be missing that

> | would explain why the CLSID is there in the first place. IOW, if a

> | programmer put something in the Registry, my suggestion is that you

> leave

> it

> | there, since you have no ide3a what purpose it might be serving, even if

> | that purpose "breaks the rules" on proper Registry use.

> |

> | --

> | Gary S. Terhune

> | MS-MVP Shell/User

>

> Yes, in part. I have cautioned concerning removal pf ActiveX semmingly

> blank entries. These ARE place holders,,, which should be left as they are

> DISABLED...

>

> As for "leave it there"; that attempts to indicate all programmers know

> what they are doing, and make proper installation files and uninstaller

> routines... that's a dream world, it would ber nice, but its not a

> reality.

>

> So again, these types of TOOLS can be of use, but must be used with

> caution AND only after making an effort to understand what they might

> find.

> IN FACT, several of these tools now include Search Tools built-in, and

> suggest using them BEFORE removal of any items. Its just like any

> application or program that a user might have, they MUST learn how to use

> it.

>

> |

> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> | news:O9RLrtAsIHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> | > Of course, but they are tools none the less. So naturally I like my

> | > statement better. At least it doesn't make me sound like NONE of them

> are

> | > worthy of use, just that the user should be aware of what can happen

> when

> | > used without knowledge.

> | >

> | > I have placed several "oh no" posts here when help is needed AFTER

> | > misuse..

> | >

> | > --

> | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

> | > --

> | > _________

> | >

> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> | > news:eduY226rIHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> | > | I'm going to modify my answer below... Such cases as you cite should

> be

> | > | generally be scrapped and replaced. If nothing else, as soon as that

> | > system

> | > | connects to any other system, in any manner, it is a *probable*

> danger

> | > to

> | > | others. If it is so obsolete and unsupported and the user was so

> | > | irresponsible that it is really impossible to rebuild, I say thumbs

> | > down.

> | > |

> | > | And I've decided that I like your mention of HJT. From what I see,

> those

> | > few

> | > | Registry Cleaners that aren't pure scam are JUST as dangerous as

> HJT.

> Do

> | > you

> | > | recommend the unassisted use of HJT? Would you not scream DANGER!!!

> if

> | > you

> | > | saw it advertised as a user-friendly, idiot-proof tool?

> | > |

> | > | --

> | > | Gary S. Terhune

> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

> | > | http://www.grystmill.com

> | > |

> | > | "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> | > | news:OfeA8t6rIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> | > | >

> | > | > "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> | > | > news:%23thP3H6rIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> | > | >>

> | > | >> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> | > | >> news:OIlgiP4rIHA.3632@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> | > | >> | I don't use any such add-on and never have. Yes, I suppose they

> | > might

> | > | >> have

> | > | >> | come in handy once or twice, but by the time I thought of

> grabbing

> | > one

> | > | >> for

> | > | >> | the momentary purpose, I was done.

> | > | >> |

> | > | >> | I don't get involved in detailed spyware and virus removal.

> With

> | > minor

> | > | >> | exceptions, when I encounter a seriously infested machine, I

> | > recommend

> | > | >> a

> | > | >> | full rebuild. Once a machine is infested, I consider it

> permanently

> | > | >> suspect.

> | > | >> | Besides, it would seem to me that in the case of viruses and

> | > spyware

> | > | >> | removal, the experts should already know EXACTLY what spyware

> and

> | > | >> virus(es)

> | > | >> | they are dealing with and which Registry entries to remove, and

> | > even

> | > | >> have

> | > | >> | REG files for the purpose.

> | > | >>

> | > | >> In part you're right, many do have these reg files; however, as

> these

> | > | >> things

> | > | >> are constantly being modified [variants] the "cleaning tools* are

> | > used

> | > to

> | > | >> locate potential entries and or files which *may be* that

> variant.

> | > | >> Without

> | > | >> the output of these programs, diagnostics becomes just guesses.

> One

> | > could

> | > | >> even, under the cleaner aspect, rate hijackthis as in the same

> class,

> | > yet

> | > | >> without this tool many would be at the mercy of any BHO or other,

> and

> | > | >> experts would be without the tools necessary to help.

> | > | >

> | > | > Can you provide a list of the most popular of these tools? I'm

> having

> | > a

> | > | > hard time associating any of the usually suggested and widely

> | > advertised

> | > | > Registry Cleaners with discovery of virus variants.

> | > | >

> | > | >> They can be far more effective than running tweakUI for other

> styles

> | > of

> | > | >> cleanup as well.

> | > | >

> | > | > I never use TUI, either. What kind of cleanup does TUI do? Are we

> back

> | > to

> | > | > "cleaning" MRUs, etc.?

> | > | >

> | > | >> | If they are GUESSING to the point that they need

> | > | >> | tools to seek out (intelligently, one presumes) just the signs

> of

> | > crap,

> | > | >> then

> | > | >> | we're back to a full wipe and reinstall AFAIC. Not to be too

> blunt

> | > | >> about

> | > | >> it,

> | > | >> | but I consider such pastimes precisely that. Pastimes. Just

> like

> a

> | > lot

> | > | >> of

> | > | >> | "fixing" that goes on here, say in the networking and DUN

> sphere,

> | > for

> | > | >> | instance, with the interminable and often unresolved threads,

> all

> | > your

> | > | >> AT

> | > | >> | commands, blah, blah... The way to FIX a DUN problem is almost

> | > ALWAYS

> | > | >> to

> | > | >> | remove all networking and related devices and services and let

> them

> | > | >> | reinstall themselves.

> | > | >> |

> | > | >> | --

> | > | >> | Gary S. Terhune

> | > | >> | MS-MVP Shell/User

> | > | >> | http://www.grystmill.com

> | > | >>

> | > | >> The full wipe would be the safest, I agree; however, that's just

> not

> | > | >> possible for many users. Either they no longer have the

> installation

> | > | >> disks

> | > | >> for their applications, or those applications may no longer be

> | > supported

> | > | >> [leaving them with only the installation disk{s}, but no

> updates].

> | > Then

> | > | >> you

> | > | >> run against many devices which once had drivers and/or updates

> posted

> | > | >> upon

> | > | >> the manufacturer's site, which may no longer be offered. Granted,

> one

> | > can

> | > | >> search the NET for them, but that places one in the hands of

> whatever

> | > is

> | > | >> found.

> | > | >> Yes, users should understand that they should have obtained and

> saved

> | > | >> these

> | > | >> during the course of their usage, sadly many don't

> | > | >

> | > | > You're starting to get pretty rarified, there. One in ten million?

> | > | >

> | > | > OK, I'll allow that for particular purposes and in the hands of

> truly

> | > | > experienced techs, one or more of these tools might come in handy,

> but

> | > | > that small exception doesn't come close to convincing me to desist

> in

> | > my

> | > | > blanket condemnation of such tools in this forum. Read PA's cite

> for

> | > the

> | > | > real skinny.

> | > | >

> | > | >> I think we agreed on the Network issue in the networking forum,

> and

> | > we

> | > | >> did

> | > | >> offer that as the best test solution, and the other factors were

> to

> | > work

> | > | >> through the potentials associated.

> | > | >

> | > | > HUH!?!

> | > | >

> | > | > --

> | > | > Gary S. Terhune

> | > | > MS-MVP Shell/User

> | > | > http://www.grystmill.com

> | > | >

> | > | >>

> | > | >> --

> | > | >> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

> | > | >> --

> | > | >> _________

> | > | >>

> | > | >> |

> | > | >> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> | > | >> | news:eQZZwCzrIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> | > | >> | > I'll put the response here, rather than go through all the

> | > postings

> | > | >> for

> | > | >> | > individual responses...

> | > | >> | >

> | > | >> | > Locating the issue areas is the primary purpose for which I

> use

> | > the

> | > | >> | > programs for, though I have tested them extensively, which is

> why

> | > I

> | > | >> | > caution

> | > | >> | > not to use the auto cleanup.

> | > | >> | >

> | > | >> | > But for the rest, I suggest a perusal through the archives of

> | > this

> | > | >> group;

> | > | >> | > remind the parties of their postings; and direct to the

> SpyWare

> | > and

> | > | >> Virus

> | > | >> | > removal forums and sites.

> | > | >> | > These tools [ccleaner, regseeker, and others] are used

> regularly

> | > | >> during

> | > | >> | > the

> | > | >> | > process. Granted, under the guidance of people familiar with

> them

> | > and

> | > | >> the

> | > | >> | > registry, but certainly are used far more often than

> suggesting

> | > | >> manual

> | > | >> | > editing. Moreover, who in here, doesn't have their favorite

> | > regedit

> | > | >> addin

> | > | >> | > or

> | > | >> | > replacement that they use because of the limited capabilities

> of

> | > the

> | > | >> basic

> | > | >> | > regedit. Is there anyone still that far in the mud?

> | > | >> | >

> | > | >> | > So my statement stands, careful application of these cleaners

> can

> | > be

> | > | >> of

> | > | >> | > use, but not to those who fail to take the time to understand

> | > them.

> | > | >> | >

> | > | >> | > --

> | > | >> | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

> | > | >> | > --

> | > | >> | > _________

> | > | >> | >

> | > | >> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> | > | >> | > news:uJJ8wpwrIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> | > | >> | > | Please provide documentation of Registry bloat causing any

> | > | >> significant

> | > | >> | > | failures". Only such thing I've heard of is SCANREG /FIX

> | > failing

> | > to

> | > | >> run

> | > | >> | > on

> | > | >> | > a

> | > | >> | > | large Registry. BFD.

> | > | >> | > |

> | > | >> | > | Yes, sometimes the Registry needs work, usually after a

> | > wide-spread

> | > | >> | > disaster

> | > | >> | > | involving the user doing something that shouldn't have been

> | > done,

> | > | >> but

> | > | >> | > only

> | > | >> | > | an expert is likely to know for sure, and while tools

> *might*

> | > | >> locate a

> | > | >> | > few

> | > | >> | > | of those entries, you know better than most, I think, how

> much

> | > of

> | > | >> any

> | > | >> | > real

> | > | >> | > | Registry *REPAIR*, as opposed to "cleaning", is a

> painstaking

> | > | >> MANUAL

> | > | >> | > search

> | > | >> | > | and research procedure that few if any tools do well at

> all.

> | > | >> | > |

> | > | >> | > | I used them regularly for several years, to find "crap" and

> | > delete

> | > | >> it,

> | > | >> | > | ALWAYS having to refuse the deletion of some things I had

> | > learned

> | > | >> | > weren't

> | > | >> | > a

> | > | >> | > | good idea to remove (or were unimportant MRUs, etc.), and

> after

> | > | >> many

> | > | >> | > years

> | > | >> | > | of such experience, I arrived at the stance I take now.

> I've

> | > never

> | > | >> once

> | > | >> | > had

> | > | >> | > | any success helping anyone else by having them run any

> Registry

> | > | >> tools,

> | > | >> | > | whereas I have several times dealt with people who were

> screwed

> | > by

> | > | >> their

> | > | >> | > | Registry tools, even the same ones I'd been using and

> thought

> | > were

> | > | >> | > | "idiot-proof".

> | > | >> | > |

> | > | >> | > | --

> | > | >> | > | Gary S. Terhune

> | > | >> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

> | > | >> | > | http://www.grystmill.com

> | > | >> | > |

> | > | >> | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> | > | >> | > | news:OnaPSovrIHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> | > | >> | > | > Ah gosh I hate to do this, BUT,,,,

> | > | >> | > | >

> | > | >> | > | > As we all know, the registry can become quite bloated

> with

> | > | >> entries

> | > | >> | > which

> | > | >> | > | > relate to nothing of value, from MRU lists to

> applications

> | > which

> | > | >> fill

> | > | >> | > the

> | > | >> | > | > registry with open files which no longer exist, to

> | > applications

> | > | >> | > supposedly

> | > | >> | > | > removed but actually leave, at times, countless worthless

> | > | >> entries;

> | > | >> to

> | > | >> | > any

> | > | >> | > | > number of other things which aren't need, or may have

> somehow

> | > | >> been

> | > | >> | > changed

> | > | >> | > | > at sometime.

> | > | >> | > | > We also know or should know that the registry will FAIL

> or

> be

> | > | >> prone

> | > | >> to

> | > | >> | > | > failure after exceeding a certain size [parsing

> issues]....

> | > which

> | > | >> then

> | > | >> | > | > becomes an issue which may affect recoverability in a

> time

> of

> | > | >> crisis.

> | > | >> | > | >

> | > | >> | > | > All the MVP that I have observed here, have, at some

> time,

> | > posted

> | > | >> | > methods

> | > | >> | > | > to clean errant registry entries, compact the registry,

> and

> | > | >> otherwise

> | > | >> | > work

> | > | >> | > | > upon the registry... They also have repeatedly advised,

> when

> | > | >> | > confronted

> | > | >> | > | > with

> | > | >> | > | > ghost entries, bad drivers or applications or otherwise,,

> | > advised

> | > | >> HOW

> | > | >> | > to

> | > | >> | > | > *manually* search the registry to *clean it*.

> | > | >> | > | >

> | > | >> | > | > I personally have used [and still use] several tools to

> clean

> | > the

> | > | >> | > | > registry,

> | > | >> | > | > which IF PROPERLY USED can be relied upon to make a

> system

> | > lean

> | > | >> and

> | > | >> | > | > mean,,,

> | > | >> | > | > but the key is PROPERLY USED... ANY use of a cleaner

> should

> | > be

> | > | >> taken

> | > | >> | > with

> | > | >> | > | > *a

> | > | >> | > | > grain of salt*. AUTOMATIC cleaning is not a good idea.

> IF

> | > the

> | > | >> user

> | > | >> is

> | > | >> | > | > unfamiliar with the registry, then damage will likely

> occur.

> | > IF,

> | > | >> on

> | > | >> | > the

> | > | >> | > | > other hand, the user familiarizes theirselves with the

> | > registry,

> | > | >> makes

> | > | >> | > an

> | > | >> | > | > effort to first increase their knowledge of the entries

> by

> | > | >> searching

> | > | >> | > first

> | > | >> | > | > to see if they ARE un-needed PRIOR to removal, then the

> | > desired

> | > | >> | > results

> | > | >> | > | > can

> | > | >> | > | > be achieved.

> | > | >> | > | >

> | > | >> | > | > Never overlook the KEY, that personal knowledge and

> | > understanding

> | > | >> is

> | > | >> | > YOUR

> | > | >> | > | > responsibility. OR stay away from these cleaners as they

> | > MIGHT

> | > | >> cause

> | > | >> | > more

> | > | >> | > | > harm than good.

> | > | >> | > | >

> | > | >> | > | > These things ARE after all, relied upon quite heavily

> during

> | > | >> cleanup

> | > | >> | > | > activities from SpyWare, Virus, and other such

> activities...

> | > | >> | > | >

> | > | >> | > | > --

> | > | >> | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

> | > | >> | > | > --

> | > | >> | > | > _________

> | > | >> | > | >

> | > | >> | > | > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in

> | > message

> | > | >> | > | > news:O18TzSurIHA.5060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> | > | >> | > | > | letterman@invalid.com wrote:

> | > | >> | > | > | > On Mon, 5 May 2008 08:54:57 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune"

> | > <none>

> | > | >> wrote:

> | > | >> | > | > | >

> | > | >> | > | > | >> ALL registry cleaners are VERY dangerous to your

> system,

> | > and

> | > | >> will

> | > | >> | > | > | >> actually

> | > | >> | > | > | >> FIX a problem, even just "slowness", approximately

> | > NEVER.

> | > | >> | > | > | >

> | > | >> | > | > | > I run Regseeker regularly and never had a problem. I

> | > have

> | > | >> never

> | > | >> | > seen

> | > | >> | > | > | > it fix any problems, but it does remove a lot of

> useless

> | > | >> junk.

> | > | >> | > | > | > Without such programs, it seems to me that the

> registry

> | > would

> | > | >> get

> | > | >> | > so

> | > | >> | > | > | > huge that it would be crash prone. For example, lets

> say

> | > I

> | > | >> | > created

> | > | >> | > a

> | > | >> | > | > | > folder called "JUNK". I used that folder to

> temporarily

> | > | >> place a

> | > | >> | > bunch

> | > | >> | > | > | > of things I find on my hard drive, which are

> everything

> | > from

> | > | >> text,

> | > | >> | > or

> | > | >> | > | > | > Wordpad notes, to downloaded pictures, file

> downloads,

> | > etc.

> | > | >> Then

> | > | >> | > I

> | > | >> | > | > | > begin sorting out the junk, and use winzip to open

> many

> | > of

> | > | >> the

> | > | >> | > | > | > downloads, and some photo viewer to look at the

> pictures,

> | > and

> | > | >> | > Wordpad

> | > | >> | > | > | > to look at many of the notes. ALL of these things

> are

> | > | >> documented

> | > | >> | > in

> | > | >> | > | > | > the registry. Wordpad, Winzip, Photo Viewers all

> store

> | > | >> "recently

> | > | >> | > | > | > opened files".

> | > | >> | > | > | >

> | > | >> | > | > | > Eventually I get everything put on a CD or other

> media

> | > and

> | > I

> | > | >> | > delete

> | > | >> | > | > | > the "Junk" folder. Then I remove several of the demo

> | > | >> downloads

> | > | >> I

> | > | >> | > | > tried.

> | > | >> | > | > | >

> | > | >> | > | > | > Running Regseeker finds multiple references to that

> JUNK

> | > | >> folder,

> | > | >> | > | > | > references to Winzip, Wordpad, etc opening files, and

> | > many

> | > | >> things

> | > | >> | > | > | > relating to the demos I tried and removed. All of

> that

> | > is

> | > | >> removed

> | > | >> | > | > | > from the registry, thus keeping it small and clean.

> Of

> | > | >> course I

> | > | >> | > | > | > always read what is being cleaned (removed). 99.9%

> of

> | > the

> | > | >> time

> | > | >> | > it's

> | > | >> | > | > | > just this old stuff that is not needed or wanted.

> | > | >> | > | > | >

> | > | >> | > | > | > So how can you say that Reg cleaners are dangerous

> and

> | > should

> | > | >> not

> | > | >> | > be

> | > | >> | > | > | > used.

> | > | >> | > | > |

> | > | >> | > | > | Because he (and a few others here) know what they're

> | > talking

> | > | >> about.

> | > | >> | > | > |

> | > | >> | > | > | > I do agree to be careful what is being removed, but

> | > without

> | > | >> | > | > | > them the registry will become a pile of useless

> garbage.

> | > | >> | > | > |

> | > | >> | > | > | Nonsense.

> --

> --

> _________

>

May 11, 2008

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Was this to me... sorry, as I said we will not agree, but will disagree...

As for PROS, yeah right, anyone who says they are a PRO has some additional

learning to do. Its a constant process that NEVER ends, so that label means

little to nothing to me. I rate the party by what they present, and ONLY for

that present,, they may get better or may catch their own mistakes, and if

they are any good, will change over time. Its an imperfect world, to which

you

must constantly adapt..IMO, Those who NEED {mentally} the label of PRO or

EXPERT, also need some mental help.

I WILL agree that any entries found by these programs MUST be checked

first, as I indicated previously. An old program I once relied upon, JV

Power Tools, could, after *extensive manual setup* of its

allow/disallow/check entries, be used by me upon most systems to

automatically clean the registry without damage. But that was only AFTER

that previous setup. Which meant I had done the background work, the

searching/mistakes/etc. PRIOR to it working the way it should

Microsoft's regclean became essentially useless after a certain level of

updates to the system {was it IE6 or before, ah too long ago to even care},

and did cause errors with Adobe Reader's [to name one] massive entries.

But again, I'm not going to agree with you, nor bother to play the *game*

of posting links or info, I know what I use, which changes from time to

time. AND without these tools I certainly couldn't do what I STILL do [i

suppsedly/hopefully was going to quit last December, oh well, and still

doing in XP and VISTA], test large amounts of programs on an actual systems

[not VM or VPC], from clean installs [not clones/images, though I do use

them for my non-test machines/when taking a break].

Because I also use these *tools*, such as RegSeeker, to cross-check

registry/hive entries, and other monitoring done during the process. They

are a tool, and like any other tool, must be used with caution and

understanding.

--

--

_________

"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

news:%23GXqvr4sIHA.5096@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

| I missed the second part of your post. (The following is from memory, and

| mine ain't so good, but it's as faithful as I can be to From experience, a

| Registry that had LOTS of installs and uninstalls, including MS Office in

| three versions (each one removed before the next one was set up) -- my own

| 98 machine after months of trying things out for other folks (talking

2000,

| 2001, or so.) Can't remember if the HD was 4GB or 8.

|

| I think, at best, some ~500 total "invalid" entries were discovered by a

| handful of the most suggested (and in those days, that was pretty much all

| of them -- EasyCleaner, RegClean and a few others I forget now). I'm not

| talking about garbage entries like MRUs, etc., I'm talking about leftovers

| from the applications. It took me days of individual research on each

entry

| to discover where it came from, and at least several dozen entries were

put

| there by apps that were still installed -- entries I assume the programmer

| wanted put there because how am I (or a "Registry Cleaning Tool") supposed

| to know otherwise? This kind of entry is precisely the kind that cause

wise

| people to call Registry Cleaners hokum. Because it MAY be required by the

| application. It MAY NOT be garbage.

|

| Total, five full time days to be as certain as I could be that those now

| significantly less than 500 entries really were garbage left behind by

| uninstalled apps. And then I did some general PC health measurements --

| speed to load Windows, speed to load apps, etc., just general use for a

| while. Then I removed all the invalid entries. Tested performance. Not a

bit

| of noticeable change, and that was, or rather still is, a puny P200.

|

| I finished up by testing the "invalid" entries, couldn't cause any problem

| that I could trace back to the invalid entry, so I finished removing them

| all and ran the tools all over again and removed everything that came up.

| One of those programs crashed three times in a row a few weeks later, I

| replaced that one entry that belonged to it that I'd removed from the

| Registry, and it worked again.

|

| That's my history with the topic, best I can recall. The point is, there

is

| a TON of work involved in following up on the Registry Cleaners' "hits",

| work that practically NOBODY would ever bother to do properly, and it all

| has pretty much NO positive effect on the Registry and almost always has

| SOME negative effect.

|

| Now, you say these tools can be used to find evidence of virus. Sounds far

| fetched, but not impossible. But I can't imagine how you REPAIR an

| application's Registry entries using any of the cited tools. Can you

please

| give an example? Note that I'm not talking about REGEDIT enhancements, or

| RegSnap or the like, I'm talking about EasyCleaner, et. al., the ones that

| advertise themselves in places... Seems like right down to my toilet

paper.

| Show me a thread where any of these tools were used to diagnose a mistaken

| entry in the Registry and then FIX that problem. Because the BLOAT problem

| is a false problem under normal and proper computer usage. ALL the MRUs,

| etc., are self-cleaning at one point or another and don't even add up to a

| single dry spit into the bucket.

|

| What I will say, here, is that SCANREG /FIX can make a significant

| difference in performance IF there had recently been huge changes in

| programming -- massive changes in the Registry. Otherwise, I found I could

| go weeks or months without running it and it wouldn't make much difference

| in performance. So, yes, to lose the ability to run that tool due to

| Registry size is a sad affair, but I've seen plenty that were in that

shape

| that still ran just fine for what I consider normal lifespans, including

| until the machines died in most cases.

|

| In short, for all practical purposes, the tools we're talking about are

| essentially worthless for the purposes for which they are advertised

(pretty

| much anything you see advertised via SPAM or in fact ANY place other than

| where pros and only pros hang out.)

|

| To drag other tools into the sample is dishonorable debate, seems to me,

but

| if you can show me one that has real value, and show me a sample of people

| using these tools to actually accomplish anything serious.

|

| --

| Gary S. Terhune

| MS-MVP Shell/User

|

| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| news:OycJifGsIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

| > Aw Gary, too decrepit??? That's like telling everyone to buy new

| > computers...

| >

| > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > news:eLILfVGsIHA.5872@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

| > | Yes, but the "good" uses you propose have nothing to do with the

| > advertised

| > | intended use of the tools, and your examples depend on machines too

| > decrepit

| > | to be worth the effort, AFAIC.

| > |

| > | If the Registry is in such a state that it needs "cleaning", the tools

| > will

| > | do little if anything to help. In short, as a generally true

statement,

| > | proven over and over again, Registry Cleaners are dangerous and

| > worthless.

| > | Please read PA's reference to the Aumha.net thread wherein realities

are

| > | revealed after much testing. Hell, the most I've seen tagged by such a

| > | program were several hundred entries (so called "empty" CLSIDs?),

which

| > are

| > | a drop in the bucket compared to the entire Registry. In all, except

the

| > | most decrepit Windows 98 machine, those entries are perfectly

harmless.

| > | Note, too, that "empty" CLSIDs were put there by someone, presumably

| > with

| > | certain future situations in mind. IOW, the context may be missing

that

| > | would explain why the CLSID is there in the first place. IOW, if a

| > | programmer put something in the Registry, my suggestion is that you

| > leave

| > it

| > | there, since you have no ide3a what purpose it might be serving, even

if

| > | that purpose "breaks the rules" on proper Registry use.

| > |

| > | --

| > | Gary S. Terhune

| > | MS-MVP Shell/User

| > | http://www.grystmill.com

| >

| > Yes, in part. I have cautioned concerning removal pf ActiveX semmingly

| > blank entries. These ARE place holders,,, which should be left as they

are

| > DISABLED...

| >

| > As for "leave it there"; that attempts to indicate all programmers know

| > what they are doing, and make proper installation files and uninstaller

| > routines... that's a dream world, it would ber nice, but its not a

| > reality.

| >

| > So again, these types of TOOLS can be of use, but must be used with

| > caution AND only after making an effort to understand what they might

| > find.

| > IN FACT, several of these tools now include Search Tools built-in, and

| > suggest using them BEFORE removal of any items. Its just like any

| > application or program that a user might have, they MUST learn how to

use

| > it.

| >

| > |

| > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| > | news:O9RLrtAsIHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

| > | > Of course, but they are tools none the less. So naturally I like my

| > | > statement better. At least it doesn't make me sound like NONE of

them

| > are

| > | > worthy of use, just that the user should be aware of what can happen

| > when

| > | > used without knowledge.

| > | >

| > | > I have placed several "oh no" posts here when help is needed AFTER

| > | > misuse..

| > | >

| > | > --

| > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| > | > --

| > | > _________

| > | >

| > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > | > news:eduY226rIHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

| > | > | I'm going to modify my answer below... Such cases as you cite

should

| > be

| > | > | generally be scrapped and replaced. If nothing else, as soon as

that

| > | > system

| > | > | connects to any other system, in any manner, it is a *probable*

| > danger

| > | > to

| > | > | others. If it is so obsolete and unsupported and the user was so

| > | > | irresponsible that it is really impossible to rebuild, I say

thumbs

| > | > down.

| > | > |

| > | > | And I've decided that I like your mention of HJT. From what I see,

| > those

| > | > few

| > | > | Registry Cleaners that aren't pure scam are JUST as dangerous as

| > HJT.

| > Do

| > | > you

| > | > | recommend the unassisted use of HJT? Would you not scream

DANGER!!!

| > if

| > | > you

| > | > | saw it advertised as a user-friendly, idiot-proof tool?

| > | > |

| > | > | --

| > | > | Gary S. Terhune

| > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

| > | > | http://www.grystmill.com

| > | > |

| > | > | "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > | > | news:OfeA8t6rIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

| > | > | >

| > | > | > "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| > | > | > news:%23thP3H6rIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

| > | > | >>

| > | > | >> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > | > | >> news:OIlgiP4rIHA.3632@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

| > | > | >> | I don't use any such add-on and never have. Yes, I suppose

they

| > | > might

| > | > | >> have

| > | > | >> | come in handy once or twice, but by the time I thought of

| > grabbing

| > | > one

| > | > | >> for

| > | > | >> | the momentary purpose, I was done.

| > | > | >> |

| > | > | >> | I don't get involved in detailed spyware and virus removal.

| > With

| > | > minor

| > | > | >> | exceptions, when I encounter a seriously infested machine, I

| > | > recommend

| > | > | >> a

| > | > | >> | full rebuild. Once a machine is infested, I consider it

| > permanently

| > | > | >> suspect.

| > | > | >> | Besides, it would seem to me that in the case of viruses and

| > | > spyware

| > | > | >> | removal, the experts should already know EXACTLY what spyware

| > and

| > | > | >> virus(es)

| > | > | >> | they are dealing with and which Registry entries to remove,

and

| > | > even

| > | > | >> have

| > | > | >> | REG files for the purpose.

| > | > | >>

| > | > | >> In part you're right, many do have these reg files; however, as

| > these

| > | > | >> things

| > | > | >> are constantly being modified [variants] the "cleaning tools*

are

| > | > used

| > | > to

| > | > | >> locate potential entries and or files which *may be* that

| > variant.

| > | > | >> Without

| > | > | >> the output of these programs, diagnostics becomes just guesses.

| > One

| > | > could

| > | > | >> even, under the cleaner aspect, rate hijackthis as in the same

| > class,

| > | > yet

| > | > | >> without this tool many would be at the mercy of any BHO or

other,

| > and

| > | > | >> experts would be without the tools necessary to help.

| > | > | >

| > | > | > Can you provide a list of the most popular of these tools? I'm

| > having

| > | > a

| > | > | > hard time associating any of the usually suggested and widely

| > | > advertised

| > | > | > Registry Cleaners with discovery of virus variants.

| > | > | >

| > | > | >> They can be far more effective than running tweakUI for other

| > styles

| > | > of

| > | > | >> cleanup as well.

| > | > | >

| > | > | > I never use TUI, either. What kind of cleanup does TUI do? Are

we

| > back

| > | > to

| > | > | > "cleaning" MRUs, etc.?

| > | > | >

| > | > | >> | If they are GUESSING to the point that they need

| > | > | >> | tools to seek out (intelligently, one presumes) just the

signs

| > of

| > | > crap,

| > | > | >> then

| > | > | >> | we're back to a full wipe and reinstall AFAIC. Not to be too

| > blunt

| > | > | >> about

| > | > | >> it,

| > | > | >> | but I consider such pastimes precisely that. Pastimes. Just

| > like

| > a

| > | > lot

| > | > | >> of

| > | > | >> | "fixing" that goes on here, say in the networking and DUN

| > sphere,

| > | > for

| > | > | >> | instance, with the interminable and often unresolved threads,

| > all

| > | > your

| > | > | >> AT

| > | > | >> | commands, blah, blah... The way to FIX a DUN problem is

almost

| > | > ALWAYS

| > | > | >> to

| > | > | >> | remove all networking and related devices and services and

let

| > them

| > | > | >> | reinstall themselves.

| > | > | >> |

| > | > | >> | --

| > | > | >> | Gary S. Terhune

| > | > | >> | MS-MVP Shell/User

| > | > | >> | http://www.grystmill.com

| > | > | >>

| > | > | >> The full wipe would be the safest, I agree; however, that's

just

| > not

| > | > | >> possible for many users. Either they no longer have the

| > installation

| > | > | >> disks

| > | > | >> for their applications, or those applications may no longer be

| > | > supported

| > | > | >> [leaving them with only the installation disk{s}, but no

| > updates].

| > | > Then

| > | > | >> you

| > | > | >> run against many devices which once had drivers and/or updates

| > posted

| > | > | >> upon

| > | > | >> the manufacturer's site, which may no longer be offered.

Granted,

| > one

| > | > can

| > | > | >> search the NET for them, but that places one in the hands of

| > whatever

| > | > is

| > | > | >> found.

| > | > | >> Yes, users should understand that they should have obtained and

| > saved

| > | > | >> these

| > | > | >> during the course of their usage, sadly many don't

| > | > | >

| > | > | > You're starting to get pretty rarified, there. One in ten

million?

| > | > | >

| > | > | > OK, I'll allow that for particular purposes and in the hands of

| > truly

| > | > | > experienced techs, one or more of these tools might come in

handy,

| > but

| > | > | > that small exception doesn't come close to convincing me to

desist

| > in

| > | > my

| > | > | > blanket condemnation of such tools in this forum. Read PA's cite

| > for

| > | > the

| > | > | > real skinny.

| > | > | >

| > | > | >> I think we agreed on the Network issue in the networking forum,

| > and

| > | > we

| > | > | >> did

| > | > | >> offer that as the best test solution, and the other factors

were

| > to

| > | > work

| > | > | >> through the potentials associated.

| > | > | >

| > | > | > HUH!?!

| > | > | >

| > | > | > --

| > | > | > Gary S. Terhune

| > | > | > MS-MVP Shell/User

| > | > | > http://www.grystmill.com

| > | > | >

| > | > | >>

| > | > | >> --

| > | > | >> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| > | > | >> --

| > | > | >> _________

| > | > | >>

| > | > | >> |

| > | > | >> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| > | > | >> | news:eQZZwCzrIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

| > | > | >> | > I'll put the response here, rather than go through all the

| > | > postings

| > | > | >> for

| > | > | >> | > individual responses...

| > | > | >> | >

| > | > | >> | > Locating the issue areas is the primary purpose for which I

| > use

| > | > the

| > | > | >> | > programs for, though I have tested them extensively, which

is

| > why

| > | > I

| > | > | >> | > caution

| > | > | >> | > not to use the auto cleanup.

| > | > | >> | >

| > | > | >> | > But for the rest, I suggest a perusal through the archives

of

| > | > this

| > | > | >> group;

| > | > | >> | > remind the parties of their postings; and direct to the

| > SpyWare

| > | > and

| > | > | >> Virus

| > | > | >> | > removal forums and sites.

| > | > | >> | > These tools [ccleaner, regseeker, and others] are used

| > regularly

| > | > | >> during

| > | > | >> | > the

| > | > | >> | > process. Granted, under the guidance of people familiar

with

| > them

| > | > and

| > | > | >> the

| > | > | >> | > registry, but certainly are used far more often than

| > suggesting

| > | > | >> manual

| > | > | >> | > editing. Moreover, who in here, doesn't have their favorite

| > | > regedit

| > | > | >> addin

| > | > | >> | > or

| > | > | >> | > replacement that they use because of the limited

capabilities

| > of

| > | > the

| > | > | >> basic

| > | > | >> | > regedit. Is there anyone still that far in the mud?

| > | > | >> | >

| > | > | >> | > So my statement stands, careful application of these

cleaners

| > can

| > | > be

| > | > | >> of

| > | > | >> | > use, but not to those who fail to take the time to

understand

| > | > them.

| > | > | >> | >

| > | > | >> | > --

| > | > | >> | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| > | > | >> | > --

| > | > | >> | > _________

| > | > | >> | >

| > | > | >> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

| > | > | >> | > news:uJJ8wpwrIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

| > | > | >> | > | Please provide documentation of Registry bloat causing

any

| > | > | >> significant

| > | > | >> | > | failures". Only such thing I've heard of is SCANREG /FIX

| > | > failing

| > | > to

| > | > | >> run

| > | > | >> | > on

| > | > | >> | > a

| > | > | >> | > | large Registry. BFD.

| > | > | >> | > |

| > | > | >> | > | Yes, sometimes the Registry needs work, usually after a

| > | > wide-spread

| > | > | >> | > disaster

| > | > | >> | > | involving the user doing something that shouldn't have

been

| > | > done,

| > | > | >> but

| > | > | >> | > only

| > | > | >> | > | an expert is likely to know for sure, and while tools

| > *might*

| > | > | >> locate a

| > | > | >> | > few

| > | > | >> | > | of those entries, you know better than most, I think, how

| > much

| > | > of

| > | > | >> any

| > | > | >> | > real

| > | > | >> | > | Registry *REPAIR*, as opposed to "cleaning", is a

| > painstaking

| > | > | >> MANUAL

| > | > | >> | > search

| > | > | >> | > | and research procedure that few if any tools do well at

| > all.

| > | > | >> | > |

| > | > | >> | > | I used them regularly for several years, to find "crap"

and

| > | > delete

| > | > | >> it,

| > | > | >> | > | ALWAYS having to refuse the deletion of some things I had

| > | > learned

| > | > | >> | > weren't

| > | > | >> | > a

| > | > | >> | > | good idea to remove (or were unimportant MRUs, etc.), and

| > after

| > | > | >> many

| > | > | >> | > years

| > | > | >> | > | of such experience, I arrived at the stance I take now.

| > I've

| > | > never

| > | > | >> once

| > | > | >> | > had

| > | > | >> | > | any success helping anyone else by having them run any

| > Registry

| > | > | >> tools,

| > | > | >> | > | whereas I have several times dealt with people who were

| > screwed

| > | > by

| > | > | >> their

| > | > | >> | > | Registry tools, even the same ones I'd been using and

| > thought

| > | > were

| > | > | >> | > | "idiot-proof".

| > | > | >> | > |

| > | > | >> | > | --

| > | > | >> | > | Gary S. Terhune

| > | > | >> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User

| > | > | >> | > | http://www.grystmill.com

| > | > | >> | > |

| > | > | >> | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

| > | > | >> | > | news:OnaPSovrIHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

| > | > | >> | > | > Ah gosh I hate to do this, BUT,,,,

| > | > | >> | > | >

| > | > | >> | > | > As we all know, the registry can become quite bloated

| > with

| > | > | >> entries

| > | > | >> | > which

| > | > | >> | > | > relate to nothing of value, from MRU lists to

| > applications

| > | > which

| > | > | >> fill

| > | > | >> | > the

| > | > | >> | > | > registry with open files which no longer exist, to

| > | > applications

| > | > | >> | > supposedly

| > | > | >> | > | > removed but actually leave, at times, countless

worthless

| > | > | >> entries;

| > | > | >> to

| > | > | >> | > any

| > | > | >> | > | > number of other things which aren't need, or may have

| > somehow

| > | > | >> been

| > | > | >> | > changed

| > | > | >> | > | > at sometime.

| > | > | >> | > | > We also know or should know that the registry will FAIL

| > or

| > be

| > | > | >> prone

| > | > | >> to

| > | > | >> | > | > failure after exceeding a certain size [parsing

| > issues]....

| > | > which

| > | > | >> then

| > | > | >> | > | > becomes an issue which may affect recoverability in a

| > time

| > of

| > | > | >> crisis.

| > | > | >> | > | >

| > | > | >> | > | > All the MVP that I have observed here, have, at some

| > time,

| > | > posted

| > | > | >> | > methods

| > | > | >> | > | > to clean errant registry entries, compact the registry,

| > and

| > | > | >> otherwise

| > | > | >> | > work

| > | > | >> | > | > upon the registry... They also have repeatedly advised,

| > when

| > | > | >> | > confronted

| > | > | >> | > | > with

| > | > | >> | > | > ghost entries, bad drivers or applications or

otherwise,,

| > | > advised

| > | > | >> HOW

| > | > | >> | > to

| > | > | >> | > | > *manually* search the registry to *clean it*.

| > | > | >> | > | >

| > | > | >> | > | > I personally have used [and still use] several tools to

| > clean

| > | > the

| > | > | >> | > | > registry,

| > | > | >> | > | > which IF PROPERLY USED can be relied upon to make a

| > system

| > | > lean

| > | > | >> and

| > | > | >> | > | > mean,,,

| > | > | >> | > | > but the key is PROPERLY USED... ANY use of a cleaner

| > should

| > | > be

| > | > | >> taken

| > | > | >> | > with

| > | > | >> | > | > *a

| > | > | >> | > | > grain of salt*. AUTOMATIC cleaning is not a good idea.

| > IF

| > | > the

| > | > | >> user

| > | > | >> is

| > | > | >> | > | > unfamiliar with the registry, then damage will likely

| > occur.

| > | > IF,

| > | > | >> on

| > | > | >> | > the

| > | > | >> | > | > other hand, the user familiarizes theirselves with the

| > | > registry,

| > | > | >> makes

| > | > | >> | > an

| > | > | >> | > | > effort to first increase their knowledge of the entries

| > by

| > | > | >> searching

| > | > | >> | > first

| > | > | >> | > | > to see if they ARE un-needed PRIOR to removal, then the

| > | > desired

| > | > | >> | > results

| > | > | >> | > | > can

| > | > | >> | > | > be achieved.

| > | > | >> | > | >

| > | > | >> | > | > Never overlook the KEY, that personal knowledge and

| > | > understanding

| > | > | >> is

| > | > | >> | > YOUR

| > | > | >> | > | > responsibility. OR stay away from these cleaners as

they

| > | > MIGHT

| > | > | >> cause

| > | > | >> | > more

| > | > | >> | > | > harm than good.

| > | > | >> | > | >

| > | > | >> | > | > These things ARE after all, relied upon quite heavily

| > during

| > | > | >> cleanup

| > | > | >> | > | > activities from SpyWare, Virus, and other such

| > activities...

| > | > | >> | > | >

| > | > | >> | > | > --

| > | > | >> | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| > | > | >> | > | > --

| > | > | >> | > | > _________

| > | > | >> | > | >

| > | > | >> | > | > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in

| > | > message

| > | > | >> | > | > news:O18TzSurIHA.5060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

| > | > | >> | > | > | letterman@invalid.com wrote:

| > | > | >> | > | > | > On Mon, 5 May 2008 08:54:57 -0700, "Gary S.

Terhune"

| > | > <none>

| > | > | >> wrote:

| > | > | >> | > | > | >

| > | > | >> | > | > | >> ALL registry cleaners are VERY dangerous to your

| > system,

| > | > and

| > | > | >> will

| > | > | >> | > | > | >> actually

| > | > | >> | > | > | >> FIX a problem, even just "slowness", approximately

| > | > NEVER.

| > | > | >> | > | > | >

| > | > | >> | > | > | > I run Regseeker regularly and never had a problem.

I

| > | > have

| > | > | >> never

| > | > | >> | > seen

| > | > | >> | > | > | > it fix any problems, but it does remove a lot of

| > useless

| > | > | >> junk.

| > | > | >> | > | > | > Without such programs, it seems to me that the

| > registry

| > | > would

| > | > | >> get

| > | > | >> | > so

| > | > | >> | > | > | > huge that it would be crash prone. For example,

lets

| > say

| > | > I

| > | > | >> | > created

| > | > | >> | > a

| > | > | >> | > | > | > folder called "JUNK". I used that folder to

| > temporarily

| > | > | >> place a

| > | > | >> | > bunch

| > | > | >> | > | > | > of things I find on my hard drive, which are

| > everything

| > | > from

| > | > | >> text,

| > | > | >> | > or

| > | > | >> | > | > | > Wordpad notes, to downloaded pictures, file

| > downloads,

| > | > etc.

| > | > | >> Then

| > | > | >> | > I

| > | > | >> | > | > | > begin sorting out the junk, and use winzip to open

| > many

| > | > of

| > | > | >> the

| > | > | >> | > | > | > downloads, and some photo viewer to look at the

| > pictures,

| > | > and

| > | > | >> | > Wordpad

| > | > | >> | > | > | > to look at many of the notes. ALL of these things

| > are

| > | > | >> documented

| > | > | >> | > in

| > | > | >> | > | > | > the registry. Wordpad, Winzip, Photo Viewers all

| > store

| > | > | >> "recently

| > | > | >> | > | > | > opened files".

| > | > | >> | > | > | >

| > | > | >> | > | > | > Eventually I get everything put on a CD or other

| > media

| > | > and

| > | > I

| > | > | >> | > delete

| > | > | >> | > | > | > the "Junk" folder. Then I remove several of the

demo

| > | > | >> downloads

| > | > | >> I

| > | > | >> | > | > tried.

| > | > | >> | > | > | >

| > | > | >> | > | > | > Running Regseeker finds multiple references to that

| > JUNK

| > | > | >> folder,

| > | > | >> | > | > | > references to Winzip, Wordpad, etc opening files,

and

| > | > many

| > | > | >> things

| > | > | >> | > | > | > relating to the demos I tried and removed. All of

| > that

| > | > is

| > | > | >> removed

| > | > | >> | > | > | > from the registry, thus keeping it small and clean.

| > Of

| > | > | >> course I

| > | > | >> | > | > | > always read what is being cleaned (removed). 99.9%

| > of

| > | > the

| > | > | >> time

| > | > | >> | > it's

| > | > | >> | > | > | > just this old stuff that is not needed or wanted.

| > | > | >> | > | > | >

| > | > | >> | > | > | > So how can you say that Reg cleaners are dangerous

| > and

| > | > should

| > | > | >> not

| > | > | >> | > be

| > | > | >> | > | > | > used.

| > | > | >> | > | > |

| > | > | >> | > | > | Because he (and a few others here) know what they're

| > | > talking

| > | > | >> about.

| > | > | >> | > | > |

| > | > | >> | > | > | > I do agree to be careful what is being removed, but

| > | > without

| > | > | >> | > | > | > them the registry will become a pile of useless

| > garbage.

| > | > | >> | > | > |

| > | > | >> | > | > | Nonsense.

| > --

| > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| > --

| > _________

| >

|

May 11, 2008

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

OK, whatever. But from the little detail you actually provide, I'd say

you're in that tiny fraction of users known as the "exception that proves

the rule".

--

Gary S. Terhune

MS-MVP Shell/User

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:OieRiX6sIHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> Was this to me... sorry, as I said we will not agree, but will disagree...

>

> As for PROS, yeah right, anyone who says they are a PRO has some

> additional

> learning to do. Its a constant process that NEVER ends, so that label

> means

> little to nothing to me. I rate the party by what they present, and ONLY

> for

> that present,, they may get better or may catch their own mistakes, and if

> they are any good, will change over time. Its an imperfect world, to which

> you

> must constantly adapt..IMO, Those who NEED {mentally} the label of PRO or

> EXPERT, also need some mental help.

>

> I WILL agree that any entries found by these programs MUST be checked

> first, as I indicated previously. An old program I once relied upon, JV

> Power Tools, could, after *extensive manual setup* of its

> allow/disallow/check entries, be used by me upon most systems to

> automatically clean the registry without damage. But that was only AFTER

> that previous setup. Which meant I had done the background work, the

> searching/mistakes/etc. PRIOR to it working the way it should

>

> Microsoft's regclean became essentially useless after a certain level of

> updates to the system {was it IE6 or before, ah too long ago to even

> care},

> and did cause errors with Adobe Reader's [to name one] massive entries.

>

> But again, I'm not going to agree with you, nor bother to play the *game*

> of posting links or info, I know what I use, which changes from time to

> time. AND without these tools I certainly couldn't do what I STILL do [i

> suppsedly/hopefully was going to quit last December, oh well, and still

> doing in XP and VISTA], test large amounts of programs on an actual

> systems

> [not VM or VPC], from clean installs [not clones/images, though I do use

> them for my non-test machines/when taking a break].

>

> Because I also use these *tools*, such as RegSeeker, to cross-check

> registry/hive entries, and other monitoring done during the process. They

> are a tool, and like any other tool, must be used with caution and

> understanding.

>

> --

> --

> _________

>

> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message

> news:%23GXqvr4sIHA.5096@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> | I missed the second part of your post. (The following is from memory,

> and

> | mine ain't so good, but it's as faithful as I can be to From experience,

> a

> | Registry that had LOTS of installs and uninstalls, including MS Office

> in

> | three versions (each one removed before the next one was set up) -- my

> own

> | 98 machine after months of trying things out for other folks (talking

> 2000,

> | 2001, or so.) Can't remember if the HD was 4GB or 8.

> |

> | I think, at best, some ~500 total "invalid" entries were discovered by a

> | handful of the most suggested (and in those days, that was pretty much

> all

> | of them -- EasyCleaner, RegClean and a few others I forget now). I'm not

> | talking about garbage entries like MRUs, etc., I'm talking about

> leftovers

> | from the applications. It took me days of individual research on each

> entry

> | to discover where it came from, and at least several dozen entries were

> put

> | there by apps that were still installed -- entries I assume the

> programmer

> | wanted put there because how am I (or a "Registry Cleaning Tool")

> supposed

> | to know otherwise? This kind of entry is precisely the kind that cause

> wise

> | people to call Registry Cleaners hokum. Because it MAY be required by

> the

> | application. It MAY NOT be garbage.

> |

> | Total, five full time days to be as certain as I could be that those now

> | significantly less than 500 entries really were garbage left behind by

> | uninstalled apps. And then I did some general PC health measurements --

> | speed to load Windows, speed to load apps, etc., just general use for a

> | while. Then I removed all the invalid entries. Tested performance. Not a

> bit

> | of noticeable change, and that was, or rather still is, a puny P200.

> |

> | I finished up by testing the "invalid" entries, couldn't cause any

> problem

> | that I could trace back to the invalid entry, so I finished removing

> them

> | all and ran the tools all over again and removed everything that came

> up.

> | One of those programs crashed three times in a row a few weeks later, I

> | replaced that one entry that belonged to it that I'd removed from the

> | Registry, and it worked again.

> |

> | That's my history with the topic, best I can recall. The point is, there

> is

> | a TON of work involved in following up on the Registry Cleaners' "hits",

> | work that practically NOBODY would ever bother to do properly, and it

> all

> | has pretty much NO positive effect on the Registry and almost always has

> | SOME negative effect.

> |

> | Now, you say these tools can be used to find evidence of virus. Sounds

> far

> | fetched, but not impossible. But I can't imagine how you REPAIR an

> | application's Registry entries using any of the cited tools. Can you

> please

> | give an example? Note that I'm not talking about REGEDIT enhancements,

> or

> | RegSnap or the like, I'm talking about EasyCleaner, et. al., the ones

> that

> | advertise themselves in places... Seems like right down to my toilet

> paper.

> | Show me a thread where any of these tools were used to diagnose a

> mistaken

> | entry in the Registry and then FIX that problem. Because the BLOAT

> problem

> | is a false problem under normal and proper computer usage. ALL the MRUs,

> | etc., are self-cleaning at one point or another and don't even add up to

> a

> | single dry spit into the bucket.

> |

> | What I will say, here, is that SCANREG /FIX can make a significant

> | difference in performance IF there had recently been huge changes in

> | programming -- massive changes in the Registry. Otherwise, I found I

> could

> | go weeks or months without running it and it wouldn't make much

> difference

> | in performance. So, yes, to lose the ability to run that tool due to

> | Registry size is a sad affair, but I've seen plenty that were in that

> shape

> | that still ran just fine for what I consider normal lifespans, including

> | until the machines died in most cases.

> |

> | In short, for all practical purposes, the tools we're talking about are

> | essentially worthless for the purposes for which they are advertised

> (pretty

> | much anything you see advertised via SPAM or in fact ANY place other

> than

> | where pros and only pros hang out.)

> |

> | To drag other tools into the sample is dishonorable debate, seems to me,

> but

> | if you can show me one that has real value, and show me a sample of

> people

> | using these tools to actually accomplish anything serious.

> |

> | --

> | Gary S. Terhune

> | MS-MVP Shell/User