Re: CCleaner Registry Cleaner

 

You were right on the substance.

 

I don't think he knows what he's talking about.

 

DSH

 

"Olórin" <someoneelse@microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:OZj3MxmMIHA.820@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>

> "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message

> news:%23j$ADldMIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>> I note the use of the passive tense: "CCleaner was used...". Call me

>>> cynical, but it makes me wonder if Ron used it himself and, as a result,

>>> found associations lost - or whether someone else did some work on his

>>> machine for him and pointed the finger at CCleaner when things went

>>> belly-up.

>>

>> Perceptive.

>>

>> I'm a regular user of CCleaner and have not encountered any such

>> problems.

>>

>> Note the use of the active voice -- not the passive voice.

>>

>> DSH

>>

>

> Whoops, is it "voice"? (Hits the Web.) Ook. I hate getting that sort of

> thing wrong!

Why did I purchase Registry Cleaner last week and tonight when I typed in

http://www.windows.com I was hit with Registry Smart that found over 1000 errors on

my computer after Registry Cleaner had found errors and fixes them after I

paid them the $39.95 fee last week? Now Registry Smart wants me to pay them

to correct these other 1000 errors. Is all of this a scam?

 

"D. Spencer Hines" wrote:

> Nonsense...

>

> CCleaner is safe as a Registry Cleaner....

>

> And improves performance.

>

> DSH

>

> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message

> news:O5CmfAwHIHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>

> > Why do you think you'd ever need to clean your registry? What specific

> > *problems* are you actually experiencing (not some program's bogus listing

> > of imaginary problems) that you think can be fixed by using a registry

> > cleaner?

> >

> > If you do have a problem that is rooted in the registry, it would be

> > far better to simply edit (after backing up, of course) only the specific

> > key(s) and/or value(s) that are causing the problem. After all, why use a

> > chainsaw when a scalpel will do the job? Additionally, the manually

> > changing of one or two registry entries is far less likely to have the

> > dire consequences of allowing an automated product to make multiple

> > changes simultaneously. The only thing needed to safely clean your

> > registry is knowledge and Regedit.exe.

> >

> > The registry contains all of the operating system's "knowledge" of the

> > computer's hardware devices, installed software, the location of the

> > device drivers, and the computer's configuration. A misstep in the

> > registry can have severe consequences. One should not even turning loose

> > a poorly understood automated "cleaner," unless he is fully confident that

> > he knows *exactly* what is going to happen as a result of each and every

> > change.

> >

> > Having repeatedly seen the results of inexperienced people using

> > automated registry "cleaners," I can only advise all but the most

> > experienced computer technicians (and/or hobbyists) to avoid them all.

> > Experience has shown me that such tools simply are not safe in the hands

> > of the inexperienced user. If you lack the knowledge and experience to

> > maintain your registry by yourself, then you also lack the knowledge and

> > experience to safely configure and use any automated registry cleaner, no

> > matter how safe they claim to be.

> >

> > More importantly, no one has ever demonstrated that the use of an

> > automated registry cleaner, particularly by an untrained, inexperienced

> > computer user, does any real good, whatsoever. There's certainly been no

> > empirical evidence offered to demonstrate that the use of such products to

> > "clean" WinXP's registry improves a computer's performance or stability.

> > Given the potential for harm, it's just not worth the risk.

> >

> > Granted, most registry "cleaners" won't cause problems each and every

> > time they're used, but the potential for harm is always there. And, since

> > no registry "cleaner" has ever been demonstrated to do any good (think of

> > them like treating the flu with chicken soup - there's no real medicinal

> > value, but it sometimes provides a warming placebo effect), I always tell

> > people that the risks far out-weigh the non-existent benefits.

> >

> > I will concede that a good registry *scanning* tool, in the hands of

> > an experienced and knowledgeable technician or hobbyist can be a useful

> > time-saving diagnostic tool, as long as it's not allowed to make any

> > changes automatically. But I really don't think that there are any

> > registry cleaners that are truly safe for the general public to use.

> > Experience has proven just the opposite: such tools simply are not safe in

> > the hands of the inexperienced user.

>

>

>

"Linda W" <Linda W@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:F5D9C8B0-F381-4772-815A-E585BD364418@microsoft.com...

> Why did I purchase Registry Cleaner last week and tonight when I typed in

> http://www.windows.com I was hit with Registry Smart that found over 1000 errors

> on

> my computer after Registry Cleaner had found errors and fixes them after I

> paid them the $39.95 fee last week? Now Registry Smart wants me to pay

> them

> to correct these other 1000 errors. Is all of this a scam?

>

snip

 

Yes, it is a scam. Firstly and most importantly, if you have 'errors' in

your Registry you will have problems running the OS and/or program. If you

do have these problems Registry Cleaners will not help. What these cleaners

term as errors are not errors they are simply entries in the Registry that

the 'Cleaners' determine are redundant. Contrary to what many may tell you,

these redundant entries do absolutely no harm and have no effect on the

operation of the OS or programs. They may inflate the size of the Registry

but as disk space is the least of problems with modern machines, this is of

no consequence. Further, occasionally Registry Cleaners will remove or

advise removal of Registry entries that are required for the running of

installed programs and if acted upon will require you to reinstall the

program.

 

There are many who will tell you that Registry Cleaners will/may damage the

OS. So far no one has yet given any evidence of this other than hearsay but

the overall advice of these programs have the potential of doing harm

without doing any good is valid.

Re: Registry Cleaner

 

CCleaner is very helpful in this respect.

 

DSH

 

"Edward W. Thompson" <thomeduk1@btopenworld.com> wrote in message

news:uapqyAfRIHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> "Linda W" <Linda W@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:F5D9C8B0-F381-4772-815A-E585BD364418@microsoft.com...

>> Why did I purchase Registry Cleaner last week and tonight when I typed in

>> http://www.windows.com I was hit with Registry Smart that found over 1000 errors

>> on

>> my computer after Registry Cleaner had found errors and fixes them after

>> I

>> paid them the $39.95 fee last week? Now Registry Smart wants me to pay

>> them

>> to correct these other 1000 errors. Is all of this a scam?

>>

> snip

>

> Yes, it is a scam. Firstly and most importantly, if you have 'errors' in

> your Registry you will have problems running the OS and/or program. If

> you do have these problems Registry Cleaners will not help. What these

> cleaners term as errors are not errors they are simply entries in the

> Registry that the 'Cleaners' determine are redundant. Contrary to what

> many may tell you, these redundant entries do absolutely no harm and have

> no effect on the operation of the OS or programs. They may inflate the

> size of the Registry but as disk space is the least of problems with

> modern machines, this is of no consequence. Further, occasionally

> Registry Cleaners will remove or advise removal of Registry entries that

> are required for the running of installed programs and if acted upon will

> require you to reinstall the program.

>

> There are many who will tell you that Registry Cleaners will/may damage

> the OS. So far no one has yet given any evidence of this other than

> hearsay but the overall advice of these programs have the potential of

> doing harm without doing any good is valid.

Linda W wrote:

> Why did I purchase Registry Cleaner last week and tonight when I typed in

> http://www.windows.com I was hit with Registry Smart that found over 1000 errors on

> my computer after Registry Cleaner had found errors and fixes them after I

> paid them the $39.95 fee last week? Now Registry Smart wants me to pay them

> to correct these other 1000 errors. Is all of this a scam?

>

 

 

Yes, registry cleaners are all a scam.

 

 

--

 

Bruce Chambers

 

Help us help you:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

 

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary

safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

 

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

 

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has

killed a great many philosophers.

~ Denis Diderot

Re: Registry Cleaner

 

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

> CCleaner is very helpful in this respect.

>

 

 

No, it is not. It''s not better than any of the other snake oil scams

available.

 

 

--

 

Bruce Chambers

 

Help us help you:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

 

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary

safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

 

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

 

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has

killed a great many philosophers.

~ Denis Diderot

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:11:00 -0800, Linda W <Linda

W@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

> Why did I purchase Registry Cleaner last week and tonight when I typed in

> http://www.windows.com I was hit with Registry Smart that found over 1000 errors on

> my computer after Registry Cleaner had found errors and fixes them after I

> paid them the $39.95 fee last week? Now Registry Smart wants me to pay them

> to correct these other 1000 errors. Is all of this a scam?

 

 

All registry cleaners are scams at best. At worst, they can completely

hose your system.

 

I strongly suggest you avoid using any registry cleaning program. They

are *all* snake oil. Cleaning of the registry isn't needed and is

dangerous. Leave the registry alone and don't use any registry

cleaner. Despite what many people think, and what vendors of registry

cleaning software try to convince you of, having unused registry

entries doesn't really hurt you.

 

The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner erroneously

removing an entry you need is far greater than any potential benefit

it may have.

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Re: Registry Cleaner

 

Nonsense.

 

Chambers is just blustering and burbling.

 

CCleaner works beautifully as a Registry Cleaner.

 

<http://www.ccleaner.com/>

 

Try it...

 

DSH

 

"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message

news:eal6GQlRIHA.5976@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>> CCleaner is very helpful in this respect.

>>

> No, it is not. It''s [sic] not better than any of the other snake oil

> scams available.

> --

> Bruce Chambers

Re: Registry Cleaner

 

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

> Nonsense.

>

> Chambers is just blustering and burbling.

>

> CCleaner works beautifully as a Registry Cleaner.

>

 

 

*NO* registry cleaner works "beautifully," as *NONE* of them do

anything in the least bit useful or beneficial.

 

And CCLeaner, in particular, products nothing but false positives,

identifying orphaned entries where none exist. I've tested it.

 

 

--

 

Bruce Chambers

 

Help us help you:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

 

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary

safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

 

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

 

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has

killed a great many philosophers.

~ Denis Diderot

Re: Registry Cleaner

 

Evidence?

 

 

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

> CCleaner is very helpful in this respect.

>

> DSH

>

> "Edward W. Thompson" <thomeduk1@btopenworld.com> wrote in message

> news:uapqyAfRIHA.5360@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>

>> "Linda W" <Linda W@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

>> news:F5D9C8B0-F381-4772-815A-E585BD364418@microsoft.com...

>>> Why did I purchase Registry Cleaner last week and tonight when I

>>> typed in http://www.windows.com I was hit with Registry Smart that found

>>> over 1000 errors on

>>> my computer after Registry Cleaner had found errors and fixes them

>>> after I

>>> paid them the $39.95 fee last week? Now Registry Smart wants me to

>>> pay them

>>> to correct these other 1000 errors. Is all of this a scam?

>>>

>> snip

>>

>> Yes, it is a scam. Firstly and most importantly, if you have

>> 'errors' in your Registry you will have problems running the OS

>> and/or program. If you do have these problems Registry Cleaners

>> will not help. What these cleaners term as errors are not errors

>> they are simply entries in the Registry that the 'Cleaners'

>> determine are redundant. Contrary to what many may tell you, these

>> redundant entries do absolutely no harm and have no effect on the

>> operation of the OS or programs. They may inflate the size of the

>> Registry but as disk space is the least of problems with modern

>> machines, this is of no consequence. Further, occasionally Registry

>> Cleaners will remove or advise removal of Registry entries that are

>> required for the running of installed programs and if acted upon

>> will require you to reinstall the program.

>>

>> There are many who will tell you that Registry Cleaners will/may

>> damage the OS. So far no one has yet given any evidence of this

>> other than hearsay but the overall advice of these programs have the

>> potential of doing harm without doing any good is valid.

Re: Registry Cleaner

 

I have to say that I recommend CCleaner and use I regularly myself. While I

agree with Bruce Chambers sentiments regarding CCleaner checking what

CCleaner is actually removing, in the few years I've been using CCleaner I

can't say that I've actually been in a position were CCleaner has located a

large amount of 'problems' that needed fixing, even on brand new machine. I

purchased a new machine two weeks ago, installed and run CCleaner and it

only found 2 problems.

 

Speed increase is probably relative. It is amazing how, after using a

registry cleaner one automatically thinks, WoW that certainly improved

things when, in reality it has done nothing of the sort. I certainly haven't

seen any increase in speed - well that has been noticeable, anyway.

 

One thing I have noticed, with Windows Vista Ultimate at any rate is that

when CCleaner is doing general housekeeping, i.e., removing temporary

internet files, history etc I am actually seeing a ghost image of Windows

Vista's Disk Cleanup Tool, so unless my machine happens to be a fluke I am

beginning to ask myself who I actually cleaning what CCleaner or Vista Disk

Cleanup?

 

--

--

John Barnett MVP

Associate Expert

Windows - Shell/User

 

Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org

Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org

 

The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any

kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,

reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for

any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the

use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this

mail/post..

 

"Daave" <dcwashNOSPAM@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote in message

news:eNBdiN8HIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> No bait. You're the one who made the claim. I've used Ccleaner and have

> only found the clearing of temp files to be beneficial. If you've done

> more extensive testing, good for you. But bear in mind that is was YOU who

> made the claim in the first place! And I still find it interesting you're

> unwilling to back it up.

>

> Belief and knowledge are two different things...

>

>

> "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message

> news:ePC1jw7HIHA.5544@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>> Right!

>>

>> He just wants someone else to do his work for him.

>>

>> DSH

>>

>> " db ´¯`·.. ><)))º>` .. ." <databaseben.public.newsgroup.microsoft.com>

>> wrote in message news:%23duS%

>>

>> 23q7HIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>

>>> he is a sly one and

>>> was just baiting you.

>>>

>>> if he had such an open

>>> mind, he could download

>>> the program and test it

>>> himself.

>>> --

>>>

>>> db ·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·..><)))º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><)))º>¸.

>>>><)))º>·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. ><)))º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

>>>

>>> "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message

>>> news:OW29SL1HIHA.1316@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>

>>>>I don't give a rat's rear end whether you believe me or not.

>>>>

>>>> I'm not trying to sell anything.

>>>>

>>>> So, it's not worth my time and effort to post elaborate results of the

>>>> tests

>>>> I ran -- which will simply lead to a long thread of worthless back and

>>>> forth

>>>> caterwauling.

>>>>

>>>> I can use that time far better in other useful pursuits such as

>>>> managing my

>>>> stock portfolio, working on the car, writing a historical post or email

>>>> or

>>>> doing something nice for my wife -- not necessarily in that order. <g>

>>>>

>>>> I ran controlled tests on nine different machines with various

>>>> configurations -- using the Registry Cleaner in CCleaner.

>>>>

>>>> Performance was improved on all of them -- fewer hangs and pauses,

>>>> faster

>>>> loading of applications, faster executions of commands and faster

>>>> startups

>>>> and shutdowns.

>>>>

>>>> No Glitches -- Removing Something That Should Not Have Been Removed --

>>>> No

>>>> FUD.

>>>>

>>>> I have no experience of using other Registry Cleaners -- so I can't

>>>> speak to

>>>> them.

>>>>

>>>> I do, carefully, sometimes manually remove or make changes to the

>>>> Registry. So, I'm not a barefoot empiricist.

>>>>

>>>> Your Mileage May Vary...

>>>>

>>>> So, Run Your Own Tests.

>>>>

>>>> Bonne Chance!

>>>>

>>>> DSH

>>>>

>>>> Lux et Veritas et Libertas

>>

>>

>

Re: Registry Cleaner

 

John Barnett MVP wrote:

> I have to say that I recommend CCleaner and use I regularly myself.

> While I agree with Bruce Chambers sentiments regarding CCleaner checking

> what CCleaner is actually removing, in the few years I've been using

> CCleaner I can't say that I've actually been in a position were CCleaner

> has located a large amount of 'problems' that needed fixing, even on

> brand new machine. I purchased a new machine two weeks ago, installed

> and run CCleaner and it only found 2 problems.

>

 

 

I tried the latest version on a brand-new OS installation with no

additional applications installed, and certainly none installed and then

uninstalled, and CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred

allegedly orphaned registry entries and dozens of purportedly

"suspicious" files.

 

> Speed increase is probably relative. It is amazing how, after using a

> registry cleaner one automatically thinks, WoW that certainly improved

> things when, in reality it has done nothing of the sort. I certainly

> haven't seen any increase in speed - well that has been noticeable, anyway.

>

> One thing I have noticed, with Windows Vista Ultimate at any rate is

> that when CCleaner is doing general housekeeping, i.e., removing

> temporary internet files, history etc I am actually seeing a ghost image

> of Windows Vista's Disk Cleanup Tool, so unless my machine happens to be

> a fluke I am beginning to ask myself who I actually cleaning what

> CCleaner or Vista Disk Cleanup?

>

 

CCleaner's sole strength, and the only reason I use it, lies in its

usefulness for cleaning up unused temporary files from the hard drive.

 

 

--

 

Bruce Chambers

 

Help us help you:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

 

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary

safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

 

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

 

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has

killed a great many philosophers.

~ Denis Diderot

Re: Registry Cleaner

 

Utter Nonsense.

 

CCleaner has worked beautifully for me for several years.

 

I've cleaned out thousands of useless entries from my Registry.

 

DSH

 

Lux et Veritas et Libertas

 

"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message

news:%23TFzJEmRIHA.5400@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>> Nonsense.

>>

>> Chambers is just blustering and burbling.

>>

>> CCleaner works beautifully as a Registry Cleaner.

>>

> *NO* registry cleaner works "beautifully," as *NONE* of them do anything

> in the least bit useful or beneficial.

>

> And CCLeaner, in particular, products nothing but false positives,

> identifying orphaned entries where none exist. I've tested it.

Re: Registry Cleaner

 

There you have it.

 

Even this MVP uses it.

 

So do I.

 

It's a very useful tool.

 

DSH

 

"John Barnett MVP" <freelance@invalid.invalid> wrote in message

news:AC5088B1-41F1-477E-BCC5-F445E35AD2C5@microsoft.com...

>I have to say that I recommend CCleaner and use I [sic] regularly

>myself....

Re: Registry Cleaner

 

Are you able to show evidence that the deletion of useless registry

entries appreciably improves the performance of a PC?

 

 

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

> Utter Nonsense.

>

> CCleaner has worked beautifully for me for several years.

>

> I've cleaned out thousands of useless entries from my Registry.

>

> DSH

>

> Lux et Veritas et Libertas

>

> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message

> news:%23TFzJEmRIHA.5400@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>

>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>

>>> Nonsense.

>>>

>>> Chambers is just blustering and burbling.

>>>

>>> CCleaner works beautifully as a Registry Cleaner.

>>>

>> *NO* registry cleaner works "beautifully," as *NONE* of them do

>> anything in the least bit useful or beneficial.

>>

>> And CCLeaner, in particular, products nothing but false positives,

>> identifying orphaned entries where none exist. I've tested it.

Re: Registry Cleaner

 

It is nothing but trash taking up space on your system. It has NO benefits,

only potential problems.

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message

news:u6%23cEAnRIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Utter Nonsense.

>

> CCleaner has worked beautifully for me for several years.

>

> I've cleaned out thousands of useless entries from my Registry.

>

> DSH

>

> Lux et Veritas et Libertas

>

> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message

> news:%23TFzJEmRIHA.5400@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

>

>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>

>>> Nonsense.

>>>

>>> Chambers is just blustering and burbling.

>>>

>>> CCleaner works beautifully as a Registry Cleaner.

>>>

>> *NO* registry cleaner works "beautifully," as *NONE* of them do anything

>> in the least bit useful or beneficial.

>>

>> And CCLeaner, in particular, products nothing but false positives,

>> identifying orphaned entries where none exist. I've tested it.

>

>

Re: Registry Cleaner

 

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

> There you have it.

>

> Even this MVP uses it.

>

 

And clearly stated that it did *NOT* provide any performance benefits....

 

> So do I.

>

> It's a very useful tool.

>

 

 

Useful, how, precisely? It doesn't do anything of any value.

 

 

--

 

Bruce Chambers

 

Help us help you:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

 

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary

safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

 

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

 

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has

killed a great many philosophers.

~ Denis Diderot

Re: Registry Cleaner

 

My box runs faster and smoother after I use CCleaner, including both the

Registry Cleaner and Basic Cleaner, which does much more than just delete

Temporary Internet Files, properly employed.

 

DSH

 

"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message

news:e17zNgnRIHA.3400@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>> There you have it.

>>

>> Even this MVP uses it.

>>

> And clearly stated that it did *NOT* provide any performance benefits....

>

>> So do I.

>>

>> It's a very useful tool.

>

> Useful, how, precisely? It doesn't do anything of any value.

Re: Registry Cleaner

 

yes, DHS, I do use CCleaner and, as I have stated in my original post,

regularly recommend it but, unlike you, I haven't seen any speed increase

through its use. Once again I have to quote Bruce Chambers in as much as

"CCleaner's sole strength lies in its usefulness for cleaning up unused

temporary files from the hard drive." If there is any performance, and

without testing it rigourously solely for the purpose of ascertaining any

increase in performance I would have to say that any such claim to fame

regarding current increase in performance, if indeed there is any, is

negligible.

 

--

--

John Barnett MVP

Associate Expert

Windows - Shell/User

 

Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org

Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org

 

The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any

kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,

reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for

any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the

use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this

mail/post..

 

 

 

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message

news:u7Z7MEnRIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> There you have it.

>

> Even this MVP uses it.

>

> So do I.

>

> It's a very useful tool.

>

> DSH

>

> "John Barnett MVP" <freelance@invalid.invalid> wrote in message

> news:AC5088B1-41F1-477E-BCC5-F445E35AD2C5@microsoft.com...

>

>>I have to say that I recommend CCleaner and use I [sic] regularly

>>myself....

>

>

Re: Registry Cleaner

 

Yeah, I can't speak for Vista, but ccleaner is pretty

good with all the previous versions of windows. I'm

pretty curious about Vista and the "run & switch" type

thing you mentioned, but not curious enough to buy it

since it seems to give me nothing of any advantage over

what I currently have and which is very satisfactory.

IMO whenever one comes across some purist who says

to "never" use a certain application when it's been

around for as long as ccleaner (and several others) has

and with its good history, they can pretty much be

ignored.

I would caution however that, as with ANY

application that plays with the registry or any system

files or functions, one should always RTFM and be

certain their data is backed up. At the very least,

with XP, do a System State backup first; it's quick and

easy to Restore, and more reliable then Restore Points.

And every copy of XP is capable of it.

 

HTH

 

Pop`

 

 

 

John Barnett MVP <freelance@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> I have to say that I recommend CCleaner and use I

> regularly myself. While I agree with Bruce Chambers

> sentiments regarding CCleaner checking what CCleaner

> is

> actually removing, in the few years I've been using

> CCleaner I can't say that I've actually been in a

> position were CCleaner has located a large amount of

> 'problems' that needed fixing, even on brand new

> machine. I purchased a new machine two weeks ago,

> installed and run CCleaner and it only found 2

> problems.

> Speed increase is probably relative. It is amazing

> how,

> after using a registry cleaner one automatically

> thinks,

> WoW that certainly improved things when, in reality

> it

> has done nothing of the sort. I certainly haven't

> seen

> any increase in speed - well that has been

> noticeable,

> anyway.

> One thing I have noticed, with Windows Vista Ultimate

> at

> any rate is that when CCleaner is doing general

> housekeeping, i.e., removing temporary internet

> files,

> history etc I am actually seeing a ghost image of

> Windows

> Vista's Disk Cleanup Tool, so unless my machine

> happens

> to be a fluke I am beginning to ask myself who I

> actually

> cleaning what CCleaner or Vista Disk Cleanup?

> --

>

> "Daave" <dcwashNOSPAM@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote in

> message news:eNBdiN8HIHA.4560@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> No bait. You're the one who made the claim. I've

>> used

>> Ccleaner and have only found the clearing of temp

>> files

>> to be beneficial. If you've done more extensive

>> testing,

>> good for you. But bear in mind that is was YOU who

>> made

>> the claim in the first place! And I still find it

>> interesting you're unwilling to back it up. Belief

>> and knowledge are two different things...

>>

>>

>> "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in

>> message

>> news:ePC1jw7HIHA.5544@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>> Right!

>>>

>>> He just wants someone else to do his work for him.

>>>

>>> DSH

>>>

>>> " db ´¯`·.. ><)))º>` .. ."

>>> <databaseben.public.newsgroup.microsoft.com> wrote

>>> in

>>> message news:%23duS%

>>> 23q7HIHA.4880@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>>>

>>>> he is a sly one and

>>>> was just baiting you.

>>>>

>>>> if he had such an open

>>>> mind, he could download

>>>> the program and test it

>>>> himself.

>>>> --

>>>>

>>>> db ·´¯`·.¸. , .

>>>> .·´¯`·..><)))º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><)))º>¸.

>>>>> <)))º>·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·..

>>>>> ><)))º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><)))º>

>>>>

>>>> "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote

>>>> in

>>>> message

>>>> news:OW29SL1HIHA.1316@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>

>>>>> I don't give a rat's rear end whether you believe

>>>>> me

>>>>> or not. I'm not trying to sell anything.

>>>>>

>>>>> So, it's not worth my time and effort to post

>>>>> elaborate results of the tests

>>>>> I ran -- which will simply lead to a long thread

>>>>> of

>>>>> worthless back and forth

>>>>> caterwauling.

>>>>>

>>>>> I can use that time far better in other useful

>>>>> pursuits such as managing my

>>>>> stock portfolio, working on the car, writing a

>>>>> historical post or email or

>>>>> doing something nice for my wife -- not

>>>>> necessarily

>>>>> in that order. <g> I ran controlled tests on nine

>>>>> different machines

>>>>> with various configurations -- using the Registry

>>>>> Cleaner in CCleaner. Performance was improved on

>>>>> all of them -- fewer

>>>>> hangs and pauses, faster

>>>>> loading of applications, faster executions of

>>>>> commands and faster startups

>>>>> and shutdowns.

>>>>>

>>>>> No Glitches -- Removing Something That Should Not

>>>>> Have Been Removed -- No

>>>>> FUD.

>>>>>

>>>>> I have no experience of using other Registry

>>>>> Cleaners

>>>>> -- so I can't speak to

>>>>> them.

>>>>>

>>>>> I do, carefully, sometimes manually remove or

>>>>> make

>>>>> changes to the Registry. So, I'm not a barefoot

>>>>> empiricist. Your Mileage May Vary...

>>>>>

>>>>> So, Run Your Own Tests.

>>>>>

>>>>> Bonne Chance!

>>>>>

>>>>> DSH

>>>>>

>>>>> Lux et Veritas et Libertas

Re: Registry Cleaner

 

Bruce Chambers <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote:

....

>>

>

> CCleaner's sole strength, and the only reason I

> use

> it, lies in its usefulness for cleaning up unused

> temporary files from the hard drive.

 

That sounds a tad suspicious when that ability is

available natively . But, you're entitled to your

opinion, applicability and reality aside.

 

Pop`

Re: Registry Cleaner

 

Because it comes from an MVP doesn't make it that much

better than any other thughtful poster on this group.

At least two other MVPs will tell you not to use it

under any circumstances for registry work. Those same

two instead suggest editing the registry manually;

completely folly for a lot more people than using a

cleaner ever screwed up.

All being an MVP means is they've passed a few tests

in one or sometimes more areas of the MS operating

system. That's good, but it doesn't mean that their

expertise is in the area of any particular thread, nor

that they are going to have any more common sense than

the next guy. All it says is they passed the test to

get the title. A few even use the title when it's not

true, but I don't see a lot of that on this particular

group.

So, while advice from an MVP CAN be great, it could

also be no better than anyone else's responses. As

with any group, it's worth lurking first and learning

who the better players are.

--

My 2 ¢

 

Pop`

 

 

D. Spencer Hines <panther@excelsior.com> wrote:

> There you have it.

>

> Even this MVP uses it.

>

> So do I.

>

> It's a very useful tool.

>

> DSH

>

> "John Barnett MVP" <freelance@invalid.invalid> wrote

> in

> message

> news:AC5088B1-41F1-477E-BCC5-F445E35AD2C5@microsoft.com...

>

>> I have to say that I recommend CCleaner and use I

>> [sic]

>> regularly myself....

Re: Registry Cleaner

 

Bruce Chambers <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote:

> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>> There you have it.

>>

>> Even this MVP uses it.

>>

>

> And clearly stated that it did *NOT* provide any

> performance benefits....

 

No one has yet insisted that it *will*, only that it's

possible in some cases. In fact, I myself explained

just that in a prior post.

 

Of the several machines I've used it on, I've seen it

help timing twice and straighten out "funnies" many

times, and gotten rid of effor messages for

non-existing applications many times. Of the times I

can specifically recall, there was at least one

registry-oriented fix amongst them all that related to

the improvements.

Time to stop lolly-gagging and let the thread go

back to topical discussion if there is any left. You

in particular are being a wart on the ass of progress

here and should just move on.

 

Pop`

 

>

>

>> So do I.

>>

>> It's a very useful tool.

>>

>

>

> Useful, how, precisely? It doesn't do anything of

> any

> value.

Re: Registry Cleaner

 

I'm not singling you out John, because you sound like a

reasonable person. But, this does seem a good place to

make a few comments on the arguement s being presented:

 

Very true and well said John, except that it's the

cleaning of the registry that isn't resulting in any

speed increases, as would be expected, not solely the

use of ccleaner or any other "cleaner" for the

registry.

 

Personally, rather than this arguing and restating

things, I think checking to see if the OP is open to

input is in order and if so, then addressing his

initial problem is even more in order. IIRC no one but

me has chosen to offer him any understanding of what

cleaning the registry might accomplish, and where he

can look after that's done, assuming it doesn't improve

anything perceptibly. But it's been lost in all the

arguing and even egocentric comments flying around.

The OP be damned, the arguing factions are insisting on

taking over the thread at the OP's expense. This

happens way too often here lately and should be

stopped.

 

Regards John,

 

Pop`

 

 

 

John Barnett MVP <freelance@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> yes, DHS, I do use CCleaner and, as I have stated in

> my

> original post, regularly recommend it but, unlike

> you, I

> haven't seen any speed increase through its use. Once

> again I have to quote Bruce Chambers in as much as

> "CCleaner's sole strength lies in its usefulness for

> cleaning up unused temporary files from the hard

> drive."

> If there is any performance, and without testing it

> rigourously solely for the purpose of ascertaining

> any

> increase in performance I would have to say that any

> such

> claim to fame regarding current increase in

> performance,

> if indeed there is any, is negligible.

> --

>

> "D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in

> message news:u7Z7MEnRIHA.6060@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>> There you have it.

>>

>> Even this MVP uses it.

>>

>> So do I.

>>

>> It's a very useful tool.

>>

>> DSH

>>

>> "John Barnett MVP" <freelance@invalid.invalid> wrote

>> in

>> message

>> news:AC5088B1-41F1-477E-BCC5-F445E35AD2C5@microsoft.com...

>>

>>> I have to say that I recommend CCleaner and use I

>>> [sic]

>>> regularly myself....

Re: Registry Cleaner

 

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 12:06:48 -0500, "Poprivet`"

<poprivet@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:

 

> All being an MVP means is they've passed a few tests

> in one or sometimes more areas of the MS operating

> system.

 

 

No, this is not at all correct.

 

First, being an MVP doesn't necessarily have anything to do with

Microsoft operating systems. Many people have other specialties, and

get their MVP awards for supporting other Microsoft

software/technology. There are Word MVPs, Excel MVPs, Publisher MVPs,

Access MVPs, Expression MVPs, Outlook MVPs, Security MVPs, and many

other types.

 

Second, there is no testing involved. The award is based on a history

of providing consistent and accurate advice.

 

For more information about the MVP program, read here:

http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/

 

> So, while advice from an MVP CAN be great, it could

> also be no better than anyone else's responses. As

> with any group, it's worth lurking first and learning

> who the better players are.

 

 

I completely agree with that, and have said the same thing in these

newsgroups many times.

 

By the way, every MVP was once not an MVP, and every MVP posted good

information before he became an MVP (that's how he became one).

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User

Please Reply to the Newsgroup