"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:

> 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

>

 

Very interesting thread. Has the tinge of some of the 'old' flame wars of

the 70's and 80's. One source to consult on the topic is also an 'old timer'

around compters, Fred Langa. See his article on registry cleaners at

http://windowssecrets.com/2007/03/01/01-Are-Registry-cleaners-worthwhile

JV16 has worked well for me for many years.

"Amadeus47" <Amadeus47@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:02BA450E-65CC-4C24-A635-A641E43D17AC@microsoft.com...

>

>

> "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:

>

>> 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

>>

>

> Very interesting thread. Has the tinge of some of the 'old' flame wars of

> the 70's and 80's. One source to consult on the topic is also an 'old

> timer'

> around compters, Fred Langa. See his article on registry cleaners at

> http://windowssecrets.com/2007/03/01/01-Are-Registry-cleaners-worthwhile

> JV16 has worked well for me for many years.

 

And what do you mean by 'worked well'? I assume you mean it hasn't damaged

the Registry. If that assumption is correct will you explain what benefits

you have gained from running JV16 an how you measured those benefits.

 

I do not mean to be critical but the essence of the debate over Registry

Cleaners is an objective determination of the benefits, not that they remove

redundant entries from the Registry, I don't think anyone disputes that. If

the benefits are solely a reduction in the physical size of the Registry, I

believe we would all agree but might be tempted to add, so what?

> >>

> >

> > Very interesting thread. Has the tinge of some of the 'old' flame wars of

> > the 70's and 80's. One source to consult on the topic is also an 'old

> > timer'

> > around compters, Fred Langa. See his article on registry cleaners at

> > http://windowssecrets.com/2007/03/01/01-Are-Registry-cleaners-worthwhile

> > JV16 has worked well for me for many years.

>

> And what do you mean by 'worked well'? I assume you mean it hasn't damaged

> the Registry. If that assumption is correct will you explain what benefits

> you have gained from running JV16 an how you measured those benefits.

>

> I do not mean to be critical but the essence of the debate over Registry

> Cleaners is an objective determination of the benefits, not that they remove

> redundant entries from the Registry, I don't think anyone disputes that. If

> the benefits are solely a reduction in the physical size of the Registry, I

> believe we would all agree but might be tempted to add, so what?

>

>

>

Edward,

 

May I respectfully point you to the link to Fred Langa's article. He is

among many of the 'ancient' PC experts whose opinion is held in high esteem.

One of the points of his article (which, BTW, emulates the sentiments of

other experts on the topic) he makes is for heavy computer users (which I am)

a good registry cleaner is a necessity and it *does* help keep a machine

running under these conditions run faster after use. I suggest others who

are interested in this topic will find his article enlightening.

I am familiar with the article and with Langa. The article does not

prove that registry cleaners are of any value whatsoever - no

before-and-after benchmarks or any other measurements for that matter.

Langa starts with the unproven assumption that registry cleaners have

value and merely tries to decide which registry cleaner is best.

 

In addition to being a respected writer, Langa is also a businessman.

The population of potential subscribers and sponsor-patronizers who have

been deceived by registry cleaner hype is substantially larger than the

population of those who know better.

 

---

Leonard Grey

Errare humanum est

 

Amadeus47 wrote:

>

>

>>> Very interesting thread. Has the tinge of some of the 'old' flame wars of

>>> the 70's and 80's. One source to consult on the topic is also an 'old

>>> timer'

>>> around compters, Fred Langa. See his article on registry cleaners at

>>> http://windowssecrets.com/2007/03/01/01-Are-Registry-cleaners-worthwhile

>>> JV16 has worked well for me for many years.

>> And what do you mean by 'worked well'? I assume you mean it hasn't damaged

>> the Registry. If that assumption is correct will you explain what benefits

>> you have gained from running JV16 an how you measured those benefits.

>>

>> I do not mean to be critical but the essence of the debate over Registry

>> Cleaners is an objective determination of the benefits, not that they remove

>> redundant entries from the Registry, I don't think anyone disputes that. If

>> the benefits are solely a reduction in the physical size of the Registry, I

>> believe we would all agree but might be tempted to add, so what?

>>

>>

>>

> Edward,

>

> May I respectfully point you to the link to Fred Langa's article. He is

> among many of the 'ancient' PC experts whose opinion is held in high esteem.

> One of the points of his article (which, BTW, emulates the sentiments of

> other experts on the topic) he makes is for heavy computer users (which I am)

> a good registry cleaner is a necessity and it *does* help keep a machine

> running under these conditions run faster after use. I suggest others who

> are interested in this topic will find his article enlightening.

Amadeus47 wrote:

>

>

> Very interesting thread. Has the tinge of some of the 'old' flame wars of

> the 70's and 80's. One source to consult on the topic is also an 'old timer'

> around compters, Fred Langa. See his article on registry cleaners at

> http://windowssecrets.com/2007/03/01/01-Are-Registry-cleaners-worthwhile

 

 

Fred Langa is a "journalist" with absolutely no technical education,

training, or background. Read his bio. I always tell my customers

(those few who are aware of his existence, that is) to pay close

attention to what he says, and then do the exact opposite. They're much

less likely to go wrong, that way.

 

Just as he's blowing smoke, without providing a shred of supporting

independent laboratory evidence, in the article you cite. In the

earlier article he cites, he "reviewed" several so-called registry

"cleaners," and his *sole* criteria for judging the best, better, etc.,

was the number of times each one had to be run before it stopped

reporting "problems." At no time did he ever state whether or not any

of the "problems" found were real problems, nor did he state that any of

the "cleaners" improved the computer's performance.

 

> JV16 has worked well for me for many years.

 

 

"Worked well" in what regard, precisely? I mean, other than separate

you from some of your money? (Which is its's purpose.)

 

 

--

 

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

Amadeus47 wrote:

>

>

>>> Very interesting thread. Has the tinge of some of the 'old' flame wars of

>>> the 70's and 80's. One source to consult on the topic is also an 'old

>>> timer'

>>> around compters, Fred Langa. See his article on registry cleaners at

>>> http://windowssecrets.com/2007/03/01/01-Are-Registry-cleaners-worthwhile

>>> JV16 has worked well for me for many years.

>> And what do you mean by 'worked well'? I assume you mean it hasn't damaged

>> the Registry. If that assumption is correct will you explain what benefits

>> you have gained from running JV16 an how you measured those benefits.

>>

>> I do not mean to be critical but the essence of the debate over Registry

>> Cleaners is an objective determination of the benefits, not that they remove

>> redundant entries from the Registry, I don't think anyone disputes that. If

>> the benefits are solely a reduction in the physical size of the Registry, I

>> believe we would all agree but might be tempted to add, so what?

>>

>>

>>

> Edward,

>

> May I respectfully point you to the link to Fred Langa's article. He is

> among many of the 'ancient' PC experts whose opinion is held in high esteem.

 

 

Not so. Fred Langa is a journalist, not a technician. He's certainly

no expert. I don't know a single IT professional who holds him in "high

esteem." Utter contempt is the more common reaction, among those who've

read some of his material.

 

 

 

 

 

--

 

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

Leonard Grey wrote:

> I am familiar with the article and with Langa. The article does not

> prove that registry cleaners are of any value whatsoever - no

> before-and-after benchmarks or any other measurements for that matter.

> Langa starts with the unproven assumption that registry cleaners have

> value and merely tries to decide which registry cleaner is best.

>

> In addition to being a respected writer, Langa is also a businessman.

> The population of potential subscribers and sponsor-patronizers who have

> been deceived by registry cleaner hype is substantially larger than the

> population of those who know better.

>

> ---

> Leonard Grey

> Errare humanum est

>

 

 

Well said.

 

 

--

 

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

"Amadeus47" <Amadeus47@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:C8115132-DABE-41B4-939B-64DBF3676E32@microsoft.com...

>

>

>

>> >>

>> >

>> > Very interesting thread. Has the tinge of some of the 'old' flame wars

>> > of

>> > the 70's and 80's. One source to consult on the topic is also an 'old

>> > timer'

>> > around compters, Fred Langa. See his article on registry cleaners at

>> > http://windowssecrets.com/2007/03/01/01-Are-Registry-cleaners-worthwhile

>> > JV16 has worked well for me for many years.

>>

>> And what do you mean by 'worked well'? I assume you mean it hasn't

>> damaged

>> the Registry. If that assumption is correct will you explain what

>> benefits

>> you have gained from running JV16 an how you measured those benefits.

>>

>> I do not mean to be critical but the essence of the debate over Registry

>> Cleaners is an objective determination of the benefits, not that they

>> remove

>> redundant entries from the Registry, I don't think anyone disputes that.

>> If

>> the benefits are solely a reduction in the physical size of the Registry,

>> I

>> believe we would all agree but might be tempted to add, so what?

>>

>>

>>

> Edward,

>

> May I respectfully point you to the link to Fred Langa's article. He is

> among many of the 'ancient' PC experts whose opinion is held in high

> esteem.

> One of the points of his article (which, BTW, emulates the sentiments of

> other experts on the topic) he makes is for heavy computer users (which I

> am)

> a good registry cleaner is a necessity and it *does* help keep a machine

> running under these conditions run faster after use. I suggest others who

> are interested in this topic will find his article enlightening.

 

As you will note, others do not hold Mr. Langa is such high regard as you.

However, don't let us debate Mr. Langa's credentials or lack of credentials.

Am I to understand your recommendation with respect to Registry Cleaners is

based upon a recommendation from Mr. Langa? If you have objective evidence

of your own to show their benefits would you kindly share that evidence with

the rest of us? As you seem to understand what these programs do, please

explain how removing redundant entries from the Regisry allows your machine

to run faster. Exactly how did you determine this?

On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 19:51:22 -0700, Bruce Chambers

<bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote:

> Amadeus47 wrote:

> > JV16 has worked well for me for many years.

>

>

> "Worked well" in what regard, precisely? I mean, other than separate

> you from some of your money? (Which is its's purpose.)

 

 

My perception of those (not Amadeus47 in particular) who say this

about some registry cleaner is that they mean two things by it:

 

1. Their computer is faster after they run it.

 

2. There were no problems after running that were attributable to it.

 

But I have two replies to that:

 

1. Hardly anyone actually measures the speed of their computer before

and after running a registry cleaner, in part because accurate

measurement of speed is very difficult. So what they really mean is

that it generally *feels* faster. But just like taking a placebo, such

feelings can be very misleading, and many people think there's an

improvement where none really exists. Moreover if someone has spent

money (or even just time and effort) on a product, he *wants* to be

convinced that it has done something useful, and that he hasn't wasted

his money, time, and effort, and that placebo effect is therefore

greatly enhanced.

 

2. Certainly registry cleaners do *not* cause a problem every time

someone uses them. None of us claims that. In fact, it's true that

most times someone uses a registry cleaner, no problem results. Many

people who have run a registry cleaner, even many times, have never

experienced a problem caused by it. It's only *sometimes* that

registry cleaners cause a problem. It's a matter of increased risk of

problems, not of certainty.

 

The reason not to use a registry cleaner is that the tradeoff of

increased risk for no benefit is a very bad bargain.

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User

Please Reply to the Newsgroup