On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:35:39 -0400, "Daave"

<dcwashNOSPAM@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote:

>"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

>news:b0i293lfaqqnlgcc59f3f62l9sjpm57n3b@4ax.com...

>> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 15:15:23 -0400, "Daave"

>> <dcwashNOSPAM@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote:

>>

>>>Adam Albright wrote:

>

>>>> When presented with facts, just plonk. How typical of fanboys.

>>>

>>>I'm anything but a "fanboy," but I would like to see you present these

>>>facts.

>>

>> The fact is Registry Cleaners work when used properly is well

>> documented. All that's required is learning how to use Google and

>> you'll find countless articles from some REAL experts, not the fakers

>> that hang out here that confirm it.

>

>Maybe there are fakers here making such claims, but you are also making

>a claim. Are you able to back it up or not? If not, then you're no

>different than the fanboys and fakers IMO.

 

I wasn't asked a specific question. I detest anybody that makes

sweeping claims without proof, which again is what's happening with

the anti-Registry Cleaner crowd much like the defenders of the useless

UAC who since have backed away from the original everything is peachy

claims about Vista's so-called wonderful User Account Control BS.

 

The burden of proof in on those claiming Registry Cleaners are "bad"

and should be avoided. Just hot air. Where's their proof?

 

Somebody put some here =====>

 

Notice the original claim all Registry Cleaners are bad, avoid at all

costs, which has now shifted to saying some are bad, but not all, or

only bad if you don't know what you're doing, but I do know kind of

posts which are so typical here. <snicker>

 

Well isn't that true for ANY application?

 

Have I said buy a Registry Cleaner, put it on automatic mode and let

it do it's thing? No! Neither has anybody else. I'm simply countering

the empty headed all Registry Cleaners are bad, they don't work noise

some keep making which is obviously based on their own bad experiences

or just "what they've heard".

 

I like FACTS. Anybody got some?

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:31:44 -0400, keepout@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:

>On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 23:37:37 -0500, OzBoy <OzBoy.2tfsx3@no-mx.forums.net> wrote:

>

>>Understand exactly where you coming from but wouldn't it be best to

>>have a thread titled "Are registry cleaners any good?" and then let

>>people put there comments up. This thread is entitled best registry

>>cleaner for windows and over 6 pages I think only 4 are mentioned.

>

>The best registry cleaner is NO REGISTRY cleaner. But if you have to poke around in the registry, just fire up regedit. Make a backup of your registry, and have at it.

 

You just defeated your own argument. The whole point of using a

Registry Cleaner is to AVOID "poking around" in your Registry using

the build-in regedit. That for sure is how to get in trouble.

 

Let's deflate the main arguments the anti-Registry Cleaner crowd keeps

making, which is if you use them, such a application will just

automatically clean out what it finds without asking first.

 

Myth: All Registry Cleaners simply run wild and delete things without

asking first. Totally false!

 

Truth: Every Registry Cleaner I've tried and I've tired over a dozen,

ALWAYS shows you a list of what it SUGGESTS you remove. Most

allow you to view the details of each key and allow YOU to

walk down the list and uncheck what you might not want to

clean. Some even rank what they suggest you remove so you

can avoid deleting keys you're not sure about.

 

Myth: Since the Registry is just a text file, deleting a handful of

invalid keys has minimal effect on reducing the size of the size

of the Registry thus no value is realized.

 

Truth: Just a few orphaned keys can REALLY slow down the system

because Windows will invest time trying to follow the

instructions that no longer point to any valid file. How

much impact this has on performance depends on WHAT kind of

junk is left behind. So even removing just a few invalid

keys while it has no impact on the size of the Registry

can have a major impact on how fast Windows loads and how

well the system runs.

* Arun:

> Can any One Suggest Best Registry Cleaner And residual file Cleaner for vista

> Ultimate.............

 

One of the better discussions on registry cleaners,

can be found here http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000643.html

 

Be sure to scroll through the many comments,

there are pro and con posts, along with some

user recommendations. The article was originally

posted back in 2005, but the comments have continued

up until recently.

 

 

 

-Michael

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:47:51 -0500, "Hugh Jass" <imnot@home.com> wrote:

> But if I had a car, and took out the V6 engine, and put in a V8 engine, I

> would want the V6 distributor out, because it isn't doing anything.

 

 

My view is that if the old distributor wasn't hurting you in any way,

and unless you *knew* for sure that you could take it out without any

risk of breaking something, you should leave it in.

 

 

> "Myweb" <meiweb@gmx.de> wrote in message

> news:ff16fb663e4008c98ed164ba10d0@msnews.microsoft.com...

> > Hello Arun,

> >

> > For what did you have the need for cleaning your registry? If you delete

> > something without knowledge and about the need for the entry you can break

> > your system. Then maybe you have to reinstall. So why not using it like it

> > is? If you buy a car you also will not take out some electronic or some

> > devices from the engine.

> >

> > Best regards

> >

> > Myweb

> > Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and

> > confers no rights.

> >

> >> Can any One Suggest Best Registry Cleaner And residual file Cleaner

> >> for vista Ultimate.............

> >>

> >

> >

>

>

> --

> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 22:28:58 -0500, OzBoy

<OzBoy.2tfpgm@no-mx.forums.net> wrote:

>

> Bit lost here, thought the poster asked for a registry cleaner not

> whether they work or not and especially not for the flaming that went

> on. Only been coming here for a couple of weeks and was very surprised

> by the contents of this post. Thought the idea was to help people????

> Confused.

 

 

It is *often* true that the best way to help someone is not to answer

his question directly, but to explain that what he plans to do is

ill-advised.

 

If someone asks "which should I use to wash my car--coca-cola or

pepsi-cola?" it is *not* helpful to reply with either choice.

 

Regarding flaming, I agree with you entirely.

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 23:52:01 -0500, The Sand

<The.Sand.2tfto4@no-mx.forums.net> wrote:

>

> My system (Vista) crashed July 5th due to Trend Micro Anti-Spyware and I

> paid $59. to talk to the people at Microsoft for 6 HOURS to get it

> running again (best $59 bucks I ever spent.) Anyway... he (the

> Microsoft guy) installed CCeaner on it... it's on my desktop right now.

> I haven't used it again but clearly Microsoft thinks it's good and/or

> safe or they wouldn't of installed it.

 

 

 

Microsoft is not a monolithic company of clones, with all employees

having identical opinions on everything. Because one particular

Microsoft employee thinks it's good or safe does *not* mean that all

of Microsoft agrees.

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

Replacing a car engine demonstrates a fair amount of knowledge, well

beyond the average user.

 

--

Jupiter Jones [MVP]

http://www3.telus.net/dandemar

http://www.dts-l.org

 

 

"Hugh Jass" <imnot@home.com> wrote in message

news:4691bfef$0$16350$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...

> But if I had a car, and took out the V6 engine, and put in a V8

> engine, I would want the V6 distributor out, because it isn't doing

> anything.

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 08:52:45 -0600, Bruce Chambers

<bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote:

>Adam Albright wrote:

>> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 07:44:18 -0600, Bruce Chambers

>> <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote:

>>

>>> Adam Albright wrote:

>>>> You know, not one of you anti-Registry Clearer guys have offered a

>>>> shred of evidence to support your claims. Nothing but the usual hot

>>>> air and the thinly veiled take my advice I know more than you BS

>>>> that's always present.

>>

>>> Actually, what we've "offered" is years of first-hand observations and

>>> experience. We've seen the trouble registry cleaners can cause. What

>>> we've never seen, and what you've steadfastly refused to produce, is

>>> *any* evidence that registry cleaners do any good.

>>

>> Total BS. Prove your case by stating chapter and verse. Take all the

>> room your need. Otherwise all you're doing is trying to bully YOUR

>> opinion. By the way, there is no "we", you can only speak for

>> yourself, so try to drop that crutch so many here us if you want to

>> have any creditability.

>

>

> Sorry, Adam. But I can't help it if *you* are so utterly lacking in

>first-hand experience. Maybe you should wait a few years before

>spouting off on technical issues about which you know nothing.

 

I've been working with PC's for nearly 30 years and main frames before

that. Nothing anybody says that I haven't heard or done myself

countless times. Care to try again in giving me what I asked for? You

know, FACTS to back up your claim?

 

I won't hold my breath. As happened before, every time I challenge one

of the self-anointed "experts" here to backup their claims they never

can deliver and just pretend they know more. You're no different.

>

>

>>>> Give me some FACTS.

>>

>>> Please do. I know what I've seen.

>>

>> The burden of proof is on you since you're broadly knocking Registry

>> Cleaners in general, then you ask me to prove a negative.

>>

>

> Not so. *YOU* claim registry cleaners do good things.

 

Maybe because I've used them over the years and know for a fact they

do work and know of many instances where other people have used them

with good success as well.

>I'm asking you

>to offer proof of that claim. You can't. No one has ever been able to

>do so.

 

About the only way to "prove" they work would be to invite one of you

naysayers over to watch one in action testing system performance

before and after, but I'm guessing you still wouldn't believe.

 

I called your bluff. You claim they don't work, yet can't go beyond

making that sweeping self-serving statement. I ask you again, document

a case where a Registry Cleaner messed up a system that you have first

hand knowledge on. Put your FACTS here =====>

 

>> You forgot to add IN YOUR OPINION. Mine experience is very different.

>> Countless times a friend, neighbor, has had a very sluggish system.

>> Running a quick check with some Registry Cleaner showed a forest of

>> broken links in the Registry. After "cleaning", performance was

>> noticeably better.

>

>

> Countless neighbors and friends? Gee, what a lot of experience. Come

>back when you've supported hundreds of systems professionally, for over

>a decade.

 

A decade? I've been working with computers since 1966 kid, for major

corporations. You got a decade under your belt? Wow, I'm impressed.

Not.

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 10:03:03 -0600, "Jupiter Jones [MVP]"

<jones_jupiter@hotnomail.com> wrote:

>Replacing a car engine demonstrates a fair amount of knowledge, well

>beyond the average user.

 

Another implied "I'm smarter then you" post from Jupiter. LOL!

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 08:55:08 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"

<kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote:

>On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:47:51 -0500, "Hugh Jass" <imnot@home.com> wrote:

>

>> But if I had a car, and took out the V6 engine, and put in a V8 engine, I

>> would want the V6 distributor out, because it isn't doing anything.

>

>

>My view is that if the old distributor wasn't hurting you in any way,

>and unless you *knew* for sure that you could take it out without any

>risk of breaking something, you should leave it in.

 

Vista is a bloated 50 million lines of code and you probably don't see

any problem with that either. <wink>

On 7/9/2007 8:55 AM On a whim, Ken Blake, MVP pounded out on the keyboard

> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:47:51 -0500, "Hugh Jass" <imnot@home.com> wrote:

>

>> But if I had a car, and took out the V6 engine, and put in a V8 engine, I

>> would want the V6 distributor out, because it isn't doing anything.

>

>

> My view is that if the old distributor wasn't hurting you in any way,

> and unless you *knew* for sure that you could take it out without any

> risk of breaking something, you should leave it in.

>

 

Well we all know that a V6 distributor just won't work in a V8 (only 6

spark plug connectors, not 8), so I can't see how Hugh's analogy had any

relevance. -)

>

>

>> "Myweb" <meiweb@gmx.de> wrote in message

>> news:ff16fb663e4008c98ed164ba10d0@msnews.microsoft.com...

>>> Hello Arun,

>>>

>>> For what did you have the need for cleaning your registry? If you delete

>>> something without knowledge and about the need for the entry you can break

>>> your system. Then maybe you have to reinstall. So why not using it like it

>>> is? If you buy a car you also will not take out some electronic or some

>>> devices from the engine.

>>>

>>> Best regards

>>>

>>> Myweb

>>> Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and

>>> confers no rights.

>>>

>>>> Can any One Suggest Best Registry Cleaner And residual file Cleaner

>>>> for vista Ultimate.............

>>>>

>>>

>>

>> --

>> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

>

 

 

--

Terry R.

 

***Reply Note***

Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.

Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

On 7/9/2007 8:59 AM On a whim, Ken Blake, MVP pounded out on the keyboard

> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 22:28:58 -0500, OzBoy

> <OzBoy.2tfpgm@no-mx.forums.net> wrote:

>

>> Bit lost here, thought the poster asked for a registry cleaner not

>> whether they work or not and especially not for the flaming that went

>> on. Only been coming here for a couple of weeks and was very surprised

>> by the contents of this post. Thought the idea was to help people????

>> Confused.

>

>

> It is *often* true that the best way to help someone is not to answer

> his question directly, but to explain that what he plans to do is

> ill-advised.

>

> If someone asks "which should I use to wash my car--coca-cola or

> pepsi-cola?" it is *not* helpful to reply with either choice.

>

> Regarding flaming, I agree with you entirely.

>

 

Wouldn't you tell them they shouldn't use either? -)

 

--

Terry R.

 

***Reply Note***

Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.

Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

On 7/9/2007 9:03 AM On a whim, Jupiter Jones [MVP] pounded out on the

keyboard

> Replacing a car engine demonstrates a fair amount of knowledge, well

> beyond the average user.

>

 

Yes, especially when one talks about using a V6 distributor in a V8.

 

--

Terry R.

 

***Reply Note***

Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.

Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 08:59:56 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"

<kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote:

>On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 22:28:58 -0500, OzBoy

><OzBoy.2tfpgm@no-mx.forums.net> wrote:

>

>>

>> Bit lost here, thought the poster asked for a registry cleaner not

>> whether they work or not and especially not for the flaming that went

>> on. Only been coming here for a couple of weeks and was very surprised

>> by the contents of this post. Thought the idea was to help people????

>> Confused.

>

>

>It is *often* true that the best way to help someone is not to answer

>his question directly, but to explain that what he plans to do is

>ill-advised.

 

I would tend to agree IF facts were presented. I always try to do

that. I see the anti-Registry Cleaner crowd doing nothing but huffing

and puffing and when asked to demonstrate why not to use Registry

Cleaners the best they can come up is because we said so. That isn't

very useful in my book. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, but

people need to separate opinions which are often biased, from

demonstrated FACTS.

 

What I see is the anti-Registry Cleaner crowd pretending that

everybody that tries one will blindly push some automatic button

because they don't know any better. That's the ever present "you must

be a dummy, I'm not" mindset that is so prevalent here.

 

My opinion is the average user is way smarter then the fake "experts"

here like to pretend.

 

That's like saying people will leave their car in gear, get out and

watch in horror as it goes careening down a steep incline. People

generally aren't that dumb and in general they aren't as dumb as some

try to paint them concerning computers.

 

The right way to post here is simply present FACTS or if you're

sharing your opinion make it clear it is JUST your opinion. The sad

reality is many here use this newsgroup as a forum to pump up their

own egos and don't really give a rat's ass about helping anybody. Over

time people learn all by themselves who's doing that and who actually

tries to help. <wink>

Adam Albright wrote:

>

>

> I've been working with PC's for nearly 30 years and main frames before

> that.

 

 

That's awfully hard to believe, given your usual posting style is more

reminiscent of a 14-year-old using the family computer when his parents

are out. But then, given the fact that PC's as we know them haven't

existed for anywhere near 30 years yet (certainly no Windows PC with a

registry), and that anything to do with main frames is completely

irrelevant...., I'd have to conclude that your claims of experience are

spurious, at best.

 

Do a Google search for registry cleaner reviews or perfoemance tests.

You'll get hundreds of marketing links from people selling registry

cleaners, or those sites that advertise them, but none from any

independent laboratory that's actually tested them. Why is that?

 

 

 

 

--

 

Bruce Chambers

 

Help us help you:

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

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

 

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

safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

 

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

Adam Albright wrote:

>

> Myth: All Registry Cleaners simply run wild and delete things without

> asking first. Totally false!

>

 

No one has made any such claim. You're using the typical troll

technique of setting up a straw man argument. Have you nothing better?

> Truth: Every Registry Cleaner I've tried and I've tired over a dozen,

> ALWAYS shows you a list of what it SUGGESTS you remove. Most

> allow you to view the details of each key and allow YOU to

> walk down the list and uncheck what you might not want to

> clean. Some even rank what they suggest you remove so you

> can avoid deleting keys you're not sure about.

>

 

 

And the average home PC user knows exactly how to tell which of these

hundreds of suggestions are valid? This statement simply supports my

contention that if one doesn't know enough to safely edit the registry

manually, then one doesn't know enough to use a safely registry cleaner.

 

> Myth: Since the Registry is just a text file, deleting a handful of

> invalid keys has minimal effect on reducing the size of the size

> of the Registry thus no value is realized.

>

 

While I wouldn't call the registry a simple text file, nor do I know

any competent technician who dows, this is essentially true. The

removal of a few orphans registry entries will have miminal impact upon

the sizer of the registry.

 

> Truth: Just a few orphaned keys can REALLY slow down the system

> because Windows will invest time trying to follow the

> instructions that no longer point to any valid file. How

> much impact this has on performance depends on WHAT kind of

> junk is left behind. So even removing just a few invalid

> keys while it has no impact on the size of the Registry

> can have a major impact on how fast Windows loads and how

> well the system runs.

>

 

Again, not necessarily or even usually so. The registry is database of

pointers to the locations of data and files. If there's no call for a

specific application or driver, then the pointer (the orphaned registry

key) won't be "read" and cannot therefore send the OS on a wild goose chase.

 

--

 

Bruce Chambers

 

Help us help you:

http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm

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

 

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

safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

 

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

* Arun:

> Can any One Suggest Best Registry Cleaner And residual file Cleaner for vista

> Ultimate.............

 

One more by Mark Russinovich

http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2005/10/02/registry-junk-a-windows-fact-of-life.aspx

 

He doesn't really sound pro or con.

<quote>

So it seems that Registry junk is a Windows fact of life and that Registry cleaners will

continue to have a place in the anal-sysadmin’s tool chest, at least until we’re all running

..NET applications that store their per-user settings in XML files – and then of course we’ll

need XML cleaners.

</quote>

 

After being asked about junk being left behind in the registry

slowing down a computer

 

<quote>

No, even if the registry was massively bloated there would be little impact on the performance

of anything other than exhaustive searches.

 

On Win2K Terminal Server systems, however, there is a limit on the total amount of Registry

data that can be loaded and so large profile hives can limit the number of users that can be

logged on simultaneously.

 

I haven't and never will implement a Registry cleaner since it's of little practical use on

anything other than Win2K terminal servers and developing one that's both safe and effective

requires a huge amount of application-specific knowledge.

 

10/7/2005 9:41:00 AM by Mark Russinovich

</quote>

 

Also, some of the comments are worthwhile reading through...

pro and con.

 

 

-Michael

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:09:59 -0600, Bruce Chambers

<bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote:

>Adam Albright wrote:

>>

>>

>> I've been working with PC's for nearly 30 years and main frames before

>> that.

>

>

> That's awfully hard to believe, given your usual posting style is more

>reminiscent of a 14-year-old using the family computer when his parents

>are out.

 

I couldn't care less what the gang of regular fakers (you included)

post here. Time after time I've proved them either flat out wrong,

supplying incomplete or inaccurate information or deliberately biased

or misleading information or trying to pass off their opinions as

facts.

>But then, given the fact that PC's as we know them haven't

>existed for anywhere near 30 years yet (certainly no Windows PC with a

>registry), and that anything to do with main frames is completely

>irrelevant...., I'd have to conclude that your claims of experience are

>spurious, at best.

 

Obviously you don't know your history. PC's (personal computers)

arrived on the scene long before there ever a OS called Windows or a

company called Microsoft. Maybe next time taking ten seconds to do

some simple research on Google would prevent you from looking like a

fool.

 

http://www.old-computers.com/history/timeline.asp

 

http://www.intel.com/museum/archives/pctimeline.htm

> Do a Google search for registry cleaner reviews or perfoemance tests.

>You'll get hundreds of marketing links from people selling registry

>cleaners, or those sites that advertise them, but none from any

>independent laboratory that's actually tested them. Why is that?

 

Again you simply don't know what you're talking about, but you've

demonstrated that in the past. <wink>

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 09:52:36 -0700, "Terry R." <F1ComNOSPAM@pobox.com>

wrote:

> On 7/9/2007 8:59 AM On a whim, Ken Blake, MVP pounded out on the keyboard

>

> > On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 22:28:58 -0500, OzBoy

> > <OzBoy.2tfpgm@no-mx.forums.net> wrote:

> >

> >> Bit lost here, thought the poster asked for a registry cleaner not

> >> whether they work or not and especially not for the flaming that went

> >> on. Only been coming here for a couple of weeks and was very surprised

> >> by the contents of this post. Thought the idea was to help people????

> >> Confused.

> >

> >

> > It is *often* true that the best way to help someone is not to answer

> > his question directly, but to explain that what he plans to do is

> > ill-advised.

> >

> > If someone asks "which should I use to wash my car--coca-cola or

> > pepsi-cola?" it is *not* helpful to reply with either choice.

 

> Wouldn't you tell them they shouldn't use either? -)

 

 

Yes I would, and that's exactly my point. The alternative of

recommending whichever one is least damaging would be responsive to

the question asked, but not helpful to the person who asked.

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 13:35:15 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"

<kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 09:52:36 -0700, "Terry R." <F1ComNOSPAM@pobox.com>

>wrote:

>

>> On 7/9/2007 8:59 AM On a whim, Ken Blake, MVP pounded out on the keyboard

>>

>> > On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 22:28:58 -0500, OzBoy

>> > <OzBoy.2tfpgm@no-mx.forums.net> wrote:

>> >

>> >> Bit lost here, thought the poster asked for a registry cleaner not

>> >> whether they work or not and especially not for the flaming that went

>> >> on. Only been coming here for a couple of weeks and was very surprised

>> >> by the contents of this post. Thought the idea was to help people????

>> >> Confused.

>> >

>> >

>> > It is *often* true that the best way to help someone is not to answer

>> > his question directly, but to explain that what he plans to do is

>> > ill-advised.

>> >

>> > If someone asks "which should I use to wash my car--coca-cola or

>> > pepsi-cola?" it is *not* helpful to reply with either choice.

>

>

>> Wouldn't you tell them they shouldn't use either? -)

>

>

>Yes I would, and that's exactly my point. The alternative of

>recommending whichever one is least damaging would be responsive to

>the question asked, but not helpful to the person who asked.

 

I would infer if somebody is asking for a recommendation of some

Registry Clearer he already decided to try one and is only looking for

opinions on which work best. While one may add their opinion about

Registry Cleaners, doing so when that wasn't the question is in my

opinion heavy handed and attempting to influence the person unduly. Of

course that kind of thing never happens in groups like this. <snicker>

In answer to the OP I have settled on JV16 Power Tools 2007 from Macecraft

Software. It seems to be well adapted to Vista Home Premium. I use it daily

its less aggressive mode and have not found it necessary to overule its

recommendations or revert to its backups - it works fine for me - Doug

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:18:54 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:31:44 -0400, keepout@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:

>

>>On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 23:37:37 -0500, OzBoy <OzBoy.2tfsx3@no-mx.forums.net> wrote:

>>

>>>Understand exactly where you coming from but wouldn't it be best to

>>>have a thread titled "Are registry cleaners any good?" and then let

>>>people put there comments up. This thread is entitled best registry

>>>cleaner for windows and over 6 pages I think only 4 are mentioned.

>>

>>The best registry cleaner is NO REGISTRY cleaner. But if you have to poke around in the registry, just fire up regedit. Make a backup of your registry, and have at it.

>

>You just defeated your own argument. The whole point of using a

>Registry Cleaner is to AVOID "poking around" in your Registry using

>the build-in regedit. That for sure is how to get in trouble.

Yeah let some program, created by who knows. What's their experience level ? What's the disclaimer say ? "Use at your own risk'. If the one that created it feels the need to add something like that, that's not putting any plusses in the confidence column.

Anything that messes with the registry if it's worth anything, it WON'T let you do anything to the registry until you've made a backup. Why is that ?

What a registry cleaner can do, won't make enough difference to make it noticeable.

>Myth: Since the Registry is just a text file, deleting a handful of

> invalid keys has minimal effect on reducing the size of the size

> of the Registry thus no value is realized.

>

>Truth: Just a few orphaned keys can REALLY slow down the system

> because Windows will invest time trying to follow the

> instructions that no longer point to any valid file. How

> much impact this has on performance depends on WHAT kind of

> junk is left behind. So even removing just a few invalid

> keys while it has no impact on the size of the Registry

> can have a major impact on how fast Windows loads and how

> well the system runs.

 

The registry is NOT a roadmap. If a program is removed, but leaves keys, there's no program left to look for those keys. The key's just become extra data on the hard drive that is never accessed again.

 

Why windows would bother to look for something it isn't asked to look for makes no sense.

--

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:02:51 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

>Notice the original claim all Registry Cleaners are bad, avoid at all

>costs, which has now shifted to saying some are bad, but not all, or

>only bad if you don't know what you're doing, but I do know kind of

>posts which are so typical here. <snicker>

 

now who's making generalizations. I've said from the beginning, no name brands or otherwise. DON'T use a registry cleaner. The advantages aren't noticeable, if there is such a thing as an advantage to a registry cleaner.

 

It's like surgery with a chainsaw.

 

If you're having trouble with one program, you don't delete 100 other programs to fix that one. A registry cleaner goes at hundreds of links on it's 1st run. Me I'm not interested in poring thru hundreds of keys that I have no idea what their used for and decide to keep it or not. Which is why the reference to regedit. It can tell you as much as a registry cleaner what each key is for.

 

If you make a mistake, what do you do ? restore the backup registry and break out the pad & pencil on what's what and look thru each key on the web for info on what it is ? You won't find 99% of them. Now what flip a coin ? The program says you can delete it. If you check the 'last used' column of the programs on your drive, you might be able to dump 50% of them based on age.

 

You probably can delete 10% of the registry keys. And have no bad effects. Or you can delete just 1, and need a professional to restore your system.

 

People have driven cars on 3 wheels, but that doesn't make it safe for everyone to do it.

 

What it boils down to is that registry cleaners serve the same purpose as Vista. Put money in someone's pocket. There wasn't anything wrong with XP, it didn't need fixing. 100% of my hardware was working just fine. Didn't need a new OS. M$ released Vista, and made 50% of my software, and the entire 2 year old machine obsolete.

 

A registry cleaner is more placebo, than useful.

>Well isn't that true for ANY application?

>

>Have I said buy a Registry Cleaner, put it on automatic mode and let

>it do it's thing? No! Neither has anybody else. I'm simply countering

>the empty headed all Registry Cleaners are bad, they don't work noise

>some keep making which is obviously based on their own bad experiences

>or just "what they've heard".

>

>I like FACTS. Anybody got some?

You just aren't listening. I just gave you plenty of facts. Lots agree with those facts. Maybe you need to define what a fact means to you.

--

more pix @ http://members.toast.net/cbminfo/index.html

On 7/9/2007 4:31 PM On a whim, keepout@yahoo.com.invalid pounded out on

the keyboard

> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:18:54 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

>

>> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:31:44 -0400, keepout@yahoo.com.invalid wrote:

>>

>>> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 23:37:37 -0500, OzBoy <OzBoy.2tfsx3@no-mx.forums.net> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Understand exactly where you coming from but wouldn't it be best to

>>>> have a thread titled "Are registry cleaners any good?" and then let

>>>> people put there comments up. This thread is entitled best registry

>>>> cleaner for windows and over 6 pages I think only 4 are mentioned.

>>> The best registry cleaner is NO REGISTRY cleaner. But if you have to poke around in the registry, just fire up regedit. Make a backup of your registry, and have at it.

>> You just defeated your own argument. The whole point of using a

>> Registry Cleaner is to AVOID "poking around" in your Registry using

>> the build-in regedit. That for sure is how to get in trouble.

> Yeah let some program, created by who knows. What's their experience level ? What's the disclaimer say ? "Use at your own risk'. If the one that created it feels the need to add something like that, that's not putting any plusses in the confidence column.

> Anything that messes with the registry if it's worth anything, it WON'T let you do anything to the registry until you've made a backup. Why is that ?

> What a registry cleaner can do, won't make enough difference to make it noticeable.

>

>> Myth: Since the Registry is just a text file, deleting a handful of

>> invalid keys has minimal effect on reducing the size of the size

>> of the Registry thus no value is realized.

>>

>> Truth: Just a few orphaned keys can REALLY slow down the system

>> because Windows will invest time trying to follow the

>> instructions that no longer point to any valid file. How

>> much impact this has on performance depends on WHAT kind of

>> junk is left behind. So even removing just a few invalid

>> keys while it has no impact on the size of the Registry

>> can have a major impact on how fast Windows loads and how

>> well the system runs.

>

> The registry is NOT a roadmap. If a program is removed, but leaves keys, there's no program left to look for those keys. The key's just become extra data on the hard drive that is never accessed again.

>

>. Why windows would bother to look for something it isn't asked to look for makes no sense

 

Did you ever open a file on a floppy drive, remove the floppy and

Windows curiously asks why it can't locate the file afterwards? Oops,

just a shortcut in "Recent Documents". Why is Windows bothering "to

look for something it isn't asked to look for makes no sense". But it

happens.

 

I just installed a clean temp batch file into a client machine last

week. When the batch file was executed, an error appeared about a

"sym... cannot be located" (it was a Symantec reference). I looked and

NAV wasn't installed, nor could I find any other Symantec program. I

searched the registry and found dozens (maybe hundreds) of references to

old Symantec programs installed. I removed them all, ran the batch file

and it executed fine. "Why windows would bother to look for something it

isn't asked to look for makes no sense"

 

--

Terry R.

 

***Reply Note***

Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.

Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

On 7/9/2007 4:31 PM On a whim, keepout@yahoo.com.invalid pounded out on

the keyboard

> On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:02:51 -0500, Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote:

>

>> Notice the original claim all Registry Cleaners are bad, avoid at all

>> costs, which has now shifted to saying some are bad, but not all, or

>> only bad if you don't know what you're doing, but I do know kind of

>> posts which are so typical here. <snicker>

>

> now who's making generalizations. I've said from the beginning, no name brands or otherwise. DON'T use a registry cleaner. The advantages aren't noticeable, if there is such a thing as an advantage to a registry cleaner.

>

> It's like surgery with a chainsaw.

>

 

ONLY if you don't know how to use a scalpel. In the wrong hands, both

are deadly.

 

> If you're having trouble with one program, you don't delete 100 other programs to fix that one. A registry cleaner goes at hundreds of links on it's 1st run. Me I'm not interested in poring thru hundreds of keys that I have no idea what their used for and decide to keep it or not. Which is why the reference to regedit. It can tell you as much as a registry cleaner what each key is for.

>

> If you make a mistake, what do you do ? restore the backup registry and break out the pad & pencil on what's what and look thru each key on the web for info on what it is ? You won't find 99% of them. Now what flip a coin ? The program says you can delete it. If you check the 'last used' column of the programs on your drive, you might be able to dump 50% of them based on age.

>

> You probably can delete 10% of the registry keys. And have no bad effects. Or you can delete just 1, and need a professional to restore your system.

>

> People have driven cars on 3 wheels, but that doesn't make it safe for everyone to do it.

>

> What it boils down to is that registry cleaners serve the same purpose as Vista. Put money in someone's pocket. There wasn't anything wrong with XP, it didn't need fixing. 100% of my hardware was working just fine. Didn't need a new OS. M$ released Vista, and made 50% of my software, and the entire 2 year old machine obsolete.

>

> A registry cleaner is more placebo, than useful.

>

>> Well isn't that true for ANY application?

>>

>> Have I said buy a Registry Cleaner, put it on automatic mode and let

>> it do it's thing? No! Neither has anybody else. I'm simply countering

>> the empty headed all Registry Cleaners are bad, they don't work noise

>> some keep making which is obviously based on their own bad experiences

>> or just "what they've heard".

>>

>> I like FACTS. Anybody got some?

> You just aren't listening. I just gave you plenty of facts. Lots agree with those facts. Maybe you need to define what a fact means to you.

 

Fact is, some people just like to have things clean. Call it anal. And

people like that want to have ONLY whats supposed to be in the registry,

not program remnants that have long been removed. And if those people

want to use a registry cleaner, it's up to them. Could they screw up

their system by ALLOWING a cleaner to do what it wants? Absolutely. Do

I trust any of my clients to use a registry cleaner? Hardly. Do I use

them? All the time. I have them search references that would take

hours doing it in regedit by Ctrl-F, enter data, delete key, F3, repeat,

etc.

 

So, to the general user I would not recommend using a registry cleaner.

But to those who t-shoot and have experience, I say if they're

comfortable using them, they can be a great tool. But if they don't use

the tool properly, it could be a chainsaw...

 

 

--

Terry R.

 

***Reply Note***

Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.

Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.