Registry cleaner ?
in [Windows XP Basics]
|
Prev: Font Printing
Next: Strange folders
From: Unknown on 14 Jan 2010 11:41 > Unknown <unknown(a)unknown.kom> typed: >> SOUND technical reasons?????? Just give one. And prove it to be so. > > YOU are the one claiming to have the expert knowlege; it's YOU that should > be providing the technical background to change the minds of what you > consider those who use "dangerous" software. There you go again! You just stated 'there are sound technical reasons'--- I ask for one and you twist and turn. > Personally, I've said over and over that I'm willing to read and listen > to any verifiable, technically oriented explanations of what's wrong with > registry cleaners. OK, read and listen ---THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF RENDERING A PC INOPERABLE.. -- Verification---you ignore each one posted. >.Since you claim to know so much more than I or anyone else who disagrees >with YOU, it's incumbent upon YOU to provide something useful and >convincing, or shut up. I never once (go back and read) claimed anything of the sort. Don't say it's incumbant on me because it is you pushing registry cleaners contrary to all the MVPs (and many others advice) . > But can't, because no such thing exists. Even MS, when they admit a > compatability issue, never admits it's their fault; instead preferring to > say it's between x and y, someone other than MS and MS. Once again, each and every time someone posts the damage caused by running a registry cleaner you completely ignore it. Did you read John Johns recent post? You ignored it! What the he-- are you a registry cleaner salesman? > Twayne, defender of misinformation and inaccuracy > >> "Twayne" <nobody(a)spamcop.net> wrote in message >> news:uD4OCdxkKHA.4912(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>> In news:%23e04oqBkKHA.5568(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl, >>> Bruce Chambers <bchambers(a)cable0ne.n3t> typed: >>>> Steve Hayes wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So how should you clean the registry, then? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And the correct answer to that question is: "You shouldn't." There's no >>>> sound technical reason for doing so, but abundant >>>> technical reasons for *not* doing so. >>> >>> He asked HOW, dummy! Also: >>> >>> You typo'd: There ARE sound technical reasons for doing so, and >>> abundant technical reasons that the problem most likely lies >>> elsewhere also. But as usual, your are completely wrong and missed >>> the chance for a good response. >>> >>> HTH, >>> >>> Twayne > >
From: Unknown on 14 Jan 2010 12:18 He is in the very lowest of minority since he states there are 'sound technical reasons for running a registry cleaner'. "John John - MVP" <audetweld(a)nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message news:upFNuZKlKHA.2184(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > Twayne wrote: >> In news:ejAu0PzkKHA.1652(a)TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl, >> John John - MVP <audetweld(a)nbnot.nb.ca> typed: >>> thanatoid wrote: >>>> John John - MVP <audetweld(a)nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in >>>> news:OOZWLjwkKHA.2160(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl: >>>> >>>> <SNIP> >>>> >>>>> No, we have all noticed it. When people post with problems >>>>> brought about by registry cleaners you *never* offer any >>>>> help, you simply disappear. >>>> >>>> OK, I'm not Twayne, so let /me/ see an example of "damage" done >>>> by a reg cleaner. I'm new to the XP groups and I have not seen >>>> one yet. >>> >>> I have provided links to the kind of problems that these cleaners can >>> cause in another post. >>> >>> At one time I too thought that these cleaners served a purpose. Why? >>> Because I didn't know any better, everybody was spreading the same >>> gospel and I believed the vendors of these programs. That was when I >>> was using Windows 95 on my home machine. I knew next to nothing about >>> Windows and like everybody else I ran these cleaners just because >>> that's what folks were doing, I never noticed any improvement when >>> running them but I ran the cleaners anyway. >>> >>> After we migrated our work network from Novell over DOS to an NT4 >>> network I thought that I should also run registry cleaners on my NT4 >>> boxes. It didn't take too long for me to realize that the cleaners >>> did absolutely nothing to improve performance on any of our machines >>> and that it broke some of our applications. One of my boxes was up to >>> MFC42.dll but a Xerox printer that we had attached to the box couldn't >>> work with that MFC version, it required MFC40.dll so this dll was kept >>> and registered on the NT4 box. Every time a cleaner was run it would >>> remove the registration for this file and the whole Xerox software >>> would fall apart and the printer would stop working. That was the >>> last straw, these cleaners did absolutely nothing to maintain the >>> health of my machines and they did nothing to improve performance, quite >>> to the >>> contrary they were breaking our software. By that time I was a bit >>> more savvy about Windows NT and I came to realize that these cleaners >>> were really utterly useless and that they were causing more harm than >>> good so I dumped the whole lot of them. And, oh yes, I tried more than >>> a few >>> or them, RegClean, CleanSweep, RegCleaner/JV16 and a few others. There >>> all the same, they're all utterly useless and a complete waste >>> of time, Windows NT operating systems don't need registry cleaning, >>> running >>> these cleaners as a maintenance/prevention routine is nothing but a >>> fool's errand. >>> John >> >> Lots of talk and opinion, but nothing of any import. YOU did this, YOU >> did that, YOU did the other thing. And still no definitive links to any >> useful information on the subject. You apparently also seem to think that >> XP = NT which if far from the case; you need to brush up on what's >> relevant and what isn't between the two, at least if you keep trying to >> redirect to literal NT as you're doing. >> How were they all the same? Details? How did you prove your cases? > > Windows XP is NT5.1 and there is more in common between NT4 and XP than > you will ever know. As for links we have provided many on different > occasion but you simply dismiss them all as 'anecdotal' so don't ask for > anymore links, with you it's only a waste of time. Often times *you* have > been asked to supply links with unbiased and concrete proof that registry > cleaners actually improve performance and not once have you ever been able > to supply any such unbiased information, all that you have ever been able > to do is supply advertising materials from the sellers of these useless > programs. You are in the minority here with your cleaners, and for a good > reason, most of the others here are not brainwashed by snake oil salesmen. > > John
From: thanatoid on 14 Jan 2010 23:55 "Unknown" <unknown(a)unknown.kom> wrote in news:O3zG1hTlKHA.4408(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl: >> Unknown <unknown(a)unknown.kom> typed: <SNIP> > OK, read and listen ---THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF RENDERING > A PC INOPERABLE.. -- Verification---you ignore each one > posted. You have not been plonked yet, so YOU give me a solid example. Toilet Toilet couldn't. >>Since you claim to know so much more than I or anyone else >>who disagrees with YOU, it's incumbent upon YOU to provide >>something useful and convincing, or shut up. > > I never once (go back and read) claimed anything of the > sort. Don't say it's incumbant incumbent > on me > because it is you pushing registry cleaners contrary to all > the MVPs (and many others advice) . >> But can't, because no such thing exists. Even MS, when >> they admit a compatability issue, never admits it's their >> fault; instead preferring to say it's between x and y, >> someone other than MS and MS. Heh heh. <SNIP> -- There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives and those that will break later. - Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/, not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got the quote. But it's true.)
From: Peter Foldes on 15 Jan 2010 00:05 You and Twayne are exactly like Laurel and Hardy. Which one of you is Hardy is debatable -- Peter Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged. "thanatoid" <waiting(a)the.exit.invalid> wrote in message news:Xns9D00E9542685Dthanexit(a)188.40.43.245... > "Unknown" <unknown(a)unknown.kom> wrote in > news:O3zG1hTlKHA.4408(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl: > >>> Unknown <unknown(a)unknown.kom> typed: > > <SNIP> > >> OK, read and listen ---THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF RENDERING >> A PC INOPERABLE.. -- Verification---you ignore each one >> posted. > > You have not been plonked yet, so YOU give me a solid example. > Toilet Toilet couldn't. > >>>Since you claim to know so much more than I or anyone else >>>who disagrees with YOU, it's incumbent upon YOU to provide >>>something useful and convincing, or shut up. >> >> I never once (go back and read) claimed anything of the >> sort. Don't say it's incumbant > > incumbent > >> on me >> because it is you pushing registry cleaners contrary to all >> the MVPs (and many others advice) . >>> But can't, because no such thing exists. Even MS, when >>> they admit a compatability issue, never admits it's their >>> fault; instead preferring to say it's between x and y, >>> someone other than MS and MS. > > Heh heh. > > <SNIP> > > -- > There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives > and those that will break later. > - Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/, > not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got > the quote. But it's true.)
From: thanatoid on 15 Jan 2010 01:01
"Peter Foldes" <okf22(a)hotmail.com> wrote in news:Oo$UQBalKHA.3476(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl: > You and Twayne are exactly like Laurel and Hardy. Which one > of you is Hardy is debatable Both L. and H. were geniuses. Only one suffered from depression, IIRC. -- There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives and those that will break later. - Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/, not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got the quote. But it's true.) |