Registry cleaner ?
in [Windows XP Basics]
|
Prev: Font Printing
Next: Strange folders
From: Twayne on 15 Jan 2010 16:15 lol, it's interesting to see just how long you dummies will continue with this! In news:O3zG1hTlKHA.4408(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl, Unknown <unknown(a)unknown.kom> typed: .... > > There you go again! You just stated 'there are sound technical > reasons'--- I ask for one and you twist and turn. OK; go read ANY reliable registry cleaner's pages, look them up in the rags & mags, etc.; there are thousands of resources available to those not too lazy to look. If you want to argue a point, bring up something that opposes it; don't just sit there and whine. > >> 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. You are a looonnnnngggg ways from being a reliable, technically oriented explanation of what's wrong with 'them'! If what you say is true, then HOW? WHEN? Under what circumstances? You do nothing but whine and cry. My current para stands. > >> .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 Well, I will say it's incumbant on YOU. That para also stands since I've previously presented the closed minds with plenty of info and that "other" camp, which includes you, has NEVER made a single bit of technical information to support your ignorant claims. Millions of users disagree with you. You said they're no good; so it IS incumbant upon YOU to back it up logically and sensibly. So follow through or shut up are you only two logical choices. I know; you have no such thing to support your claims. You're not the first spewer to not know what you're talking about. > because it is you pushing registry cleaners contrary to all the MVPs > (and many others advice) . Show me where I have ever PUSHED registry cleaners. And it's not CONTRARY to "all the MVPs". There are a lot of them who understand, know what the real world is, and prefer to abide by their rules as set forth when they are deemed an MVP yearly. Not counting the imposters, BTW, of which there are still several flopping around in here. >> 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. If I ignored it, then how did I know about it? Kinda stupid. Did you read John Johns recent > post? You ignored it! Yep, I read it. So what? > What the he-- are you a registry cleaner salesman? If I was, don't you think I'd spam about which one it was? I don't, and never will because I'd much rather depend on my own research results and long experience with such apps and many others. Like I've said many times I am a person who refutes misinformation for the benefit of the less experienced, and in general when I have the time enjoy exposing the idiots for who they are and specifically what their misinformation is. At one time, when they first started spewing this garbage, I was ignorant enough myself to wonder, and I politely inquired of them about where I could read more about it so I could bring myself more up to date. There were, at that point, NO responses, and then to another such post later on, one supposed MVP actually said I had to believe him "because he said it was so"! It was shortly after that where the MVP status and use began to get really shabby and unreliable world-wide and the point where I initiated my own research and proved them all to be 100% wrong when they said ALL registry cleaners were "snake oil" and the like. There are three classes of MVPs: Idiots like you who love to parrot without knowing anything about it, fakes and imposters, and then the "real" ones who work hard at answering questions and assisting those who have questions and are asking for assistance. The latter does not include you. You know ... if even half of your little lying clique fully believed your own spew, you would never install a program that places anything in the registry. Even MS screws things up often enough, so if you had any real point, you wouldn't be using such things. You'd all still be back in VB6 looking for apps. Hmm, maybe youare, I can 't really know just how stupid you could be/get. Regards, > >> 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: Twayne on 15 Jan 2010 16:18 Ahh, there we go: A poster who wishes to be taken seriously simply resorts to namecalling and nothing else. Let's see YOU do something to clear up the matters here. You've taken the "snake oil" pledge in the past, so maybe YOU have some actual resources that are more than anecdotal. You really lower yourself when you do that; if you care about your rep that is. HTH, Twayne In news:Oo$UQBalKHA.3476(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl, Peter Foldes <okf22(a)hotmail.com> typed: > You and Twayne are exactly like Laurel and Hardy. Which one of you is > Hardy is debatable > > > "thanatoid" <waiting(a)the.exit.invalid> wrote in message > news:Xns9D00E9542685Dthanexit(a)188.40.43.245... >> "Unknown" <unknown(a)unknown.kom> wrote in >> news:O3zG1hTlKHA.4408(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl: >> >>>> Unknown <unknown(a)unknown.kom> typed: >> >> <SNIP> >> >>> OK, read and listen ---THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF RENDERING >>> A PC INOPERABLE.. -- Verification---you ignore each one >>> posted. >> >> You have not been plonked yet, so YOU give me a solid example. >> Toilet Toilet couldn't. >> >>>> Since you claim to know so much more than I or anyone else >>>> who disagrees with YOU, it's incumbent upon YOU to provide >>>> something useful and convincing, or shut up. >>> >>> I never once (go back and read) claimed anything of the >>> sort. Don't say it's incumbant >> >> incumbent >> >>> on me >>> because it is you pushing registry cleaners contrary to all >>> the MVPs (and many others advice) . >>>> But can't, because no such thing exists. Even MS, when >>>> they admit a compatability issue, never admits it's their >>>> fault; instead preferring to say it's between x and y, >>>> someone other than MS and MS. >> >> Heh heh. >> >> <SNIP> >> >> -- >> There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives >> and those that will break later. >> - Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/, >> not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got >> the quote. But it's true.)
From: Twayne on 15 Jan 2010 16:20 In news:Xns9D01710AD1Ethanexit(a)188.40.43.245, thanatoid <waiting(a)the.exit.invalid> typed: > "Peter Foldes" <okf22(a)hotmail.com> wrote in > news:Oo$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. Just watched a documentary on them I got from Netflix. Interesting stuff. Actually, they were a pretty popular and much loved pair in the heyday. If they weren't so far ahead of their times they'd have died with monstrous fortunes. Regards, Twayne`
From: Twayne on 15 Jan 2010 16:25 In news:%23twPI2TlKHA.2592(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl, Unknown <unknown(a)unknown.kom> typed: > He is in the very lowest of minority since he states there are 'sound > technical reasons > for running a registry cleaner'. Oh yeah? Let's see you provide ANYTHING to support that. You can't. It makes for another lie on YOUr part, however. HTH, Twayne > "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: Unknown on 16 Jan 2010 12:25
You are absolutely correct. There is no way I can support that there are sound technical reasons for running a registry cleaner. "Twayne" <nobody(a)spamcop.net> wrote in message news:%237l2PlilKHA.2188(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > In news:%23twPI2TlKHA.2592(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl, > Unknown <unknown(a)unknown.kom> typed: >> He is in the very lowest of minority since he states there are 'sound >> technical reasons >> for running a registry cleaner'. > > Oh yeah? Let's see you provide ANYTHING to support that. You can't. It > makes for another lie on YOUr part, however. > > HTH, > > Twayne > > > >> "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 > > |