Re: registry cleaners
Billco wrote:
....
>>
>> 'Run more efficiently' is not ambiguous, it is subjective.
>
> Which makes it a bit ambiguous, essentially by definition.
> (Unambiguous implies that it is certiable and quantifiable).
Boy, you're pathetic:
-----------------------
Unambiguous:
un·am·big·u·ous (un'am-big'yoo-?s) Pronunciation Key
adj. Having or exhibiting no ambiguity or uncertainty; clear.
un'am·big'u·ous·ly adv.
------------------------------
ambiguous:
am·big·u·ous
/æm'b?gyu?s/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [am-big-yoo-uhs] Show IPA
Pronunciation
–adjective 1. open to or having several possible meanings or
interpretations; equivocal: an ambiguous answer.
2. Linguistics. (of an expression) exhibiting constructional
homonymity; having two or more structural descriptions, as the sequence
Flying planes can be dangerous.
3. of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend,
distinguish, or classify: a rock of ambiguous character.
4. lacking clearness or definiteness; obscure; indistinct: an
ambiguous shape; an ambiguous future.
--------------------------
>
>> If you have a 8 cylinder car that is running on 7 cylinders,
>> and compare it to a four cylinder car that is running on all
>> four cylinders, the 8 cylinder car can run faster. If all 8
>> cylinders were firing then it would run faster still.
>> Basically when I say it will run more efficiently, I am not
>> comparing it to other machines, I am comparing it to itself.
>
> But there are no objective, certifiable, and quantifiable tests with
> results to prove that.
Speaking of ambiguous, to prove what?
>
>> If the machine is sifting though unused or incorrect entries
>> than yes it will be less efficient. If it takes 6 megs
>> rather than four megs of RAM to hold its entries than in
>> 'my' opinion it is not running as efficiently as it could be.
Efficienty has NOTHING to do with the amount of anything; it's the speed
at which the activity can occur. Scanning 6 vs 4 Meg or RAM does
nothing to determine efficiency; the scanning process if efficient or
not, and does not depend on how MUCH of something has to be scanned.
>
> But that would be extremely insignificant [NO], and not even
> noticeable[WRONG].
> I mean, if you follow that logic, than removing any extraneous entry
> in anything is beneficial[OF COURSE IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL; FEWER
> COMPONENTS = FEWER CHANCES OF ERROR], end of story (which sounds
> theoretically
> 
. ut the problem is what usually happens as a consequence of
> that, for something unforseen (meaning, that assumed spurious entry
> really wasn't extraneous, afterall - and no registry program is smart
> enough to flag and catch all of them).
You obviously have no concept of what's in the registry nor how simple
it is to read a line and see if the corresponding data it wants is
available. It's as simple as veryfying that whatever the registry is
calling for exists or not in a usable state, really. There are only a
very few, specific instances where the registry can legitimately ask for
something that isn't yet in existance and it may ask if the user wants
to remove those. But every single one of those programs I have ever
seen, TELL YOU SO and suggest that you set your scanners to ignore the
entry. So again, it boils down to credibility. I run two of those
programs in fact, and since it's the registry that's responsible for
triggering the program that will create something on the fly, the progam
can know that is the case. I don't have to ingore it; the scanner
already knows it.
The point is there is
> nothing really (practically) to be gained using a registry cleaner,
Except speed when the reason for loss of speed is contained in the
registry. And slow boot times. And failing logoff times. Anytime the
20 second timer has to expire, etc.. So there ARE practical gains to be
realized with a registry editor. It's just that the registry isn't
usually the culprit and isn't really the first place to bother looking;
other sources are much more likely. But once they're eliminated, and it
doesn't take much to do that, well ... 2 guesses what I do next and
yours don't count.
> unless you are trying to, say, customize something, or perhaps remove
> a bunch of items from the windows Recent history list,
Wrong way to remove Recent History, BTW. Unnecessary and inefficient
way, in fact.
or fix a
> specific program bug due to an erroneous registry entry, or something
> like that) that can't otherwise be done.
Wrong again. Your lack of information is only outdone by your
ignroance.
>
>> The major point of my response to the OP is like most tools
>> if properly used can be useful if not then can be useless or
>> damaging. To tell a person not to use a tool rather than say
>> to them learn how to use the tool before using it is what I
>> have a problem with.
Eggzactly!
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T
>>
>> CSD Computer Services
>>
>> Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/
>> E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net