registry cleaners

[Master Blaster]

Re: registry cleaners

I agree with Twayne.

I have used 2 very good registry cleaner utilities:

"TweakNow RegCleaner" - Standard (freeware version) and Pro (shareware)
http://www.tweaknow.com/RegCleaner.html

"TweakNow" is very good for non-techies. We use the Standard version at
work, for our WinXP Pro desktops.



At home, I use "RegCure" which has more user options for Registry Scans
http://www.regcure.com/


The best feature of Registry Cleaners is removing all those entries that
Uninstaller does NOT delete. Uninstaller only delete what is put in at
installation, NOT Registry entries made when you run the application,
UNLESS the publisher coded specifically to remove them.


--
===============
Master Blaster
Computer System Specialist
IT Technician


"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:#QbDC$ROJHA.1148@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:

> > But, why tell people to learn to use defective tools?
>
> I don't. Why do YOU tell people not to use pefectely good, useful
> tools? Based on your past experience of ONE TIME?
>
>
> > "C.Joseph Drayton" <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote in message
> > news:4906424a$0$90274$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
> >> Bill in Co. wrote:
> >>> C.Joseph Drayton wrote:
> >>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:40:11 -0700, "C.Joseph Drayton"
> >>>>> <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Sammy Castagna wrote:
> >>>>>>> Are registry cleaners a good idea or bad? I have done some
> >>>>>>> reading and some
> >>>>>>> say they are bad and some say they are bad. Has any one here
> >>>>>>> had any experience with them good or bad. Or are they even
> >>>>>>> necessary looks like
> >>>>>>> Microsoft would build it into the operating system if it were
> >>>>>>> needed. Sammy Castagna
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hello Sammy,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I would like to start by apologizing in the event that you
> >>>>>> find this answer offensive.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Registry cleaners within themselves are a good idea. The
> >>>>>> problem is that a lot of people either don't know how to use
> >>>>>> a registry cleaner or they want one that does everything
> >>>>>> 'automatically'.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Defragmenting and compacting and removing unused entries in
> >>>>>> your registry will in fact make your machine run more
> >>>>>> efficiently. The problem is that if you delete an important
> >>>>>> entry it can cause problems with your system.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When certain 'experts' tell you that registry cleaners are
> >>>>>> snake-oil, what they are really saying is "The average user
> >>>>>> is too stupid or lazy to verify entries before deleting them
> >>>>>> and most registry cleaners that work 'automatically' can
> >>>>>> stupidly delete important entries because they don't
> >>>>>> recognize what they are referring to."
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think that it is insulting that experts prefer to say to
> >>>>>> the user "you are stupid or lazy so just play it safe."
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sorry, but I completely disagree with most of your message. Your
> >>>>> statements "Registry cleaners within themselves are a good idea"
> >>>>> and "Defragmenting and compacting and removing unused entries in
> >>>>> your registry will in fact make your machine run more
> >>>>> efficiently." In fact, registry cleaning does not accomplish that
> >>>>> or anything else useful. It is a wasted effort, and more of a
> >>>>> risk than anything else.
> >>>>
> >>>> Blake,
> >>>>
> >>>> You could try some 'real' world test. Take a drive that has
> >>>> had a large number of installs/uninstalls and test if for
> >>>> speed where a large number of small DLLs are loaded and
> >>>> unloaded as needed. Take that drive and run a registry
> >>>> cleaner on it properly and do the same test, you will see
> >>>> that their is an increase in speed.
> >>>
> >>> Subjective and hearsay evidence is just that. But some documented
> >>> evidence (by some citable, peer-reviewed cites) would be
> >>> meaningful. If you have any, please post them.
> >>>
> >>> And once again, the clause "run more efficiently" is completely
> >>> ambiguous, at least from my viewpoint (as an EE).
> >>>
> >>>> As to risk, one should never allow a registry cleaner to
> >>>> automatically remove items. A person should look through the
> >>>> list to confirm that the items the cleaner has flagged as no
> >>>> longer necessary are in fact no longer necessary.
> >>>>
> >>>> I contend and will always favor that users should learn how
> >>>> to properly maintain there computer . . . which means
> >>>> learning what the registry does and how it is being used by
> >>>> applications. There is risk in anything but the risk
> >>>> diminishes when one equips themselves with knowledge.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sincerely,
> >>>> C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T
> >>>>
> >>>> CSD Computer Services
> >>>>
> >>>> Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/
> >>>> E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Hi Ken,
> >>
> >> First of all Ken any type of speed test is 'subjective'. If everyone
> >> had the exact same computer running the exact same software and used
> >> their computer in exactly the same way, your request might be
> >> reasonable. In the past I have commented on other 'old wives tales'
> >> told here and
> >> ended up saying that the bottom line is what works best for the
> >> 'individual' user.
> >>
> >> 'Run more efficiently' is not ambiguous, it is subjective. 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. 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. 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.
> >>
> >> Sincerely,
> >> C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T
> >>
> >> CSD Computer Services
> >>
> >> Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/
> >> E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net

 

[Twayne]

Re: registry cleaners

> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:%23XiQd%23ROJHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> I think you have a cranium, rectum inversion. You stated I never
>>> used a registry cleaner, that is BS. What on earth do you base that
>>> on? Is that the way YOU think? I don't use one now because of my
>>> experience with the one I used.
>>
>> I base my opinion on the fact that you have never referenced anything
>> useful, nor provided anything to support any of your claims. But
>> you do us a lot of other people's words, like you're trying to
>> "belong".
> How do I support my claim that I used a registry cleaner and it
> fouled up my system?
> Do I get a witness and make a sworn statement? Get real!

Ohh, I see, a believable description of events is beyond you, right?
It's a little moot though since it's one out of many millions of uses
you base your opinion of millions of uses on. You must lead a
frustrating life; I can only imagine what happens when one tire goes
flat for no apparent reason, or you switch to ice boxes becuase a
refrigerator needed a recharge, or your car ...

>
>>
>> Sooo, if I'm wrong in my opinion, correct me. It would appear you
>> used "one", once, who knows from where or what you did, and thus
>> have painted every one in existance black because of your vast
>> experience with a total of one. And with nada for details to boot.
>> Next?
>
> Yes I used one once and I might add NEVER again. Like others say
> "snake oil".

Soo, using ONE, ONCE, makes them all snake oil? That's rich! I hope
you have Bridgestone tires on your vehicle.

> What details satisfy you? I couldn't boot up after using the reg
> cleaner. But you wouldn't believe that anyway.
> Your basic problem is erroneous assumptions and opinions.

Well, I assume you only used one unidentified cleaner once on an
unidentified operating system where there was already an unidentified
problem, so, that's definitely a great reason for your erroneous
assumptions and opinions. Nah, don't base anything on reality or do any
research to KNOW what you're dealing with; just stick with myths and
love the people that you decide to parrot because it makes you feel
right, the fact of wheter you are or not being completely meaningless to
you.
You incorrectly spelled a word wrong once that I took notice of.
Therefore, using your methodology, I must put you in the forever
ignorant and uneducated category. Right?

lol, why is it you can't think for yourself? Why do you let one
incident color you for life? I can only wonder what your general life
must be like. It has to be, well, different.

Twayne


>>
>> Twayne
>>
>>
>>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>>> news:ucUop8HOJHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>> "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message
>>>> news:03nNk.1448$%11.279@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>>>> You obviously are suffering from CRS. How old are you anyway?
>>>>
>>>> You're OT: What, nothing intelligent to say? Yer funneee! You're
>>>> comedic here, but not funny.
>>>>
>>>> Just so I'm not off topic too, , I'll add: Registry cleaners have
>>>> their definite place in the world of windows computers. Most
>>>> thinking people know that and many others also share my experience
>>>> of having used them for years with never a flaw or problem. I have
>>>> had MS programs crash, the OS crash, file corruption issues, but
>>>> never with my registry cleaners. That's interesting; must be
>>>> because it's intelligent enough to monitor itself for any changes,
>>>> huh? Oh, I forgot: You've never used one. That's OK though; they
>>>> aren't
>>>> really needed very often, as I have said tens of time throughout
>>>> this thread where the closed mind, sock puppets and parrots have
>>>> sucked a tentacle onto a bottom feeder that can't think. Since
>>>> you don't know, when you post somethign that is completely off
>>>> topic to the newsgroup and the topic at hand, you are supposed to
>>>> indicate so by incluting "OT" at the beginning of the Subject
>>>> Line. Ah, but that would require a thinking sapience, wouldn't it?
>>>> I keep
>>>> forgetting I'm not addressing such a thing here. Go ahead &
>>>> scratch it; no one's looking.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:%23MAwDdFOJHA.588@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A lot of people don't realize it, but simply restarting your
>>>>>>>>>> XP computer 3 times in succession is a form of "registry
>>>>>>>>>> cleaning".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nonsence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Too lazy to look it up? It's right there in black and white on
>>>>>>>> the MS site for you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you too lazy to provide links to support your claim? Don't
>>>>>>> expect us to go on a wild goose chase on the internet looking
>>>>>>> for figments of your imagination! Rebooting a computer 3 times
>>>>>>> (or 54,000 times) does not clean the registry, you are the one
>>>>>>> who made the claim so it is up to you to provide supporting
>>>>>>> information, it is not up to us to validate your claims, put up
>>>>>>> or shut up. John
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, not too lazy; just not going to do it because of the
>>>>>> subject. YOU want the info, YOU go and get it. It's there. If
>>>>>> it's something you want, it's up to YOU to do the research.
>>>>>> You also need a lesson or two in reading comprehension: go back
>>>>>> and READ what I originally said; it'll give you hints to find
>>>>>> it. I did not say it "does registry cleaning" now, did I?
>>>>>> Remember the claims windows used to make about XP being "self
>>>>>> healing"? Cheh kitout.

 

[Twayne]

Re: registry cleaners

> From: "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net>
>
>> I base my opinion on the fact that you have never referenced anything
>> useful, nor provided anything to support any of your claims. But
>> you do us a lot of other people's words, like you're trying to
>> "belong".
>
>> Sooo, if I'm wrong in my opinion, correct me. It would appear you
>> used "one", once, who knows from where or what you did, and thus
>> have painted every one in existance black because of your vast
>> experience with a total of one. And with nada for details to boot.
>> Next?
>
>> Twayne
>
>
>
> Twayne:
>
> I again respectfully request... Please post the Microsoft URL.

I'm sorry, David; I don't keep close track of these things. Which URL
are you interested in?

Regards,

Twayne

 

[Twayne]

Re: registry cleaners

> Pefectely good?????
> Based on my experience and many others. If you read these newsgroups
> (or had any programming experience)
> you would know that. But, you continue to assume.

I've read these newsgroups for years, which you could tell if you
weren't too lazy to look back at them. You would even find some
interesting posts about registry cleaners to BC Boy if you looked far
enough into the archives.

As for programming experience, yes, I do have experience. But what does
that have to do with anything under discussion? It's just another
attempt to turn things to another subject on your part and depart the
purpose of the posts; namely the misinformation that no registry cleaner
of any kind is, never has been, and never will be of any use. There are
several good ones out there that are no more dangerous to the registry
than installing Office or Word of any Microsoft application. In fact,
I'd go so far as to say less dangerous considering a few of MS's
missteps over the years.
So, I read these groups, and have for a long time, and have
programming experience. So?
And I assume nothing, unlike you. I use and have used registry
cleaners for years and NEVER had one glitch on me for any reason. I
have never had one damage my system. I've been with windows since
windows 3.0. And I've always used what research showed to be
functional, reliable registry cleaners. Unlike you. Your lack of
knowledge only shows your ignorance of you would have made more of a
comment about programming, in particular, and how it connected. But you
don't really know. I dare say you probably have no idea what a database
actually is either. I do, from the Ashton Tate days to today's
applications. Many of my Ashton Tate programs are still in use, as a
matter of fact. It's like DOS in that it doesn't die, it just keeps on
going.
Unlike you, I have experience and research behind me. All you have
are the assumptions you make based on someone else's words you find
convenient and nothing of your own. You just flat out do not know
anything of this subject or you would use that knowledge in these so
called posts of your. All you know is what someone you chose to believe
has told you because it fits neatly with your "feelings", and facts be
damned.



> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:%23QbDC$ROJHA.1148@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> But, why tell people to learn to use defective tools?
>>
>> I don't. Why do YOU tell people not to use pefectely good, useful
>> tools? Based on your past experience of ONE TIME?
>>
>>
>>> "C.Joseph Drayton" <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4906424a$0$90274$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>> C.Joseph Drayton wrote:
>>>>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:40:11 -0700, "C.Joseph Drayton"
>>>>>>> <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sammy Castagna wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Are registry cleaners a good idea or bad? I have done some
>>>>>>>>> reading and some
>>>>>>>>> say they are bad and some say they are bad. Has any one here
>>>>>>>>> had any experience with them good or bad. Or are they even
>>>>>>>>> necessary looks like
>>>>>>>>> Microsoft would build it into the operating system if it were
>>>>>>>>> needed. Sammy Castagna
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Sammy,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would like to start by apologizing in the event that you
>>>>>>>> find this answer offensive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Registry cleaners within themselves are a good idea. The
>>>>>>>> problem is that a lot of people either don't know how to use
>>>>>>>> a registry cleaner or they want one that does everything
>>>>>>>> 'automatically'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Defragmenting and compacting and removing unused entries in
>>>>>>>> your registry will in fact make your machine run more
>>>>>>>> efficiently. The problem is that if you delete an important
>>>>>>>> entry it can cause problems with your system.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When certain 'experts' tell you that registry cleaners are
>>>>>>>> snake-oil, what they are really saying is "The average user
>>>>>>>> is too stupid or lazy to verify entries before deleting them
>>>>>>>> and most registry cleaners that work 'automatically' can
>>>>>>>> stupidly delete important entries because they don't
>>>>>>>> recognize what they are referring to."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think that it is insulting that experts prefer to say to
>>>>>>>> the user "you are stupid or lazy so just play it safe."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, but I completely disagree with most of your message. Your
>>>>>>> statements "Registry cleaners within themselves are a good idea"
>>>>>>> and "Defragmenting and compacting and removing unused entries in
>>>>>>> your registry will in fact make your machine run more
>>>>>>> efficiently." In fact, registry cleaning does not accomplish
>>>>>>> that or anything else useful. It is a wasted effort, and more
>>>>>>> of a risk than anything else.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Blake,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You could try some 'real' world test. Take a drive that has
>>>>>> had a large number of installs/uninstalls and test if for
>>>>>> speed where a large number of small DLLs are loaded and
>>>>>> unloaded as needed. Take that drive and run a registry
>>>>>> cleaner on it properly and do the same test, you will see
>>>>>> that their is an increase in speed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Subjective and hearsay evidence is just that. But some
>>>>> documented evidence (by some citable, peer-reviewed cites) would
>>>>> be meaningful. If you have any, please post them.
>>>>>
>>>>> And once again, the clause "run more efficiently" is completely
>>>>> ambiguous, at least from my viewpoint (as an EE).
>>>>>
>>>>>> As to risk, one should never allow a registry cleaner to
>>>>>> automatically remove items. A person should look through the
>>>>>> list to confirm that the items the cleaner has flagged as no
>>>>>> longer necessary are in fact no longer necessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I contend and will always favor that users should learn how
>>>>>> to properly maintain there computer . . . which means
>>>>>> learning what the registry does and how it is being used by
>>>>>> applications. There is risk in anything but the risk
>>>>>> diminishes when one equips themselves with knowledge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>> C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T
>>>>>>
>>>>>> CSD Computer Services
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/
>>>>>> E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Ken,
>>>>
>>>> First of all Ken any type of speed test is 'subjective'. If
>>>> everyone had the exact same computer running the exact same
>>>> software and used their computer in exactly the same way, your
>>>> request might be reasonable. In the past I have commented on other
>>>> 'old wives tales' told here and
>>>> ended up saying that the bottom line is what works best for the
>>>> 'individual' user.
>>>>
>>>> 'Run more efficiently' is not ambiguous, it is subjective. 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. 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. 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.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T
>>>>
>>>> CSD Computer Services
>>>>
>>>> Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/
>>>> E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net

 

[David H. Lipman]

Re: registry cleaners

From: "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net>

>> From: "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net>

>>> I base my opinion on the fact that you have never referenced anything
>>> useful, nor provided anything to support any of your claims. But
>>> you do us a lot of other people's words, like you're trying to
>>> "belong".

>>> Sooo, if I'm wrong in my opinion, correct me. It would appear you
>>> used "one", once, who knows from where or what you did, and thus
>>> have painted every one in existance black because of your vast
>>> experience with a total of one. And with nada for details to boot.
>>> Next?

>>> Twayne



>> Twayne:

>> I again respectfully request... Please post the Microsoft URL.

| I'm sorry, David; I don't keep close track of these things. Which URL
| are you interested in?

| Regards,

| Twayne


Earlier in this thread you had eluded to a Microsoft URL indicatining about a Registry
cleaner. You were asked to provide it but did not indicating that one can do there own
search and find.

I am asking you to provide it... plaese.

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

 

[Dave Willcox]

Re: registry cleaners

Gerry,

Microsoft's "Registry Cleaner" also acts as a spyware by calling home and
sending information like this:

MpCmdRun: Command Line: "C:\Program Files\OneCare\MpCmdRun.exe"
-VerifyOSGenuine -RestrictPrivileges
Start Time: Tue Oct 28 2008 20:14:38

VerifyOSGenuine returned 0
MpCmdRun: End Time: Tue Oct 28 2008 20:14:40

It also creates and sends to Microsoft HQ .dat files (dot dat) which I
can't read! So unless one has the facility to read .dat files, one should
avoid it at any cost especially if one is developing highly classified
applications for the secret service or any other governmental
departments. Some universities are contracted to provide such "RESEARCH"
facilities in return for funding!

Perhaps the information transmitted may not be sensitive but why create a
binary .dat file which no one can't read?

hth


Gerry wrote:

> Marianne
>
> I agree with your sentiments.
>
> Sad to say Microsoft do offer a registry cleaner as a component of
> Windows Live OneCare. This may not be part of the operating system but
> it's getting close to that.
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/protect/products/computer/safetyscanner.mspx
>
> --
>
> Gerry
> ~~~~
> FCA
> Stourport, England
> Enquire, plan and execute
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Marianne wrote:
> > The Real Truth MVP wrote:
> >> Microsoft does include a registry cleaner in its OS. Why include it
> >> if it is not necessary.
> >
> > What a pile of rubish! Real True Nonsense. Microsoft does not and
> > has never included a registry cleaner in any of its operating
> > systems. MVP my ass, you're a fraud!
> >
> > M

 

[Monitor]

Re: registry cleaners


"David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
news:uYpelJUOJHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> From: "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net>
>
> >> From: "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net>
>
> >>> I base my opinion on the fact that you have never referenced anything
> >>> useful, nor provided anything to support any of your claims. But
> >>> you do us a lot of other people's words, like you're trying to
> >>> "belong".
>
> >>> Sooo, if I'm wrong in my opinion, correct me. It would appear you
> >>> used "one", once, who knows from where or what you did, and thus
> >>> have painted every one in existance black because of your vast
> >>> experience with a total of one. And with nada for details to boot.
> >>> Next?
>
> >>> Twayne
>
>
>
> >> Twayne:
>
> >> I again respectfully request... Please post the Microsoft URL.
>
> | I'm sorry, David; I don't keep close track of these things. Which URL
> | are you interested in?
>
> | Regards,
>
> | Twayne
>
>
> Earlier in this thread you had eluded to a Microsoft URL indicatining
about a Registry
> cleaner. You were asked to provide it but did not indicating that one can
do there own
> search and find.
>
> I am asking you to provide it... plaese.
>
> --
> Dave

A couple of interesting lines in your reply . . .
- indicatining?
- To elude = to escape, either physically or mentally
- To allude = to refer to something indirectly or by suggestion
- One can do "there" own search
- plaese?
Maybe a language cleaner is what's required here!

 

[David H. Lipman]

Re: registry cleaners

From: "Monitor" <nospam@spam.com>


| "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
| news:uYpelJUOJHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> From: "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net>

>> >> From: "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net>

>> >>> I base my opinion on the fact that you have never referenced anything
>> >>> useful, nor provided anything to support any of your claims. But
>> >>> you do us a lot of other people's words, like you're trying to
>> >>> "belong".

>> >>> Sooo, if I'm wrong in my opinion, correct me. It would appear you
>> >>> used "one", once, who knows from where or what you did, and thus
>> >>> have painted every one in existance black because of your vast
>> >>> experience with a total of one. And with nada for details to boot.
>> >>> Next?

>> >>> Twayne



>> >> Twayne:

>> >> I again respectfully request... Please post the Microsoft URL.

>> | I'm sorry, David; I don't keep close track of these things. Which URL
>> | are you interested in?

>> | Regards,

>> | Twayne


>> Earlier in this thread you had eluded to a Microsoft URL indicatining
| about a Registry
>> cleaner. You were asked to provide it but did not indicating that one can
| do there own
>> search and find.

>> I am asking you to provide it... plaese.

>> --
>> Dave

| A couple of interesting lines in your reply . . .
| - indicatining?
| - To elude = to escape, either physically or mentally
| - To allude = to refer to something indirectly or by suggestion
| - One can do "there" own search
| - plaese?
| Maybe a language cleaner is what's required here!



The older I get, the worse I spell.

It is most embarrassing


--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

 

[Leythos]

Re: registry cleaners

In article <uYpelJUOJHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>,
DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net says...
> Earlier in this thread you had eluded to a Microsoft URL indicatining about a Registry
> cleaner. You were asked to provide it but did not indicating that one can do there own
> search and find.
>

David, I know for a fact that MS provided a registry clean-up tool from
their downloads section.

It's been years since I looked for it or even considered using it, but
I'm 110% positive that MS did provide a registry cleaner tool on their
official website.

MajorGeeks shows some proof of this:
http://www.majorgeeks.com/download458.html

Editors Note: The RegClean utility is no longer supported and has been
removed from all Microsoft download sites.


--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

 

[Bill in Co.]

Re: registry cleaners

David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net>
>
>>> From: "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net>
>
>>>> I base my opinion on the fact that you have never referenced anything
>>>> useful, nor provided anything to support any of your claims. But
>>>> you do us a lot of other people's words, like you're trying to
>>>> "belong".
>
>>>> Sooo, if I'm wrong in my opinion, correct me. It would appear you
>>>> used "one", once, who knows from where or what you did, and thus
>>>> have painted every one in existance black because of your vast
>>>> experience with a total of one. And with nada for details to boot.
>>>> Next?
>
>>>> Twayne
>
>
>
>>> Twayne:
>
>>> I again respectfully request... Please post the Microsoft URL.
>
>> I'm sorry, David; I don't keep close track of these things. Which URL
>> are you interested in?
>
>> Regards,
>
>> Twayne
>
>
> Earlier in this thread you had eluded to a Microsoft URL indicating about
> a
> Registry cleaner. You were asked to provide it but did not, indicating
> that
> one can do their own search and find.
>
> I am asking you to provide it... plaese.

Ain't gonna happen, as he's all hot air on this.

 

[David H. Lipman]

Re: registry cleaners

From: "Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com>

| David, I know for a fact that MS provided a registry clean-up tool from
| their downloads section.

| It's been years since I looked for it or even considered using it, but
| I'm 110% positive that MS did provide a registry cleaner tool on their
| official website.

| MajorGeeks shows some proof of this:
| http://www.majorgeeks.com/download458.html

| Editors Note: The RegClean utility is no longer supported and has been
| removed from all Microsoft download sites.


Right, Win9x/ME and never approved for WinNT and above.

They (Microsoft) pulled it for GOOD reason !

--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

 

[Leythos]

Re: registry cleaners

In article <eaijBEVOJHA.2912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>,
DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net says...
> From: "Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com>
>
> | David, I know for a fact that MS provided a registry clean-up tool from
> | their downloads section.
>
> | It's been years since I looked for it or even considered using it, but
> | I'm 110% positive that MS did provide a registry cleaner tool on their
> | official website.
>
> | MajorGeeks shows some proof of this:
> | http://www.majorgeeks.com/download458.html
>
> | Editors Note: The RegClean utility is no longer supported and has been
> | removed from all Microsoft download sites.
>
>
> Right, Win9x/ME and never approved for WinNT and above.
>
> They (Microsoft) pulled it for GOOD reason !

I never suggested it was good or bad, only that it was available from
Microsoft.

I believe that a tool that removes dead links in the registry is a good
thing, but I believe that there are too many "cleaners" that do more
than just that.

--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)

 

[Gerry]

Re: registry cleaners

Dave

You should email MI5.


--



Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Willcox wrote:
> Gerry,
>
> Microsoft's "Registry Cleaner" also acts as a spyware by calling home
> and sending information like this:
>
> MpCmdRun: Command Line: "C:\Program Files\OneCare\MpCmdRun.exe"
> -VerifyOSGenuine -RestrictPrivileges
> Start Time: Tue Oct 28 2008 20:14:38
>
> VerifyOSGenuine returned 0
> MpCmdRun: End Time: Tue Oct 28 2008 20:14:40
>
> It also creates and sends to Microsoft HQ .dat files (dot dat) which I
> can't read! So unless one has the facility to read .dat files, one
> should avoid it at any cost especially if one is developing highly
> classified applications for the secret service or any other
> governmental departments. Some universities are contracted to
> provide such "RESEARCH" facilities in return for funding!
>
> Perhaps the information transmitted may not be sensitive but why
> create a binary .dat file which no one can't read?
>
> hth
>
>
> Gerry wrote:
>
>> Marianne
>>
>> I agree with your sentiments.
>>
>> Sad to say Microsoft do offer a registry cleaner as a component of
>> Windows Live OneCare. This may not be part of the operating system
>> but it's getting close to that.
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/protect/products/computer/safetyscanner.mspx
>>
>> --
>>
>> Gerry
>> ~~~~
>> FCA
>> Stourport, England
>> Enquire, plan and execute
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Marianne wrote:
>>> The Real Truth MVP wrote:
>>>> Microsoft does include a registry cleaner in its OS. Why include it
>>>> if it is not necessary.
>>>
>>> What a pile of rubish! Real True Nonsense. Microsoft does not and
>>> has never included a registry cleaner in any of its operating
>>> systems. MVP my ass, you're a fraud!
>>>
>>> M

 

[Gerry]

Re: registry cleaners

David

Listed under other features
http://www.microsoft.com/protect/products/computer/safetyscanner.mspx


--



Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

David H. Lipman wrote:
> From: "Leythos" <spam999free@rrohio.com>
>
>> David, I know for a fact that MS provided a registry clean-up tool
>> from their downloads section.
>
>> It's been years since I looked for it or even considered using it,
>> but I'm 110% positive that MS did provide a registry cleaner tool on
>> their official website.
>
>> MajorGeeks shows some proof of this:
>> http://www.majorgeeks.com/download458.html
>
>> Editors Note: The RegClean utility is no longer supported and has
>> been removed from all Microsoft download sites.
>
>
> Right, Win9x/ME and never approved for WinNT and above.
>
> They (Microsoft) pulled it for GOOD reason !

 

[David H. Lipman]

Re: registry cleaners

From: "Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com>

| David

| Listed under other features
| http://www.microsoft.com/protect/products/computer/safetyscanner.mspx


Yes Gerry, it was mentioned earlier in the thread that it is in Live OneCare.


--
Dave
http://www.claymania.com/removal-trojan-adware.html
Multi-AV - http://www.pctipp.ch/downloads/dl/35905.asp

 

[Edward W. Thompson]

Re: registry cleaners


"Gerry" <gerry@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23gKbKcQOJHA.1744@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Edward
>
> Start up items that do not connect will slow the computer. However,
> automated registry cleaners are not from my point of view to be
> recommended.
>
snip

I am unsure to what you are referring. Start up items will slow the machine
when 'starting' but once loaded will occupy memory but will not necessarily
slow the machine unless the memory reserved is required for other purposes.
What this has to do with the topic I am unsure.

Registry Cleaners will not, or at least should not, remove or offer to
remove items that have been identified as required to be started, that is a
'user' function. My understanding of how Registry Cleaners work is they try
to match entries in the Registry with files and if they do not find a match,
such as where |Registry 'keys' are empty, they flag it as an 'error'. This
seems to be a common problem with 'Cleaners' as many programs require empty
'keys' and without those keys the program fails. Empty 'keys' occupy a very
small amount of hard drive space but do not slow down machine operation.

> --
>
>
>
> Gerry
> ~~~~
> FCA
> Stourport, England
> Enquire, plan and execute
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Edward W. Thompson wrote:
>> "C.Joseph Drayton" <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote in message
>> news:49063302$0$90266$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>>> Edward W. Thompson wrote:
>>>> "C.Joseph Drayton" <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4904f1ce$0$90268$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>>>> snip>
>>>>> snip>>>
>>>> snip
>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>> C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T
>>>>>
>>>>> CSD Computer Services
>>>>>
>>>>> Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/
>>>>> E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net
>>>>
>> snip>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hello Edward,
>>>
>> snip
>>
>>> The other piece of the picture is that it takes a finite period of
>>> time to access an entry in the registry. The larger the registry the
>>> longer it can take to access that entry.
>>>
>>> When I use the word efficiently, my major point was that the machine
>>> loads certain things more slowly because of the fact that their
>>> reference may have to be found in the registry before it is called.
>>>
>> snip.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T
>>>
>>> CSD Computer Services
>>>
>>> Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/
>>> E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net
>>
>> The essence of this discussion relates to your suggestion that the
>> larger the Registry (number of items) the longer it takes to access
>> an entry required for a particular program (see above). This is
>> contrary to my understanding of how WINXP accesses the Registry, that
>> is a program is able to determine where all relevant data is stored
>> within the Registry and accesses the data directly without having to
>> scan all non relevant data.
>> If your understanding of how the Registry functions is correct then I
>> must concede that reducing the size of the Registry (number of
>> entries) will reduce access time (by how much is another matter).
>> However, if my understanding is correct then Registry size (number of
>> entries) is irrelevant to access time and hence the removal of
>> redundant entries will not improve 'efficiency'.
>
>

 

[Unknown]

Re: registry cleaners

Precisely your problem-----you always assume.
"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:Ok8L94TOJHA.4672@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:%23XiQd%23ROJHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>> I think you have a cranium, rectum inversion. You stated I never
>>>> used a registry cleaner, that is BS. What on earth do you base that
>>>> on? Is that the way YOU think? I don't use one now because of my
>>>> experience with the one I used.
>>>
>>> I base my opinion on the fact that you have never referenced anything
>>> useful, nor provided anything to support any of your claims. But
>>> you do us a lot of other people's words, like you're trying to
>>> "belong".
>> How do I support my claim that I used a registry cleaner and it
>> fouled up my system?
>> Do I get a witness and make a sworn statement? Get real!
>
> Ohh, I see, a believable description of events is beyond you, right? It's
> a little moot though since it's one out of many millions of uses you base
> your opinion of millions of uses on. You must lead a frustrating life; I
> can only imagine what happens when one tire goes flat for no apparent
> reason, or you switch to ice boxes becuase a refrigerator needed a
> recharge, or your car ...
>
>>
>>>
>>> Sooo, if I'm wrong in my opinion, correct me. It would appear you
>>> used "one", once, who knows from where or what you did, and thus
>>> have painted every one in existance black because of your vast
>>> experience with a total of one. And with nada for details to boot. Next?
>>
>> Yes I used one once and I might add NEVER again. Like others say "snake
>> oil".
>
> Soo, using ONE, ONCE, makes them all snake oil? That's rich! I hope you
> have Bridgestone tires on your vehicle.
>
>> What details satisfy you? I couldn't boot up after using the reg
>> cleaner. But you wouldn't believe that anyway.
>> Your basic problem is erroneous assumptions and opinions.
>
> Well, I assume you only used one unidentified cleaner once on an
> unidentified operating system where there was already an unidentified
> problem, so, that's definitely a great reason for your erroneous
> assumptions and opinions. Nah, don't base anything on reality or do any
> research to KNOW what you're dealing with; just stick with myths and love
> the people that you decide to parrot because it makes you feel right, the
> fact of wheter you are or not being completely meaningless to you.
> You incorrectly spelled a word wrong once that I took notice of.
> Therefore, using your methodology, I must put you in the forever ignorant
> and uneducated category. Right?
>
> lol, why is it you can't think for yourself? Why do you let one incident
> color you for life? I can only wonder what your general life must be
> like. It has to be, well, different.
>
> Twayne
>
>
>>>
>>> Twayne
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:ucUop8HOJHA.1164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>
>>>>> "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message
>>>>> news:03nNk.1448$%11.279@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>>>>> You obviously are suffering from CRS. How old are you anyway?
>>>>>
>>>>> You're OT: What, nothing intelligent to say? Yer funneee! You're
>>>>> comedic here, but not funny.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just so I'm not off topic too, , I'll add: Registry cleaners have
>>>>> their definite place in the world of windows computers. Most
>>>>> thinking people know that and many others also share my experience
>>>>> of having used them for years with never a flaw or problem. I have
>>>>> had MS programs crash, the OS crash, file corruption issues, but
>>>>> never with my registry cleaners. That's interesting; must be
>>>>> because it's intelligent enough to monitor itself for any changes,
>>>>> huh? Oh, I forgot: You've never used one. That's OK though; they
>>>>> aren't
>>>>> really needed very often, as I have said tens of time throughout
>>>>> this thread where the closed mind, sock puppets and parrots have
>>>>> sucked a tentacle onto a bottom feeder that can't think. Since
>>>>> you don't know, when you post somethign that is completely off
>>>>> topic to the newsgroup and the topic at hand, you are supposed to
>>>>> indicate so by incluting "OT" at the beginning of the Subject
>>>>> Line. Ah, but that would require a thinking sapience, wouldn't it? I
>>>>> keep
>>>>> forgetting I'm not addressing such a thing here. Go ahead &
>>>>> scratch it; no one's looking.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:%23MAwDdFOJHA.588@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A lot of people don't realize it, but simply restarting your
>>>>>>>>>>> XP computer 3 times in succession is a form of "registry
>>>>>>>>>>> cleaning".
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nonsence.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Too lazy to look it up? It's right there in black and white on
>>>>>>>>> the MS site for you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you too lazy to provide links to support your claim? Don't
>>>>>>>> expect us to go on a wild goose chase on the internet looking
>>>>>>>> for figments of your imagination! Rebooting a computer 3 times
>>>>>>>> (or 54,000 times) does not clean the registry, you are the one
>>>>>>>> who made the claim so it is up to you to provide supporting
>>>>>>>> information, it is not up to us to validate your claims, put up
>>>>>>>> or shut up. John
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, not too lazy; just not going to do it because of the
>>>>>>> subject. YOU want the info, YOU go and get it. It's there. If
>>>>>>> it's something you want, it's up to YOU to do the research.
>>>>>>> You also need a lesson or two in reading comprehension: go back
>>>>>>> and READ what I originally said; it'll give you hints to find
>>>>>>> it. I did not say it "does registry cleaning" now, did I?
>>>>>>> Remember the claims windows used to make about XP being "self
>>>>>>> healing"? Cheh kitout.
>
>
>

 

[Unknown]

Re: registry cleaners

If you have read these newsgroups for years, you must be awfully dense. You
haven't learned a thing.
What praytell have you ever programmed? If you had any programming
experience you would KNOW the dangers of
registry cleaners.
Each and every one of your posts is full of assumptions about me. You just
don't know and continue to assume
as you do with registry cleaners..
"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:%23tei6AUOJHA.4760@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Pefectely good?????
>> Based on my experience and many others. If you read these newsgroups
>> (or had any programming experience)
>> you would know that. But, you continue to assume.
>
> I've read these newsgroups for years, which you could tell if you weren't
> too lazy to look back at them. You would even find some interesting posts
> about registry cleaners to BC Boy if you looked far enough into the
> archives.
>
> As for programming experience, yes, I do have experience. But what does
> that have to do with anything under discussion? It's just another attempt
> to turn things to another subject on your part and depart the purpose of
> the posts; namely the misinformation that no registry cleaner of any kind
> is, never has been, and never will be of any use. There are several good
> ones out there that are no more dangerous to the registry than installing
> Office or Word of any Microsoft application. In fact, I'd go so far as to
> say less dangerous considering a few of MS's missteps over the years.
> So, I read these groups, and have for a long time, and have programming
> experience. So?
> And I assume nothing, unlike you. I use and have used registry cleaners
> for years and NEVER had one glitch on me for any reason. I have never had
> one damage my system. I've been with windows since windows 3.0. And I've
> always used what research showed to be functional, reliable registry
> cleaners. Unlike you. Your lack of knowledge only shows your ignorance
> of you would have made more of a comment about programming, in particular,
> and how it connected. But you don't really know. I dare say you probably
> have no idea what a database actually is either. I do, from the Ashton
> Tate days to today's applications. Many of my Ashton Tate programs are
> still in use, as a matter of fact. It's like DOS in that it doesn't die,
> it just keeps on going.
> Unlike you, I have experience and research behind me. All you have are
> the assumptions you make based on someone else's words you find convenient
> and nothing of your own. You just flat out do not know anything of this
> subject or you would use that knowledge in these so called posts of your.
> All you know is what someone you chose to believe has told you because it
> fits neatly with your "feelings", and facts be damned.
>
>
>
>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:%23QbDC$ROJHA.1148@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> But, why tell people to learn to use defective tools?
>>>
>>> I don't. Why do YOU tell people not to use pefectely good, useful
>>> tools? Based on your past experience of ONE TIME?
>>>
>>>
>>>> "C.Joseph Drayton" <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:4906424a$0$90274$14726298@news.sunsite.dk...
>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>>>> C.Joseph Drayton wrote:
>>>>>>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 26 Oct 2008 15:40:11 -0700, "C.Joseph Drayton"
>>>>>>>> <cjoseph@csdcs.itgo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sammy Castagna wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Are registry cleaners a good idea or bad? I have done some
>>>>>>>>>> reading and some
>>>>>>>>>> say they are bad and some say they are bad. Has any one here
>>>>>>>>>> had any experience with them good or bad. Or are they even
>>>>>>>>>> necessary looks like
>>>>>>>>>> Microsoft would build it into the operating system if it were
>>>>>>>>>> needed. Sammy Castagna
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hello Sammy,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I would like to start by apologizing in the event that you
>>>>>>>>> find this answer offensive.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Registry cleaners within themselves are a good idea. The
>>>>>>>>> problem is that a lot of people either don't know how to use
>>>>>>>>> a registry cleaner or they want one that does everything
>>>>>>>>> 'automatically'.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Defragmenting and compacting and removing unused entries in
>>>>>>>>> your registry will in fact make your machine run more
>>>>>>>>> efficiently. The problem is that if you delete an important
>>>>>>>>> entry it can cause problems with your system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When certain 'experts' tell you that registry cleaners are
>>>>>>>>> snake-oil, what they are really saying is "The average user
>>>>>>>>> is too stupid or lazy to verify entries before deleting them
>>>>>>>>> and most registry cleaners that work 'automatically' can
>>>>>>>>> stupidly delete important entries because they don't
>>>>>>>>> recognize what they are referring to."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think that it is insulting that experts prefer to say to
>>>>>>>>> the user "you are stupid or lazy so just play it safe."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, but I completely disagree with most of your message. Your
>>>>>>>> statements "Registry cleaners within themselves are a good idea"
>>>>>>>> and "Defragmenting and compacting and removing unused entries in
>>>>>>>> your registry will in fact make your machine run more
>>>>>>>> efficiently." In fact, registry cleaning does not accomplish
>>>>>>>> that or anything else useful. It is a wasted effort, and more
>>>>>>>> of a risk than anything else.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Blake,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You could try some 'real' world test. Take a drive that has
>>>>>>> had a large number of installs/uninstalls and test if for
>>>>>>> speed where a large number of small DLLs are loaded and
>>>>>>> unloaded as needed. Take that drive and run a registry
>>>>>>> cleaner on it properly and do the same test, you will see
>>>>>>> that their is an increase in speed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Subjective and hearsay evidence is just that. But some
>>>>>> documented evidence (by some citable, peer-reviewed cites) would
>>>>>> be meaningful. If you have any, please post them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And once again, the clause "run more efficiently" is completely
>>>>>> ambiguous, at least from my viewpoint (as an EE).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As to risk, one should never allow a registry cleaner to
>>>>>>> automatically remove items. A person should look through the
>>>>>>> list to confirm that the items the cleaner has flagged as no
>>>>>>> longer necessary are in fact no longer necessary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I contend and will always favor that users should learn how
>>>>>>> to properly maintain there computer . . . which means
>>>>>>> learning what the registry does and how it is being used by
>>>>>>> applications. There is risk in anything but the risk
>>>>>>> diminishes when one equips themselves with knowledge.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>> C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CSD Computer Services
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/
>>>>>>> E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Ken,
>>>>>
>>>>> First of all Ken any type of speed test is 'subjective'. If
>>>>> everyone had the exact same computer running the exact same
>>>>> software and used their computer in exactly the same way, your
>>>>> request might be reasonable. In the past I have commented on other
>>>>> 'old wives tales' told here and
>>>>> ended up saying that the bottom line is what works best for the
>>>>> 'individual' user.
>>>>>
>>>>> 'Run more efficiently' is not ambiguous, it is subjective. 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. 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. 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>> C.Joseph Drayton, Ph.D. AS&T
>>>>>
>>>>> CSD Computer Services
>>>>>
>>>>> Web site: http://csdcs.site90.net/
>>>>> E-mail: cjoseph@csdcs.site90.net
>
>
>

 

[Twayne]

Re: registry cleaners

David Lipman said:
>
>>> I again respectfully request... Please post the Microsoft URL.
>
>> I'm sorry, David; I don't keep close track of these things. Which
>> URL are you interested in?
>
>> Regards,
>
>> Twayne
>
>
> Earlier in this thread you had eluded to a Microsoft URL indicatining
> about a Registry cleaner. You were asked to provide it but did not
> indicating that one can do there own search and find.
>
> I am asking you to provide it... plaese.



I did a quick look-see and don't see it, but here are a couple
possibilities I pulled out of my history. Maybe they are what you're
looking for? These seem to cover what I recall anyway from when I heard
of the release and went to see if I was interested in it:
---------------------------------
http://onecare.live.com/site/en-US/article/registry_cleaner_why.htm

http://help.live.com/help.aspx?mkt=en-us&project=WL_Safety&format=b1&querytype=keyword&query=abtvst

and a forum entry:
Registry cleaner - Windows Live OneCare
Does One Care have any tools to clean up Registry Fles?
forums.microsoft.com/WindowsOneCare/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=3728548&SiteID=2
------------------------------------

I suspect one of those had a link to a free online scan, too IIRC. I
don't recall bringing it up, so I may not be the origin of the comments
you refer to; not sure.

Those should help get you started anyway. AFAIK that's the only
admitted MS "registry cleaner" for sure, but when you read a lot of
their linguistic escapades, a lot of their applications apparently also
do registry work, but ... they don't call it that. A couple of other
links show a technical analysis of what it does specficically and how it
does it, but those are some of the kinds I won't post here until I get a
response I want to some previously asked questions of our favorite
misinformationist.

I haven't downloaded it or even tried their free online scan because
last I knew it still had a couple of bugs to be worked out (what's
new?). It was only in BETA then, and I haven't gone back to see what
the very latest information is so perhaps it's in good shape by now; I
don't know. Oh; and I don't think the bugs were damaging; just glitches
of some sort.

If you're inclined to try it out, I'd be interested in your opinion of
it.

Regards,

Twayne

 

[Twayne]

Re: registry cleaners

> From: "Monitor" <nospam@spam.com>
>
>
>> "David H. Lipman" <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote in message
>> news:uYpelJUOJHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> From: "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net>
>
>>>>> From: "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net>
>
>>>>>> I base my opinion on the fact that you have never referenced
>>>>>> anything useful, nor provided anything to support any of your
>>>>>> claims. But you do us a lot of other people's words, like
>>>>>> you're trying to "belong".
>
>>>>>> Sooo, if I'm wrong in my opinion, correct me. It would appear
>>>>>> you used "one", once, who knows from where or what you did, and
>>>>>> thus have painted every one in existance black because of your
>>>>>> vast experience with a total of one. And with nada for details
>>>>>> to boot. Next?
>
>>>>>> Twayne
>
>
>
>>>>> Twayne:
>
>>>>> I again respectfully request... Please post the Microsoft URL.
>
>>>> I'm sorry, David; I don't keep close track of these things. Which
>>>> URL are you interested in?
>
>>>> Regards,
>
>>>> Twayne
>
>
>>> Earlier in this thread you had eluded to a Microsoft URL
>>> indicatining about a Registry cleaner. You were asked to provide
>>> it but did not indicating that one can do there own search and find.
>
>>> I am asking you to provide it... plaese.
>
>>> --
>>> Dave
>
>> A couple of interesting lines in your reply . . .
>> - indicatining?
>> - To elude = to escape, either physically or mentally
>> - To allude = to refer to something indirectly or by suggestion
>> - One can do "there" own search
>> - plaese?
>> Maybe a language cleaner is what's required here!
>
>
>
> The older I get, the worse I spell.
>
> It is most embarrassing

Nah, don't let it embarass you<g>. It was obvious what you meant which
is what matters. I'd rather read that sort of typo than many of the
other constants people come up with. If the linguistics/syntax of a
post bothers one, they should just move on. Not that I always follow my
own advice, but ... I do know better<g>.

Schears, & guud luk

Twayne