Re: registry cleaners
Wow, your ego is surpassed only by your ignorance. I have a little
time, so here at some answers for you to deny in your typical ignorant
way:
> If you have read these newsgroups for years, you must be awfully
> dense. You haven't learned a thing.
To the contrary, I have learned, and verified, many, many things over
the years. I also read several professional newsgroups; which ones to
you read?
> What praytell have you ever programmed?
In the CP/M days, Basic and Fortran
Later:
dBase I, dBase II, dBase III, and dBase IV, MS Access, Visual Basic,
PHP4, PHP5, a smattering of machine language for embedded systems, DOS
batches, XP Batches, both using XXCopy in the process, FoxPro, VBA in MS
and Open Source, a bunch of Inno applications, and lately looking into
Python.
Now a question for you: How does ANY of that mean that I'd gain
knowledge of the registry? Creating and modifying a few registry
entries with software has very little to do with whether registry
cleaners are any good.
What's the connection? None of the serious programming language
require much of a knowledge of the registry. In fact, most of them
don't even touch the registry by coding. The compilers might, but not
the code. And, it's VERY easy to see/check the registry entries any of
them DO make simply based on the names you know the language and the
compilers etc. are going to place there.
Again: How should that mean I'd know the "dangers of registry
cleaners"?
If you had any programming
> experience you would KNOW the dangers of
> registry cleaners.
Wrong. See the preceding para. Your ignorance is showing, now, for
sure. Tell me how "any programming experience" would let me "KNOW the
dangers of registry cleaners"?
Either back up your bluff or continue to show your ignorance. Which
will it be?
> Each and every one of your posts is full of assumptions about me.
I don't have to assume anything about you. You demonstrate it quite
clearly, IMO. Since it's my opinion you cannot give good answers to the
above questions, I'll be getting pretty sure of your ignorance, in fact.
What you've found here is somone who doesn't make statements they can't
back up; ever. And if/when I make a mistake I'll admit it. In fact, I
think I had to do that yesterday or the day before. You see, I'm not
afraid to be wrong; if/when I'm wrong I appreciate being given
correction when it's done by a knowledgeable source.
About the only good think I can say about you is that your tantrums
are entertaining, your apparent ignorance astounding, and your ability
to promulgate it even more astounding when one thinks about it. Well, I
can say one more thing: In general you troll less here than I've seen
you do on other groups where you appear to actually live under a small,
rock bridge near a murky stream.
You
> just don't know and continue to assume
> as you do with registry cleaners..
See, you're wrong there again. I not only "know", but I also use
registry cleaners to good advantage. All it takes is probably something
you're not used to doing: First, getting a branded, reliable
application, and then actually reading what it presents to you on the
screen. All that said, it's becoming more and more appaent by the day
that you're actually doing nothing but trolling and providing some
comedic content during my spare time. If I didn't have the time I would
simply relegate you to the bottom-feeding bass turd eating troll I think
you are and completely ignore you. Yours must be a pretty sad
existence.
Twayne
> "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