registry cleaners

[Unknown]

Re: registry cleaners

If you believe in CORRECTING misinformation, why don't you post CORRECT
information?
You have supplied absolutely no supporting information whatsoever. Do you
normally, or abnormally, dream all day?
"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:uD%23l9biOJHA.3876@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Yes, very often. However, I notice the only thing you contribute is
>> bad advice to posters
>> such as running registry cleaners.
>
> Yes, I believe in correcting misinformation. Registry cleaners can be a
> good thing and definitely have their uses. While I've supplied several
> pieces of supporting information along the way, you have supplied nothing.
> Where is your contribution?
>

 

[Unknown]

Re: registry cleaners

If you really believe I am just trying to get in the last word, you're
hopeless.
Read the post below from Dave.
"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:ugo60aiOJHA.1744@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Damn you're stupid answer inline.
>
>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:uK56yjfOJHA.2100@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> 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.
>> Here you go again, assuming----stop and for heavens sake think.
>
> No assumptions there at all. Simple experience; something you profess to
> have but don't.
> What's your list? How did it require registry knowledge not mentioned
> above?
>
>>
>>> 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"?
>> What happens when a registry cleaner erroneously deletes an item? Think
>> man, think.
>
> Sooo, what's the connection? and Again: How should that mean I'd know
> the "dangers of registry
> cleaners"?
>
> Can't answer it, can you?
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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"?
>> Ever program anything with a faulty table or missing constant?
>> What happened?
>>
>>> Either back up your bluff or continue to show your ignorance. Which
>>> will it be?
>> No bluff----you just assume and fail to think.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>> Your opinion is merely an assumption.
>
> lol, yer funnee!
>
>>
>>
>> Since it's my opinion you cannot give good answers to the
>>> above questions, I'll be getting pretty sure of your ignorance,
>> Once again pretty sure is an assumption.
>> 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.
>> You dodge but never admit--------admit it.
>
> Don't have to. I'm a thinking person with ethics and scruples.
>
>> 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.
>> You will not accept corrections. Every one of your posts are
>> excuses or quibbling.
>
> Misdirection so you won't have to give any answers to the questions, eh?
> If you knew, you'd say so in order to be all over me, I'm sure of it. You
> don't know, and if you did, you'd know the truth.
>
>>
>>> About the only good think I can say about you is that your
>>> tantrums are entertaining,
>> Great----glad you read them.
>> your apparent ignorance astounding, and your ability
>>> to promulgate it even more astounding when one thinks about it.
>> Yeah but you don't ever think.
>
> You shouldn't assume everyone is like yourself. I'm always thinking,
> unlike you. Rather than provide any answers to some very simple questions
> that could exonerate your position, you attempt trollish misdirection,
> display a closed minded attitude like your puppetmaster, and think if you
> say it enough times it'll be true.
>
> Besides, this is just an attempt to misdirect the conversation on your
> part.
>
>>
>> Well, I
>>> can say one more thing:
>> You've said enough!
>> 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.
>> There is NO good advantage to registry cleaners. But your erroneous
>> assumptions
>> won't let you admit that.
>
> How so? WHY is that? Give some evidence showing that what you consider
> my assumptions are wrong. What is it about them that makes them "not
> good"? But be specific; just saying so doesn't make something so. A
> broad experience base of one time does not an expert make. What research
> have you done to show your claims? Do you even had any empirical
> information? You've never given any.
>>
>> 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.
>
>> I did that!
>
> Then quit looking so stupid and say something to back up all your claims.
> Tell us about it. What happened? And what did you do for followup?
>
>>
>> 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.
>> Why do you make the time? Do you enjoy giving bad advice to
>> posters?
>
> No, not everyone is like you. I enjoy assisting people. And if you're too
> incompetent to know the answer to that question when you have just read
> it, well, what can I say? I make the time, as I said in so many words in
> what you snipped, because you spew misinformation and it is entertaining
> to watch your ignorance at work. But you are becoming predictable and I do
> have to admit less entertaining as all you're doing now is answering for
> the sake of answering, thinking probably that ifyou get the last word in,
> you'll have won somehow. I could gas whether you get the last word or
> not; that's your problem and not mine. But as long as you keep spewing
> misinformation I'll keep noticing it. That clear enough for you? I know:
> you don't understand. Afraid I can't help with reading comprehension or
> lack of education/experience.
>
> I abhor misinformation, especially the type of which your spew so
> vehemently but without any basis of fact. "I did that" isn't much of a
> response and a great way to say what you likely did not do. If you had
> any information useful to your case you would have used it by now.
> Information is easy to find. Unbiased, useful information is also easy to
> find. Experience is easy to gain. You have shown no sign of any of
> those. Nada, nothing, zero, nyet, nuttin. So in response you figure
> you'll just PO off that person who miffed you. Well, that doesn't work
> with me. I don't let the small things bother me. I do however speak my
> mind and like I already said, abhor misinformation. Just think of all the
> posts you've placed on Google now for perpetuity and all to see in the
> coming millenia.
>
> You are a great example of one thing I just realized: Purposelessness.
>
> Shears,
>
> Twayne
>
>
>>> 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
>
>
>