Re: registry cleaners
> The other posters have told you that registry cleaners should be
> avoided--here's two specific reasons why:
>
> MS made a registry cleaner during the W95/98 time frame and they
> could not get it to work so that it was not destructive. After a
> couple of years, they quietly gave up and removed it from their web
> site. If their programmers (who just happen to know the registry
> inside out) could not make a safe program, why should you believe
> that others can? MS has demonstrated over the years that if there is
> a computer process worth having, they either try to buy it or build
> their own version.
I went from 3 to 3.1 to WFWG to 95 to 98. Still have a machine running
98 in fact, with all the fixes; it's as or more stable than XP. But I
don't ever recall a 95/98 MS product do as you indicate. Can you kindly
cite a source for it?
>
> Even an undo feature will not save you in all instances. Let's say
> that you perform maintenance weekly and your cleaner removes
> something important. However, whatever is removed is not a function
> (or it does not belong to a program) that you use frequently. The
> next week you run your cleaner, still no hint of a problem. The
> third week you run your cleaner and shortly thereafter you try the
> function that you seldom use and it doesn't work. Most people will
> not even think that the problem was caused by the cleaner but let's
> say you do and you use the undo feature. But guess what, it won't
> fix the problem because the problem was created during the cleaning
> that was done two weeks prior. I doubt anyone is going to go through
> every undo file just to see if it fixes the problem.
Well ... I know people that have restored every undo; one of them is my
sister. Especially when the restores are properly named, it's not a lot
of thought to do so.
OTOH in my own case if it appears to take more than a few hours of
fumbling and I need the machine, I just re-image the drive.
Also, the scenario you envision is about as likely to happen as is
file/data corruption IMO so I don't see it as very relevant. I've used
such software since pre-Norton days and never once had any issue with it
damaging so much as a timestamp let alone anything else.
>
> The only time I recommend that a regcleaner be used is when the only
> alternative is to format the drive and reinstall the operating
> system/programs. At this point you have nothing to lose and on the
> off chance that it actually fixes the problem, you have something to
> show for the money you invested in a snake oil product.
Well, that's your perogative to reinstall and rebuild but if in the
beginning you had a program that would have taken care of hte problem,
you've likely wasted a lot of time and effort.
There ARE bad "registry" maintenance programs, just like there are
any other kind of software you may find free or for purchase or under
any license of any type. Rogue Registry maintenance programs are no
more likely to screw up your machine than any other Rogue Application.
Besides the reality that cleaning a registry isn't necessary most of
the time, there are definitely times when it is called for and will
solve a lot of problems. I did so just a few weeks ago in fact, on the
Dell dual-Zeon sitting behind me here. An Avira update went astray and
I couldn't figure out where the calls for a particular program were
coming from and why backup was throwing some pretty strange error
messages about what should have been innocuous files. Uninstalling Avira
made no difference to it. So: After eliminating all the other possible
places where those calls could have come from, I was left with only the
registry as a likely suspect. Crapcleaner found someting but was unable
to fix it. So out comes my handy dandy paid-for trusty registry
maintenance application. About two minutes and a few keyclicks later
all was fine and everything was back to normal.
Avira looked good to me at the time; it's no longer on any of my
machines.
I'd say that trumps your vague comments about "snake oil" above here.
Oh, and since you like the phrase "snake oil" I can only assume
you're a parrot or someone has an arm up your butt; it shows.
Twayne
>
>
> "Sammy Castagna" <sammycastagna@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u1vWZovNJHA.4928@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> Some say thet are good and some say they are bad.
>> Sorry.
>>
>> Sammy Castagna