Registry cleaner ?

[thanatoid]

No, we have all noticed it. When people post with problems
brought about by registry cleaners you *never* offer any
help, you simply disappear.

OK, I'm not Twayne, so let /me/ see an example of "damage" done
by a reg cleaner. I'm new to the XP groups and I have not seen
one yet. In my pro-reg cleaners posts I HAVE asked for
examples/links/whatever, and received silence or insults or
both, but not a single specific example.

(As for trusting MS to fully remove Office - pretty funny. It
gets my vote for Joke of the Week. I thought your line would be
"Once installed, it becomes an integral part of they system,
like Internet Explorer is to begin with, and can't be removed" -
which of course is not true either.)


--
There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives
and those that will break later.
- Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/,
not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got
the quote. But it's true.)

 

[John John - MVP]

OK, I'm not Twayne, so let /me/ see an example of "damage" done
by a reg cleaner. I'm new to the XP groups and I have not seen
one yet.

I have provided links to the kind of problems that these cleaners can
cause in another post.

At one time I too thought that these cleaners served a purpose. Why?
Because I didn't know any better, everybody was spreading the same
gospel and I believed the vendors of these programs. That was when I
was using Windows 95 on my home machine. I knew next to nothing about
Windows and like everybody else I ran these cleaners just because that's
what folks were doing, I never noticed any improvement when running them
but I ran the cleaners anyway.

After we migrated our work network from Novell over DOS to an NT4
network I thought that I should also run registry cleaners on my NT4
boxes. It didn't take too long for me to realize that the cleaners did
absolutely nothing to improve performance on any of our machines and
that it broke some of our applications. One of my boxes was up to
MFC42.dll but a Xerox printer that we had attached to the box couldn't
work with that MFC version, it required MFC40.dll so this dll was kept
and registered on the NT4 box. Every time a cleaner was run it would
remove the registration for this file and the whole Xerox software would
fall apart and the printer would stop working. That was the last straw,
these cleaners did absolutely nothing to maintain the health of my
machines and they did nothing to improve performance, quite to the
contrary they were breaking our software. By that time I was a bit more
savvy about Windows NT and I came to realize that these cleaners were
really utterly useless and that they were causing more harm than good so
I dumped the whole lot of them. And, oh yes, I tried more than a few or
them, RegClean, CleanSweep, RegCleaner/JV16 and a few others. There all
the same, they're all utterly useless and a complete waste of time,
Windows NT operating systems don't need registry cleaning, running these
cleaners as a maintenance/prevention routine is nothing but a fool's errand.

John

 

[thanatoid]

I have provided links to the kind of problems that these
cleaners can cause in another post.

GREAT ANSWER! I'd make an MVP joke but they teach you this kind
of shit in /all/ corporations and political organizations. Can't
be a good businessman or politician without knowing the
tricks...

But WTH, I'll bite /one more time/... Let's have the Message ID
of that post...

At one time I too thought that these cleaners served a
purpose.

They DO serve a purpose. You may not agree with that purpose,
but that does not mean they are useless to other people or
harmful in general. BION, some people find Rover and Clippy kind
of annoying, but MS thought it was GREAT idea. BOB2, anyone?
Different strokes for different folks.

Why? Because I didn't know any better, everybody
was spreading the same gospel and I believed the vendors of
these programs. That was when I was using Windows 95 on my
home machine. I knew next to nothing about Windows and
like everybody else I ran these cleaners just because
that's what folks were doing, I never noticed any
improvement when running them but I ran the cleaners
anyway.

How many times do I have to repeat that they make NO difference
in performance but have other advantages? Are you brain dead or
somethihng?

After we migrated our work network from Novell over DOS to
an NT4 network I thought that I should also run registry
cleaners on my NT4 boxes. It didn't take too long for me
to realize that the cleaners did absolutely nothing to
improve performance

See above. S I G H.

on any of our machines and that it
broke some of our applications.

I don't suppose there is any point in asking WHAT applications
they "broke" and HOW, is there?

One of my boxes was up to
MFC42.dll but a Xerox printer that we had attached to the
box couldn't work with that MFC version, it required
MFC40.dll so this dll was kept and registered on the NT4
box. Every time a cleaner was run it would remove the
registration for this file and the whole Xerox software
would fall apart and the printer would stop working.

Finally, an actual example! (Just one, and a lousy one at that -
read on - but it's more than you provided so far.) Except I
don't know if the event classifies as "breaking an application",
let alone the famous "made my machine unbootable" claim. Printer
problems are notorious, and Xerox made/makes the best copiers
but their printers and software were never very good.

In any case, what you tell makes absolutely no sense. I run 98SE
99% of the time, and I just checked my registry. The only two
places MFC4x.dll's are mentioned is "windows installer
components" and "shared DLL's". No good reg cleaner would go
anywhere near those branches let alone remove either of those
entries. Not my fault you choose bad software - but then again
being on the MS bandwagon, it must be automatic.

Also, you always get a list of exactly WHAT the reg cleaner
intends to do and it is up to YOU to tell it "OK" or to uncheck
some items. I don't blindly let mine run while I'm doing
something else in another part of the house.

As always, the USER is the bottom line. If you are too lazy/dumb
to see a bad reg cleaner wants to remove an essential link/reg
of a crucial system file, that's YOUR fault, not the cleaner's.

That
was the last straw, these cleaners did absolutely nothing
to maintain the health of my machines and they did nothing
to improve performance
Again...

quite to the contrary they were
breaking our software. By that time I was a bit more savvy
about Windows NT and I came to realize that these cleaners
were really utterly useless and that they were causing more
harm than good so I dumped the whole lot of them.

I'll say that you MS folk sure are good at repeating yourselves
over and over... Not unlike "I provided that info in another
post"...

And, oh
yes, I tried more than a few or them, RegClean, CleanSweep,
RegCleaner/JV16 and a few others. There all the same,
they're all utterly useless and a complete waste of time,

Yes, you said that about 30 times by now in your posts.

Windows NT operating systems don't need registry cleaning,

No system NEEDS registry cleaning (unless the registry has been
bloating for 5 years and there is not enough disk space for
Windows to even run properly) but some people find what they do
useful.

running these cleaners as a maintenance/prevention routine
is nothing but a fool's errand.

No one besides me will ever touch my computer, but when I need
to make an Acronis C:\ image or just feel it's time to clean up
the system, I do a variety of things, including running 4 reg
cleaners and then doing a final manual check/sweep. There is no
reason for it - I like to do it because I like to keep things
neat and compact. There is no known reason for why some people
put their left shoe on first instead of the right one. Hey, I've
known people who sometimes put their left shoe on first and
sometimes the right!

Anyway, WHY are you so adamant about this? Are you afraid to
admit the registry was a TERRIBLE idea and that it bloats
continuously and keeps crap that shouldn't be in it (get a file
viewer capable of loading/viewing the registry files "au
naturel" and see what kinds of goodies are dumped all over it -
after all, MS are SO good at programming), and generally makes
what was once a simple thing of editing an ini file an utter
nightmare which requires special software to be dealt with?


--
There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives
and those that will break later.
- Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/,
not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got
the quote. But it's true.)

 

[Unknown]

SOUND technical reasons?????? Just give one. And prove it to be so.

 

[Unknown]

Why are you so dense? Did it ever occur to you your UNDO isn't needed if you
didn't run a registry cleaner?
Does it occur to you that you wouldn't damage your registry if you don't run
a registry cleaner?
You say it's simple to know whether or not an item in the registry is an
orphan. Explain how.
With a possibility of having programs installed on your computer from a
multitude of
sources you're dreaming.

 

[Unknown]

Not ONCE have you responded to someone who damaged their system using a
registry cleaner.

 

[Unknown]

On the contrary, YOU"RE the one exposed many times for pushing registry
cleaners.
To quote you, 'you're wrong now, always have been and always will be.'
Not one MVP on this newsgroup will refute that.

 

[Unknown]

Yeah! He is the same as Twayne.

 

[Unknown]

You never offered answers to someone who damaged their system by a registry
cleaner because you
don't know the answer? Then why do you push them? And you say "I'm clear
about what I'm doing"
Are you mentally handicapped?

 

[Twayne]

In

Not ONCE have you responded to someone who damaged their system using
a registry cleaner.

You're wrong, but the vast majority of the time any useful answers have
already been given. Adding anything to the muck and lies you create would do
nothing but add to the confusion.

I'm calling you a bald face liar because I have several such examples in my
archives. Let's see YOU prove there has never been such a thing? Saying
something doesn't make it so. In your case, it's just a fantasy and/or wish,
anyway.

Twayne, misinformation exposer/responder

 

[Twayne]

In

On the contrary, YOU"RE the one exposed many times for pushing
registry cleaners.
To quote you, 'you're wrong now, always have been and always will be.'
Not one MVP on this newsgroup will refute that.

No, only a small group if intentionally ignorant ones and some who aren't
actually MVPs but are parrots will "refute" it. You really should increase
the size of your world and try to get a grasp on reality. You try hard to be
a wart on the ass of progress for a lot of things.

 

[Twayne]

In

You never offered answers

Prove I never offered answers.

to someone who damaged their system by a

registry cleaner

Prove or provide technical, supported proof of each case or an unbiased
investigation and I might believe you. Even Paul Russinovich retracted his
comment that he'd never use a registry cleaner; or didn't you know that?
Kind of splitting hairs, but one has to when dealing with a bush like yours.

because you

don't know the answer?

Unlike you, I have no problem with admitting that I have little or no
knowledge of some parts of some area. Since you can't read and snipped out
the text, you're not making much of a point. You're like the yellow
journalist who makes a living at the Enquirer or worse rags.

Then why do you push them?

Prove I "push" them. Show me posts I wrote where I pushed them. I only speak
the truth about them and offer at times the extensive knowledge and
experience I have with them. You on the other hand have no such thing.

And you say "I'm

clear about what I'm doing"

That's right! YOu're not clear about what you're doing. I see you snipped
out those parts too, like a common coward under a bridge somewhere.

Are you mentally handicapped?

Yes, I am. I have short-term memory retrieval problems left over from a
concussion I suffered many years ago but long after the idiotic debate about
registry cleaners being snake oil and never to be used. I won't remember
this post after I send it until, probably, tomorrow, without reminders, and
then it'll come back to me. Don't you wish that was the ONLY problem YOU
had? It must really suck to be you.

Thanks again for the opportunity to trash you; it's been fun. As long as
it's fun I'll continue to refute the misinformatists, liars and idiot who
are incapable of giving out accurate advice. And, I'll do so without
splitting hairs as you are inclined to do; I'll stick to the subjects and
not try to redirect the OP when it's you or some other idiot that is giving
out the bad information.

Twayne, defender of accuracy in communications

 

[Twayne]

In

I have provided links to the kind of problems that these cleaners can
cause in another post.

At one time I too thought that these cleaners served a purpose. Why?
Because I didn't know any better, everybody was spreading the same
gospel and I believed the vendors of these programs. That was when I
was using Windows 95 on my home machine. I knew next to nothing about
Windows and like everybody else I ran these cleaners just because
that's what folks were doing, I never noticed any improvement when
running them but I ran the cleaners anyway.

After we migrated our work network from Novell over DOS to an NT4
network I thought that I should also run registry cleaners on my NT4
boxes. It didn't take too long for me to realize that the cleaners
did absolutely nothing to improve performance on any of our machines
and that it broke some of our applications. One of my boxes was up to
MFC42.dll but a Xerox printer that we had attached to the box couldn't
work with that MFC version, it required MFC40.dll so this dll was kept
and registered on the NT4 box. Every time a cleaner was run it would
remove the registration for this file and the whole Xerox software
would fall apart and the printer would stop working. That was the
last straw, these cleaners did absolutely nothing to maintain the
health of my machines and they did nothing to improve performance, quite
to the
contrary they were breaking our software. By that time I was a bit
more savvy about Windows NT and I came to realize that these cleaners
were really utterly useless and that they were causing more harm than
good so I dumped the whole lot of them. And, oh yes, I tried more than a
few
or them, RegClean, CleanSweep, RegCleaner/JV16 and a few others. There all
the same, they're all utterly useless and a complete waste
of time, Windows NT operating systems don't need registry cleaning,
running
these cleaners as a maintenance/prevention routine is nothing but a
fool's errand.
John

Lots of talk and opinion, but nothing of any import. YOU did this, YOU did
that, YOU did the other thing. And still no definitive links to any useful
information on the subject. You apparently also seem to think that XP = NT
which if far from the case; you need to brush up on what's relevant and what
isn't between the two, at least if you keep trying to redirect to literal NT
as you're doing.
How were they all the same? Details? How did you prove your cases?

Twayne

 

[Twayne]

In

SOUND technical reasons?????? Just give one. And prove it to be so.

YOU are the one claiming to have the expert knowlege; it's YOU that should
be providing the technical background to change the minds of what you
consider those who use "dangerous" software.
Personally, I've said over and over that I'm willing to read and listen
to any verifiable, technically oriented explanations of what's wrong with
registry cleaners. Since you claim to know so much more than I or anyone
else who disagrees with YOU, it's incumbent upon YOU to provide something
useful and convincing, or shut up. But can't, because no such thing exists.
Even MS, when they admit a compatability issue, never admits it's their
fault; instead preferring to say it's between x and y, someone other than MS
and MS.

Twayne, defender of misinformation and inaccuracy

 

[Twayne]

In

Why are you so dense?

No density involved there. IT's pure logic and nothing more.

Did it ever occur to you your UNDO isn't needed

if you didn't run a registry cleaner?

Neither is defrag, ipconfig, etc. etc. etc. if you never run them. Just how
many things, I have to wonder, should you be limiting? OE and compacting the
database comes to mind; so you won't run OE. I could put together a long
list but it's not going to go anywhere with a closed mind like yours.

Does it occur to you that you wouldn't damage your registry if you
don't run a registry cleaner?

And you'd never encounter a bug in ANY software if YOU never ran it.
Especially MS - and going off topic to your intent: I have to wonder why you
aren't on Vista already and then gone to Win7; But you're still using OE,
which has several bugs and openings in it, as does XP.

You say it's simple to know whether or not an item in the registry is
an orphan. Explain how.

Wow! If you don't know the answer to that, you're not going to get it from
me! I have no need to be teaching you anything: YOU claim to be the expert;
YOU come up with real details.

With a possibility of having programs installed on your computer from
a multitude of
sources you're dreaming.

Nope, not at all. All it takes is a sense of logic and to learn to be able
to "see" beyond the little piece of space you're looking at. There are some
rather obscure parts of the registry that might require a lookup, but it's
not what one would call rocket science. All that statement tells me is that
you really have almost zip for knowledge of the registry.
Vacuum comes to mind.

Twayne
One who laughs at liars and misinformationists, referring to your previous
lie in another post. And which I called you on. I also suspect that large
pieces of this post are lies too; certain incongruencies tend to give them
away.

 

[John John - MVP]

In

Lots of talk and opinion, but nothing of any import. YOU did this, YOU
did that, YOU did the other thing. And still no definitive links to any
useful information on the subject. You apparently also seem to think
that XP = NT which if far from the case; you need to brush up on what's
relevant and what isn't between the two, at least if you keep trying to
redirect to literal NT as you're doing.
How were they all the same? Details? How did you prove your cases?

Windows XP is NT5.1 and there is more in common between NT4 and XP than
you will ever know. As for links we have provided many on different
occasion but you simply dismiss them all as 'anecdotal' so don't ask for
anymore links, with you it's only a waste of time. Often times *you*
have been asked to supply links with unbiased and concrete proof that
registry cleaners actually improve performance and not once have you
ever been able to supply any such unbiased information, all that you
have ever been able to do is supply advertising materials from the
sellers of these useless programs. You are in the minority here with
your cleaners, and for a good reason, most of the others here are not
brainwashed by snake oil salesmen.

John

 

[Shenan Stanley]

<snipped>

I have never once, in at least 5 years, seen you respond to
someone who posted the damage done to
his/her machine by a registry cleaner. You conveniently ignore
them. Then, you severely criticize some who
says registry cleaners are 'snakeoil'. Why are you so two faced? Do
you work for the 'snakeoil' developers?

Well, you'd better go look again. Or put your glasses on. I don't
offer answers to someone if I don't know the answer. But I DO
address your misinformation. K? And, I'm clear about what I'm
doing. You've missed a lot of posts in 5 years.

<snipped>

You never offered answers to someone who damaged their
system by a registry cleaner because you don't know the
answer? Then why do you push them? And you say "I'm
clear about what I'm doing"

Are you mentally handicapped?

Prove I never offered answers.

<snipped>

Seriously? That's the responses and what this has come to?

You want proof you never did something instead of providing proof you did
something at least a single time which completely resolves that argument?

Go ahead - you can answer that you shouldn't have to prove anything and
stomp your feet and hold your breath and turn blue - because that is what
this conversation has [de]evolved to - or you could prove yourself and give
one link, one solitary web link to one time where you, and I will quote
"unknown" here, "offered answers to someone who damaged their system by a
registry cleaner".

In the whole 'registry cleaner' argument - I could care less in the end. If
someone has the skills to use something and know which things are useful as
tools vs. those that are not - more power to them. If someone does not and
they decide to dive headfirst into something they don't understand and end
up drowning - more power to them. Doesn't matter if it is registry
cleaners, registry editors, antimalware applications, antivirus
applications, duplicate file finders, random advice from people they do not
know or whatever - if someone is willing to do it - I am not going to stand
in their way. I will give them my experience and I will warn them that if
they are not truly prepared - things can and likely will go wrong (get
worse.)

However - stop right there - I do not care - it's their decision. I will
not push them into anything overly complicated or that should not be done
without precise instructions followed to the letter or things could go
wrong. I am careful about what I ask people to do to their system - keeping
it simple and understanding that sometimes - it is better to teach someone
how to backup and go to an expert than how to start going through something
they may never understand and might slip up on - especially given it is
seldom an 'end-of-the-world/last-hope-of-success' scenario.

In any case - I digressed - back to the only reason I responded. This is
why these posts get so long and how come it usually ends up just a couple of
people left in them (usually the same people over and over) - it breaks down
to playground (under the age of 8) antics and taunts. "I know you are, but
what am I?" and instead of one or the other producing the obvious, easy and
simple solution that could end one thread of the conversation - it continues
to break down with, "I'm rubber and you're glue..."

Twayne, if you want to end that part of the discussion - once and for all -
give the single link to answer the question. One Google Groups link or
Microsoft Social link or whatever. That's all it takes to counter a
'never' - just one. Take the high road. You may think, might even say
(maybe not now that I mention it), I don't have to prove anything (it's a
matter of principle, whatever...) and you may be right - but it takes only
one to oust a 'never' argument. Failure to produce that one is not the best
response unless you stop responding ever again and just ignore the other
(even then - it doesn't produce the true results you might desire.)

*shrug*

In the end - I still do not care. It's a newsgroup argument over something
petty and that didn't matter 20 years ago and might not matter 20 years from
now. It's just something to do to fill the gap of time between now and
then. ;-P

 

[M.I.5¾]

OK, I'm not Twayne, so let /me/ see an example of "damage" done
by a reg cleaner. I'm new to the XP groups and I have not seen
one yet. In my pro-reg cleaners posts I HAVE asked for
examples/links/whatever, and received silence or insults or
both, but not a single specific example.

(As for trusting MS to fully remove Office - pretty funny. It
gets my vote for Joke of the Week. I thought your line would be
"Once installed, it becomes an integral part of they system,
like Internet Explorer is to begin with, and can't be removed" -
which of course is not true either.)


--
There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives
and those that will break later.
- Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/,
not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got
the quote. But it's true.)

 

[M.I.5¾]

In

You're wrong, but the vast majority of the time any useful answers have
already been given. Adding anything to the muck and lies you create would
do nothing but add to the confusion.

I'm calling you a bald face liar because I have several such examples in
my archives. Let's see YOU prove there has never been such a thing? Saying
something doesn't make it so. In your case, it's just a fantasy and/or
wish, anyway.

Twayne, misinformation exposer/responder

 

[Unknown]

YOU are the one claiming to have the expert knowlege; it's YOU that should
be providing the technical background to change the minds of what you
consider those who use "dangerous" software.

There you go again! You just stated 'there are sound technical reasons'---
I ask for one and you twist and turn.

Personally, I've said over and over that I'm willing to read and listen
to any verifiable, technically oriented explanations of what's wrong with
registry cleaners.

OK, read and listen ---THEY HAVE THE POTENTIAL OF RENDERING
A PC INOPERABLE.. -- Verification---you ignore each one posted.

.Since you claim to know so much more than I or anyone else who disagrees
with YOU, it's incumbent upon YOU to provide something useful and
convincing, or shut up.

I never once (go back and read) claimed anything of the sort. Don't say
it's incumbant on me
because it is you pushing registry cleaners contrary to all the MVPs (and
many others advice) .

But can't, because no such thing exists. Even MS, when they admit a
compatability issue, never admits it's their fault; instead preferring to
say it's between x and y, someone other than MS and MS.

Once again, each and every time someone posts the damage caused by running a
registry
cleaner you completely ignore it. Did you read John Johns recent post? You
ignored it!
What the he-- are you a registry cleaner salesman?