Peter said:
Hello BobN
A good friend of mine has a computer repair shop. In the month of Jan
of this year he had 36 systems to repair from registry errors brought
about by these Reg Cleaners. On 2 of them he had to rebuild the
system from bottom up since the Reg backups that were created were
not accessible because the system was not booting.
By what forensic method/s did this friend determine that those were
caused by registry cleaners?
In particular I'd have to seriously question the bare metal rebuilds
but for one month those numbers are terribly skewed by something other
than registry cleaners. Well, unless he or someone else was feeding
those same machines a diet of maliciously designed registry cleaners,
that is.
If you're going to claim that's in any way typical, I am going to
call you an outright liar without some explanation. Blind statements
are easy to make; making them believable is another story, and that's
all I'm asking for here. And that would depend a lot on the forensics:
HOW does/did he determine that a registry cleaner was the root cause of
the problem?
Which registry cleaners comprised the list and in what mix?
Or is he simply assuming that because there was a registry cleaner
there, that it caused the problem? Such a case would make it mandatory
to know the names/mix of product in order to add any amount of
verification.
Did his repair logs show something in the order of 36,000 to 360,000
units repaired that month? It would almost have to in order to have
that kind of statistic show up.
And how many more of these shops are doing the same across the
country.
Not many. In fact, he may be alone. If he were very big in the
industry I'd expect him to know about things like that, actually.
What's his URL? I'd like to see what he's all about. No malicious
intentions whatsoever; would just like to see his site and gauge his
level of expertise, etc..
Very few of these people that bring in their computers to
different shops will post here since they are not aware of newsgroups
that can possibly help.
lol, then again, maybe they're aware of groups with closed minded
spidiots spewing misinformation, too. This is akin to the MVP awhile
back that couldn't fathom anyone not being aware of Mmm, huh, or aumha
more precisely. These groups are VERY well known by almost everyone I
come in contact with, except the specific named groups aren't so clear
to them. They're hard to miss on any machine with MS software on it
though; it's full of links and references to them.
These are Family oriented computers that are
off the grid from most people like you knowing the bad effect that
these reg cleaners can do. How many in Europe. Gets close to the
number that you are mentioning.
Or Asia,Australia
Huh. Perhaps YOU know what point you were trying to make there but it's
lost on me. Looks more like grasping for words in order to have that
one more para to place here.
Registry Cleaners are snake oil remedies and to the contrary belief
that you think you posses it does not speed up your computer or give
you a lot more space.
Who has EVER mentioned that registry cleaners will give you a lot more
space? What the hell is that in reference to?
As for speeding up a machine, that's a tree/forest issue again. ANY
byte a cpu doesn't have to run code to look at, load, go round, or
otherwise not waste a machine cycle on speeds up the machine. Whether
it's a NOTICEABLE change or not is the point! Well, along with
reliability - fewer bytes means less opportunity for corruption,
glitch-catch, etc. etc. etc.. You've taken one (attempted two) aspect
of a registry cleaner and talked about it as though it were all a
registry cleaner does. And that isn't true. When you can see the
bigger picture, then you may have something you can discuss with some
level of intelligence.
Best be left alone.Dead strings in the Registry
Unused (there's no such thing as "dead") registry entries can result in:
-- Nothing but an extra hundred to thousands of index entries to jump
around and be barely noticeable
-- Cause up to a 20 Second delay while it waits for something to finish
up that never finishes
-- be so voluminous that they actually do cause a slowdown by their
calls for non-existing things, that don't create error messages, and are
timed in many seconds rather than a few hundred milliseconds.
-- Have you ever noticed the slowdown in boot time, for example, as you
rebuild a machine and install , say, Microsoft Office? NO way can you
tell me that things didn't slow down.
And since Office makes thousands of registry entries total depending
on how you set it up, these can be substantial times, too. The registry
calls for function A, has to wait for function A to complete, which
could take hundreds of milliseconds, then the registry calls program A,
Program B, background tasks C, D, E, and F, and so on, and when it's
been notified that all events have been processed, it allows the screen
to be painted finally.
Now: Is that the fault of the registry or the fault of MS Office?
Some will say Office, but I say it's the registry because it's the
registry making all those calls and instantiating the code to wait for
acks/nacks or contingencies to return. If those entries weren't in the
registry then Office wouldn't run, and things would still be fast. BUT
.... Office wouldn't run, of course. Now, a cleaner looks at that, sees
that every registry entry calls somethign real, and goes about its way,
happily fniding its end.
There is no rocket science to the registry; it's just a text file of
commands. A LOT of commands. If you want to see just how active the
registry is, get a copy of regmon and let it run for a minute while our
machine idles. Normal, unbusy machine state will still create a
megabyte text file in less than a minute. Start a program and watch
how much faster the writes/reads to the registry get to be. It's a fun
at first exercise but gets pretty boring quickly and can run you out of
memory in just a few minutes if you're not set up with a good structure
to start with and lots of PM.
Last thing. I frequent 48 newsgroups which I participate in including
foreign ones and there is on an average usually 10-15 per week that
have problems brought about by the automatic Reg Cleaning Tools
Oof! You need to 1. get a life, and then, 2. get a job! But I still
have to ask again; how do you KNOW that the problems are brought on by
registry cleaners? I dispute those figures and could only beleive them
with some sort of verification. Also, 10-15 posts/week is a pretty
small number for 48 ng's unless they're some pretty darned small groups.
You've spewed a lot of supposed information here, but without any
forensics or the ability to verify anything you've said. Why should we
give any credence to your post over and above the usual dummies and
closed minds here? What is it about you that could give you some
credibility?
I am not being malicious here: IFF you can attain some credibility
on this subject, you will not only be sort of famous here because no one
else ever has, but with proper verification availability, you might even
change some minds.
I'm betting though, that you either black hole this post, or will
come back with more unsupported, unverifiable claims as you have
already done here. Quite frankly I'm having trouble not just calling
you an out and out liar, but ... in the event you can actually back up
any of your words, I am certainly willing to read and consider them.
Unlike some other closed minds here, I would even find mfr's articles
and white papers to be acceptable for verification purposes. I AM
interested in this subject matter, so see what you can do to change my
mind. I will listen, but I am not easily snowed, so make things clear,
OK?
BTW, personal opinions of a single person, etc., are not considered as
important. So quoting any of the boilerplate the closed minds here used
or anything similar just won't work. We're smarter than that.
Cheers,
Twayne