Re: Vista Registry Cleaner - As Every PC Deserves the Best!

"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> schreef in bericht
news:eLZBdUNIJHA.4416@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Ildhund wrote:
>> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
>> news:#9zifVMIJHA.2408@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> ...
>> Bruce, DNFTEC; you'll only get bitten. See
>> http://lcngarc.twoshakesofalambstail...998120729.html
>
>
> I see your point, but my primary concern is to ensure that there's a
> rebuttal to the deliberately harmful advice these people post, so that
> newbies are at least warned of the dangers. If doing so also boosts the
> sad little trolls' egos, I think it's a price I'll just have to accept.
> Anyway, they generally make themselves look increasingly desperate and
> pathetic with each new post.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> Help us help you:
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375
>
> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
>
> Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand
> Russell
>
> The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
> killed a great many philosophers.
> ~ Denis Diderot

What a lot of crap I read here. cCleaner is not so good as some think. It
produces a lot of problems and there are far better programs available with
much less problems.

Cleaning the registry does absolutely nothing to improve speed and
performance, any increase in performance is more likely due to CC
getting rid of temp files. Given the massive size of the registry,
cleaning it out and claiming that the computer runs faster is akin to
running the vacuum cleaner in your car and then claiming that the car
goes faster because you got rid of a pound of dust and dirt! Once in a
blue moon a registry cleaner may be of help to experienced users trying
to troubleshoot problems, othewise these tools are next to useless or
worse. These tools *do* cause problems but most of the people who use
them don't have enough experience to see the link to the damage done by
the cleaner.

John

D. Spencer Hines wrote:

> Never happened to me...
>
> Fact:
>
> My system runs smoother and swifter since I started using the CCleaner
> registry cleaner.
>
> I'm not vouching for regcleaners in GENERAL.
>
> So your post was one long non sequitur.
>
> 'Nuff Said.

On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:50:57 +0100, D. Spencer Hines wrote:

> Twaddle.
>
> I approve every single registry change that is made.
>
> If I don't approve it, no change is made.
>
> Perfectly safe.

I don't need a registry cleaner to recommend changes which I then have to
approve. Unless I have some indication that there is a registry change
needed, I don't make changes. I've got a few "dead" keys. I don't see how
they make any difference.

Any tool which offers suggested changes is dangerous in the hands of those
who don't know what the tool does. Anybody who does know what the registry
cleaner is recommending, probably doesn't even need the cleaner.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

Those who want to dumb every piece of software down to the point that
even the most rank newbie can NEVER get in trouble with it should be
condemned to use ONLY that software.

--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
Veni, Vidi, Calcitravi Asinum

> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>> Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be
>> clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.
>
>
> CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner.
No, it is not worthless as a registry cleaner. It doesn't clean deep,
but it isn't worthless.

I tried the latest
> version on a brand-new OS installation with no additional applications
> installed,

a wasted effort at that point, since all it found were the "in case"
chaff MS sticks in all over the place. Big deal; if they're needed,
they'll get put back with the installs, but ... it's really
counterproductive and a waste of time to run a cleaner at that point.

and certainly none installed and then uninstalled, and
> CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred allegedly orphaned
> registry entries and dozens of purportedly "suspicious" files, making
> it clearly a *worthless* product, in this regard.

The orphaned entries were just that; orphaned. It doesn't take a CRAY
to determine that an entry is an orphan.

Suspicious Files, well, if you RTFM, it told you how to treat those.

(Not that any
> registry cleaner can ever be anything but worthless, as they don't
> serve any *useful* purpose, to start with.)

And that is pure BS and you know it, as surely as you have a closed
mind.

Because of your claims, I did the exact same test you claim to have
done, here on a sandbox XP laptop not too long ago, got rid of the
orphans it was willing to remove, and left the suspicious files alone
since I didn't want to go see what they were. Told it to not be so
picky, reran the test & those didn't show up, just as the instructions
predicted..
After completeion of build, machine ran perfectly. Installed Office,
DVD support, OOo, local Apache Server, PHP, AV and anti-spyware with
several other minor apps & all were quite happy.
Repeated ccleaner, no more issues, no problems. Then once I was
sure all was well I re-imaged the drive, ran ccleaner, no problems
found, and all is well since.

Why you would bother to run a trgistry cleaner immediately after a clean
install is beyond me, though. Talk about a waste of time! But,
speaking of waste ...

If you want to actually help people out in this area, why don't you test
and identify a set of reliable applications and/or offer to give an
opinion on whether a chosen one is reliable or not?
But you won't; it's easier to just parrot your closed minded attitude
that apparently knows very little about the subject. If you were really
knowledgeable, you would also consider normal day to day read/write
sources to the registry and explain how you excuse those when you posit
that anything that touches the registry is bunk? How do you justify
allowing that to happen? I've actually encountered more MS-caused
registry problems over the years than I have from non-MS applications
that use the registry in similar manners.

These aren't for you; they're for the many who enjoy follosing this kind
of link and who might like a little information on the subject. Even
with their own built in biases, these links are a breath of fresh air
compared to yours.

http://download.iolo.net/articles/Registry1.pdf

http://www.raxco.com/products/perfec...RXSuite_wp.pdf

Twayne

How do you feel about NTREGOPT.EXE?
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor

"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:OqKahBlIJHA.1968@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>>> Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be
>>> clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.
>>
>> CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner.
> No, it is not worthless as a registry cleaner. It doesn't clean
> deep, but it isn't worthless.
>
> I tried the latest
>> version on a brand-new OS installation with no additional
>> applications
>> installed,
>
> a wasted effort at that point, since all it found were the "in case"
> chaff MS sticks in all over the place. Big deal; if they're needed,
> they'll get put back with the installs, but ... it's really
> counterproductive and a waste of time to run a cleaner at that
> point.
>
> and certainly none installed and then uninstalled, and
>> CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred allegedly orphaned
>> registry entries and dozens of purportedly "suspicious" files,
>> making
>> it clearly a *worthless* product, in this regard.
>
> The orphaned entries were just that; orphaned. It doesn't take a
> CRAY to determine that an entry is an orphan.
>
> Suspicious Files, well, if you RTFM, it told you how to treat those.
>
> (Not that any
>> registry cleaner can ever be anything but worthless, as they don't
>> serve any *useful* purpose, to start with.)
>
> And that is pure BS and you know it, as surely as you have a closed
> mind.
>
> Because of your claims, I did the exact same test you claim to have
> done, here on a sandbox XP laptop not too long ago, got rid of the
> orphans it was willing to remove, and left the suspicious files
> alone since I didn't want to go see what they were. Told it to not
> be so picky, reran the test & those didn't show up, just as the
> instructions predicted..
> After completeion of build, machine ran perfectly. Installed
> Office, DVD support, OOo, local Apache Server, PHP, AV and
> anti-spyware with several other minor apps & all were quite happy.
> Repeated ccleaner, no more issues, no problems. Then once I was
> sure all was well I re-imaged the drive, ran ccleaner, no problems
> found, and all is well since.
>
> Why you would bother to run a trgistry cleaner immediately after a
> clean install is beyond me, though. Talk about a waste of time!
> But, speaking of waste ...
>
> If you want to actually help people out in this area, why don't you
> test and identify a set of reliable applications and/or offer to
> give an opinion on whether a chosen one is reliable or not?
> But you won't; it's easier to just parrot your closed minded
> attitude that apparently knows very little about the subject. If
> you were really knowledgeable, you would also consider normal day to
> day read/write sources to the registry and explain how you excuse
> those when you posit that anything that touches the registry is
> bunk? How do you justify allowing that to happen? I've actually
> encountered more MS-caused registry problems over the years than I
> have from non-MS applications that use the registry in similar
> manners.
>
> These aren't for you; they're for the many who enjoy follosing this
> kind of link and who might like a little information on the subject.
> Even with their own built in biases, these links are a breath of
> fresh air compared to yours.
>
> http://download.iolo.net/articles/Registry1.pdf
>
> http://www.raxco.com/products/perfec...RXSuite_wp.pdf
>
> Twayne

f'ups set to reduce silly waste of ether

> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>>> Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be
>>> clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.
>>
>>
>> CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner. I tried the latest
>> version on a brand-new OS installation with no additional
>> applications installed, and certainly none installed and then
>> uninstalled, and CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred
>> allegedly orphaned registry entries and dozens of purportedly
>> "suspicious" files, making it clearly a *worthless* product, in this
>> regard. (Not that any registry cleaner can ever be anything but
>> worthless, as they don't serve any *useful* purpose, to start with.)
>
> Did you check any of the "orphaned entries?" Perhaps the OS
> installation was the culprit...

The orphaned entries aren't actual problems unless their quantity gets
so high it takes noticeable time for the os to traverse them. They are
mostly "in case" type crap that MS puts all over the place for future
use, but they are not necessary to have. It's similar to the stuff left
over after you uninstall an MS program; it leaves the folders and a
bunch of files there on the disk and in the registry "just in case" you
reinstall it or are upgrading something. When their numbers reach a few
thousand after a year or so, there can be noticeably longer boot times
associated with all the crapola strewn all over the place, especially
when you consider that some of the registry hives only exist after boot
time; they are created on the fly during boot up, and then during normal
day to day registry reads/writes they are all excess and useless data
that has to be looked at and discarded. The registry is a database but
it's not really a relational database; it's much closer to a flat
database in most of the ways it runs.
The time to run things like ccleaner is after a machine is installed
and running; it's pretty much a waste of time right after a clean
install of windows anyway. There may not have been near as many after
everything was installed, but I've never been sure whether in
installation uses and already created point in the registry or goes
ahead and creates it own anyway.
If you're so inclined, there are some registry monitoring programs
(regmon for instance) that are interesting to watch at work. An install
usually creates a gazillion temporary files, its own install files get
copied to disk, get uncompressed, the install happens, and then
supposedly they are removed from the disk and from the registry,
although that seldom happens completely. It's an interesting process to
watch at work.

Twayne

> Nonsense...
>
> CCleaner is an:
>
> Excellent...
>
> Safe...
>
> Registry Cleaner.
>
> I've been using it for several years now with good results.
>
>> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>
>>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
>>>> Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be
>>>> clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.
>>>
>>> CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner.

Well, I'll agree they are no less reliable or dangerous than any other
decently written application. "Things happen" so I'm a little careful
of "always", but yes, you're right.

Twayne

> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>> Nonsense...
>>
>> CCleaner is an:
>>
>> Excellent...
>>
>> Safe...
>>
>> Registry Cleaner.
>>
>
> There is *NO* such thing.
>
>
>> I've been using it for several years now with good results.
>
>
> Documentation? Benchmarks from before and after? Oh, and make sure
> they either been notarized or verified by an independent laboratory.
> In other words, only when someone finally produces verifiable
> scientific evidence will I give such claims a lick of credence.

Nice response, but I asked you for that long, long ago and have reminded
you of it several times. I even provided you some documentation and
benchmarks years ago but you were phrasing your questoin differently
then.

Why is it you can not do what you ask of others?

Twayne

Twayne wrote:
>>
>
> The orphaned entries were just that; orphaned. It doesn't take a CRAY
> to determine that an entry is an orphan.
>

You clearly don't even know what an "orphaned" entry is, then.


>
> Because of your claims, I did the exact same test you claim to have
> done, here on a sandbox XP laptop not too long ago, got rid of the
> orphans it was willing to remove, and left the suspicious files alone
> since I didn't want to go see what they were.


You mean you didn't "know" what they were, didn't know how to find out,
and, had you been tghe average user, would have just let CCleaner delete
them. Proving for one and all to see just how dangerous registry
cleaners can be. Thank you.


> Repeated ccleaner, no more issues, no problems. Then once I was
> sure all was well I re-imaged the drive, ran ccleaner, no problems
> found, and all is well since.
>

Were there problems that needed fixing before you ran CCeaner? If not
than having no problems after running CCleaner proves only that your
were lucky, not that running it did any good.


> Why you would bother to run a trgistry cleaner immediately after a clean
> install is beyond me, though.


Because it clearly demonstrates that the registry "cleaner" is listing
nothing but bogus false alarms, as the "problems" it points out are not
problems, at all.



> These aren't for you; they're for the many who enjoy follosing this kind
> of link and who might like a little information on the subject. Even
> with their own built in biases, these links are a breath of fresh air
> compared to yours.
>

Spam snipped

>

Rank advertising copy is a "breath of fresh air?" What are you a used
car salesman?

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot