Registry cleaner ?
in [Windows XP Basics]
|
Prev: Font Printing
Next: Strange folders
From: Twayne on 11 Jan 2010 18:36 In news:fpadk5tfm9btcnebf4fc9nbjtst9gm6kth(a)4ax.com, Steve Hayes <hayesstw(a)telkomsa.net> typed: > On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 06:48:54 -0500, "David H. Lipman" > <DLipman~nospam~@Verizon.Net> wrote: > >> From: "Jackson" <jackdinsss(a)hotXmail.com> >> >>> Kim Komando's tip of the day (07 Jan) has good words for >>> Microcraft's jv Power tools for cleaning the registry. I >>> believe it's freeware. >> >>> Has anyone used this program? Do you have any remarks or >>> recomendations? >>> Jack from Taxacola (formerly Pensacola), FL .... > So how should you clean the registry, then? Personally I wouldn't use that program for registry cleaning, mainly because I know nothing about it and never heard of it. I'd opt for ccleaner over that or better yet a few of the pay-for cleaners that are around. You're wise to ask for advice here, and I just wish there were responses from more than a small group of morons here. Those idiots have a lot of people afraid to even mention a registry cleaner. They're pure idiots, believe me. What they should be saying Steve, is that the registry is seldom the root of computer problems and doesn't need frequent cleaning. It's really a case of a stubborn problem that can't seem to be fixed otherwise and often is a last-ditch or process of elimination effort at a fix, simply because it's not likely to be caused by the registry. There are reasons to immediately suspect the registry, but it's too much to go into and not write a book<g>. Experience counts there. If you decide to use a registry cleaner, be certain to first back up your registry and preferably the System State so it's easy to get back should you make a mistake. Any good program comes with UNDO functions too, but it's best to be safe. It's no different than backing up all your data whenever you decide to mess around with the OS. Always keep a backup handy. Luck, Twayne
From: Twayne on 11 Jan 2010 18:39 In news:%23e04oqBkKHA.5568(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl, Bruce Chambers <bchambers(a)cable0ne.n3t> typed: > Steve Hayes wrote: >> >> >> So how should you clean the registry, then? >> >> > > > And the correct answer to that question is: "You shouldn't." There's > no sound technical reason for doing so, but abundant technical reasons > for *not* doing so. He asked HOW, dummy! Also: You typo'd: There ARE sound technical reasons for doing so, and abundant technical reasons that the problem most likely lies elsewhere also. But as usual, your are completely wrong and missed the chance for a good response. HTH, Twayne
From: thanatoid on 11 Jan 2010 19:24 "Twayne" <nobody(a)spamcop.net> wrote in news:ORv#y#vkKHA.4772(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl: > In news:Xns9CF9AF0E24D4thanexit(a)188.40.43.245, > thanatoid <waiting(a)the.exit.invalid> typed: <SNIP> >> JV16 does an amazing job and tells you exactly WHY >> something "can go" and it's up to you, It also makes >> backups - which I have NEVER needed to use. >> >> Generally, after using my 4 reg cleaners (I only do it >> once in a while, like before making an image of C:) I DO >> manually clean stuff because NOTHING will do EVERYTHING. >> >> The reg cleaners just make the job faster and more >> thorough since they will look through everything, like the >> entire HKCR tree, something I have NO patience for. > > I'll buy that; it's one step further than I go, but it > doesn't hurt anything as long as you know what you're > doing, which you do or you wouldn't be online< G >. Well, > I also only use one cleaner too, but I do have three I keep > available just in case. > You did well, brain-farted sentence and all! :^} Sometimes I sign my posts thanafart ;-) ... -- 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.)
From: thanatoid on 11 Jan 2010 19:41 John John - MVP <audetweld(a)nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in news:OOZWLjwkKHA.2160(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl: <SNIP> > 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.)
From: John John - MVP on 11 Jan 2010 22:04
thanatoid wrote: > John John - MVP <audetweld(a)nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in > news:OOZWLjwkKHA.2160(a)TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl: > > <SNIP> > >> 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. 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 |