Registry Cleaners Affecting the Ability to Boot

[db]

yes, I meant to use the
word

"worst"

thanks.

----------

incidentally, I think that
your choice to use any
registry cleaner is up
to you.

I only stick with ccleaner
and one care.

------------

I haven't read pc world in
a long time.

but I will look into it.

thanks again.

--
db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
- nntp Postologist
~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>

"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9D086C854BDDEthanexit@188.40.43.245...
> "db" <databaseben@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news#Qalt3mKHA.4628@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
>
>> daave,
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> and most of the time people
>> presume that a registry cleaner
>> will solve the problem
>>
>> but in fact it only makes things
>> work.
>
> A "Gatesian" slip?
>
> Yes, it DOES make things work better by cleaning out the crap. I
> guess my post including a PCWorld review of 4 reg cleaner did
> not appeal to you. Pity.
>
> Well, this horse is stinking so bad I've put on a gas mask, so
> carry on to your hearts' content...
>
> <SNIP>
>
> --
> The arrows are faster than rodents!
> - t.

 

[db]

well, I agree. but as a database
programmer, I see the issue from
a different perspective.

my take is that optimizing the
registry database is as important
as optimizing the file system
database.

people don't seem to realize that
windows is simply one large
database.

------------

the smaller the registry database
the less fragmented it will be.

and the likelihood that a superfluous
fragment will become corrupted and
attribute to the crashing of the registry
database will be minimized.

however, because of the fragmentation
that occurs with the file system,

it would be a good idea to run a
check disk and then a defrag.

the initial check disk will ensure that
the registry files will be in sync with
the mft

and the defrag should ensure that
the registry is not fragmented.

then executing a system restore
point before a cleaner would be
my recommendation as the final
steps.

----------

thanks for the link, I will look into
it.

--
db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
- nntp Postologist
~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>

"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9D07D50A03BEthanexit@188.40.43.245...
> "Daave" <daave@example.com> wrote in
> news:ujz$D3vmKHA.1652@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:
>
>> I am in the same camp as most regulars here who wouldn't
>> advise someone to use a registry cleaner in order to boost
>> a PC's overall performance/speed. No one has ever been able
>> to provide solid evidence to back up such a claim.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> ******Thank you SO MUCH for starting this discussion
> again.******
>
> Since a lot of you trust magazines, here's a link to a PC World
> magazine examining 4 "utility sutes" all of which INCLUDE
> REGISTRY CLEANERS.
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/113743/the_troublefree_pc.html
>
> For those too lazy to look for the section, here is what the
> article says abot RC's:
>
> "Registry cleaners:
>
> Garbage lurking in the Windows Registry is the worst kind of
> junk on your hard drive. A program that you've uninstalled may
> leave behind an unnecessary Registry key that can end up causing
> havoc. If your computer isn't behaving the way it's supposed to-
> -for example, a program keeps crashing or the CD-R drive
> suddenly doesn't write--there's a good chance the problem is in
> the Registry.
>
> All four suites provide Registry scanners that find, report, and
> fix potential problems. Just as important, all four of them are
> able to undo their work, since you can't be absolutely sure that
> a Registry change is for the better until you have tried it.
>
> SystemSuite does the best job of guiding you through the
> cleaning process, color-coding the problems it finds. You're not
> likely to have difficulty instructing the program to correct the
> green problems, while the yellow ones may require some thought.
> However, you will have to consider each red problem carefully
> before acting on it. SystemSuite explains why each item is on
> the list. Norton SystemWorks offers even better explanations,
> including the potential consequences of leaving the keys alone.
> Neither program, though, explains what might happen if you
> remove them. The WinDoctor component of SystemWorks adds a nice
> touch: When you decide to restore a Registry key, WinDoctor
> tells you why it was deleted in the first place."
>
> I actually have the magazine, and there is 2x2" thingy on the
> page which quotes from the article:
>
> "An unnecessary Registry key... can end up causing *havoc*."
>
> Now, I would NEVER use a "utility suite". Suites are for
> amateurs. I get a specific app for the specific job. So I would
> never use any of the 4 products mentioned, however I hope some
> of what is said about the RC's will get through your thick
> skulls.
>
> And may I disrespectfully point out to those who keep on beating
> the dead horse of "improved performance" that neither I nor most
> of the other pro-RC posters (IIRC) have ever claimed ANY
> performance increase - in fact I have repeatedly stated there is
> ZERO performance increase.
>
> I guess all of you have your heads so concerned with speed that
> "performance increase" is the only criterion by which you
> evaluate things. GFY (either meaning), I hope that 3.6 GHz
> processor makes you type faster, and that the 2GB video card
> with 300 fps lets you get a bigger hard-on when you kill the bad
> guys and the shadows of dripping blood in the night fog are more
> vivid.
>
> OK?
>
> Now can we PLEASE move on?
>
>
> --
> The arrows are faster than rodents!
> - t.

 

[Unknown]

You don't have enough computer experience to make these statements.
How can cleaning the registry possibly speed up a computer?
"The Real Truth MVP" <trt@void.com> wrote in message
news:4b590f82$0$26702$88263eea@blocknews.net...
> Registry cleaners are only as bad as the people who use them. If you don't
> know what you are doing then don't use them. I regularly use CCleaner and
> I recommend it. For those who say it does not speed up the computer I say
> you don't have enough experience to make that statement. I personally have
> noticed a speed increase in some systems. The registry hives are files
> just like temp files but are accessed constantly way more then your temp
> files. Cleaning it out needs to be done less then the temp files but there
> is very much a benefit from doing it especially when you need to do it to
> fix malware and spyware related issues.
>
>
> --
> The Real Truth http://pcbutts1-therealtruth.blogspot.com/
> *WARNING* Do NOT follow any advice given by the people listed below.
> They do NOT have the expertise or knowledge to fix your issue. Do not
> waste your time.
> David H Lipman, Malke, PA Bear, Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Leythos.
>
>
>
>
> "Daave" <daave@example.com> wrote in message
> news:ujz$D3vmKHA.1652@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>I am in the same camp as most regulars here who wouldn't advise someone to
>>use a registry cleaner in order to boost a PC's overall performance/speed.
>>No one has ever been able to provide solid evidence to back up such a
>>claim.
>>
>> That being said, whenever I caution people not to use these programs, I
>> normally add that sometimes these cleaners have been known to cause a
>> situation where the PC becomes unbootable. I seem to remember reading a
>> number of posts in these XP newsgroups from people who have reported this
>> behavior.
>>
>> But now I wonder. (Memories often are not reliable!) I do value evidence.
>> But I Googled for instances where this sort of behavior happens and I
>> couldn't find anything convincing! The closest I could find was this
>> post:
>>
>> http://forums.comodo.com/comodo-sys...stem-being-unable-to-boot-t38353.0.html;wap2=
>>
>> And newsgroup archives? Just a few hits, _total_:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/groups/sea...ner"&btnG=Search&sitesearch=groups.google.com
>>
>> (arguably I could have opened up the search, but 5 results?!)
>>
>> Then again, Google is nowhere near as good as it once was when it comes
>> to searching archived Usenet posts. But was I imagining posts mentioning
>> these occurences?
>>
>> I still won't be recommending these programs since, again, there is no
>> evidence they are beneficial. I would imagine if someone is overzealous,
>> real damage could occur (just like with regedit). But if someone could
>> point me to some posts where someone actually did have the behavior
>> described (i.e., not able to boot after running a registry "cleaner" or
>> "optimizer"), I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I will have to stop
>> making that claim. (However, until someone provides *real* evidence that
>> these cleaners boost performance, I will continue to make the claim that
>> the evidence for *that* does not exist.) Evidence is evidence, and I feel
>> that my advice is more valuable if it is not tainted by unfounded
>> opinion.
>>
>

 

[Unknown]

PC World only publishes to make money. They write about anything and sucker
people into subscribing.
I am ashamed to say I was a subscriber but after reading it for a few months
I gave up on them.
There are thousands of examples but the last one was really a good one.
They stated if you are installing a computer and you only have a two wire AC
outlet (no ground)
you can install a GFCI outlet. (Ground Fault Circuit Interrupter)
PC World is very similar to the automobile magazines. Did you ever read a
negative report
on any vehicle that advertises in that magazine?

"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9D086C854BDDEthanexit@188.40.43.245...
> "db" <databaseben@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news#Qalt3mKHA.4628@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
>
>> daave,
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> and most of the time people
>> presume that a registry cleaner
>> will solve the problem
>>
>> but in fact it only makes things
>> work.
>
> A "Gatesian" slip?
>
> Yes, it DOES make things work better by cleaning out the crap. I
> guess my post including a PCWorld review of 4 reg cleaner did
> not appeal to you. Pity.
>
> Well, this horse is stinking so bad I've put on a gas mask, so
> carry on to your hearts' content...
>
> <SNIP>
>
> --
> The arrows are faster than rodents!
> - t.

 

[Twayne]

In news:4b590f82$0$26702$88263eea@blocknews.net,
The Real Truth MVP <trt@void.com> typed:
> Registry cleaners are only

....

Ugh! From the pirating, posing, socio-path with the fake MVP claim and
owner of the nefarious PCBUTT's site!

 

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

CCleaner at least prompts you to create a backup of the changes you're
making with the Registry Integrity component. God help you if you ignore the
prompt.

Daave wrote:
> John John - MVP wrote:
>> Daave wrote:
>>> I am in the same camp as most regulars here who wouldn't advise
>>> someone to use a registry cleaner in order to boost a PC's overall
>>> performance/speed. No one has ever been able to provide solid
>>> evidence to back up such a claim.
>>>
>>> That being said, whenever I caution people not to use these
>>> programs, I normally add that sometimes these cleaners have been
>>> known to cause a situation where the PC becomes unbootable. I seem
>>> to remember reading a number of posts in these XP newsgroups from
>>> people who have reported this behavior.
>>
>> http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/topic110399.html
>
> That's interesting.
>
> I don't have the newest version of Ccleaner. Then again, that Bleeping
> Computer post was from September, 2007. I wonder if that user was not
> using the registry sacnning/cleaning function of Cleaner. It sounds like
> maybe he instead clicked on *Tools | Startup*, where you see a list of
> startup programs similar to what you might see in msconfig. Then again,
> it might have been the registry component after all since that is one
> where boxes appear that can be checked or unchecked. At any rate,
> presumably the current version of Cleaner does not present that
> particular entry as an option to remove (since my version didn't).
>
> Interestingly, the entry for CWindows\system32\userinit.exe doesn't
> even show up in msconfig! I am only able to access this by regedit or
> Autoruns. Speaking of Autoruns, this post was made by someone who had
> cluelessly unchecked that very entry:
>
> http://www.techsupportforum.com/mic...d-userinit-exe-i-mistakenly-deleted-file.html
>
> I ran Cleaner's registry component, just to *scan* for "issues."
> Userinit.exe didn't show up as an option. I imagine that the version
> from 2007 presented this option in error and that current users of
> Ccleaner wouldn't have this particular problem.
>
> But there are many other registry "cleaning" programs out there. It
> wouldn't surprise me if one or more of them allows an unsphisticated
> user to alter entries that really need to be left alone.
>
> Actually, Autoruns is probably a more dangerous program than most
> above-board registry cleaners (like Ccleaner). When you run it and the
> Everything tab appears up front, the second entry hapens to be
> CWindows\system32\userinit.exe ! What I would like to know is why this
> line does not appear grayed out. That is, I can see the value in
> *listing* it, but would there *ever* be a situation where a
> sophisiticated user would need to uncheck this entry?!

 

[thanatoid]

"Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in
news:eEONH05mKHA.6084@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:

> PC World only publishes to make money. They write about
> anything and sucker people into subscribing.

<SNIP>

Name ONE magazine that doesn't do the above.

Anyway, I wasn't the one that first mentioned PCWorld here as an
/authority/.
Let's hope they sure for slander, since they state clearly (like
most of such magazines) they're totally independent and take no
kickbacks (which of course is open to interpretation)

I always preferred PCMag, but haven't seen it where I live.

Anyway, you will say and do ANYTHING to win even a pointless
argument, huh?

Keep on rocking in the free world, excuse me, your prison.

--
The arrows are faster than rodents!
- t.

 

[HeyBub]

ANONYMOUS wrote:
> YES
>
> What did you disagree with me about FORMAT command? Please use the
> same message so that it can be clarified for you. Have you recently
> fixed your system?
>

On the original question, you asserted (quite emphatically) that the FORMAT
command wipes the disk as part of the formatting process. In fact, the
FORMAT command does not touch the data. There is, actually, an UNFORMAT
command for older versions of DOS with which the user can recover all the
data from a formatted volume and there are utilities for Windows and NTFS
volumes that do the same thing.

Bottom line, despite your claims to the contrary, FORMAT does NOT destroy
the data on a disk.

I don't need clarification.

I have not recently fixed my system, but thanks for asking.

 

[ANONYMOUS]

Prove it to me!! For nutters using their Pcs for email, internet and porn,
they don't have any knowledge of unformatting a HD. I will format the disk
and you unformat can it for me to see if you have the necessary skills.

For Janice - the OP - format is all she needed to do the job. In fact for
most users here, format is the only thing they need to wipe the disk and
start all over again.

For paedos and criminals, I can advise other tools including the ones I
distribute thru CORE (Challenge of Reverse Engineering) brand..

Any more questions.



"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:uVsG4t8mKHA.1548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> ANONYMOUS wrote:
>> YES
>>
>> What did you disagree with me about FORMAT command? Please use the
>> same message so that it can be clarified for you. Have you recently
>> fixed your system?
>>
>
> On the original question, you asserted (quite emphatically) that the
> FORMAT command wipes the disk as part of the formatting process. In fact,
> the FORMAT command does not touch the data. There is, actually, an
> UNFORMAT command for older versions of DOS with which the user can recover
> all the data from a formatted volume and there are utilities for Windows
> and NTFS volumes that do the same thing.
>
> Bottom line, despite your claims to the contrary, FORMAT does NOT destroy
> the data on a disk.
>
> I don't need clarification.
>
> I have not recently fixed my system, but thanks for asking.
>

 

[HeyBub]

thanatoid wrote:
>
> And may I disrespectfully point out to those who keep on beating
> the dead horse of "improved performance" that neither I nor most
> of the other pro-RC posters (IIRC) have ever claimed ANY
> performance increase - in fact I have repeatedly stated there is
> ZERO performance increase.
>

I don't know of anybody who has quantified a computer's efficiency before
and after a 'registry cleaning.' I doubt that it's doable.

First, there are always seven registry hives and no cleaner is going to
reduce that number. In almost all cases, when asked, the OS loads an entire
hive into memory and searches it at RAM speed. Further, the search is not
even a sequential search but a tree search. The OS has to make, at most,
maybe five or ten comparisons in the tree to find the requested key.

So, whether the registry contains 1,000 entries or five million, the
difference in access time is unmeasurably small.

 

[Daave]

Good point. (I'm sure a number of people have ignored it.)

PA Bear [MS MVP] wrote:
> CCleaner at least prompts you to create a backup of the changes you're
> making with the Registry Integrity component. God help you if you
> ignore the prompt.
>
> Daave wrote:
>> John John - MVP wrote:
>>> Daave wrote:
>>>> I am in the same camp as most regulars here who wouldn't advise
>>>> someone to use a registry cleaner in order to boost a PC's overall
>>>> performance/speed. No one has ever been able to provide solid
>>>> evidence to back up such a claim.
>>>>
>>>> That being said, whenever I caution people not to use these
>>>> programs, I normally add that sometimes these cleaners have been
>>>> known to cause a situation where the PC becomes unbootable. I seem
>>>> to remember reading a number of posts in these XP newsgroups from
>>>> people who have reported this behavior.
>>>
>>> http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/forums/topic110399.html
>>
>> That's interesting.
>>
>> I don't have the newest version of Ccleaner. Then again, that
>> Bleeping Computer post was from September, 2007. I wonder if that
>> user was not using the registry sacnning/cleaning function of
>> Cleaner. It sounds like maybe he instead clicked on *Tools |
>> Startup*, where you see a list of startup programs similar to what
>> you might see in msconfig. Then again, it might have been the
>> registry component after all since that is one where boxes appear
>> that can be checked or unchecked. At any rate, presumably the
>> current version of Cleaner does not present that particular entry as
>> an option to remove (since my version didn't). Interestingly, the
>> entry for CWindows\system32\userinit.exe doesn't
>> even show up in msconfig! I am only able to access this by regedit or
>> Autoruns. Speaking of Autoruns, this post was made by someone who had
>> cluelessly unchecked that very entry:
>>
>> http://www.techsupportforum.com/mic...d-userinit-exe-i-mistakenly-deleted-file.html
>>
>> I ran Cleaner's registry component, just to *scan* for "issues."
>> Userinit.exe didn't show up as an option. I imagine that the version
>> from 2007 presented this option in error and that current users of
>> Ccleaner wouldn't have this particular problem.
>>
>> But there are many other registry "cleaning" programs out there. It
>> wouldn't surprise me if one or more of them allows an unsphisticated
>> user to alter entries that really need to be left alone.
>>
>> Actually, Autoruns is probably a more dangerous program than most
>> above-board registry cleaners (like Ccleaner). When you run it and
>> the Everything tab appears up front, the second entry hapens to be
>> CWindows\system32\userinit.exe ! What I would like to know is why
>> this line does not appear grayed out. That is, I can see the value in
>> *listing* it, but would there *ever* be a situation where a
>> sophisiticated user would need to uncheck this entry?!

 

[The Real Truth MVP]

You are comparing speed vs performance. Any application that does not
uninstall properly, or does not have an uninstaller, can leave entries in
the registry. Over time the computer suffers as the registry fills with
left-over and incorrect entries. Manipulation of the registry might be
required where applications that are using the Registry do not implement
configuration through their user interface. Information required for loading
device drivers and software is stored in the registry, a damaged registry or
leftover orphaned entries will prevent a system from booting successfully.
Malware and it's removal is a big cause of this.You see that a lot in these
NG's when people posts about error messages when booting their system "can't
find file" Those messages are generated from bad entries in the registry.
They directly effect the performance of a system which in a way effects the
speed. You clean the registry of all those bad entries you get rid of the
error message your computer is performing better.


--
The Real Truth http://pcbutts1-therealtruth.blogspot.com/
*WARNING* Do NOT follow any advice given by the people listed below.
They do NOT have the expertise or knowledge to fix your issue. Do not waste
your time.
David H Lipman, Malke, PA Bear, Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Leythos.




"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:u1F1$28mKHA.1548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> thanatoid wrote:
>>
>> And may I disrespectfully point out to those who keep on beating
>> the dead horse of "improved performance" that neither I nor most
>> of the other pro-RC posters (IIRC) have ever claimed ANY
>> performance increase - in fact I have repeatedly stated there is
>> ZERO performance increase.
>>
>
> I don't know of anybody who has quantified a computer's efficiency before
> and after a 'registry cleaning.' I doubt that it's doable.
>
> First, there are always seven registry hives and no cleaner is going to
> reduce that number. In almost all cases, when asked, the OS loads an
> entire hive into memory and searches it at RAM speed. Further, the search
> is not even a sequential search but a tree search. The OS has to make, at
> most, maybe five or ten comparisons in the tree to find the requested key.
>
> So, whether the registry contains 1,000 entries or five million, the
> difference in access time is unmeasurably small.
>

 

[Daave]

HeyBub wrote:
> thanatoid wrote:
>>
>> And may I disrespectfully point out to those who keep on beating
>> the dead horse of "improved performance" that neither I nor most
>> of the other pro-RC posters (IIRC) have ever claimed ANY
>> performance increase - in fact I have repeatedly stated there is
>> ZERO performance increase.
>>
>
> I don't know of anybody who has quantified a computer's efficiency
> before and after a 'registry cleaning.' I doubt that it's doable.

I'm sure someone could establish benchmarks. Bootup times, response
times when double-clicking My Computer, how quickly a particular Web
page loads, etc.

And regarding thanatoid's "disrespectful" remark about beating a dead
horse, that's just a red herring. The issue is not whether or not he or
others in his camp claim improved performance. The issue is the claim of
the companies selling these programs! So many people post here ask
questions about how much of a performance gain do they might expect to
see after running these cleaners. They don't come up with these ideas
out of thin air. It is a result of marketing and advertising. To wit:

http://onecare.live.com/site/en-Us/article/registry_cleaner_why.htm

<quote>
Speed up your PC with our free registry cleaner

As part of its Clean Up scan, the Windows Live OneCare safety scanner
offers a free registry cleaner. Running this scan is a great way to rid
your PC of clutter and keep it running at its speediest.
</quote>

Marketing claptrap! Utter nonsense!

More insanity in these hits:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q="registry+cleaner"+speed&aq=f&aql=&aqi=&oq=

*That* is the reason I say what I say when it comes to registry
cleaning. One does *not* need a registry cleaner to "keep [one's PC]
running at its speediest."

 

[Unknown]

Are you ANONYMOUS' brother?
"thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns9D08B32625A4Athanexit@188.40.43.245...
> "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in
> news:eEONH05mKHA.6084@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
>
>> PC World only publishes to make money. They write about
>> anything and sucker people into subscribing.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Name ONE magazine that doesn't do the above.
>
> Anyway, I wasn't the one that first mentioned PCWorld here as an
> /authority/.
> Let's hope they sure for slander, since they state clearly (like
> most of such magazines) they're totally independent and take no
> kickbacks (which of course is open to interpretation)
>
> I always preferred PCMag, but haven't seen it where I live.
>
> Anyway, you will say and do ANYTHING to win even a pointless
> argument, huh?
>
> Keep on rocking in the free world, excuse me, your prison.
>
> --
> The arrows are faster than rodents!
> - t.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

thanatoid wrote:
>
> Since a lot of you trust magazines, ...


Not if it accepts advertising dollars from the makers of products it
"reviews," I don't. Nor would anyone else with a lick of sense.


> ... here's a link to a PC World
> magazine examining 4 "utility sutes" all of which INCLUDE
> REGISTRY CLEANERS.
>
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/113743/the_troublefree_pc.html
>
> For those too lazy to look for the section, here is what the
> article says abot RC's:
>
> "Registry cleaners:
>
> Garbage lurking in the Windows Registry is the worst kind of
> junk on your hard drive. A program that you've uninstalled may
> leave behind an unnecessary Registry key that can end up causing
> havoc. If your computer isn't behaving the way it's supposed to-
> -for example, a program keeps crashing or the CD-R drive
> suddenly doesn't write--there's a good chance the problem is in
> the Registry.
>


And just where, pray tell, does that article offer any references to
any scientific evidence to support such assertions? Where are the
double-blind studies conducted by independent laboratories that confirm
these claims? Any rational or reasonable substantiation is
conspicuously absent, is it not?

However, I notice that the magazine making the above unsubstantiated
claims does accept advertising dollars from the makers of the "reviewed"
products. Coincidence? I think not.


> OK?
>

No.

> Now can we PLEASE move on?
>
>


Not until wannabe trolls and other members of the Church of Registry
Cleaners either stop trying to mislead the technically naive about the
benefits of registry cleaners, or provide scientifically verifiable
evidence from a disinterested independent source to support your claims.
Until such time, those of us who've learned better from years of
experience will just have to heep on point out your attempts at deception.


--

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

 

[thanatoid]

"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in
news:u1F1$28mKHA.1548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

> thanatoid wrote:
>>
>> And may I disrespectfully point out to those who keep on
>> beating the dead horse of "improved performance" that
>> neither I nor most of the other pro-RC posters (IIRC) have
>> ever claimed ANY performance increase - in fact I have
>> repeatedly stated there is ZERO performance increase.
>>
>
> I don't know of anybody who has quantified a computer's
> efficiency before and after a 'registry cleaning.' I doubt
> that it's doable.
>
> First, there are always seven registry hives and no cleaner
> is going to reduce that number. In almost all cases, when
> asked, the OS loads an entire hive into memory and searches
> it at RAM speed. Further, the search is not even a
> sequential search but a tree search. The OS has to make, at
> most, maybe five or ten comparisons in the tree to find the
> requested key.
>
> So, whether the registry contains 1,000 entries or five
> million, the difference in access time is unmeasurably
> small.

Are you attempting to make a point, let alone in reply to my
statement?


--
The arrows are faster than rodents!
- t.

 

[thanatoid]

"Daave" <daave@example.com> wrote in
news:uGImT49mKHA.5520@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:

> HeyBub wrote:
>> thanatoid wrote:
>>>
>>> And may I disrespectfully point out to those who keep on
>>> beating the dead horse of "improved performance" that
>>> neither I nor most of the other pro-RC posters (IIRC)
>>> have ever claimed ANY performance increase - in fact I
>>> have repeatedly stated there is ZERO performance
>>> increase.
>>>
>>
>> I don't know of anybody who has quantified a computer's
>> efficiency before and after a 'registry cleaning.' I doubt
>> that it's doable.
>
> I'm sure someone could establish benchmarks. Bootup times,
> response times when double-clicking My Computer, how
> quickly a particular Web page loads, etc.
>
> And regarding thanatoid's "disrespectful" remark about
> beating a dead horse, that's just a red herring. The issue
> is not whether or not he or others in his camp claim
> improved performance. The issue is the claim of the
> companies selling these programs! So many people post here
> ask questions about how much of a performance gain do they
> might expect to see after running these cleaners. They
> don't come up with these ideas out of thin air. It is a
> result of marketing and advertising. To wit:
>
> http://onecare.live.com/site/en-Us/article/registry_cleaner_
> why.htm
>
> <quote>
> Speed up your PC with our free registry cleaner

Do you believe ANYTHING MS claims? When they allow for printing
of a directory's content from Windows (NO command line, NO other
programs) I'll consider talking to them.

> As part of its Clean Up scan, the Windows Live OneCare
> safety scanner offers a free registry cleaner. Running this
> scan is a great way to rid your PC of clutter and keep it
> running at its speediest. </quote>

See above.

> Marketing claptrap! Utter nonsense!

Ah! You saw the light!

> More insanity in these hits:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q="registry+c
> leaner%22+speed&aq=f&aql=&aqi=&oq=

Everybody says whatever is necessary to sell garbage. Ever been
to a stereo shop?
You don't trust ANYBODY.

> *That* is the reason I say what I say when it comes to
> registry cleaning. One does *not* need a registry cleaner
> to "keep [one's PC] running at its speediest."

And you are absolutely correct. Now, about that dead horse...


--
The arrows are faster than rodents!
- t.

 

[ANONYMOUS]

"Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message
news:%23dxBfVEnKHA.2544@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Are you ANONYMOUS' brother?

Why you want to offer your sister to him as well? You are a bit desperate to
get rid of her aren't you?

 

[Unknown]

You act the same.
"ANONYMOUS" <ANONYMOUS@EXAMPLE.COM> wrote in message
newsRPMQSHnKHA.564@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> "Unknown" <unknown@unknown.kom> wrote in message
> news:%23dxBfVEnKHA.2544@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Are you ANONYMOUS' brother?
>
> Why you want to offer your sister to him as well? You are a bit desperate
> to get rid of her aren't you?
>
>

 

[HeyBub]

The Real Truth MVP wrote:
> You are comparing speed vs performance. Any application that does not
> uninstall properly, or does not have an uninstaller, can leave
> entries in the registry. Over time the computer suffers as the
> registry fills with left-over and incorrect entries.

Nope. Superfluous or erroneous entries have no effect on speed or
performance.

> Manipulation of
> the registry might be required where applications that are using the
> Registry do not implement configuration through their user interface.
> Information required for loading device drivers and software is
> stored in the registry, a damaged registry or leftover orphaned
> entries will prevent a system from booting successfully.

Nope. A damaged registry will affect a lot of things, true. Erroneous
entries will also affect things. A registry cleaner will have no effect on
these two situations.

> Malware and
> it's removal is a big cause of this.You see that a lot in these NG's
> when people posts about error messages when booting their system
> "can't find file" Those messages are generated from bad entries in
> the registry. They directly effect the performance of a system which
> in a way effects the speed. You clean the registry of all those bad
> entries you get rid of the error message your computer is performing
> better.

Nope. Messages such as you claim are generated by an executing program, not
a registry entry. It is the executing program that is at fault, not the
registry. In the case you mentioned, after a 'cleaning' the next time the
program executes it will get a "registry key not found" type message rather
than "can't find file."

If an executing program launches a registry key search and the key is not
returned or points to the wrong place, that's not the fault of the registry
and, again, no cleaner is going to help.

The best that a registry cleaner can do is scan the registry and find broken
or missing links. But so what? These links would never get accessed anyway.