1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Registry Cleaners Affecting the Ability to Boot

Discussion in 'Windows XP' started by Daave, Jan 21, 2010.

  1. HeyBub

    HeyBub Flightless Bird

    thanatoid wrote:
    > "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?


    If the pitchers keep bearing down and the hitters keep swinging for the
    fences, anything could happen. Everybody knows that and that's what I'm
    trying to explain. Heck, while I write this I am obliged to keep a gun in
    each hand and a knife in the other. Fortunately everyone survived except
    those who were drowned in an adjacent bog.
     
  2. The Real Truth MVP

    The Real Truth MVP Flightless Bird

    You are not familiar with the way malware, malware removal, or the registry
    particularly the run key works. When you system is infected with malware it
    adds itself to the run key in the registry. Malware removal programs, most
    of them, will remove the infected files but not the entry in the run key and
    I am using the run key as an example because it is the most common for
    malware. Therefore when the system is booted it tries to execute the entry
    in the run key but the actual file it is trying to execute has already been
    removed by the antimalware program. That is what generates the error
    message, that orphaned registry key. CCleaner will find that entry and
    delete it. That effects performance.


    --
    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:uBTIA9KnKHA.1544@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
    >
    > 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.
    >
    >
     
  3. Twayne

    Twayne Flightless Bird

    In news:uou1s28mKHA.1548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
    ANONYMOUS <ANONYMOUS@EXAMPLE.COM> typed:
    > 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.


    You should update your knowledge on what happens when you format an NTFS
    drive. Additionally, a format will not remove anything hidden on the
    outermost tracks that normally are not writable but CAN be used, e.g. by
    malware. The only sure way to kill everything is with a partition delete and
    recreate.

    >
    > 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.


    Maybe. Worth trying.

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


    Yeah, are you PCBUTTS?

    >
    >
    >
    > "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.
     
  4. Twayne

    Twayne Flightless Bird

    No, THIS is PCBUTTS for sure! Bigotted, sw pirate, antisocial and a
    forever-troll.


    In news:4b5a6de9$0$8158$88263eea@blocknews.net,
    The Real Truth MVP <trt@void.com> typed:
    > 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.
    >
    >
    > "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.
     
  5. Twayne

    Twayne Flightless Bird

    No one cares when it's coming from you, PCBUTTS.



    In news:4b5c84ce$0$2574$88263eea@blocknews.net,
    The Real Truth MVP <trt@void.com> typed:
    > You are not familiar with the way malware, malware removal, or the
    > registry particularly the run key works. When you system is infected
    > with malware it adds itself to the run key in the registry. Malware
    > removal programs, most of them, will remove the infected files but
    > not the entry in the run key and I am using the run key as an example
    > because it is the most common for malware. Therefore when the system
    > is booted it tries to execute the entry in the run key but the actual
    > file it is trying to execute has already been removed by the
    > antimalware program. That is what generates the error message, that
    > orphaned registry key. CCleaner will find that entry and delete it.
    > That effects performance.
    >
    >
    >
    > "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:uBTIA9KnKHA.1544@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
    >>
    >> 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.
     
  6. Twayne

    Twayne Flightless Bird

    In news:Xns9D09926D0DA57thanexit@188.40.43.245,
    thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> typed:
    > "Daave" <daave@example.com> wrote in
    > news:uGImT49mKHA.5520@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:
    >
    >> HeyBub wrote:
    >>> thanatoid wrote:

    ....

    >
    > 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.


    They give that information in Help & support; oh, forgot, you can't read.
    Never mind!!

    >

    ....
     
  7. Twayne

    Twayne Flightless Bird

    In news:%23M8BY0EnKHA.5692@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
    Bruce Chambers <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> typed:
    > 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.


    You really need to make up your mind and stop asking for things you
    "require" AFTER you've seen what's offered. You asked for something and got
    it. Pissed you off, didn't it? So you start adding more requirements.
    Typical troll/idiot behavior.
     
  8. Peter Foldes

    Peter Foldes Flightless Bird

    > Yeah, are you PCBUTTS?

    Hit on the nose. Bull's-eye

    --
    Peter

    Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
    Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

    "Twayne" <nobody@spamcop.net> wrote in message
    news:uK%2376FXnKHA.1548@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
    > In news:uou1s28mKHA.1548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
    > ANONYMOUS <ANONYMOUS@EXAMPLE.COM> typed:
    >> 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.

    >
    > You should update your knowledge on what happens when you format an NTFS drive.
    > Additionally, a format will not remove anything hidden on the outermost tracks
    > that normally are not writable but CAN be used, e.g. by malware. The only sure way
    > to kill everything is with a partition delete and recreate.
    >
    >>
    >> 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.

    >
    > Maybe. Worth trying.
    >
    >>
    >> For paedos and criminals, I can advise other tools including the ones
    >> I distribute thru CORE (Challenge of Reverse Engineering) brand..
    >>
    >> Any more questions.

    >
    > Yeah, are you PCBUTTS?
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> "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.

    >
    >
     
  9. thanatoid

    thanatoid Flightless Bird

    "Twayne" <nobody@spamcop.net> wrote in
    news:uLBzAIXnKHA.5520@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:

    > In news:Xns9D09926D0DA57thanexit@188.40.43.245,
    > thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> typed:
    >> "Daave" <daave@example.com> wrote in
    >> news:uGImT49mKHA.5520@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:
    >>
    >>> HeyBub wrote:
    >>>> thanatoid wrote:

    > ...
    >
    >>
    >> 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.

    >
    > They give that information in Help & support; oh, forgot,
    > you can't read. Never mind!!


    I /can/ read, and that was just stupid. Surely you're capable of
    more original insults.

    However next time I boot into my XP partition I will see if they
    actually DO say anything about it, let alone HOW to do it from
    XP with NO other tools and NO command line.

    I will be fascinated to be proven wrong. But I /have/ asked, and
    AFAIK you STILL can not do it, even in Vista. I don't know about
    6.1.


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

    thanatoid Flightless Bird

    "Twayne" <nobody@spamcop.net> wrote in
    news:#gFAkJXnKHA.5520@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:

    > In news:%23M8BY0EnKHA.5692@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
    > Bruce Chambers <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> typed:
    >> thanatoid wrote:


    <SNIP>

    >>> Since a lot of you trust magazines, ...


    >> 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.


    Got proof? All computer (and esoteric audio and "best
    skateboard" etc.) magazines claim absolute impartiality. You are
    welcome to start a class action suit if you can prove they are
    intentionally misleading the public to make MS and PC makers
    (and skateboard makers) rich.

    (I know I should have replied with this to Mr. Chambers directly
    but I didn't bother... Slow night tonight though...)

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

    Twayne Flightless Bird

    In news:Xns9D0B51A2DD98thanexit@188.40.43.245,
    thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> typed:
    > "Twayne" <nobody@spamcop.net> wrote in
    > news:uLBzAIXnKHA.5520@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:
    >
    >> In news:Xns9D09926D0DA57thanexit@188.40.43.245,
    >> thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> typed:
    >>> "Daave" <daave@example.com> wrote in
    >>> news:uGImT49mKHA.5520@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:
    >>>
    >>>> HeyBub wrote:
    >>>>> thanatoid wrote:

    >> ...
    >>
    >>>
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >> They give that information in Help & support; oh, forgot,
    >> you can't read. Never mind!!

    >
    > I /can/ read, and that was just stupid. Surely you're capable of
    > more original insults.
    >
    > However next time I boot into my XP partition I will see if they
    > actually DO say anything about it, let alone HOW to do it from
    > XP with NO other tools and NO command line.
    >
    > I will be fascinated to be proven wrong. But I /have/ asked, and
    > AFAIK you STILL can not do it, even in Vista. I don't know about
    > 6.1.



    Article ID: 321379 - Last Review: March 21, 2008 - Revision: 5.2
    How to add the Print Directory feature for folders in Windows XP, in Windows
    Vista, or in Windows 7

    How about the ability to do it with a single click? It's just a batch file
    with replaceable parameters.

    AFAIK it's not supported otherwise but you're being a little niave in your
    "requirements". I didn't in clude any of the data because I don't think you
    really want to; you're just using it to whine with.

    HTH,

    Twayne
     
  12. Unknown

    Unknown Flightless Bird

    Not really! PCBUTTS is in California, TWAYNE is in New York, ANNONYMOUS is
    in Manchester England.,
    "Peter Foldes" <okf22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:e0CXb%23XnKHA.5508@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
    >> Yeah, are you PCBUTTS?

    >
    > Hit on the nose. Bull's-eye
    >
    > --
    > Peter
    >
    > Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
    > Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
    >
    > "Twayne" <nobody@spamcop.net> wrote in message
    > news:uK%2376FXnKHA.1548@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
    >> In news:uou1s28mKHA.1548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
    >> ANONYMOUS <ANONYMOUS@EXAMPLE.COM> typed:
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >> You should update your knowledge on what happens when you format an NTFS
    >> drive. Additionally, a format will not remove anything hidden on the
    >> outermost tracks that normally are not writable but CAN be used, e.g. by
    >> malware. The only sure way to kill everything is with a partition delete
    >> and recreate.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >> Maybe. Worth trying.
    >>
    >>>
    >>> For paedos and criminals, I can advise other tools including the ones
    >>> I distribute thru CORE (Challenge of Reverse Engineering) brand..
    >>>
    >>> Any more questions.

    >>
    >> Yeah, are you PCBUTTS?
    >>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "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.

    >>
    >>

    >
     
  13. thanatoid

    thanatoid Flightless Bird

    "Twayne" <nobody@spamcop.net> wrote in
    news:#KoMUYdnKHA.6084@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:

    >>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> They give that information in Help & support; oh, forgot,
    >>> you can't read. Never mind!!


    I just booted into my XP SP3 partition and there is NOTHING in
    help about this.

    <SNIP>

    > Article ID: 321379 - Last Review: March 21, 2008 -
    > Revision: 5.2 How to add the Print Directory feature for
    > folders in Windows XP, in Windows Vista, or in Windows 7


    Beautiful. I said "NO command line, NO other programs". A batch
    file is an extension of the command line since it runs in the XP
    "DOS that is /not/ DOS". NOW who can't read?

    > How about the ability to do it with a single click? It's
    > just a batch file with replaceable parameters.


    Read the above, brainshit.

    > AFAIK it's not supported otherwise but you're being a
    > little niave


    naive

    > in your "requirements". I didn't in clude


    include

    > any
    > of the data because I don't think you really want to;
    > you're just using it to whine with.


    No, it's an extremely valid point. Printing a directory's
    contents is an essential basic function.

    Anyway, I've had enough of you. Go Twaynk somewhere else.
    k, 0, Enter.


    --
    The arrows are faster than rodents!
    - t.
     
  14. The Real Truth MVP

    The Real Truth MVP Flightless Bird

    Grow up Crybaby!


    --
    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.




    "Twayne" <nobody@spamcop.net> wrote in message
    news:-OvFhxGXnKHA.6084@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
    > No one cares when it's coming from you, PCBUTTS.
    >
    >
    > In news:4b5c84ce$0$2574$88263eea@blocknews.net,
    > The Real Truth MVP <trt@void.com> typed:
    >> You are not familiar with the way malware, malware removal, or the
    >> registry particularly the run key works. When you system is infected
    >> with malware it adds itself to the run key in the registry. Malware
    >> removal programs, most of them, will remove the infected files but
    >> not the entry in the run key and I am using the run key as an example
    >> because it is the most common for malware. Therefore when the system
    >> is booted it tries to execute the entry in the run key but the actual
    >> file it is trying to execute has already been removed by the
    >> antimalware program. That is what generates the error message, that
    >> orphaned registry key. CCleaner will find that entry and delete it.
    >> That effects performance. "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:uBTIA9KnKHA.1544@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
    >>>
    >>> 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.

    >
    >
     
  15. Bruce Chambers

    Bruce Chambers Flightless Bird

    Twayne wrote:
    >
    >
    > You really need to make up your mind and stop asking for things you
    > "require" AFTER you've seen what's offered. You asked for something and
    > got it. Pissed you off, didn't it? So you start adding more
    > requirements. Typical troll/idiot behavior.
    >



    No, as I've always done, I asked for verifiable scientific eveidense.
    Instead, we were presented with mindless, unsubstantiated marketing
    drivel. I'd suggest you finish high school to learn the difference.


    --

    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
     
  16. Peter Foldes

    Peter Foldes Flightless Bird

    Jut to second it, I also agree with Twayne's statement concerning you PC Butts

    --
    Peter

    Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
    Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

    "The Real Truth MVP" <trt@void.com> wrote in message
    news:4b5e3648$0$2585$88263eea@blocknews.net...
    > Grow up Crybaby!
    >
    >
    > --
    > 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.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > "Twayne" <nobody@spamcop.net> wrote in message
    > news:-OvFhxGXnKHA.6084@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
    >> No one cares when it's coming from you, PCBUTTS.
    >>
    >>
    >> In news:4b5c84ce$0$2574$88263eea@blocknews.net,
    >> The Real Truth MVP <trt@void.com> typed:
    >>> You are not familiar with the way malware, malware removal, or the
    >>> registry particularly the run key works. When you system is infected
    >>> with malware it adds itself to the run key in the registry. Malware
    >>> removal programs, most of them, will remove the infected files but
    >>> not the entry in the run key and I am using the run key as an example
    >>> because it is the most common for malware. Therefore when the system
    >>> is booted it tries to execute the entry in the run key but the actual
    >>> file it is trying to execute has already been removed by the
    >>> antimalware program. That is what generates the error message, that
    >>> orphaned registry key. CCleaner will find that entry and delete it.
    >>> That effects performance. "HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:uBTIA9KnKHA.1544@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
    >>>>
    >>>> 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.

    >>
    >>

    >
     
  17. Twayne

    Twayne Flightless Bird

    In news:eOfp4pinKHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
    Bruce Chambers <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> typed:
    > Twayne wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> You really need to make up your mind and stop asking for things you
    >> "require" AFTER you've seen what's offered. You asked for something
    >> and got it. Pissed you off, didn't it? So you start adding more
    >> requirements. Typical troll/idiot behavior.
    >>

    >
    >
    > No, as I've always done, I asked for verifiable scientific eveidense.
    > Instead, we were presented with mindless, unsubstantiated marketing
    > drivel. I'd suggest you finish high school to learn the difference.


    No, you do the same thing over and over. Troll to get someone to respond,
    then try to act almighty and above them. I stand by my original para. You
    know nothing about the situation either.
     
  18. Peter Foldes

    Peter Foldes Flightless Bird

    Twayne

    And now you are Trolling. The thread has been dead and you just need to keep going
    to get more reaction.

    --
    Peter

    Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
    Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

    "Twayne" <nobody@spamcop.net> wrote in message
    news:-OLYn703nKHA.1544@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
    > In news:eOfp4pinKHA.3636@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl,
    > Bruce Chambers <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> typed:
    >> Twayne wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> You really need to make up your mind and stop asking for things you
    >>> "require" AFTER you've seen what's offered. You asked for something
    >>> and got it. Pissed you off, didn't it? So you start adding more
    >>> requirements. Typical troll/idiot behavior.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> No, as I've always done, I asked for verifiable scientific eveidense.
    >> Instead, we were presented with mindless, unsubstantiated marketing
    >> drivel. I'd suggest you finish high school to learn the difference.

    >
    > No, you do the same thing over and over. Troll to get someone to respond, then try
    > to act almighty and above them. I stand by my original para. You know nothing
    > about the situation either.
     

Share This Page