Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

registry cleaner

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 11:16:03 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Is a registry cleaner needed with Windows XP. I have a program called Easy
Cleaner but I thought there may be a better one, assuming one is needed.
Thanks.

More about : registry cleaner

Anonymous
December 6, 2004 11:42:43 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Karen F" <jakeyboy@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:ecML1W52EHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
| Is a registry cleaner needed with Windows XP. I have a program called
Easy
| Cleaner but I thought there may be a better one, assuming one is needed.
| Thanks.

You should not use any kind of registry cleaner unless there is a specific
need for it, and if you are aware of the specific need, you are also
probably knowledgeable enough to do what you want to do without it. Despite
some users' (unsupported) claims to the contrary, there is no reliable
evidence that a "dirty" registry is the cause of performance problems in XP.
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 12:56:59 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

You don't need a Registry cleaner with any version of Windows. If you do
use one, make sure you ikow how to recover after is screws up the Registry.

--
Frank Saunders, MS-MVP, IE/OE
Please respond in Newsgroup. Do not send email
http://www.fjsmjs.com
Protect your PC
http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/


"Karen F" <jakeyboy@frontiernet.net> wrote in message
news:ecML1W52EHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Is a registry cleaner needed with Windows XP. I have a program called
> Easy Cleaner but I thought there may be a better one, assuming one is
> needed. Thanks.
>
>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 1:47:01 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In news:ecML1W52EHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
Karen F <jakeyboy@frontiernet.net> typed:

> Is a registry cleaner needed with Windows XP. I have a
> program
> called Easy Cleaner but I thought there may be a better one,
> assuming
> one is needed. Thanks.


My view is that, in any version of Windows, the risk of a
registry cleaner screwing up the registry is much greater than
any possible benefit of using it. You're better off without any
of them.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
December 6, 2004 4:32:43 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In news:%23SG9Yu72EHA.1300@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
Ken Blake <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> typed:

> In news:ecML1W52EHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
> Karen F <jakeyboy@frontiernet.net> typed:
>
>> Is a registry cleaner needed with Windows XP. I have a
>> program
>> called Easy Cleaner but I thought there may be a better one,
>> assuming
>> one is needed. Thanks.
>
>
> My view is that, in any version of Windows, the risk of a
> registry cleaner screwing up the registry is much greater than
> any possible benefit of using it. You're better off without any
> of them.

I'm not advocating. I just don't understand;

What's the 'risk' in running one, so long as you (or the tool) set a restore
point first?

And what's the 'reward' for having a whole slew of entries in your registry
pointing to nowhere?

Bill
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 4:32:44 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Bill" <Bill@no.invalid> wrote in message
news:IeGdnefd6KZTOCncRVn-iA@comcast.com...
| In news:%23SG9Yu72EHA.1300@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
| Ken Blake <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> typed:
|
| > In news:ecML1W52EHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
| > Karen F <jakeyboy@frontiernet.net> typed:
| >
| >> Is a registry cleaner needed with Windows XP. I have a
| >> program
| >> called Easy Cleaner but I thought there may be a better one,
| >> assuming
| >> one is needed. Thanks.
| >
| >
| > My view is that, in any version of Windows, the risk of a
| > registry cleaner screwing up the registry is much greater than
| > any possible benefit of using it. You're better off without any
| > of them.
|
| I'm not advocating. I just don't understand;
|
| What's the 'risk' in running one, so long as you (or the tool) set a
restore
| point first?
|
| And what's the 'reward' for having a whole slew of entries in your
registry
| pointing to nowhere?
|
| Bill

For get about the risk; there is no reward. The question is, "how do a whole
slew of unresolved registry entries affect computer performance?" The
answer is, "Not at all."
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 4:32:44 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In news:IeGdnefd6KZTOCncRVn-iA@comcast.com,
Bill <Bill@no.invalid> typed:

> In news:%23SG9Yu72EHA.1300@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
> Ken Blake <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> typed:
>
>> In news:ecML1W52EHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
>> Karen F <jakeyboy@frontiernet.net> typed:
>>
>>> Is a registry cleaner needed with Windows XP. I have a
>>> program
>>> called Easy Cleaner but I thought there may be a better one,
>>> assuming
>>> one is needed. Thanks.
>>
>>
>> My view is that, in any version of Windows, the risk of a
>> registry cleaner screwing up the registry is much greater than
>> any possible benefit of using it. You're better off without
>> any
>> of them.
>
> I'm not advocating. I just don't understand;
>
> What's the 'risk' in running one, so long as you (or the tool)
> set a
> restore point first?


If you use a registry cleaner, making a restore point first would
be a wise precaution, but it can only reduce the risk, not
eliminate it. Unfortunately, although a restore point can often
get you out of trouble, sometimes they don't work.


> And what's the 'reward' for having a whole slew of entries in
> your
> registry pointing to nowhere?


Reward? None at all. What's the penalty for having them? Also
none at all.

The point is that although you can reduce the risk, as you
suggest, it's not worth taking any risk for no gain.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 6:10:13 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Karen F schrieb:
> Is a registry cleaner needed with Windows XP. I have a program called Easy
> Cleaner but I thought there may be a better one, assuming one is needed.
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>
i'm using the one included in "tuneup uitilities 2004" - it's the best
one i know
Anonymous
December 6, 2004 10:15:09 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Karen F wrote:
> Is a registry cleaner needed with Windows XP. I have a program called Easy
> Cleaner but I thought there may be a better one, assuming one is needed.
> Thanks.
>
>
>
>

Having seen the results of inexperienced people using automated
registry "cleaners," I can only advise to you to avoid them all.

The only thing needed to safely clean your registry is knowledge
and Regedit.exe. If you lack the knowledge and experience to maintain
your registry by yourself, then you also lack the knowledge and
experience to safely configure and use any automated registry cleaner,
no matter how safe they claim to be.

I always use Regedit.exe. I trust my own experience and judgment
far more than I would any automated registry cleaner. I recommend you
learn to do the same.


--

Bruce Chambers

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

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 9:25:56 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
news:e%23BlUKA3EHA.2540@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Karen F wrote:
>> Is a registry cleaner needed with Windows XP. I have a program called
>> Easy Cleaner but I thought there may be a better one, assuming one is
>> needed. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Having seen the results of inexperienced people using automated
> registry "cleaners," I can only advise to you to avoid them all.
>
> The only thing needed to safely clean your registry is knowledge
> and Regedit.exe. If you lack the knowledge and experience to maintain
> your registry by yourself, then you also lack the knowledge and
> experience to safely configure and use any automated registry cleaner,
> no matter how safe they claim to be.
>
> I always use Regedit.exe. I trust my own experience and judgment
> far more than I would any automated registry cleaner. I recommend you
> learn to do the same.
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> Help us help you:
> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
> both at once. - RAH

Do we assume your advice not to use 'Registry Cleaners' extends to programs
like AdAware and Spybot? These 'malware' cleaning program also remove
entries from the Registry.

Your consistent criticism of Registry Cleaners as a group seems to indicate
your own lack of experience than to that of others. I suspect the risk of
damage to the Registry by "inexperienced people" is far greater when
'manually' removing entries than by using a third party Registry Cleaner as
these programs usually if not always backup the Registry before making
changes, something many simply do not do as witnessed in these NGs.
December 7, 2004 1:01:18 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

> "Bill" <Bill@no.invalid> wrote in message
> news:IeGdnefd6KZTOCncRVn-iA@comcast.com...
>| In news:%23SG9Yu72EHA.1300@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
>| Ken Blake <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> typed:
>|
>| > In news:ecML1W52EHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
>| > Karen F <jakeyboy@frontiernet.net> typed:
>| >
>| >> Is a registry cleaner needed with Windows XP. I have a
>| >> program
>| >> called Easy Cleaner but I thought there may be a better one,
>| >> assuming
>| >> one is needed. Thanks.
>| >
>| >
>| > My view is that, in any version of Windows, the risk of a
>| > registry cleaner screwing up the registry is much greater than
>| > any possible benefit of using it. You're better off without any
>| > of them.
>|
>| I'm not advocating. I just don't understand;
>|
>| What's the 'risk' in running one, so long as you (or the tool) set a
>| restore point first?
>|
>| And what's the 'reward' for having a whole slew of entries in your
>| registry pointing to nowhere?
>|
>| Bill
>
> For get about the risk; there is no reward. The question is, "how do a
> whole slew of unresolved registry entries affect computer performance?"
> The answer is, "Not at all."

I totally agree. I have quite a few hefty programs on my main drive - ~
18GB, but if I export my Registry, it uses a total of only 108MB.
Therefore ther's no space-saving by "tidying up your Registry".
Performance-wise it also has no noticeable effect.

The only program I do run is RegSupreme http://www.macecraft.com/ & for one
reason only.
It irratates me that every time you - for example - uninstall a program;
copy something to your Desktop, then move it elsewhere, delete it or
whatever, it retains that information in the Registry. No performance
advantage is gained in removing those keys, but I just can't see the point
in having something there doing nothing.

I've used that program for over a year, initially, I carefully
triple-checked each & every entry it found before I even contemplated
removing (quarantining) it via RegSupreme, but it didn't take me long to
discover that each entry found was a legit "does not exist" type of key.
Now I just run & quarantine everything it finds without bothering to check
them - usually 50-100 keys per day.

Sure, I'm a perfectionist in several areas, but that sort of thing just bugs
me, so I regularly spend a couple of clean-up minutes & run it.

No way would I use ANY other so-called Registry Cleaner software, as too
many have built-in potential dangers which eventually will probably mean a
system restore at the best. One thing for sure, if you have a tidy Registry
to begin with, it will not effect your PC's performance, just help to fill
the coffers of a multitude of Cleaner-type programmers who in most cases
don't want to know you if you create a disaster from their program.

<end of saga>

--

johnf
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:01:19 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

johnf wrote:
>>"Bill" <Bill@no.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:IeGdnefd6KZTOCncRVn-iA@comcast.com...
>>| In news:%23SG9Yu72EHA.1300@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
>>| Ken Blake <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> typed:
>>|
>>| > In news:ecML1W52EHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
>>| > Karen F <jakeyboy@frontiernet.net> typed:
>>| >
>>| >> Is a registry cleaner needed with Windows XP. I have a
>>| >> program
>>| >> called Easy Cleaner but I thought there may be a better one,
>>| >> assuming
>>| >> one is needed. Thanks.
>>| >
>>| >
>>| > My view is that, in any version of Windows, the risk of a
>>| > registry cleaner screwing up the registry is much greater than
>>| > any possible benefit of using it. You're better off without any
>>| > of them.
>>|
>>| I'm not advocating. I just don't understand;
>>|
>>| What's the 'risk' in running one, so long as you (or the tool) set a
>>| restore point first?
>>|
>>| And what's the 'reward' for having a whole slew of entries in your
>>| registry pointing to nowhere?
>>|
>>| Bill
>>
>>For get about the risk; there is no reward. The question is, "how do a
>>whole slew of unresolved registry entries affect computer performance?"
>>The answer is, "Not at all."
>
>
> I totally agree. I have quite a few hefty programs on my main drive - ~
> 18GB, but if I export my Registry, it uses a total of only 108MB.
> Therefore ther's no space-saving by "tidying up your Registry".
> Performance-wise it also has no noticeable effect.
>
> The only program I do run is RegSupreme http://www.macecraft.com/ & for one
> reason only.
> It irratates me that every time you - for example - uninstall a program;
> copy something to your Desktop, then move it elsewhere, delete it or
> whatever, it retains that information in the Registry. No performance
> advantage is gained in removing those keys, but I just can't see the point
> in having something there doing nothing.
>
> I've used that program for over a year, initially, I carefully
> triple-checked each & every entry it found before I even contemplated
> removing (quarantining) it via RegSupreme, but it didn't take me long to
> discover that each entry found was a legit "does not exist" type of key.
> Now I just run & quarantine everything it finds without bothering to check
> them - usually 50-100 keys per day.
>
> Sure, I'm a perfectionist in several areas, but that sort of thing just bugs
> me, so I regularly spend a couple of clean-up minutes & run it.
>
> No way would I use ANY other so-called Registry Cleaner software, as too
> many have built-in potential dangers which eventually will probably mean a
> system restore at the best. One thing for sure, if you have a tidy Registry
> to begin with, it will not effect your PC's performance, just help to fill
> the coffers of a multitude of Cleaner-type programmers who in most cases
> don't want to know you if you create a disaster from their program.
>
> <end of saga>
>
> --
>
> johnf
>
>

I'm happy to hear from a registry utility user who admits that it's done
out of compulsive neatness. Nothing wrong with that.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:01:19 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

[[Note: The "Export registry" function in Regedit is USELESS (!) to
make a complete backup of the registry. Neither does it export the whole
registry (for example, no information from the "SECURITY" hive is
saved), nor can the exported file be used later to replace the current
registry with the old one. Instead, if you re-import the file, it is
merged with the current registry, leaving you with an absolute mess of
old and new registry keys.]]
http://home.t-online.de/home/lars.hederer/erunt/erunt.t...

--
Hope this helps. Let us know.
Wes

In news:%239mv9d%232EHA.2572@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
johnf <john_f@bigREMOVEpond.net.au> hunted and pecked:
>> "Bill" <Bill@no.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:IeGdnefd6KZTOCncRVn-iA@comcast.com...
>>> In news:%23SG9Yu72EHA.1300@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
>>> Ken Blake <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> typed:
>>>
>>>> In news:ecML1W52EHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
>>>> Karen F <jakeyboy@frontiernet.net> typed:
>>>>
>>>>> Is a registry cleaner needed with Windows XP. I have a
>>>>> program
>>>>> called Easy Cleaner but I thought there may be a better one,
>>>>> assuming
>>>>> one is needed. Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My view is that, in any version of Windows, the risk of a
>>>> registry cleaner screwing up the registry is much greater than
>>>> any possible benefit of using it. You're better off without any
>>>> of them.
>>>
>>> I'm not advocating. I just don't understand;
>>>
>>> What's the 'risk' in running one, so long as you (or the tool) set a
>>> restore point first?
>>>
>>> And what's the 'reward' for having a whole slew of entries in your
>>> registry pointing to nowhere?
>>>
>>> Bill
>>
>> For get about the risk; there is no reward. The question is, "how do
>> a whole slew of unresolved registry entries affect computer
>> performance?" The answer is, "Not at all."
>
> I totally agree. I have quite a few hefty programs on my main drive -
> ~ 18GB, but if I export my Registry, it uses a total of only 108MB.
> Therefore ther's no space-saving by "tidying up your Registry".
> Performance-wise it also has no noticeable effect.
>
> The only program I do run is RegSupreme http://www.macecraft.com/ &
> for one reason only.
> It irratates me that every time you - for example - uninstall a
> program; copy something to your Desktop, then move it elsewhere,
> delete it or whatever, it retains that information in the Registry.
> No performance advantage is gained in removing those keys, but I just
> can't see the point in having something there doing nothing.
>
> I've used that program for over a year, initially, I carefully
> triple-checked each & every entry it found before I even contemplated
> removing (quarantining) it via RegSupreme, but it didn't take me long
> to discover that each entry found was a legit "does not exist" type
> of key. Now I just run & quarantine everything it finds without
> bothering to check them - usually 50-100 keys per day.
>
> Sure, I'm a perfectionist in several areas, but that sort of thing
> just bugs me, so I regularly spend a couple of clean-up minutes & run
> it.
>
> No way would I use ANY other so-called Registry Cleaner software, as
> too many have built-in potential dangers which eventually will
> probably mean a system restore at the best. One thing for sure, if
> you have a tidy Registry to begin with, it will not effect your PC's
> performance, just help to fill the coffers of a multitude of
> Cleaner-type programmers who in most cases don't want to know you if
> you create a disaster from their program.
>
> <end of saga>
>
> --
>
> johnf
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 1:51:30 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

In news:o mnylWC3EHA.1188@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
Edward W. Thompson <thomeduk1@btopenworld.com> typed:

> Do we assume your advice not to use 'Registry Cleaners' extends
> to
> programs like AdAware and Spybot? These 'malware' cleaning
> program
> also remove entries from the Registry.


You've addressed Bruce. I don't want to speak for him, but since
I've also advised against using these registry cleaners, I'll
address your criticism for myself.

There is an enormous difference between a program which looks for
certain malicious registry entries and removes them (like Adaware
and Spybot Search and Destroy) and a general-purpose registry
cleaner, which removes entries based on the assumption that they
are no longer needed. The former is safe to use; the latter often
is not.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup
December 7, 2004 6:18:24 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Hey Wes,
I don't think you read my post thoroughly.
I mentioned the Registry size to bring into perspective the miniscule size
of it compared to the overall amt. of data on your average O.S. & only
exported it so I could check its properties to use accurate figures for my
post :-)

Therefore, I'll say - "no it didn't help & I've let you know"
(HTH)

--

johnf

> [[Note: The "Export registry" function in Regedit is USELESS (!) to
> make a complete backup of the registry. Neither does it export the whole
> registry (for example, no information from the "SECURITY" hive is
> saved), nor can the exported file be used later to replace the current
> registry with the old one. Instead, if you re-import the file, it is
> merged with the current registry, leaving you with an absolute mess of
> old and new registry keys.]]
> http://home.t-online.de/home/lars.hederer/erunt/erunt.t...
>
> --
> Hope this helps. Let us know.
> Wes
>
> In news:%239mv9d%232EHA.2572@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
> johnf <john_f@bigREMOVEpond.net.au> hunted and pecked:
>>> "Bill" <Bill@no.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:IeGdnefd6KZTOCncRVn-iA@comcast.com...
>>>> In news:%23SG9Yu72EHA.1300@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
>>>> Ken Blake <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> typed:
>>>>
>>>>> In news:ecML1W52EHA.3452@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
>>>>> Karen F <jakeyboy@frontiernet.net> typed:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Is a registry cleaner needed with Windows XP. I have a
>>>>>> program
>>>>>> called Easy Cleaner but I thought there may be a better one,
>>>>>> assuming
>>>>>> one is needed. Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My view is that, in any version of Windows, the risk of a
>>>>> registry cleaner screwing up the registry is much greater than
>>>>> any possible benefit of using it. You're better off without any
>>>>> of them.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not advocating. I just don't understand;
>>>>
>>>> What's the 'risk' in running one, so long as you (or the tool) set a
>>>> restore point first?
>>>>
>>>> And what's the 'reward' for having a whole slew of entries in your
>>>> registry pointing to nowhere?
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>
>>> For get about the risk; there is no reward. The question is, "how do
>>> a whole slew of unresolved registry entries affect computer
>>> performance?" The answer is, "Not at all."
>>
>> I totally agree. I have quite a few hefty programs on my main drive -
>> ~ 18GB, but if I export my Registry, it uses a total of only 108MB.
>> Therefore ther's no space-saving by "tidying up your Registry".
>> Performance-wise it also has no noticeable effect.
>>
>> The only program I do run is RegSupreme http://www.macecraft.com/ &
>> for one reason only.
>> It irratates me that every time you - for example - uninstall a
>> program; copy something to your Desktop, then move it elsewhere,
>> delete it or whatever, it retains that information in the Registry.
>> No performance advantage is gained in removing those keys, but I just
>> can't see the point in having something there doing nothing.
>>
>> I've used that program for over a year, initially, I carefully
>> triple-checked each & every entry it found before I even contemplated
>> removing (quarantining) it via RegSupreme, but it didn't take me long
>> to discover that each entry found was a legit "does not exist" type
>> of key. Now I just run & quarantine everything it finds without
>> bothering to check them - usually 50-100 keys per day.
>>
>> Sure, I'm a perfectionist in several areas, but that sort of thing
>> just bugs me, so I regularly spend a couple of clean-up minutes & run
>> it.
>>
>> No way would I use ANY other so-called Registry Cleaner software, as
>> too many have built-in potential dangers which eventually will
>> probably mean a system restore at the best. One thing for sure, if
>> you have a tidy Registry to begin with, it will not effect your PC's
>> performance, just help to fill the coffers of a multitude of
>> Cleaner-type programmers who in most cases don't want to know you if
>> you create a disaster from their program.
>>
>> <end of saga>
>>
>> --
>>
>> johnf
December 7, 2004 6:21:36 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

> Karen F wrote:
>> Is a registry cleaner needed with Windows XP. I have a program
>> called Easy Cleaner but I thought there may be a better one, assuming
>> one is needed. Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Having seen the results of inexperienced people using automated
> registry "cleaners," I can only advise to you to avoid them all.
>
> The only thing needed to safely clean your registry is knowledge
> and Regedit.exe. If you lack the knowledge and experience to maintain
> your registry by yourself, then you also lack the knowledge and
> experience to safely configure and use any automated registry cleaner,
> no matter how safe they claim to be.
>
> I always use Regedit.exe. I trust my own experience and judgment
> far more than I would any automated registry cleaner. I recommend you
> learn to do the same.
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
Agreed, & what's the performance advantage anyway? Nil!
If it ain't broke...etc. etc.

--
johnf
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 6:21:37 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Brother. Talk about a collection of paranoid fools. There are many excellent
and safe registry cleaners for XP. RegOpt is also an excellent tool and to
back up the registry ERUNT. As far as claims that unused or incorrectly
written reg entries do nothing to slow the system down, this may be so. But I
simply don't see the need to burden the OS with uncessary junk. Why would you
want a bloated registry?
The following is a quote from PC World:
"The Registry: Windows' collection of settings, instructions, and mistakes
grows more unwieldy over time, increasing your PC's processing overhead (a
bloated Registry also raises the likelihood of other system problems).
Cleaning it out every so often is a good idea--although an imperfect one. No
Registry cleaning program I know of gets every nook and cranny."
A quote from The Elder Geek: "and registries that are so bloated with junk
that it's a miracle the systems even boot."

There are hundreds more from those with the intelligence to know. Having a
bloated registry is asking for trouble. A registry cleaned by a safe and
effective tool like the one in Easy Cleaner or the old JV16 Power Tools or
the free RegCleaner from JV16.org, RegSeeker also works like a dream, helps
to eliminate the bloat as well as problems. I have extensively tested these
apps and found nothing in them to cause any problems or conflicts in an
updated and well maintained XP OS. Even Microsoft recommends registry
cleaners. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/wugnet.msp...
Not to mention the registry entries that are spyware\adware\malware
components. So those saying "not" to clean the registry don't know what
they're talking about, including these supposed MVP's, Sorry if that ruffles
your feathers, but I call them as I see them and you are plain flat out
wrong.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 6:21:38 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"The Unknown P" <( mikisiw@msn.com )> wrote in message
news:EB4D4D85-2543-4A3B-97B8-C110B1AF6F04@microsoft.com...
| Brother. Talk about a collection of paranoid fools. There are many
excellent
| and safe registry cleaners for XP. RegOpt is also an excellent tool and to
| back up the registry ERUNT. As far as claims that unused or incorrectly
| written reg entries do nothing to slow the system down, this may be so.
But I
| simply don't see the need to burden the OS with uncessary junk. Why would
you
| want a bloated registry?
| The following is a quote from PC World:
| "The Registry: Windows' collection of settings, instructions, and mistakes
| grows more unwieldy over time, increasing your PC's processing overhead (a
| bloated Registry also raises the likelihood of other system problems).
| Cleaning it out every so often is a good idea--although an imperfect one.
No
| Registry cleaning program I know of gets every nook and cranny."
| A quote from The Elder Geek: "and registries that are so bloated with junk
| that it's a miracle the systems even boot."
|
| There are hundreds more from those with the intelligence to know. Having a
| bloated registry is asking for trouble. A registry cleaned by a safe and
| effective tool like the one in Easy Cleaner or the old JV16 Power Tools or
| the free RegCleaner from JV16.org, RegSeeker also works like a dream,
helps
| to eliminate the bloat as well as problems. I have extensively tested
these
| apps and found nothing in them to cause any problems or conflicts in an
| updated and well maintained XP OS. Even Microsoft recommends registry
| cleaners. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/wugnet.msp...
| Not to mention the registry entries that are spyware\adware\malware
| components. So those saying "not" to clean the registry don't know what
| they're talking about, including these supposed MVP's, Sorry if that
ruffles
| your feathers, but I call them as I see them and you are plain flat out
| wrong.
|

The only thing unknown about you is where your brain is. *Your* statement:
"As far as claims that unused or incorrectly written reg entries do nothing
to slow the system down, this may be so." You *know* it's so. If you
disagree, provide objective evidence to the contrary. Then, as if you
didn't already sound stupid enough, you said, "But I | simply don't see the
need to burden the OS with uncessary junk. Why would you?" It's hard to
make up your mind when you don't have one, I guess. Where's the burden???
Empty appeals to authority ( a well-known and specious defense for a lame
argument) don't impress me much. Show me the data, doofus.
December 7, 2004 8:39:34 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

And your point is??

I'd prefer to be told where I'm correct & incorrect in my post, rather than
just have a couple of replies accusing me of being - "a paranoid fool ", &
"you are plain flat out wrong" & then generally following on with various
cut & paste excerpts from odd websites to boost your theories.

Come on, give your brain a bit of exercise so at least I have an opportunity
to debate something directly, rather than read old 3rd. hand people's views
selected by you to bolster your very questionable arguments.
Gawd, I could even do that & prove the world is still flat!
--

johnf

> Brother. Talk about a collection of paranoid fools. There are many
> excellent and safe registry cleaners for XP. RegOpt is also an
> excellent tool and to back up the registry ERUNT. As far as claims that
> unused or incorrectly written reg entries do nothing to slow the system
> down, this may be so. But I simply don't see the need to burden the OS
> with uncessary junk. Why would you want a bloated registry?
> The following is a quote from PC World:
> "The Registry: Windows' collection of settings, instructions, and
> mistakes grows more unwieldy over time, increasing your PC's processing
> overhead (a bloated Registry also raises the likelihood of other system
> problems). Cleaning it out every so often is a good idea--although an
> imperfect one. No Registry cleaning program I know of gets every nook
> and cranny."
> A quote from The Elder Geek: "and registries that are so bloated with
> junk that it's a miracle the systems even boot."
>
> There are hundreds more from those with the intelligence to know.
> Having a bloated registry is asking for trouble. A registry cleaned by
> a safe and effective tool like the one in Easy Cleaner or the old JV16
> Power Tools or the free RegCleaner from JV16.org, RegSeeker also works
> like a dream, helps to eliminate the bloat as well as problems. I have
> extensively tested these apps and found nothing in them to cause any
> problems or conflicts in an updated and well maintained XP OS. Even
> Microsoft recommends registry cleaners.
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/wugnet.msp...
> Not to mention the registry entries that are spyware\adware\malware
> components. So those saying "not" to clean the registry don't know what
> they're talking about, including these supposed MVP's, Sorry if that
> ruffles your feathers, but I call them as I see them and you are plain
> flat out wrong.
December 7, 2004 8:58:42 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

I'll pre-empt Bruce & say definitely use AdAware and Spybot.

--

johnf

> "Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
> news:e%23BlUKA3EHA.2540@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> Karen F wrote:
>>> Is a registry cleaner needed with Windows XP. I have a program
>>> called Easy Cleaner but I thought there may be a better one, assuming
>>> one is needed. Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Having seen the results of inexperienced people using automated
>> registry "cleaners," I can only advise to you to avoid them all.
>>
>> The only thing needed to safely clean your registry is knowledge
>> and Regedit.exe. If you lack the knowledge and experience to maintain
>> your registry by yourself, then you also lack the knowledge and
>> experience to safely configure and use any automated registry cleaner,
>> no matter how safe they claim to be.
>>
>> I always use Regedit.exe. I trust my own experience and judgment
>> far more than I would any automated registry cleaner. I recommend you
>> learn to do the same.
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Bruce Chambers
>>
>> Help us help you:
>> http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>>
>> You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
>> both at once. - RAH
>
> Do we assume your advice not to use 'Registry Cleaners' extends to
> programs like AdAware and Spybot? These 'malware' cleaning program
> also remove entries from the Registry.
>
> Your consistent criticism of Registry Cleaners as a group seems to
> indicate your own lack of experience than to that of others. I suspect
> the risk of damage to the Registry by "inexperienced people" is far
> greater when 'manually' removing entries than by using a third party
> Registry Cleaner as these programs usually if not always backup the
> Registry before making changes, something many simply do not do as
> witnessed in these NGs.
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 10:09:44 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

The Unknown P wrote:

> The following is a quote from PC World:
> "The Registry: Windows' collection of settings, instructions, and mistakes
> grows more unwieldy over time, increasing your PC's processing overhead (a
> bloated Registry also raises the likelihood of other system problems).
> Cleaning it out every so often is a good idea--although an imperfect one. No
> Registry cleaning program I know of gets every nook and cranny."
> A quote from The Elder Geek: "and registries that are so bloated with junk
> that it's a miracle the systems even boot."
>
> There are hundreds more from those with the intelligence to know.
>
>

Well, you're welcome to do as you like, but I'll trust the opinions --
based upon results of my own years of experience and observation (and
those of others who support computers for a living) -- over the opinions
of those who merely read and write about computers.

--

Bruce Chambers

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

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
Anonymous
December 7, 2004 10:14:51 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Edward W. Thompson wrote:

>
>
> Do we assume your advice not to use 'Registry Cleaners' extends to programs
> like AdAware and Spybot?

A good question, but no, you cannot assume this.

> These 'malware' cleaning program also remove
> entries from the Registry.
>

Not automatically, and only those registry entries of known malware
products. I have yet to encounter, in the field, a problem caused by
Ad-Aware or Spybot S&D.

> Your consistent criticism of Registry Cleaners as a group seems to indicate
> your own lack of experience than to that of others.

Not at all. I base my opinion on years of experience cleaning up after
people who use such products blindly.


> I suspect the risk of
> damage to the Registry by "inexperienced people" is far greater when
> 'manually' removing entries than by using a third party Registry Cleaner as
> these programs usually if not always backup the Registry before making
> changes,

Any numbers, or actual field experience/observations to support your
suspicion?


--

Bruce Chambers

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

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
Anonymous
December 8, 2004 10:28:49 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
news:uOUI0uM3EHA.2288@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Edward W. Thompson wrote:

snip

>> Your consistent criticism of Registry Cleaners as a group seems to
>> indicate your own lack of experience than to that of others.
>
> Not at all. I base my opinion on years of experience cleaning up after
> people who use such products blindly.
>
>
>> I suspect the risk of damage to the Registry by "inexperienced people" is
>> far greater when 'manually' removing entries than by using a third party
>> Registry Cleaner as these programs usually if not always backup the
>> Registry before making changes,
>
> Any numbers, or actual field experience/observations to support your
> suspicion?
>
I don't have numbers and I strongly suspect, neither do you. You appear to
make simple assertions based upon your claimed experience. As we all know
there is both good and bad experience :-). Clearly experience is
unquantifiable with respect to quality and it doesn't substitute for
knowledge but augments knowledge. You claim to have experience but do you
have knowledge of this subject? I think not.

You and those others who so strongly warn against the use of 'registry
cleaners', have not yet produced a single piece of evidence to support your
claim of the inherent danger of using 'registry cleaners' that relate to
this class of software as a group. I fully accept that the value of
'registry cleaners' is debateable and also accept that under certain
circumstances they may give rise to a problem but that possibility exists
each time any program makes and entry or a deletion to the Registry.
Fortunately these problems are not systematic and are not solely related to
'registry cleaners'.

With respect to my suspicions, I would have thought that the dangers of
modifying the Registry without the necessary knowledge i.e. lack of
experience, would be self evident and not require justification but perhaps
in your 'experience' that is not so.

As a question what is 'field' experience and on the assumption I have
considerable field experience, whatever you think that means, does that
make my view on this subject any more or less valid?

Methinks you are full of bluster sir.
December 8, 2004 10:48:53 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Try snipping out the the bullshit, typing errors, double Dutch such as "I
don't have numbers and I strongly suspect, neither do you", which is pure
remote hypothesis, - try doing some research for a change before you assert
any such assumptions, then back it up on this thread with fact; BTW, run
your Spelllchecker (if you're really serious about making a point).

Referring to - "> As a question what is 'field' experience and on the
assumption I have considerable field experience, whatever you think that
means, does that make my view on this subject any more or less valid?" <

[check your editing, intelligible English & punctuation on the above par for
fun.]

Well, actually, it makes your comment much less valid if you can't follow
Bruce's advice, who is someone without a doubt & as just proven, much, much
more experienced than you, also (which I'm sure you would have observed, as
most of us regulars have if you're a regular follower of this NG), have seen
the sound advice Bruce has given in the past [unless you're a dyslectic
speed-reader].

Now you may <sic> bluster on further if you feel inclined.

--

johnf

> "Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uOUI0uM3EHA.2288@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
>> Edward W. Thompson wrote:
>
> snip
>
>>> Your consistent criticism of Registry Cleaners as a group seems to
>>> indicate your own lack of experience than to that of others.
>>
>> Not at all. I base my opinion on years of experience cleaning up after
>> people who use such products blindly.
>>
>>
>>> I suspect the risk of damage to the Registry by "inexperienced
>>> people" is far greater when 'manually' removing entries than by using
>>> a third party Registry Cleaner as these programs usually if not
>>> always backup the Registry before making changes,
>>
>> Any numbers, or actual field experience/observations to support your
>> suspicion?
>>
> I don't have numbers and I strongly suspect, neither do you. You
> appear to make simple assertions based upon your claimed experience. As we
> all know there is both good and bad experience :-). Clearly
> experience is unquantifiable with respect to quality and it doesn't
> substitute for knowledge but augments knowledge. You claim to have
> experience but do you have knowledge of this subject? I think not.
>
> You and those others who so strongly warn against the use of 'registry
> cleaners', have not yet produced a single piece of evidence to support
> your claim of the inherent danger of using 'registry cleaners' that
> relate to this class of software as a group. I fully accept that the
> value of 'registry cleaners' is debateable and also accept that under
> certain circumstances they may give rise to a problem but that
> possibility exists each time any program makes and entry or a deletion
> to the Registry. Fortunately these problems are not systematic and are
> not solely related to 'registry cleaners'.
>
> With respect to my suspicions, I would have thought that the dangers of
> modifying the Registry without the necessary knowledge i.e. lack of
> experience, would be self evident and not require justification but
> perhaps in your 'experience' that is not so.
>
> As a question what is 'field' experience and on the assumption I have
> considerable field experience, whatever you think that means, does that
> make my view on this subject any more or less valid?
>
> Methinks you are full of bluster sir.
!