|
|
After 3 years of using, my XP is loaded with junks, and my PC is
running very slow.
Time for spring cleaning !
Checking through the XP directories, especially those under "Documents
and Settings" and "Windows" and "Program Files", there are indeed a
whole lot of STUFFS that I don't have any clue where they came from
and what's their use are.
So my questions to all the Gurus,
1. Can you tell me where I can safely clean out the junks?
2. Is there anywhere on the Net that tells me what is safe to delete,
what's not?
Please help. Thank you !!
|
|
On 12/06/2008 03:51 AM, Penang sent:
[Quoted Text] > After 3 years of using, my XP is loaded with junks, and my PC is
> running very slow.
>
> Time for spring cleaning !
>
> Checking through the XP directories, especially those under "Documents
> and Settings" and "Windows" and "Program Files", there are indeed a
> whole lot of STUFFS that I don't have any clue where they came from
> and what's their use are.
>
> So my questions to all the Gurus,
>
> 1. Can you tell me where I can safely clean out the junks?
>
> 2. Is there anywhere on the Net that tells me what is safe to delete,
> what's not?
>
> Please help. Thank you !!
>
1) Backup your data files.
2) Level and rebuild.
Nothing else quite compares. Repartition/Reformat the HDD and start
fresh. All the old things you installed and forgot about, go away.
Best wishes to you.
Pete
--
1PW
[ at ]?6A62?FEH9:DE=6o2[ at ]=]4[ at ]> [r4o7t]
|
|
On Dec 6, 4:11 am, 1PW <barcrnahgjuvf...[ at ]nby.pbz> wrote:
[Quoted Text] > On 12/06/2008 03:51 AM, Penang sent:
>
>
>
> > After 3 years of using, my XP is loaded with junks, and my PC is
> > running very slow.
>
> > Time for spring cleaning !
>
> > Checking through the XP directories, especially those under "Documents
> > and Settings" and "Windows" and "Program Files", there are indeed a
> > whole lot of STUFFS that I don't have any clue where they came from
> > and what's their use are.
>
> > So my questions to all the Gurus,
>
> > 1. Can you tell me where I can safely clean out the junks?
>
> > 2. Is there anywhere on the Net that tells me what is safe to delete,
> > what's not?
>
> > Please help. Thank you !!
>
> 1) Backup your data files.
>
> 2) Level and rebuild.
>
> Nothing else quite compares. Repartition/Reformat the HDD and start
> fresh. All the old things you installed and forgot about, go away.
>
> Best wishes to you.
>
> Pete
>
> --
> 1PW
>
> [ at ]?6A62?FEH9:DE=6o2[ at ]=]4[ at ]> [r4o7t]
Is there any other way short of a reformat?
Last time when I re-installed my XP on a new hard disk, I encountered
a "serial number" problem. Can't remember much about the details,
something like the verification server for Microsoft told me that my
serial number was invalid or something like that, and I had to call
the MS support line to get a new serial number
Although it's not a big problem actually, just that I would much
prefer a way that does NOT involve reformatting the hard disk and the
re-installing of the OS.
|
|
Is there any other way short of a reformat?
Last time when I re-installed my XP on a new hard disk, I encountered
a "serial number" problem. Can't remember much about the details,
something like the verification server for Microsoft told me that my
serial number was invalid or something like that, and I had to call
the MS support line to get a new serial number
Although it's not a big problem actually, just that I would much
prefer a way that does NOT involve reformatting the hard disk and the
re-installing of the OS.
If you have a valid disc with serial # should not be that big of an issue,
format and install is always the best way to 'clean' house.
|
|
A Windows Cleanup isn't difficult, but has some risks. Regardless of
what you do a backup or image is critical. It's very easy to get into a
mode where you "Over-Clean" the machine and then it either doesn't
work properly or worse won't boot.
Acronis True Image is an excellent tool for Imaging a computer.
The cleanup involves removing unused or unwanted applications from
the PC. Next you'll want to remove Temporary files. Afterwards a full
defrag on the Windows volume will restore performance. It's also a
good idea to verify the disk drive's integrity with Chkdsk. These are
the minimum operations. There are more detailed/involved procedures
that deal with Browser add-ins and things that technicians would do.
It's really beyond the scope of what can be recommended in a NG
posting.
Another key point is to update all your applications. Many folks do
not update items like Sun Java, Adobe Flash and Shockwave.
Finally you should run alternate vendor Security apps on your PC.Both
an AntiVirus scan ( BitDefender or Kaspersky ) and Malware tests.
Hopefully this is enough information to get you started. Just be sure to
take the time to backup before getting started.
"Hari Hari Mau" <harimau.mau[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c6e70af-66af-43b4-9356-1961c6e728d7[ at ]i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 6, 4:11 am, 1PW <barcrnahgjuvf...[ at ]nby.pbz> wrote:
[Quoted Text] > On 12/06/2008 03:51 AM, Penang sent:
>
>
>
> > After 3 years of using, my XP is loaded with junks, and my PC is
> > running very slow.
>
> > Time for spring cleaning !
>
> > Checking through the XP directories, especially those under "Documents
> > and Settings" and "Windows" and "Program Files", there are indeed a
> > whole lot of STUFFS that I don't have any clue where they came from
> > and what's their use are.
>
> > So my questions to all the Gurus,
>
> > 1. Can you tell me where I can safely clean out the junks?
>
> > 2. Is there anywhere on the Net that tells me what is safe to delete,
> > what's not?
>
> > Please help. Thank you !!
>
> 1) Backup your data files.
>
> 2) Level and rebuild.
>
> Nothing else quite compares. Repartition/Reformat the HDD and start
> fresh. All the old things you installed and forgot about, go away.
>
> Best wishes to you.
>
> Pete
>
> --
> 1PW
>
> [ at ]?6A62?FEH9:DE=6o2[ at ]=]4[ at ]> [r4o7t]
Is there any other way short of a reformat?
Last time when I re-installed my XP on a new hard disk, I encountered
a "serial number" problem. Can't remember much about the details,
something like the verification server for Microsoft told me that my
serial number was invalid or something like that, and I had to call
the MS support line to get a new serial number
Although it's not a big problem actually, just that I would much
prefer a way that does NOT involve reformatting the hard disk and the
re-installing of the OS.
|
|
Penang wrote:
[Quoted Text] > After 3 years of using, my XP is loaded with junks, and my PC is
> running very slow.
>
> Time for spring cleaning !
>
> Checking through the XP directories, especially those under "Documents
> and Settings" and "Windows" and "Program Files", there are indeed a
> whole lot of STUFFS that I don't have any clue where they came from
> and what's their use are.
>
> So my questions to all the Gurus,
>
> 1. Can you tell me where I can safely clean out the junks?
>
> 2. Is there anywhere on the Net that tells me what is safe to delete,
> what's not?
>
> Please help. Thank you !!
>
If you are against "format" you might read what follows and give it some
thought. I always have good luck reloading. But I've taken that a
level further lately with an imaging program that allows me to take that
5 hours of reload time and with a single 15 minute image, I now can
reload that 5 hours in 15 minutes. So now, reloads are simple. But
keeping your system clean is going to make it run fast longer.
See below: this is a collection from other posts, but they are still
good ideas from all the posters:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before you think about reinstalling see the steps listed below.
#1: A process that's loading down your CPU:
It could be a sub-process or application that's running in the background
and taking all the CPU resources, which could be the cause of your PC
running slow.
To find and display what could be the problem try Process Explorer:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/SystemInformation/ProcessExplorer.mspx
Note: Once you have Process Explorer installed and running:
In the taskbar select View and check 'Show Process Tree' and
'Show Lower Pane' options.
Then expand the process named 'Explorer' (click on the + sign)
In the column on the left named 'CPU', look for any high CPU usage.
Next click on the CPU column to sort the processes by %CPU usage
(Highest to Lowest).
Move the mouse cursor over any process, you should see a popup with some
detailed info.
Then mouse over the process that's using most or all the CPU %.
Then click on that process to highlight it,
Now that it's highlighted, right click and from the options listed select:
'Search Online'
This should display what out there on the web about that process.
You can also double click on any process to open up a more detailed
'Properties' window.
Note: some entries like Explorer, System/Services, and
Svchost entries may need to be expanded to show the detail (sub processes),
in this case click on the + located to the left of the entry.
An alternate method using Process Explorer is to double click
on the Graph just below the Menu bar.
This will open the 'System Information' window, which has a larger display
of all three graphs.
Move your mouse over any spike in the CPU Usage graph to see what
process/application or service was the cause of the spike.
#2: Stuff that loads during boot or logon and then is always running in the
background:
If you want to list and explore what may be the cause then:
Try Autoruns from the MS Windows SysInternals site:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/ProcessesAndThreads/Autoruns.mspx
AutoRuns will show/list all apps/etc. that load/run when you first boot
(Boot Execute tab),
when you logon (Logon tab) and other programs that load
(grouped by labeled tabs) for easy viewing.
It also provides the ability to selectively allows you to stop any program
(use with care) that you don't want to load.
You can undo any changes you have made.
Note: To get additional details on an item in the list you may need to
highlight the item (right click) and use the 'Search Online' option to get
the details, especially useful for the more obscure items in the list.
#3: Viruses
Viruses and malware can also cause your PC to slowdown or malfunction.
Malke has an excellent set of instructions on what to do:
http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/page2.html#Removing_Malware
#4: To much crap on the hard drive:
Take a look at CCleaner as a tool to remove Internet history info, cookies,
temp files, auto complete and other junk.
In the 'Windows' tab listing check the item types you want deleted.
Note: Do not use the registry cleaning option!!!
Also available is customization, see Options/Custom to add any
other/additional folders you want files deleted from.
http://www.ccleaner.com/
#5: Defragment your hard drive.
|
|
"Penang" <kalambong[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7d60d11e-37f9-4352-843b-79aa23298376[ at ]x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
[Quoted Text] > After 3 years of using, my XP is loaded with junks, and my PC is
> running very slow.
>
> 1. Can you tell me where I can safely clean out the junks?
>
> 2. Is there anywhere on the Net that tells me what is safe to delete,
> what's not?
Nobody can know what is safe for you to delete because
nobody knows what you have -- but you can use general
principles of prudence:
1. Back up essential data and config settings, preferably
to a separate hard drive so you can reload them if you
need to reinstal the OS. WinXP has a Documents and
Settings Wizard for this purpose.
2a. If you have plenty of drive space, before removing
unknown material, you can copy it to a special place
in case it later turns out you need it. E.g. create a new
folder /DISCARDS and copy there any folders or files
about which you are uncertain.
2b. Instead of deleting files or folders, UNINSTAL all
unwanted apps that appear in / Control Panel / Add&Remove.
2c. Verify the reliability of the hard drive before proceeding.
You may use either WinXP's CHKDISK tool or the drive
manufacturer's diagnostiicc apps.
3. The WinXP wizard designed to free wasted drive
space is Disk Cleanup, one of your /Accessories.
This totals the space it can clear and seeks your
OK before proceeding. See also its /Advanced facilities.
4. When you have done this, test how fast the PC
boots and then loads apps. You can then decide
about reinstalling the OS.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
|
|
"Penang" <kalambong[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7d60d11e-37f9-4352-843b-79aa23298376[ at ]x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
[Quoted Text] > After 3 years of using, my XP is loaded with junks, and my PC is
> running very slow.
>
> Time for spring cleaning !
>
> Checking through the XP directories, especially those under "Documents
> and Settings" and "Windows" and "Program Files", there are indeed a
> whole lot of STUFFS that I don't have any clue where they came from
> and what's their use are.
>
> So my questions to all the Gurus,
>
> 1. Can you tell me where I can safely clean out the junks?
>
> 2. Is there anywhere on the Net that tells me what is safe to delete,
> what's not?
>
> Please help. Thank you !!
Getting rid of unused programs is a good first start. Then use CCleaner
(free). Check My Computer before and after to see how much HD space you've
gained. I do a backup of the registry befoe running CCleaner just in case.
After that, do a compact on your e-mail and defrag. I use OE and it
generates a massive backup file after compaction which I delete after a day
or so.
The above steps, done every couple of months, always make a noticeable
difference in load time and operating speed and, so far, no problems of any
kind. (Using XP Professional). This all assumes that you do a virus and
malware scan regularly, so no gremlins are stealing space and time.
TKM
|
|
First use Windows 'Disk Cleanup' to create more space on your C: drive.
Description of the Disk Cleanup Tool in Windows XP:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310312
Next: Empty the Recycle Bin.
If you recently installed Windows XP Service Pack 3:
Look for an odd folder name which is located here
C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution\Download\cf8ec753e88561d..........\
Note: the apparent random set of letter and number may vary from my
example above but whatever the name is, it will be more than
600MB in size and can be safely deleted.
You may also see a number of other folders or files located in the:
C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution\Download\ directory
They also can be deleted.
You can also free up more disk space by reducing
the number of 'System Restore' points:
Select Start/Control Panel/System, then in the System Properties window
click on the System Restore tab.
Next select the drive letter where Windows is installed (usually C:),
Then click on the Setting button
Now in the Drive Settings window move the Disk space usage slider to the
left to reduce the amount of drive space System Restore points will use.
This will remove some of the older restore points and free up some space.
Disable Hibernation and delete hiberfil.sys file (If you have it enabled):
http://www.mydigitallife.info/2007/10/25/how-to-delete-and-remove-hiberfilsys-hibernation-file-in-windows-xp-and-vista/
and:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/mobility/getstarted/hibernate.mspx
If you are using IE7 and then installed SP3 read the info below.
IE7 users will find the folders listed below on their hard drive:
$NtServicePackUninstallIDNMitigationAPIs$
$NtServicePackUninstallNLSDownlevelMapping$
They are needed to uninstall IE7. However, if you installed IE7 and
then installed XP SP3 you can no longer uninstall IE7 and these
folders can also be deleted.
Note: The recommended procedure before installing XP SP3 is to
uninstall IE7, then install XP SP3. Now you still have the ability to
install and uninstall IE7.
Next if you still need more space:
Remove the files used to uninstall updates to Windows
These folders and associated files in these folders are safe to remove,
however once deleted you will no longer be able to un-install a patch or
update that was associated with the deleted folder/files.
I would keep the most recent set (last two months just in case) of folders
and delete the older updates.
As a safety net I burned these folders to a CD before deleting them.
These files are located in the Windows folder and have folder names
like $NtUninstallKBXXXXXX$.
They are hidden folders so enable viewing of hidden files in Windows
Explorer.
Warning: One folder you should not delete is: $hf_mig$
Also See the following web pages on this issue:
http://www.pagestart.com/ntuninstall.html
http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spack.htm
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_hotfix_backup.htm
If you upgraded your PC from Windows 98 to Windows XP.
The $Win98UpdateUninstall$ can be deleted.
You can reduce the size of the Internet Explorer Disk Cache:
How and Why to Clear Your Cache:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/ie6/using/howto/customizing/clearcache.mspx
Just follow the instructions but instead of increasing the size
(as stated in the article) decrease it.
Finally: Check the Recycle Bin one more time and empty it
if necessary as some of those files you deleted in the steps
mentioned above may find there way into the recycle bin.
If you have more than one partition or drive then:
How to Change the Default Location of Mail and News Folders:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307971/en-us
Change the Default Location of the My Documents Folder
(Example: move it to the D drive)
See: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310147
Also:
http://www.techsupportalert.com/how_to_move_my_documents.htm
How to move the Spool folder in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q308666
Can I move or delete my C:\I386 directory to free up some space?
See:
http://ask-leo.com/can_i_move_or_delete_my_i386_directory_to_free_up_some_space.html
Note: C:\i386 is not to be confused with the
C:\Windows\ServicePackFiles\i386 folder which should not
be moved or deleted as Windows File Protection needs those files
JS
http://www.pagestart.com
"Penang" <kalambong[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7d60d11e-37f9-4352-843b-79aa23298376[ at ]x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
[Quoted Text] > After 3 years of using, my XP is loaded with junks, and my PC is
> running very slow.
>
> Time for spring cleaning !
>
> Checking through the XP directories, especially those under "Documents
> and Settings" and "Windows" and "Program Files", there are indeed a
> whole lot of STUFFS that I don't have any clue where they came from
> and what's their use are.
>
> So my questions to all the Gurus,
>
> 1. Can you tell me where I can safely clean out the junks?
>
> 2. Is there anywhere on the Net that tells me what is safe to delete,
> what's not?
>
> Please help. Thank you !!
>
|
|
You may also have too many applications running in the background,
like more than one Anti-Virus software application both set to run
in the 'Active Scanning' which will slow things down.
If you want to dig deeper:
Try Autoruns from the MS Windows SysInternals site:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb963902.aspx
AutoRuns will show/list all apps/etc. that load/run when you first boot ...
(the 'Boot Execute' tab),
when you logon (the 'Logon' tab) and other programs that load
(grouped by labeled tabs) for easy viewing.
It also provides the ability to selectively allows you to stop
(use with care) any program that you don't want to load.
You can undo any changes you have made.
Note: To get additional details on an item in the list you can't
readily identify you may need to highlight the item (right click) and use
the 'Search Online' option to get the details,
especially useful for the more obscure items in the list.
JS
http://www.pagestart.com
"JS" <[ at ]> wrote in message news:uO2SXW7VJHA.3908[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > First use Windows 'Disk Cleanup' to create more space on your C: drive. > Description of the Disk Cleanup Tool in Windows XP: > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310312> > Next: Empty the Recycle Bin. > > If you recently installed Windows XP Service Pack 3: > Look for an odd folder name which is located here > C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution\Download\cf8ec753e88561d..........\ > Note: the apparent random set of letter and number may vary from my > example above but whatever the name is, it will be more than > 600MB in size and can be safely deleted. > You may also see a number of other folders or files located in the: > C:\WINDOWS\SoftwareDistribution\Download\ directory > They also can be deleted. > > You can also free up more disk space by reducing > the number of 'System Restore' points: > Select Start/Control Panel/System, then in the System Properties window > click on the System Restore tab. > Next select the drive letter where Windows is installed (usually C:), > Then click on the Setting button > Now in the Drive Settings window move the Disk space usage slider to the > left to reduce the amount of drive space System Restore points will use. > This will remove some of the older restore points and free up some space. > > Disable Hibernation and delete hiberfil.sys file (If you have it enabled): > http://www.mydigitallife.info/2007/10/25/how-to-delete-and-remove-hiberfilsys-hibernation-file-in-windows-xp-and-vista/> and: > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/mobility/getstarted/hibernate.mspx> > If you are using IE7 and then installed SP3 read the info below. > IE7 users will find the folders listed below on their hard drive: > $NtServicePackUninstallIDNMitigationAPIs$ > $NtServicePackUninstallNLSDownlevelMapping$ > They are needed to uninstall IE7. However, if you installed IE7 and > then installed XP SP3 you can no longer uninstall IE7 and these > folders can also be deleted. > > Note: The recommended procedure before installing XP SP3 is to > uninstall IE7, then install XP SP3. Now you still have the ability to > install and uninstall IE7. > > Next if you still need more space: > Remove the files used to uninstall updates to Windows > These folders and associated files in these folders are safe to remove, > however once deleted you will no longer be able to un-install a patch or > update that was associated with the deleted folder/files. > I would keep the most recent set (last two months just in case) of folders > and delete the older updates. > As a safety net I burned these folders to a CD before deleting them. > These files are located in the Windows folder and have folder names > like $NtUninstallKBXXXXXX$. > They are hidden folders so enable viewing of hidden files in Windows > Explorer. > Warning: One folder you should not delete is: $hf_mig$ > Also See the following web pages on this issue: > http://www.pagestart.com/ntuninstall.html> http://www3.telus.net/dandemar/spack.htm> http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_hotfix_backup.htm> > If you upgraded your PC from Windows 98 to Windows XP. > The $Win98UpdateUninstall$ can be deleted. > > You can reduce the size of the Internet Explorer Disk Cache: > How and Why to Clear Your Cache: > http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/ie6/using/howto/customizing/clearcache.mspx> Just follow the instructions but instead of increasing the size > (as stated in the article) decrease it. > > Finally: Check the Recycle Bin one more time and empty it > if necessary as some of those files you deleted in the steps > mentioned above may find there way into the recycle bin. > > If you have more than one partition or drive then: > How to Change the Default Location of Mail and News Folders: > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/307971/en-us> > Change the Default Location of the My Documents Folder > (Example: move it to the D drive) > See: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310147> Also: > http://www.techsupportalert.com/how_to_move_my_documents.htm> > How to move the Spool folder in Windows XP > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;Q308666> > Can I move or delete my C:\I386 directory to free up some space? > See: > http://ask-leo.com/can_i_move_or_delete_my_i386_directory_to_free_up_some_space.html> Note: C:\i386 is not to be confused with the > C:\Windows\ServicePackFiles\i386 folder which should not > be moved or deleted as Windows File Protection needs those files > > JS > http://www.pagestart.com> > "Penang" <kalambong[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message > news:7d60d11e-37f9-4352-843b-79aa23298376[ at ]x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com... >> After 3 years of using, my XP is loaded with junks, and my PC is >> running very slow. >> >> Time for spring cleaning ! >> >> Checking through the XP directories, especially those under "Documents >> and Settings" and "Windows" and "Program Files", there are indeed a >> whole lot of STUFFS that I don't have any clue where they came from >> and what's their use are. >> >> So my questions to all the Gurus, >> >> 1. Can you tell me where I can safely clean out the junks? >> >> 2. Is there anywhere on the Net that tells me what is safe to delete, >> what's not? >> >> Please help. Thank you !! >> > >
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > After 3 years of using, my XP is loaded with junks, and my PC is
> running very slow.
>
> Time for spring cleaning !
>
> Checking through the XP directories, especially those under "Documents
> and Settings" and "Windows" and "Program Files", there are indeed a
> whole lot of STUFFS that I don't have any clue where they came from
> and what's their use are.
>
> So my questions to all the Gurus,
>
> 1. Can you tell me where I can safely clean out the junks?
>
> 2. Is there anywhere on the Net that tells me what is safe to delete,
> what's not?
>
> Please help. Thank you !!
The easeist and most efficient way to clean out that stuff is to start
by running disk cleanup:
Start; Programs; Accessories; System Tools; Disk Cleanup.
It sounds like it may take a bit of time to run from your discription,
so be patient; go have coffee or your fav beverage while it runs.
Then run the disk defragmenter:
Start; Programs; Accessories; System Tools; Defragment.
Next will be to run an antivirus scan and malware detectors; at least 3
spyware detectors as have been listed here many times.
At this point you should be pretty much back to speed, you'll know what
to try next time, and wont' have lost any data or anythign else. Which
reminds me, if you aren't backing up your data regularly, you really
should start doing to before you lose everything.
If those haven't helped enough, come on back and explain what you have
and what you did. Some of the other responses here are right, and will
work, but they're using a wrecking ball and new construction as opposed
to simply taking out the garbage first.
HTH
Twayne
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > On Dec 6, 4:11 am, 1PW <barcrnahgjuvf...[ at ]nby.pbz> wrote:
>> On 12/06/2008 03:51 AM, Penang sent:
>>
>>
>>
>>> After 3 years of using, my XP is loaded with junks, and my PC is
>>> running very slow.
>>
>>> Time for spring cleaning !
>>
>>> Checking through the XP directories, especially those under
>>> "Documents and Settings" and "Windows" and "Program Files", there
>>> are indeed a whole lot of STUFFS that I don't have any clue where
>>> they came from and what's their use are.
>>
>>> So my questions to all the Gurus,
>>
>>> 1. Can you tell me where I can safely clean out the junks?
>>
>>> 2. Is there anywhere on the Net that tells me what is safe to
>>> delete, what's not?
>>
>>> Please help. Thank you !!
>>
>> 1) Backup your data files.
>>
>> 2) Level and rebuild.
>>
>> Nothing else quite compares. Repartition/Reformat the HDD and start
>> fresh. All the old things you installed and forgot about, go away.
>>
>> Best wishes to you.
>>
>> Pete
>>
>> --
>> 1PW
>>
>> [ at ]?6A62?FEH9:DE=6o2[ at ]=]4[ at ]> [r4o7t]
>
>
> Is there any other way short of a reformat?
>
> Last time when I re-installed my XP on a new hard disk, I encountered
> a "serial number" problem. Can't remember much about the details,
> something like the verification server for Microsoft told me that my
> serial number was invalid or something like that, and I had to call
> the MS support line to get a new serial number
>
> Although it's not a big problem actually, just that I would much
> prefer a way that does NOT involve reformatting the hard disk and the
> re-installing of the OS.
Yes; see my answer to the original post.
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > Is there any other way short of a reformat?
>
> Last time when I re-installed my XP on a new hard disk, I encountered
> a "serial number" problem. Can't remember much about the details,
> something like the verification server for Microsoft told me that my
> serial number was invalid or something like that, and I had to call
> the MS support line to get a new serial number
>
> Although it's not a big problem actually, just that I would much
> prefer a way that does NOT involve reformatting the hard disk and the
> re-installing of the OS.
>
> If you have a valid disc with serial # should not be that big of an
> issue, format and install is always the best way to 'clean' house.
No, it's not; it's a last resort when nothing else works. It's silly to
have to spend the hours it takes to reinstall the OS and then more hours
to rebuild all your applications, updates and so on.
Having to call MS is no reason to avoid a format either, OTOH. It's a
simple call and easy to do. The screen even gives you the number to
call. But a complete rebuild is silly when it's not necessary,
especially since all other data on the drive will be lost, too, meaning
many will have to do an inexperienced backup, not knowing whether they
can restore things or not. What works for one may not be a good choice
for another. I'ts always best to start wtih the non-destructive routes.
Besides, if I were at that point, I'd update my backjups and try a
Repair Install before just blindly wiping and rebuilding everything.
f'ups to here; stopping wasted ether.
HTH
|
|
3 years for maintenance
is too long and you may
have set a new record.
on the other hand, cleaning
may put your system at risk
because a number of undisclosed
issues may have already
undermined the stability of
your file and disk system.
be sure to make copies of
your personal files onto
another partition or disk, just
in case.
--
db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
"Penang" <kalambong[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message news:7d60d11e-37f9-4352-843b-79aa23298376[ at ]x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
[Quoted Text] > After 3 years of using, my XP is loaded with junks, and my PC is
> running very slow.
>
> Time for spring cleaning !
>
> Checking through the XP directories, especially those under "Documents
> and Settings" and "Windows" and "Program Files", there are indeed a
> whole lot of STUFFS that I don't have any clue where they came from
> and what's their use are.
>
> So my questions to all the Gurus,
>
> 1. Can you tell me where I can safely clean out the junks?
>
> 2. Is there anywhere on the Net that tells me what is safe to delete,
> what's not?
>
> Please help. Thank you !!
>
|
|
[Crosspost much?]
See http://miekiemoes.blogspot.com/2008/02/help-my-computer-is-slow.html
--
~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)
MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002
AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net
DTS-L http://dts-l.net/
Penang wrote:
[Quoted Text] > After 3 years of using, my XP is loaded with junks, and my PC is
> running very slow.
>
> Time for spring cleaning !
>
> Checking through the XP directories, especially those under "Documents
> and Settings" and "Windows" and "Program Files", there are indeed a
> whole lot of STUFFS that I don't have any clue where they came from
> and what's their use are.
>
> So my questions to all the Gurus,
>
> 1. Can you tell me where I can safely clean out the junks?
>
> 2. Is there anywhere on the Net that tells me what is safe to delete,
> what's not?
>
> Please help. Thank you !!
|
|
Your Uninstaller http://www.ursoftware.com/?ref=setup
--
Xandros
"Penang" <kalambong[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7d60d11e-37f9-4352-843b-79aa23298376[ at ]x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
[Quoted Text] > After 3 years of using, my XP is loaded with junks, and my PC is
> running very slow.
>
> Time for spring cleaning !
>
> Checking through the XP directories, especially those under "Documents
> and Settings" and "Windows" and "Program Files", there are indeed a
> whole lot of STUFFS that I don't have any clue where they came from
> and what's their use are.
>
> So my questions to all the Gurus,
>
> 1. Can you tell me where I can safely clean out the junks?
>
> 2. Is there anywhere on the Net that tells me what is safe to delete,
> what's not?
>
> Please help. Thank you !!
>
|
|
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 03:51:16 -0800 (PST), Penang <kalambong[ at ]gmail.com>
wrote:
[Quoted Text] > After 3 years of using, my XP is loaded with junks, and my PC is
> running very slow.
>
> Time for spring cleaning !
>
> Checking through the XP directories, especially those under "Documents
> and Settings" and "Windows" and "Program Files", there are indeed a
> whole lot of STUFFS that I don't have any clue where they came from
> and what's their use are.
>
> So my questions to all the Gurus,
>
> 1. Can you tell me where I can safely clean out the junks?
>
> 2. Is there anywhere on the Net that tells me what is safe to delete,
> what's not?
Before anyone can accurately answer your questions, you need to answer
the following questions:
1. Exactly what "junk" are you talking about?
2. How do you know it's there?
3. How do you know it's junk?
4. What makes you think that what you have identified as "junk" is
what's responsible for your running slow?
5. Exactly what are the "STUFFS" in "Documents and Settings" and
"Windows" and "Program Files" that you think are responsible for your
slowdown? Note that having a program installed doesn't slow down your
computer, but running that program might slow it down.
These days there are two main reasons for a computer's running slowly:
a. Infection with malware.
b. Programs autostarting and running in the background that drag down
Windows performance.
So please also tell us
6. What anti-virus and anti-spyware programs you run.
7. What programs you have autostarting (from Start | Run, run MSConfig
and you can see the list of them there).
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
|
|
Big_Al <BigAl[ at ]md.com> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >Before you think about reinstalling see the steps listed below.
I would add, to use CCleaner, while I've never used it, others swear
by it.
(This is a general macro I use for Hijackthis:)
Go here http://hijackthis.de/en download
http://download.hijackthis.eu/HJTInstall.exe
No need to install, just run it; Scan, save log, copy then, paste the
log file into http://hijackthis.de/en click analyze. Google first of
course, but Red should be deleted and yellow researched.
-- when your all done cleaning up, do a repair install, I've run the
same OS installation (XPro) for over 4 years and it's running just
fine.
A repair install is what I do to set things straight again. I've run
two so far. http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/XPrepairinstall.htm
Follow the directions (it's the second repair option, not the first)
and you will not lose anything.
This can be a lot of problems for some people, the best chance you
have of doing this is if you have a XP CD slipstreamed to the latest
SP
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_sp2_slipstream.asp
Replace SP2 with SP3. it's not an easy process.
There is also SFC but it rarely works after a few updates.
http://www.updatexp.com/scannow-sfc.html
--
http://trueteaser.com/rock-hard/
|
|
From a previous post:
Start/Search:
*.tmp
*
Other files you could delete are files with these extensions:
..dmp - Dump file. When Windows (or an application) experiences a crash, a
memory dump is performed. If you don't use these files (for trouble
shooting), delete them, you can save quite a bit of space!
..bak - Backup file; when a new (data) file is created, some programs will
rename the old version with a .bak extension. Be careful when removing these
files.
..cnt - Help-related file; ever notice those tables of contents when you
launch certain Help files? If you don't need a table to help you navigate
through a Help file, delete these. They will not come back.
..fts - Help-related file; when you perform a search with a Help file, this
is created to make all future searches be performed quicker. E.G., not worth
having around unless you use Help files on a daily basis. They are
re-created if you do a search in a Help file, so these should be regularly
scanned for and deleted.
..gid - Help-related file; when you run a Help file, it creates a GID to make
future accesses to that particular help file a tad quicker. They're a
complete waste of space. You'll have to delete these on a regular basis, as
they are recreated with every Help file execution.
..old - Old file; see .bak.
..~mp - Temporary file; see .tmp.
..$$$ - Old file; see .bak (usually, not always)
..000 - Old file; see .bak
To be on the safe side, delete your files to the Recycle Bin, and leave them
there for a week or two. If you don't run into any problems, you can empty
the Recycle Bin. If Windows or any program complains about a missing file,
just select your Recycle Bin, find the file and right-click on it. From the
context menu choose Restore. This will restore the file to its original
location.
--
All the Best and Happy Holidays,
Kelly (MS-MVP/DTS&XP)
Taskbar Repair Tool Plus!
http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/taskbarplus!.htm
"Penang" <kalambong[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7d60d11e-37f9-4352-843b-79aa23298376[ at ]x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
[Quoted Text] > After 3 years of using, my XP is loaded with junks, and my PC is
> running very slow.
>
> Time for spring cleaning !
>
> Checking through the XP directories, especially those under "Documents
> and Settings" and "Windows" and "Program Files", there are indeed a
> whole lot of STUFFS that I don't have any clue where they came from
> and what's their use are.
>
> So my questions to all the Gurus,
>
> 1. Can you tell me where I can safely clean out the junks?
>
> 2. Is there anywhere on the Net that tells me what is safe to delete,
> what's not?
>
> Please help. Thank you !!
>
|
|
To the original poster:
You have a lot of excellent advice coming in from the people on this
newsgroup for cleaning your system without having to reformat and reinstall.
So I don't have much better or new to add but what follows.
Whatever you decide to do to "clean up" your system, take an inventory of
the purchased programs you value most as helpful or reinstallable and make a
list of their activation keys or serial numbers and print a hardcopy of that
list.
Then, burn the setup or installation files of these programs along with a
text file containing your list of activation keys and serial numbers to a cd
or dvd recordable disk, or save them to a flash drive or other storage
device so you will have them when you are ready to reinstall them.
This will be especially helpful if you have to do a reformat and
reinstallation of your system.
Also, Microsoft no longer requires people to phone in their serial numbers
to reactivate their systems, and this is only a necessity now if you can't
activate online. You have thirty days, so you will have plenty of time to
reactivate after getting back online with your isp.
In fact I just reactivated my system yesterday after reinstalling it after
it crashed recently.
I hope this helps,
--
Peace,
Jeffrey W. Bowen
Remove NO SPAM entries from email address to send personal email.
Please post replies of successes or failures so we all can benefit from each
others' experiences.
"Kelly" <kelly[ at ]kelly.com> wrote in message
news:OgagD98VJHA.5160[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > From a previous post: > > Start/Search: > > *.tmp > * > > Other files you could delete are files with these extensions: > > .dmp - Dump file. When Windows (or an application) experiences a crash, a > memory dump is performed. If you don't use these files (for trouble > shooting), delete them, you can save quite a bit of space! > .bak - Backup file; when a new (data) file is created, some programs will > rename the old version with a .bak extension. Be careful when removing > these files. > .cnt - Help-related file; ever notice those tables of contents when you > launch certain Help files? If you don't need a table to help you navigate > through a Help file, delete these. They will not come back. > .fts - Help-related file; when you perform a search with a Help file, this > is created to make all future searches be performed quicker. E.G., not > worth having around unless you use Help files on a daily basis. They are > re-created if you do a search in a Help file, so these should be regularly > scanned for and deleted. > .gid - Help-related file; when you run a Help file, it creates a GID to > make future accesses to that particular help file a tad quicker. They're a > complete waste of space. You'll have to delete these on a regular basis, > as they are recreated with every Help file execution. > .old - Old file; see .bak. > .~mp - Temporary file; see .tmp. > .$$$ - Old file; see .bak (usually, not always) > .000 - Old file; see .bak > > To be on the safe side, delete your files to the Recycle Bin, and leave > them there for a week or two. If you don't run into any problems, you can > empty the Recycle Bin. If Windows or any program complains about a missing > file, just select your Recycle Bin, find the file and right-click on it. > From the context menu choose Restore. This will restore the file to its > original location. > > -- > > All the Best and Happy Holidays, > Kelly (MS-MVP/DTS&XP) > > Taskbar Repair Tool Plus! > http://www.kellys-korner-xp.com/taskbarplus!.htm> > > "Penang" <kalambong[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message > news:7d60d11e-37f9-4352-843b-79aa23298376[ at ]x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com... >> After 3 years of using, my XP is loaded with junks, and my PC is >> running very slow. >> >> Time for spring cleaning ! >> >> Checking through the XP directories, especially those under "Documents >> and Settings" and "Windows" and "Program Files", there are indeed a >> whole lot of STUFFS that I don't have any clue where they came from >> and what's their use are. >> >> So my questions to all the Gurus, >> >> 1. Can you tell me where I can safely clean out the junks? >> >> 2. Is there anywhere on the Net that tells me what is safe to delete, >> what's not? >> >> Please help. Thank you !! >> >
|
|
Penang wrote:
[Quoted Text] > After 3 years of using, my XP is loaded with junks,
Do you live in Hong Kong? They have that same problem there.
|
|
Pennywise[ at ]DerryMaine.Gov wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Big_Al <BigAl[ at ]md.com> wrote: > >> Before you think about reinstalling see the steps listed below. > > I would add, to use CCleaner, while I've never used it, others swear > by it. > > (This is a general macro I use for Hijackthis:) > > Go here http://hijackthis.de/en download > http://download.hijackthis.eu/HJTInstall.exe> > No need to install, just run it; Scan, save log, copy then, paste the > log file into http://hijackthis.de/en click analyze. Google first of > course, but Red should be deleted and yellow researched. > > -- when your all done cleaning up, do a repair install, I've run the > same OS installation (XPro) for over 4 years and it's running just > fine. > > A repair install is what I do to set things straight again. I've run > two so far. http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/XPrepairinstall.htm> > Follow the directions (it's the second repair option, not the first) > and you will not lose anything. > > This can be a lot of problems for some people, the best chance you > have of doing this is if you have a XP CD slipstreamed to the latest > SP > http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_sp2_slipstream.asp> Replace SP2 with SP3. it's not an easy process. > > There is also SFC but it rarely works after a few updates. > http://www.updatexp.com/scannow-sfc.html
Even after all that verbiage, a Format and Clean Install is what the OP
needs to do.
|
|
On Dec 6, 6:27 am, "Don Phillipson" <e...[ at ]SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
[Quoted Text] > 3. The WinXP wizard designed to free wasted drive
> space is Disk Cleanup, one of your /Accessories.
> This totals the space it can clear and seeks your
> OK before proceeding. See also its /Advanced facilities.
Oh no ! That "Disk Cleanup" thing is telling me that it's "compressing
old files" !
Why is it compressing old files when I didn't tell it too? OMG !
OMG !!!
|
|
"Penang" <kalambong[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ca61fa53-ca94-4a45-a3a1-10518d9e25a0[ at ]o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 6, 6:27 am, "Don Phillipson" <e...[ at ]SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
[Quoted Text] > 3. The WinXP wizard designed to free wasted drive
> space is Disk Cleanup, one of your /Accessories.
> This totals the space it can clear and seeks your
> OK before proceeding. See also its /Advanced facilities.
Oh no ! That "Disk Cleanup" thing is telling me that it's "compressing
old files" !
Why is it compressing old files when I didn't tell it too? OMG !
OMG !!!
troll
|
|
funny...
there is nothing wrong with
the compression of old files.
they will uncompress as soon
as you run any of them.
however, it is unlikely that
you have ran any of them
for a long time,
hence the nice little feature
to compress them.
"Penang" <kalambong[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ca61fa53-ca94-4a45-a3a1-10518d9e25a0[ at ]o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
[Quoted Text] > On Dec 6, 6:27 am, "Don Phillipson" <e...[ at ]SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>> 3. The WinXP wizard designed to free wasted drive
>> space is Disk Cleanup, one of your /Accessories.
>> This totals the space it can clear and seeks your
>> OK before proceeding. See also its /Advanced facilities.
>
>
> Oh no ! That "Disk Cleanup" thing is telling me that it's "compressing
> old files" !
>
> Why is it compressing old files when I didn't tell it too? OMG !
> OMG !!!
>
>
|
|
"Penang" <kalambong[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ca61fa53-ca94-4a45-a3a1-10518d9e25a0[ at ]o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 6, 6:27 am, "Don Phillipson" <e...[ at ]SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >> 3. The WinXP wizard designed to free wasted drive
>> space is Disk Cleanup, one of your /Accessories.
>> This totals the space it can clear and seeks your
>> OK before proceeding. See also its /Advanced facilities.
> Oh no ! That "Disk Cleanup" thing is telling me that it's "compressing
> old files" !
> Why is it compressing old files when I didn't tell it too? OMG !
> OMG !!!
Take a deep breath, Penang. It's merely calculating how much disk space
you will save if you later decide to compress old files. So, when it's
time to check the boxes, make sure the one next to Compress Old Files
remains unchecked (unless your hard drive is tiny).
|
|
i think the anxiety is
the result of thinking
that compressing old
files is similar to trash
compacting.
--
db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
"Daave" <dcwashNOSPAM[ at ]myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote in message news:O1SCSBAWJHA.2576[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > "Penang" <kalambong[ at ]gmail.com> wrote in message news:ca61fa53-ca94-4a45-a3a1-10518d9e25a0[ at ]o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 6, 6:27 am, "Don Phillipson" <e...[ at ]SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>>> 3. The WinXP wizard designed to free wasted drive
>>> space is Disk Cleanup, one of your /Accessories.
>>> This totals the space it can clear and seeks your
>>> OK before proceeding. See also its /Advanced facilities.
>
>> Oh no ! That "Disk Cleanup" thing is telling me that it's "compressing
>> old files" !
>
>> Why is it compressing old files when I didn't tell it too? OMG !
>> OMG !!!
>
> Take a deep breath, Penang. It's merely calculating how much disk space you will save if you later decide to compress old files.
> So, when it's time to check the boxes, make sure the one next to Compress Old Files remains unchecked (unless your hard drive is
> tiny).
>
>
|
|
[Quoted Text] > Even after all that verbiage, a Format and Clean Install is what the OP
> needs to do.
>
Well who in the hell said that to begin with, hhhmmmmm, I wonder.
Having done a little of all, a clean install is the only option to get a
smooth system once it has been whacked.
Sorry Twayne
|
|
"Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:%23yCIkr7VJHA.5160[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >> After 3 years of using, my XP is loaded with junks, and my PC is
>> running very slow.
>>
>> Time for spring cleaning !
>>
>> Checking through the XP directories, especially those under "Documents
>> and Settings" and "Windows" and "Program Files", there are indeed a
>> whole lot of STUFFS that I don't have any clue where they came from
>> and what's their use are.
>>
>> So my questions to all the Gurus,
>>
>> 1. Can you tell me where I can safely clean out the junks?
>>
>> 2. Is there anywhere on the Net that tells me what is safe to delete,
>> what's not?
>>
>> Please help. Thank you !!
>
> The easeist and most efficient way to clean out that stuff is to start by
> running disk cleanup:
> Start; Programs; Accessories; System Tools; Disk Cleanup.
>
> It sounds like it may take a bit of time to run from your discription, so
> be patient; go have coffee or your fav beverage while it runs.
>
> Then run the disk defragmenter:
> Start; Programs; Accessories; System Tools; Defragment.
>
> Next will be to run an antivirus scan and malware detectors; at least 3
> spyware detectors as have been listed here many times.
>
> At this point you should be pretty much back to speed, you'll know what to
> try next time, and wont' have lost any data or anythign else.
What about all the Reg keys that are gunked up in it?
Orphans, invalid uninstallers, Nonexsistent file paths, to name a few.
Good luck "cleaning" up that system to a noticeable adjusted speed.
Takes about one day to reinstall and get a system smokin' along.
|
|
"relic" <relic2[ at ]cjb.net> wrote in message
news:2db8t5.p9s.19.1[ at ]news.alt.net...
[Quoted Text] > Penang wrote:
>> After 3 years of using, my XP is loaded with junks,
>
> Do you live in Hong Kong? They have that same problem there.
>
Yea, did you get all that info?
Now, it seem as though a reinstall is the best bet after all??
ROFL
|
|
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 22:52:17 -0800, "W****n S***********g"
<BIGBROTHER[ at ]CIA.GOV> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >Takes about one day to reinstall and get a system smokin' along.
If one has imaging software like Acronis True Image, and has kept an
image of a good, clean working system it takes only about an hour.
|
|
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 22:55:53 -0800, "W****n S***********g"
<BIGBROTHER[ at ]CIA.GOV> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >
>"relic" <relic2[ at ]cjb.net> wrote in message
>news:2db8t5.p9s.19.1[ at ]news.alt.net...
>> Penang wrote:
>>> After 3 years of using, my XP is loaded with junks,
>>
>> Do you live in Hong Kong? They have that same problem there.
>>
>
>
>Yea, did you get all that info?
>
>Now, it seem as though a reinstall is the best bet after all??
>
>ROFL
It was a play on the use of the word "junks".
|
|
f'ups set
Trolling again, huh? Instead of answering the OP's questions with
attendant caveats, you simply bombard with a lot of silly questions you
already think you know the answers to. Ataway to get credibility. You
should author a "How to not make sense by confusing with questions"
paper.
[Quoted Text] > On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 03:51:16 -0800 (PST), Penang <kalambong[ at ]gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> After 3 years of using, my XP is loaded with junks, and my PC is
>> running very slow.
>>
>> Time for spring cleaning !
>>
>> Checking through the XP directories, especially those under
>> "Documents and Settings" and "Windows" and "Program Files", there
>> are indeed a whole lot of STUFFS that I don't have any clue where
>> they came from and what's their use are.
>>
>> So my questions to all the Gurus,
>>
>> 1. Can you tell me where I can safely clean out the junks?
>>
>> 2. Is there anywhere on the Net that tells me what is safe to delete,
>> what's not?
>
>
>
> Before anyone can accurately answer your questions, you need to answer
> the following questions:
>
> 1. Exactly what "junk" are you talking about?
YOU know what it is; why should you care whether he does?
>
> 2. How do you know it's there?
So you can put on your condescending air and use covert insults.
>
> 3. How do you know it's junk?
A lost opportunity to teach.
>
> 4. What makes you think that what you have identified as "junk" is
> what's responsible for your running slow?
Irrelevant WHY; facts are relevant, not opinions, which you already know
the answers to.
>
> 5. Exactly what are the "STUFFS" in "Documents and Settings" and
> "Windows" and "Program Files" that you think are responsible for your
> slowdown? Note that having a program installed doesn't slow down your
> computer, but running that program might slow it down.
Oh! I didn't know I had to have all that to know my computer is slow!
How/why is that relevant? Sounds like a nitpick so you can
condescendingly approach again.
>
> These days there are two main reasons for a computer's running slowly:
There are at lest three more major reasons.
>
> a. Infection with malware.
>
> b. Programs autostarting and running in the background that drag down
> Windows performance.
>
> So please also tell us
>
> 6. What anti-virus and anti-spyware programs you run.
Why is that necessary before you answer his query?
>
> 7. What programs you have autostarting (from Start | Run, run MSConfig
> and you can see the list of them there).
That's a repeat question, one of a few; looking for the twist factor,
eh?
How does not knowing those answers mean you can't respond to the
original question? You haven't even referenced the original query
anywhere. Just a lot of crapola questions, many of which have nothing
to do with answering the question. You're a real wart on the ass of
learning anything.
|
|
Penang wrote:
[Quoted Text] > On Dec 6, 6:27 am, "Don Phillipson" <e...[ at ]SPAMBLOCK.ncf.ca> wrote:
>
>> 3. The WinXP wizard designed to free wasted drive
>> space is Disk Cleanup, one of your /Accessories.
>> This totals the space it can clear and seeks your
>> OK before proceeding. See also its /Advanced facilities.
>
>
> Oh no ! That "Disk Cleanup" thing is telling me that it's "compressing
> old files" !
>
> Why is it compressing old files when I didn't tell it too? OMG !
> OMG !!!
>
>
ummm.....think of it as 'shrink-wrap', in that it is shrinking the
physical space on the hard drive that the files are taking, in order to
free up additional space and allow for faster seek times for files used
more often.
|
|
Okay, I can help you but this is going to be a long post, so be patient with
me I am now going for free to teach you how to maintain Windows XP and speed
up your systems. There are many programs that claim to do this by fixing the
registry too many to name. Do not buy any of them. Windows has built in
maintenance tools.
Open up Internet Explorer 7 and go to tools, delete browsing history, delete
all, check the box that comes up and delete those. Close IE. Now go to this
website www.cccleaner.com. This is a fantastic safe cleaning program. b
Download and install CC Cleaner. you will see two tabs "Windows aand
Applications" You should be on the Windows tab and click analyze. This will
show you how much junk it is going to clean off your computer. It should be
a lot. Do this once a weekThen hit run cleaner. Next go to start, all
programs, accessories, system tools, disc cleanup and click on that. Select
your C drive to clean up and hit OK. It will take a few minutes and then a
box will pop up. In the box put a check next to everything that has a number
with it and hit ok to clean. Do this once a week. Now go to start, all
programs, accessories, system tools, disk defragmenter and hit analyze. The
disk defragmenter will analyze and tell you if it needs defraging or not. If
it does defrag it. It will probaly take 2 hours but it's worth it. Check
this once a month. Next go to start run and type "prefetch" and press enter.
You will see a folder po open in the top select edit, select all, and then
hit delete, Confirm delete to recycle bin and then empty the recycle bin.
Next go to start, control panel, add/remove programs and on the list unistall
any programs you do not use or no longer need.
Now as a final step open up CC Cleaner and on the left hand panel where it
says registry in blue click that. Click scan for issues. and click no to not
back up. This a safe way to fix the registry unlike programs you buy.
Anyway then hit fix all selected issues and close.
Now just to be thorough run a full virus scan . I reccommend Avast anti
Virus free edition. They are the best. Do not use Norton or MCaffee they
are worthless. Also scan for mallware/spyware as well as they can
considerably slow computer performance down. A good anti spyware program is
spyware terminator at www.spywareterminator.com
I am confident this process of maintaince will help you. Please give me
your feedback so I can improve my services.
Kaja Technical Support
"Penang" wrote:
[Quoted Text] > After 3 years of using, my XP is loaded with junks, and my PC is
> running very slow.
>
> Time for spring cleaning !
>
> Checking through the XP directories, especially those under "Documents
> and Settings" and "Windows" and "Program Files", there are indeed a
> whole lot of STUFFS that I don't have any clue where they came from
> and what's their use are.
>
> So my questions to all the Gurus,
>
> 1. Can you tell me where I can safely clean out the junks?
>
> 2. Is there anywhere on the Net that tells me what is safe to delete,
> what's not?
>
> Please help. Thank you !!
>
>
|
|
NOt that long a post, but rather paragraphless and a little too
judgemental.
[Quoted Text] > Okay, I can help you but this is going to be a long post, so be
> patient with me I am now going for free to teach you how to maintain
> Windows XP and speed up your systems. There are many programs that
> claim to do this by fixing the registry too many to name. Do not buy
> any of them.
The proper context here would be that the registry is very likely not
the main culprit and purchasing same at this time may not be productive.
Mostof these problems are not related to the registry and won't help
much, if at all.
Unlike some of the closed minded idiot MVPs here, registry cleaners
can be valuable tools to have around. I use mine every two weeks at the
moment; doing lots of installs/uninstalls evaluating things for a
client.
> ... Windows has built in maintenance tools.
But nothing to cleam up a bloated, ultra-huge registry if in the end
that might be needed. If so, I hope you're perpared to stick around and
assist with each and every registry change that needs to be sought
out/hacked.
> Open up Internet Explorer 7 and go to tools, delete browsing history,
> delete all, check the box that comes up and delete those. Close IE.
> Now go to this website www.cccleaner.com.
Ccleaner (formerly Crap Cleaner) is a decent program. It not only
cleans up the registry but also takes care of many of the things you
tell him to run manually.
This is a fantastic safe
> cleaning program. b Download and install CC Cleaner. you will see
> two tabs "Windows aand Applications" You should be on the Windows
> tab and click analyze. This will show you how much junk it is going
> to clean off your computer. It should be a lot. Do this once a
> weekThen hit run cleaner. Next go to start, all programs,
> accessories, system tools, disc cleanup and click on that. Select
> your C drive to clean up and hit OK. It will take a few minutes and
> then a box will pop up. In the box put a check next to everything
> that has a number with it and hit ok to clean.
What about compressing old files? There's a long waste of time for
trying to fix slowdowns. It's only useful when you're running low on
space, really.
You do realize too, that you're asking him to repeat several things
that ccleaner has already done, right?
Do this once a week.
You don't have to bother with that if you're running ccleaner. It's
really an OR situation.
> Now go to start, all programs, accessories, system tools, disk
> defragmenter and hit analyze. The disk defragmenter will analyze and
> tell you if it needs defraging or not. If it does defrag it. It
> will probaly take 2 hours but it's worth it. Check this once a
> month. Next go to start run and type "prefetch" and press enter. You
> will see a folder po open in the top select edit, select all, and
> then hit delete,
The prefetch folder is periodically purged of some files and replaces
them with others. Deleting all those files only results in a slower
acquisition time for most programs until the prefecth folder can be
rebuilt again. This is a waste of time and actually adds to system
slowdowns when the folder it empty. Please do some further research on
this subject before recommending it to newbies/those needing assistance.
Confirm delete to recycle bin and then empty the
> recycle bin.
The Recycle Bin, for safety sake, shouldn't be emptied for a few days,
just to be certain that something wasn't deleted that shouldn't have
been. Then later after everything has been exercised and known to
function fine, empty it.
Next go to start, control panel, add/remove programs and
> on the list unistall any programs you do not use or no longer need.
> Now as a final step open up CC Cleaner and on the left hand panel
> where it says registry in blue click that. Click scan for issues.
> and click no to not back up. This a safe way to fix the registry
> unlike programs you buy. Anyway then hit fix all selected issues and
> close.
Do NOT back up the changes? That is a terrible piece of advice! There
ARE programs whose signatures can fool analyzers becuse some files, etc.
are built "on the fly", and even ccleaner is apt to remove them, finding
no use for them in the registry! ALWAYS ALLOW ANY PROGRAM THAT WORKS ON
THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYTEM TO BACK UP IT WORK, just in case. In fact,
this whole thing should have started with a recommendation to create a
Restore Point, back up the System State, and then back up all his DATA
before getting started. If anything goes wrong, and it will on you
eventually, you left yourself wide open to not having provided that
necessary caveats. Always do backups whenever you mess with antyhing to
do with the operating system.
>
> Now just to be thorough run a full virus scan . I reccommend Avast
> anti Virus free edition. They are the best. Do not use Norton or
> MCaffee they are worthless.
Norton and McAfee are far from worthless, are leading-edge on the
detection fronts, proactively search out problems, and run perfectly
well on machines they are intended for and which are not already messed
up with malware, corruption and improper setups. While they are too
expensive and even I have switched from them, your comment is not
correct, nor it is factual.
Also scan for mallware/spyware as well
> as they can considerably slow computer performance down. A good anti
> spyware program is spyware terminator at www.spywareterminator.com
AT least 3 spyware detectors should be thrown at a machine with
problems. No single one is turnkey and catches everything. Some of the
old standbys are Adaware, Spybot S&D, SpywareGuard, Windows Malicious
Malware Removal Tool (specialized), Windows defender (not so great
though) and a host of other ones that are equally as good and all as
free as the AV programs from their several sources too.
>
> I am confident this process of maintaince will help you. Please give
> me your feedback so I can improve my services.
> Kaja Technical Support
There is an important question to ask with machines like that. How long
will it take to fix, and how long is the user willing to put in on the
problems? 2 days? 4 days? A week? A computer can be easily backed up
on 1 day wihtout forgetting even a single e-mail address or web site. A
day to do a clean reinstall of the OS. Another 2 days to reinstall all
the applications and programs, and then restoring all the user-created
data. That's 4 weekdays. Or 2 days or less if done on a weekend when
not working. 8 Hours for some people is plenty for many first-timers to
a rebuild. Or will you be sending him off to spend money if it comes to
a rebuild?
So, which way does the user wish to go? I have a feeling you're
going to at least end up going for a repair install, if not soon after a
clean install, from the quality of your advice.
Please, get more experience under your belt before you go out on
missions like this. You can easily end up over your head and may learn
that shortly.
Twayne
>
> "Penang" wrote:
>
>> After 3 years of using, my XP is loaded with junks, and my PC is
>> running very slow.
>>
>> Time for spring cleaning !
>>
>> Checking through the XP directories, especially those under
>> "Documents and Settings" and "Windows" and "Program Files", there
>> are indeed a whole lot of STUFFS that I don't have any clue where
>> they came from and what's their use are.
>>
>> So my questions to all the Gurus,
>>
>> 1. Can you tell me where I can safely clean out the junks?
First, you need to back up your data; files you have created that you
want to keep. Photos, emails, favorites, etc.. NTBackup, which comes
with XP will work well for that if you don't have anything else. Also
be sure you have your CDs and key codes in case you have to use them for
XP or Office or whatever other programs you may have that need them.
Basically, you could run ccleaner as mentioned above to start with.
Then be sure to use updated antivirus software and say 3 different
spyware programs to look for malware.
Then defrag the disk.
Report back whether those made any differences and if not, someone will
help you go further with the problem.
If you're in a hurry and want a few-day solution that's more certain to
work than anythign else, ask back about doing a repair install or a
clean install.
But most importantly, get your data backed up to CD, DVD or whatever it
takes so it will be safe from harm. Then dig into the problems.
Lots of people here would be happy to assist you if you ask the specific
questions you need.
HTH
Twayne
>>
>> 2. Is there anywhere on the Net that tells me what is safe to delete,
>> what's not?
>>
>> Please help. Thank you !!
|
|
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:08:08 -0500, Twayne wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Unlike some of the closed minded idiot MVPs here, registry cleaners
> can be valuable tools to have around.
Maybe; but I've never been able to solve a problem by using one, nor have I
ever sped up any computer. I stopped trying to use registry cleaners with
Windows Me, which is, arguably, more amenable to fixing by using them. I
found myself spending more time cleaning the Windows Me registry than I
gained after the cleaning.
Keeping that computer's HDD defragged was a more profitable use of my time.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
|
|
On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:52:00 -0800, Kaja
<Kaja[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Now go to this
> website www.cccleaner.com. This is a fantastic safe cleaning program. b
> Download and install CC Cleaner.
CCleaner is a good program, and I also recommend it (with one very big
reservation--see below), but I think your praise for it is overdone. I
certainly wouldn't call it "fantastic," and everything useful it does
can be easily done without it. It's value is that it makes some easy
things a little easier.
> Now as a final step open up CC Cleaner and on the left hand panel where it
> says registry in blue click that. Click scan for issues. and click no to not
> back up. This a safe way to fix the registry unlike programs you buy.
And that's the one aspect of using CCleaner that I strongly recommend
*against*. Although CCleaner is probably safer than most Registry
Cleaners, they are *all* snake oil. Cleaning of the registry isn't
needed and is dangerous. Leave the registry alone and don't use any
registry cleaner. Despite what many people think, and what vendors of
registry cleaning software try to convince you of, having unused
registry entries doesn't really hurt you.
The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner erroneously
removing an entry you need is far greater than any potential benefit
it may have.
Read http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000643.html
> Now just to be thorough run a full virus scan . I reccommend Avast anti
> Virus free edition. They are the best.
Avast is a good program--one of the best free ones, and I too
recommend it to those who don't want to spend money on an anti-virus
program. But calling it "the best" is an overstatement. Good as it is,
the commercial program NOD32 is even better.
> Do not use Norton or MCaffee they
> are worthless.
Again, an overstatement. In my view Norton is the worst anti-virus
program on the market and McAfee is second worst, but neither is
worthless. It would be much better to use either one than no
anti-virus program.
> Also scan for mallware/spyware as well as they can
> considerably slow computer performance down.
"The term "malware" (note the correct spelling) is short for
"malicious software." It's not synonymous with spyware, but includes
all kinds of software that do bad things. Since a virus does bad
things, it's a form of malware, so contrasting viruses and malware
doesn't make any sense.
Spyware can certainly slow a system down, but that's only one of the
bad things it can do. The dangers of having it are much worse than
that.
> A good anti spyware program is
> spyware terminator at www.spywareterminator.com
I have no experience with spyware terminator, so I won't comment on
it, other than to say it's not generally recognized to one of the
best. The best such program these days is MalwareBytes.
Moreover, no anti-spyware program is perfect and therefore is not good
enough by itself. Good protection requires that you run at least two.
I recommend running two or more (but not at the same time) from the
following list:
MalwareBytes
SuperAntiSpyware
Spybot Search & Destroy
Spyware Blaster
Adaware
Windows Defender.
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 00:08:08 -0500, Twayne wrote:
>
>> Unlike some of the closed minded idiot MVPs here, registry
>> cleaners can be valuable tools to have around.
>
> Maybe; but I've never been able to solve a problem by using one, nor
> have I ever sped up any computer. I stopped trying to use registry
> cleaners with Windows Me, which is, arguably, more amenable to fixing
> by using them. I found myself spending more time cleaning the Windows
> Me registry than I gained after the cleaning.
>
> Keeping that computer's HDD defragged was a more profitable use of my
> time.
No arguement there; speeding up anything is usually a by product, not a
goal of registry work 99.9% of the time. Same goes for defragging the
registry; normally if there are any changes they are in the order of
single-digit seconds anyway unless you come up against one or more of
the 20 Second timeouts, which isn't very often.
Twayne
|
|
Ken Blake, supposed MPV said:
[Quoted Text] > On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:52:00 -0800, Kaja
> <Kaja[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> Now go to this
>> website www.cccleaner.com. This is a fantastic safe cleaning
>> program. b Download and install CC Cleaner.
>
>
> CCleaner is a good program, and I also recommend it (with one very big
> reservation--see below), but I think your praise for it is overdone. I
> certainly wouldn't call it "fantastic," and everything useful it does
> can be easily done without it. It's value is that it makes some easy
> things a little easier.
Its value is that it brings together in one place a set of tasks that
are normally separate and more trouble to execute. "Easy" is irrelevant
to this context.
>
>
>> Now as a final step open up CC Cleaner and on the left hand panel
>> where it says registry in blue click that. Click scan for issues.
>> and click no to not back up. This a safe way to fix the registry
>> unlike programs you buy.
>
>
>
> And that's the one aspect of using CCleaner that I strongly recommend
> *against*. Although CCleaner is probably safer than most Registry
> Cleaners, they are *all* snake oil. Cleaning of the registry isn't
> needed and is dangerous.
And there's that ignorant, closed mind again. Whatever "snake oil"
means to you, it is wrong and misinformation. There can be a need for
it, and it is not inherently dangerous.
Leave the registry alone and don't use any
> registry cleaner. Despite what many people think, and what vendors of
> registry cleaning software try to convince you of, having unused
> registry entries doesn't really hurt you.
There you go again: citing one instance of a set when in fact there are
several. That's myopic and chosen for your boilerplate because it's
convenient and for no other reason or you would say so.
>
> The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner erroneously
> removing an entry you need is far greater than any potential benefit
> it may have.
And that is patently untrue and pure misinformation coming from an
ignorant, closed mind. If there were even so much as a seed of truth to
your statement myself and many others I know, and a lot I don't too,
would have had the problems you so ignorantly constantly warn against..
Yet it hasn't happened. I wonder why that is? Even if it were to
happen, which it will not, it would still far outweigh the many past
benefits of using such applications.
Also, again, you have boilerplated only one of a set (removing an
entry you might need) and called it catastrophic when any decent
registry cleaner has, and they all seem to, a Restore feature so if that
does happen, it can be put back. You look more like a weasel every time
you open your mouth here lately.
>
> Read http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000643.html
>
>
>
>> Now just to be thorough run a full virus scan . I reccommend Avast
>> anti Virus free edition. They are the best.
>
>
> Avast is a good program--one of the best free ones, and I too
> recommend it to those who don't want to spend money on an anti-virus
> program. But calling it "the best" is an overstatement. Good as it is,
> the commercial program NOD32 is even better.
lol, you too recommend it, eh? Your credibility is so shot no one
really cares other than a couple of your like-minded cohorts, none of
whom can give any verifiable evidence of the silly claims you all make.
You all talk in vagueries, pick up one of a set of parts, and try to
make that the entire point of everything. It's obvious and has been
since day one that not a one of you has anything to back up your
outlandish claims or you would have posted it here or on some other
group and would have referenced to it by now. But no one has; because
you can not do so.
>
>
>> Do not use Norton or MCaffee they
>> are worthless.
>
>
> Again, an overstatement. In my view Norton is the worst anti-virus
> program on the market and McAfee is second worst, but neither is
> worthless. It would be much better to use either one than no
> anti-virus program.
Wrong again but in view of your opinions on cleaners, I can understand
why. You make it up as you go and want to follow the leader.
>
>
>
>> Also scan for mallware/spyware as well as they can
>> considerably slow computer performance down.
>
>
>
> "The term "malware" (note the correct spelling) is short for
> "malicious software." It's not synonymous with spyware, but includes
> all kinds of software that do bad things. Since a virus does bad
> things, it's a form of malware, so contrasting viruses and malware
> doesn't make any sense.
And that is uncalled for. Being a semantic idiot though seems to be one
of your fortes, doesn't it? From this point on, don't make any spelling
mistakes.
>
> Spyware can certainly slow a system down, but that's only one of the
> bad things it can do. The dangers of having it are much worse than
> that.
So? Who said otherwise?
>
>
>> A good anti spyware program is
>> spyware terminator at www.spywareterminator.com
>
>
> I have no experience with spyware terminator, so I won't comment on
> it, other than to say it's not generally recognized to one of the
> best. The best such program these days is MalwareBytes.
Right; MalwareBytes: The one that can falsely identify rogue programs
such as setup.exe when in reality they are prefectly (and were proven to
be) legitimate? The one that doesn't look into a file but judges it to
be a rogue depending on the directory it resides in? That one?
Try it; put a legit, previously passed setup.exe somewhere it isn't
usually located: almost every time it'll be reported as rogue.
MalwareBytes, well, bites.
>
> Moreover, no anti-spyware program is perfect and therefore is not good
> enough by itself. Good protection requires that you run at least two.
The general concensus in most places of knowledgeable people is that
three or more are recommended. They each have their own strengths, check
for different things in different ways and there seems to as yet be no
turnkey app.
> I recommend running two or more (but not at the same time) from the
> following list: It's pretty much moot what YOU would recommend. Your
> list is rather those of MOST who recommend apps, recommend these.
> Quit taking credit for things that aren't your own decisions. All you
> did was add MalwareBytes to a typical list found all over the 'net.
>
> MalwareBytes <----------------- is suspect in design
> SuperAntiSpyware <------------ seems decent
> Spybot Search & Destroy <------- seems to work well
> Spyware Blaster <------------- sort of OK
> Adaware <--------------------- seems to work well
> Windows Defender. <--------- typical MS BS that never finds anything,
> but ... I'll still say it's sort of OK. Never found anything with it,
> though. At least each of the others have found things at one time or
> another, even if it was just a false rogue find.
Twayne
|
|
Twayne wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Ken Blake, supposed MPV said:
I have little doubt Ken is a MPV. Interesting that you (supposedly) do.
>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:52:00 -0800, Kaja
>> <Kaja[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Now go to this
>>> website www.cccleaner.com. This is a fantastic safe cleaning
>>> program. b Download and install CC Cleaner.
>>
>> CCleaner is a good program, and I also recommend it (with one very big
>> reservation--see below), but I think your praise for it is overdone. I
>> certainly wouldn't call it "fantastic," and everything useful it does
>> can be easily done without it. It's value is that it makes some easy
>> things a little easier.
>
> Its value is that it brings together in one place a set of tasks that
> are normally separate and more trouble to execute. "Easy" is irrelevant
> to this context.
>>
>>> Now as a final step open up CC Cleaner and on the left hand panel
>>> where it says registry in blue click that. Click scan for issues.
>>> and click no to not back up. This a safe way to fix the registry
>>> unlike programs you buy.
>>
>> And that's the one aspect of using CCleaner that I strongly recommend
>> *against*. Although CCleaner is probably safer than most Registry
>> Cleaners, they are *all* snake oil. Cleaning of the registry isn't
>> needed and is dangerous.
>
> And there's that ignorant, closed mind again.
Pot, kettle. And self-projection noted once again.
> Whatever "snake oil"
> means to you, it is wrong and misinformation. There can be a need for
> it, and it is not inherently dangerous.
>
>> Leave the registry alone and don't use any
>> registry cleaner. Despite what many people think, and what vendors of
>> registry cleaning software try to convince you of, having unused
>> registry entries doesn't really hurt you.
>
> There you go again: citing one instance of a set when in fact there are
> several.
Actually, there aren't ANY (as you have shown yourself, when called on it).
Every single time when asked to provide ANY real, concrete, and documented
evidence of such (alleged) "benefits" of using these registry cleaners, you
have run and ducked out. (Gee now, I wonder why?). The difference between
us (and several others in here, I'm sure) is that I *have* used them in the
past over all the years, and with various operating systems, and I'm sure I
have a lot more experience in doing so, than you have, based on your inane
comments on this issue. I do *know* firsthand its potential for creating
problems, some of which often only show up later. You obviously don't know,
due to some lack of experience in this arena. Even Microsoft's supposedly
innoculous, Regclean program (which they removed a long time ago) created a
few problems on my system some time back. But you wouldn't know that.
> That's myopic and chosen for your boilerplate because it's
> convenient and for no other reason or you would say so.
Self-projection noted again. I'd respectfully suggest getting rid of your
own boilerplate. Remember that saying, "remove the log from one's own
eye"? (Or maybe that was before your time).
>> The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner erroneously
>> removing an entry you need is far greater than any potential benefit
>> it may have.
>
> And that is patently untrue and pure misinformation coming from an
> ignorant, closed mind.
Projection noted, once again.
> If there were even so much as a seed of truth to
> your statement myself and many others I know, and a lot I don't too,
> would have had the problems you so ignorantly constantly warn against..
> Yet it hasn't happened. I wonder why that is?
Because *you* haven't seen it? Yes, we "understand".
I'd respectfully suggest you go back and finish up your education.
|
|
Are you kidding? Twayne doesn't have the common sense to be an MVP.
"Bill in Co." <not_really_here[ at ]earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uYkvwCAZJHA.1528[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Twayne wrote:
>> Ken Blake, supposed MPV said:
>
> I have little doubt Ken is a MPV. Interesting that you (supposedly) do.
>
>>> On Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:52:00 -0800, Kaja
>>> <Kaja[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now go to this
>>>> website www.cccleaner.com. This is a fantastic safe cleaning
>>>> program. b Download and install CC Cleaner.
>>>
>>> CCleaner is a good program, and I also recommend it (with one very big
>>> reservation--see below), but I think your praise for it is overdone. I
>>> certainly wouldn't call it "fantastic," and everything useful it does
>>> can be easily done without it. It's value is that it makes some easy
>>> things a little easier.
>>
>> Its value is that it brings together in one place a set of tasks that
>> are normally separate and more trouble to execute. "Easy" is irrelevant
>> to this context.
>>>
>>>> Now as a final step open up CC Cleaner and on the left hand panel
>>>> where it says registry in blue click that. Click scan for issues.
>>>> and click no to not back up. This a safe way to fix the registry
>>>> unlike programs you buy.
>>>
>>> And that's the one aspect of using CCleaner that I strongly recommend
>>> *against*. Although CCleaner is probably safer than most Registry
>>> Cleaners, they are *all* snake oil. Cleaning of the registry isn't
>>> needed and is dangerous.
>>
>> And there's that ignorant, closed mind again.
>
> Pot, kettle. And self-projection noted once again.
>
>> Whatever "snake oil"
>> means to you, it is wrong and misinformation. There can be a need for
>> it, and it is not inherently dangerous.
>>
>>> Leave the registry alone and don't use any
>>> registry cleaner. Despite what many people think, and what vendors of
>>> registry cleaning software try to convince you of, having unused
>>> registry entries doesn't really hurt you.
>>
>> There you go again: citing one instance of a set when in fact there are
>> several.
>
> Actually, there aren't ANY (as you have shown yourself, when called on
> it).
> Every single time when asked to provide ANY real, concrete, and documented
> evidence of such (alleged) "benefits" of using these registry cleaners,
> you have run and ducked out. (Gee now, I wonder why?). The difference
> between us (and several others in here, I'm sure) is that I *have* used
> them in the past over all the years, and with various operating systems,
> and I'm sure I have a lot more experience in doing so, than you have,
> based on your inane comments on this issue. I do *know* firsthand its
> potential for creating problems, some of which often only show up later.
> You obviously don't know, due to some lack of experience in this arena.
> Even Microsoft's supposedly innoculous, Regclean program (which they
> removed a long time ago) created a few problems on my system some time
> back. But you wouldn't know that.
>
>> That's myopic and chosen for your boilerplate because it's
>> convenient and for no other reason or you would say so.
>
> Self-projection noted again. I'd respectfully suggest getting rid of your
> own boilerplate. Remember that saying, "remove the log from one's own
> eye"? (Or maybe that was before your time).
>
>>> The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner erroneously
>>> removing an entry you need is far greater than any potential benefit
>>> it may have.
>>
>> And that is patently untrue and pure misinformation coming from an
>> ignorant, closed mind.
>
> Projection noted, once again.
>
>> If there were even so much as a seed of truth to
>> your statement myself and many others I know, and a lot I don't too,
>> would have had the problems you so ignorantly constantly warn against..
>> Yet it hasn't happened. I wonder why that is?
>
> Because *you* haven't seen it? Yes, we "understand".
> I'd respectfully suggest you go back and finish up your education.
>
|
|
On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:44:05 -0700, "Bill in Co."
<not_really_here[ at ]earthlink.net> wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Twayne wrote:
> > Ken Blake, supposed MPV said:
>
> I have little doubt Ken is a MPV. Interesting that you (supposedly) do.
Thanks, but Twayne is correct. Not only am I not an MPV, I don't even
know what an MPV is.
But I am an MVP, and have been one since October, 2003. ;-)
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
|
|
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake[ at ]this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:v5nvk45ldou38ef8duq78fi8uq6gmfsjli[ at ]4ax.com...
[Quoted Text] > On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:44:05 -0700, "Bill in Co."
> <not_really_here[ at ]earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Twayne wrote:
>> > Ken Blake, supposed MPV said:
>>
>> I have little doubt Ken is a MPV. Interesting that you
>> (supposedly) do.
>
>
> Thanks, but Twayne is correct. Not only am I not an MPV, I don't even
> know what an MPV is.
>
> But I am an MVP, and have been one since October, 2003. ;-)
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Multi-purpose vehicle, perhaps?
|
|
Most Promising Voodooist.
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake[ at ]this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:v5nvk45ldou38ef8duq78fi8uq6gmfsjli[ at ]4ax.com...
[Quoted Text] > On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:44:05 -0700, "Bill in Co."
> <not_really_here[ at ]earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Twayne wrote:
>> > Ken Blake, supposed MPV said:
>>
>> I have little doubt Ken is a MPV. Interesting that you (supposedly)
>> do.
>
>
> Thanks, but Twayne is correct. Not only am I not an MPV, I don't even
> know what an MPV is.
>
> But I am an MVP, and have been one since October, 2003. ;-)
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup
|
|
Bill supposedly of Co said:
[Quoted Text] > Twayne wrote:
....
>> And there's that ignorant, closed mind again.
>
> Pot, kettle. And self-projection noted once again.
No tweedlebrain, there's an educated, experienced open mind here who
when all this originally started, who asked for more information and
what the reasons were for same, received a range of responses from your
fav leaders such as no answer, "because I said it should be enough
reason" to several other equally as intelligent responses. The more
people asked and wanted to know, the more adamant the supposed gurus
became since they had nothing, nada, zero, zip on their side to show any
relevancy to their claims.
That was a couple years ago. Off and on I got sick of the
boilerplated ignorant and mis-leading information and now we're at the
point where tweedle-dums and you, with nothing behind you but the
cliches you parrot, picking your trollish targets and continuing to
spread the misinformation.
>
>> Whatever "snake oil"
>> means to you, it is wrong and misinformation. There can be a need
>> for it, and it is not inherently dangerous.
>>
>>> Leave the registry alone and don't use any
>>> registry cleaner. Despite what many people think, and what vendors
>>> of registry cleaning software try to convince you of, having unused
>>> registry entries doesn't really hurt you.
>>
>> There you go again: citing one instance of a set when in fact there
>> are several.
>
> Actually, there aren't ANY (as you have shown yourself, when called
> on it).
Actually, you are 100% wrong and again trying to use a micron-limited
focal length for your myopic observastions, watching carefully for any
words you can twist, any generalizations that, out of context, can
appear to be positive for your case, and other silly childish nonsense.
Every single time when asked to provide ANY real, concrete,
> and documented evidence of such (alleged) "benefits" of using these
> registry cleaners, you have run and ducked out. (Gee now, I wonder
> why?).
Again , 100% wrong but who would expect more from such an ignroant?
The difference between us (and several others in here, I'm
> sure) is that I *have* used them in the past over all the years, and
> with various operating systems, and I'm sure I have a lot more
> experience in doing so, than you have, based on your inane comments
> on this issue.
I very seriously doubt that. Why? Because you only now, when called,
choose to provide any such information. You've simply made a late
coming generalization of non-fact to accomodate your alleged situation.
No meat, nothing. You even intimate that on the old 98 systems they
were no good; you stepped on it big time there.
I do *know* firsthand its potential for creating
> problems, some of which often only show up later. You obviously
> don't know, due to some lack of experience in this arena. Even
> Microsoft's supposedly innoculous, Regclean program (which they
> removed a long time ago) created a few problems on my system some
> time back. But you wouldn't know that.
lol, it HAS to be getting pretty short by now, to keep stepping on it!
I don't know how you manage that, but don't really care. Don't look
now, but MS if baaaccckkk with their little reg cleaner app! Since you
don't even know that much, I can only derive that you know nothing about
anything and are simply trolling for your own pleasure. You wish to
piss me off and it bothers you that you can't use misinformation to do
it. You are beginning to remind me of a schoolyard bully who can't find
anyone to bully because he's the tineist inthe yard (or locker-room)
>
>> That's myopic and chosen for your boilerplate because it's
>> convenient and for no other reason or you would say so.
You like that term, don't you? You should go back and read that page a
little further. It IS myopic, it IS boilerplate, it IS convenient, and
there IS no other reason for you to dasy to w/r to what you snipped so
no one could connect the two without looking back. You didnt even have
the intelligence to cover WHAT is myopic, etc.. Doesn't work, I'm
afraid.
Now, if we want to talk about projecting one's attitudes and problems
.... nah, that's too huge a subject.
>
> Self-projection noted again. I'd respectfully suggest getting rid of
> your own boilerplate. Remember that saying, "remove the log from
> one's own eye"? (Or maybe that was before your time).
lol, well you're consistantly stupid, I'll admit that! What
boilerplate? Do you even know what boilerplate IS? And no, I don't
recall anything about logs and eyes - another attempt to redirect maybe?
>
>>> The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner
>>> erroneously removing an entry you need is far greater than any
>>> potential benefit it may have.
>>
>> And that is patently untrue and pure misinformation coming from an
>> ignorant, closed mind.
>
> Projection noted, once again.
Ignorance and stupidity noted, once again. My turn now: I recall and
old saw about "Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach". Jeez,
let's hope you never actually teach!
>
>> If there were even so much as a seed of truth to
>> your statement myself and many others I know, and a lot I don't too,
>> would have had the problems you so ignorantly constantly warn
>> against.. Yet it hasn't happened. I wonder why that is?
>
> Because *you* haven't seen it? Yes, we "understand".
> I'd respectfully suggest you go back and finish up your education.
Woo, talk about projection; now we know you have education problems,
too. I finished my education probably in excess of at least 3 years of
your, and likely 7 or more years. And why you use the lies about
respect, I'll never know.
You're right, I have NOT seen evidence of the claims of the inane,
closed minded and otherwise disabled minds here are touting. That's
because I have continuous, actual experience, research the issues and
applications I use, and bother to know what they are capable of and what
they are not capable of, before putting them into a production
situation.
Early on I doubted them, but gave them the benefit of the doubt and
asked for further information. When none were forthcoming I became even
more suspicious. It's not jus me either: Many people over time early on
asked for the same confirmation/verification so they too could
understant where the original authors were coming from. But you know
what? They obviously didn't have anything because they never parted
with anything of any sort to back up their contentions. I on the other
hand, have done so, early on especially, and with some detailed white
papers on the subject.
As time went on their claims became more and more injurious to people
who might believe them and they began to berate people who dared to
disagree with them. That's when I got involved and stepped up my own
research, re-read my old research, and having a curious mind, even dug
into the Innards of some of those programs I'd been useing so
successfully for so long, and even managed communications with the code
authors for further help. Not a single one ever lied to me, and one
mis-spoke due to English not being his native language. And shortly
after that I'd managed to become good enough to actually watch much of
what the programs were doing, and guess what? Everything was verified.
But that's pretty much irrelevant; it only satisfied my own natural
curiousity. The proof is, that most such applications do exactly what
they claim they will do, ARE useful, some moreso than others, and DO
provide valuable and useful results.
Buried in my archives, the other day looking for something else based
on a similar name, I found a reference to my own discussion on how a
registry cleaner had shortened a boot time by a full 60 seconds. Out of
a 4 minute boot, that was pretty substantial. And, it was attribued to
3 separate and specific program applications. As for records of these
things, every single one is archived as my system has been under monthly
full and nightly incremental backups for longer than you have probably
known what the registry was even for. Not that well planned, but still
available, some go all the way back to CP/M days. And yes, I CAN read
CP/M 10 hard sectored, double-sided, 90k/side 5 1/4" floppies.
But then you get people like you that are so myopic they can only see
one tree amongst a whole forest. You key in on one small point that
hopefully will propel you to a successful banishment of the entire
forest in other's eyes and prove your'e right. It seldom works. If you
can't see the whole picture, you may as well not look because you won't
see anythign resembling a true picture of any event or situation.
Thanks for this opportunity,
Twayne
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > Are you kidding? Twayne doesn't have the common sense to be an MVP.
Ouch! That's sure a disparagement to even the real MVPs!
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 23:44:05 -0700, "Bill in Co."
> <not_really_here[ at ]earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Twayne wrote:
>>> Ken Blake, supposed MPV said:
>>
>> I have little doubt Ken is a MPV. Interesting that you
>> (supposedly) do.
>
>
> Thanks, but Twayne is correct. Not only am I not an MPV, I don't even
> know what an MPV is.
>
> But I am an MVP, and have been one since October, 2003. ;-)
Actually I don't doubt that you are likely an MVP; I've seen you in
enough different places and some of your work in others, that it's
likely the truth. However, since learning that the "list" can't be
depended on and discovering there are at least two posers here, it
happened to be on my mind.
If I do anything like that again, I'll not use it on you, even though
I could use the supposition on you for your violations of the MVP
actions rules. Also I'm not the kind to go running to committes et al
because someone violates rules when they've been prodded and need to
defend themselves in a public place.Not sure but I think I've said that
before and I stand by it.
Now if you only understood the situation this is all actually about
....
Twayne
|
|
Twayne wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Bill supposedly of Co said:
>
>> Twayne wrote:
> ...
>>> And there's that ignorant, closed mind again.
>>
>> Pot, kettle. And self-projection noted once again.
>
> No tweedlebrain, there's an educated, experienced open mind here who
Ummm, not really. But the denial is noted.
> when all this originally started, who asked for more information and
> what the reasons were for same, received a range of responses from your
> fav leaders such as no answer, "because I said it should be enough
> reason" to several other equally as intelligent responses. The more
> people asked and wanted to know, the more adamant the supposed gurus
> became since they had nothing, nada, zero, zip on their side to show any
> relevancy to their claims.
> That was a couple years ago. Off and on I got sick of the
> boilerplated ignorant and mis-leading information and now we're at the
> point where tweedle-dums and you, with nothing behind you but the
> cliches you parrot, picking your trollish targets and continuing to
> spread the misinformation.
>
>>
>>> Whatever "snake oil"
>>> means to you, it is wrong and misinformation. There can be a need
>>> for it, and it is not inherently dangerous.
>>>
>>>> Leave the registry alone and don't use any
>>>> registry cleaner. Despite what many people think, and what vendors
>>>> of registry cleaning software try to convince you of, having unused
>>>> registry entries doesn't really hurt you.
>>>
>>> There you go again: citing one instance of a set when in fact there
>>> are several.
>>
>> Actually, there aren't ANY (as you have shown yourself, when called
>> on it).
>
> Actually, you are 100% wrong and again trying to use a micron-limited
> focal length for your myopic observastions, watching carefully for any
> words you can twist, any generalizations that, out of context, can
> appear to be positive for your case, and other silly childish nonsense.
Again, no substance, just ad hominems. Gee, what a surprise.
>> Every single time when asked to provide ANY real, concrete,
>> and documented evidence of such (alleged) "benefits" of using these
>> registry cleaners, you have run and ducked out. (Gee now, I wonder
>> why?).
>
> Again , 100% wrong but who would expect more from such an ignroant?
Once again, no substance, just ad hominems as your last recourse.
>> The difference between us (and several others in here, I'm
>> sure) is that I *have* used them in the past over all the years, and
>> with various operating systems, and I'm sure I have a lot more
>> experience in doing so, than you have, based on your inane comments
>> on this issue.
>
> I very seriously doubt that. Why? Because you only now, when called,
> choose to provide any such information. You've simply made a late
> coming generalization of non-fact to accomodate your alleged situation.
> No meat, nothing. You even intimate that on the old 98 systems they
> were no good; you stepped on it big time there.
Actually, I never intimated such a thing. Perhaps you do have a reading
comprehension problem, afterall.
>> I do *know* firsthand its potential for creating
>> problems, some of which often only show up later. You obviously
>> don't know, due to some lack of experience in this arena. Even
>> Microsoft's supposedly innoculous, Regclean program (which they
>> removed a long time ago) created a few problems on my system some
>> time back. But you wouldn't know that.
>
> lol, it HAS to be getting pretty short by now, to keep stepping on it!
It wouldn't happen if you watched your steps! But I can't help you there.
> I don't know how you manage that, but don't really care. Don't look
> now, but MS if baaaccckkk with their little reg cleaner app! Since you
> don't even know that much, I can only derive that you know nothing about
> anything and are simply trolling for your own pleasure. You wish to
> piss me off and it bothers you that you can't use misinformation to do
> it. You are beginning to remind me of a schoolyard bully who can't find
> anyone to bully because he's the tineist inthe yard (or locker-room)
>
>>
>>> That's myopic and chosen for your boilerplate because it's
>>> convenient and for no other reason or you would say so.
>
> You like that term, don't you? You should go back and read that page a
> little further. It IS myopic, it IS boilerplate, it IS convenient, and
> there IS no other reason for you to dasy to w/r to what you snipped so
> no one could connect the two without looking back. You didnt even have
> the intelligence to cover WHAT is myopic, etc.. Doesn't work, I'm
> afraid.
> Now, if we want to talk about projecting one's attitudes and problems
> ... nah, that's too huge a subject.
>
>>
>> Self-projection noted again. I'd respectfully suggest getting rid of
>> your own boilerplate. Remember that saying, "remove the log from
>> one's own eye"? (Or maybe that was before your time).
>
> lol, well you're consistantly stupid, I'll admit that! What
> boilerplate? Do you even know what boilerplate IS? And no, I don't
> recall anything about logs and eyes
Well, that doesn't surprise me in the least, unfortunately.
>>>> The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner
>>>> erroneously removing an entry you need is far greater than any
>>>> potential benefit it may have.
>>>
>>> And that is patently untrue and pure misinformation coming from an
>>> ignorant, closed mind.
>>
>> Projection noted, once again.
>
> Ignorance and stupidity noted, once again. My turn now: I recall and
> old saw about "Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach". Jeez,
> let's hope you never actually teach!
>
>>
>>> If there were even so much as a seed of truth to
>>> your statement myself and many others I know, and a lot I don't too,
>>> would have had the problems you so ignorantly constantly warn
>>> against.. Yet it hasn't happened. I wonder why that is?
>>
>> Because *you* haven't seen it? Yes, we "understand".
>> I'd respectfully suggest you go back and finish up your education.
>
> Woo, talk about projection; now we know you have education problems,
> too. I finished my education probably in excess of at least 3 years of
> your, and likely 7 or more years.
I wasn't talking about a train engineer when I mentioned the term engineer.
> And why you use the lies about
> respect, I'll never know.
> You're right, I have NOT seen evidence of the claims of the inane,
> closed minded and otherwise disabled minds here are touting.
Self projection noted. (please look up the term sometime)
> That's because I have continuous, actual experience, research the issues
> and
> applications I use, and bother to know what they are capable of and what
> they are not capable of, before putting them into a production
> situation.
> Early on I doubted them, but gave them the benefit of the doubt and
> asked for further information. When none were forthcoming I became even
> more suspicious. It's not jus me either: Many people over time early on
> asked for the same confirmation/verification so they too could
> understant where the original authors were coming from. But you know
> what? They obviously didn't have anything because they never parted
> with anything of any sort to back up their contentions. I on the other
> hand, have done so, early on especially, and with some detailed white
> papers on the subject.
> As time went on their claims became more and more injurious to people
> who might believe them and they began to berate people who dared to
> disagree with them. That's when I got involved and stepped up my own
> research, re-read my old research, and having a curious mind, even dug
> into the Innards of some of those programs I'd been useing so
> successfully for so long, and even managed communications with the code
> authors for further help. Not a single one ever lied to me, and one
> mis-spoke due to English not being his native language. And shortly
> after that I'd managed to become good enough to actually watch much of
> what the programs were doing, and guess what? Everything was verified.
> But that's pretty much irrelevant; it only satisfied my own natural
> curiousity. The proof is, that most such applications do exactly what
> they claim they will do, ARE useful, some moreso than others, and DO
> provide valuable and useful results.
> Buried in my archives, the other day looking for something else based
> on a similar name, I found a reference to my own discussion on how a
> registry cleaner had shortened a boot time by a full 60 seconds. Out of
> a 4 minute boot, that was pretty substantial. And, it was attribued to
> 3 separate and specific program applications. As for records of these
> things, every single one is archived as my system has been under monthly
> full and nightly incremental backups for longer than you have probably
> known what the registry was even for. Not that well planned, but still
> available, some go all the way back to CP/M days. And yes, I CAN read
> CP/M 10 hard sectored, double-sided, 90k/side 5 1/4" floppies.
>
> But then you get people like you that are so myopic they can only see
> one tree amongst a whole forest. You key in on one small point that
> hopefully will propel you to a successful banishment of the entire
> forest in other's eyes and prove your'e right. It seldom works. If you
> can't see the whole picture, you may as well not look because you won't
> see anythign resembling a true picture of any event or situation.
>
> Thanks for this opportunity,
>
> Twayne
ROFLMAO!
By the way, when I used the term engineer before, I wasn't talking about a
train engineer, so I'm sorry for your possible confusion there.
|
|
Bilco said:
....
[Quoted Text] >>> Pot, kettle. And self-projection noted once again.
>>
>> No tweedlebrain, there's an educated, experienced open mind here who
>
> Ummm, not really. But the denial is noted.
Evidence noted.
....
>> Actually, you are 100% wrong and again trying to use a micron-limited
>> focal length for your myopic observastions, watching carefully for
>> any words you can twist, any generalizations that, out of context,
>> can appear to be positive for your case, and other silly childish
>> nonsense.
>
> Again, no substance, just ad hominems. Gee, what a surprise.
>
>>> Every single time when asked to provide ANY real, concrete,
>>> and documented evidence of such (alleged) "benefits" of using these
>>> registry cleaners, you have run and ducked out. (Gee now, I wonder
>>> why?).
>>
>> Again , 100% wrong but who would expect more from such an ignroant?
>
> Once again, no substance, just ad hominems as your last recourse.
lol, got a word-a-day calendar? Lots of substance if you had any reading
comprehension.
>
>>
>> I very seriously doubt that. Why? Because you only now, when
>> called, choose to provide any such information. You've simply made
>> a late coming generalization of non-fact to accomodate your alleged
>> situation. No meat, nothing. You even intimate that on the old 98
>> systems they were no good; you stepped on it big time there.
>
> Actually, I never intimated such a thing. Perhaps you do have a
> reading comprehension problem, afterall.
Yeah, you did; you just don't know what the thread is actually about.
....
>> lol, it HAS to be getting pretty short by now, to keep stepping on
>> it!
>
> It wouldn't happen if you watched your steps! But I can't help you
> there.
I wouldn't want you to help me pick up my dog's turds with your
background.
>
....
>> lol, well you're consistantly stupid, I'll admit that! What
>> boilerplate? Do you even know what boilerplate IS? And no, I don't
>> recall anything about logs and eyes
>
> Well, that doesn't surprise me in the least, unfortunately.
lol, really?
>
>>>>> The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner
>>>>> erroneously removing an entry you need is far greater than any
>>>>> potential benefit it may have.
>>>>
>>>> And that is patently untrue and pure misinformation coming from an
>>>> ignorant, closed mind.
>>>
>>> Projection noted, once again.
>>
>> Ignorance and stupidity noted, once again. My turn now: I recall and
>> old saw about "Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach". Jeez,
>> let's hope you never actually teach!
>>
>>>
>>>> If there were even so much as a seed of truth to
>>>> your statement myself and many others I know, and a lot I don't
>>>> too, would have had the problems you so ignorantly constantly warn
>>>> against.. Yet it hasn't happened. I wonder why that is?
>>>
>>> Because *you* haven't seen it? Yes, we "understand".
>>> I'd respectfully suggest you go back and finish up your education.
>>
>> Woo, talk about projection; now we know you have education problems,
>> too. I finished my education probably in excess of at least 3 years
>> of your, and likely 7 or more years.
>
> I wasn't talking about a train engineer when I mentioned the term
> engineer.
>> And why you use the lies about
>> respect, I'll never know.
>> You're right, I have NOT seen evidence of the claims of the inane,
>> closed minded and otherwise disabled minds here are touting.
>
> Self projection noted. (please look up the term sometime)
>
>> That's because I have continuous, actual experience, research the
>> issues and
>> applications I use, and bother to know what they are capable of and
>> what they are not capable of, before putting them into a production
>> situation.
>> Early on I doubted them, but gave them the benefit of the doubt and
>> asked for further information. When none were forthcoming I became
>> even more suspicious. It's not jus me either: Many people over time
>> early on asked for the same confirmation/verification so they too
>> could understant where the original authors were coming from. But
>> you know what? They obviously didn't have anything because they
>> never parted with anything of any sort to back up their contentions.
>> I on the other hand, have done so, early on especially, and with
>> some detailed white papers on the subject.
>> As time went on their claims became more and more injurious to
>> people who might believe them and they began to berate people who
>> dared to disagree with them. That's when I got involved and stepped
>> up my own research, re-read my old research, and having a curious
>> mind, even dug into the Innards of some of those programs I'd been
>> useing so successfully for so long, and even managed communications
>> with the code authors for further help. Not a single one ever lied
>> to me, and one mis-spoke due to English not being his native
>> language. And shortly after that I'd managed to become good enough
>> to actually watch much of what the programs were doing, and guess
>> what? Everything was verified. But that's pretty much irrelevant;
>> it only satisfied my own natural curiousity. The proof is, that
>> most such applications do exactly what they claim they will do, ARE
>> useful, some moreso than others, and DO provide valuable and useful
>> results. Buried in my archives, the other day looking for
>> something else based on a similar name, I found a reference to my
>> own discussion on how a registry cleaner had shortened a boot time
>> by a full 60 seconds. Out of a 4 minute boot, that was pretty
>> substantial. And, it was attribued to 3 separate and specific
>> program applications. As for records of these things, every single
>> one is archived as my system has been under monthly full and nightly
>> incremental backups for longer than you have probably known what the
>> registry was even for. Not that well planned, but still available,
>> some go all the way back to CP/M days. And yes, I CAN read CP/M 10
>> hard sectored, double-sided, 90k/side 5 1/4" floppies. But then you
>> get people like you that are so myopic they can only see
>> one tree amongst a whole forest. You key in on one small point that
>> hopefully will propel you to a successful banishment of the entire
>> forest in other's eyes and prove your'e right. It seldom works. If
>> you can't see the whole picture, you may as well not look because
>> you won't see anythign resembling a true picture of any event or
>> situation. Thanks for this opportunity,
>>
>> Twayne
>
> ROFLMAO!
> By the way, when I used the term engineer before, I wasn't talking
> about a train engineer, so I'm sorry for your possible confusion
> there.
lol, well, since you never said anything about it other than to say what
you didn't mean by the term, I guess I can see what might have you
roflmao. You're pretty easily amused, as most children are.
You make an interesting sociological specimen in the way you attempt
to use sylabillic words and initialisms/acronyms as you blunder on.
Thanks again for this opportunity,
Twayne
|
|
Twane:
It is obvious that you think that you know everything, and no one
else knows anything. However, many of us log on to learn, or to help,
and it is much more difficult, and wastes a lot of time, if we must
wade though pages of your calling people names. If you are better
informed, why not simply state your argument, and let others decide
who they wish to believe?
It is even possilbe that, under different circumstances, each side has
arguments with merit. But, spewing venom is not a plus, if you are
trying to change minds. Perhaps your time might be better spent if you
considered for a moment why you are so angry and intolerant.
Relax. We are not at war with each other. We are here to help one
another.
~~Robert
On Dec 22, 3:28 pm, "Twayne" <nob...[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Bilco said:
>
> ...
>
> >>> Pot, kettle. And self-projection noted once again.
>
> >> No tweedlebrain, there's an educated, experienced open mind here who
>
> > Ummm, not really. But the denial is noted.
>
> Evidence noted.
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Actually, you are 100% wrong and again trying to use a micron-limited
> >> focal length for your myopic observastions, watching carefully for
> >> any words you can twist, any generalizations that, out of context,
> >> can appear to be positive for your case, and other silly childish
> >> nonsense.
>
> > Again, no substance, just ad hominems. Gee, what a surprise.
>
> >>> Every single time when asked to provide ANY real, concrete,
> >>> and documented evidence of such (alleged) "benefits" of using these
> >>> registry cleaners, you have run and ducked out. (Gee now, I wonder
> >>> why?).
>
> >> Again , 100% wrong but who would expect more from such an ignroant?
>
> > Once again, no substance, just ad hominems as your last recourse.
>
> lol, got a word-a-day calendar? Lots of substance if you had any reading
> comprehension.
>
>
>
> >> I very seriously doubt that. Why? Because you only now, when
> >> called, choose to provide any such information. You've simply made
> >> a late coming generalization of non-fact to accomodate your alleged
> >> situation. No meat, nothing. You even intimate that on the old 98
> >> systems they were no good; you stepped on it big time there.
>
> > Actually, I never intimated such a thing. Perhaps you do have a
> > reading comprehension problem, afterall.
>
> Yeah, you did; you just don't know what the thread is actually about.
>
> ...
>
> >> lol, it HAS to be getting pretty short by now, to keep stepping on
> >> it!
>
> > It wouldn't happen if you watched your steps! But I can't help you
> > there.
>
> I wouldn't want you to help me pick up my dog's turds with your
> background.
>
>
>
>
>
> ...
> >> lol, well you're consistantly stupid, I'll admit that! What
> >> boilerplate? Do you even know what boilerplate IS? And no, I don't
> >> recall anything about logs and eyes
>
> > Well, that doesn't surprise me in the least, unfortunately.
>
> lol, really?
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner
> >>>>> erroneously removing an entry you need is far greater than any
> >>>>> potential benefit it may have.
>
> >>>> And that is patently untrue and pure misinformation coming from an
> >>>> ignorant, closed mind.
>
> >>> Projection noted, once again.
>
> >> Ignorance and stupidity noted, once again. My turn now: I recall and
> >> old saw about "Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach". Jeez,
> >> let's hope you never actually teach!
>
> >>>> If there were even so much as a seed of truth to
> >>>> your statement myself and many others I know, and a lot I don't
> >>>> too, would have had the problems you so ignorantly constantly warn
> >>>> against.. Yet it hasn't happened. I wonder why that is?
>
> >>> Because *you* haven't seen it? Yes, we "understand".
> >>> I'd respectfully suggest you go back and finish up your education.
>
> >> Woo, talk about projection; now we know you have education problems,
> >> too. I finished my education probably in excess of at least 3 years
> >> of your, and likely 7 or more years.
>
> > I wasn't talking about a train engineer when I mentioned the term
> > engineer.
> >> And why you use the lies about
> >> respect, I'll never know.
> >> You're right, I have NOT seen evidence of the claims of the inane,
> >> closed minded and otherwise disabled minds here are touting.
>
> > Self projection noted. (please look up the term sometime)
>
> >> That's because I have continuous, actual experience, research the
> >> issues and
> >> applications I use, and bother to know what they are capable of and
> >> what they are not capable of, before putting them into a production
> >> situation.
> >> Early on I doubted them, but gave them the benefit of the doubt and
> >> asked for further information. When none were forthcoming I became
> >> even more suspicious. It's not jus me either: Many people over time
> >> early on asked for the same confirmation/verification so they too
> >> could understant where the original authors were coming from. But
> >> you know what? They obviously didn't have anything because they
> >> never parted with anything of any sort to back up their contentions.
> >> I on the other hand, have done so, early on especially, and with
> >> some detailed white papers on the subject.
> >> As time went on their claims became more and more injurious to
> >> people who might believe them and they began to berate people who
> >> dared to disagree with them. That's when I got involved and stepped
> >> up my own research, re-read my old research, and having a curious
> >> mind, even dug into the Innards of some of those programs I'd been
> >> useing so successfully for so long, and even managed communications
> >> with the code authors for further help. Not a single one ever lied
> >> to me, and one mis-spoke due to English not being his native
> >> language. And shortly after that I'd managed to become good enough
> >> to actually watch much of what the programs were doing, and guess
> >> what? Everything was verified. But that's pretty much irrelevant;
> >> it only satisfied my own natural curiousity. The proof is, that
> >> most such applications do exactly what they claim they will do, ARE
> >> useful, some moreso than others, and DO provide valuable and useful
> >> results. Buried in my archives, the other day looking for
> >> something else based on a similar name, I found a reference to my
> >> own discussion on how a registry cleaner had shortened a boot time
> >> by a full 60 seconds. Out of a 4 minute boot, that was pretty
> >> substantial. And, it was attribued to 3 separate and specific
> >> program applications. As for records of these things, every single
> >> one is archived as my system has been under monthly full and nightly
> >> incremental backups for longer than you have probably known what the
> >> registry was even for. Not that well planned, but still available,
> >> some go all the way back to CP/M days. And yes, I CAN read CP/M 10
> >> hard sectored, double-sided, 90k/side 5 1/4" floppies. But then you
> >> get people like you that are so myopic they can only see
> >> one tree amongst a whole forest. You key in on one small point that
> >> hopefully will propel you to a successful banishment of the entire
> >> forest in other's eyes and prove your'e right. It seldom works. If
> >> you can't see the whole picture, you may as well not look because
> >> you won't see anythign resembling a true picture of any event or
> >> situation. Thanks for this opportunity,
>
> >> Twayne
>
> > ROFLMAO!
> > By the way, when I used the term engineer before, I wasn't talking
> > about a train engineer, so I'm sorry for your possible confusion
> > there.
>
> lol, well, since you never said anything about it other than to say what
> you didn't mean by the term, I guess I can see what might have you
> roflmao. You're pretty easily amused, as most children are.
> You make an interesting sociological specimen in the way you attempt
> to use sylabillic words and initialisms/acronyms as you blunder on.
>
> Thanks again for this opportunity,
>
> Twayne
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > Twane:
>
> It is obvious that you think that you know everything, and no one
> else knows anything.
Nope, that's your own take on things, but your'e certainly entitled to
your opinions. There are a lot of things I don't know or I'd answer a
lot more posts here. A LOT of people know a lot more than I do.
However, when a few are pushing constant misinformation about one
specific subject, I can no long let their lies, innuendo and
misinformation pass for "good" information. All they have to do to stop
the posts is to admit that not all registry cleaners are bad, are
useless, and/or will cause damage to a person's computer, are to be
completely avoided, etc., thereby attempting to remove perfectly good,
and often free, tools that many could make use of, or, just simply quit
spewing that misinformation.
I refuse to back down when I know I am right and have many years of
experience and study in that exact same field which proves that they are
wrong. I've posted a small amount of it here and if you look back in the
posts, you'll see why I don't give them more cognizant information; they
only use it to twist and twine things into oblivion as opposed to making
any sensible arguements for their own positions. Initially I thought
maybe they knew someting I didn't, and I asked for details. But long
story short, they had none, one guy even saying that just his saying so
was enough that I should believe his tripe, so ... the misinformation
can no longer go unchallenged IMO. As it turns out they know very
little about the subject and have nothing to back up their contentions
but they are too ignorant to admit their folly and have no intention of
doing any research etc. that may expose the truth to them.
In addition, you will note that the ONLY time I take anyone to task is
for blatant publishing of misinformation. If you don't like reading
that sort of thing, no one is forcing you to read my posts or even the
posts of the closed minded ignorants with their useless, misleading
boilerplates. It is not I that initiate the misinformationist comments
they make.
However, many of us log on to learn, or to help,
> and it is much more difficult, and wastes a lot of time, if we must
> wade though pages of your calling people names. If you are better
> informed, why not simply state your argument, and let others decide
> who they wish to believe?
Then perhaps you need to learn how to use your mailreader and how to
manage threads more efficiently. I have no intention of stopping as
long as the misinformationists continue with their libelous crusage
against perfectly functional, useful, safe tools.
>
> It is even possilbe that, under different circumstances, each side has
> arguments with merit.
No, that's not true any longer. Ask any of the crew who are so adamant
about registry cleaners. Look back thru the old posts; you'll see
exactly what the situation is. There will never be any evidence
provided by them to back up their contentions because they do not have
any, but they are not going to admit that. As evidence, note the one
yesterday about how MS killed their own cleaner tool in what, 1994? He
didn't even know that MS had recently released exactly such a tool
again, not too awfully long ago. And the list goes on. Yet they feel
the authority to spew misinformation about it, which gives me the
opportunity to show them up for the closed minds they are. You may also
note that there are three of four who post about no other subject, in
fact, spewing boilerplate after boilerplate, without any supporting
information of any kind. I don't toss in a lot, but the other day I
commented on a boot time improvement of 60 Seconds using one of their
dreaded tools, which historically over the years have not ever created a
singly instance of OS problems for me.
> ...But, spewing venom is not a plus, if you are
If you think that's spewing venom, you are a newbie and/or need a much
thicker skin to participate on public newsgroups. This is mild, and in
general actually kept to a reasonably quiet level by both sides. But
you'll see what I mean as you gain experience and move from group to
group.
> trying to change minds. Perhaps your time might be better spent if you
> considered for a moment why you are so angry and intolerant.
I am not angry. I am simply factual and analytic by nature and
education. And the ONLY intolerance you can possibly have ever seen
from me anywhere, is my prejudice against misinformation by those who
should know better and who refuse to open their eyes to see what is
right in front of them.
It might even appear that your own intolerance is showing somewhat
here; don't let it bug you. It's not worth it. Relax, and do what you
feel is the right thing to do.
>
> Relax. We are not at war with each other. We are here to help one
> another.
Nope, no war. And I am quite relaxed, actually. Because you find me
posting against misinformation doesn't mean I need to relax or am upset
of whatever ... I'm a touch typist and can type nearly as fast as I can
speak, so it's no task for me to post my own information against that of
the misinformation. It's people who insist on posting misinformation,
who know it is not accurate, and think they can dicatate the attitudes
of others w/r to which tools to use with their computers that seem to
get upset. Live quiver and all that, I guess some would call it.
>
> ~~Robert
No animosity here, Robert; I'm not mad, have no intention of "getting
even" with anyone or anything of the kind; just keeping the good fight
against misinformation for newbies and the inexperienced. A small group
of closed minds here have most people actually afraid to even mention
the subject for fear of being flamed; you can see that too in the older
posts if you take a look. I'd like to see that end and plan to do what
I can about it, as little as that may be. But when I see the
misinformation it's no problem to post an opposing view and suggest my
own opinions of why they are offering such silliness and point out how
closed their minds are, including descriptions of specifics of it all.
I simply support the accurate side of the inforamation and nothing more.
So, I'll keep posting when I see incorrect information and you keep on
reading and learning how not to read a post you think may upset you.
Regards,
Twayne
>
> On Dec 22, 3:28 pm, "Twayne" <nob...[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:
>> Bilco said:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>>> Pot, kettle. And self-projection noted once again.
>>
>>>> No tweedlebrain, there's an educated, experienced open mind here
>>>> who
>>
>>> Ummm, not really. But the denial is noted.
>>
>> Evidence noted.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Actually, you are 100% wrong and again trying to use a
>>>> micron-limited focal length for your myopic observastions,
>>>> watching carefully for any words you can twist, any
>>>> generalizations that, out of context, can appear to be positive
>>>> for your case, and other silly childish nonsense.
>>
>>> Again, no substance, just ad hominems. Gee, what a surprise.
>>
>>>>> Every single time when asked to provide ANY real, concrete,
>>>>> and documented evidence of such (alleged) "benefits" of using
>>>>> these registry cleaners, you have run and ducked out. (Gee now, I
>>>>> wonder why?).
>>
>>>> Again , 100% wrong but who would expect more from such an ignroant?
>>
>>> Once again, no substance, just ad hominems as your last recourse.
>>
>> lol, got a word-a-day calendar? Lots of substance if you had any
>> reading comprehension.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> I very seriously doubt that. Why? Because you only now, when
>>>> called, choose to provide any such information. You've simply made
>>>> a late coming generalization of non-fact to accomodate your alleged
>>>> situation. No meat, nothing. You even intimate that on the old 98
>>>> systems they were no good; you stepped on it big time there.
>>
>>> Actually, I never intimated such a thing. Perhaps you do have a
>>> reading comprehension problem, afterall.
>>
>> Yeah, you did; you just don't know what the thread is actually about.
>>
>> ...
>>
>>>> lol, it HAS to be getting pretty short by now, to keep stepping on
>>>> it!
>>
>>> It wouldn't happen if you watched your steps! But I can't help you
>>> there.
>>
>> I wouldn't want you to help me pick up my dog's turds with your
>> background.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ...
>>>> lol, well you're consistantly stupid, I'll admit that! What
>>>> boilerplate? Do you even know what boilerplate IS? And no, I don't
>>>> recall anything about logs and eyes
>>
>>> Well, that doesn't surprise me in the least, unfortunately.
>>
>> lol, really?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner
>>>>>>> erroneously removing an entry you need is far greater than any
>>>>>>> potential benefit it may have.
>>
>>>>>> And that is patently untrue and pure misinformation coming from
>>>>>> an ignorant, closed mind.
>>
>>>>> Projection noted, once again.
>>
>>>> Ignorance and stupidity noted, once again. My turn now: I recall
>>>> and old saw about "Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach".
>>>> Jeez, let's hope you never actually teach!
>>
>>>>>> If there were even so much as a seed of truth to
>>>>>> your statement myself and many others I know, and a lot I don't
>>>>>> too, would have had the problems you so ignorantly constantly
>>>>>> warn against.. Yet it hasn't happened. I wonder why that is?
>>
>>>>> Because *you* haven't seen it? Yes, we "understand".
>>>>> I'd respectfully suggest you go back and finish up your education.
>>
>>>> Woo, talk about projection; now we know you have education
>>>> problems, too. I finished my education probably in excess of at
>>>> least 3 years of your, and likely 7 or more years.
>>
>>> I wasn't talking about a train engineer when I mentioned the term
>>> engineer.
>>>> And why you use the lies about
>>>> respect, I'll never know.
>>>> You're right, I have NOT seen evidence of the claims of the inane,
>>>> closed minded and otherwise disabled minds here are touting.
>>
>>> Self projection noted. (please look up the term sometime)
>>
>>>> That's because I have continuous, actual experience, research the
>>>> issues and
>>>> applications I use, and bother to know what they are capable of and
>>>> what they are not capable of, before putting them into a production
>>>> situation.
>>>> Early on I doubted them, but gave them the benefit of the doubt and
>>>> asked for further information. When none were forthcoming I became
>>>> even more suspicious. It's not jus me either: Many people over time
>>>> early on asked for the same confirmation/verification so they too
>>>> could understant where the original authors were coming from. But
>>>> you know what? They obviously didn't have anything because they
>>>> never parted with anything of any sort to back up their
>>>> contentions. I on the other hand, have done so, early on
>>>> especially, and with some detailed white papers on the subject.
>>>> As time went on their claims became more and more injurious to
>>>> people who might believe them and they began to berate people who
>>>> dared to disagree with them. That's when I got involved and stepped
>>>> up my own research, re-read my old research, and having a curious
>>>> mind, even dug into the Innards of some of those programs I'd been
>>>> useing so successfully for so long, and even managed communications
>>>> with the code authors for further help. Not a single one ever lied
>>>> to me, and one mis-spoke due to English not being his native
>>>> language. And shortly after that I'd managed to become good enough
>>>> to actually watch much of what the programs were doing, and guess
>>>> what? Everything was verified. But that's pretty much irrelevant;
>>>> it only satisfied my own natural curiousity. The proof is, that
>>>> most such applications do exactly what they claim they will do, ARE
>>>> useful, some moreso than others, and DO provide valuable and useful
>>>> results. Buried in my archives, the other day looking for
>>>> something else based on a similar name, I found a reference to my
>>>> own discussion on how a registry cleaner had shortened a boot time
>>>> by a full 60 seconds. Out of a 4 minute boot, that was pretty
>>>> substantial. And, it was attribued to 3 separate and specific
>>>> program applications. As for records of these things, every single
>>>> one is archived as my system has been under monthly full and
>>>> nightly incremental backups for longer than you have probably
>>>> known what the registry was even for. Not that well planned, but
>>>> still available, some go all the way back to CP/M days. And yes, I
>>>> CAN read CP/M 10 hard sectored, double-sided, 90k/side 5 1/4"
>>>> floppies. But then you get people like you that are so myopic they
>>>> can only see
>>>> one tree amongst a whole forest. You key in on one small point that
>>>> hopefully will propel you to a successful banishment of the entire
>>>> forest in other's eyes and prove your'e right. It seldom works. If
>>>> you can't see the whole picture, you may as well not look because
>>>> you won't see anythign resembling a true picture of any event or
>>>> situation. Thanks for this opportunity,
>>
>>>> Twayne
>>
>>> ROFLMAO!
>>> By the way, when I used the term engineer before, I wasn't talking
>>> about a train engineer, so I'm sorry for your possible confusion
>>> there.
>>
>> lol, well, since you never said anything about it other than to say
>> what you didn't mean by the term, I guess I can see what might have
>> you roflmao. You're pretty easily amused, as most children are.
>> You make an interesting sociological specimen in the way you attempt
>> to use sylabillic words and initialisms/acronyms as you blunder on.
>>
>> Thanks again for this opportunity,
>>
>> Twayne
|
|
By golly, Twane, I did learn something from you:
When I see your name come up, skip the post.
~~Robert
On Dec 23, 7:50 pm, "Twayne" <nob...[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:
[Quoted Text] > > Twane:
>
> > It is obvious that you think that you know everything, and no one
> > else knows anything.
>
> Nope, that's your own take on things, but your'e certainly entitled to
> your opinions. There are a lot of things I don't know or I'd answer a
> lot more posts here. A LOT of people know a lot more than I do.
> However, when a few are pushing constant misinformation about one
> specific subject, I can no long let their lies, innuendo and
> misinformation pass for "good" information. All they have to do to stop
> the posts is to admit that not all registry cleaners are bad, are
> useless, and/or will cause damage to a person's computer, are to be
> completely avoided, etc., thereby attempting to remove perfectly good,
> and often free, tools that many could make use of, or, just simply quit
> spewing that misinformation.
> I refuse to back down when I know I am right and have many years of
> experience and study in that exact same field which proves that they are
> wrong. I've posted a small amount of it here and if you look back in the
> posts, you'll see why I don't give them more cognizant information; they
> only use it to twist and twine things into oblivion as opposed to making
> any sensible arguements for their own positions. Initially I thought
> maybe they knew someting I didn't, and I asked for details. But long
> story short, they had none, one guy even saying that just his saying so
> was enough that I should believe his tripe, so ... the misinformation
> can no longer go unchallenged IMO. As it turns out they know very
> little about the subject and have nothing to back up their contentions
> but they are too ignorant to admit their folly and have no intention of
> doing any research etc. that may expose the truth to them.
>
> In addition, you will note that the ONLY time I take anyone to task is
> for blatant publishing of misinformation. If you don't like reading
> that sort of thing, no one is forcing you to read my posts or even the
> posts of the closed minded ignorants with their useless, misleading
> boilerplates. It is not I that initiate the misinformationist comments
> they make.
>
> However, many of us log on to learn, or to help,
>
> > and it is much more difficult, and wastes a lot of time, if we must
> > wade though pages of your calling people names. If you are better
> > informed, why not simply state your argument, and let others decide
> > who they wish to believe?
>
> Then perhaps you need to learn how to use your mailreader and how to
> manage threads more efficiently. I have no intention of stopping as
> long as the misinformationists continue with their libelous crusage
> against perfectly functional, useful, safe tools.
>
>
>
> > It is even possilbe that, under different circumstances, each side has
> > arguments with merit.
>
> No, that's not true any longer. Ask any of the crew who are so adamant
> about registry cleaners. Look back thru the old posts; you'll see
> exactly what the situation is. There will never be any evidence
> provided by them to back up their contentions because they do not have
> any, but they are not going to admit that. As evidence, note the one
> yesterday about how MS killed their own cleaner tool in what, 1994? He
> didn't even know that MS had recently released exactly such a tool
> again, not too awfully long ago. And the list goes on. Yet they feel
> the authority to spew misinformation about it, which gives me the
> opportunity to show them up for the closed minds they are. You may also
> note that there are three of four who post about no other subject, in
> fact, spewing boilerplate after boilerplate, without any supporting
> information of any kind. I don't toss in a lot, but the other day I
> commented on a boot time improvement of 60 Seconds using one of their
> dreaded tools, which historically over the years have not ever created a
> singly instance of OS problems for me.
>
> > ...But, spewing venom is not a plus, if you are
>
> If you think that's spewing venom, you are a newbie and/or need a much
> thicker skin to participate on public newsgroups. This is mild, and in
> general actually kept to a reasonably quiet level by both sides. But
> you'll see what I mean as you gain experience and move from group to
> group.
>
> > trying to change minds. Perhaps your time might be better spent if you
> > considered for a moment why you are so angry and intolerant.
>
> I am not angry. I am simply factual and analytic by nature and
> education. And the ONLY intolerance you can possibly have ever seen
> from me anywhere, is my prejudice against misinformation by those who
> should know better and who refuse to open their eyes to see what is
> right in front of them.
> It might even appear that your own intolerance is showing somewhat
> here; don't let it bug you. It's not worth it. Relax, and do what you
> feel is the right thing to do.
>
>
>
> > Relax. We are not at war with each other. We are here to help one
> > another.
>
> Nope, no war. And I am quite relaxed, actually. Because you find me
> posting against misinformation doesn't mean I need to relax or am upset
> of whatever ... I'm a touch typist and can type nearly as fast as I can
> speak, so it's no task for me to post my own information against that of
> the misinformation. It's people who insist on posting misinformation,
> who know it is not accurate, and think they can dicatate the attitudes
> of others w/r to which tools to use with their computers that seem to
> get upset. Live quiver and all that, I guess some would call it.
>
>
>
> > ~~Robert
>
> No animosity here, Robert; I'm not mad, have no intention of "getting
> even" with anyone or anything of the kind; just keeping the good fight
> against misinformation for newbies and the inexperienced. A small group
> of closed minds here have most people actually afraid to even mention
> the subject for fear of being flamed; you can see that too in the older
> posts if you take a look. I'd like to see that end and plan to do what
> I can about it, as little as that may be. But when I see the
> misinformation it's no problem to post an opposing view and suggest my
> own opinions of why they are offering such silliness and point out how
> closed their minds are, including descriptions of specifics of it all.
> I simply support the accurate side of the inforamation and nothing more.
>
> So, I'll keep posting when I see incorrect information and you keep on
> reading and learning how not to read a post you think may upset you.
>
> Regards,
>
> Twayne
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 22, 3:28 pm, "Twayne" <nob...[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:
> >> Bilco said:
>
> >> ...
>
> >>>>> Pot, kettle. And self-projection noted once again.
>
> >>>> No tweedlebrain, there's an educated, experienced open mind here
> >>>> who
>
> >>> Ummm, not really. But the denial is noted.
>
> >> Evidence noted.
>
> >> ...
>
> >>>> Actually, you are 100% wrong and again trying to use a
> >>>> micron-limited focal length for your myopic observastions,
> >>>> watching carefully for any words you can twist, any
> >>>> generalizations that, out of context, can appear to be positive
> >>>> for your case, and other silly childish nonsense.
>
> >>> Again, no substance, just ad hominems. Gee, what a surprise.
>
> >>>>> Every single time when asked to provide ANY real, concrete,
> >>>>> and documented evidence of such (alleged) "benefits" of using
> >>>>> these registry cleaners, you have run and ducked out. (Gee now, I
> >>>>> wonder why?).
>
> >>>> Again , 100% wrong but who would expect more from such an ignroant?
>
> >>> Once again, no substance, just ad hominems as your last recourse.
>
> >> lol, got a word-a-day calendar? Lots of substance if you had any
> >> reading comprehension.
>
> >>>> I very seriously doubt that. Why? Because you only now, when
> >>>> called, choose to provide any such information. You've simply made
> >>>> a late coming generalization of non-fact to accomodate your alleged
> >>>> situation. No meat, nothing. You even intimate that on the old 98
> >>>> systems they were no good; you stepped on it big time there.
>
> >>> Actually, I never intimated such a thing. Perhaps you do have a
> >>> reading comprehension problem, afterall.
>
> >> Yeah, you did; you just don't know what the thread is actually about.
>
> >> ...
>
> >>>> lol, it HAS to be getting pretty short by now, to keep stepping on
> >>>> it!
>
> >>> It wouldn't happen if you watched your steps! But I can't help you
> >>> there.
>
> >> I wouldn't want you to help me pick up my dog's turds with your
> >> background.
>
> >> ...
> >>>> lol, well you're consistantly stupid, I'll admit that! What
> >>>> boilerplate? Do you even know what boilerplate IS? And no, I don't
> >>>> recall anything about logs and eyes
>
> >>> Well, that doesn't surprise me in the least, unfortunately.
>
> >> lol, really?
>
> >>>>>>> The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner
> >>>>>>> erroneously removing an entry you need is far greater than any
> >>>>>>> potential benefit it may have.
>
> >>>>>> And that is patently untrue and pure misinformation coming from
> >>>>>> an ignorant, closed mind.
>
> >>>>> Projection noted, once again.
>
> >>>> Ignorance and stupidity noted, once again. My turn now: I recall
> >>>> and old saw about "Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach".
> >>>> Jeez, let's hope you never actually teach!
>
> >>>>>> If there were even so much as a seed of truth to
> >>>>>> your statement myself and many others I know, and a lot I don't
> >>>>>> too, would have had the problems you so ignorantly constantly
> >>>>>> warn against.. Yet it hasn't happened. I wonder why that is?
>
> >>>>> Because *you* haven't seen it? Yes, we "understand".
> >>>>> I'd respectfully suggest you go back and finish up your education.
>
> >>>> Woo, talk about projection; now we know you have education
> >>>> problems, too. I finished my education probably in excess of at
> >>>> least 3 years of your, and likely 7 or more years.
>
> >>> I wasn't talking about a train engineer when I mentioned the term
> >>> engineer.
> >>>> And why you use the lies about
> >>>> respect, I'll never
>
> ...
>
> read more »
|
|
|