|
|
Since there seems to be a healthy interest in the registry lately, I
though I'd offer this partial from a white paper I have. It's not new,
but it's still accurate and well worded, IMO. Applicable to all windows
except not sure of Vista or version 7 & 8, which seem to be just more
Vista.
N O T E : The closed minds and snake oil pundits are going to come
slithering out of their holes enmasse over this I imagined. I could not
care less and neither should you. Whether you agree or disagree with
this is no business of mine and your own perogative. My own experience
over more than a decade is fully positive and based on experience and
research, this is an informative, reasonably well written article with a
lot of good advice.
Enjoy
What you wanted to know about cleaning registry on your PC but were
afraid to ask
OR; 4 Myths of Registry Cleaning
(c) amust & a very few \comments\ of my own interspersed; see end of
post.
Windows registry is the "heart and soul" of your Windows
computer. Similar to a file system where you store your documents,
registry is where Windows system stores information about your
computer. All software and hardware settings, as well as every
other aspect of the system configuration is stored in the registry.
Similar to a file system registry is organized in a hierarchical tree
like structure. For example, the settings for Internet Explorer are
stored in HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer
(computer specific settings) as well as
HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer (user specific
settings) keys or registry files. Windows uses this information to
perform *every* operation.
When you install new software (even if you install a small ActiveX
component from the Internet) or make any changes to the
configuration (add new hardware or modify appearance of your
desktop) the changes are recorded in the registry.
If you have a brand new computer your registry is clean and
healthy. However, over time it accumulates old and incorrect
records which can lead to system errors and slowdown in
performance. In addition, spyware, keyloggers, viruses, and Trojan
horses *use* the registry to manipulate the system.
Registry is the most sensitive and critical element of the Microsoft
operating system. Cleaning and repairing registry requires
knowledge and expertise. Doing it the wrong way can lead to more
problems and even fatal system errors. Doing it the right way will
lead to less system errors and better performance.
If you want to learn more about registry there are
some good resources at:
.. Microsoft Knowledgebase article: 0HDescription of the Microsoft
Windows registry OR
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;256986
.. 1HJSI FAQ Tips and Tricks \PAGE IS GONE\
.. Very good technical book for IT pros: 2HMicrosoft Windows XP
Registry Guide by Jerry Honeycutt OR
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0735617880/qid=1120224381/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/103-4924259-0749442?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
.. 3HMastering Windows XP Registry by Peter D. Hipson OR
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0782129870/qid=1120224381/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_ur_2/103-4924259-0749442?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
MS regclean bugs:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;299958
and regclean
http://www.amustsoft.com/
Myth 1: Cleaning Registry on a regular basis is a must
If your Windows computer is relatively new, less than 6 months old,
and you are not a very active user cleaning the registry would not
give you much of a result. However, if you are an active PC user
who frequently tries new software, you need to clean your registry
regularly. To figure out how often you should clean your registry
ask yourself the following questions:
1. How frequently do I install and uninstall games, audio and
video, photo and graphics software, instant messaging or
other Internet software, home and education software, new
printer or other drivers, anti virus, anti spyware and other
utilities?
2. How frequently do I install ActiveX or other components
when browsing the Internet?
3. Do I follow the correct software uninstall procedure?
/Or do I do it "my" way because I know best?/
4. How often do I change my system configuration for example
Internet Explore settings, or other?
5. How often do I change my hardware, printer, monitor,
memory, etc?
Depending on how you answered the questions above you need to
clean your PC registry daily, weekly, monthly, or every 6 months.
More frequent changes require more frequent cleaning.
Myth 2: All registry cleaners work the same way.
The more problems it finds the better the cleaner
The number of problems a cleaner finds is just one of the
indicators. The more important indicator is how many problems it
*fixes* the right way.
In general, there are two different approaches to registry cleaning:
1) "Smart & safe"; and 2) "Bulk & Deep".
A good analogy would be house cleaning. Some people, in fact
most of us, accumulate a lot of paper on their desks. You can clean
your desk by going through every piece of paper, carefully
reviewing each document: credit card statements, important
notices, and newspaper articles. While doing that you put
important documents in the appropriate folders and get rid of the
junk. However, there are some documents you are not sure about.
You do additional work to determine if those documents are
important. This type of desk cleaning is smart & safe, which results
in a clean desk and organized folders. In addition, you know you
won't have problems in the future as you didn't throw away any
important documents. Similarly, a smart & safe registry cleaner
does the job the proper way - if it is not sure about the registry
record it doesn't discard it but works to find out if the record is
important. This cleaning results in a healthy registry, with less
errors and better computer performance.
Alternatively, while cleaning your desk you may keep only
important documents and get rid of the documents you are not sure
about along with the junk. This approach does not include
additional work to find out if the documents that you are not sure
about are important. Obviously, with this approach you will throw
away more documents but it might lead to losing important ones.
This method is called "bulk & deep" cleaning. Similarly, a "bulk &
deep" registry cleaner might show more problems and remove
good registry records.
In fact, some vendors report non-problems as problems to make
their product look better. They call "bulk" cleaning "deep"
cleaning. "Bulk & deep" cleaning that does a mediocre job cleaning
your registry and can lead to more problems and errors. An
example of a problem that can be created by "bulk" cleaning is
described by Microsoft at:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;299958
Myth 3: Full registry backup & restore is enough to keep you out of
trouble
Having full registry backup and restore is critical as it allows you to
bring the registry back to how it was at a certain point in time.
However, it is not enough to keep you out of trouble. You need
both full registry restore and undo registry changes. Let's say in a
day or a week after cleaning the registry on your PC you
experience a problem with one of your applications. You can use
the full registry backup to bring the registry back exactly to the
point in time when you created the full backup. However, you will
lose all the changes to the computer configuration you made after
that last backup. With *"undo registry changes"*, on the other hand,
you are able to reverse the problematic registry change without
affecting the other registry parts. You can fix the problem without
losing all the configuration changes made to your PC.
The rule of thumb is: use "full registry restore" for major disasters
and "undo registry changes" to fix specific problems.
Registry is the most sensitive part of your computer. The ability to
have both a full restore as well as selective undo is a must to keep
you out of trouble.
AMUSTSoftware - 4 Myths about Windows XP Registry Cleanup
Page 4
Myth 4: All the care your registry needs is cleaning and repairing
Your registry also needs compacting which reduces the registry
size and defragments it by removing the holes and empty spaces in
the registry tree.
Cleaning garbage from your registry makes it better since it
removes unused and incorrect data that causes registry pollution,
computer errors and a slowdown in performance. However, this is
not the only thing you need to always have your registry at its best.
Registry structure is such that when you remove unused and
incorrect data, holes are created in the registry tree. Your computer
uses registry to perform every operation. Having holes or empty
spaces in the registry tree slows down your computers performance
and might create operational errors. So, just like the
defragmentation of files compacting the registry removes holes and
fragments causing your computer to run smoother and faster. That
is why in addition to cleaning and repairing the registry must also
be compacted.
Bottom Line:
Registry is critical to the health and performance of your PC. Smart
& safe registry cleaning, repairing and compacting will help to
keep your PC healthy and fast.
Note:
Registry cleaning is just one of things you need to do to maintain
your Windows computer. You should follow other good practices
that include keeping your computer updated with the latest
Microsoft updates, using antivirus and antispyware, using
personal firewall, and regular disk cleaning and defragmentation.
© 2005, AMUST Software Ltd. www.amustsoft.com. All rights
reserved. AMUST Software logo is trademark of AMUST Software
Ltd. in the United States and other countries.
|
|
"Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:OmqgCMVPJHA.5012[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Since there seems to be a healthy interest in the registry lately, I > though I'd offer this partial from a white paper I have. It's not new, > but it's still accurate and well worded, IMO. Applicable to all windows > except not sure of Vista or version 7 & 8, which seem to be just more > Vista. > > N O T E : The closed minds and snake oil pundits are going to come > slithering out of their holes enmasse over this I imagined. I could not > care less and neither should you. Whether you agree or disagree with this > is no business of mine and your own perogative. My own experience over > more than a decade is fully positive and based on experience and research, > this is an informative, reasonably well written article with a lot of good > advice. > > Enjoy > > What you wanted to know about cleaning registry on your PC but were afraid > to ask > > OR; 4 Myths of Registry Cleaning > > (c) amust & a very few \comments\ of my own interspersed; see end of post. > > Windows registry is the "heart and soul" of your Windows > > computer. Similar to a file system where you store your documents, > > registry is where Windows system stores information about your > > computer. All software and hardware settings, as well as every > > other aspect of the system configuration is stored in the registry. > > Similar to a file system registry is organized in a hierarchical tree > > like structure. For example, the settings for Internet Explorer are > > stored in HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer > > (computer specific settings) as well as > > HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer (user specific > > settings) keys or registry files. Windows uses this information to > > perform *every* operation. > > When you install new software (even if you install a small ActiveX > > component from the Internet) or make any changes to the > > configuration (add new hardware or modify appearance of your > > desktop) the changes are recorded in the registry. > > If you have a brand new computer your registry is clean and > > healthy. However, over time it accumulates old and incorrect > > records which can lead to system errors and slowdown in > > performance. In addition, spyware, keyloggers, viruses, and Trojan > > horses *use* the registry to manipulate the system. > > Registry is the most sensitive and critical element of the Microsoft > > operating system. Cleaning and repairing registry requires > > knowledge and expertise. Doing it the wrong way can lead to more > > problems and even fatal system errors. Doing it the right way will > > lead to less system errors and better performance. > > > > If you want to learn more about registry there are > > some good resources at: > > . Microsoft Knowledgebase article: 0HDescription of the Microsoft > > Windows registry OR > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;256986> > . 1HJSI FAQ Tips and Tricks \PAGE IS GONE\ > > . Very good technical book for IT pros: 2HMicrosoft Windows XP > > Registry Guide by Jerry Honeycutt OR > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0735617880/qid=1120224381/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/103-4924259-0749442?v=glance&s=books&n=507846> > . 3HMastering Windows XP Registry by Peter D. Hipson OR > > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0782129870/qid=1120224381/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_ur_2/103-4924259-0749442?v=glance&s=books&n=507846> > MS regclean bugs: > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;299958> > and regclean > > http://www.amustsoft.com/> > > > > > > Myth 1: Cleaning Registry on a regular basis is a must > > If your Windows computer is relatively new, less than 6 months old, > > and you are not a very active user cleaning the registry would not > > give you much of a result. However, if you are an active PC user > > who frequently tries new software, you need to clean your registry > > regularly. To figure out how often you should clean your registry > > ask yourself the following questions: > > 1. How frequently do I install and uninstall games, audio and > > video, photo and graphics software, instant messaging or > > other Internet software, home and education software, new > > printer or other drivers, anti virus, anti spyware and other > > utilities? > > 2. How frequently do I install ActiveX or other components > > when browsing the Internet? > > 3. Do I follow the correct software uninstall procedure? > > /Or do I do it "my" way because I know best?/ > > 4. How often do I change my system configuration for example > > Internet Explore settings, or other? > > 5. How often do I change my hardware, printer, monitor, > > memory, etc? > > Depending on how you answered the questions above you need to > > clean your PC registry daily, weekly, monthly, or every 6 months. > > More frequent changes require more frequent cleaning. > > > > > Myth 2: All registry cleaners work the same way. > > The more problems it finds the better the cleaner > > The number of problems a cleaner finds is just one of the > > indicators. The more important indicator is how many problems it > > *fixes* the right way. > > In general, there are two different approaches to registry cleaning: > > 1) "Smart & safe"; and 2) "Bulk & Deep". > > A good analogy would be house cleaning. Some people, in fact > > most of us, accumulate a lot of paper on their desks. You can clean > > your desk by going through every piece of paper, carefully > > reviewing each document: credit card statements, important > > notices, and newspaper articles. While doing that you put > > important documents in the appropriate folders and get rid of the > > junk. However, there are some documents you are not sure about. > > You do additional work to determine if those documents are > > important. This type of desk cleaning is smart & safe, which results > > in a clean desk and organized folders. In addition, you know you > > won't have problems in the future as you didn't throw away any > > important documents. Similarly, a smart & safe registry cleaner > > does the job the proper way - if it is not sure about the registry > > record it doesn't discard it but works to find out if the record is > > important. This cleaning results in a healthy registry, with less > > errors and better computer performance. > > > > Alternatively, while cleaning your desk you may keep only > > important documents and get rid of the documents you are not sure > > about along with the junk. This approach does not include > > additional work to find out if the documents that you are not sure > > about are important. Obviously, with this approach you will throw > > away more documents but it might lead to losing important ones. > > This method is called "bulk & deep" cleaning. Similarly, a "bulk & > > deep" registry cleaner might show more problems and remove > > good registry records. > > In fact, some vendors report non-problems as problems to make > > their product look better. They call "bulk" cleaning "deep" > > cleaning. "Bulk & deep" cleaning that does a mediocre job cleaning > > your registry and can lead to more problems and errors. An > > example of a problem that can be created by "bulk" cleaning is > > described by Microsoft at: > > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;299958> > > > > Myth 3: Full registry backup & restore is enough to keep you out of > trouble > > Having full registry backup and restore is critical as it allows you to > > bring the registry back to how it was at a certain point in time. > > However, it is not enough to keep you out of trouble. You need > > both full registry restore and undo registry changes. Let's say in a > > day or a week after cleaning the registry on your PC you > > experience a problem with one of your applications. You can use > > the full registry backup to bring the registry back exactly to the > > point in time when you created the full backup. However, you will > > lose all the changes to the computer configuration you made after > > that last backup. With *"undo registry changes"*, on the other hand, > > you are able to reverse the problematic registry change without > > affecting the other registry parts. You can fix the problem without > > losing all the configuration changes made to your PC. > > The rule of thumb is: use "full registry restore" for major disasters > > and "undo registry changes" to fix specific problems. > > Registry is the most sensitive part of your computer. The ability to > > have both a full restore as well as selective undo is a must to keep > > you out of trouble. > > AMUSTSoftware - 4 Myths about Windows XP Registry Cleanup > > Page 4 > > Myth 4: All the care your registry needs is cleaning and repairing > > Your registry also needs compacting which reduces the registry > > size and defragments it by removing the holes and empty spaces in > > the registry tree. > > Cleaning garbage from your registry makes it better since it > > removes unused and incorrect data that causes registry pollution, > > computer errors and a slowdown in performance. However, this is > > not the only thing you need to always have your registry at its best. > > Registry structure is such that when you remove unused and > > incorrect data, holes are created in the registry tree. Your computer > > uses registry to perform every operation. Having holes or empty > > spaces in the registry tree slows down your computers performance > > and might create operational errors. So, just like the > > defragmentation of files compacting the registry removes holes and > > fragments causing your computer to run smoother and faster. That > > is why in addition to cleaning and repairing the registry must also > > be compacted. > > > > > Bottom Line: > > Registry is critical to the health and performance of your PC. Smart > > & safe registry cleaning, repairing and compacting will help to > > keep your PC healthy and fast. > > > > > Note: > > Registry cleaning is just one of things you need to do to maintain > > your Windows computer. You should follow other good practices > > that include keeping your computer updated with the latest > > Microsoft updates, using antivirus and antispyware, using > > personal firewall, and regular disk cleaning and defragmentation. > > © 2005, AMUST Software Ltd. www.amustsoft.com. All rights > > reserved. AMUST Software logo is trademark of AMUST Software > > Ltd. in the United States and other countries. > >
How so 'closed minds'?
That stuff ended with an ad for a registry cleaner which costs..
--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
|
|
Hi Mike:
I agree with you in that all he said led up to directing one to purchase a
paid product which he recommends.
While reading his lengthy email, which I must admit a lot that he said was
true, I kept wondering where he was headed. We found out.
He must be in advertising....
ColTom2
|
|
"ColTom2" <noemailaddress[ at ]nomail.com> wrote in message
news:%23SYwD$bPJHA.1012[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Hi Mike:
>
> I agree with you in that all he said led up to directing one to purchase
> a
> paid product which he recommends.
>
> While reading his lengthy email, which I must admit a lot that he said
> was
> true, I kept wondering where he was headed. We found out.
>
> He must be in advertising....
>
> ColTom2
>
>
>
The old MS Regclean only took the safest stuff out, and it did this to keep
the size of the registry down. Win 9x needed this.
The registry of the Win NT family does not have to be kept down. Orphaned
entries are ignored.
Registry cleaners set for safe use take out stuff which could be left in
without causing any ill effect. So why use them?
Many of the problems with registry cleaners start when the user steps beyond
the default safe settings. It is better to tell users not to run registry
cleaners than for them to find out the hard way what a registry cleaner can
do.
Any author of a registry cleaner is going to make claims for their product.
This one is no different. Will the author help the users whose systems are
hosed. Maybe, in that he/she will blame the user or Microsoft.
--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > Hi Mike:
>
> I agree with you in that all he said led up to directing one to
> purchase a paid product which he recommends.
>
> While reading his lengthy email, which I must admit a lot that he
> said was true, I kept wondering where he was headed. We found out.
>
> He must be in advertising....
>
> ColTom2
Nope; just honest. Never used their product even. I could have weasled
and left that out, but it was part of the article, so it got left in.
Facts don't bother me; misinformation does.
Cheers,
Twayne
|
|
"Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:eUCLJldPJHA.4680[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >> Hi Mike:
>>
>> I agree with you in that all he said led up to directing one to
>> purchase a paid product which he recommends.
>>
>> While reading his lengthy email, which I must admit a lot that he
>> said was true, I kept wondering where he was headed. We found out.
>>
>> He must be in advertising....
>>
>> ColTom2
>
> Nope; just honest. Never used their product even. I could have weasled
> and left that out, but it was part of the article, so it got left in.
> Facts don't bother me; misinformation does.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Twayne
>
So you choose to misinform by posting and ad?
--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
|
|
Twayne wrote:
[Quoted Text] >>Hi Mike:
>>
>> I agree with you in that all he said led up to directing one to
>>purchase a paid product which he recommends.
>>
>> While reading his lengthy email, which I must admit a lot that he
>>said was true, I kept wondering where he was headed. We found out.
>>
>> He must be in advertising....
>>
>>ColTom2
>
>
> Nope; just honest. Never used their product even. I could have weasled
> and left that out, but it was part of the article, so it got left in.
> Facts don't bother me; misinformation does.
If misinformation bothers you then why are you spreading it? You don't
need to clean the registry as you advocate in your advertisement.
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:eUCLJldPJHA.4680[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> Hi Mike:
>>>
>>> I agree with you in that all he said led up to directing one to
>>> purchase a paid product which he recommends.
>>>
>>> While reading his lengthy email, which I must admit a lot that he
>>> said was true, I kept wondering where he was headed. We found out.
>>>
>>> He must be in advertising....
>>>
>>> ColTom2
>>
>> Nope; just honest. Never used their product even. I could have
>> weasled and left that out, but it was part of the article, so it got
>> left in. Facts don't bother me; misinformation does.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Twayne
>>
>
>
> So you choose to misinform by posting and ad?
Hey Mike H,
Nope; just giving information to combat the closed minds who spew the
misinformation about registry cleaners. And you even know that, but
still you choose to attempt to make an issue out of it anyway, where
there is no actual issue. Pretty unbecoming of an MVP (if you really
are one; but, it's too meaningless to bother checking, IMO). If I were
to bother checking I'd probably be wanting to report the inane,
socio-pathic and other violations of the "pledge" rules, which some
would really dislike. Unlike the closed minds, that article provides
links and further information for several things and is very close to my
own experience and knowledge of the issue, as I have already said.
I don't have to report misinformationists; they make themselves
pretty clear on their own.
BTW, got a grammar checker?
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > Twayne wrote:
>
>>> Hi Mike:
>>>
>>> I agree with you in that all he said led up to directing one to
>>> purchase a paid product which he recommends.
>>>
>>> While reading his lengthy email, which I must admit a lot that he
>>> said was true, I kept wondering where he was headed. We found out.
>>>
>>> He must be in advertising....
>>>
>>> ColTom2
>>
>>
>> Nope; just honest. Never used their product even. I could have
>> weasled and left that out, but it was part of the article, so it got
>> left in. Facts don't bother me; misinformation does.
>
> If misinformation bothers you then why are you spreading it? You
> don't need to clean the registry as you advocate in your
> advertisement.
Ha-aaa, like I said, they'd come crawling out from under their rocks.
Prove me wrong.
Twayne
|
|
Twayne wrote:
[Quoted Text] >>Twayne wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Hi Mike:
>>>>
>>>>I agree with you in that all he said led up to directing one to
>>>>purchase a paid product which he recommends.
>>>>
>>>>While reading his lengthy email, which I must admit a lot that he
>>>>said was true, I kept wondering where he was headed. We found out.
>>>>
>>>>He must be in advertising....
>>>>
>>>>ColTom2
>>>
>>>
>>>Nope; just honest. Never used their product even. I could have
>>>weasled and left that out, but it was part of the article, so it got
>>>left in. Facts don't bother me; misinformation does.
>>
>>If misinformation bothers you then why are you spreading it? You
>>don't need to clean the registry as you advocate in your
>>advertisement.
>
>
> Ha-aaa, like I said, they'd come crawling out from under their rocks.
> Prove me wrong.
You have been proven wrong over and over and over again but you still
spew your ignorant comments about. Using advertisement and spaming the
newsgroup to try to shore up your argument is about as low as it can get.
|
|
"John John (MVP)" <audetweld[ at ]nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:edzNB8gPJHA.4304[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Twayne wrote:
>
>>>Twayne wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Hi Mike:
>>>>>
>>>>>I agree with you in that all he said led up to directing one to
>>>>>purchase a paid product which he recommends.
>>>>>
>>>>>While reading his lengthy email, which I must admit a lot that he
>>>>>said was true, I kept wondering where he was headed. We found out.
>>>>>
>>>>>He must be in advertising....
>>>>>
>>>>>ColTom2
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Nope; just honest. Never used their product even. I could have
>>>>weasled and left that out, but it was part of the article, so it got
>>>>left in. Facts don't bother me; misinformation does.
>>>
>>>If misinformation bothers you then why are you spreading it? You
>>>don't need to clean the registry as you advocate in your
>>>advertisement.
>>
>>
>> Ha-aaa, like I said, they'd come crawling out from under their rocks.
>> Prove me wrong.
>
> You have been proven wrong over and over and over again but you still spew
> your ignorant comments about. Using advertisement and spaming the
> newsgroup to try to shore up your argument is about as low as it can get.
I think that we have a troll here..
--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
|
|
"Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:Onhs7wgPJHA.4412[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >> "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:eUCLJldPJHA.4680[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> Hi Mike:
>>>>
>>>> I agree with you in that all he said led up to directing one to
>>>> purchase a paid product which he recommends.
>>>>
>>>> While reading his lengthy email, which I must admit a lot that he
>>>> said was true, I kept wondering where he was headed. We found out.
>>>>
>>>> He must be in advertising....
>>>>
>>>> ColTom2
>>>
>>> Nope; just honest. Never used their product even. I could have
>>> weasled and left that out, but it was part of the article, so it got
>>> left in. Facts don't bother me; misinformation does.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Twayne
>>>
>>
>>
>> So you choose to misinform by posting and ad?
>
> Hey Mike H,
> Nope; just giving information to combat the closed minds who spew the
> misinformation about registry cleaners. And you even know that, but still
> you choose to attempt to make an issue out of it anyway, where there is no
> actual issue. Pretty unbecoming of an MVP (if you really are one; but,
> it's too meaningless to bother checking, IMO). If I were to bother
> checking I'd probably be wanting to report the inane, socio-pathic and
> other violations of the "pledge" rules, which some would really dislike.
> Unlike the closed minds, that article provides links and further
> information for several things and is very close to my own experience and
> knowledge of the issue, as I have already said.
> I don't have to report misinformationists; they make themselves pretty
> clear on their own.
>
> BTW, got a grammar checker?
>
>
No pledge rules in operation, but I have seen enough damage from registry
cleaners to advise against their use.
It is obvious now that you are trolling..
--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
|
|
"Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall[ at ]remove_mvps.com> wrote in message
news:OxW3yaVPJHA.1160[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:OmqgCMVPJHA.5012[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> Since there seems to be a healthy interest in the registry lately, I >> though I'd offer this partial from a white paper I have. It's not new, >> but it's still accurate and well worded, IMO. Applicable to all windows >> except not sure of Vista or version 7 & 8, which seem to be just more >> Vista. >> >> N O T E : The closed minds and snake oil pundits are going to come >> slithering out of their holes enmasse over this I imagined. I could not >> care less and neither should you. Whether you agree or disagree with >> this is no business of mine and your own perogative. My own experience >> over more than a decade is fully positive and based on experience and >> research, this is an informative, reasonably well written article with a >> lot of good advice. >> >> Enjoy >> >> What you wanted to know about cleaning registry on your PC but were >> afraid to ask >> >> OR; 4 Myths of Registry Cleaning >> >> (c) amust & a very few \comments\ of my own interspersed; see end of >> post. >> >> Windows registry is the "heart and soul" of your Windows >> >> computer. Similar to a file system where you store your documents, >> >> registry is where Windows system stores information about your >> >> computer. All software and hardware settings, as well as every >> >> other aspect of the system configuration is stored in the registry. >> >> Similar to a file system registry is organized in a hierarchical tree >> >> like structure. For example, the settings for Internet Explorer are >> >> stored in HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Internet Explorer >> >> (computer specific settings) as well as >> >> HKCU\Software\Microsoft\Internet Explorer (user specific >> >> settings) keys or registry files. Windows uses this information to >> >> perform *every* operation. >> >> When you install new software (even if you install a small ActiveX >> >> component from the Internet) or make any changes to the >> >> configuration (add new hardware or modify appearance of your >> >> desktop) the changes are recorded in the registry. >> >> If you have a brand new computer your registry is clean and >> >> healthy. However, over time it accumulates old and incorrect >> >> records which can lead to system errors and slowdown in >> >> performance. In addition, spyware, keyloggers, viruses, and Trojan >> >> horses *use* the registry to manipulate the system. >> >> Registry is the most sensitive and critical element of the Microsoft >> >> operating system. Cleaning and repairing registry requires >> >> knowledge and expertise. Doing it the wrong way can lead to more >> >> problems and even fatal system errors. Doing it the right way will >> >> lead to less system errors and better performance. >> >> >> >> If you want to learn more about registry there are >> >> some good resources at: >> >> . Microsoft Knowledgebase article: 0HDescription of the Microsoft >> >> Windows registry OR >> >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;256986>> >> . 1HJSI FAQ Tips and Tricks \PAGE IS GONE\ >> >> . Very good technical book for IT pros: 2HMicrosoft Windows XP >> >> Registry Guide by Jerry Honeycutt OR >> >> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0735617880/qid=1120224381/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_ur_1/103-4924259-0749442?v=glance&s=books&n=507846>> >> . 3HMastering Windows XP Registry by Peter D. Hipson OR >> >> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0782129870/qid=1120224381/sr=8-2/ref=pd_bbs_ur_2/103-4924259-0749442?v=glance&s=books&n=507846>> >> MS regclean bugs: >> >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;299958>> >> and regclean >> >> http://www.amustsoft.com/>> >> >> >> >> >> >> Myth 1: Cleaning Registry on a regular basis is a must >> >> If your Windows computer is relatively new, less than 6 months old, >> >> and you are not a very active user cleaning the registry would not >> >> give you much of a result. However, if you are an active PC user >> >> who frequently tries new software, you need to clean your registry >> >> regularly. To figure out how often you should clean your registry >> >> ask yourself the following questions: >> >> 1. How frequently do I install and uninstall games, audio and >> >> video, photo and graphics software, instant messaging or >> >> other Internet software, home and education software, new >> >> printer or other drivers, anti virus, anti spyware and other >> >> utilities? >> >> 2. How frequently do I install ActiveX or other components >> >> when browsing the Internet? >> >> 3. Do I follow the correct software uninstall procedure? >> >> /Or do I do it "my" way because I know best?/ >> >> 4. How often do I change my system configuration for example >> >> Internet Explore settings, or other? >> >> 5. How often do I change my hardware, printer, monitor, >> >> memory, etc? >> >> Depending on how you answered the questions above you need to >> >> clean your PC registry daily, weekly, monthly, or every 6 months. >> >> More frequent changes require more frequent cleaning. >> >> >> >> >> Myth 2: All registry cleaners work the same way. >> >> The more problems it finds the better the cleaner >> >> The number of problems a cleaner finds is just one of the >> >> indicators. The more important indicator is how many problems it >> >> *fixes* the right way. >> >> In general, there are two different approaches to registry cleaning: >> >> 1) "Smart & safe"; and 2) "Bulk & Deep". >> >> A good analogy would be house cleaning. Some people, in fact >> >> most of us, accumulate a lot of paper on their desks. You can clean >> >> your desk by going through every piece of paper, carefully >> >> reviewing each document: credit card statements, important >> >> notices, and newspaper articles. While doing that you put >> >> important documents in the appropriate folders and get rid of the >> >> junk. However, there are some documents you are not sure about. >> >> You do additional work to determine if those documents are >> >> important. This type of desk cleaning is smart & safe, which results >> >> in a clean desk and organized folders. In addition, you know you >> >> won't have problems in the future as you didn't throw away any >> >> important documents. Similarly, a smart & safe registry cleaner >> >> does the job the proper way - if it is not sure about the registry >> >> record it doesn't discard it but works to find out if the record is >> >> important. This cleaning results in a healthy registry, with less >> >> errors and better computer performance. >> >> >> >> Alternatively, while cleaning your desk you may keep only >> >> important documents and get rid of the documents you are not sure >> >> about along with the junk. This approach does not include >> >> additional work to find out if the documents that you are not sure >> >> about are important. Obviously, with this approach you will throw >> >> away more documents but it might lead to losing important ones. >> >> This method is called "bulk & deep" cleaning. Similarly, a "bulk & >> >> deep" registry cleaner might show more problems and remove >> >> good registry records. >> >> In fact, some vendors report non-problems as problems to make >> >> their product look better. They call "bulk" cleaning "deep" >> >> cleaning. "Bulk & deep" cleaning that does a mediocre job cleaning >> >> your registry and can lead to more problems and errors. An >> >> example of a problem that can be created by "bulk" cleaning is >> >> described by Microsoft at: >> >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;299958>> >> >> >> >> Myth 3: Full registry backup & restore is enough to keep you out of >> trouble >> >> Having full registry backup and restore is critical as it allows you to >> >> bring the registry back to how it was at a certain point in time. >> >> However, it is not enough to keep you out of trouble. You need >> >> both full registry restore and undo registry changes. Let's say in a >> >> day or a week after cleaning the registry on your PC you >> >> experience a problem with one of your applications. You can use >> >> the full registry backup to bring the registry back exactly to the >> >> point in time when you created the full backup. However, you will >> >> lose all the changes to the computer configuration you made after >> >> that last backup. With *"undo registry changes"*, on the other hand, >> >> you are able to reverse the problematic registry change without >> >> affecting the other registry parts. You can fix the problem without >> >> losing all the configuration changes made to your PC. >> >> The rule of thumb is: use "full registry restore" for major disasters >> >> and "undo registry changes" to fix specific problems. >> >> Registry is the most sensitive part of your computer. The ability to >> >> have both a full restore as well as selective undo is a must to keep >> >> you out of trouble. >> >> AMUSTSoftware - 4 Myths about Windows XP Registry Cleanup >> >> Page 4 >> >> Myth 4: All the care your registry needs is cleaning and repairing >> >> Your registry also needs compacting which reduces the registry >> >> size and defragments it by removing the holes and empty spaces in >> >> the registry tree. >> >> Cleaning garbage from your registry makes it better since it >> >> removes unused and incorrect data that causes registry pollution, >> >> computer errors and a slowdown in performance. However, this is >> >> not the only thing you need to always have your registry at its best. >> >> Registry structure is such that when you remove unused and >> >> incorrect data, holes are created in the registry tree. Your computer >> >> uses registry to perform every operation. Having holes or empty >> >> spaces in the registry tree slows down your computers performance >> >> and might create operational errors. So, just like the >> >> defragmentation of files compacting the registry removes holes and >> >> fragments causing your computer to run smoother and faster. That >> >> is why in addition to cleaning and repairing the registry must also >> >> be compacted. >> >> >> >> >> Bottom Line: >> >> Registry is critical to the health and performance of your PC. Smart >> >> & safe registry cleaning, repairing and compacting will help to >> >> keep your PC healthy and fast. >> >> >> >> >> Note: >> >> Registry cleaning is just one of things you need to do to maintain >> >> your Windows computer. You should follow other good practices >> >> that include keeping your computer updated with the latest >> >> Microsoft updates, using antivirus and antispyware, using >> >> personal firewall, and regular disk cleaning and defragmentation. >> >> © 2005, AMUST Software Ltd. www.amustsoft.com. All rights >> >> reserved. AMUST Software logo is trademark of AMUST Software >> >> Ltd. in the United States and other countries. >> >> > > > How so 'closed minds'? > > That stuff ended with an ad for a registry cleaner which costs.. > > > -- > Mike Hall - MVP > How to construct a good post.. > http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm> How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups.. > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc> Mike's Window - My Blog.. > http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx> > >
It appeared that the link was part of the white paper Twayne quoted. It
shows repect for the author.
On the other hand, I noticed you listed three links; pot telling the kettle
it's black? An ad is an ad.
--
Don - Windows XP Pro® SP 3
Vancouver, USA
|
|
Don Schmidt wrote:
[Quoted Text] > "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall[ at ]remove_mvps.com> wrote in message
> news:OxW3yaVPJHA.1160[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:OmqgCMVPJHA.5012[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
<lots of good info snipped>
>> How so 'closed minds'?
>>
>> That stuff ended with an ad for a registry cleaner which costs..
>>
>>
>> --
>> Mike Hall - MVP
>> How to construct a good post..
>> http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
>> How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
>> Mike's Window - My Blog..
>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
>>
>>
>>
>
> It appeared that the link was part of the white paper Twayne quoted. It
> shows repect for the author.
>
> On the other hand, I noticed you listed three links; pot telling the kettle
> it's black? An ad is an ad.
>
>
Not only that, one of Mike Hall's links is "How to construct a good post"
My idea of a good post is you snip everything unnecessary in the
original, and respond to the pertinent part. Mr Hall, take a bit of your
own medicine, and learn to trim your replies.
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > Twayne wrote:
>
>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Hi Mike:
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with you in that all he said led up to directing one to
>>>>> purchase a paid product which he recommends.
>>>>>
>>>>> While reading his lengthy email, which I must admit a lot that he
>>>>> said was true, I kept wondering where he was headed. We found out.
>>>>>
>>>>> He must be in advertising....
>>>>>
>>>>> ColTom2
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope; just honest. Never used their product even. I could have
>>>> weasled and left that out, but it was part of the article, so it
>>>> got left in. Facts don't bother me; misinformation does.
>>>
>>> If misinformation bothers you then why are you spreading it? You
>>> don't need to clean the registry as you advocate in your
>>> advertisement.
>>
>>
>> Ha-aaa, like I said, they'd come crawling out from under their rocks.
>> Prove me wrong.
>
> You have been proven wrong over and over and over again but you still
> spew your ignorant comments about. Using advertisement and spaming
> the newsgroup to try to shore up your argument is about as low as it
> can get.
No one as yet has provided anything but opinons, and those come from
closed minds at that.
Prove me wrong. Go ahead; prove it.
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > "John John (MVP)" <audetweld[ at ]nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:edzNB8gPJHA.4304[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Twayne wrote:
>>
>>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Mike:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with you in that all he said led up to directing one to
>>>>>> purchase a paid product which he recommends.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While reading his lengthy email, which I must admit a lot that he
>>>>>> said was true, I kept wondering where he was headed. We found
>>>>>> out. He must be in advertising....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ColTom2
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope; just honest. Never used their product even. I could have
>>>>> weasled and left that out, but it was part of the article, so it
>>>>> got left in. Facts don't bother me; misinformation does.
>>>>
>>>> If misinformation bothers you then why are you spreading it? You
>>>> don't need to clean the registry as you advocate in your
>>>> advertisement.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ha-aaa, like I said, they'd come crawling out from under their
>>> rocks. Prove me wrong.
>>
>> You have been proven wrong over and over and over again but you
>> still spew your ignorant comments about. Using advertisement and
>> spaming the newsgroup to try to shore up your argument is about as
>> low as it can get.
>
>
> I think that we have a troll here..
Ahh, the typical response of one who doesn't know what to say. Prove me
wrong and I won't be able to say those things. Go ahead, prove registry
cleaners can not do anything good and that they are all snake oil. If
you've kept track, that's the start of these threads.
If you call the expression of opinions and supporting evidence trolling,
then so be it. That's how closed minds operate. If I'm wrong, prove
it. Prove registry cleaners are no good and are snake oil.
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:Onhs7wgPJHA.4412[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>> "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>>> news:eUCLJldPJHA.4680[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>> Hi Mike:
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with you in that all he said led up to directing one to
>>>>> purchase a paid product which he recommends.
>>>>>
>>>>> While reading his lengthy email, which I must admit a lot that he
>>>>> said was true, I kept wondering where he was headed. We found out.
>>>>>
>>>>> He must be in advertising....
>>>>>
>>>>> ColTom2
>>>>
>>>> Nope; just honest. Never used their product even. I could have
>>>> weasled and left that out, but it was part of the article, so it
>>>> got left in. Facts don't bother me; misinformation does.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> Twayne
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So you choose to misinform by posting and ad?
>>
>> Hey Mike H,
>> Nope; just giving information to combat the closed minds who spew the
>> misinformation about registry cleaners. And you even know that, but
>> still you choose to attempt to make an issue out of it anyway, where
>> there is no actual issue. Pretty unbecoming of an MVP (if you
>> really are one; but, it's too meaningless to bother checking, IMO).
>> If I were to bother checking I'd probably be wanting to report the
>> inane, socio-pathic and other violations of the "pledge" rules,
>> which some would really dislike. Unlike the closed minds, that
>> article provides links and further information for several things
>> and is very close to my own experience and knowledge of the issue,
>> as I have already said. I don't have to report misinformationists;
>> they make themselves pretty clear on their own.
>>
>> BTW, got a grammar checker?
>>
>>
>
>
> No pledge rules in operation, but I have seen enough damage from
> registry cleaners to advise against their use.
>
> It is obvious now that you are trolling..
Nope, education, which is something you don't seem to believe in. If
you have the proof that all registry cleaners are bad and they are all
snake oil, let's have it. That's what this is all about.
I"ve asked and asked for the information to back up why all registry
cleaners are snake oil and never had a single response to it, not even
one. Well, there was one, but it was based on ONE instance of use ONE
time on ONE machine; not very convincing of anything.
If you have good information that all registry cleaners are bad,
let's have it.
|
|
Seems both my and Microsoft believe in top posting (when responding, the
cursor defaults to the top of the page) and alerting the message isn't a
problem.
--
Don - Windows XP Pro® SP 3
Vancouver, USA
"occam" <occam[ at ]127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:eAM7rklPJHA.1160[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Don Schmidt wrote: >> "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall[ at ]remove_mvps.com> wrote in message >> news:OxW3yaVPJHA.1160[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>> "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message >>> news:OmqgCMVPJHA.5012[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... > > <lots of good info snipped> > > >>> How so 'closed minds'? >>> >>> That stuff ended with an ad for a registry cleaner which costs.. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Mike Hall - MVP >>> How to construct a good post.. >>> http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm>>> How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups.. >>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc>>> Mike's Window - My Blog.. >>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx>>> >>> >>> >> >> It appeared that the link was part of the white paper Twayne quoted. It >> shows repect for the author. >> >> On the other hand, I noticed you listed three links; pot telling the >> kettle it's black? An ad is an ad. >> >> > > Not only that, one of Mike Hall's links is "How to construct a good post" > > My idea of a good post is you snip everything unnecessary in the original, > and respond to the pertinent part. Mr Hall, take a bit of your own > medicine, and learn to trim your replies.
|
|
Twayne wrote:
[Quoted Text] >>Twayne wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Twayne wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>Hi Mike:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I agree with you in that all he said led up to directing one to
>>>>>>purchase a paid product which he recommends.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>While reading his lengthy email, which I must admit a lot that he
>>>>>>said was true, I kept wondering where he was headed. We found out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>He must be in advertising....
>>>>>>
>>>>>>ColTom2
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Nope; just honest. Never used their product even. I could have
>>>>>weasled and left that out, but it was part of the article, so it
>>>>>got left in. Facts don't bother me; misinformation does.
>>>>
>>>>If misinformation bothers you then why are you spreading it? You
>>>>don't need to clean the registry as you advocate in your
>>>>advertisement.
>>>
>>>
>>>Ha-aaa, like I said, they'd come crawling out from under their rocks.
>>>Prove me wrong.
>>
>>You have been proven wrong over and over and over again but you still
>>spew your ignorant comments about. Using advertisement and spaming
>>the newsgroup to try to shore up your argument is about as low as it
>>can get.
>
>
> No one as yet has provided anything but opinons, and those come from
> closed minds at that.
>
> Prove me wrong. Go ahead; prove it.
How about these archived Google discussions:
http://tinyurl.com/5zfevg
http://tinyurl.com/6elcdy
http://tinyurl.com/6dhtq8
http://tinyurl.com/5hmvrt
http://tinyurl.com/62p9n2
http://tinyurl.com/6mt37x
or these:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/951950
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888637
Of course in your usual dense blockhead manner you will brush those
proofs aside and still insist that everyone but you have closed minds
and that the ones who originally posted their problems are lying. We've
come to expect this from you. A short while ago I asked you to post
links and prove another one of your outlandish buffoonish claims and as
usual you couldn't provide anything. Now, as if you aren't enough of a
troll, you have sunk to new lows by resorting to spam to spread your
ignorant opinions.
John
|
|
Twayne wrote:
[Quoted Text] >>"John John (MVP)" <audetweld[ at ]nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>>news:edzNB8gPJHA.4304[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>Twayne wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Twayne wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>Hi Mike:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I agree with you in that all he said led up to directing one to
>>>>>>>purchase a paid product which he recommends.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>While reading his lengthy email, which I must admit a lot that he
>>>>>>>said was true, I kept wondering where he was headed. We found
>>>>>>>out. He must be in advertising....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>ColTom2
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Nope; just honest. Never used their product even. I could have
>>>>>>weasled and left that out, but it was part of the article, so it
>>>>>>got left in. Facts don't bother me; misinformation does.
>>>>>
>>>>>If misinformation bothers you then why are you spreading it? You
>>>>>don't need to clean the registry as you advocate in your
>>>>>advertisement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ha-aaa, like I said, they'd come crawling out from under their
>>>>rocks. Prove me wrong.
>>>
>>>You have been proven wrong over and over and over again but you
>>>still spew your ignorant comments about. Using advertisement and
>>>spaming the newsgroup to try to shore up your argument is about as
>>>low as it can get.
>>
>>
>>I think that we have a troll here..
>
>
> Ahh, the typical response of one who doesn't know what to say. Prove me
> wrong and I won't be able to say those things. Go ahead, prove registry
> cleaners can not do anything good and that they are all snake oil. If
> you've kept track, that's the start of these threads.
>
> If you call the expression of opinions and supporting evidence trolling,
> then so be it. That's how closed minds operate. If I'm wrong, prove
> it. Prove registry cleaners are no good and are snake oil.
You are a troll, you have never provided any supporting documents for
your claims and all you can do is provide SPAM in your feeble attempts
to support your opinions! Registry cleaners are nothing but snake oil
promoted by snakes in the grass!
|
|
"Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:O3PKZnqPJHA.4756[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >> "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:Onhs7wgPJHA.4412[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>> "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:eUCLJldPJHA.4680[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Hi Mike:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with you in that all he said led up to directing one to
>>>>>> purchase a paid product which he recommends.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While reading his lengthy email, which I must admit a lot that he
>>>>>> said was true, I kept wondering where he was headed. We found out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He must be in advertising....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ColTom2
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope; just honest. Never used their product even. I could have
>>>>> weasled and left that out, but it was part of the article, so it
>>>>> got left in. Facts don't bother me; misinformation does.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> Twayne
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you choose to misinform by posting and ad?
>>>
>>> Hey Mike H,
>>> Nope; just giving information to combat the closed minds who spew the
>>> misinformation about registry cleaners. And you even know that, but
>>> still you choose to attempt to make an issue out of it anyway, where
>>> there is no actual issue. Pretty unbecoming of an MVP (if you
>>> really are one; but, it's too meaningless to bother checking, IMO). If I
>>> were to bother checking I'd probably be wanting to report the
>>> inane, socio-pathic and other violations of the "pledge" rules,
>>> which some would really dislike. Unlike the closed minds, that
>>> article provides links and further information for several things
>>> and is very close to my own experience and knowledge of the issue,
>>> as I have already said. I don't have to report misinformationists;
>>> they make themselves pretty clear on their own.
>>>
>>> BTW, got a grammar checker?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> No pledge rules in operation, but I have seen enough damage from
>> registry cleaners to advise against their use.
>>
>> It is obvious now that you are trolling..
>
> Nope, education, which is something you don't seem to believe in. If you
> have the proof that all registry cleaners are bad and they are all snake
> oil, let's have it. That's what this is all about.
> I"ve asked and asked for the information to back up why all registry
> cleaners are snake oil and never had a single response to it, not even
> one. Well, there was one, but it was based on ONE instance of use ONE
> time on ONE machine; not very convincing of anything.
> If you have good information that all registry cleaners are bad, let's
> have it.
>
I have already told you.
MS Regclean kept the size of the Win 9x registry to a size where it would
not cause the OS to crash.
NT does not crash if the registry grows, and it ignores orphaned entries..
Registry cleaners which claim to fix registry problems more often than not
stop the OS working completely. One only has to look at posts re registry
cleaner use in these newsgroups.
Your 'education' is a regurgitation of a sales pitch used by authors of
registry cleaners. It proves nothing.
The burden of proof is on you. Find just one article where data shows that a
registry cleaner did anything more than remove stuff which could have been
left where it was, or completely stop an OS in its tracks if all functions
of the registry cleaner were brought into play..
My guess is that you have a vested interest in a registry cleaner..
--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
|
|
"Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:uU8GHlqPJHA.4480[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld[ at ]nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
>> news:edzNB8gPJHA.4304[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Twayne wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Mike:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with you in that all he said led up to directing one to
>>>>>>> purchase a paid product which he recommends.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While reading his lengthy email, which I must admit a lot that he
>>>>>>> said was true, I kept wondering where he was headed. We found
>>>>>>> out. He must be in advertising....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ColTom2
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope; just honest. Never used their product even. I could have
>>>>>> weasled and left that out, but it was part of the article, so it
>>>>>> got left in. Facts don't bother me; misinformation does.
>>>>>
>>>>> If misinformation bothers you then why are you spreading it? You
>>>>> don't need to clean the registry as you advocate in your
>>>>> advertisement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ha-aaa, like I said, they'd come crawling out from under their
>>>> rocks. Prove me wrong.
>>>
>>> You have been proven wrong over and over and over again but you
>>> still spew your ignorant comments about. Using advertisement and
>>> spaming the newsgroup to try to shore up your argument is about as
>>> low as it can get.
>>
>>
>> I think that we have a troll here..
>
> Ahh, the typical response of one who doesn't know what to say. Prove me
> wrong and I won't be able to say those things. Go ahead, prove registry
> cleaners can not do anything good and that they are all snake oil. If
> you've kept track, that's the start of these threads.
>
> If you call the expression of opinions and supporting evidence trolling,
> then so be it. That's how closed minds operate. If I'm wrong, prove it.
> Prove registry cleaners are no good and are snake oil.
>
As I said in another response, the burden of proof is on you. So far, you
have regurgitated a sales pitch by a Russian software company..
--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
|
|
i LOVE top posting...
"Don Schmidt" <Don Engineer[ at ]PNB.Retired_1987> wrote in message
news:Y-KdnaVRbPotOI3UnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d[ at ]posted.palinacquisition...
[Quoted Text] > Seems both my and Microsoft believe in top posting (when responding, the > cursor defaults to the top of the page) and alerting the message isn't a > problem. > > > -- > Don - Windows XP Pro® SP 3 > Vancouver, USA > > > "occam" <occam[ at ]127.0.0.1> wrote in message > news:eAM7rklPJHA.1160[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> Don Schmidt wrote: >>> "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall[ at ]remove_mvps.com> wrote in message >>> news:OxW3yaVPJHA.1160[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>>> "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message >>>> news:OmqgCMVPJHA.5012[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> >> <lots of good info snipped> >> >> >>>> How so 'closed minds'? >>>> >>>> That stuff ended with an ad for a registry cleaner which costs.. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mike Hall - MVP >>>> How to construct a good post.. >>>> http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm>>>> How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups.. >>>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc>>>> Mike's Window - My Blog.. >>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> It appeared that the link was part of the white paper Twayne quoted. It >>> shows repect for the author. >>> >>> On the other hand, I noticed you listed three links; pot telling the >>> kettle it's black? An ad is an ad. >>> >>> >> >> Not only that, one of Mike Hall's links is "How to construct a good post" >> >> My idea of a good post is you snip everything unnecessary in the >> original, and respond to the pertinent part. Mr Hall, take a bit of your >> own medicine, and learn to trim your replies. > >
|
|
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > Twayne wrote: > >>> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld[ at ]nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message >>> news:edzNB8gPJHA.4304[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>> >>>> Twayne wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>> Twayne wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Mike: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I agree with you in that all he said led up to directing one to >>>>>>>> purchase a paid product which he recommends. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> While reading his lengthy email, which I must admit a lot that >>>>>>>> he said was true, I kept wondering where he was headed. We >>>>>>>> found out. He must be in advertising.... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ColTom2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope; just honest. Never used their product even. I could have >>>>>>> weasled and left that out, but it was part of the article, so it >>>>>>> got left in. Facts don't bother me; misinformation does. >>>>>> >>>>>> If misinformation bothers you then why are you spreading it? You >>>>>> don't need to clean the registry as you advocate in your >>>>>> advertisement. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ha-aaa, like I said, they'd come crawling out from under their >>>>> rocks. Prove me wrong. >>>> >>>> You have been proven wrong over and over and over again but you >>>> still spew your ignorant comments about. Using advertisement and >>>> spaming the newsgroup to try to shore up your argument is about as >>>> low as it can get. >>> >>> >>> I think that we have a troll here.. >> >> >> Ahh, the typical response of one who doesn't know what to say. Prove >> me wrong and I won't be able to say those things. Go ahead, >> prove registry cleaners can not do anything good and that they are >> all snake oil. If you've kept track, that's the start of these >> threads. If you call the expression of opinions and supporting >> evidence >> trolling, then so be it. That's how closed minds operate. If I'm >> wrong, prove it. Prove registry cleaners are no good and are snake >> oil. > > You are a troll, you have never provided any supporting documents for > your claims and all you can do is provide SPAM in your feeble attempts > to support your opinions! Registry cleaners are nothing but snake oil > promoted by snakes in the grass!
Interesting attitude for a supposedly intelligent person. Your
abilities at reading comprehension are sorely lacking, I'm afraid.
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:uU8GHlqPJHA.4480[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld[ at ]nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message >>> news:edzNB8gPJHA.4304[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>> Twayne wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Twayne wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Mike: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I agree with you in that all he said led up to directing one to >>>>>>>> purchase a paid product which he recommends. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> While reading his lengthy email, which I must admit a lot that >>>>>>>> he said was true, I kept wondering where he was headed. We >>>>>>>> found out. He must be in advertising.... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ColTom2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope; just honest. Never used their product even. I could have >>>>>>> weasled and left that out, but it was part of the article, so it >>>>>>> got left in. Facts don't bother me; misinformation does. >>>>>> >>>>>> If misinformation bothers you then why are you spreading it? You >>>>>> don't need to clean the registry as you advocate in your >>>>>> advertisement. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ha-aaa, like I said, they'd come crawling out from under their >>>>> rocks. Prove me wrong. >>>> >>>> You have been proven wrong over and over and over again but you >>>> still spew your ignorant comments about. Using advertisement and >>>> spaming the newsgroup to try to shore up your argument is about as >>>> low as it can get. >>> >>> >>> I think that we have a troll here.. >> >> Ahh, the typical response of one who doesn't know what to say. Prove >> me wrong and I won't be able to say those things. Go ahead, >> prove registry cleaners can not do anything good and that they are >> all snake oil. If you've kept track, that's the start of these >> threads. If you call the expression of opinions and supporting >> evidence >> trolling, then so be it. That's how closed minds operate. If I'm >> wrong, prove it. Prove registry cleaners are no good and are snake >> oil. > > > As I said in another response, the burden of proof is on you. So far, > you have regurgitated a sales pitch by a Russian software company..
lol, and so far you have lied and provided misinformation with your
contradictory statement. I suspect you don't even had a good idea of
how a "cleaner" works or how it functions to decide whether and how to
present ojbects for possible repair. You have little to no background,
experience or knowledge of the subject at hand and show that ignorance
over and over in the last few posts. Mayhaps you should reread the
"pledge" you took otherwise known as the Code of Conduct amongst a few
other interesting connotations I've seen MVPs refer to. IF you're an
MVP you're not a good one and you don't follow the rules - or you would
go on subject with your posts.
Also I can only assume your comment about a "Russian..." is prejudice
clear and simple. As in, they are not capable of doing such a thing
because ... ? Is that what you meant? What other meaning can I apply
to the comment? Over my career I hired a total of 4 Russians, and they
all turned out to be excellent employees, not devoid of intelligence or
ethics in any way. One in fact was awarded many recognitions for his
out of box thinking, though it wasn't called that then.
Now, let's talk about what you've regurgitated: Nah, too easy. And
you're not showing anything to be worthy of the time.
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:O3PKZnqPJHA.4756[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Onhs7wgPJHA.4412[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>> "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:eUCLJldPJHA.4680[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>> Hi Mike:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with you in that all he said led up to directing one to
>>>>>>> purchase a paid product which he recommends.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> While reading his lengthy email, which I must admit a lot that
>>>>>>> he said was true, I kept wondering where he was headed. We
>>>>>>> found out. He must be in advertising....
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ColTom2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope; just honest. Never used their product even. I could have
>>>>>> weasled and left that out, but it was part of the article, so it
>>>>>> got left in. Facts don't bother me; misinformation does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Twayne
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So you choose to misinform by posting and ad?
>>>>
>>>> Hey Mike H,
>>>> Nope; just giving information to combat the closed minds who spew
>>>> the misinformation about registry cleaners. And you even know
>>>> that, but still you choose to attempt to make an issue out of it
>>>> anyway, where there is no actual issue. Pretty unbecoming of an
>>>> MVP (if you really are one; but, it's too meaningless to bother
>>>> checking,
>>>> IMO). If I were to bother checking I'd probably be wanting to
>>>> report the inane, socio-pathic and other violations of the "pledge"
>>>> rules,
>>>> which some would really dislike. Unlike the closed minds, that
>>>> article provides links and further information for several things
>>>> and is very close to my own experience and knowledge of the issue,
>>>> as I have already said. I don't have to report
>>>> misinformationists; they make themselves pretty clear on their own.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, got a grammar checker?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No pledge rules in operation, but I have seen enough damage from
>>> registry cleaners to advise against their use.
>>>
>>> It is obvious now that you are trolling..
>>
>> Nope, education, which is something you don't seem to believe in. If
>> you have the proof that all registry cleaners are bad and they
>> are all snake oil, let's have it. That's what this is all about.
>> I"ve asked and asked for the information to back up why all
>> registry cleaners are snake oil and never had a single response to
>> it, not even one. Well, there was one, but it was based on ONE
>> instance of use ONE time on ONE machine; not very convincing of
>> anything. If you have good information that all registry cleaners
>> are bad, let's have it.
>>
>
>
> I have already told you.
>
> MS Regclean kept the size of the Win 9x registry to a size where it
> would not cause the OS to crash.
Where did win98 come from? Redirection attempt maybe? OK, I accept it.
That's one. But at least it's an empirical fact mostly backed by valid
information. But you can't paint the whole world based on an average of
one any more than I can paint all MVPs as ignorant because one says
registry cleaners are all bad.
>
> NT does not crash if the registry grows, and it ignores orphaned
> entries..
And, that proves what? An improvement over 98? Duhh!
>
> Registry cleaners which claim to fix registry problems more often
> than not stop the OS working completely. One only has to look at
> posts re registry cleaner use in these newsgroups.
I don't know of any registry cleaner that does NOT claim to fix registry
problems.
And of the ones I have used over the years, not a single one has ever
stopped the OS from working completely. Never. On several hundred
machines total. Often they didn't help anything; but they never did
harm either, especially to the point of rendering a system unusable of
unbootable.
So ... I've expressed experience but you only expressed opinion. Got
more? I'm serious, actually. I have not yet seen a registry cleaner
I've used trash a machine - where the heck do all the myths about "more
often than not" come from anyway? I cannot find it. I *could* find it,
if I used enough junky kiddie-designed and no-rep cleaners, but ...
that's a little silly and no way to prove that ALL do the same thing.
>
> Your 'education' is a regurgitation of a sales pitch used by authors
> of registry cleaners. It proves nothing.
It actually does, and if you like the word regurgitation, feel free.
You have seen some very good information and references to go along with
them. Because I'm not dishonest enough to remove links to things like a
list of the "ten best" or whatever, has little bearing on anything if
the information they present is accurate AND reflects the reaility of
the situations, which every one I have presented does do. I have had no
experiences contradictory to what those articles say. You are not
saying you have had the opposite experience either, I notice. Why is
that?
>
> The burden of proof is on you. Find just one article where data shows
> that a registry cleaner did anything more than remove stuff which
> could have been left where it was, or completely stop an OS in its
> tracks if all functions of the registry cleaner were brought into
> play..
No, the burden of "proof" is not upon me. You're irritated because I
have the audacity to actually say what I believe and have experienced,
while you just hide behind comments like your burden of proof. If it is
that important to you, then it is you who has the burden of proof. I
already know.
Besides making sure the lock on your mind is solidly connected, you
have done absoutely nothing to show yourself or anyone else that your
contentions are correct. It's interesting because it is so incredibly
simple to do and yet you fail to do so, along with your other cohorts
and fellow yearly "pledgers" to the ROC. With your background you
should know better IMO. I do assume that you at least are one who has a
current/valid MVP title. I have no idea whether you are or not and
dont' really care anyway. For the most part it would appear to me that
MVPs are freebie labor for Microsoft so they don't have to bother with
"peons". MS also claims they check into the groups now and then but in
the years I've been here, I've never seen one. If they do check in,
they are sure to hide. But I digress, which is something I don't
like.
>
> My guess is that you have a vested interest in a registry cleaner..
lol, really? Well, in a way that's true: I DO have an INvestment in a
registry maintenance program, and the other fav one I use is a freebie
that costs nothing. Both are excellent applications and no matter what
windows machine I run them on, perform flawlessly. There are several
others I would have no problem seeing people use too, and a bunch I know
nothing about which I'd suggest not be used, but ... that's all true
with any application, not just registry maintenance.
|
|
A good "fix" for the sig issues/cursor start positions etc., with OE is
"OE-quotefix". It fixes the top-positioning of the cursor problem
(actually it's programmable), color codes quotes and a few other handy
fixes that OE left out for use on newsgroups. Makes it a lot more
compatible including managing sigs, etc.. If you believe MS, OE was
never intended for public use; only internal. If you're interested
it's available here:
http://www.insideoe.com/resources/tools.htm
I'm not certain it's supported any longer but what is there works
reasonably well and doesn't break anything. I've had it for years and
like it.
Cheers,
Twayne
[Quoted Text] > Seems both my and Microsoft believe in top posting (when responding, > the cursor defaults to the top of the page) and alerting the message > isn't a problem. > > > > "occam" <occam[ at ]127.0.0.1> wrote in message > news:eAM7rklPJHA.1160[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >> Don Schmidt wrote: >>> "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall[ at ]remove_mvps.com> wrote in message >>> news:OxW3yaVPJHA.1160[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... >>>> "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message >>>> news:OmqgCMVPJHA.5012[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >> >> <lots of good info snipped> >> >> >>>> How so 'closed minds'? >>>> >>>> That stuff ended with an ad for a registry cleaner which costs.. >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Mike Hall - MVP >>>> How to construct a good post.. >>>> http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm>>>> How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups.. >>>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc>>>> Mike's Window - My Blog.. >>>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> It appeared that the link was part of the white paper Twayne >>> quoted. It shows repect for the author. >>> >>> On the other hand, I noticed you listed three links; pot telling the >>> kettle it's black? An ad is an ad. >>> >>> >> >> Not only that, one of Mike Hall's links is "How to construct a good >> post" My idea of a good post is you snip everything unnecessary in >> the >> original, and respond to the pertinent part. Mr Hall, take a bit of >> your own medicine, and learn to trim your replies.
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > Twayne wrote: >>> Twayne wrote: >>> >>> >>>>> Twayne wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Mike: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I agree with you in that all he said led up to directing one to >>>>>>> purchase a paid product which he recommends. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> While reading his lengthy email, which I must admit a lot that >>>>>>> he said was true, I kept wondering where he was headed. We >>>>>>> found out. He must be in advertising.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ColTom2 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope; just honest. Never used their product even. I could have >>>>>> weasled and left that out, but it was part of the article, so it >>>>>> got left in. Facts don't bother me; misinformation does. >>>>> >>>>> If misinformation bothers you then why are you spreading it? You >>>>> don't need to clean the registry as you advocate in your >>>>> advertisement. >>>> >>>> >>>> Ha-aaa, like I said, they'd come crawling out from under their >>>> rocks. Prove me wrong. >>> >>> You have been proven wrong over and over and over again but you >>> still spew your ignorant comments about. Using advertisement and >>> spaming the newsgroup to try to shore up your argument is about as >>> low as it can get. >> >> >> No one as yet has provided anything but opinons, and those come from >> closed minds at that. >> >> Prove me wrong. Go ahead; prove it. > > How about these archived Google discussions: > > http://tinyurl.com/5zfevg I will not click a faked URL. Who knows > where those might go? http://tinyurl.com/6elcdy> http://tinyurl.com/6dhtq8> http://tinyurl.com/5hmvrt> http://tinyurl.com/62p9n2> http://tinyurl.com/6mt37x> > or these: > > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/951950
cause the same problem if you actually know anything about it.
Also: Not all registry maintenance programs caused the problem, MS
did something they shouldn't have, and it has little to do with whether
such programs are useful or not. They not only supplied a workaround
for the two situations where their own software created problems, but
even notified reg maint authors of the issues. That all came about back
in the day when MS still cared a little about their customers.
For some reason I have a feeling you just found that link and decided
it proved your case, but ... again, it has nothing to do with registry
maintenance all being snake oil.
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888637
That one's news to me, but:
did you read that one too? That's about their own buggy registry
cleaner; a failed event from the git-go in a lot more areas than just
that one.
I can show you a LOT more of such information but none of it does
anything to support the claims that all registry cleaners are snake oil,
should never be used, and never do anything useful. I know you'll
attack this one out of hand but I would never touch such a thing from
Microsoft without first finding considerable supporting evidence that it
worked. They have no idea what they're doing most of hte time and if
you kept up with that end of things, you also noticed that the "teams"
that worked with win reg cure were NOT comprised of anyone at MS who was
a guru or had written any even related code to the registry. Now that
latter part is hearsay from an MVPs blog, but I tend to believe it; he
seemed to have all the backup to support it.
But the main point is, it says nothing in support of the claims that
*all registry cleaners are snake oil, should never be used, and never do
anything useful.* As I keep saying over and over, THAT is the issue at
hand and has been since day one.
>
> Of course in your usual dense blockhead manner you will brush those
> proofs aside and still insist that everyone but you have closed minds
> and that the ones who originally posted their problems are lying.
> We've come to expect this from you. A short while ago I asked you to
> post links and prove another one of your outlandish buffoonish claims
> and as usual you couldn't provide anything. Now, as if you aren't
> enough of a troll, you have sunk to new lows by resorting to spam to
> spread your ignorant opinions.
>
> John
lol, you're a really dim bulb, aren't you? First, I gave you the URLs
you asked for and said to come back if they weren't the ones you
expected, and you blackholed it. So much for your honesty and actual
interest in real fact.
I also don't follow short URLs from people I don't know, in
particular MVPs who can't adhere to their own Rules of Conduct. So you
wasted your time creating those. Put them in full URL format and I'll
look at them. Only bozos follow URLs they can't tell where they are
going. Nice try.
I'm tempted to compare this post from you to your rules of conduct, but
you've trashed them since long before you and I began to communicate.
Suffice it to say that I don't think you are an MVP, but that's
digressing, so I'll stop there.
Twayne
|
|
|
|
"Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:OjPmmgtPJHA.1164[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >> "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:O3PKZnqPJHA.4756[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:Onhs7wgPJHA.4412[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:eUCLJldPJHA.4680[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>>> Hi Mike:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I agree with you in that all he said led up to directing one to
>>>>>>>> purchase a paid product which he recommends.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> While reading his lengthy email, which I must admit a lot that
>>>>>>>> he said was true, I kept wondering where he was headed. We
>>>>>>>> found out. He must be in advertising....
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ColTom2
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope; just honest. Never used their product even. I could have
>>>>>>> weasled and left that out, but it was part of the article, so it
>>>>>>> got left in. Facts don't bother me; misinformation does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Twayne
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you choose to misinform by posting and ad?
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey Mike H,
>>>>> Nope; just giving information to combat the closed minds who spew
>>>>> the misinformation about registry cleaners. And you even know
>>>>> that, but still you choose to attempt to make an issue out of it
>>>>> anyway, where there is no actual issue. Pretty unbecoming of an
>>>>> MVP (if you really are one; but, it's too meaningless to bother
>>>>> checking,
>>>>> IMO). If I were to bother checking I'd probably be wanting to
>>>>> report the inane, socio-pathic and other violations of the "pledge"
>>>>> rules,
>>>>> which some would really dislike. Unlike the closed minds, that
>>>>> article provides links and further information for several things
>>>>> and is very close to my own experience and knowledge of the issue,
>>>>> as I have already said. I don't have to report
>>>>> misinformationists; they make themselves pretty clear on their own.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW, got a grammar checker?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No pledge rules in operation, but I have seen enough damage from
>>>> registry cleaners to advise against their use.
>>>>
>>>> It is obvious now that you are trolling..
>>>
>>> Nope, education, which is something you don't seem to believe in. If you
>>> have the proof that all registry cleaners are bad and they
>>> are all snake oil, let's have it. That's what this is all about.
>>> I"ve asked and asked for the information to back up why all
>>> registry cleaners are snake oil and never had a single response to
>>> it, not even one. Well, there was one, but it was based on ONE
>>> instance of use ONE time on ONE machine; not very convincing of
>>> anything. If you have good information that all registry cleaners
>>> are bad, let's have it.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have already told you.
>>
>> MS Regclean kept the size of the Win 9x registry to a size where it
>> would not cause the OS to crash.
>
> Where did win98 come from? Redirection attempt maybe? OK, I accept it.
> That's one. But at least it's an empirical fact mostly backed by valid
> information. But you can't paint the whole world based on an average of
> one any more than I can paint all MVPs as ignorant because one says
> registry cleaners are all bad.
>
>>
>> NT does not crash if the registry grows, and it ignores orphaned
>> entries..
>
> And, that proves what? An improvement over 98? Duhh!
>>
>> Registry cleaners which claim to fix registry problems more often
>> than not stop the OS working completely. One only has to look at
>> posts re registry cleaner use in these newsgroups.
>
> I don't know of any registry cleaner that does NOT claim to fix registry
> problems.
> And of the ones I have used over the years, not a single one has ever
> stopped the OS from working completely. Never. On several hundred
> machines total. Often they didn't help anything; but they never did harm
> either, especially to the point of rendering a system unusable of
> unbootable.
> So ... I've expressed experience but you only expressed opinion. Got
> more? I'm serious, actually. I have not yet seen a registry cleaner I've
> used trash a machine - where the heck do all the myths about "more often
> than not" come from anyway? I cannot find it. I *could* find it, if I
> used enough junky kiddie-designed and no-rep cleaners, but ... that's a
> little silly and no way to prove that ALL do the same thing.
>
>>
>> Your 'education' is a regurgitation of a sales pitch used by authors
>> of registry cleaners. It proves nothing.
>
> It actually does, and if you like the word regurgitation, feel free. You
> have seen some very good information and references to go along with them.
> Because I'm not dishonest enough to remove links to things like a list of
> the "ten best" or whatever, has little bearing on anything if the
> information they present is accurate AND reflects the reaility of the
> situations, which every one I have presented does do. I have had no
> experiences contradictory to what those articles say. You are not saying
> you have had the opposite experience either, I notice. Why is that?
>>
>> The burden of proof is on you. Find just one article where data shows
>> that a registry cleaner did anything more than remove stuff which
>> could have been left where it was, or completely stop an OS in its
>> tracks if all functions of the registry cleaner were brought into
>> play..
>
> No, the burden of "proof" is not upon me. You're irritated because I have
> the audacity to actually say what I believe and have experienced, while
> you just hide behind comments like your burden of proof. If it is that
> important to you, then it is you who has the burden of proof. I already
> know.
> Besides making sure the lock on your mind is solidly connected, you
> have done absoutely nothing to show yourself or anyone else that your
> contentions are correct. It's interesting because it is so incredibly
> simple to do and yet you fail to do so, along with your other cohorts and
> fellow yearly "pledgers" to the ROC. With your background you should know
> better IMO. I do assume that you at least are one who has a current/valid
> MVP title. I have no idea whether you are or not and dont' really care
> anyway. For the most part it would appear to me that MVPs are freebie
> labor for Microsoft so they don't have to bother with "peons". MS also
> claims they check into the groups now and then but in the years I've been
> here, I've never seen one. If they do check in, they are sure to hide.
> But I digress, which is something I don't like.
>
>>
>> My guess is that you have a vested interest in a registry cleaner..
>
> lol, really? Well, in a way that's true: I DO have an INvestment in a
> registry maintenance program, and the other fav one I use is a freebie
> that costs nothing. Both are excellent applications and no matter what
> windows machine I run them on, perform flawlessly. There are several
> others I would have no problem seeing people use too, and a bunch I know
> nothing about which I'd suggest not be used, but ... that's all true with
> any application, not just registry maintenance.
>
>
>
>
>
I am not irritated at all, but I will try to ensure that computer users
don't fall foul of registry cleaners.
As you have two of them, presumably you can produce data to show that they
do what they claim..
Re my contentions.. read the posts in newsgroups over the years and you come
across more than a few who have fallen foul.
All you state is a sales pitch which makes claims that can't be
substantiated at all. I believe that it is called FUD..
Now we get to the insults.. way to go..
--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
|
|
"Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:uXnlUStPJHA.4848[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >> "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message >> news:uU8GHlqPJHA.4480[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl... >>>> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld[ at ]nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message >>>> news:edzNB8gPJHA.4304[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl... >>>>> Twayne wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Twayne wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Mike: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I agree with you in that all he said led up to directing one to >>>>>>>>> purchase a paid product which he recommends. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> While reading his lengthy email, which I must admit a lot that >>>>>>>>> he said was true, I kept wondering where he was headed. We >>>>>>>>> found out. He must be in advertising.... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ColTom2 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope; just honest. Never used their product even. I could have >>>>>>>> weasled and left that out, but it was part of the article, so it >>>>>>>> got left in. Facts don't bother me; misinformation does. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If misinformation bothers you then why are you spreading it? You >>>>>>> don't need to clean the registry as you advocate in your >>>>>>> advertisement. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ha-aaa, like I said, they'd come crawling out from under their >>>>>> rocks. Prove me wrong. >>>>> >>>>> You have been proven wrong over and over and over again but you >>>>> still spew your ignorant comments about. Using advertisement and >>>>> spaming the newsgroup to try to shore up your argument is about as >>>>> low as it can get. >>>> >>>> >>>> I think that we have a troll here.. >>> >>> Ahh, the typical response of one who doesn't know what to say. Prove me >>> wrong and I won't be able to say those things. Go ahead, >>> prove registry cleaners can not do anything good and that they are >>> all snake oil. If you've kept track, that's the start of these >>> threads. If you call the expression of opinions and supporting evidence >>> trolling, then so be it. That's how closed minds operate. If I'm >>> wrong, prove it. Prove registry cleaners are no good and are snake >>> oil. >> >> >> As I said in another response, the burden of proof is on you. So far, >> you have regurgitated a sales pitch by a Russian software company.. > > lol, and so far you have lied and provided misinformation with your > contradictory statement. I suspect you don't even had a good idea of how > a "cleaner" works or how it functions to decide whether and how to present > ojbects for possible repair. You have little to no background, experience > or knowledge of the subject at hand and show that ignorance over and over > in the last few posts. Mayhaps you should reread the "pledge" you took > otherwise known as the Code of Conduct amongst a few other interesting > connotations I've seen MVPs refer to. IF you're an MVP you're not a good > one and you don't follow the rules - or you would go on subject with your > posts. > Also I can only assume your comment about a "Russian..." is prejudice > clear and simple. As in, they are not capable of doing such a thing > because ... ? Is that what you meant? What other meaning can I apply to > the comment? Over my career I hired a total of 4 Russians, and they all > turned out to be excellent employees, not devoid of intelligence or ethics > in any way. One in fact was awarded many recognitions for his out of box > thinking, though it wasn't called that then. > > Now, let's talk about what you've regurgitated: Nah, too easy. And > you're not showing anything to be worthy of the time. >
More insinuations and still not one piece from you where it clearly shows
that Registry cleaner has value..
--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
|
|
Twayne wrote:
[Quoted Text] >> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/951950> Yup; I'm aware of that one. You will notice that even MS's own SDK can > cause the same problem if you actually know anything about it. > Also: Not all registry maintenance programs caused the problem, MS > did something they shouldn't have, and it has little to do with whether > such programs are useful or not.
So now you blame it on Microsoft, Microsoft did something that they
shouldn't have done! Microsoft did nothing wrong with regards to the
registry cleaner removing needed entries from the registry, that is
solely the fault of the cleaner.
>> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888637
> That one's news to me, but:
> did you read that one too? That's about their own buggy registry
> cleaner; a failed event from the git-go in a lot more areas than just
> that one.
Can't you read, you numskull? The problem described in that article has
nothing to do with a Microsoft registry cleaner, in part the article states:
CAUSE
This issue may occur after you run the WinReg Cleaner feature in
WinCleaner by Business Logic Corporation. WinReg Cleaner scans the
registry to identify registry entries that are not valid and then
produces a report of the registry entries that it will remove. By
default, all the registry entries that WinReg Cleaner identifies are
selected, or checked, for removal. If you click Remove Checked, all the
selected registry entries are removed. If Office is installed on your
computer, WinReg Cleaner identifies most Office registry entries as not
valid and removes them from the registry.
and:
MORE INFORMATION
The third-party products that this article discusses are manufactured by
companies that are independent of Microsoft. Microsoft makes no
warranty, implied or otherwise, regarding the performance or reliability
of these products...
What is it that you can't understand in those two paragraphs? Are you
too stupid to read and understand the above paragraphs? You have been
provided with solid evidence of the kind of damages that registry
cleaners do yet you still insist that all others are wrong and that you
are right, a real testament to your lack of intelligence!
M
|
|
"Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:eCYJUktPJHA.3932[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >A good "fix" for the sig issues/cursor start positions etc., with OE is >"OE-quotefix". It fixes the top-positioning of the cursor problem >(actually it's programmable), color codes quotes and a few other handy >fixes that OE left out for use on newsgroups. Makes it a lot more >compatible including managing sigs, etc.. If you believe MS, OE was never >intended for public use; only internal. If you're interested it's >available here: > http://www.insideoe.com/resources/tools.htm> > I'm not certain it's supported any longer but what is there works > reasonably well and doesn't break anything. I've had it for years and > like it.
I like and recommend OE-QuoteFix too, but unfortunately it hasn't been
upgraded to work with the Vista equivalent of OE, Windows Mail. Although I'm
using OE on my laptop at the moment, normally I don't use it at all.
|
|
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 13:13:09 -0500, "Twayne"
<nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:
[Quoted Text] >No one as yet has provided anything but opinons, and those come from
>closed minds at that.
>
>Prove me wrong. Go ahead; prove it.
No need!
You have already shown yourself to be a total fool.
|
|
<Wm.> wrote in message news:v0i3h4lksrceatu0fl4jn2ratn2a98ucpo[ at ]4ax.com...
[Quoted Text] > On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 13:13:09 -0500, "Twayne"
> <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>
>>No one as yet has provided anything but opinons, and those come from
>>closed minds at that.
>>
>>Prove me wrong. Go ahead; prove it.
>
> No need!
>
> You have already shown yourself to be a total fool.
>
Plonked him ages ago, meself... Mind you, that was down to his attitude and
language rather than anything technical.
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message > news:eCYJUktPJHA.3932[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl... > >> A good "fix" for the sig issues/cursor start positions etc., with OE >> is "OE-quotefix". It fixes the top-positioning of the cursor problem >> (actually it's programmable), color codes quotes and a few other >> handy fixes that OE left out for use on newsgroups. Makes it a lot >> more compatible including managing sigs, etc.. If you believe MS, OE >> was never intended for public use; only internal. If you're >> interested it's available here: >> http://www.insideoe.com/resources/tools.htm>> >> I'm not certain it's supported any longer but what is there works >> reasonably well and doesn't break anything. I've had it for years >> and like it. > > > I like and recommend OE-QuoteFix too, but unfortunately it hasn't been > upgraded to work with the Vista equivalent of OE, Windows Mail. > Although I'm using OE on my laptop at the moment, normally I don't > use it at all.
Yeah, last I knew it wasn't supported any longer and that was quite
awhile back. Haven't been to the site in a long time but that's the
last i knew anyway. I thought I'd heard Mail fixed some of those
issues; guess not. I'm still on XP for the foreseeable future.
Regards,
Twayne
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] >
> More insinuations and still not one piece from you where it clearly
> shows that Registry cleaner has value..
You'll get the best data when your supreme closed mind answers my
initial questions. Until then all you get is little things I come cross
here & there. I have provided information even if you are incapable of
understanding any of it. But there has never been a single viable
response from the other camp. But you continue to impart your spew
about the uselessness of any registry cleaner completely without
justification or backing of any kind. I can not help with reading
comprehension problems.
|
|
....
[Quoted Text] >
>
> I am not irritated at all, but I will try to ensure that computer
> users don't fall foul of registry cleaners.
>
> As you have two of them, presumably you can produce data to show that
> they do what they claim..
Obviously I can, yes. And have in the past. I've even made an offer to
run side by side tests of cleaners along with Bruce (or anyone else who
wishes to participate) and post the results after we set up the rules to
work to and type of damage to create. I openly challenged Bruce
Chambers to same; and guess what his response was? Nada, nothing. I
have a sandbox PC that would be perfect for such testing and could be
relegated to the task for several consecutive days if need be. I even
alluded to that particular post 3 times more IIRC, all without a
response to it.
What got me onto that was his incessantly posted boilerplate posts on
registry cleaners. At first, likely almost 2 years ago now, I asked
him clarification questions. He didn't answer, but did once say, just
his saying so should have been enough for me. I let him know I
disagreed with him, and I guess having the sheer audacity to do that set
him off. Then when that was all he posted about, I decided to work from
the other side of the equation and make my opinions clear too, but never
with boilerplate; I'm more original and open minded than that.
Apparently by the look of his recent posts he's let it get him pretty
mad and rather than do anything that would settle the question, he got
upset and felt attacked. So I attacked him as he attacked me, and
finally issued that challenge a couple months ago now.
>
> Re my contentions.. read the posts in newsgroups over the years and
> you come across more than a few who have fallen foul.
I don't need to know your history anymore than I do anyne else's. My
"agenda" is simply to correct misinformation and the registry cleaner
stuff is a big one, coming from one who should know better.
>
> All you state is a sales pitch which makes claims that can't be
> substantiated at all. I believe that it is called FUD..
Call it what you want, but IMO it calls your reading comprehension into
question too, or the state of your mind being open or not to information
and the imparting of same.
>
> Now we get to the insults.. way to go..
Too bad you think they're insults. Apparently anyone who disagrees with
you is insulting you. I can't help with that. Up until very recently I
considered you to have an open mind, in fact.
|
|
"Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:efZBuM3PJHA.4776[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > >
>> More insinuations and still not one piece from you where it clearly
>> shows that Registry cleaner has value..
>
> You'll get the best data when your supreme closed mind answers my initial
> questions. Until then all you get is little things I come cross here &
> there. I have provided information even if you are incapable of
> understanding any of it. But there has never been a single viable
> response from the other camp. But you continue to impart your spew about
> the uselessness of any registry cleaner completely without justification
> or backing of any kind. I can not help with reading comprehension
> problems.
>
So you can't produce data which shows that registry cleaners do what they
claim?
--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
|
|
Not my posting history.. the posting history of users who have fallen foul
of registry cleaner claims..
You insinuated stuff. In my books, that is resorting to insults..
I have used registry cleaners in the past, but I still maintain that they
are dangerous and, in the case of the Windows NT family, unnecessary.
We are still waiting for definitive proof that a registry cleaner is any
good with respect to the Windows NT family. Please post some actual results.
--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > Not my posting history.. the posting history of users who have fallen
> foul of registry cleaner claims..
>
> You insinuated stuff. In my books, that is resorting to insults..
>
> I have used registry cleaners in the past, but I still maintain that
> they are dangerous and, in the case of the Windows NT family,
> unnecessary.
> We are still waiting for definitive proof that a registry cleaner is
> any good with respect to the Windows NT family. Please post some
> actual results.
Already done, as now explained about 4 times. I can't help that you
cannot comprehend what you read. If you want to know what it was, you go
look it up. Otherwise you've not a leg to stand on.
When I get answers to my original questions, then maybe, but like I
said, it's already there. Bruce didn't/couldn't even refute it; he just
black holed instead, so I'd consider that pretty good evidence in and of
itself, actually. I actually have the supporting information for my
claims, unlike those of the opposite camp who have nada, zip, nothing,
zero, useful information.
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:efZBuM3PJHA.4776[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> More insinuations and still not one piece from you where it clearly
>>> shows that Registry cleaner has value..
>>
>> You'll get the best data when your supreme closed mind answers my
>> initial questions. Until then all you get is little things I come
>> cross here & there. I have provided information even if you are
>> incapable of understanding any of it. But there has never been a
>> single viable response from the other camp. But you continue to
>> impart your spew about the uselessness of any registry cleaner
>> completely without justification or backing of any kind. I can not
>> help with reading comprehension problems.
>>
>
>
> So you can't produce data which shows that registry cleaners do what
> they claim?
Like I said, I can't help with your reading comprehension problems.
Acting like an idiot won't change that.
|
|
"Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:uXRSqP6PJHA.1168[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >> "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:efZBuM3PJHA.4776[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>> More insinuations and still not one piece from you where it clearly
>>>> shows that Registry cleaner has value..
>>>
>>> You'll get the best data when your supreme closed mind answers my
>>> initial questions. Until then all you get is little things I come
>>> cross here & there. I have provided information even if you are
>>> incapable of understanding any of it. But there has never been a
>>> single viable response from the other camp. But you continue to
>>> impart your spew about the uselessness of any registry cleaner
>>> completely without justification or backing of any kind. I can not
>>> help with reading comprehension problems.
>>>
>>
>>
>> So you can't produce data which shows that registry cleaners do what
>> they claim?
>
> Like I said, I can't help with your reading comprehension problems. Acting
> like an idiot won't change that.
>
Find somebody else to fool around with. I am done with this until such time
as you can produce any data which proves your claims..
--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
|
|
"Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:%23jcRLP6PJHA.1960[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >> Not my posting history.. the posting history of users who have fallen
>> foul of registry cleaner claims..
>>
>> You insinuated stuff. In my books, that is resorting to insults..
>>
>> I have used registry cleaners in the past, but I still maintain that
>> they are dangerous and, in the case of the Windows NT family,
>> unnecessary.
>> We are still waiting for definitive proof that a registry cleaner is
>> any good with respect to the Windows NT family. Please post some
>> actual results.
>
> Already done, as now explained about 4 times. I can't help that you cannot
> comprehend what you read. If you want to know what it was, you go look it
> up. Otherwise you've not a leg to stand on.
> When I get answers to my original questions, then maybe, but like I
> said, it's already there. Bruce didn't/couldn't even refute it; he just
> black holed instead, so I'd consider that pretty good evidence in and of
> itself, actually. I actually have the supporting information for my
> claims, unlike those of the opposite camp who have nada, zip, nothing,
> zero, useful information.
>
All you have done is provided a sales pitch.. not good enough..
--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
|
|
Twayne wrote:
[Quoted Text] > ...
>>
>> I am not irritated at all, but I will try to ensure that computer
>> users don't fall foul of registry cleaners.
>>
>> As you have two of them, presumably you can produce data to show that
>> they do what they claim..
>
> Obviously I can, yes. And have in the past.
No, you've *NEVER* offered anything but wirthless advertising copy.
> I've even made an offer to
> run side by side tests of cleaners along with Bruce (or anyone else who
> wishes to participate) and post the results after we set up the rules to
> work to and type of damage to create. I openly challenged Bruce
> Chambers to same; and guess what his response was?
Missed the challenge, but I'll be honest and say up front that I've no
need to repeat tests I did long ago. Until you produce real evidence
that there's any reason, whatsoever, to re-evaluate, I'll continue using
my time more productively.
> What got me onto that was his incessantly posted boilerplate posts on
> registry cleaners.
Why produce new answers to the same old question, when nothing's changed?
> At first, likely almost 2 years ago now, I asked
> him clarification questions.
No, you didn't. (Unless, like other trolls, you frequently change your
"handle," and had asked as someone else.)
>
> I don't need to know your history anymore than I do anyne else's. My
> "agenda" is simply to correct misinformation ...
By posting nothing but mis-information? Do you work for the Bush
administration, by any chance?
--
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell
The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot
|
|
Twayne wrote:
[Quoted Text] >> Not my posting history.. the posting history of users who have fallen
>> foul of registry cleaner claims..
>>
>> You insinuated stuff. In my books, that is resorting to insults..
>>
>> I have used registry cleaners in the past, but I still maintain that
>> they are dangerous and, in the case of the Windows NT family,
>> unnecessary.
>> We are still waiting for definitive proof that a registry cleaner is
>> any good with respect to the Windows NT family. Please post some
>> actual results.
>
> Already done, as now explained about 4 times.
No, *NEVER* done.
> I can't help that you
> cannot comprehend what you read.
And we can't help it if you think advertising and/marketiung drivel
should be taken seriously in a technical discussion.
If you want to know what it was, you go
> look it up. Otherwise you've not a leg to stand on.
> When I get answers to my original questions, then maybe, but like I
> said, it's already there. Bruce didn't/couldn't even refute it;
You've *NEVER* offered anything but advertising copy. There's nothing
to refute, there.
--
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell
The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:%23jcRLP6PJHA.1960[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Not my posting history.. the posting history of users who have
>>> fallen foul of registry cleaner claims..
>>>
>>> You insinuated stuff. In my books, that is resorting to insults..
>>>
>>> I have used registry cleaners in the past, but I still maintain that
>>> they are dangerous and, in the case of the Windows NT family,
>>> unnecessary.
>>> We are still waiting for definitive proof that a registry cleaner is
>>> any good with respect to the Windows NT family. Please post some
>>> actual results.
>>
>> Already done, as now explained about 4 times. I can't help that you
>> cannot comprehend what you read. If you want to know what it was,
>> you go look it up. Otherwise you've not a leg to stand on.
>> When I get answers to my original questions, then maybe, but
>> like I said, it's already there. Bruce didn't/couldn't even refute
>> it; he just black holed instead, so I'd consider that pretty good
>> evidence in and of itself, actually. I actually have the
>> supporting information for my claims, unlike those of the opposite
>> camp who have nada, zip, nothing, zero, useful information.
>>
>
>
> All you have done is provided a sales pitch.. not good enough..
Like I said ... already done. Typical closed minded response, I'm
afraid.
You're one of those who expect the world handed to you and that's not
reality; sorry about that. You do have to take some responsibility for
yourself and your own edification at times and quit relying on others to
simply hand it to you. You could locate reams more information on the
subject if you were inclined to try, IMO. Most anyone could. So ...
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:uXRSqP6PJHA.1168[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>>> news:efZBuM3PJHA.4776[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>
>>>>> More insinuations and still not one piece from you where it
>>>>> clearly shows that Registry cleaner has value..
>>>>
>>>> You'll get the best data when your supreme closed mind answers my
>>>> initial questions. Until then all you get is little things I come
>>>> cross here & there. I have provided information even if you are
>>>> incapable of understanding any of it. But there has never been a
>>>> single viable response from the other camp. But you continue to
>>>> impart your spew about the uselessness of any registry cleaner
>>>> completely without justification or backing of any kind. I can not
>>>> help with reading comprehension problems.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So you can't produce data which shows that registry cleaners do what
>>> they claim?
>>
>> Like I said, I can't help with your reading comprehension problems.
>> Acting like an idiot won't change that.
>>
>
>
> Find somebody else to fool around with. I am done with this until
> such time as you can produce any data which proves your claims..
I have done nothing but respond to your own posts. If you don't want
responses, don't post. It's really that simple.
Twayne
|
|
"Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:%23hLf1E7PJHA.728[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] >> "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:uXRSqP6PJHA.1168[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:efZBuM3PJHA.4776[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More insinuations and still not one piece from you where it
>>>>>> clearly shows that Registry cleaner has value..
>>>>>
>>>>> You'll get the best data when your supreme closed mind answers my
>>>>> initial questions. Until then all you get is little things I come
>>>>> cross here & there. I have provided information even if you are
>>>>> incapable of understanding any of it. But there has never been a
>>>>> single viable response from the other camp. But you continue to
>>>>> impart your spew about the uselessness of any registry cleaner
>>>>> completely without justification or backing of any kind. I can not
>>>>> help with reading comprehension problems.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you can't produce data which shows that registry cleaners do what
>>>> they claim?
>>>
>>> Like I said, I can't help with your reading comprehension problems.
>>> Acting like an idiot won't change that.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Find somebody else to fool around with. I am done with this until
>> such time as you can produce any data which proves your claims..
>
> I have done nothing but respond to your own posts. If you don't want
> responses, don't post. It's really that simple.
>
> Twayne
>
What you have failed to do is provide real data which substantiates your
claim that registry cleaners have value..
--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
|
|
Twayne wrote:
[Quoted Text] >> "Twayne" <nobody[ at ]devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:%23jcRLP6PJHA.1960[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> Not my posting history.. the posting history of users who have
>>>> fallen foul of registry cleaner claims..
>>>>
>>>> You insinuated stuff. In my books, that is resorting to insults..
>>>>
>>>> I have used registry cleaners in the past, but I still maintain that
>>>> they are dangerous and, in the case of the Windows NT family,
>>>> unnecessary.
>>>> We are still waiting for definitive proof that a registry cleaner is
>>>> any good with respect to the Windows NT family. Please post some
>>>> actual results.
>>> Already done, as now explained about 4 times. I can't help that you
>>> cannot comprehend what you read. If you want to know what it was,
>>> you go look it up. Otherwise you've not a leg to stand on.
>>> When I get answers to my original questions, then maybe, but
>>> like I said, it's already there. Bruce didn't/couldn't even refute
>>> it; he just black holed instead, so I'd consider that pretty good
>>> evidence in and of itself, actually. I actually have the
>>> supporting information for my claims, unlike those of the opposite
>>> camp who have nada, zip, nothing, zero, useful information.
>>>
>>
>> All you have done is provided a sales pitch.. not good enough..
>
> Like I said ... already done. Typical closed minded response, I'm
> afraid.
> You're one of those who expect the world handed to you and that's not
> reality; sorry about that. You do have to take some responsibility for
> yourself and your own edification at times and quit relying on others to
> simply hand it to you. You could locate reams more information on the
> subject if you were inclined to try, IMO. Most anyone could. So ...
Oh get lost you creep! Other than proving that you are a complete fool
and an ignorant troll you have not been able to give any credence to any
of your claims. Around here we call people like you a waste of oxygen.
M
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > Twayne wrote:
>> ...
>>>
>>> I am not irritated at all, but I will try to ensure that computer
>>> users don't fall foul of registry cleaners.
>>>
>>> As you have two of them, presumably you can produce data to show
>>> that they do what they claim..
>>
>> Obviously I can, yes. And have in the past.
>
>
> No, you've *NEVER* offered anything but wirthless advertising copy.
Too lazy to look, huh?
>
>
>> I've even made an offer to
>> run side by side tests of cleaners along with Bruce (or anyone else
>> who wishes to participate) and post the results after we set up the
>> rules to work to and type of damage to create. I openly challenged
>> Bruce Chambers to same; and guess what his response was?
>
>
> Missed the challenge, but I'll be honest and say up front that I've no
> need to repeat tests I did long ago. Until you produce real evidence
> that there's any reason, whatsoever, to re-evaluate, I'll continue
> using my time more productively.
No, you're not being honest. Honesty has been shown to be something you
don't practice. Esp the way you contradict yourself from place to
place.
>
>
>> What got me onto that was his incessantly posted boilerplate
>> posts on registry cleaners.
>
>
> Why produce new answers to the same old question, when nothing's
> changed?
Because YOU do not posess those answers. I doubt you even have more
than one empirical case of such events as you profess in these posts.
And you know that such activity would expose you as being wrong. It's
like your ego and narcissistic levels won't allow you to even privately
know you're wrong sometimes, and at other times you get irrittated and
rather than help anything you bury your head .
>
>
>> At first, likely almost 2 years ago now, I asked
>> him clarification questions.
>
>
> No, you didn't. (Unless, like other trolls, you frequently change
> your "handle," and had asked as someone else.)
Oh, yes, I did. And it's there in the archives if you want to look for
it. See, this is one of your many contradictory statements; if you
looked for it, then you would have also seen the challenge posts you
intimate you have never seen. As ever, you simply continue to try to
weasel your words to mean what you want them to mean, not the reality of
anything to do with the subject at hand, which is essentially that no
registry cleaner is any good.
>
>
>>
>> I don't need to know your history anymore than I do anyne else's. My
>> "agenda" is simply to correct misinformation ...
Then why were you trying to direct me to your past record as you did.
>
>
> By posting nothing but mis-information? Do you work for the Bush
> administration, by any chance?
Nope, by correcting the misinformation posted by others, in this case
meaning the misinformation that registry cleaners are never useful,
never accomplish anything good, more often than not screw up the system,
and should never be used and other similar tripe spewed here by you.
There is a world of information at your fingertips if your "expertise"
is to be believed, and yet you cannot allow yourself to see it or allow
any ray of light into that closed mind of yours.
Why don't you go on topic and make a sensible defense? Oh, never mind,
I know why.
|
|
|
[Quoted Text] > Twayne wrote:
>>> Not my posting history.. the posting history of users who have
>>> fallen foul of registry cleaner claims..
>>>
>>> You insinuated stuff. In my books, that is resorting to insults..
>>>
>>> I have used registry cleaners in the past, but I still maintain that
>>> they are dangerous and, in the case of the Windows NT family,
>>> unnecessary.
>>> We are still waiting for definitive proof that a registry cleaner is
>>> any good with respect to the Windows NT family. Please post some
>>> actual results.
>>
>> Already done, as now explained about 4 times.
>
>
> No, *NEVER* done.
That one's really gotten to you, hasn't it? Yes, done, and even exists
in my archives. It's sad a person can be as ignorant as you and go so
off topic for so long. When you provide something useful then I'll pull
out those papers and articles. Until then there is no need to because
thinking people have read enough here and on their own to know what the
situation is. You're more like a wart on the ass of progress than
anything else these days.
>
>
>> I can't help that you
>> cannot comprehend what you read.
>
>
> And we can't help it if you think advertising and/marketiung drivel
> should be taken seriously in a technical discussion.
>
>
> If you want to know what it was, you go
>> look it up. Otherwise you've not a leg to stand on.
>> When I get answers to my original questions, then maybe, but
>> like I said, it's already there. Bruce didn't/couldn't even refute
>> it;
>
>
> You've *NEVER* offered anything but advertising copy. There's nothing
> to refute, there.
|
|
|