shut down doesn't shut down

N

namsilat

When I select any of the options under "turn off computer", whether be
it restart or shut down, or just selecting "log off" from Start menu,
nothing happens the first time I make that selection. But if I select
it a second time immediately afterwards, it works fine. Any idea?
 
N

Nobody

You can probably run sfc /scannow from command line to check for errors (Line 11 below)

It is good to do all these on a regular basis.
General Maintenance.

1. Do a Custom Update every once in a while to update items that are not "Critical"
http://www2.skidmore.edu/it/students/cupdates.html
2. Run Disk Cleanup
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310312
3. Remove Windows Update Unintall to free up hard disk space (*Not necessary unless you are running out of disk space*)
http://www.askdavetaylor.com/can_i_delete_the_contents_of_windows_ntuninstall.html
4. Clean Internet Explorer History, Cookies, etc.
http://www.ie-vista.com/history.html
5. Disk Defragmenter
http://www.theeldergeek.com/disk_defragmenter_utility.htm
6. Spybot
http://www.safer-networking.org/
7. Adaware
http://www.lavasoftusa.com/
8. Run your Antivirus tool or an online tool
http://housecall.trendmicro.com/
9. User Profile Hive Cleanup service
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...6D-8912-4E18-B570-42470E2F3582&displaylang=en
10. Run your registry cleaner
XXXXXXXXXXXX
11. System File Checker
http://ask-leo.com/what_is_the_system_file_checker_and_how_do_i_run_it.html
12. View Event Log for Errors
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/308427

That should keep it optimized and eliminate most problems.

HTH,
 
R

Rock

N

Newbie Coder

Nobody,

Just looking through your unnecessary links you posted

Example:

No. 1 - Sign up for the Windows Update monthly security fixes & get notified
1 day before Automatic Update has them
(http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/default.mspx)

No. 4 - why? Just open IE | Tools | Internet Options...

No. 6 - Spybot: Developers site: http://www.spybot.info

No. 9 - Ok for enterprise running roaming AD profiles but useless for the
home user

No. 10 - would never recommend using a reg cleaner

--
Newbie Coder
(It's just a name)




You can probably run sfc /scannow from command line to check for errors
(Line 11 below)

It is good to do all these on a regular basis.
General Maintenance.

1. Do a Custom Update every once in a while to update items that are not
"Critical"
http://www2.skidmore.edu/it/students/cupdates.html
2. Run Disk Cleanup
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310312
3. Remove Windows Update Unintall to free up hard disk space (*Not necessary
unless you are running out of disk space*)
http://www.askdavetaylor.com/can_i_delete_the_contents_of_windows_ntuninstall.html
4. Clean Internet Explorer History, Cookies, etc.
http://www.ie-vista.com/history.html
5. Disk Defragmenter
http://www.theeldergeek.com/disk_defragmenter_utility.htm
6. Spybot
http://www.safer-networking.org/
7. Adaware
http://www.lavasoftusa.com/
8. Run your Antivirus tool or an online tool
http://housecall.trendmicro.com/
9. User Profile Hive Cleanup service
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...6D-8912-4E18-B570-42470E2F3582&displaylang=en
10. Run your registry cleaner
XXXXXXXXXXXX
11. System File Checker
http://ask-leo.com/what_is_the_system_file_checker_and_how_do_i_run_it.html
12. View Event Log for Errors
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/308427

That should keep it optimized and eliminate most problems.

HTH,
 
N

Nobody

Newbie,
No. 1 - Sign up for the Windows Update monthly security fixes & get notified
1 day before Automatic Update has them
(http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/default.mspx)
Those are the critical updates.
They aren't the other updates, such as drivers and other such fixes.
No. 4 - why? Just open IE | Tools | Internet Options...
I wanted to reference a web page. Not just my words, but others.
Plus it has instructions and pictures.
No. 6 - Spybot: Developers site: http://www.spybot.info
I just picked the first site that showed Spybot.
The one you posted is probably better.
No. 9 - Ok for enterprise running roaming AD profiles but useless for the
home user
It has been posted on numerous websites as a tool that fixes problems,
so I thought I would mention it. I don't beleive it can hurt to try it.
I may just fix the problem.
No. 10 - would never recommend using a reg cleaner
That is your opinion.
They make reg cleaners for reason. I don't know why you are so against the grain,
but other people use them and it does fix errors and improves system performance.
There is also a page defragging tool that I stumbled upon. You could argue that
you never need to defrag your hard drive, but it does improve system performance.

P.S. the list probably could be improved.
I just kind of threw it together.
Thanks for your help.

Regards,
 
R

Rock

<snip>

That is your opinion.
They make reg cleaners for reason. I don't know why you are so against the
grain,
but other people use them and it does fix errors and improves system
performance.
There is also a page defragging tool that I stumbled upon. You could argue
that
you never need to defrag your hard drive, but it does improve system
performance.

I wouldn't say he is "against the grain". This certainly is my and his
opinion which is shared by many knowledgable techs. There is no advantage
to running a registry cleaner, but there is a significant downside to it.
You are at the mercy of what the cleaner decides is not needed. The problem
is that they can remove something that is later needed, then the OP runs
into unexplained problems and many times is removed sufficiently from the
cause that they dont' realize what did them in.

There has never been any objective proof showing they are of value. Of
course there is a reason for them, to separate the unknowing folks from
their money. I call them snake oil products just like free memory
optimizers.

We regularly get posts in here where problems are created by their use, but
rarely get a post where it helped. The only way to use one is when you are
trying to troubleshoot a problem with a certain software. Run it to see
what it finds, and then research to see if anthing is related to the issue
at hand. Based on that research manually make the necessary changes, always
making sure you created a system restore point first and made a backup copy
of any reg keys you plan to change. Even better use ERUNT to make a
complete backup of the registry on a regular basis.

There are hundreds of thousands of entries in the registry. Removing a
handful that are orphaned is highly unlikely to help, particularly since
unused entries don't in and of themself cause problems, but removing the
wrong entry can cause lots of problems.

Don't use one.

Here is one on going thread discussion about the use of registry cleaners.
http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000643.html

Defragging a hard drive is of less importance than people place on it. Yes
it can make a significant difference in some situations and when the drive
starts to fill, but rarely does it make a difference to the average user.
That is why 3rd party defraggers are not needed for most folks. The in
built one works fine, defragging once a month or so. Rarely does it have a
significant impact. As drives get larger and faster, and as memory
management improves, for example with Vista, where there are significant
improvements in memory management, defragging has an even smaller impact.

<snip>
 
N

Nobody

Rock,
I call them snake oil products just like free memory optimizers.
That is your opinion. It doesn't not mean it is the truth, because it isn't.
They are built for a reason.
The reason? They improve system performance and resolve errors.

To state that Registry cleaning is a bad thing to do is erroneous.
To state that Hard Drive Defragging does nothing to improve system performance is erroneous.
To state that Free Memory Optimizers are worthless is erroneous.

I don't care to involve myself in arguing about whether or not techs think
Registry Cleaners work or not.

Any tool can be constructive or destructive depending on how they are used.
Bottom Line. Get cheap tools, Get cheap results.
 
R

Rock

That is your opinion. It doesn't not mean it is the truth, because it
isn't.

Yes it is my opinion, but it's one held by, I would say, the vast majority
of knowledgable computer folks.
The reason? They improve system performance and resolve errors.

The primary reason is to glean money from the gullible. It's marketing,
plain and simple.
To state that Registry cleaning is a bad thing to do is erroneous.

How so? What exactly is "cleaning" going to accomplish? How can removing
100 unused entries that are not otherwise problematic - not wrong, not
blocking an install, just unused - from a database of hundreds of thousands,
have a signficant impact?

There is no objective evidence that registry cleaners do any good but there
is much evidence to the contrary. Orphaned entries do not as a rule cause
problems. A "bad" entry, whether orpahaned or not, can be problematic but
there is no value to relying on an automated registry cleaner to remove it.
Assuming it even spots the problem, it can also remove useful entries. And
there in lies the problem. Removing the wrong ones can cause significant
problems.
To state that Hard Drive Defragging does nothing to improve system
performance is erroneous.

I didn't say it doesn't. "Defragging a hard drive is of less importance
than people place on it." I said it depends on the circumstances. In some
cases it can make a big difference, data base applications, signficant drive
access, etc. But for the average user, the need is overblown. And as
drives get bigger and faster with correspondingly greater amount of free
space the impact is even less. Yes one should should defrag occasionally,
but it's not going to gain you a whole lot unless the drive get's overly
filled, which will cause other problems.

As opposed to registry cleaners, regularly running a defragmenter will not
cause any harm (except for the unusual occasion when the random glitch
occurs which you can never predict; this is were backups and drive imaging
come in.) but it doesn't do much good running it all the time (daily for
example). Like I said before, for most users once a month is probably fine.
To state that Free Memory Optimizers are worthless is erroneous.

Those are even worse snake oil programs than registry cleaners, if that's
possible. They do no good. Free RAM is wasted RAM. That is why you see in
Vista, for example, significant improvements in the memory management
functions to utilize as much of the RAM as possible for caching files and
programs. In Vista it's not uncommon in Task Manger under the Performance
tab to see close to 0 free RAM. That is a good thing. The RAM is put to
use caching items based on past use patterns, so the affected programs start
faster, but the memory is available if a program needs it.

Free Memory utilties are an absolute waste.

In the book "Microsoft Windows Internals" 4th Edition (2005) Mark
Russinovich, one of the founders of Winternals / SystemInternals (They were
bought out by MS in July, 2006 I believe. Mark now works for MS; he
certainly knows the workings of Windows inside and out and is highly
regarded in the Windows field. This edition of the book was published a
year before the buy out.) there is a section called "RAM Optimizers: Fact or
Fiction". Over several pages he dubunks the myth of these programs. It's
fiction. Among the things he writes:

"While gaining more available memory might seem like a good think, it isn't.
As RAM optimizers force the available memory counter up, they force other
processes' data and code out of memory... The performance degradation can
be severe on servers ...."

"Some vendors make additional claims for their RAM-optimizer products. One
claim you might see is that a product frees memory that's needlessly
consumed by unused processes, sush as those run in the Taskbar tray. That
claim could be true only if those processes had sizable working sets at the
time of optimization. However, because Windows automatically trims idle
processes' working sets, all such claims are untrue...."

"Developers of RAM optimizers also claim that their products defragment
memory. The act of allocating and then freeing a large amount of virtual
memory might, as a conceivable side-effect, lead to large blocks of
contiguous available memory. However, because virtual memory masks the
layout of physical memory from processes, they can't directly benefit from
having virtual memory backed by contiguous physical memory. .....However,
any minor benefit that might result from making available physical memory
contiguous is heavily outweighed by the negative effect of discarding
valuable code and data from memory."

"Finally, vendors often claim that RAM optimizers regain memory lost to
leaks. This is perhaps the most patently false assertion of all...."
I don't care to involve myself in arguing about whether or not techs think
Registry Cleaners work or not.
Any tool can be constructive or destructive depending on how they are
used.

I would say many tools used improperly could be destructive. I wouldn't say
every tool can be constructive. Those that are just benign translates into
a waste of money, which I see as destructive.

Some registry cleaners are less agressive than others, but that doesn't make
them safer. That's because there is very little upside to their use by the
unknowledgable, but with a signifcant downside.

In some cases a registry cleaner might be useful. As I said, if you are
troubleshooting a particular problem that could be a registry issue, it's
another tool in the arsenal; see what it suggests, but any suggestions for
change needs to be evaluated and if needed researched, and only those items
changed that knowledge, experience and the research indicates are
associated. Registry changes should be preceded by a system restore point,
exporting the keys to be changed, and regular, complete backups of the
registry with a tool like ERUNT.

Wholesale cleaning of registry entries flagged by a cleaner gains you
nothing, and routine use just for the nebulous purpose of "cleaning", and
especially it's use by an unknowledgable person is asking for trouble.

I think it's irresponsible to recommend it's use without knowing the
person's skill level and without at the very least pointing out the dangers.
Recommending the use of one to an unknowledgeable user is absolutely
irresponsible.
Bottom Line. Get cheap tools, Get cheap results.

I would say, use the wrong tools and get lousy results.

Cost doesn't always translate into quality. In somethings it can, but not
in everything. I know of some free tools that work well for their purpose
where corresonding pay for use tools are not anywhere near as worthwhile.

Free or extremely expensive - registry cleaners, for the majority of users,
and memory optimizers, for all, are lousy tools, and should be avoided.
 
N

Nobody

Rock,

I am speaking from experience, not from opinions or heresay or what somebody posted on some newsgroup.
I have used Memory Defraggers and Registry Cleaners/Optimizers for approx 10 years.
I have always noticed a drastic improvement in system performance and the elimination of errors.
It is not just orphaned entries, but other entries that refrence null or invalid entries.

I have used other registry cleaners and found that the ones that are highly rated
are highly rated for a good reason.

My experience with the Ram defrag goes like this.
When ram drops below a certain level, it starts to access the hard drive. (The paging process.)
The tool runs, recovers and defrags, which not only stops using the hard drive,
it can now accesses a contigous area memory.

You mentioned Vista has improved memory management.
Why did they bother doing that, when this Mark guy and you both say that it is equivalent to "Snake Oil"?

This Mark guy that you speak of works for MS, so naturally he will degrade
other products. His is the best naturally. Java is out. C# is in.
Why does Microsoft start building a tool, then just stop as they did with thier registry cleaner?
And as drives get bigger and faster with correspondingly greater amount of free
space the impact is even less.
That don't matter. Fragmentation is always a factor. It is unavoidable.
Besides, as processors and disk space grow, so does program and file size.
They seem to be proportional.
 
R

Rock

Nobody said:
I am speaking from experience, not from opinions or heresay or what
somebody posted on some newsgroup.
I have used Memory Defraggers and Registry Cleaners/Optimizers for approx
10 years.
I have always noticed a drastic improvement in system performance and the
elimination of errors.
It is not just orphaned entries, but other entries that refrence null or
invalid entries.
I have used other registry cleaners and found that the ones that are
highly rated
are highly rated for a good reason.
My experience with the Ram defrag goes like this.
When ram drops below a certain level, it starts to access the hard drive.
(The paging process.)
The tool runs, recovers and defrags, which not only stops using the hard
drive,
it can now accesses a contigous area memory.
You mentioned Vista has improved memory management.
Why did they bother doing that, when this Mark guy and you both say that
it is equivalent to "Snake Oil"?
This Mark guy that you speak of works for MS, so naturally he will degrade
other products. His is the best naturally. Java is out. C# is in.
Why does Microsoft start building a tool, then just stop as they did with
thier registry cleaner?

The registry cleaner was developed for the Win95/98 family, not for NT. It
was removed because it had problems. That's why it wasn't supported. There
is a huge difference under the hood between Win95/98 and the NT family of
OS's.
And as drives get bigger and faster with correspondingly greater amount of
free
space the impact is even less.
That don't matter. Fragmentation is always a factor. It is unavoidable.
Besides, as processors and disk space grow, so does program and file size.
They seem to be proportional.

In the real world, what the user experiences for must users, the impact of
fragmenation on performance is small. Additionally fragmentation's impact
on performance decreases as the amount of free space and speed of the drives
increases. Efficient memory management with caching of data further cuts
down on it's impact. It doesn't matter how long it takes to read the data
from the drive if it's already cached in memory when it's needed, which
won't happen, by the way if you run one of those memory optimizers you
recommend. Besides doing nothing on their own, they actualy make the effect
of fragmentation even worse because the data has to be read from the drive
more often.


Rock said:
Yes it is my opinion, but it's one held by, I would say, the vast majority
of knowledgable computer folks.


The primary reason is to glean money from the gullible. It's marketing,
plain and simple.


How so? What exactly is "cleaning" going to accomplish? How can removing
100 unused entries that are not otherwise problematic - not wrong, not
blocking an install, just unused - from a database of hundreds of
thousands,
have a signficant impact?

There is no objective evidence that registry cleaners do any good but
there
is much evidence to the contrary. Orphaned entries do not as a rule cause
problems. A "bad" entry, whether orpahaned or not, can be problematic but
there is no value to relying on an automated registry cleaner to remove
it.
Assuming it even spots the problem, it can also remove useful entries.
And
there in lies the problem. Removing the wrong ones can cause significant
problems.


I didn't say it doesn't. "Defragging a hard drive is of less importance
than people place on it." I said it depends on the circumstances. In
some
cases it can make a big difference, data base applications, signficant
drive
access, etc. But for the average user, the need is overblown. And as
drives get bigger and faster with correspondingly greater amount of free
space the impact is even less. Yes one should should defrag occasionally,
but it's not going to gain you a whole lot unless the drive get's overly
filled, which will cause other problems.

As opposed to registry cleaners, regularly running a defragmenter will not
cause any harm (except for the unusual occasion when the random glitch
occurs which you can never predict; this is were backups and drive imaging
come in.) but it doesn't do much good running it all the time (daily for
example). Like I said before, for most users once a month is probably
fine.


Those are even worse snake oil programs than registry cleaners, if that's
possible. They do no good. Free RAM is wasted RAM. That is why you see
in
Vista, for example, significant improvements in the memory management
functions to utilize as much of the RAM as possible for caching files and
programs. In Vista it's not uncommon in Task Manger under the Performance
tab to see close to 0 free RAM. That is a good thing. The RAM is put to
use caching items based on past use patterns, so the affected programs
start
faster, but the memory is available if a program needs it.

Free Memory utilties are an absolute waste.

In the book "Microsoft Windows Internals" 4th Edition (2005) Mark
Russinovich, one of the founders of Winternals / SystemInternals (They
were
bought out by MS in July, 2006 I believe. Mark now works for MS; he
certainly knows the workings of Windows inside and out and is highly
regarded in the Windows field. This edition of the book was published a
year before the buy out.) there is a section called "RAM Optimizers: Fact
or
Fiction". Over several pages he dubunks the myth of these programs. It's
fiction. Among the things he writes:

"While gaining more available memory might seem like a good think, it
isn't.
As RAM optimizers force the available memory counter up, they force other
processes' data and code out of memory... The performance degradation can
be severe on servers ...."

"Some vendors make additional claims for their RAM-optimizer products.
One
claim you might see is that a product frees memory that's needlessly
consumed by unused processes, sush as those run in the Taskbar tray. That
claim could be true only if those processes had sizable working sets at
the
time of optimization. However, because Windows automatically trims idle
processes' working sets, all such claims are untrue...."

"Developers of RAM optimizers also claim that their products defragment
memory. The act of allocating and then freeing a large amount of virtual
memory might, as a conceivable side-effect, lead to large blocks of
contiguous available memory. However, because virtual memory masks the
layout of physical memory from processes, they can't directly benefit from
having virtual memory backed by contiguous physical memory. .....However,
any minor benefit that might result from making available physical memory
contiguous is heavily outweighed by the negative effect of discarding
valuable code and data from memory."

"Finally, vendors often claim that RAM optimizers regain memory lost to
leaks. This is perhaps the most patently false assertion of all...."



I would say many tools used improperly could be destructive. I wouldn't
say
every tool can be constructive. Those that are just benign translates
into
a waste of money, which I see as destructive.

Some registry cleaners are less agressive than others, but that doesn't
make
them safer. That's because there is very little upside to their use by
the
unknowledgable, but with a signifcant downside.

In some cases a registry cleaner might be useful. As I said, if you are
troubleshooting a particular problem that could be a registry issue, it's
another tool in the arsenal; see what it suggests, but any suggestions for
change needs to be evaluated and if needed researched, and only those
items
changed that knowledge, experience and the research indicates are
associated. Registry changes should be preceded by a system restore
point,
exporting the keys to be changed, and regular, complete backups of the
registry with a tool like ERUNT.

Wholesale cleaning of registry entries flagged by a cleaner gains you
nothing, and routine use just for the nebulous purpose of "cleaning", and
especially it's use by an unknowledgable person is asking for trouble.

I think it's irresponsible to recommend it's use without knowing the
person's skill level and without at the very least pointing out the
dangers.
Recommending the use of one to an unknowledgeable user is absolutely
irresponsible.


I would say, use the wrong tools and get lousy results.

Cost doesn't always translate into quality. In somethings it can, but not
in everything. I know of some free tools that work well for their purpose
where corresonding pay for use tools are not anywhere near as worthwhile.

Free or extremely expensive - registry cleaners, for the majority of
users,
and memory optimizers, for all, are lousy tools, and should be avoided.


You just don't understand nor do you want to learn, do you? Vista improved
on XP by utilizing memory even more efficiently cutting down even more on
the amount of free RAM. The principle is free RAM is wasted RAM. Memory
optimizers are useless in XP and even more so in Vista because of the
improved management.

Mark Russinovich is one of the most highly regarded people in the world of
Windows. Did you not even do a bit of research on him? Have you never
heard of him and of the company he founded - Winternals/SystemInternals?
Haven't you heard of Process Explorer, FileMon, RegMon, DiskMon, PortMon,
Autoruns, Process Monitor, PsExec, Rootkit Revealer, and all the other
SysInternals Utilities that are used by so many people on systems in the NT
family? He wrote all those. And those are just the free tools. All this
was done well before he ever hooked up with MS.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/default.mspx

That memory optimizers is bunk has nothing to do with his current
affiliation with MS.

Memory Optimizers are snake oil, pure and simple. Registry Cleaners are
dangerous for the unknowledgeable. Please do some don't be irresponsible
and promote their use.

It's pretty clear this thread has come to an end. I hope you are willing to
take a closer look at this issue.
 
N

Nobody

Rock,

Have you ever used a Memory Optimizer or a Registry Cleaner?
Are you just inclined to denounce them without even trying and just posting something somebody else said?
http://lifehacker.com/software/ram/download-of-the-day-freeram-xp-pro-181724.php

If you have used a Memory Optimizer and you do not notice any significance, then you can make
claims based on your own judgement, instead of what you think will happen, or what somebody else say's
will happen or what people say in a newsgroup.

I think this is pretty much a useless argument.
If you have used them and find they don't work for you, then fine. I would respect that.
As for me and others who use them, we find them to improve performance and eliminate errors
and we are still going to use them.
 
R

Rock

Rock,

Have you ever used a Memory Optimizer or a Registry Cleaner?
Are you just inclined to denounce them without even trying and just posting
something somebody else said?
http://lifehacker.com/software/ram/download-of-the-day-freeram-xp-pro-181724.php

If you have used a Memory Optimizer and you do not notice any significance,
then you can make
claims based on your own judgement, instead of what you think will happen,
or what somebody else say's
will happen or what people say in a newsgroup.

I think this is pretty much a useless argument.
If you have used them and find they don't work for you, then fine. I would
respect that.
As for me and others who use them, we find them to improve performance and
eliminate errors
and we are still going to use them.


Rock said:
The registry cleaner was developed for the Win95/98 family, not for NT.
It
was removed because it had problems. That's why it wasn't supported.
There
is a huge difference under the hood between Win95/98 and the NT family of
OS's.



In the real world, what the user experiences for must users, the impact of
fragmenation on performance is small. Additionally fragmentation's impact
on performance decreases as the amount of free space and speed of the
drives
increases. Efficient memory management with caching of data further cuts
down on it's impact. It doesn't matter how long it takes to read the data
from the drive if it's already cached in memory when it's needed, which
won't happen, by the way if you run one of those memory optimizers you
recommend. Besides doing nothing on their own, they actualy make the
effect
of fragmentation even worse because the data has to be read from the drive
more often.





You just don't understand nor do you want to learn, do you? Vista
improved
on XP by utilizing memory even more efficiently cutting down even more on
the amount of free RAM. The principle is free RAM is wasted RAM. Memory
optimizers are useless in XP and even more so in Vista because of the
improved management.

Mark Russinovich is one of the most highly regarded people in the world of
Windows. Did you not even do a bit of research on him? Have you never
heard of him and of the company he founded - Winternals/SystemInternals?
Haven't you heard of Process Explorer, FileMon, RegMon, DiskMon, PortMon,
Autoruns, Process Monitor, PsExec, Rootkit Revealer, and all the other
SysInternals Utilities that are used by so many people on systems in the
NT
family? He wrote all those. And those are just the free tools. All this
was done well before he ever hooked up with MS.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/default.mspx

That memory optimizers is bunk has nothing to do with his current
affiliation with MS.

Memory Optimizers are snake oil, pure and simple. Registry Cleaners are
dangerous for the unknowledgeable. Please do some don't be irresponsible
and promote their use.

It's pretty clear this thread has come to an end. I hope you are willing
to
take a closer look at this issue.

Yes I used memory optimizers years ago when I was gullible. They are
absolute snake oil. And all it takes is a modicum of knowledge and thought
to realize it.

As to registry cleaners, yes I have used them, I know what they do. Have I
used every one? Certainly not, and I don't need to. Knowledge of how the
registry works dispels their need. Their benefit is minimal, but the
potential downside is great. Do problems occur every time one is used?
Certainly not. Do problems occur from their use? Absolutely yes. Just the
regularity of posts in this newsgroup about this fact shows it to be so in
practice.

I have explained several times the only way a reg cleaner should be used.
It should never be used to do it's thing automatically, there is no need for
routine cleaning of the registry, and it should never be recommended to an
unknowledgeable, inexperienced user. That is irresponsible.

On the common sense side, one should catch a clue by the lack of objective
sources documenting the efficacy of memory optimizers and registry cleaners,
and the number and quality of knowledgeable people who decry them for what
they are. The majority of those touting these tools are the makers of
them. That should tell you something.

This XP system has run for almost 5 years without a reinstall, using it in a
variety of multiboot configurations to Beta test certain software including
Vista throughout the Tech Beta program. It runs just as good now as it ever
has, without the benefit of a memory optimizer or a registry cleaner.

The key is to use good hardware and software, and to learn how to properly
maintain and protect the system without those either useless or potentially
harmful products. That and a backup/recovery solution utilizing a drive
imaging program to image the system to an external drive is a much more
useful way to spend one's time and money.

You're correct, this thread has reached an end.
 
J

Jase

namsilatwrote:
When I select any of the options under "turn off computer",
whether be
it restart or shut down, or just selecting "log off" from Start menu,
nothing happens the first time I make that selection. But if I select
it a second time immediately afterwards, it works fine. Any idea?

I'm getting exactly the same thing!

Except mine is on a brand new clean install of XP. I wonder if it's
something to do with the chipset. I'm using a Gigabyte 965P-DQ6 mobo
and an Intel Core2Duo E6600.

Can you post your h/w please.
 
N

namsilat

I don't think the problem is a hardware problem, at least not in my
case. It only started happening recently, and I have had the same
computer machine for years.
 
R

Rock

namsilat said:
I don't think the problem is a hardware problem, at least not in my
case. It only started happening recently, and I have had the same
computer machine for years.

I don't know whether hardware is your problem, but your comment doesn't
really support effective troubleshooting. How do you know some hardware
component isn't failing? Nothing lasts forever. Just because you had it
for five years, or it was working 5 minutes ago doesn't mean there is not a
problem now.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top