Now I Understand

[Bluuuue Rajah]

That's a very dangerous and poor thing to do, in my view.

Registry cleaning programs are *all* snake oil. Cleaning of the
registry isn't needed and is dangerous. Leave the registry alone and
don't use any registry cleaner. Despite what many people think, and
what vendors of registry cleaning software try to convince you of,
having unused registry entries doesn't really hurt you.

The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner erroneously
removing an entry you need is far greater than any potential benefit
it may have.

Read http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000643.html

This was my whole point from the start.

Having unused reigstry entries lying around does not cause the bugs that
slowly accumulate under Windows. It is caused by uninstalling codes in
some order other than the reverse of how they were installed.

When you do that, the system reverts to previous version of the saved
files that were in place when you did the install, and those files don't
account for any new installs that you did, along the way. There's no
way out of this headache other than to redesign the uninstall procedure
so that it doesn't revert to those saved files.

Although it may have some small faults, Linux is a *lot* more
bulletproof than Windows, which means that it doesn't use that uninstall
method. I'd like to know what it does use, so I can better understand
the OS design issues associated with this problem.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I'm sure it's something you're not capable of working with. In my view
it's a great way to keep your system humming.

You are certainly entitled to that view, if that's what you believe.
But as far as I'm concerned, you're dead wrong.

 

[N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)]

Dear Ken Blake, MVP:

You are certainly entitled to that view, if that's
what you believe. But as far as I'm concerned,
you're dead wrong.

So how do *you* get rid of Norton Anti-virus? RegClean.exe didn'
touch it...

David A. Smith

 

[PerfectReign]

Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise to use
in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why Windows is
such a POS.

When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed an
update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f command, the
reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method causes bugs to
accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in precise the reverse order
of which they were installed.

The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the buggier
your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall the OS.

Linux apparently doesn't have anything resembling this problem, which
makes me wonder, how did the Linux designers (Torvald?) handle this
problem, and can we learn anything from their solution to help minimize
the problem with Windows?

Well, that's not entirely true.

Wintendo computers have an issue with uninstalling because of a few reasons.

Mostly, the people who write the applications install things in places they
shouldn't be installing - such as application libraries in places
like %system root%/Windows/Win32.

Also, when they hack thorugh the Wise or Installshield installer they forget
things. So the uninstaller doesn't know exactly what is going on.

If app designers would follow the - now ten-year-old - microsoft
recommendations of installing everything to /program files/app_vendor/app
directories and never using HKLM, then there would not be an issue.

Oh, and I can tell you right now about such a ****ed up situation in Linux.
Here's my log of me trying to upgrade VirtualBox from 2.0.6 to 2.1.
Apparently, the RPM manager ****ed up and doesn't even know what version I
have nor what dependencies I need.

Like I say - Linux - it sucks slightly less than the competition.

xwing:/home/kai/downloads #
rpm -U ./VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1.i586.rpm
file /etc/init.d/vboxdrv from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/bin/VBoxManage from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/bin/VBoxSDL from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/bin/VirtualBox from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxDD.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxDD2.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxDD2GC.gc from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxDD2R0.r0 from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxDDGC.gc from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxDDR0.r0 from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxDDU.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxKeyboard.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxManage from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxREM.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxRT.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxSDL from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxSVC from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxSharedClipboard.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxSharedFolders.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxVMM.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxXPCOM.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxXPCOMIPCD from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VMMGC.gc from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VMMR0.r0 from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VirtualBox from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/components/VBoxC.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/components/VBoxSVCM.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/components/VBoxXPCOMBase.xpt from install
of VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/components/VBoxXPCOMIPCC.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/components/VirtualBox_XPCOM.xpt from
install of VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from
package virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
xwing:/home/kai/downloads #

 

[Rev Turd Fredericks]

Not what I said.

I said, "I think you have made gross generalizations based off personal
experience - which are usually proven inaccurate (at best.)"

It's the 'gross generalizations based off personal experience', not the
personal experiences themselves. There is nothing wrong with personal
experiences and if built up and combined many times - personal experience
can become pretty strong evidence. The original poster had ... seems to be
... one personal experience and made an assertion that their personal
experience proved a point when combined with the trouble they saw (but had
no personal experience with) in the newsgroups (the whole 'walk into an
emergency room and assume the whole world has an epidemic of broken arms'
scenario...) - a "gross generalization".

It's best to read the entire message you respond to - not just one part.

It's best not to backpedal when you say something stupid.

 

[Rev Turd Fredericks]

Well, that's not entirely true.

Wintendo computers have an issue with uninstalling because of a few reasons.

Mostly, the people who write the applications install things in places they
shouldn't be installing - such as application libraries in places
like %system root%/Windows/Win32.

Also, when they hack thorugh the Wise or Installshield installer they forget
things. So the uninstaller doesn't know exactly what is going on.

If app designers would follow the - now ten-year-old - microsoft
recommendations of installing everything to /program files/app_vendor/app
directories and never using HKLM, then there would not be an issue.

Oh, and I can tell you right now about such a ****ed up situation in Linux.
Here's my log of me trying to upgrade VirtualBox from 2.0.6 to 2.1.
Apparently, the RPM manager ****ed up and doesn't even know what version I
have nor what dependencies I need.

Like I say - Linux - it sucks slightly less than the competition.

xwing:/home/kai/downloads #
rpm -U ./VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1.i586.rpm
file /etc/init.d/vboxdrv from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/bin/VBoxManage from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/bin/VBoxSDL from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/bin/VirtualBox from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxDD.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxDD2.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxDD2GC.gc from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxDD2R0.r0 from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxDDGC.gc from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxDDR0.r0 from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxDDU.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxKeyboard.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxManage from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxREM.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxRT.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxSDL from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxSVC from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxSharedClipboard.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxSharedFolders.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxVMM.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxXPCOM.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VBoxXPCOMIPCD from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VMMGC.gc from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VMMR0.r0 from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/VirtualBox from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/components/VBoxC.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/components/VBoxSVCM.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/components/VBoxXPCOMBase.xpt from install
of VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/components/VBoxXPCOMIPCC.so from install of
VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from package
virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
file /usr/lib/virtualbox/components/VirtualBox_XPCOM.xpt from
install of VirtualBox-2.1.0_41146_openSUSE103-1 conflicts with file from
package virtualbox-1.5.2-10.2
xwing:/home/kai/downloads #

I've never had such a problem with either of my Macs

 

[Keyser Söze]

I'm sure it's something you're not capable of working with. In my
view it's a great way to keep your system humming.

[... ] you're dead wrong.

That sounds like a veiled threat to me [sic]

 

[jmfbahciv]

Wow...where the hell did you come from...
Massachusetts.

and when are you going back there?
Never.


Many years ago you gave me the best insult I have ever gotten...
so I honestly respect you for that. <G>

I don't recall.

I still chuckle about it from time to time.

<grin> good.

/BAH

 

[jmfbahciv]

Not if your regularly use a registry cleaner. I use FixIt Utilities
and to delete invalid or no longer need registry entries and files.

Doesn't matter. The original sources and their fixes are not on
your computer.

Look. The guy needs a backup stragegy for his computer system(s).
Since one of them got hosed, he needed to be able to drop back
to a computer system state that was known to not be broken.

Complaining about update processes isn't going to solve his
problem because the mess will happen again.

/BAH

 

[N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)]

Dear nobody:

http://service1.symantec.com/Support/tsgeninfo.nsf/docid/2005033108162039

Seems like it left stuff, like an updater. I still found entries
in the registry. But this might have been before this particular
utility came out.

David A. Smith

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise
to use in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why
Windows is such a POS.

When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed
an update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f
command, the reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method
causes bugs to accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in
precise the reverse order of which they were installed.

The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the
buggier your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall
the OS.

Linux apparently doesn't have anything resembling this problem,
which makes me wonder, how did the Linux designers (Torvald?)
handle this problem, and can we learn anything from their solution
to help minimize the problem with Windows?

Your thoughts?

I think you have made gross generalizations based off personal
experience - which are usually proven inaccurate (at best.)

I utilize many different operating systems (and flavors/versions of
said operating systems) and if there is a single OS that is not
lacking in one or more (mostly more after years of use on any given
OS) ways, I have yet to come across it. Many times - some of the
'problems' found could have been avoided with experience and
know-how on the part of the user - which is acceptable in most
cases because I don't believe someone whould 'hold my hand' in
everything I do. Also - many times - it is a 'personal' issue with
the OS - meaning it won't do something the end-user believes it
*should* do.
As far as your gross generalizations - I have a system I have been
running since Windows XP was released. It has been through two
different sets of hardware, several hardware failures, many *MANY*
installations and software removals and is now finally running as a
VirtualBox machine on top of my Windows Vista and Windows Vista x64
Ultimate machines. I have *not* had to 'reinstall my OS' (assuming
you mean a clean installation) nor did it ever slow down in any way
I did not expect (when you upgrade applications, seldom do they
actually utilize less resources than their prior versions...)
In my specific experience - Windows (XP, Vista and some prior
versions to a certain extent) are fairly stable operating systems
that have given me personally little trouble. I've thrown a lot at
them - and my experience is not limited to just the applications I
utilize on a daily basis nor is my experience limited to just one
or two hardware configurations (I would put myself in the thousands
(possibly tens of thousands), easily, as far as how many different
hardware configurations I have had to deal with in the years since
Windows XP was first released alone.) I also pull from the
experience of those whose systems I have cleaned up from a mess or
setup initially - in that they seldom have the same trouble after a
little configuration and a little tutoring on how to properly
utilize their system.
YMMV.

After your assertion that personal experience is "inaccurate (at
best)", your whole post has become a meaningless diatribe.

Not what I said.

I said, "I think you have made gross generalizations based off
personal experience - which are usually proven inaccurate (at
best.)"
It's the 'gross generalizations based off personal experience', not
the personal experiences themselves. There is nothing wrong with
personal experiences and if built up and combined many times -
personal experience can become pretty strong evidence. The
original poster had ... seems to be ... one personal experience and
made an assertion that their personal experience proved a point
when combined with the trouble they saw (but had no personal
experience with) in the newsgroups (the whole 'walk into an
emergency room and assume the whole world has an epidemic of broken
arms' scenario...) - a "gross generalization".
It's best to read the entire message you respond to - not just one
part.

It's best not to backpedal when you say something stupid.

It's good you admit to what you did.

 

[N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)]

Dear Lookout:

....

First..I wouldn't install it.

Once it is done... say on someone else's machine.

2nd...just cleaning your registry won't uninstall a
program. If that's what you're trying to do then you
really shouldn't be installing programs to begin with...
you're way out of your league.

No, I directly edit the registry. You are assuming too much.

3rd...I don't use RegClean. As I said I use FixIt
Utilities and I explained the process I use.

And I agree with you.

4th..I'd type "How do I uninstall Norton AntiVirus" in
Google and I'd find
http://www.google.com/search?source...ton+antivirus&aq=1&oq=how+do+I+uninstall+nort


As I said you're way out of your league. You
should learn to ask politely and you'll get more
help.

You should climb on someone else's back. I am getting tired of
you trying to hump me.

David A. Smith

 

[Courtney Josten]

First..I wouldn't install it.
2nd...just cleaning your registry won't uninstall a program. If that's
what you're trying to do then you really shouldn't be installing
programs to begin with...you're way out of your league.
3rd...I don't use RegClean. As I said I use FixIt Utilities and I
explained the process I use.
4th..I'd type "How do I uninstall Norton AntiVirus" in Google and I'd
find
http://www.google.com/search?source...ton+antivirus&aq=1&oq=how+do+I+uninstall+nort


As I said you're way out of your league. You should learn to ask
politely and you'll get more help.

Do you recommend jv16 because I've nearly always had to reinsatll after
deleting keys in the registry.

I particularly like the advanced option which cleans up everything, it takes
longer, but it's more effective.

 

[Keyser Söze]

It's good you admit to what you did.

How long is a piece of string exactly?

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise
to use in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why
Windows is such a POS.

When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed
an update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f
command, the reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method
causes bugs to accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in
precise the reverse order of which they were installed.

The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the
buggier your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall
the OS.

Linux apparently doesn't have anything resembling this problem,
which makes me wonder, how did the Linux designers (Torvald?)
handle this problem, and can we learn anything from their solution
to help minimize the problem with Windows?

Your thoughts?

I've been using Linux almost as long as I've been using Windows.

Linux is not immune from it's own problems...
and unless one is very familiar with Linux...the problems can
sometimes be harder to sort out.

That said, with a little bit of common sense, Windows should not
require a re-install.
I run mainly Win2k and XP and they have both been running 99% +
trouble free for *many* years.

You're living in a fantasy world. Everybody knows that Windows
slowly accumulates bugs. They've known almost from day one, when
people started griping about what a POS it was.

Every OS accumulates bugs. That's reality, son.

/BHA

Not if your regularly use a registry cleaner. I use FixIt Utilities
and to delete invalid or no longer need registry entries and files.

That's a very dangerous and poor thing to do, in my view.

Registry cleaning programs are *all* snake oil. Cleaning of the
registry isn't needed and is dangerous. Leave the registry alone and
don't use any registry cleaner. Despite what many people think, and
what vendors of registry cleaning software try to convince you of,
having unused registry entries doesn't really hurt you.

The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner
erroneously removing an entry you need is far greater than any
potential benefit it may have.

Read http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000643.html

I'm sure it's something you're not capable of working with. In my
view it's a great way to keep your system humming.

You are certainly entitled to that view, if that's what you believe.
But as far as I'm concerned, you're dead wrong.

Dear Ken Blake, MVP:

So how do *you* get rid of Norton Anti-virus? RegClean.exe didn'
touch it...

David A. Smith

First..I wouldn't install it.
2nd...just cleaning your registry won't uninstall a program. If
that's what you're trying to do then you really shouldn't be
installing programs to begin with...you're way out of your league.
3rd...I don't use RegClean. As I said I use FixIt Utilities and I
explained the process I use.
4th..I'd type "How do I uninstall Norton AntiVirus" in Google and
I'd find
http://www.google.com/search?source...ton+antivirus&aq=1&oq=how+do+I+uninstall+nort

As I said you're way out of your league. You should learn to ask
politely and you'll get more help.

Do you recommend jv16 because I've nearly always had to reinsatll
after deleting keys in the registry.

I particularly like the advanced option which cleans up everything,
it takes longer, but it's more effective.

I have no idea what jv16 is.

Actually - that is surprising in many ways.

It is a fairly well established windows optimization and tuneup tool. It
used to be a free 'registry cleaner' plus. It's been around and recommended
by many for quite a while.

jv16 PowerTools
http://www.macecraft.com/

That combined with today's search engines - you could have found out. ;-)
http://tinyurl.com/9j6e3d

Last Free uncrippled version:
http://www.321download.com/LastFreeware/index.html

HTH!

 

[Barney Falkner]

Actually - that is surprising in many ways.

It is a fairly well established windows optimization and tuneup tool.
It used to be a free 'registry cleaner' plus. It's been around and
recommended by many for quite a while.

LOL

 

[Corey Gordan]

Surprising that I don't know about a program I have no use for? That's
a pretty stupid statement.

Not really actually - You see, when someone professes to know something
particular about a specific matter, issue or methodology their opinions are
often only credited when they are able to demonstrate good reasonable debate
about all the bread and butter techniques, utilities or programs enabling
them to be best positioned to air that considered notional idea you would
have other believe is a well established and credible opinion... clearly it
is not.

In one fell swoop the man hath discredited you.

You appear blindsided.

 

[PerfectReign]

I've never had such a problem with either of my Macs

That's because you can't install software on your Mac unless The Cult (tm)
approves it.

I was trying to do this on my FIL's mac a few months back and ran into all
sorts of dependency crap.

Remember, your Mac an my laptops are only a kernel (and a Cult following)
apart.

 

[wisdomkiller & pain]

Everybody rightly criticizes Micro$tiff for selling a crappy OS, and
Linux is obviuosly better, if you have the time and the expertise to use
in it, but until this week I didn't understand exaclty why Windows is
such a POS.

When I had to uninstall the Google toolbar because Google installed an
update tht I didn't ask for, which overrode IE5's ctrl-f command, the
reason beame clear. Windows' install/uninstall method causes bugs to
accumulate, if programs are not ununstalled in precise the reverse order
of which they were installed.

Uhm. Well, IE5 _is_ badly outdated. It won't display many websites
correctly.
To be fair, same goes for firefox 1.0x and old netscape versions, for
windows as well as linux ...

The problem is that terrible method of saving old copies of system
files, like .ini files, as backups, to be restored when software is
uninstalled. So the more apps you uninstall, out of order, the buggier
your system becomes, until you finally have to reinstall the OS.

Hmm. Usually, each new version of software in windows will either continue
to work with the current registry keys and maybe add one or the other
value, or it will create a new key with version number and use that.
Uninstalling may or may not remove that key, but if you reinstate the old
version, it should find useful settings or use defaults.
Of course, registry may become a bloated mess after many
installs/uninstalls.

Linux apparently doesn't have anything resembling this problem, which
makes me wonder, how did the Linux designers (Torvald?) handle this
problem, and can we learn anything from their solution to help minimize
the problem with Windows?

Linux works with configuration files. When updating, the existing files are
usually reused and maybe new parameters are added. Main version changes may
use differently named config files and even coexist with the old version.
When uninstalling, usually the configs are saved by renaming unless you
purge completely, so if you later reinstall that software or a newer
version again, you have fresh defaults but you can still copy statements
from the old saved files (and later on delete them).

 

[wisdomkiller & pain]

Not if your regularly use a registry cleaner. I use FixIt Utilities
and to delete invalid or no longer need registry entries and files.

The registry is a file-based database. It may grow big over time, but orphan
entries don't introduce much trouble. Instead, some uninstallers leave
hooks to nowhere - with known results. However, registry cleaners trying to
get rid of these, always are a bit dangerous.