D
Daave
Twayne said:
Whatever you say, Fonzie!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Whatever you say, Fonzie!
T
Twayne
Twayne said:Registry cleaners are ok, you say.. limp along if you don't use them,
you say..
So where is the proof of what you say? Either produce some or quit
pushing registry cleaners..
DONE! Years ago. If you have such solid footing, YOU provide
something. YOU are the one having problems with people believing your
misinformation; YOU pony up and prove it.
My own proof is many years of using same for many purposes over the
years on many systems of my own and that of clients. That means
experience and knowledge and detailed observations. What have ou got?
Everything I've said previously still goes.
Neither you nor any of your fellow supposed MVP and tossed-out MVPs
have EVER provided on iota of evidence to the contrary of what I've
said. Never. None. Not a word. One of your, what was the phrase, oh
yeah, "peon-parrots" once indicated a years old experience on one
machine with one such application and has since sworn off them forever
thanks to snake oil posts such as you and three others like to present.
But at least your "peon-parrot" admitted his situation and that he
hadn't touched one since then. You and your cohorts havent' even done
that much, even though your own experiences are very likely identical
IFF you have ever even used such an application. You guys are even
railing against your own Microsoft version of the same application, in
fact. As supposed MVP's that's forbidden to do.
So, entertainment aside, you are just plain wrong, have no way to
show anything other than the truth I've put forth. When one of you do
decide to talk about it at all, you pick out one tiny, insignificant
point, like, say, they don't make machines run faster. I never said
they DID! I said they CAN, and I also said they urually will not, and
that the picture us much larger than that. I think the term myopic fits
here too. None of you seem to have the reading comprehension of a
third grader, IMO, from what I've seen over the last few weeks.
Gee, there's that sig again; you're really cruisin' to get yourself
reported for spamming aren't you? No worry, it won't be me does that; I
don't bother with pinheads who don't know spam from shinola anyway on
newsgroups. I'd talk about scruples, but I know the word isn't likely
meaningful to you.
Thanks,
TWayne
T
Twayne
How to make friends and influence people <G>!
More like how to combat misinformation.
More like how to combat misinformation.
T
Twayne
Twayne said:Whatever you say, Fonzie!
'Heyyyyy!
M
Mike Hall - MVP
Twayne said:DONE! Years ago. If you have such solid footing, YOU provide something.
YOU are the one having problems with people believing your misinformation;
YOU pony up and prove it.
My own proof is many years of using same for many purposes over the years
on many systems of my own and that of clients. That means experience and
knowledge and detailed observations. What have ou got? Everything I've
said previously still goes.
Neither you nor any of your fellow supposed MVP and tossed-out MVPs have
EVER provided on iota of evidence to the contrary of what I've said.
Never. None. Not a word. One of your, what was the phrase, oh yeah,
"peon-parrots" once indicated a years old experience on one machine with
one such application and has since sworn off them forever thanks to snake
oil posts such as you and three others like to present. But at least your
"peon-parrot" admitted his situation and that he hadn't touched one since
then. You and your cohorts havent' even done that much, even though your
own experiences are very likely identical IFF you have ever even used such
an application. You guys are even railing against your own Microsoft
version of the same application, in fact. As supposed MVP's that's
forbidden to do.
So, entertainment aside, you are just plain wrong, have no way to show
anything other than the truth I've put forth. When one of you do decide
to talk about it at all, you pick out one tiny, insignificant point, like,
say, they don't make machines run faster. I never said they DID! I said
they CAN, and I also said they urually will not, and that the picture us
much larger than that. I think the term myopic fits here too. None of
you seem to have the reading comprehension of a third grader, IMO, from
what I've seen over the last few weeks.
Gee, there's that sig again; you're really cruisin' to get yourself
reported for spamming aren't you? No worry, it won't be me does that; I
don't bother with pinheads who don't know spam from shinola anyway on
newsgroups. I'd talk about scruples, but I know the word isn't likely
meaningful to you.
Thanks,
TWayne
You have not provided any proof that a registry cleaner speeds up a
computer, yet you have said that a computer will 'limp along' if a registry
cleaner is not used. Your statement doesn't suggest 'can speed up'. It
suggests 'will speed up'.
Regclean 4.0 speeded up Win 9x because Win 9x did not cope well with an ever
growing registry. It cleaned out ONLY the safest of stuff within the
registry, but did NOT do anything approaching a full clean.
The NT family do not suffer the same issues as Win 9x, as they ignore
orphaned entries. Removing them makes no difference to performance.
Over time, I have tried out almost all of the registry cleaners available on
NT family operating systems, and NONE of them have ever given better
performance. What some have done is left the system partially crippled.
The only registry cleaner I ever use is Regcleaner 4.3 (JV16), but I do NOT
use it to get more performance. It is the ONLY registry cleaner of any value
when addressing registry entries created by malware and can save time. But
it doesn't always nail all of the bad entries, and there is still a need to
manually edit the registry.
The registry cleaners that one has to pay for are not worth a dime to the
average user or to anybody. They make claims which can't and never have been
substantiated other than in Windows 9x, and the only two trustworthy
registry cleaner for use on Win 9x were/are Regclean 4.0 and Regcleaner
(JV16).
You appear to know little about what an MVP is or does, and you will
probably say that you don't care. However, that doesn't stop you making wild
claims.
Who is my 'peon parrot? I have NEVER used that phrase.
Which MVPs have been 'tossed' out? We are never told by Microsoft why a name
has gone from the list of MVPs. The only way we find out is if the outgoing
MVP tells us. The three reasons of which I am aware are death, an input
reduction within the public community areas due to work or family issues, or
being taken into the Microsoft company because they have such specialized
knowledge.
Posts in the MS newsgroups over the years have shown that registry cleaners
can do more harm than good. Many of us have seen the effects of registry
cleaners with either clients coming to us to get their computers fixed, or
within large companies where individual employees have taken it upon
themselves to try to fix problems on their workstations by loading and
running registry cleaners.
It would be difficult to amass data on all of the above incidents, but it
shouldn't be too difficult for you to prove that registry cleaners speed up
and/or improve a computer, yet still you have not done that. All you have
done is point to spurious claims by the registry cleaner authors. The burden
of proof is on you, especially as your information might well lead to a
computer user handing over money to screw up their computer..
--
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
M
msnews.microsoft.com
Mke H said;....
What are you, two years old? You argue no cleaner is any good and two are
OK? And they are the buggy ones by MS?
nuff said.
Twayne
What are you, two years old? You argue no cleaner is any good and two are
OK? And they are the buggy ones by MS?
nuff said.
Twayne
M
Mike Hall - MVP
What are you, two years old? You argue no cleaner is any good and two are
OK? And they are the buggy ones by MS?
nuff said.
Twayne
Regclean 4.0 was introduced to combat the Win 9x registry growing too much,
and I have NEVER argued that it was useless.
re NT based operating systems, they do not LIMP ALONG as you claim if no
registry cleaner is used on them. Neither do they require use of a registry
cleaner as part of a regular maintenance routine. They certainly do NOT
speed up a computer, and removal of orphaned entries serves no useful
purposes regarding the operation of an NT based operating systems.
The JV16 registry cleaner (NOT a Microsoft product) will not speed up a
computer after it has been run. Neither will it automatically remove harmful
entries. What it can do is help in the process of finding bad entries.
It does NOT do what YOU claim registry cleaners will do. For the benefit of
those who you try to persuade re the use of registry cleaners and their
ability to improve a computers performance, provide proof of your claims
which you say that you have, Product advertising blurb does not count.
--
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
T
Twayne
MH said:
That's irrelveant to the current topic: win9x is moot. This is about
XP. Can't you read? Oh, I see; another attemtp to misdirect. You're
not good at it.
Yes, you have repeated the "all " "snake oil" comment on at least one
occasion rather recently. An archive search on my drive turned it up
in just 12 seconds.
That's not what I said, but, after years of NO maintenance, assumed
they're not sitting on a high shelf unused, they will certainly "limp
along". You just want to put things into the context of win98, years
old info, and single-minded content. Go ahead, but it's not effective
nor is it relevant.
Neither do they require use of a
I didn't say it was "required", though I agreed with one person who did
so. It won't help much, but it also will NOT hurt a thing. As anyone
who does so knows. Go ahead; repeat that ANY registry cleaner WILL
trash the machine; you will be wrong. You must think you're a magician
and that misdirection works on all the people all the time.
They
That's not the point of the thread at all. You've lost track of the
main point.
I didn't say it would do any of those things.
What is "it"? JV16? I never said it did.
For the
You are so lost; it's not about the simple points you keep wanting to
make. You need to step back and see the wole picture, not just the
pretty trees you like looking at.
Then go read the original content I posted to your cohort a few years
back. I don't chew my food twice. You're becoming as boring as you are
wrong. You want "you first" responses simply to keep from showing that
you have nothing in reality to support your case, including experience
and especially any valid testing, all of which I have for my case.
Thanks again,
Twayne
Regclean 4.0 was introduced to combat the Win 9x registry growing too
That's irrelveant to the current topic: win9x is moot. This is about
XP. Can't you read? Oh, I see; another attemtp to misdirect. You're
not good at it.
much, and I have NEVER argued that it was useless.
Yes, you have repeated the "all " "snake oil" comment on at least one
occasion rather recently. An archive search on my drive turned it up
in just 12 seconds.
re NT based operating systems, they do not LIMP ALONG as you claim if
no registry cleaner is used on them.
That's not what I said, but, after years of NO maintenance, assumed
they're not sitting on a high shelf unused, they will certainly "limp
along". You just want to put things into the context of win98, years
old info, and single-minded content. Go ahead, but it's not effective
nor is it relevant.
Neither do they require use of a
registry cleaner as part of a regular maintenance routine.
I didn't say it was "required", though I agreed with one person who did
so. It won't help much, but it also will NOT hurt a thing. As anyone
who does so knows. Go ahead; repeat that ANY registry cleaner WILL
trash the machine; you will be wrong. You must think you're a magician
and that misdirection works on all the people all the time.
They
certainly do NOT speed up a computer, and removal of orphaned entries
serves no useful purposes regarding the operation of an NT based
operating systems.
That's not the point of the thread at all. You've lost track of the
main point.
The JV16 registry cleaner (NOT a Microsoft product) will not speed up
a computer after it has been run. Neither will it automatically
remove harmful entries. What it can do is help in the process of
finding bad entries.
I didn't say it would do any of those things.
It does NOT do what YOU claim registry cleaners will do.
What is "it"? JV16? I never said it did.
For the
benefit of those who you try to persuade re the use of registry
cleaners and their ability to improve a computers performance,
provide proof of your claims which you say that you have, Product
advertising blurb does not count.
You are so lost; it's not about the simple points you keep wanting to
make. You need to step back and see the wole picture, not just the
pretty trees you like looking at.
Then go read the original content I posted to your cohort a few years
back. I don't chew my food twice. You're becoming as boring as you are
wrong. You want "you first" responses simply to keep from showing that
you have nothing in reality to support your case, including experience
and especially any valid testing, all of which I have for my case.
Thanks again,
Twayne
D
Daave
Twayne said:MH said:
That's irrelveant to the current topic: win9x is moot. This is about
XP. Can't you read? Oh, I see; another attemtp to misdirect. You're
not good at it.
Funny how when you snip the original quote and context, all of a sudden
it *appears* you are winning the argument. Unfortunately, most of us are
aware of that misleading technique!
Just to refresh your memory, Twayne, Mike stated:
<quote>
The registry cleaners that one has to pay for are not worth a dime to
the
average user or to anybody. They make claims which can't and never have
been
substantiated other than in Windows 9x, and the only two trustworthy
registry cleaner for use on Win 9x were/are Regclean 4.0 and Regcleaner
(JV16).
</quote>
Mike was providing context. In other words, while cleaning the registry
(or at least *parts* of the registry) had value for systems running
Windows 95 or Windows 98, they no longer have the same value because XP
is a totally different system where orphaned reigtry entries are not a
problem.
That's not what I said, but, after years of NO maintenance, assumed
they're not sitting on a high shelf unused, they will certainly "limp
along".
Actually, that is exactly what you said, Twayne! To refresh your memory:
Twayne said:It's your computer so if you prefer to limp along forever, that's your
right.
There is not one single person here arguing against regularly
maintaining one's PC (despite your revisionism)! You can't have it both
ways...
M
Mike Hall - MVP
Twayne said:MH said:
That's irrelveant to the current topic: win9x is moot. This is about XP.
Can't you read? Oh, I see; another attemtp to misdirect. You're not good
at it.
Yes, you have repeated the "all " "snake oil" comment on at least one
occasion rather recently. An archive search on my drive turned it up in
just 12 seconds.
That's not what I said, but, after years of NO maintenance, assumed
they're not sitting on a high shelf unused, they will certainly "limp
along". You just want to put things into the context of win98, years old
info, and single-minded content. Go ahead, but it's not effective nor is
it relevant.
Neither do they require use of a
I didn't say it was "required", though I agreed with one person who did
so. It won't help much, but it also will NOT hurt a thing. As anyone who
does so knows. Go ahead; repeat that ANY registry cleaner WILL trash the
machine; you will be wrong. You must think you're a magician and that
misdirection works on all the people all the time.
They
That's not the point of the thread at all. You've lost track of the main
point.
I didn't say it would do any of those things.
What is "it"? JV16? I never said it did.
For the
You are so lost; it's not about the simple points you keep wanting to
make. You need to step back and see the wole picture, not just the pretty
trees you like looking at.
Then go read the original content I posted to your cohort a few years
back. I don't chew my food twice. You're becoming as boring as you are
wrong. You want "you first" responses simply to keep from showing that
you have nothing in reality to support your case, including experience and
especially any valid testing, all of which I have for my case.
Thanks again,
Twayne
Exactly so.. Win 9x is a relic, and with it the fact that the registry needs
cleaning out a little now and again..
You are back pedaling on almost everything that you have stated, and still
haven't produced proof for your claim that a registry cleaner is all good
for all systems, will prevent a computer from 'limping along', and should be
used as part of general computer housekeeping for the benefit of those who
ask.
In deference to your claims, I ran two registry cleaners on my system
recently.
CCleaner did its job, after which I had to reboot twice. It took twenty five
minutes for my system to recover from the shock..
Regseeker found many problems which I let it fix. After the reboot, my
system staggered back to life and left me having to do a Windows system
restore.
Further back in time, I tried Uniblue registry cleaner on an XP system after
reading that users of the utility had their systems trashed and, sure
enough, it trashed mine, resulting in a complete clean install.
There is no way that I can recommend use of registry cleaners as either
system improvers or as part of regular maintenance, especially registry
cleaners for which the computer user has to pay to watch their system crash
out.
When a registry cleaner says it has completed, users believe that the
registry has been cleaned out of all crap. The truth is a world away, and
the only time that all crap is cleaned out of registry anything like
completely is when the user is forced into executing a destructive restore.
--
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
T
Twayne
I snipped what I didn't respond to. If you miss the content, put it
back. You're the one having hte problem, not me! It's as irrelevant as
you are. There's no arguement; just a few dummies spewing
misinformation. Like you do.
....
back. You're the one having hte problem, not me! It's as irrelevant as
you are. There's no arguement; just a few dummies spewing
misinformation. Like you do.
....
....Funny how when you snip the original quote and context, all of a
sudden it *appears* you are winning the argument. Unfortunately, most
of us are aware of that misleading technique!
T
Twayne
If it doesn't interest you, don't read it. That's what I'm doing. You
have nothing of value left to say on the topic/s.
have nothing of value left to say on the topic/s.
M
Mike Hall - MVP
Twayne said:If it doesn't interest you, don't read it. That's what I'm doing. You
have nothing of value left to say on the topic/s.
And you still haven't provided proof of your claims.. not surprised that you
do not want to respond anymore..
--
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
D
Daave
Evasion noted.
Twayne said:I snipped what I didn't respond to. If you miss the content, put it
back. You're the one having hte problem, not me! It's as irrelevant
as you are. There's no arguement; just a few dummies spewing
misinformation. Like you do.
T
Twayne
Twayne said:And you still haven't provided proof of your claims.. not surprised
that you do not want to respond anymore..
There's nothing you say that has anything to respond to; just more of
the same childish irrelevant crap you normall spew. Don't lie about
registry cleaners and you wont' have anything to bitch about.
T
Twayne
Evasion noted.
There's another one with even less to say than the supposed MVP
There's another one with even less to say than the supposed MVP
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.