registry cleaner and back up

[Amadeus47]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 20:11:00 -0800, Linda W <Linda



All registry cleaners are scams at best. At worst, they can completely
hose your system.

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

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

Very interesting thread. Has the tinge of some of the 'old' flame wars of
the 70's and 80's. One source to consult on the topic is also an 'old timer'
around compters, Fred Langa. See his article on registry cleaners at
http://windowssecrets.com/2007/03/01/01-Are-Registry-cleaners-worthwhile
JV16 has worked well for me for many years.

 

[Edward W. Thompson]

Very interesting thread. Has the tinge of some of the 'old' flame wars of
the 70's and 80's. One source to consult on the topic is also an 'old
timer'
around compters, Fred Langa. See his article on registry cleaners at
http://windowssecrets.com/2007/03/01/01-Are-Registry-cleaners-worthwhile
JV16 has worked well for me for many years.

And what do you mean by 'worked well'? I assume you mean it hasn't damaged
the Registry. If that assumption is correct will you explain what benefits
you have gained from running JV16 an how you measured those benefits.

I do not mean to be critical but the essence of the debate over Registry
Cleaners is an objective determination of the benefits, not that they remove
redundant entries from the Registry, I don't think anyone disputes that. If
the benefits are solely a reduction in the physical size of the Registry, I
believe we would all agree but might be tempted to add, so what?

 

[Amadeus47]

And what do you mean by 'worked well'? I assume you mean it hasn't damaged
the Registry. If that assumption is correct will you explain what benefits
you have gained from running JV16 an how you measured those benefits.

I do not mean to be critical but the essence of the debate over Registry
Cleaners is an objective determination of the benefits, not that they remove
redundant entries from the Registry, I don't think anyone disputes that. If
the benefits are solely a reduction in the physical size of the Registry, I
believe we would all agree but might be tempted to add, so what?

Edward,

May I respectfully point you to the link to Fred Langa's article. He is
among many of the 'ancient' PC experts whose opinion is held in high esteem.
One of the points of his article (which, BTW, emulates the sentiments of
other experts on the topic) he makes is for heavy computer users (which I am)
a good registry cleaner is a necessity and it *does* help keep a machine
running under these conditions run faster after use. I suggest others who
are interested in this topic will find his article enlightening.

 

[Leonard Grey]

I am familiar with the article and with Langa. The article does not
prove that registry cleaners are of any value whatsoever - no
before-and-after benchmarks or any other measurements for that matter.
Langa starts with the unproven assumption that registry cleaners have
value and merely tries to decide which registry cleaner is best.

In addition to being a respected writer, Langa is also a businessman.
The population of potential subscribers and sponsor-patronizers who have
been deceived by registry cleaner hype is substantially larger than the
population of those who know better.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Very interesting thread. Has the tinge of some of the 'old' flame wars of
the 70's and 80's. One source to consult on the topic is also an 'old timer'
around compters, Fred Langa. See his article on registry cleaners at
http://windowssecrets.com/2007/03/01/01-Are-Registry-cleaners-worthwhile

Fred Langa is a "journalist" with absolutely no technical education,
training, or background. Read his bio. I always tell my customers
(those few who are aware of his existence, that is) to pay close
attention to what he says, and then do the exact opposite. They're much
less likely to go wrong, that way.

Just as he's blowing smoke, without providing a shred of supporting
independent laboratory evidence, in the article you cite. In the
earlier article he cites, he "reviewed" several so-called registry
"cleaners," and his *sole* criteria for judging the best, better, etc.,
was the number of times each one had to be run before it stopped
reporting "problems." At no time did he ever state whether or not any
of the "problems" found were real problems, nor did he state that any of
the "cleaners" improved the computer's performance.

JV16 has worked well for me for many years.

"Worked well" in what regard, precisely? I mean, other than separate
you from some of your money? (Which is its's purpose.)


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:


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

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Edward,

May I respectfully point you to the link to Fred Langa's article. He is
among many of the 'ancient' PC experts whose opinion is held in high esteem.

Not so. Fred Langa is a journalist, not a technician. He's certainly
no expert. I don't know a single IT professional who holds him in "high
esteem." Utter contempt is the more common reaction, among those who've
read some of his material.





--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:


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

 

[Bruce Chambers]

I am familiar with the article and with Langa. The article does not
prove that registry cleaners are of any value whatsoever - no
before-and-after benchmarks or any other measurements for that matter.
Langa starts with the unproven assumption that registry cleaners have
value and merely tries to decide which registry cleaner is best.

In addition to being a respected writer, Langa is also a businessman.
The population of potential subscribers and sponsor-patronizers who have
been deceived by registry cleaner hype is substantially larger than the
population of those who know better.

Well said.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:


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

 

[Edward W. Thompson]

Edward,

May I respectfully point you to the link to Fred Langa's article. He is
among many of the 'ancient' PC experts whose opinion is held in high
esteem.
One of the points of his article (which, BTW, emulates the sentiments of
other experts on the topic) he makes is for heavy computer users (which I
am)
a good registry cleaner is a necessity and it *does* help keep a machine
running under these conditions run faster after use. I suggest others who
are interested in this topic will find his article enlightening.

As you will note, others do not hold Mr. Langa is such high regard as you.
However, don't let us debate Mr. Langa's credentials or lack of credentials.
Am I to understand your recommendation with respect to Registry Cleaners is
based upon a recommendation from Mr. Langa? If you have objective evidence
of your own to show their benefits would you kindly share that evidence with
the rest of us? As you seem to understand what these programs do, please
explain how removing redundant entries from the Regisry allows your machine
to run faster. Exactly how did you determine this?

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Amadeus47 wrote:


"Worked well" in what regard, precisely? I mean, other than separate
you from some of your money? (Which is its's purpose.)

My perception of those (not Amadeus47 in particular) who say this
about some registry cleaner is that they mean two things by it:

1. Their computer is faster after they run it.

2. There were no problems after running that were attributable to it.

But I have two replies to that:

1. Hardly anyone actually measures the speed of their computer before
and after running a registry cleaner, in part because accurate
measurement of speed is very difficult. So what they really mean is
that it generally *feels* faster. But just like taking a placebo, such
feelings can be very misleading, and many people think there's an
improvement where none really exists. Moreover if someone has spent
money (or even just time and effort) on a product, he *wants* to be
convinced that it has done something useful, and that he hasn't wasted
his money, time, and effort, and that placebo effect is therefore
greatly enhanced.

2. Certainly registry cleaners do *not* cause a problem every time
someone uses them. None of us claims that. In fact, it's true that
most times someone uses a registry cleaner, no problem results. Many
people who have run a registry cleaner, even many times, have never
experienced a problem caused by it. It's only *sometimes* that
registry cleaners cause a problem. It's a matter of increased risk of
problems, not of certainty.

The reason not to use a registry cleaner is that the tradeoff of
increased risk for no benefit is a very bad bargain.

 

[Daave]

1. Hardly anyone actually measures the speed of their computer before
and after running a registry cleaner, in part because accurate
measurement of speed is very difficult. So what they really mean is
that it generally *feels* faster. But just like taking a placebo, such
feelings can be very misleading, and many people think there's an
improvement where none really exists. Moreover if someone has spent
money (or even just time and effort) on a product, he *wants* to be
convinced that it has done something useful, and that he hasn't wasted
his money, time, and effort, and that placebo effect is therefore
greatly enhanced.

That's certainly a distinct possibility.

Another possibility is that the use of a combination temp file
cleaner/registry cleaner very well might speed up one's browsing. Then
again, it's deletion of *temp files* (not "dead wood" in the registry)
that causes this effect.

 

[Leonard Grey]

"Another possibility is that the use of a combination temp file
cleaner/registry cleaner very well might speed up one's browsing."

I do not believe that is correct. Even with the fastest internet access
currently available, it's always quicker to query a hard disk than to
query the internet. The reason for advising someone to clear their
browser cache is to force the browser to go to the internet. Don't need
a registry cleaner for that.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

That's certainly a distinct possibility.

Another possibility is that the use of a combination temp file
cleaner/registry cleaner very well might speed up one's browsing. Then
again, it's deletion of *temp files* (not "dead wood" in the registry)
that causes this effect.

Yes, excellent point! If two things are done simultaneously (not just
those two), it's very easy to mis-attribute an improvement in
performance to the wrong one.

 

[Poprivet`]

Fred Langa is a "journalist" with absolutely no technical education,
training, or background. Read his bio. I always tell my customers
(those few who are aware of his existence, that is) to pay close
attention to what he says, and then do the exact opposite. They're
much less likely to go wrong, that way.

Just as he's blowing smoke, without providing a shred of supporting
independent laboratory evidence, in the article you cite. In the
earlier article he cites, he "reviewed" several so-called registry
"cleaners," and his *sole* criteria for judging the best, better,
etc., was the number of times each one had to be run before it stopped
reporting "problems." At no time did he ever state whether or not any
of the "problems" found were real problems, nor did he state that any
of the "cleaners" improved the computer's performance.




"Worked well" in what regard, precisely? I mean, other than separate
you from some of your money? (Which is its's purpose.)

Kind of like those who trot out the "never use a registry cleaner,
manually edit the registry instead" closed minded dolts do you mean?
Yeah, it's pretty similar, I agree.

And do the "opposite" of what Langa says/does? Wow, is that a foolish
statement, even if it is meant to be rhetorical. GAK!

 

[Poprivet`]

Not so. Fred Langa is a journalist, not a technician. He's certainly
no expert. I don't know a single IT professional who holds him in
"high esteem." Utter contempt is the more common reaction, among
those who've read some of his material.

You didn't even bother to look at the article to be sure your
allegations hold up, did you?
FL doesn't claim to be a technician. And the OP was discussing "
'ancient' PC experts" not an "IT professional".
And "utter contempt" from those who've read "some of" his material?
Now there's an idea: if any single thing is wrong, then all is wrong.
Just as the dunderheads with their closed minded attitudes about
registry applications.
I don't know a "single IT professional" who *DOES* hold Langa in
contempt. So, since I don't have a closed mind and you appear to, does
that make MY statement any more/less meaningful than the tripe you
posted? NOT! However, I with an open mind, would at least have
included some verifiable detail to back up any such inane allegations as
you make here, some of which border on libel BTW.

In MY opinion, FL is a journalist, just like HE says he is (not you). I
don't care whether he or anyone else is a "techie"; I only consider
one's track record and results. Now in his case, if your'e a newbie, he
sometimes does pretty good. Other times not so good. But I'm not supid
enough to label anyone (well, except closed minded people I guess) with
a single swipe of a brush.

 

[Poprivet`]

As you will note, others do not hold Mr. Langa is such high regard as
you. However, don't let us debate Mr. Langa's credentials or lack of
credentials. Am I to understand your recommendation with respect to
Registry Cleaners is based upon a recommendation from Mr. Langa? If
you have objective evidence of your own to show their benefits would
you kindly share that evidence with the rest of us? As you seem to
understand what these programs do, please explain how removing
redundant entries from the Regisry allows your machine to run faster.
Exactly how did you determine this?

I can, and have, done so in the past when other closed minds challenged
the status of "cleaners", provided measurable, verifiable evidence of
same. However, not a single one of those closed minds presented so much
as an iota of evidence to support their claims over the dangers of
"cleaners" OR the lack of any time savings. In fact, my data was
completely ignored, the closed minds choosing to stick to confusing the
newbies rather than straighten out the misinformation they wish to push
on the entire world.
I'm not saying reigstry cleaners should be used periodically,
although with a decent one it will not cause any problems any more than
the registry manipulations of installing and even registry use while
running an application does. There *ARE* circumstances where a
"cleaner" will make a noticeable and profound difference in machine
speed, although they are in the minority of root causes. OTOH
periodically "cleaning" the reigistry with a reliable app will do no
harm.
You guys with your closed minds do more to confuse newbies and
neophytes than any other single act I am aware of w/r to managing the
Registry. A time or two I've even seen "cleaners" denounced on this
group when the "cleaners" under discussion did zero, zip, nada, nothing
with respect to the Registry but were more or less just some code to
initiate the Disk Cleanup feature.

 

[Poprivet`]

That's certainly a distinct possibility.

Another possibility is that the use of a combination temp file
cleaner/registry cleaner very well might speed up one's browsing. Then
again, it's deletion of *temp files* (not "dead wood" in the registry)
that causes this effect.

IMO all it takes to "measure" whether a "cleaner" made any difference is
a wrist watch or cheapie stop watch. If it's a noticeable improvement,
those instruments will readily identify non-negligible changes.

But there is more to a registry than noticeable machine times and
setting any control for timing is difficult at best anyway. I don't
look at such tools as "tuning" tools, but I do on occasion use them for
some pretty substantial problems. And, being able to "put back" the
changes made creates a neatly verifiable fix-situation. There's a lot
more to the registry than machine cycles.

This thread has taken the OP's simple questions and turned into an
ego-fest of closed-minded tripe that puts some groups to shame. I'm not
saying YOU are a closed mind, BTW; I don't know you and what you said,
though singular, is true enough.

 

[Daave]

I can, and have, done so in the past when other closed minds
challenged
the status of "cleaners", provided measurable, verifiable evidence of
same. However, not a single one of those closed minds presented so
much
as an iota of evidence to support their claims over the dangers of
"cleaners" OR the lack of any time savings. In fact, my data was
completely ignored, the closed minds choosing to stick to confusing
the newbies rather than straighten out the misinformation they wish
to push
on the entire world.

I would like to see the data you are referring to. Please post a link to
it. Thank you.

 

[Daave]

IMO all it takes to "measure" whether a "cleaner" made any difference
is a wrist watch or cheapie stop watch. If it's a noticeable
improvement, those instruments will readily identify non-negligible
changes.

But there is more to a registry than noticeable machine times and
setting any control for timing is difficult at best anyway. I don't
look at such tools as "tuning" tools, but I do on occasion use them
for some pretty substantial problems. And, being able to "put back"
the changes made creates a neatly verifiable fix-situation. There's
a lot more to the registry than machine cycles.

This thread has taken the OP's simple questions and turned into an
ego-fest of closed-minded tripe that puts some groups to shame. I'm
not saying YOU are a closed mind, BTW; I don't know you and what you
said, though singular, is true enough.

I believe I have a very open mind. What I find frustrating is when
people like D. Spencer Hines make claims but are unwilling to back it
up.

On the one hand, I've read a good deal of posts from those who are
clueless newbs who ruined their PCs by running bad-quality registry
cleaners. The worst offenders, of course, are the ones that cause you to
think that Microsoft itself has notified you of registry errors (false
positives) and then trick you into clicking on a link to download and
install their rogue programs.

On the other hand, I've had positive experiences with RegCleaner (same
as JV Tools). I find it useful for situations like de-McAfeeing a
system. For someone who knows what they're doing (and that's key!), I
feel it's quite safe. Still, I understand why many would generally avoid
recommending registry cleaners.

My point of interest is purely on performance grounds. Many have made
claims that a good registry cleaner can actually speed up a PC. That's
never been my experience. And I've never seen evidence to support this
claim. It is *because* I have an open mind that I'd like to see the
evidence! So, if you do know of any data, please point me to it; I'm
more than willing to agree with you vis-à-vis speed increases as long as
I see data that supports it.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

I believe I have a very open mind. What I find frustrating is when
people like D. Spencer Hines make claims but are unwilling to back it
up.

On the one hand, I've read a good deal of posts from those who are
clueless newbs who ruined their PCs by running bad-quality registry
cleaners. The worst offenders, of course, are the ones that cause you to
think that Microsoft itself has notified you of registry errors (false
positives) and then trick you into clicking on a link to download and
install their rogue programs.

On the other hand, I've had positive experiences with RegCleaner (same
as JV Tools). I find it useful for situations like de-McAfeeing a
system. For someone who knows what they're doing (and that's key!), I
feel it's quite safe. Still, I understand why many would generally avoid
recommending registry cleaners.

My point of interest is purely on performance grounds. Many have made
claims that a good registry cleaner can actually speed up a PC. That's
never been my experience. And I've never seen evidence to support this
claim. It is *because* I have an open mind that I'd like to see the
evidence! So, if you do know of any data, please point me to it; I'm
more than willing to agree with you vis-à-vis speed increases as long as
I see data that supports it.

I'll second all of the above. For years, I've been asking the registry
cleaner advocates to provide some sort of verifiable, independent
evidence and/or documentation to support their claims, but *none* have
ever been able to do so, to date. The best I've gotten are lines to
marketing and advertising crap or so-called "reviews" that don't
actually provide any facts. Absent any evidence or facts to the
contrary, I don't think basing my opinions upon my own years of direct
observation and experience is being "close minded."


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:


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

 

[Bill in Co.]

I'll second all of the above. For years, I've been asking the registry
cleaner advocates to provide some sort of verifiable, independent
evidence and/or documentation to support their claims, but *none* have
ever been able to do so, to date. The best I've gotten are lines to
marketing and advertising crap or so-called "reviews" that don't
actually provide any facts. Absent any evidence or facts to the
contrary, I don't think basing my opinions upon my own years of direct
observation and experience is being "close minded."

The fact is, they don't have any documented factual evidence.
One thing that is a fact, however, is that by using the automatic registry
cleaners, or even the manual ones if you're not extremely knowledgeable and
very selective about what you're cutting out, you're playing with fire, and
you can really mess up your system.

And THAT is a fact.