registry cleaner and back up

[Leonard Grey]

Quite the contrary, I think Bruce - and I - are quite open-minded on the
subject. Let one of the registry cleaner writers setup a
before-and-after benchmark that proves their registry cleaner lives up
to its marketing. Let them measure for us how their product makes a
computer so much better.

On the contrary, anyone can read for themselves in these newsgroups how
registry cleaners have damaged posters' installations, frequently beyond
repair.

 

[Edward W. Thompson]

snip>

On the contrary, anyone can read for themselves in these newsgroups how
registry cleaners have damaged posters' installations, frequently beyond
repair.

snip

Whereas I agree with the many cautionary remarks concerning Registry
Cleaners and their potential for damaging to the Registry I do not, at
present, agree with the suggestion that they will damage the system beyond
repair.

I have seen no evidence that any Registry Cleaner damages the OS (WINXP et
al). Surely the protection of essential OS files is a prime requisite of
any software. I find it extremely doubtful that any Registry Cleaner would
be so sloppily coded and lack in basic testing to be released when running
it would cause damage to the OS. If I am wrong so be it, please cite a
Registry Cleaner that does damage the OS when run. I do not accept that on
some machines it does/might while or others it will not.

The Program is either coded to remove a particular entry or type of entry or
it is not, perhaps and maybes don't enter into it. It is fair to suggest
that while those that promote the use of Registry Cleaners should show their
effectiveness by objective evidence, those that claim they damage or will
damage the OS should also provide objective evidence to support their
position.

Registry Cleaners certainly have the potential to damage software, other
than the OS, by removing empty entries in the Registry that are required by
the software. That seems to me to be the prime risk. As for that causing
the machine to be beyond repair, all that is requiured is to perform a
System Repair or at worse to reinstall the damaged program.

I certainly think Registry Cleaners are unnecessary and their very name is
grossly misleading. Very simply the Registry does not need to have
redundant entries removed for the machine to operate efficiently. Those who
say otherwise are mistaken and the onus is on them to provide objective
evidence to support their position that the use of Registry Cleaners
improves machine performance. To date no evidence has been posted

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

snip>
snip

Whereas I agree with the many cautionary remarks concerning Registry
Cleaners and their potential for damaging to the Registry I do not, at
present, agree with the suggestion that they will damage the system beyond
repair.

I don't think any of us has ever said that they "*will* damage the
system beyond repair."

The point is only that they *may* do this--That the risk of their
making the system unbootable is always there.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Whereas I agree with the many cautionary remarks concerning Registry
Cleaners and their potential for damaging to the Registry I do not, at
present, agree with the suggestion that they will damage the system beyond
repair.

I don't recall anyone ever saying that the use of a registry
cleaner *will invariably* and inevitably damage the OS or render machine
unusable. Rather, we have pointed out that the potential risk is there,
and it just foolish to run such a risk when there is no measurable
benefit to be derived from the use of such products. I derive a
substantial portion of my income helping people recover from the use of
registry "cleaners."

More importantly, no one has ever demonstrated that the use of an
automated registry "cleaner" does any real good, whatsoever. There's
certainly been no independently verifiable, empirical evidence offered
to demonstrate that the use of such products to "clean" WinXP's registry
improves a computer's performance or stability.

Granted, most registry "cleaners" won't cause problems each and every
time they're used, but the potential for harm is always there. And,
since no registry "cleaner" has ever been demonstrated to do any good
(think of them like treating the flu with chicken soup - there's no real
medicinal value, but it sometimes provides a warming placebo effect), I
always tell people that the risks far out-weigh the non-existent benefits.

Snipped....

--

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]

I don't think any of us has ever said that they "*will* damage the
system beyond repair."

The point is only that they *may* do this--That the risk of their
making the system unbootable is always there.

I do not disagree with much of what you have posted now and in the past
except I find it difficult to accept that sometimes a Registry Cleaner will
damage the system to the extent it is beyond repair and at other times it
does not. Logic tells me that if a Registry Cleaner is so poorly coded to
remove entries that are essential to the OS then that/those entries will be
removed each time the 'Cleaner' is run. Hence the event will be repeatable.
I don't think you can have your cake and eat it by saying the damage
only happens sometimes or on a particular machine, or it depends upon the
phase of the moon.

Your response to my recent post gives me the impression that you believe I
support the indiscriminate use of Registry Cleaners, I do not. However,
those that support their use make wild statements to support their alleged
benefits but equally those that challenge these assertions are also guilty
of making statements that they are failing to support by objective evidence.
To date I have not seen any evidence that says that a certain Registry
Cleaner removes a certain Registry entry which will result in the machine
not booting. Does such evidence exist? If it did I suspect it would
quickly be reported and the author of the program would correct the
shortcoming. As a question, do you have a suggestion that would account for
why after the use of a Registry Cleaner only sometimes a machine would not
be bootable?

The suggestion that because someone seeks help because a machine is not
bootable and it is found the client has used a Registry Cleaner is not
objective evidence it was the Registry Cleaner that caused the problem. I
suggest that there are many occasions when a machine is not bootable after
the client has tinkered with the Registry using Regedit.

 

[Leonard Grey]

"Logic tells me that if a Registry Cleaner is so poorly coded to
remove entries that are essential to the OS then that/those entries will
be removed each time the 'Cleaner' is run."

Your logic is beyond reproach. However, computers don't operate
according to human logic.

 

[Irritated]

Ya know I came here for information, not a bunch of arguments. Both sided
have good points, so ALL of you just get over yourselves!

 

[Twayne]

Ya know I came here for information, not a bunch of arguments. Both

sided have good points, so ALL of you just get over yourselves!

Patience; if nothing else you've figured out some of the "don't bother
to read" types of names. Lots of ego parades here lately; just ignore
them. Most unmoderated groups have their fair share of them; takes all
kinds & all that.
--
Twayne

Tired of MS Office and their shananigans?
Try this free replacement:
http://www.openoffice.org