Billco wrote:
....
Which makes it a bit ambiguous, essentially by definition.
(Unambiguous implies that it is certiable and quantifiable).
Boy, you're pathetic:
-----------------------
Unambiguous:
un·am·big·u·ous (un'am-big'yoo-?s) Pronunciation Key
adj. Having or exhibiting no ambiguity or uncertainty; clear.
un'am·big'u·ous·ly adv.
------------------------------
ambiguous:
am·big·u·ous
/æm'b?gyu?s/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [am-big-yoo-uhs] Show IPA
Pronunciation
–adjective 1. open to or having several possible meanings or
interpretations; equivocal: an ambiguous answer.
2. Linguistics. (of an expression) exhibiting constructional
homonymity; having two or more structural descriptions, as the sequence
Flying planes can be dangerous.
3. of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend,
distinguish, or classify: a rock of ambiguous character.
4. lacking clearness or definiteness; obscure; indistinct: an
ambiguous shape; an ambiguous future.
--------------------------
But there are no objective, certifiable, and quantifiable tests with
results to prove that.
Speaking of ambiguous, to prove what?
Efficienty has NOTHING to do with the amount of anything; it's the speed
at which the activity can occur. Scanning 6 vs 4 Meg or RAM does
nothing to determine efficiency; the scanning process if efficient or
not, and does not depend on how MUCH of something has to be scanned.
But that would be extremely insignificant [NO], and not even
noticeable[WRONG].
I mean, if you follow that logic, than removing any extraneous entry
in anything is beneficial[OF COURSE IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL; FEWER
COMPONENTS = FEWER CHANCES OF ERROR], end of story (which sounds
theoretically
. ut the problem is what usually happens as a consequence of
that, for something unforseen (meaning, that assumed spurious entry
really wasn't extraneous, afterall - and no registry program is smart
enough to flag and catch all of them).
You obviously have no concept of what's in the registry nor how simple
it is to read a line and see if the corresponding data it wants is
available. It's as simple as veryfying that whatever the registry is
calling for exists or not in a usable state, really. There are only a
very few, specific instances where the registry can legitimately ask for
something that isn't yet in existance and it may ask if the user wants
to remove those. But every single one of those programs I have ever
seen, TELL YOU SO and suggest that you set your scanners to ignore the
entry. So again, it boils down to credibility. I run two of those
programs in fact, and since it's the registry that's responsible for
triggering the program that will create something on the fly, the progam
can know that is the case. I don't have to ingore it; the scanner
already knows it.
The point is there is
nothing really (practically) to be gained using a registry cleaner,
Except speed when the reason for loss of speed is contained in the
registry. And slow boot times. And failing logoff times. Anytime the
20 second timer has to expire, etc.. So there ARE practical gains to be
realized with a registry editor. It's just that the registry isn't
usually the culprit and isn't really the first place to bother looking;
other sources are much more likely. But once they're eliminated, and it
doesn't take much to do that, well ... 2 guesses what I do next and
yours don't count.
unless you are trying to, say, customize something, or perhaps remove
a bunch of items from the windows Recent history list,
Wrong way to remove Recent History, BTW. Unnecessary and inefficient
way, in fact.
or fix a
specific program bug due to an erroneous registry entry, or something
like that) that can't otherwise be done.
Wrong again. Your lack of information is only outdone by your
ignroance.
