Registry Cleaners

[John John - MVP]

That's your right. Just don't force it down others' throats.

You should follow your own advice! When it comes to these useless
registry cleaners there's no one in these groups who tries to force his
views down others' throats more than you. You are really quite rabid
about it all.

John

 

[Twayne]

The search and/or access time in the registry, no matter how large it
is, is in the order a few milliseconds; but the search and/or access
time on a disk is what you're really referring to, and THAT time
(like waiting for all the files to display in Explorer, or what have
you) is what makes a noticeable difference, NOT the registry. The
bottom line is the registry in practice is not really the issue here,
for the reasons mentioned.

See; this kind of thinking, and the inability to comprehend the written
word, added to a lack of knowledge about the Registry and its workings
that is exactly why the closed minds here cannot grasp reality any
longer. I've supplied nearly the same information in the past, complete
with time measurements, and actually demonstrated the timings involved
and I believe it was you said it was faked, but not a single person
presented anything in any way that refuted it. More often than not, you
back up to parroting something to the effect that since it's an indexed
database, it goes "right to" the (single?) entry it needs, neglecting
anything else, the next is that there can never be any speed gain by
cleaning the reigistry, neglecting the many other things that "cleaning"
a registry can mean on top of it, and then there are the ones who think
calling a registry cleaner "snake oil" means it's useless and proceed to
ridicule, criticize and belittle anyone who even asks a question about
them. And the latter come from those claiming to be MVP's and expecting
everyone to think that MVP means an expert in anything to do with XP. A
real MVP would never take the stances a couple of them do, in fact. It
is exactly that sort of thing that has diluted the meaning of the title
of MVP. I assume you've noticed that NONE of the better MVPs come near
this group very often anymore.

Thanks for the opportunity, Bill in Co(unty jail?).

Twayne`

Marianne,
It's not a matter of supporting or not supporting [Dr.
Russinovich's] or anyone's opinion. It is about whether or not you
use other peoples academic achievements to try to belittle (i.e.
compare formal
qualifications) others and prove your own point. That is why I was
offended
by your comments, they smacked of cliquish academic elitism.
Why all these people think that the basic laws of physics don't
apply to
them is the only thing that's beyond my comprehension. How these
people can
possibly believe that a (personal) computer system, no matter how
fast (within today's limits), can search for values in a database
(that's all the
registry is) in zero time, I don't know!
I have heard the term "except for exhaustive searches" used. What
do you think happens when a program needs to retrieve ALL the
currently registered file-types, as in explorer attempting to
display the File-types in 'Folder Options'? Why do you think it
takes it's time about it on some systems? Is it just making you
wait out of pure spite, or could it possibly
be that it is related to how many file-types you have registered? To
me, it's a dumb question because the answer is so obvious. If A
PROGRAM wants
to retrieve a single value from the registry, then, of course, it
doesn't matter whether or not the registry is vast. So here are two
instances where
in one it affects the outcome and in the other it does not. ...and
what happens to the PC's performance OVERALL because of it?
That is my opinion on the matter. That registry cleaners do not
really impact on the size of the registry (so I think it's a bit
pointless to try and use them to 'optimize' it ) but that there is
an argument in their use to automate large tasks of invalid entry
deletion when such invalid entries
are causing a program to fail.
Prevention (of letting the registry get bloated with garbage from
installing too many crappy and ill-written programs) is better than
cure, to
summarise my thoughts on this.

==


Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.

So that is how you judge truth ultimately is it? By what
qualifications someone shines in your face. While it may well be
a good indicator of someone's intelligence and integrity, to
discount or deride someone else's opinions purely on the fact of
the absence of academic achievements. is short sighted in the
extreme. So you are judging me and
trying to make me look small by attempting to have people compare
me with
someone like Dr. Russinovich. I am entitled to my opinion and my
right to express it.

I didn't say that you were not entitled to your opinion. However,
in matters where there is so much divisiveness and debate and
outright deceit
from some of the players, (not you, Tim, but from the vendors of
these programs and the nut cases like Twayne), I prefer to believe
the well known and respected experts. Dr. Russinovich is one of
the foremost Windows expert, I'll take my chances with him. You
make your point and present your opinions, others present theirs. I
see no wrong in supporting my point with Dr. Russinovich's
comments, they are relevant to the discussion.

M

 

[Twayne]

You should follow your own advice! When it comes to these useless
registry cleaners there's no one in these groups who tries to force
his views down others' throats more than you. You are really quite
rabid about it all.

John

There, see? That's what I'm getting at. I do nothing but refute the
misinformation that closed minds post about registry cleaners. I use
them and have for many years. They're even less apt to cause any kind
of corruption than any other program MS has ever released. They con't
cause problems, they're useful, and can do certain jobs well. They do
just what they are supposed to do when they come from a reputable
source. Like any other program, you can download junk, but that's
nothing unique to registry cleaners.

Have fun,

 

[Unknown]

That's only your opinion. And that's what you try to cram down others
throats. YOUR OPINION!

 

[Gerry]

Twayne

What a PITA you are!


--


Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Unknown]

You obviously have a superiority complex and try to impress everyone by
cramming a registry cleaner down their
throats. Why don't you merely shut up about registry cleaners? Never discuss
them again on newsgroups. Keep your opinions to yourself regarding registry
cleaners. I guess your superiority complex won't allow that.

The search and/or access time in the registry, no matter how large it
is, is in the order a few milliseconds; but the search and/or access
time on a disk is what you're really referring to, and THAT time
(like waiting for all the files to display in Explorer, or what have
you) is what makes a noticeable difference, NOT the registry. The
bottom line is the registry in practice is not really the issue here,
for the reasons mentioned.

See; this kind of thinking, and the inability to comprehend the written
word, added to a lack of knowledge about the Registry and its workings
that is exactly why the closed minds here cannot grasp reality any longer.
I've supplied nearly the same information in the past, complete with time
measurements, and actually demonstrated the timings involved and I believe
it was you said it was faked, but not a single person presented anything
in any way that refuted it. More often than not, you back up to parroting
something to the effect that since it's an indexed database, it goes
"right to" the (single?) entry it needs, neglecting anything else, the
next is that there can never be any speed gain by cleaning the reigistry,
neglecting the many other things that "cleaning" a registry can mean on
top of it, and then there are the ones who think calling a registry
cleaner "snake oil" means it's useless and proceed to ridicule, criticize
and belittle anyone who even asks a question about them. And the latter
come from those claiming to be MVP's and expecting everyone to think that
MVP means an expert in anything to do with XP. A real MVP would never
take the stances a couple of them do, in fact. It is exactly that sort of
thing that has diluted the meaning of the title of MVP. I assume you've
noticed that NONE of the better MVPs come near this group very often
anymore.

Thanks for the opportunity, Bill in Co(unty jail?).

Twayne`

Marianne,
It's not a matter of supporting or not supporting [Dr.
Russinovich's] or anyone's opinion. It is about whether or not you
use other peoples academic achievements to try to belittle (i.e.
compare formal
qualifications) others and prove your own point. That is why I was
offended
by your comments, they smacked of cliquish academic elitism.
Why all these people think that the basic laws of physics don't
apply to
them is the only thing that's beyond my comprehension. How these
people can
possibly believe that a (personal) computer system, no matter how
fast (within today's limits), can search for values in a database
(that's all the
registry is) in zero time, I don't know!
I have heard the term "except for exhaustive searches" used. What do
you think happens when a program needs to retrieve ALL the
currently registered file-types, as in explorer attempting to
display the File-types in 'Folder Options'? Why do you think it
takes it's time about it on some systems? Is it just making you
wait out of pure spite, or could it possibly
be that it is related to how many file-types you have registered? To me,
it's a dumb question because the answer is so obvious. If A
PROGRAM wants
to retrieve a single value from the registry, then, of course, it
doesn't matter whether or not the registry is vast. So here are two
instances where
in one it affects the outcome and in the other it does not. ...and
what happens to the PC's performance OVERALL because of it?
That is my opinion on the matter. That registry cleaners do not
really impact on the size of the registry (so I think it's a bit
pointless to try and use them to 'optimize' it ) but that there is
an argument in their use to automate large tasks of invalid entry
deletion when such invalid entries
are causing a program to fail.
Prevention (of letting the registry get bloated with garbage from
installing too many crappy and ill-written programs) is better than
cure, to
summarise my thoughts on this.

==


Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.


So that is how you judge truth ultimately is it? By what
qualifications someone shines in your face. While it may well be
a good indicator of someone's intelligence and integrity, to
discount or deride someone else's opinions purely on the fact of
the absence of academic achievements. is short sighted in the
extreme. So you are judging me and
trying to make me look small by attempting to have people compare
me with
someone like Dr. Russinovich. I am entitled to my opinion and my
right to express it.

I didn't say that you were not entitled to your opinion. However,
in matters where there is so much divisiveness and debate and
outright deceit
from some of the players, (not you, Tim, but from the vendors of
these programs and the nut cases like Twayne), I prefer to believe
the well known and respected experts. Dr. Russinovich is one of
the foremost Windows expert, I'll take my chances with him. You
make your point and present your opinions, others present theirs. I see
no wrong in supporting my point with Dr. Russinovich's
comments, they are relevant to the discussion.

M

 

[Bill in Co.]

It's not a "superiority" complex, it's actually an inferiority complex, in
being so defensive about it and trying to prove himself. More below.

You obviously have a superiority complex and try to impress everyone by
cramming a registry cleaner down their
throats. Why don't you merely shut up about registry cleaners? Never
discuss
them again on newsgroups. Keep your opinions to yourself regarding
registry
cleaners. I guess your superiority complex won't allow that.

One thing is abundantly clear: you really have very little true
understanding of this topic. It's happened on some other occasions, but
most vociferously on your part in this one.

You did NOT do this. And you were called out on it several times, for
never supplying any real concrete certifiable evidence or documentation
(N.B: your alleged measurements don't count here). Try at least once to
be honest, and provide a reputable site with its documentation. But there
aren't any such documented reputable sites supporting your alleged claim, as
you well know. And that's why your so boisterous about it (Psych 101).

More often than not, you back up to parroting
something to the effect that since it's an indexed database, it goes
"right to" the (single?) entry it needs, neglecting anything else, the
next is that there can never be any speed gain by cleaning the reigistry,
neglecting the many other things that "cleaning" a registry can mean on
top of it, and then there are the ones who think calling a registry
cleaner "snake oil" means it's useless and proceed to ridicule, criticize
and belittle anyone who even asks a question about them. And the latter
come from those claiming to be MVP's and expecting everyone to think that
MVP means an expert in anything to do with XP. A real MVP would never
take the stances a couple of them do, in fact. It is exactly that sort
of
thing that has diluted the meaning of the title of MVP. I assume you've
noticed that NONE of the better MVPs come near this group very often
anymore.

Thanks for the opportunity, Bill in Co(unty jail?).

Twayne`

Tim Meddick wrote:
Marianne,
It's not a matter of supporting or not supporting [Dr.
Russinovich's] or anyone's opinion. It is about whether or not you
use other peoples academic achievements to try to belittle (i.e.
compare formal
qualifications) others and prove your own point. That is why I was
offended
by your comments, they smacked of cliquish academic elitism.
Why all these people think that the basic laws of physics don't
apply to
them is the only thing that's beyond my comprehension. How these
people can
possibly believe that a (personal) computer system, no matter how
fast (within today's limits), can search for values in a database
(that's all the
registry is) in zero time, I don't know!
I have heard the term "except for exhaustive searches" used. What do
you think happens when a program needs to retrieve ALL the
currently registered file-types, as in explorer attempting to
display the File-types in 'Folder Options'? Why do you think it
takes it's time about it on some systems? Is it just making you
wait out of pure spite, or could it possibly
be that it is related to how many file-types you have registered? To
me,
it's a dumb question because the answer is so obvious. If A
PROGRAM wants
to retrieve a single value from the registry, then, of course, it
doesn't matter whether or not the registry is vast. So here are two
instances where
in one it affects the outcome and in the other it does not. ...and
what happens to the PC's performance OVERALL because of it?
That is my opinion on the matter. That registry cleaners do not
really impact on the size of the registry (so I think it's a bit
pointless to try and use them to 'optimize' it ) but that there is
an argument in their use to automate large tasks of invalid entry
deletion when such invalid entries
are causing a program to fail.
Prevention (of letting the registry get bloated with garbage from
installing too many crappy and ill-written programs) is better than
cure, to
summarise my thoughts on this.

==


Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.


So that is how you judge truth ultimately is it? By what
qualifications someone shines in your face. While it may well be
a good indicator of someone's intelligence and integrity, to
discount or deride someone else's opinions purely on the fact of
the absence of academic achievements. is short sighted in the
extreme. So you are judging me and
trying to make me look small by attempting to have people compare
me with
someone like Dr. Russinovich. I am entitled to my opinion and my
right to express it.

I didn't say that you were not entitled to your opinion. However,
in matters where there is so much divisiveness and debate and
outright deceit
from some of the players, (not you, Tim, but from the vendors of
these programs and the nut cases like Twayne), I prefer to believe
the well known and respected experts. Dr. Russinovich is one of
the foremost Windows expert, I'll take my chances with him. You
make your point and present your opinions, others present theirs. I
see
no wrong in supporting my point with Dr. Russinovich's
comments, they are relevant to the discussion.

M

 

[Unknown]

Very valid and interesting point.

It's not a "superiority" complex, it's actually an inferiority complex, in
being so defensive about it and trying to prove himself. More below.

You obviously have a superiority complex and try to impress everyone by
cramming a registry cleaner down their
throats. Why don't you merely shut up about registry cleaners? Never
discuss
them again on newsgroups. Keep your opinions to yourself regarding
registry
cleaners. I guess your superiority complex won't allow that.

One thing is abundantly clear: you really have very little true
understanding of this topic. It's happened on some other occasions, but
most vociferously on your part in this one.

You did NOT do this. And you were called out on it several times, for
never supplying any real concrete certifiable evidence or documentation
(N.B: your alleged measurements don't count here). Try at least once to
be honest, and provide a reputable site with its documentation. But
there aren't any such documented reputable sites supporting your alleged
claim, as you well know. And that's why your so boisterous about it
(Psych 101).

More often than not, you back up to parroting
something to the effect that since it's an indexed database, it goes
"right to" the (single?) entry it needs, neglecting anything else, the
next is that there can never be any speed gain by cleaning the
reigistry,
neglecting the many other things that "cleaning" a registry can mean on
top of it, and then there are the ones who think calling a registry
cleaner "snake oil" means it's useless and proceed to ridicule,
criticize
and belittle anyone who even asks a question about them. And the latter
come from those claiming to be MVP's and expecting everyone to think
that
MVP means an expert in anything to do with XP. A real MVP would never
take the stances a couple of them do, in fact. It is exactly that sort
of
thing that has diluted the meaning of the title of MVP. I assume you've
noticed that NONE of the better MVPs come near this group very often
anymore.

Thanks for the opportunity, Bill in Co(unty jail?).

Twayne`



Tim Meddick wrote:
Marianne,
It's not a matter of supporting or not supporting [Dr.
Russinovich's] or anyone's opinion. It is about whether or not you
use other peoples academic achievements to try to belittle (i.e.
compare formal
qualifications) others and prove your own point. That is why I was
offended
by your comments, they smacked of cliquish academic elitism.
Why all these people think that the basic laws of physics don't
apply to
them is the only thing that's beyond my comprehension. How these
people can
possibly believe that a (personal) computer system, no matter how
fast (within today's limits), can search for values in a database
(that's all the
registry is) in zero time, I don't know!
I have heard the term "except for exhaustive searches" used. What
do
you think happens when a program needs to retrieve ALL the
currently registered file-types, as in explorer attempting to
display the File-types in 'Folder Options'? Why do you think it
takes it's time about it on some systems? Is it just making you
wait out of pure spite, or could it possibly
be that it is related to how many file-types you have registered? To
me,
it's a dumb question because the answer is so obvious. If A
PROGRAM wants
to retrieve a single value from the registry, then, of course, it
doesn't matter whether or not the registry is vast. So here are two
instances where
in one it affects the outcome and in the other it does not. ...and
what happens to the PC's performance OVERALL because of it?
That is my opinion on the matter. That registry cleaners do not
really impact on the size of the registry (so I think it's a bit
pointless to try and use them to 'optimize' it ) but that there is
an argument in their use to automate large tasks of invalid entry
deletion when such invalid entries
are causing a program to fail.
Prevention (of letting the registry get bloated with garbage from
installing too many crappy and ill-written programs) is better than
cure, to
summarise my thoughts on this.

==


Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.


So that is how you judge truth ultimately is it? By what
qualifications someone shines in your face. While it may well be
a good indicator of someone's intelligence and integrity, to
discount or deride someone else's opinions purely on the fact of
the absence of academic achievements. is short sighted in the
extreme. So you are judging me and
trying to make me look small by attempting to have people compare
me with
someone like Dr. Russinovich. I am entitled to my opinion and my
right to express it.

I didn't say that you were not entitled to your opinion. However,
in matters where there is so much divisiveness and debate and
outright deceit
from some of the players, (not you, Tim, but from the vendors of
these programs and the nut cases like Twayne), I prefer to believe
the well known and respected experts. Dr. Russinovich is one of
the foremost Windows expert, I'll take my chances with him. You
make your point and present your opinions, others present theirs. I
see
no wrong in supporting my point with Dr. Russinovich's
comments, they are relevant to the discussion.

M