Registry Cleaners

Twayne wrote:
> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>> On Sat, 16 May 2009 23:29:54 +0200, "Linea Recta"
>> <mccm.vos@abc.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "SPAMCOP User" <spamcop_user@no_mail.haha> schreef in bericht
>>> news:eZZcYxh1JHA.6056@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> JohnD,
>>>>
>>>> Never use a registry cleaner!!!!
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Then you'll soon have to live with a clogged registry.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Complete nonsense. I have *never* used a registry cleaner and I have
>> never had a clogged registry.
>>
>> As a matter of fact, there's no such thing as a "clogged registry."
>
> You can't possibly know that until you query the OP on what he means
> by it. I say there IS such a thing, and I have seen it.

Is it bigger than a bread-box? What color is it?

 

Twayne wrote:
> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>
>> Why would you even think you'd ever need to clean your registry?
>
> That's condescending and not worthy of an MVP title claimant. Why do
> you find there is never a reason to use a registry cleaner? Explain
> it clearly, and with valid, verifiable references and someone might
> be able to start taking you seriously at least about why you parrot
> such things as you do.
>

Okay, I'll play. What good can come from a general registry cleaner?

 

HeyBub wrote:
> Twayne wrote:
>> Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>>> On Sat, 16 May 2009 23:29:54 +0200, "Linea Recta"
>>> <mccm.vos@abc.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "SPAMCOP User" <spamcop_user@no_mail.haha> schreef in bericht
>>>> news:eZZcYxh1JHA.6056@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>> JohnD,
>>>>>
>>>>> Never use a registry cleaner!!!!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then you'll soon have to live with a clogged registry.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Complete nonsense. I have *never* used a registry cleaner and I have
>>> never had a clogged registry.
>>>
>>> As a matter of fact, there's no such thing as a "clogged registry."
>>
>> You can't possibly know that until you query the OP on what he means
>> by it. I say there IS such a thing, and I have seen it.
>
> Is it bigger than a bread-box? What color is it?

It's blue. What's the matter with you?

 

Tim Meddick wrote:
> For the Nth time.... I have NOT (as yet) said anything about
> reg-cleaners. Just the fact that an excessively sized registry is
> linked, or has links to a certain decrease in overall performance.

I've seen others make that claim, yet I have *never* seen any evidence
to support it.

> I think it's of vital importance to keep the size of the registry down
> to a minimum by not installing too many programs that are superfluous
> to what you are trying to accomplish on your PC. Once it is of an
> excessive size there's not too much you can do with a registry. This
> is because, quite rightly, even the best reg-cleaners have to be
> cautious in what hey remove and the decrease in volume on entries is
> not significant. Much more can be achieved by avoidance and the
> adage 'prevention is better than cure' is very true. Reg cleaners
> do, I think, have a place though. I cite Randem's post where he had
> so many entries to a .dll file that was preventing a
> program from functioning, and the reg cleaner he used automated the
> clean-up of these entries. I have tried using Regedit's 'Find' [F3]
> option to do something similar, and you can be at it for hours on
> end...

Apples and oranges. That example is not an instance of "an excessively
sized registry."

 

On May 16, 1:21 pm, "Gerry" <ge...@nospam.com> wrote:
> John
>
> Would you go to a Witch Doctor if you weren't feeling very well?
>
> --
>
> Gerry
>  ~~~~
> FCA
> Stourport, England
> Enquire, plan and execute
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> JohnD wrote:
> > Can anyone recommend a good, safe registry cleaner that may or may
> > not be a freebie, but doesn't bring in a lot of unwanted stuff with
> > it?  (XP Pro SP3)
>
> > Thanks

Good one.

With your permission I will add that to my list of snappy comeback(s).

So far I have (for XP): "System Restore is not a time machine".

 

Are we speaking the same language even?
There's a new paragraph at:

Reg cleaners do, I think, have a place though. I cite Randem's post
where he had so many entries to a .dll file that was preventing a program
from functioning, and the reg cleaner he used automated the clean-up of
these entries. I have tried using Regedit's 'Find' [F3] option to do
something similar, and you can be at it for hours on end...

....this was because the thread is debating the possible benefits of registry
cleaners. Saying that they [may] have their place is not saying anything
about registry sizes, is it?

But I stand by the first paragraph in my [former] post. When you say you
have seen no "evidence" to support the fact that excessively sized
registries make for a decrease in overall performance, what "evidence" are
you willing to accept? The effects of a sudden large increase in reg size
(in certain areas of the registry, that is - it's not just linked to the
overall size) can, quite often be seen. I have seen it when importing my
'recognized file types' (I exported the HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT hive to a file:
classes.reg and put it on a pen drive before reinstalling XP) to a new XP
installation, and certain functions were definitely slower. Like
'right-clicking' the desktop and choosing "New" - the time it takes for the
list of "new" file types available took much longer to appear. This was
because you could almost 'feel' the system going through HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT
looking for the subkey name "ShellNew" to build it's file-list. Same sort
of thing happens when you open the 'File Types' in 'Folder Options' this
takes even longer, if you have as many extensions registered as file types
as I have. Of course it makes a difference and of course there are many
other things affecting the speed and efficiency of the system.

==



Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.


"Daave" <daave@example.com> wrote in message
news:%23HxT7391JHA.1644@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Tim Meddick wrote:
>> For the Nth time.... I have NOT (as yet) said anything about
>> reg-cleaners. Just the fact that an excessively sized registry is
>> linked, or has links to a certain decrease in overall performance.
>
> I've seen others make that claim, yet I have *never* seen any evidence to
> support it.
>
>> I think it's of vital importance to keep the size of the registry down
>> to a minimum by not installing too many programs that are superfluous
>> to what you are trying to accomplish on your PC. Once it is of an
>> excessive size there's not too much you can do with a registry. This
>> is because, quite rightly, even the best reg-cleaners have to be
>> cautious in what hey remove and the decrease in volume on entries is
>> not significant. Much more can be achieved by avoidance and the
>> adage 'prevention is better than cure' is very true. Reg cleaners
>> do, I think, have a place though. I cite Randem's post where he had so
>> many entries to a .dll file that was preventing a
>> program from functioning, and the reg cleaner he used automated the
>> clean-up of these entries. I have tried using Regedit's 'Find' [F3]
>> option to do something similar, and you can be at it for hours on
>> end...
>
> Apples and oranges. That example is not an instance of "an excessively
> sized registry."
>

 

HeyBub wrote:
> Alias wrote:
>>> Neither of these, along with OneCare (at $49.94), have anything to
>>> do with Microsoft's free registry cleaner.
>>>
>>>
>> I stand corrected but wouldn't use it.
>>
>
> Oh, go ahead.
>
> I don't think it actually DOES anything, but it might make you feel better.
> It's called the "Placebo Effect."
>
>

Oh, it does something alright ... in my case totally kill my UltraVNC
install.

Carl

 

"Tim Meddick" <timmeddick@gawab.com> wrote in message
news:O07hcAA2JHA.4412@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> But I stand by the first paragraph in my [former] post. When you say you
> have seen no "evidence" to support the fact that excessively sized
> registries make for a decrease in overall performance, what "evidence" are
> you willing to accept?

We are willing to accept our own experience and that of a renown Windows
expert like Dr. Russinovich, who says:

"...even if the registry was massively bloated there would be little impact
on the performance of anything other than exhaustive searches."

Here are some of Dr. Russinovich's credentials and some of his work:

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/techfellow/Russinovich/default.mspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Russinovich
http://bookprice24.com/author/Mark Russinovich
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/

Now let's have your credentials and your research papers....

M

 

Marianne wrote:
> "Tim Meddick" <timmeddick@gawab.com> wrote in message
> news:O07hcAA2JHA.4412@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>> But I stand by the first paragraph in my [former] post. When you say
>> you
>> have seen no "evidence" to support the fact that excessively sized
>> registries make for a decrease in overall performance, what "evidence"
>> are
>> you willing to accept?
>
> We are willing to accept our own experience and that of a renown Windows
> expert like Dr. Russinovich, who says:
>
> "...even if the registry was massively bloated there would be little
> impact
> on the performance of anything other than exhaustive searches."
>
> Here are some of Dr. Russinovich's credentials and some of his work:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/techfellow/Russinovich/default.mspx
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Russinovich
> http://bookprice24.com/author/Mark Russinovich
> http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/
>
> Now let's have your credentials and your research papers....
>
> M

Clearly, clearly you musta "missed" Twayne's!
ROFL!

 

on 19/05/2009, Marianne supposed :
> Here are some of Dr. Russinovich's credentials and some of his work:

More from Mark Russinovich.

Registry Junk: A Windows Fact of Life
http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/92764/registry-junk-a-windows-fact-of-life.html
Notes - "Registry Cleaners can fix problems associated with traces of
applications left behind due to incomplete uninstalls. So it seems that
Registry junk is a Windows fact of life and that Registry cleaners will
continue to have a place in the anal-sysadmin's tool chest, at least
until we're all running .NET applications that store their per-user
settings in XML files - and then of course we'll need XML cleaners."
- Mark Russinovich, Ph.D. Computer Engineering, Microsoft Technical
Fellow.

I use Revo Uninstaller in Advanced Mode.
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Tweak/Uninstallers/Revo-Uninstaller.shtml
http://www.softpedia.com/progScreenshots/Revo-Uninstaller-Screenshot-74235.html
http://www.revouninstaller.com/

 

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.


==



Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.


"Marianne" <nogood@notvalid.com> wrote in message
news:gusu3m$ph6$1@aioe.org...
> "Tim Meddick" <timmeddick@gawab.com> wrote in message
> news:O07hcAA2JHA.4412@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>> But I stand by the first paragraph in my [former] post. When you say
>> you have seen no "evidence" to support the fact that excessively sized
>> registries make for a decrease in overall performance, what "evidence"
>> are you willing to accept?
>
> We are willing to accept our own experience and that of a renown Windows
> expert like Dr. Russinovich, who says:
>
> "...even if the registry was massively bloated there would be little
> impact on the performance of anything other than exhaustive searches."
>
> Here are some of Dr. Russinovich's credentials and some of his work:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/techfellow/Russinovich/default.mspx
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Russinovich
> http://bookprice24.com/author/Mark Russinovich
> http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/
>
> Now let's have your credentials and your research papers....
>
> M
>

 

"Tim Meddick" <timmeddick@gawab.com> wrote in message
news:OFDBlmB2JHA.140@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> 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

 

On Tue, 19 May 2009 01:34:54 +0100, "Tim Meddick"
<timmeddick@gawab.com> wrote:

>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.

You're an idiot.

 

Marianne wrote:
> "Tim Meddick" <timmeddick@gawab.com> wrote in message
> news:O07hcAA2JHA.4412@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>> But I stand by the first paragraph in my [former] post. When you
>> say you have seen no "evidence" to support the fact that
>> excessively sized registries make for a decrease in overall
>> performance, what "evidence" are you willing to accept?
>
> We are willing to accept our own experience and that of a renown
> Windows expert like Dr. Russinovich, who says:
>
> "...even if the registry was massively bloated there would be little
> impact on the performance of anything other than exhaustive searches."
>
> Here are some of Dr. Russinovich's credentials and some of his work:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/techfellow/Russinovich/default.mspx
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Russinovich
> http://bookprice24.com/author/Mark Russinovich
> http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/
>
> Now let's have your credentials and your research papers....
>
> M


Russonovich also wrote:
------------
<quote>
Registry Junk: A Windows Fact of Life
Registry cleaners have always been popular, but I never paid much
attention to them. I originally thought that there might be valid
reasons for their existence, but over time changed my mind, only to
recently recognize that even today they can help maintain Registry
hygiene. ...
</quote>

Originally by Mark Russinovich on 10/2/2005 4:09:00 PM
Migrated from original Sysinternals.com/Blog
----------

There's more too, but suffice it to say that when one "researches"
something they need to actually cover the whole realm of the data, not
just the parts that seem to apply to what you're interested in. I'll
bet his name is very new to you and rather than respecting the guy's
works you're simply using him, hoping to prove a point rather
unsuccessfully. One thing you'll come to realize if you do read his
works is that he hasd an open mind, unlike the few socio-paths here that
so erroneously think the whole world must hang on their every thought.
He'd freely admit any mistake or oversight, allowed for other's opinions
and worked factually to convince one otherwise when he knew something
someone else didn't. Rather than try to simply force somethign down
anyone's throat, he would use actual, verifiable examples and methods to
show his points were valid. That's a lot different than the so called
MVPs here do and especially you, who only parrot things someone else
said.
Mark's many papers and articles are a gold mine of information about
windows and many other things.

Twayne`

 

He is completely unlike you isn't he.
"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:OzBOJ0J2JHA.3780@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Marianne wrote:
>> "Tim Meddick" <timmeddick@gawab.com> wrote in message
>> news:O07hcAA2JHA.4412@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>>> But I stand by the first paragraph in my [former] post. When you
>>> say you have seen no "evidence" to support the fact that
>>> excessively sized registries make for a decrease in overall
>>> performance, what "evidence" are you willing to accept?
>>
>> We are willing to accept our own experience and that of a renown
>> Windows expert like Dr. Russinovich, who says:
>>
>> "...even if the registry was massively bloated there would be little
>> impact on the performance of anything other than exhaustive searches."
>>
>> Here are some of Dr. Russinovich's credentials and some of his work:
>>
>> http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/techfellow/Russinovich/default.mspx
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Russinovich
>> http://bookprice24.com/author/Mark Russinovich
>> http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/
>>
>> Now let's have your credentials and your research papers....
>>
>> M
>
>
> Russonovich also wrote:
> ------------
> <quote>
> Registry Junk: A Windows Fact of Life
> Registry cleaners have always been popular, but I never paid much
> attention to them. I originally thought that there might be valid reasons
> for their existence, but over time changed my mind, only to recently
> recognize that even today they can help maintain Registry hygiene. ...
> </quote>
>
> Originally by Mark Russinovich on 10/2/2005 4:09:00 PM
> Migrated from original Sysinternals.com/Blog
> ----------
>
> There's more too, but suffice it to say that when one "researches"
> something they need to actually cover the whole realm of the data, not
> just the parts that seem to apply to what you're interested in. I'll bet
> his name is very new to you and rather than respecting the guy's works
> you're simply using him, hoping to prove a point rather unsuccessfully.
> One thing you'll come to realize if you do read his works is that he hasd
> an open mind, unlike the few socio-paths here that so erroneously think
> the whole world must hang on their every thought. He'd freely admit any
> mistake or oversight, allowed for other's opinions and worked factually to
> convince one otherwise when he knew something someone else didn't. Rather
> than try to simply force somethign down anyone's throat, he would use
> actual, verifiable examples and methods to show his points were valid.
> That's a lot different than the so called MVPs here do and especially you,
> who only parrot things someone else said.
> Mark's many papers and articles are a gold mine of information about
> windows and many other things.
>
> Twayne`
>

 

Marianne wrote:
> "Tim Meddick" <timmeddick@gawab.com> wrote in message
> news:OFDBlmB2JHA.140@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> 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.

Make up your mind: You tried to use Russinovich to prove they aren't any
good. Does that mean that now you are changing your mind like he did?
I don't think there is much you can say that is of any value to this
subject, M; sorry about that.

Twayne`

> M

 

Cody Jarrett wrote:
> On Tue, 19 May 2009 01:34:54 +0100, "Tim Meddick"
> <timmeddick@gawab.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> You're an idiot.

No, Tim's not an idiot, at least in my books; actually even the
misinformationists on the subject aren't idiots. Nor is Mark of course.
I have a feeling we may just have a couple of people here to whom the
name is news so that's probably a good thing. BTW, why the new nick?

Twayne`

 

Twayne wrote:
> Marianne wrote:
>> "Tim Meddick" <timmeddick@gawab.com> wrote in message
>> news:OFDBlmB2JHA.140@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> 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.
>
> Make up your mind: You tried to use Russinovich to prove they aren't any
> good. Does that mean that now you are changing your mind like he did?
> I don't think there is much you can say that is of any value to this
> subject, M; sorry about that.

I think she and Tim were talking about the *size* of the registry, that
is what Tim was talking about in his whole thread, or most of it anyway.
As usual you didn't follow anything and then you jump in with your
irrelevant comments.

Mark says that "...Registry cleaners will continue to have a place in
the anal-sysadmin’s tool chest..." After you figure what that means
read Mark's reply to one of the comments:

Comment from Anonymous: "Hi Mark, do you really think that Registry
junk left by uninstalled programs could severely slow down the computer?
I would like to 'hear' your opinion."

Mark: "No, even if the registry was massively bloated there would be
little impact on the performance of anything other than exhaustive
searches."

"On Win2K Terminal Server systems, however, there is a limit on the
total amount of Registry data that can be loaded and so large profile
hives can limit the number of users that can be logged on simultaneously."

"I haven't and never will implement a Registry cleaner since it's of
little practical use on anything other than Win2K terminal servers and
developing one that's both safe and effective requires a huge amount of
application-specific knowledge."

http://blogs.technet.com/markrussin.../02/registry-junk-a-windows-fact-of-life.aspx

John

 

John

You make your point well.


--


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


John John - MVP wrote:
> Twayne wrote:
>> Marianne wrote:
>>> "Tim Meddick" <timmeddick@gawab.com> wrote in message
>>> news:OFDBlmB2JHA.140@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> 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.
>>
>> Make up your mind: You tried to use Russinovich to prove they aren't
>> any good. Does that mean that now you are changing your mind like
>> he did? I don't think there is much you can say that is of any
>> value to this subject, M; sorry about that.
>
> I think she and Tim were talking about the *size* of the registry,
> that is what Tim was talking about in his whole thread, or most of it
> anyway. As usual you didn't follow anything and then you jump in
> with your irrelevant comments.
>
> Mark says that "...Registry cleaners will continue to have a place in
> the anal-sysadmin’s tool chest..." After you figure what that means
> read Mark's reply to one of the comments:
>
> Comment from Anonymous: "Hi Mark, do you really think that Registry
> junk left by uninstalled programs could severely slow down the
> computer? I would like to 'hear' your opinion."
>
> Mark: "No, even if the registry was massively bloated there would be
> little impact on the performance of anything other than exhaustive
> searches."
>
> "On Win2K Terminal Server systems, however, there is a limit on the
> total amount of Registry data that can be loaded and so large profile
> hives can limit the number of users that can be logged on
> simultaneously."
> "I haven't and never will implement a Registry cleaner since it's of
> little practical use on anything other than Win2K terminal servers and
> developing one that's both safe and effective requires a huge amount
> of application-specific knowledge."
>
> http://blogs.technet.com/markrussin.../02/registry-junk-a-windows-fact-of-life.aspx
>
> John

 

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.


"Marianne" <nogood@notvalid.com> wrote in message
news:gut12d$t7v$1@aioe.org...
> "Tim Meddick" <timmeddick@gawab.com> wrote in message
> news:OFDBlmB2JHA.140@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> 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
>