Registry Cleaners

Thankyou (...will print out and hang on wall).

==



Cheers, Tim Meddick, Peckham, London.


"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:eIa3$7J2JHA.4632@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> No, Tim's not an idiot,.......
<- clipped ->
>
> 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.

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.
>
>
> "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

 

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

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

 

Twayne wrote:
> 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
>
> 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

 

Bill in Co. wrote:
> 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`


>
> 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.
>>
>>
>> "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

 

John John - MVP wrote:
> Twayne wrote:
>> 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
>>
>> 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

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,

 

That's only your opinion. And that's what you try to cram down others
throats. YOUR OPINION!
"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:egZ3fsV2JHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> John John - MVP wrote:
>> Twayne wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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
>
> 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,
>

 

Twayne

What a PITA you are!


--


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


Twayne wrote:
> John John - MVP wrote:
>> Twayne wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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
>
> 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,

 

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.
"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:OlZRGBV2JHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> 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`
>
>
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> "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
>
>
>

 

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.

Unknown wrote:
> 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.
>
> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:OlZRGBV2JHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>> 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.

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.

>> 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.

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.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "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

 

Very valid and interesting point.
"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:uaMiTiX2JHA.1380@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> 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.
>
> Unknown wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>> "Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:OlZRGBV2JHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
>>> 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.
>
> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "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
>
>