Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

[MM]

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

On Fri, 9 May 2008 08:24:26 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:

>
>"MM" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:isn824tldrn7uko4kvd7i7otdd4ovrm98j@4ax.com...
>> .ini files display NO degradation in performance. Many erstwhile
>> performance problems have "fixed" themselves over the past few years
>> simply by dint of PC hardware becoming vastly more powerful. I can
>> remember working on 8088 PCs. Now that was slow. Recently I spent a
>> fair bit of time designing a database for 18,000 records. Then I
>> discovered that even on my relatively low-powered PC a straightforward
>> sequential search of a text file appears to be just as quick. Now, if
>> you measured access with a timer, the database version is likely to be
>> faster in milliseconds, but once it's fast enough, there's no point
>> making it any faster. If searching is so fast that the user
>> experiences absolutely no waiting at all on pressing Enter or clicking
>> a button, why go to the bother and potential risk of installing MDAC
>> etc?
>
>The Registry is already open and functioning. INI files need to be opened
>before they can be read. Takes longer.

Measurable only with a Timer. In practice, instantaneous. After all,
Windows still uses .ini files, does it not? So not even Microsoft can
make its mind up (no change there, then...)

>> Anyway, back to the darned registry and I have to say, it seems to me
>> that quite a few people tend to place the registry, or better, *** The
>> Registry *** in caps, with gold-plating and flashing lights, on a kind
>> of exalted pedestal.
>
>It is thus called for the same reason it's Windows and not windows. A matter
>of English. Proper noun and all.
>
>>If it is such an important component (and it is),
>> then there should be tools galore to fix it when broken. Are you
>> saying that it is totally impossible to design such a tool? I will
>> also return to my own car analogy and say there is NOthing that could
>> not be repaired if it had to be. With modern cars, of course, it's not
>> a problem to exchange, say, the starter motor, whereas I can still
>> remember replacing brushes and undercutting commutators. This is why I
>> believe the registry is a flawed design if one only has to breathe on
>> it to create a fatal SNAFU.
>
>I never said it was impossible to fix the Registry. I just said that ALL of
>the so called Registry Cleaning and Repair Tools out there are not capable
>of doing so. Go ahead. Find a TOOL that will fix your car all by itself, no
>human involvement. OK, maybe in today's day of standardization and
>automation, a tool COULD fix a car by itself. But to make the comparison
>valid, you have to imagine that even if we grant that they all leave the
>factory more or less the same, the car is not yet complete -- it gets a ton
>of customisations, none of which follow any "standards" provided by the car
>maker very well. Now, go find a tool that can fix that.

But the vast majority of cars don't get customised and neither does
the registry. Actually, an *alternative* to the registry, by a
third-party company, might not be such a bad idea. They could even do
a better job at it than Microsoft and provide tools from the get-go.

>> It should be possible for any competent MSVP to construct a fully
>> functioning Windows installation on a newly formatted hard drive just
>> by extracting files from the CABs and building the registry by hand,
>> just as it is possible to build a Nasa space vehicle by hand.
>
>If you mean MS-MVP, you mistake the meaning of the award. Suggest you look
>it up. If you're trying to refer to someone who is a super-expert, what you
>say isn't true, either. The documentation doesn't exist

Well, whaddya know! You mean, Microsoft doesn't want to release a
workshop manual the way Ford or GM does?

> and that Registry
>was built by a million hands. IF what you say were even true, it would take
>a lifetime. Besides, all you'd end up with is a semi-worthless fresh
>installation of Windows, lacking applications most consider indispensable.
>What about those, eh?

How so? If a basic Windows installation were constructed as if from
the Setup.exe, then you'd have a virgin Windows box anyway. You still
have to install apps.

>Anyway, your vehicle analogies, and your comparison of mechanics are
>worthless. Windows isn't a car. Nor is it a space vehicle. These things
>exist in different dimensions.

But I expect, and hope, that someone will have read my words and will
take them as a challenge and is right now avidly working on a tool
that will confound even you!

MM

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

I'm done with you. Your intent is to argue you pet peeves, while mine is to
argue only one point -- there is not and can never be a safe Registry
Cleaning or Repair Tool. It is inherently impossible. I've given you the
reasons why, and all you have is pet peeves to answer with. Well, I'm not
here to answer pet peeves or argue nonsense. If what you want to do is argue
your pet peeves, I suggest you go where there are more people who know about
the subject and are willing to argue forever about nothing (like you.) There
are lots of such newsgroups, like the Windows XP one here at Microsoft.
Unless you're too much a coward, that is.

Here's one of the many statements you've made that show you for the absolute
moron you are in so far as Windows programming is concerned:
"But the vast majority of cars don't get customized and neither does the
registry."

The Registry is FOREVER being customized, second by second. In fact, the
ONLY way you get Registries that match is if you clone the disk and the
hardware is identical, and the minute you turn that machine on, it's
Registry will forever more be a UNIQUE document, being continually
customized. Then there's the applications. And settings, and additional
hardware.

You're a loser idiot. Wouldn't be surprised if your real name was 98 Guy.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"MM" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lrna24hul27u0amab4vbos5f0aovedg4n2@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 9 May 2008 08:24:26 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:
>
>>
>>"MM" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:isn824tldrn7uko4kvd7i7otdd4ovrm98j@4ax.com...
>>> .ini files display NO degradation in performance. Many erstwhile
>>> performance problems have "fixed" themselves over the past few years
>>> simply by dint of PC hardware becoming vastly more powerful. I can
>>> remember working on 8088 PCs. Now that was slow. Recently I spent a
>>> fair bit of time designing a database for 18,000 records. Then I
>>> discovered that even on my relatively low-powered PC a straightforward
>>> sequential search of a text file appears to be just as quick. Now, if
>>> you measured access with a timer, the database version is likely to be
>>> faster in milliseconds, but once it's fast enough, there's no point
>>> making it any faster. If searching is so fast that the user
>>> experiences absolutely no waiting at all on pressing Enter or clicking
>>> a button, why go to the bother and potential risk of installing MDAC
>>> etc?
>>
>>The Registry is already open and functioning. INI files need to be opened
>>before they can be read. Takes longer.
>
> Measurable only with a Timer. In practice, instantaneous. After all,
> Windows still uses .ini files, does it not? So not even Microsoft can
> make its mind up (no change there, then...)
>
>>> Anyway, back to the darned registry and I have to say, it seems to me
>>> that quite a few people tend to place the registry, or better, *** The
>>> Registry *** in caps, with gold-plating and flashing lights, on a kind
>>> of exalted pedestal.
>>
>>It is thus called for the same reason it's Windows and not windows. A
>>matter
>>of English. Proper noun and all.
>>
>>>If it is such an important component (and it is),
>>> then there should be tools galore to fix it when broken. Are you
>>> saying that it is totally impossible to design such a tool? I will
>>> also return to my own car analogy and say there is NOthing that could
>>> not be repaired if it had to be. With modern cars, of course, it's not
>>> a problem to exchange, say, the starter motor, whereas I can still
>>> remember replacing brushes and undercutting commutators. This is why I
>>> believe the registry is a flawed design if one only has to breathe on
>>> it to create a fatal SNAFU.
>>
>>I never said it was impossible to fix the Registry. I just said that ALL
>>of
>>the so called Registry Cleaning and Repair Tools out there are not capable
>>of doing so. Go ahead. Find a TOOL that will fix your car all by itself,
>>no
>>human involvement. OK, maybe in today's day of standardization and
>>automation, a tool COULD fix a car by itself. But to make the comparison
>>valid, you have to imagine that even if we grant that they all leave the
>>factory more or less the same, the car is not yet complete -- it gets a
>>ton
>>of customisations, none of which follow any "standards" provided by the
>>car
>>maker very well. Now, go find a tool that can fix that.
>
> But the vast majority of cars don't get customised and neither does
> the registry. Actually, an *alternative* to the registry, by a
> third-party company, might not be such a bad idea. They could even do
> a better job at it than Microsoft and provide tools from the get-go.
>
>>> It should be possible for any competent MSVP to construct a fully
>>> functioning Windows installation on a newly formatted hard drive just
>>> by extracting files from the CABs and building the registry by hand,
>>> just as it is possible to build a Nasa space vehicle by hand.
>>
>>If you mean MS-MVP, you mistake the meaning of the award. Suggest you look
>>it up. If you're trying to refer to someone who is a super-expert, what
>>you
>>say isn't true, either. The documentation doesn't exist
>
> Well, whaddya know! You mean, Microsoft doesn't want to release a
> workshop manual the way Ford or GM does?
>
>> and that Registry
>>was built by a million hands. IF what you say were even true, it would
>>take
>>a lifetime. Besides, all you'd end up with is a semi-worthless fresh
>>installation of Windows, lacking applications most consider indispensable.
>>What about those, eh?
>
> How so? If a basic Windows installation were constructed as if from
> the Setup.exe, then you'd have a virgin Windows box anyway. You still
> have to install apps.
>
>>Anyway, your vehicle analogies, and your comparison of mechanics are
>>worthless. Windows isn't a car. Nor is it a space vehicle. These things
>>exist in different dimensions.
>
> But I expect, and hope, that someone will have read my words and will
> take them as a challenge and is right now avidly working on a tool
> that will confound even you!
>
> MM

 

[Jeff Richards]

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

"MM" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:isn824tldrn7uko4kvd7i7otdd4ovrm98j@4ax.com...
> snip <
> Recently I spent a
> fair bit of time designing a database for 18,000 records. Then I
> discovered that even on my relatively low-powered PC a straightforward
> sequential search of a text file appears to be just as quick.

A straightforward sequential search for a particular item in the database is
only one small way in which the registry is used. You comment completely
ignores issues of adding new entries or changing the informatin in an
existing entry, deleting entries, allowing simultaneous access to the data
in a safe manner, and monitoring data in case it gets changed by the OS or
other applications.

An INI file is quite good for a simple sequential search, for stuff that
gets read once per invocation and written (perhaps) once on shutdwn, and
that's why many applications (and some parts of the OS) still use them. But
it cannot provide the functionality that a database managed by the operating
system can provide.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)

 

[MM]

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

On Sat, 10 May 2008 09:37:01 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote:

>I'm done with you.

Bye, then!

> Your intent is to argue you pet peeves,

You make it sound as if it were not a viable peeve, to be interested
in tools to repair, compact, or otherwise manipulate the registry.
Your attitude is kinda, "my way or the highway" and that is not an
option I'm prepared to accept.

> while mine is to
>argue only one point -- there is not and can never be a safe Registry
>Cleaning or Repair Tool. It is inherently impossible.

Inherently? I don't believe it. Just because no-one may have achieved
it yet, does not make it impossible. Would you have said the same
about open-heart surgery? Gene therapy? Television?

> I've given you the
>reasons why, and all you have is pet peeves to answer with. Well, I'm not
>here to answer pet peeves or argue nonsense. If what you want to do is argue
>your pet peeves, I suggest you go where there are more people who know about
>the subject and are willing to argue forever about nothing (like you.) There
>are lots of such newsgroups, like the Windows XP one here at Microsoft.
>Unless you're too much a coward, that is.

I don't think much bravery is needed to challenge entrenched views
about a particular aspect of Windows! Once again, you appear surprised
that someone should dare to question your rock-solid insistence that
the registry is somehow unique, when all it is, is a data file
consisting of bits like any other file. There is no magic "Gates"
button buried deep in there somewhere, to be uncovered by a virtual
Harrison Ford. Just bits and bytes, like we have been used to for
decades.

>Here's one of the many statements you've made that show you for the absolute
>moron you are in so far as Windows programming is concerned:
>"But the vast majority of cars don't get customized and neither does the
>registry."

Customised, as in: addition of non-standard equipment, such as
go-faster stripes, wider tyres, raised compression ratio, booster
rockets. Oops, sorry, the rockets slipped in there somehow while my
attention was diverted. Remove the boosters!

>The Registry is FOREVER being customized, second by second. In fact, the
>ONLY way you get Registries that match is if you clone the disk and the
>hardware is identical, and the minute you turn that machine on, it's
>Registry will forever more be a UNIQUE document, being continually
>customized. Then there's the applications. And settings, and additional
>hardware.

All you are describing there is a data file in the process of having
its data modified or added to. Of course, in a reasonably
well-designed database, one would normally be able to REMOVE data as
well and compact the database. After all, Microsoft is kind enough to
provide an option to do this in the case of an mdb, and other
companies do it, too. But not the registry. It is allowed to grow like
Triffids, yet cannot be successfully trimmed, 'cos no-one knows how,
'cos only Microsoft knows where the "Gates" button is located.

>You're a loser idiot. Wouldn't be surprised if your real name was 98 Guy.

Who he? I don't watch American TV, sorry.

MM

 

[MM]

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

On Sun, 11 May 2008 11:06:56 +1000, "Jeff Richards"
<JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote:

>"MM" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:isn824tldrn7uko4kvd7i7otdd4ovrm98j@4ax.com...
>> snip <
>> Recently I spent a
>> fair bit of time designing a database for 18,000 records. Then I
>> discovered that even on my relatively low-powered PC a straightforward
>> sequential search of a text file appears to be just as quick.
>
>A straightforward sequential search for a particular item in the database is
>only one small way in which the registry is used. You comment completely
>ignores issues of adding new entries or changing the informatin in an
>existing entry, deleting entries, allowing simultaneous access to the data
>in a safe manner, and monitoring data in case it gets changed by the OS or
>other applications.

Where did I say that the registry should be replaced by an .ini file?
All I did say was that *I* use an .ini file for storing a program's
session values and startup defaults. I don't use the registry. For my
purposes, on modern, very fast PCs, an .ini file is plenty fast enough
for my purposes, even if it has quite a few lines in it.

>An INI file is quite good for a simple sequential search, for stuff that
>gets read once per invocation and written (perhaps) once on shutdwn,

Bingo!

> and
>that's why many applications (and some parts of the OS) still use them.

Bingo! (is there an echo in here....?)

> But
>it cannot provide the functionality that a database managed by the operating
>system can provide.

And I never said it should. That's not to say that some enterprising
soul couldn't redesign the registry so that the existing registry were
just a stub. Maybe the reason Windows gets screwed so easily is why
thousands of new users, including schools, companies and public
bodies, flock to Linux every year. No lack of information or smarts in
the Linux world!

MM

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Knew it smelled like troll in here.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"MM" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:085d245behb22uj31dracdn1o5v62lt6me@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 May 2008 11:06:56 +1000, "Jeff Richards"
> <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote:
>
>>"MM" <kylix_is@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:isn824tldrn7uko4kvd7i7otdd4ovrm98j@4ax.com...
>>> snip <
>>> Recently I spent a
>>> fair bit of time designing a database for 18,000 records. Then I
>>> discovered that even on my relatively low-powered PC a straightforward
>>> sequential search of a text file appears to be just as quick.
>>
>>A straightforward sequential search for a particular item in the database
>>is
>>only one small way in which the registry is used. You comment completely
>>ignores issues of adding new entries or changing the informatin in an
>>existing entry, deleting entries, allowing simultaneous access to the data
>>in a safe manner, and monitoring data in case it gets changed by the OS or
>>other applications.
>
> Where did I say that the registry should be replaced by an .ini file?
> All I did say was that *I* use an .ini file for storing a program's
> session values and startup defaults. I don't use the registry. For my
> purposes, on modern, very fast PCs, an .ini file is plenty fast enough
> for my purposes, even if it has quite a few lines in it.
>
>>An INI file is quite good for a simple sequential search, for stuff that
>>gets read once per invocation and written (perhaps) once on shutdwn,
>
> Bingo!
>
>> and
>>that's why many applications (and some parts of the OS) still use them.
>
> Bingo! (is there an echo in here....?)
>
>> But
>>it cannot provide the functionality that a database managed by the
>>operating
>>system can provide.
>
> And I never said it should. That's not to say that some enterprising
> soul couldn't redesign the registry so that the existing registry were
> just a stub. Maybe the reason Windows gets screwed so easily is why
> thousands of new users, including schools, companies and public
> bodies, flock to Linux every year. No lack of information or smarts in
> the Linux world!
>
> MM

 

[MM]

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:29:18 -0400, "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com>
wrote:

> As for "leave it there" that attempts to indicate all programmers know
>what they are doing, and make proper installation files and uninstaller
>routines... that's a dream world, it would ber nice, but its not a reality.

My experience has been that programmers generally fail to clean up
after them when a program is deinstalled. Loads of crud gets left
behind in the registry. Probably why the friggin' thing expands like
Chernobyl.

MM

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

I missed the second part of your post. (The following is from memory, and
mine ain't so good, but it's as faithful as I can be to From experience, a
Registry that had LOTS of installs and uninstalls, including MS Office in
three versions (each one removed before the next one was set up) -- my own
98 machine after months of trying things out for other folks (talking 2000,
2001, or so.) Can't remember if the HD was 4GB or 8.

I think, at best, some ~500 total "invalid" entries were discovered by a
handful of the most suggested (and in those days, that was pretty much all
of them -- EasyCleaner, RegClean and a few others I forget now). I'm not
talking about garbage entries like MRUs, etc., I'm talking about leftovers
from the applications. It took me days of individual research on each entry
to discover where it came from, and at least several dozen entries were put
there by apps that were still installed -- entries I assume the programmer
wanted put there because how am I (or a "Registry Cleaning Tool") supposed
to know otherwise? This kind of entry is precisely the kind that cause wise
people to call Registry Cleaners hokum. Because it MAY be required by the
application. It MAY NOT be garbage.

Total, five full time days to be as certain as I could be that those now
significantly less than 500 entries really were garbage left behind by
uninstalled apps. And then I did some general PC health measurements --
speed to load Windows, speed to load apps, etc., just general use for a
while. Then I removed all the invalid entries. Tested performance. Not a bit
of noticeable change, and that was, or rather still is, a puny P200.

I finished up by testing the "invalid" entries, couldn't cause any problem
that I could trace back to the invalid entry, so I finished removing them
all and ran the tools all over again and removed everything that came up.
One of those programs crashed three times in a row a few weeks later, I
replaced that one entry that belonged to it that I'd removed from the
Registry, and it worked again.

That's my history with the topic, best I can recall. The point is, there is
a TON of work involved in following up on the Registry Cleaners' "hits",
work that practically NOBODY would ever bother to do properly, and it all
has pretty much NO positive effect on the Registry and almost always has
SOME negative effect.

Now, you say these tools can be used to find evidence of virus. Sounds far
fetched, but not impossible. But I can't imagine how you REPAIR an
application's Registry entries using any of the cited tools. Can you please
give an example? Note that I'm not talking about REGEDIT enhancements, or
RegSnap or the like, I'm talking about EasyCleaner, et. al., the ones that
advertise themselves in places... Seems like right down to my toilet paper.
Show me a thread where any of these tools were used to diagnose a mistaken
entry in the Registry and then FIX that problem. Because the BLOAT problem
is a false problem under normal and proper computer usage. ALL the MRUs,
etc., are self-cleaning at one point or another and don't even add up to a
single dry spit into the bucket.

What I will say, here, is that SCANREG /FIX can make a significant
difference in performance IF there had recently been huge changes in
programming -- massive changes in the Registry. Otherwise, I found I could
go weeks or months without running it and it wouldn't make much difference
in performance. So, yes, to lose the ability to run that tool due to
Registry size is a sad affair, but I've seen plenty that were in that shape
that still ran just fine for what I consider normal lifespans, including
until the machines died in most cases.

In short, for all practical purposes, the tools we're talking about are
essentially worthless for the purposes for which they are advertised (pretty
much anything you see advertised via SPAM or in fact ANY place other than
where pros and only pros hang out.)

To drag other tools into the sample is dishonorable debate, seems to me, but
if you can show me one that has real value, and show me a sample of people
using these tools to actually accomplish anything serious.

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OycJifGsIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Aw Gary, too decrepit??? That's like telling everyone to buy new
> computers...
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:eLILfVGsIHA.5872@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> | Yes, but the "good" uses you propose have nothing to do with the
> advertised
> | intended use of the tools, and your examples depend on machines too
> decrepit
> | to be worth the effort, AFAIC.
> |
> | If the Registry is in such a state that it needs "cleaning", the tools
> will
> | do little if anything to help. In short, as a generally true statement,
> | proven over and over again, Registry Cleaners are dangerous and
> worthless.
> | Please read PA's reference to the Aumha.net thread wherein realities are
> | revealed after much testing. Hell, the most I've seen tagged by such a
> | program were several hundred entries (so called "empty" CLSIDs?), which
> are
> | a drop in the bucket compared to the entire Registry. In all, except the
> | most decrepit Windows 98 machine, those entries are perfectly harmless.
> | Note, too, that "empty" CLSIDs were put there by someone, presumably
> with
> | certain future situations in mind. IOW, the context may be missing that
> | would explain why the CLSID is there in the first place. IOW, if a
> | programmer put something in the Registry, my suggestion is that you
> leave
> it
> | there, since you have no ide3a what purpose it might be serving, even if
> | that purpose "breaks the rules" on proper Registry use.
> |
> | --
> | Gary S. Terhune
> | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | www.grystmill.com
>
>
> Yes, in part. I have cautioned concerning removal pf ActiveX semmingly
> blank entries. These ARE place holders,,, which should be left as they are
> DISABLED...
>
> As for "leave it there" that attempts to indicate all programmers know
> what they are doing, and make proper installation files and uninstaller
> routines... that's a dream world, it would ber nice, but its not a
> reality.
>
> So again, these types of TOOLS can be of use, but must be used with
> caution AND only after making an effort to understand what they might
> find.
> IN FACT, several of these tools now include Search Tools built-in, and
> suggest using them BEFORE removal of any items. Its just like any
> application or program that a user might have, they MUST learn how to use
> it.
>
> |
> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | news:O9RLrtAsIHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> | > Of course, but they are tools none the less. So naturally I like my
> | > statement better. At least it doesn't make me sound like NONE of them
> are
> | > worthy of use, just that the user should be aware of what can happen
> when
> | > used without knowledge.
> | >
> | > I have placed several "oh no" posts here when help is needed AFTER
> | > misuse..
> | >
> | > --
> | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > --
> | > _________
> | >
> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > news:eduY226rIHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> | > | I'm going to modify my answer below... Such cases as you cite should
> be
> | > | generally be scrapped and replaced. If nothing else, as soon as that
> | > system
> | > | connects to any other system, in any manner, it is a *probable*
> danger
> | > to
> | > | others. If it is so obsolete and unsupported and the user was so
> | > | irresponsible that it is really impossible to rebuild, I say thumbs
> | > down.
> | > |
> | > | And I've decided that I like your mention of HJT. From what I see,
> those
> | > few
> | > | Registry Cleaners that aren't pure scam are JUST as dangerous as
> HJT.
> Do
> | > you
> | > | recommend the unassisted use of HJT? Would you not scream DANGER!!!
> if
> | > you
> | > | saw it advertised as a user-friendly, idiot-proof tool?
> | > |
> | > | --
> | > | Gary S. Terhune
> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | > | www.grystmill.com
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > | news:OfeA8t6rIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> | > | >
> | > | > "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | > news:%23thP3H6rIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> | > | >>
> | > | >> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > | >> news:OIlgiP4rIHA.3632@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> | > | >> | I don't use any such add-on and never have. Yes, I suppose they
> | > might
> | > | >> have
> | > | >> | come in handy once or twice, but by the time I thought of
> grabbing
> | > one
> | > | >> for
> | > | >> | the momentary purpose, I was done.
> | > | >> |
> | > | >> | I don't get involved in detailed spyware and virus removal.
> With
> | > minor
> | > | >> | exceptions, when I encounter a seriously infested machine, I
> | > recommend
> | > | >> a
> | > | >> | full rebuild. Once a machine is infested, I consider it
> permanently
> | > | >> suspect.
> | > | >> | Besides, it would seem to me that in the case of viruses and
> | > spyware
> | > | >> | removal, the experts should already know EXACTLY what spyware
> and
> | > | >> virus(es)
> | > | >> | they are dealing with and which Registry entries to remove, and
> | > even
> | > | >> have
> | > | >> | REG files for the purpose.
> | > | >>
> | > | >> In part you're right, many do have these reg files however, as
> these
> | > | >> things
> | > | >> are constantly being modified [variants] the "cleaning tools* are
> | > used
> | > to
> | > | >> locate potential entries and or files which *may be* that
> variant.
> | > | >> Without
> | > | >> the output of these programs, diagnostics becomes just guesses.
> One
> | > could
> | > | >> even, under the cleaner aspect, rate hijackthis as in the same
> class,
> | > yet
> | > | >> without this tool many would be at the mercy of any BHO or other,
> and
> | > | >> experts would be without the tools necessary to help.
> | > | >
> | > | > Can you provide a list of the most popular of these tools? I'm
> having
> | > a
> | > | > hard time associating any of the usually suggested and widely
> | > advertised
> | > | > Registry Cleaners with discovery of virus variants.
> | > | >
> | > | >> They can be far more effective than running tweakUI for other
> styles
> | > of
> | > | >> cleanup as well.
> | > | >
> | > | > I never use TUI, either. What kind of cleanup does TUI do? Are we
> back
> | > to
> | > | > "cleaning" MRUs, etc.?
> | > | >
> | > | >> | If they are GUESSING to the point that they need
> | > | >> | tools to seek out (intelligently, one presumes) just the signs
> of
> | > crap,
> | > | >> then
> | > | >> | we're back to a full wipe and reinstall AFAIC. Not to be too
> blunt
> | > | >> about
> | > | >> it,
> | > | >> | but I consider such pastimes precisely that. Pastimes. Just
> like
> a
> | > lot
> | > | >> of
> | > | >> | "fixing" that goes on here, say in the networking and DUN
> sphere,
> | > for
> | > | >> | instance, with the interminable and often unresolved threads,
> all
> | > your
> | > | >> AT
> | > | >> | commands, blah, blah... The way to FIX a DUN problem is almost
> | > ALWAYS
> | > | >> to
> | > | >> | remove all networking and related devices and services and let
> them
> | > | >> | reinstall themselves.
> | > | >> |
> | > | >> | --
> | > | >> | Gary S. Terhune
> | > | >> | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | > | >> | www.grystmill.com
> | > | >>
> | > | >> The full wipe would be the safest, I agree however, that's just
> not
> | > | >> possible for many users. Either they no longer have the
> installation
> | > | >> disks
> | > | >> for their applications, or those applications may no longer be
> | > supported
> | > | >> [leaving them with only the installation disk{s}, but no
> updates].
> | > Then
> | > | >> you
> | > | >> run against many devices which once had drivers and/or updates
> posted
> | > | >> upon
> | > | >> the manufacturer's site, which may no longer be offered. Granted,
> one
> | > can
> | > | >> search the NET for them, but that places one in the hands of
> whatever
> | > is
> | > | >> found.
> | > | >> Yes, users should understand that they should have obtained and
> saved
> | > | >> these
> | > | >> during the course of their usage, sadly many don't
> | > | >
> | > | > You're starting to get pretty rarified, there. One in ten million?
> | > | >
> | > | > OK, I'll allow that for particular purposes and in the hands of
> truly
> | > | > experienced techs, one or more of these tools might come in handy,
> but
> | > | > that small exception doesn't come close to convincing me to desist
> in
> | > my
> | > | > blanket condemnation of such tools in this forum. Read PA's cite
> for
> | > the
> | > | > real skinny.
> | > | >
> | > | >> I think we agreed on the Network issue in the networking forum,
> and
> | > we
> | > | >> did
> | > | >> offer that as the best test solution, and the other factors were
> to
> | > work
> | > | >> through the potentials associated.
> | > | >
> | > | > HUH!?!
> | > | >
> | > | > --
> | > | > Gary S. Terhune
> | > | > MS-MVP Shell/User
> | > | > www.grystmill.com
> | > | >
> | > | >>
> | > | >> --
> | > | >> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > | >> --
> | > | >> _________
> | > | >>
> | > | >>
> | > | >> |
> | > | >> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | >> | news:eQZZwCzrIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> | > | >> | > I'll put the response here, rather than go through all the
> | > postings
> | > | >> for
> | > | >> | > individual responses...
> | > | >> | >
> | > | >> | > Locating the issue areas is the primary purpose for which I
> use
> | > the
> | > | >> | > programs for, though I have tested them extensively, which is
> why
> | > I
> | > | >> | > caution
> | > | >> | > not to use the auto cleanup.
> | > | >> | >
> | > | >> | > But for the rest, I suggest a perusal through the archives of
> | > this
> | > | >> group
> | > | >> | > remind the parties of their postings and direct to the
> SpyWare
> | > and
> | > | >> Virus
> | > | >> | > removal forums and sites.
> | > | >> | > These tools [ccleaner, regseeker, and others] are used
> regularly
> | > | >> during
> | > | >> | > the
> | > | >> | > process. Granted, under the guidance of people familiar with
> them
> | > and
> | > | >> the
> | > | >> | > registry, but certainly are used far more often than
> suggesting
> | > | >> manual
> | > | >> | > editing. Moreover, who in here, doesn't have their favorite
> | > regedit
> | > | >> addin
> | > | >> | > or
> | > | >> | > replacement that they use because of the limited capabilities
> of
> | > the
> | > | >> basic
> | > | >> | > regedit. Is there anyone still that far in the mud?
> | > | >> | >
> | > | >> | > So my statement stands, careful application of these cleaners
> can
> | > be
> | > | >> of
> | > | >> | > use, but not to those who fail to take the time to understand
> | > them.
> | > | >> | >
> | > | >> | > --
> | > | >> | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > | >> | > --
> | > | >> | > _________
> | > | >> | >
> | > | >> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > | >> | > news:uJJ8wpwrIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> | > | >> | > | Please provide documentation of Registry bloat causing any
> | > | >> significant
> | > | >> | > | failures". Only such thing I've heard of is SCANREG /FIX
> | > failing
> | > to
> | > | >> run
> | > | >> | > on
> | > | >> | > a
> | > | >> | > | large Registry. BFD.
> | > | >> | > |
> | > | >> | > | Yes, sometimes the Registry needs work, usually after a
> | > wide-spread
> | > | >> | > disaster
> | > | >> | > | involving the user doing something that shouldn't have been
> | > done,
> | > | >> but
> | > | >> | > only
> | > | >> | > | an expert is likely to know for sure, and while tools
> *might*
> | > | >> locate a
> | > | >> | > few
> | > | >> | > | of those entries, you know better than most, I think, how
> much
> | > of
> | > | >> any
> | > | >> | > real
> | > | >> | > | Registry *REPAIR*, as opposed to "cleaning", is a
> painstaking
> | > | >> MANUAL
> | > | >> | > search
> | > | >> | > | and research procedure that few if any tools do well at
> all.
> | > | >> | > |
> | > | >> | > | I used them regularly for several years, to find "crap" and
> | > delete
> | > | >> it,
> | > | >> | > | ALWAYS having to refuse the deletion of some things I had
> | > learned
> | > | >> | > weren't
> | > | >> | > a
> | > | >> | > | good idea to remove (or were unimportant MRUs, etc.), and
> after
> | > | >> many
> | > | >> | > years
> | > | >> | > | of such experience, I arrived at the stance I take now.
> I've
> | > never
> | > | >> once
> | > | >> | > had
> | > | >> | > | any success helping anyone else by having them run any
> Registry
> | > | >> tools,
> | > | >> | > | whereas I have several times dealt with people who were
> screwed
> | > by
> | > | >> their
> | > | >> | > | Registry tools, even the same ones I'd been using and
> thought
> | > were
> | > | >> | > | "idiot-proof".
> | > | >> | > |
> | > | >> | > | --
> | > | >> | > | Gary S. Terhune
> | > | >> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | > | >> | > | www.grystmill.com
> | > | >> | > |
> | > | >> | > |
> | > | >> | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | >> | > | news:OnaPSovrIHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> | > | >> | > | > Ah gosh I hate to do this, BUT,,,,
> | > | >> | > | >
> | > | >> | > | > As we all know, the registry can become quite bloated
> with
> | > | >> entries
> | > | >> | > which
> | > | >> | > | > relate to nothing of value, from MRU lists to
> applications
> | > which
> | > | >> fill
> | > | >> | > the
> | > | >> | > | > registry with open files which no longer exist, to
> | > applications
> | > | >> | > supposedly
> | > | >> | > | > removed but actually leave, at times, countless worthless
> | > | >> entries
> | > | >> to
> | > | >> | > any
> | > | >> | > | > number of other things which aren't need, or may have
> somehow
> | > | >> been
> | > | >> | > changed
> | > | >> | > | > at sometime.
> | > | >> | > | > We also know or should know that the registry will FAIL
> or
> be
> | > | >> prone
> | > | >> to
> | > | >> | > | > failure after exceeding a certain size [parsing
> issues]....
> | > which
> | > | >> then
> | > | >> | > | > becomes an issue which may affect recoverability in a
> time
> of
> | > | >> crisis.
> | > | >> | > | >
> | > | >> | > | > All the MVP that I have observed here, have, at some
> time,
> | > posted
> | > | >> | > methods
> | > | >> | > | > to clean errant registry entries, compact the registry,
> and
> | > | >> otherwise
> | > | >> | > work
> | > | >> | > | > upon the registry... They also have repeatedly advised,
> when
> | > | >> | > confronted
> | > | >> | > | > with
> | > | >> | > | > ghost entries, bad drivers or applications or otherwise,,
> | > advised
> | > | >> HOW
> | > | >> | > to
> | > | >> | > | > *manually* search the registry to *clean it*.
> | > | >> | > | >
> | > | >> | > | > I personally have used [and still use] several tools to
> clean
> | > the
> | > | >> | > | > registry,
> | > | >> | > | > which IF PROPERLY USED can be relied upon to make a
> system
> | > lean
> | > | >> and
> | > | >> | > | > mean,,,
> | > | >> | > | > but the key is PROPERLY USED... ANY use of a cleaner
> should
> | > be
> | > | >> taken
> | > | >> | > with
> | > | >> | > | > *a
> | > | >> | > | > grain of salt*. AUTOMATIC cleaning is not a good idea.
> IF
> | > the
> | > | >> user
> | > | >> is
> | > | >> | > | > unfamiliar with the registry, then damage will likely
> occur.
> | > IF,
> | > | >> on
> | > | >> | > the
> | > | >> | > | > other hand, the user familiarizes theirselves with the
> | > registry,
> | > | >> makes
> | > | >> | > an
> | > | >> | > | > effort to first increase their knowledge of the entries
> by
> | > | >> searching
> | > | >> | > first
> | > | >> | > | > to see if they ARE un-needed PRIOR to removal, then the
> | > desired
> | > | >> | > results
> | > | >> | > | > can
> | > | >> | > | > be achieved.
> | > | >> | > | >
> | > | >> | > | > Never overlook the KEY, that personal knowledge and
> | > understanding
> | > | >> is
> | > | >> | > YOUR
> | > | >> | > | > responsibility. OR stay away from these cleaners as they
> | > MIGHT
> | > | >> cause
> | > | >> | > more
> | > | >> | > | > harm than good.
> | > | >> | > | >
> | > | >> | > | > These things ARE after all, relied upon quite heavily
> during
> | > | >> cleanup
> | > | >> | > | > activities from SpyWare, Virus, and other such
> activities...
> | > | >> | > | >
> | > | >> | > | > --
> | > | >> | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > | >> | > | > --
> | > | >> | > | > _________
> | > | >> | > | >
> | > | >> | > | >
> | > | >> | > | > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
> | > message
> | > | >> | > | > news:O18TzSurIHA.5060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> | > | >> | > | > | letterman@invalid.com wrote:
> | > | >> | > | > | > On Mon, 5 May 2008 08:54:57 -0700, "Gary S. Terhune"
> | > <none>
> | > | >> wrote:
> | > | >> | > | > | >
> | > | >> | > | > | >> ALL registry cleaners are VERY dangerous to your
> system,
> | > and
> | > | >> will
> | > | >> | > | > | >> actually
> | > | >> | > | > | >> FIX a problem, even just "slowness", approximately
> | > NEVER.
> | > | >> | > | > | >
> | > | >> | > | > | > I run Regseeker regularly and never had a problem. I
> | > have
> | > | >> never
> | > | >> | > seen
> | > | >> | > | > | > it fix any problems, but it does remove a lot of
> useless
> | > | >> junk.
> | > | >> | > | > | > Without such programs, it seems to me that the
> registry
> | > would
> | > | >> get
> | > | >> | > so
> | > | >> | > | > | > huge that it would be crash prone. For example, lets
> say
> | > I
> | > | >> | > created
> | > | >> | > a
> | > | >> | > | > | > folder called "JUNK". I used that folder to
> temporarily
> | > | >> place a
> | > | >> | > bunch
> | > | >> | > | > | > of things I find on my hard drive, which are
> everything
> | > from
> | > | >> text,
> | > | >> | > or
> | > | >> | > | > | > Wordpad notes, to downloaded pictures, file
> downloads,
> | > etc.
> | > | >> Then
> | > | >> | > I
> | > | >> | > | > | > begin sorting out the junk, and use winzip to open
> many
> | > of
> | > | >> the
> | > | >> | > | > | > downloads, and some photo viewer to look at the
> pictures,
> | > and
> | > | >> | > Wordpad
> | > | >> | > | > | > to look at many of the notes. ALL of these things
> are
> | > | >> documented
> | > | >> | > in
> | > | >> | > | > | > the registry. Wordpad, Winzip, Photo Viewers all
> store
> | > | >> "recently
> | > | >> | > | > | > opened files".
> | > | >> | > | > | >
> | > | >> | > | > | > Eventually I get everything put on a CD or other
> media
> | > and
> | > I
> | > | >> | > delete
> | > | >> | > | > | > the "Junk" folder. Then I remove several of the demo
> | > | >> downloads
> | > | >> I
> | > | >> | > | > tried.
> | > | >> | > | > | >
> | > | >> | > | > | > Running Regseeker finds multiple references to that
> JUNK
> | > | >> folder,
> | > | >> | > | > | > references to Winzip, Wordpad, etc opening files, and
> | > many
> | > | >> things
> | > | >> | > | > | > relating to the demos I tried and removed. All of
> that
> | > is
> | > | >> removed
> | > | >> | > | > | > from the registry, thus keeping it small and clean.
> Of
> | > | >> course I
> | > | >> | > | > | > always read what is being cleaned (removed). 99.9%
> of
> | > the
> | > | >> time
> | > | >> | > it's
> | > | >> | > | > | > just this old stuff that is not needed or wanted.
> | > | >> | > | > | >
> | > | >> | > | > | > So how can you say that Reg cleaners are dangerous
> and
> | > should
> | > | >> not
> | > | >> | > be
> | > | >> | > | > | > used.
> | > | >> | > | > |
> | > | >> | > | > | Because he (and a few others here) know what they're
> | > talking
> | > | >> about.
> | > | >> | > | > |
> | > | >> | > | > | > I do agree to be careful what is being removed, but
> | > without
> | > | >> | > | > | > them the registry will become a pile of useless
> garbage.
> | > | >> | > | > |
> | > | >> | > | > | Nonsense.
> --
> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> --
> _________
>
>
>

 

[MEB]

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

Was this to me... sorry, as I said we will not agree, but will disagree...

As for PROS, yeah right, anyone who says they are a PRO has some additional
learning to do. Its a constant process that NEVER ends, so that label means
little to nothing to me. I rate the party by what they present, and ONLY for
that present,, they may get better or may catch their own mistakes, and if
they are any good, will change over time. Its an imperfect world, to which
you
must constantly adapt..IMO, Those who NEED {mentally} the label of PRO or
EXPERT, also need some mental help.

I WILL agree that any entries found by these programs MUST be checked
first, as I indicated previously. An old program I once relied upon, JV
Power Tools, could, after *extensive manual setup* of its
allow/disallow/check entries, be used by me upon most systems to
automatically clean the registry without damage. But that was only AFTER
that previous setup. Which meant I had done the background work, the
searching/mistakes/etc. PRIOR to it working the way it should

Microsoft's regclean became essentially useless after a certain level of
updates to the system {was it IE6 or before, ah too long ago to even care},
and did cause errors with Adobe Reader's [to name one] massive entries.

But again, I'm not going to agree with you, nor bother to play the *game*
of posting links or info, I know what I use, which changes from time to
time. AND without these tools I certainly couldn't do what I STILL do [I
suppsedly/hopefully was going to quit last December, oh well, and still
doing in XP and VISTA], test large amounts of programs on an actual systems
[not VM or VPC], from clean installs [not clones/images, though I do use
them for my non-test machines/when taking a break].

Because I also use these *tools*, such as RegSeeker, to cross-check
registry/hive entries, and other monitoring done during the process. They
are a tool, and like any other tool, must be used with caution and
understanding.

--
MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
--
_________


"Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
news:%23GXqvr4sIHA.5096@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| I missed the second part of your post. (The following is from memory, and
| mine ain't so good, but it's as faithful as I can be to From experience, a
| Registry that had LOTS of installs and uninstalls, including MS Office in
| three versions (each one removed before the next one was set up) -- my own
| 98 machine after months of trying things out for other folks (talking
2000,
| 2001, or so.) Can't remember if the HD was 4GB or 8.
|
| I think, at best, some ~500 total "invalid" entries were discovered by a
| handful of the most suggested (and in those days, that was pretty much all
| of them -- EasyCleaner, RegClean and a few others I forget now). I'm not
| talking about garbage entries like MRUs, etc., I'm talking about leftovers
| from the applications. It took me days of individual research on each
entry
| to discover where it came from, and at least several dozen entries were
put
| there by apps that were still installed -- entries I assume the programmer
| wanted put there because how am I (or a "Registry Cleaning Tool") supposed
| to know otherwise? This kind of entry is precisely the kind that cause
wise
| people to call Registry Cleaners hokum. Because it MAY be required by the
| application. It MAY NOT be garbage.
|
| Total, five full time days to be as certain as I could be that those now
| significantly less than 500 entries really were garbage left behind by
| uninstalled apps. And then I did some general PC health measurements --
| speed to load Windows, speed to load apps, etc., just general use for a
| while. Then I removed all the invalid entries. Tested performance. Not a
bit
| of noticeable change, and that was, or rather still is, a puny P200.
|
| I finished up by testing the "invalid" entries, couldn't cause any problem
| that I could trace back to the invalid entry, so I finished removing them
| all and ran the tools all over again and removed everything that came up.
| One of those programs crashed three times in a row a few weeks later, I
| replaced that one entry that belonged to it that I'd removed from the
| Registry, and it worked again.
|
| That's my history with the topic, best I can recall. The point is, there
is
| a TON of work involved in following up on the Registry Cleaners' "hits",
| work that practically NOBODY would ever bother to do properly, and it all
| has pretty much NO positive effect on the Registry and almost always has
| SOME negative effect.
|
| Now, you say these tools can be used to find evidence of virus. Sounds far
| fetched, but not impossible. But I can't imagine how you REPAIR an
| application's Registry entries using any of the cited tools. Can you
please
| give an example? Note that I'm not talking about REGEDIT enhancements, or
| RegSnap or the like, I'm talking about EasyCleaner, et. al., the ones that
| advertise themselves in places... Seems like right down to my toilet
paper.
| Show me a thread where any of these tools were used to diagnose a mistaken
| entry in the Registry and then FIX that problem. Because the BLOAT problem
| is a false problem under normal and proper computer usage. ALL the MRUs,
| etc., are self-cleaning at one point or another and don't even add up to a
| single dry spit into the bucket.
|
| What I will say, here, is that SCANREG /FIX can make a significant
| difference in performance IF there had recently been huge changes in
| programming -- massive changes in the Registry. Otherwise, I found I could
| go weeks or months without running it and it wouldn't make much difference
| in performance. So, yes, to lose the ability to run that tool due to
| Registry size is a sad affair, but I've seen plenty that were in that
shape
| that still ran just fine for what I consider normal lifespans, including
| until the machines died in most cases.
|
| In short, for all practical purposes, the tools we're talking about are
| essentially worthless for the purposes for which they are advertised
(pretty
| much anything you see advertised via SPAM or in fact ANY place other than
| where pros and only pros hang out.)
|
| To drag other tools into the sample is dishonorable debate, seems to me,
but
| if you can show me one that has real value, and show me a sample of people
| using these tools to actually accomplish anything serious.
|
| --
| Gary S. Terhune
| MS-MVP Shell/User
| www.grystmill.com
|
| "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| news:OycJifGsIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| > Aw Gary, too decrepit??? That's like telling everyone to buy new
| > computers...
| >
| > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > news:eLILfVGsIHA.5872@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| > | Yes, but the "good" uses you propose have nothing to do with the
| > advertised
| > | intended use of the tools, and your examples depend on machines too
| > decrepit
| > | to be worth the effort, AFAIC.
| > |
| > | If the Registry is in such a state that it needs "cleaning", the tools
| > will
| > | do little if anything to help. In short, as a generally true
statement,
| > | proven over and over again, Registry Cleaners are dangerous and
| > worthless.
| > | Please read PA's reference to the Aumha.net thread wherein realities
are
| > | revealed after much testing. Hell, the most I've seen tagged by such a
| > | program were several hundred entries (so called "empty" CLSIDs?),
which
| > are
| > | a drop in the bucket compared to the entire Registry. In all, except
the
| > | most decrepit Windows 98 machine, those entries are perfectly
harmless.
| > | Note, too, that "empty" CLSIDs were put there by someone, presumably
| > with
| > | certain future situations in mind. IOW, the context may be missing
that
| > | would explain why the CLSID is there in the first place. IOW, if a
| > | programmer put something in the Registry, my suggestion is that you
| > leave
| > it
| > | there, since you have no ide3a what purpose it might be serving, even
if
| > | that purpose "breaks the rules" on proper Registry use.
| > |
| > | --
| > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | www.grystmill.com
| >
| >
| > Yes, in part. I have cautioned concerning removal pf ActiveX semmingly
| > blank entries. These ARE place holders,,, which should be left as they
are
| > DISABLED...
| >
| > As for "leave it there" that attempts to indicate all programmers know
| > what they are doing, and make proper installation files and uninstaller
| > routines... that's a dream world, it would ber nice, but its not a
| > reality.
| >
| > So again, these types of TOOLS can be of use, but must be used with
| > caution AND only after making an effort to understand what they might
| > find.
| > IN FACT, several of these tools now include Search Tools built-in, and
| > suggest using them BEFORE removal of any items. Its just like any
| > application or program that a user might have, they MUST learn how to
use
| > it.
| >
| > |
| > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | news:O9RLrtAsIHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| > | > Of course, but they are tools none the less. So naturally I like my
| > | > statement better. At least it doesn't make me sound like NONE of
them
| > are
| > | > worthy of use, just that the user should be aware of what can happen
| > when
| > | > used without knowledge.
| > | >
| > | > I have placed several "oh no" posts here when help is needed AFTER
| > | > misuse..
| > | >
| > | > --
| > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > | > --
| > | > _________
| > | >
| > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > | > news:eduY226rIHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| > | > | I'm going to modify my answer below... Such cases as you cite
should
| > be
| > | > | generally be scrapped and replaced. If nothing else, as soon as
that
| > | > system
| > | > | connects to any other system, in any manner, it is a *probable*
| > danger
| > | > to
| > | > | others. If it is so obsolete and unsupported and the user was so
| > | > | irresponsible that it is really impossible to rebuild, I say
thumbs
| > | > down.
| > | > |
| > | > | And I've decided that I like your mention of HJT. From what I see,
| > those
| > | > few
| > | > | Registry Cleaners that aren't pure scam are JUST as dangerous as
| > HJT.
| > Do
| > | > you
| > | > | recommend the unassisted use of HJT? Would you not scream
DANGER!!!
| > if
| > | > you
| > | > | saw it advertised as a user-friendly, idiot-proof tool?
| > | > |
| > | > | --
| > | > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | > | www.grystmill.com
| > | > |
| > | > |
| > | > | "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > | > | news:OfeA8t6rIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
| > | > | >
| > | > | > "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > | > news:%23thP3H6rIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > | > | >> news:OIlgiP4rIHA.3632@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| > | > | >> | I don't use any such add-on and never have. Yes, I suppose
they
| > | > might
| > | > | >> have
| > | > | >> | come in handy once or twice, but by the time I thought of
| > grabbing
| > | > one
| > | > | >> for
| > | > | >> | the momentary purpose, I was done.
| > | > | >> |
| > | > | >> | I don't get involved in detailed spyware and virus removal.
| > With
| > | > minor
| > | > | >> | exceptions, when I encounter a seriously infested machine, I
| > | > recommend
| > | > | >> a
| > | > | >> | full rebuild. Once a machine is infested, I consider it
| > permanently
| > | > | >> suspect.
| > | > | >> | Besides, it would seem to me that in the case of viruses and
| > | > spyware
| > | > | >> | removal, the experts should already know EXACTLY what spyware
| > and
| > | > | >> virus(es)
| > | > | >> | they are dealing with and which Registry entries to remove,
and
| > | > even
| > | > | >> have
| > | > | >> | REG files for the purpose.
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >> In part you're right, many do have these reg files however, as
| > these
| > | > | >> things
| > | > | >> are constantly being modified [variants] the "cleaning tools*
are
| > | > used
| > | > to
| > | > | >> locate potential entries and or files which *may be* that
| > variant.
| > | > | >> Without
| > | > | >> the output of these programs, diagnostics becomes just guesses.
| > One
| > | > could
| > | > | >> even, under the cleaner aspect, rate hijackthis as in the same
| > class,
| > | > yet
| > | > | >> without this tool many would be at the mercy of any BHO or
other,
| > and
| > | > | >> experts would be without the tools necessary to help.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > Can you provide a list of the most popular of these tools? I'm
| > having
| > | > a
| > | > | > hard time associating any of the usually suggested and widely
| > | > advertised
| > | > | > Registry Cleaners with discovery of virus variants.
| > | > | >
| > | > | >> They can be far more effective than running tweakUI for other
| > styles
| > | > of
| > | > | >> cleanup as well.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > I never use TUI, either. What kind of cleanup does TUI do? Are
we
| > back
| > | > to
| > | > | > "cleaning" MRUs, etc.?
| > | > | >
| > | > | >> | If they are GUESSING to the point that they need
| > | > | >> | tools to seek out (intelligently, one presumes) just the
signs
| > of
| > | > crap,
| > | > | >> then
| > | > | >> | we're back to a full wipe and reinstall AFAIC. Not to be too
| > blunt
| > | > | >> about
| > | > | >> it,
| > | > | >> | but I consider such pastimes precisely that. Pastimes. Just
| > like
| > a
| > | > lot
| > | > | >> of
| > | > | >> | "fixing" that goes on here, say in the networking and DUN
| > sphere,
| > | > for
| > | > | >> | instance, with the interminable and often unresolved threads,
| > all
| > | > your
| > | > | >> AT
| > | > | >> | commands, blah, blah... The way to FIX a DUN problem is
almost
| > | > ALWAYS
| > | > | >> to
| > | > | >> | remove all networking and related devices and services and
let
| > them
| > | > | >> | reinstall themselves.
| > | > | >> |
| > | > | >> | --
| > | > | >> | Gary S. Terhune
| > | > | >> | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | > | >> | www.grystmill.com
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >> The full wipe would be the safest, I agree however, that's
just
| > not
| > | > | >> possible for many users. Either they no longer have the
| > installation
| > | > | >> disks
| > | > | >> for their applications, or those applications may no longer be
| > | > supported
| > | > | >> [leaving them with only the installation disk{s}, but no
| > updates].
| > | > Then
| > | > | >> you
| > | > | >> run against many devices which once had drivers and/or updates
| > posted
| > | > | >> upon
| > | > | >> the manufacturer's site, which may no longer be offered.
Granted,
| > one
| > | > can
| > | > | >> search the NET for them, but that places one in the hands of
| > whatever
| > | > is
| > | > | >> found.
| > | > | >> Yes, users should understand that they should have obtained and
| > saved
| > | > | >> these
| > | > | >> during the course of their usage, sadly many don't
| > | > | >
| > | > | > You're starting to get pretty rarified, there. One in ten
million?
| > | > | >
| > | > | > OK, I'll allow that for particular purposes and in the hands of
| > truly
| > | > | > experienced techs, one or more of these tools might come in
handy,
| > but
| > | > | > that small exception doesn't come close to convincing me to
desist
| > in
| > | > my
| > | > | > blanket condemnation of such tools in this forum. Read PA's cite
| > for
| > | > the
| > | > | > real skinny.
| > | > | >
| > | > | >> I think we agreed on the Network issue in the networking forum,
| > and
| > | > we
| > | > | >> did
| > | > | >> offer that as the best test solution, and the other factors
were
| > to
| > | > work
| > | > | >> through the potentials associated.
| > | > | >
| > | > | > HUH!?!
| > | > | >
| > | > | > --
| > | > | > Gary S. Terhune
| > | > | > MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | > | > www.grystmill.com
| > | > | >
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >> --
| > | > | >> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > | > | >> --
| > | > | >> _________
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >>
| > | > | >> |
| > | > | >> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > | >> | news:eQZZwCzrIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
| > | > | >> | > I'll put the response here, rather than go through all the
| > | > postings
| > | > | >> for
| > | > | >> | > individual responses...
| > | > | >> | >
| > | > | >> | > Locating the issue areas is the primary purpose for which I
| > use
| > | > the
| > | > | >> | > programs for, though I have tested them extensively, which
is
| > why
| > | > I
| > | > | >> | > caution
| > | > | >> | > not to use the auto cleanup.
| > | > | >> | >
| > | > | >> | > But for the rest, I suggest a perusal through the archives
of
| > | > this
| > | > | >> group
| > | > | >> | > remind the parties of their postings and direct to the
| > SpyWare
| > | > and
| > | > | >> Virus
| > | > | >> | > removal forums and sites.
| > | > | >> | > These tools [ccleaner, regseeker, and others] are used
| > regularly
| > | > | >> during
| > | > | >> | > the
| > | > | >> | > process. Granted, under the guidance of people familiar
with
| > them
| > | > and
| > | > | >> the
| > | > | >> | > registry, but certainly are used far more often than
| > suggesting
| > | > | >> manual
| > | > | >> | > editing. Moreover, who in here, doesn't have their favorite
| > | > regedit
| > | > | >> addin
| > | > | >> | > or
| > | > | >> | > replacement that they use because of the limited
capabilities
| > of
| > | > the
| > | > | >> basic
| > | > | >> | > regedit. Is there anyone still that far in the mud?
| > | > | >> | >
| > | > | >> | > So my statement stands, careful application of these
cleaners
| > can
| > | > be
| > | > | >> of
| > | > | >> | > use, but not to those who fail to take the time to
understand
| > | > them.
| > | > | >> | >
| > | > | >> | > --
| > | > | >> | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > | > | >> | > --
| > | > | >> | > _________
| > | > | >> | >
| > | > | >> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
| > | > | >> | > news:uJJ8wpwrIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
| > | > | >> | > | Please provide documentation of Registry bloat causing
any
| > | > | >> significant
| > | > | >> | > | failures". Only such thing I've heard of is SCANREG /FIX
| > | > failing
| > | > to
| > | > | >> run
| > | > | >> | > on
| > | > | >> | > a
| > | > | >> | > | large Registry. BFD.
| > | > | >> | > |
| > | > | >> | > | Yes, sometimes the Registry needs work, usually after a
| > | > wide-spread
| > | > | >> | > disaster
| > | > | >> | > | involving the user doing something that shouldn't have
been
| > | > done,
| > | > | >> but
| > | > | >> | > only
| > | > | >> | > | an expert is likely to know for sure, and while tools
| > *might*
| > | > | >> locate a
| > | > | >> | > few
| > | > | >> | > | of those entries, you know better than most, I think, how
| > much
| > | > of
| > | > | >> any
| > | > | >> | > real
| > | > | >> | > | Registry *REPAIR*, as opposed to "cleaning", is a
| > painstaking
| > | > | >> MANUAL
| > | > | >> | > search
| > | > | >> | > | and research procedure that few if any tools do well at
| > all.
| > | > | >> | > |
| > | > | >> | > | I used them regularly for several years, to find "crap"
and
| > | > delete
| > | > | >> it,
| > | > | >> | > | ALWAYS having to refuse the deletion of some things I had
| > | > learned
| > | > | >> | > weren't
| > | > | >> | > a
| > | > | >> | > | good idea to remove (or were unimportant MRUs, etc.), and
| > after
| > | > | >> many
| > | > | >> | > years
| > | > | >> | > | of such experience, I arrived at the stance I take now.
| > I've
| > | > never
| > | > | >> once
| > | > | >> | > had
| > | > | >> | > | any success helping anyone else by having them run any
| > Registry
| > | > | >> tools,
| > | > | >> | > | whereas I have several times dealt with people who were
| > screwed
| > | > by
| > | > | >> their
| > | > | >> | > | Registry tools, even the same ones I'd been using and
| > thought
| > | > were
| > | > | >> | > | "idiot-proof".
| > | > | >> | > |
| > | > | >> | > | --
| > | > | >> | > | Gary S. Terhune
| > | > | >> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
| > | > | >> | > | www.grystmill.com
| > | > | >> | > |
| > | > | >> | > |
| > | > | >> | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
| > | > | >> | > | news:OnaPSovrIHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
| > | > | >> | > | > Ah gosh I hate to do this, BUT,,,,
| > | > | >> | > | >
| > | > | >> | > | > As we all know, the registry can become quite bloated
| > with
| > | > | >> entries
| > | > | >> | > which
| > | > | >> | > | > relate to nothing of value, from MRU lists to
| > applications
| > | > which
| > | > | >> fill
| > | > | >> | > the
| > | > | >> | > | > registry with open files which no longer exist, to
| > | > applications
| > | > | >> | > supposedly
| > | > | >> | > | > removed but actually leave, at times, countless
worthless
| > | > | >> entries
| > | > | >> to
| > | > | >> | > any
| > | > | >> | > | > number of other things which aren't need, or may have
| > somehow
| > | > | >> been
| > | > | >> | > changed
| > | > | >> | > | > at sometime.
| > | > | >> | > | > We also know or should know that the registry will FAIL
| > or
| > be
| > | > | >> prone
| > | > | >> to
| > | > | >> | > | > failure after exceeding a certain size [parsing
| > issues]....
| > | > which
| > | > | >> then
| > | > | >> | > | > becomes an issue which may affect recoverability in a
| > time
| > of
| > | > | >> crisis.
| > | > | >> | > | >
| > | > | >> | > | > All the MVP that I have observed here, have, at some
| > time,
| > | > posted
| > | > | >> | > methods
| > | > | >> | > | > to clean errant registry entries, compact the registry,
| > and
| > | > | >> otherwise
| > | > | >> | > work
| > | > | >> | > | > upon the registry... They also have repeatedly advised,
| > when
| > | > | >> | > confronted
| > | > | >> | > | > with
| > | > | >> | > | > ghost entries, bad drivers or applications or
otherwise,,
| > | > advised
| > | > | >> HOW
| > | > | >> | > to
| > | > | >> | > | > *manually* search the registry to *clean it*.
| > | > | >> | > | >
| > | > | >> | > | > I personally have used [and still use] several tools to
| > clean
| > | > the
| > | > | >> | > | > registry,
| > | > | >> | > | > which IF PROPERLY USED can be relied upon to make a
| > system
| > | > lean
| > | > | >> and
| > | > | >> | > | > mean,,,
| > | > | >> | > | > but the key is PROPERLY USED... ANY use of a cleaner
| > should
| > | > be
| > | > | >> taken
| > | > | >> | > with
| > | > | >> | > | > *a
| > | > | >> | > | > grain of salt*. AUTOMATIC cleaning is not a good idea.
| > IF
| > | > the
| > | > | >> user
| > | > | >> is
| > | > | >> | > | > unfamiliar with the registry, then damage will likely
| > occur.
| > | > IF,
| > | > | >> on
| > | > | >> | > the
| > | > | >> | > | > other hand, the user familiarizes theirselves with the
| > | > registry,
| > | > | >> makes
| > | > | >> | > an
| > | > | >> | > | > effort to first increase their knowledge of the entries
| > by
| > | > | >> searching
| > | > | >> | > first
| > | > | >> | > | > to see if they ARE un-needed PRIOR to removal, then the
| > | > desired
| > | > | >> | > results
| > | > | >> | > | > can
| > | > | >> | > | > be achieved.
| > | > | >> | > | >
| > | > | >> | > | > Never overlook the KEY, that personal knowledge and
| > | > understanding
| > | > | >> is
| > | > | >> | > YOUR
| > | > | >> | > | > responsibility. OR stay away from these cleaners as
they
| > | > MIGHT
| > | > | >> cause
| > | > | >> | > more
| > | > | >> | > | > harm than good.
| > | > | >> | > | >
| > | > | >> | > | > These things ARE after all, relied upon quite heavily
| > during
| > | > | >> cleanup
| > | > | >> | > | > activities from SpyWare, Virus, and other such
| > activities...
| > | > | >> | > | >
| > | > | >> | > | > --
| > | > | >> | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > | > | >> | > | > --
| > | > | >> | > | > _________
| > | > | >> | > | >
| > | > | >> | > | >
| > | > | >> | > | > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in
| > | > message
| > | > | >> | > | > news:O18TzSurIHA.5060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
| > | > | >> | > | > | letterman@invalid.com wrote:
| > | > | >> | > | > | > On Mon, 5 May 2008 08:54:57 -0700, "Gary S.
Terhune"
| > | > <none>
| > | > | >> wrote:
| > | > | >> | > | > | >
| > | > | >> | > | > | >> ALL registry cleaners are VERY dangerous to your
| > system,
| > | > and
| > | > | >> will
| > | > | >> | > | > | >> actually
| > | > | >> | > | > | >> FIX a problem, even just "slowness", approximately
| > | > NEVER.
| > | > | >> | > | > | >
| > | > | >> | > | > | > I run Regseeker regularly and never had a problem.
I
| > | > have
| > | > | >> never
| > | > | >> | > seen
| > | > | >> | > | > | > it fix any problems, but it does remove a lot of
| > useless
| > | > | >> junk.
| > | > | >> | > | > | > Without such programs, it seems to me that the
| > registry
| > | > would
| > | > | >> get
| > | > | >> | > so
| > | > | >> | > | > | > huge that it would be crash prone. For example,
lets
| > say
| > | > I
| > | > | >> | > created
| > | > | >> | > a
| > | > | >> | > | > | > folder called "JUNK". I used that folder to
| > temporarily
| > | > | >> place a
| > | > | >> | > bunch
| > | > | >> | > | > | > of things I find on my hard drive, which are
| > everything
| > | > from
| > | > | >> text,
| > | > | >> | > or
| > | > | >> | > | > | > Wordpad notes, to downloaded pictures, file
| > downloads,
| > | > etc.
| > | > | >> Then
| > | > | >> | > I
| > | > | >> | > | > | > begin sorting out the junk, and use winzip to open
| > many
| > | > of
| > | > | >> the
| > | > | >> | > | > | > downloads, and some photo viewer to look at the
| > pictures,
| > | > and
| > | > | >> | > Wordpad
| > | > | >> | > | > | > to look at many of the notes. ALL of these things
| > are
| > | > | >> documented
| > | > | >> | > in
| > | > | >> | > | > | > the registry. Wordpad, Winzip, Photo Viewers all
| > store
| > | > | >> "recently
| > | > | >> | > | > | > opened files".
| > | > | >> | > | > | >
| > | > | >> | > | > | > Eventually I get everything put on a CD or other
| > media
| > | > and
| > | > I
| > | > | >> | > delete
| > | > | >> | > | > | > the "Junk" folder. Then I remove several of the
demo
| > | > | >> downloads
| > | > | >> I
| > | > | >> | > | > tried.
| > | > | >> | > | > | >
| > | > | >> | > | > | > Running Regseeker finds multiple references to that
| > JUNK
| > | > | >> folder,
| > | > | >> | > | > | > references to Winzip, Wordpad, etc opening files,
and
| > | > many
| > | > | >> things
| > | > | >> | > | > | > relating to the demos I tried and removed. All of
| > that
| > | > is
| > | > | >> removed
| > | > | >> | > | > | > from the registry, thus keeping it small and clean.
| > Of
| > | > | >> course I
| > | > | >> | > | > | > always read what is being cleaned (removed). 99.9%
| > of
| > | > the
| > | > | >> time
| > | > | >> | > it's
| > | > | >> | > | > | > just this old stuff that is not needed or wanted.
| > | > | >> | > | > | >
| > | > | >> | > | > | > So how can you say that Reg cleaners are dangerous
| > and
| > | > should
| > | > | >> not
| > | > | >> | > be
| > | > | >> | > | > | > used.
| > | > | >> | > | > |
| > | > | >> | > | > | Because he (and a few others here) know what they're
| > | > talking
| > | > | >> about.
| > | > | >> | > | > |
| > | > | >> | > | > | > I do agree to be careful what is being removed, but
| > | > without
| > | > | >> | > | > | > them the registry will become a pile of useless
| > garbage.
| > | > | >> | > | > |
| > | > | >> | > | > | Nonsense.
| > --
| > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
| > --
| > _________
| >
| >
| >
|

 

[Gary S. Terhune]

Re: DANGER! D ANGER!Re: Free Registry Cleaner Download Review

OK, whatever. But from the little detail you actually provide, I'd say
you're in that tiny fraction of users known as the "exception that proves
the rule".

--
Gary S. Terhune
MS-MVP Shell/User
www.grystmill.com

"MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OieRiX6sIHA.1220@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Was this to me... sorry, as I said we will not agree, but will disagree...
>
> As for PROS, yeah right, anyone who says they are a PRO has some
> additional
> learning to do. Its a constant process that NEVER ends, so that label
> means
> little to nothing to me. I rate the party by what they present, and ONLY
> for
> that present,, they may get better or may catch their own mistakes, and if
> they are any good, will change over time. Its an imperfect world, to which
> you
> must constantly adapt..IMO, Those who NEED {mentally} the label of PRO or
> EXPERT, also need some mental help.
>
> I WILL agree that any entries found by these programs MUST be checked
> first, as I indicated previously. An old program I once relied upon, JV
> Power Tools, could, after *extensive manual setup* of its
> allow/disallow/check entries, be used by me upon most systems to
> automatically clean the registry without damage. But that was only AFTER
> that previous setup. Which meant I had done the background work, the
> searching/mistakes/etc. PRIOR to it working the way it should
>
> Microsoft's regclean became essentially useless after a certain level of
> updates to the system {was it IE6 or before, ah too long ago to even
> care},
> and did cause errors with Adobe Reader's [to name one] massive entries.
>
> But again, I'm not going to agree with you, nor bother to play the *game*
> of posting links or info, I know what I use, which changes from time to
> time. AND without these tools I certainly couldn't do what I STILL do [I
> suppsedly/hopefully was going to quit last December, oh well, and still
> doing in XP and VISTA], test large amounts of programs on an actual
> systems
> [not VM or VPC], from clean installs [not clones/images, though I do use
> them for my non-test machines/when taking a break].
>
> Because I also use these *tools*, such as RegSeeker, to cross-check
> registry/hive entries, and other monitoring done during the process. They
> are a tool, and like any other tool, must be used with caution and
> understanding.
>
> --
> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> --
> _________
>
>
> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> news:%23GXqvr4sIHA.5096@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> | I missed the second part of your post. (The following is from memory,
> and
> | mine ain't so good, but it's as faithful as I can be to From experience,
> a
> | Registry that had LOTS of installs and uninstalls, including MS Office
> in
> | three versions (each one removed before the next one was set up) -- my
> own
> | 98 machine after months of trying things out for other folks (talking
> 2000,
> | 2001, or so.) Can't remember if the HD was 4GB or 8.
> |
> | I think, at best, some ~500 total "invalid" entries were discovered by a
> | handful of the most suggested (and in those days, that was pretty much
> all
> | of them -- EasyCleaner, RegClean and a few others I forget now). I'm not
> | talking about garbage entries like MRUs, etc., I'm talking about
> leftovers
> | from the applications. It took me days of individual research on each
> entry
> | to discover where it came from, and at least several dozen entries were
> put
> | there by apps that were still installed -- entries I assume the
> programmer
> | wanted put there because how am I (or a "Registry Cleaning Tool")
> supposed
> | to know otherwise? This kind of entry is precisely the kind that cause
> wise
> | people to call Registry Cleaners hokum. Because it MAY be required by
> the
> | application. It MAY NOT be garbage.
> |
> | Total, five full time days to be as certain as I could be that those now
> | significantly less than 500 entries really were garbage left behind by
> | uninstalled apps. And then I did some general PC health measurements --
> | speed to load Windows, speed to load apps, etc., just general use for a
> | while. Then I removed all the invalid entries. Tested performance. Not a
> bit
> | of noticeable change, and that was, or rather still is, a puny P200.
> |
> | I finished up by testing the "invalid" entries, couldn't cause any
> problem
> | that I could trace back to the invalid entry, so I finished removing
> them
> | all and ran the tools all over again and removed everything that came
> up.
> | One of those programs crashed three times in a row a few weeks later, I
> | replaced that one entry that belonged to it that I'd removed from the
> | Registry, and it worked again.
> |
> | That's my history with the topic, best I can recall. The point is, there
> is
> | a TON of work involved in following up on the Registry Cleaners' "hits",
> | work that practically NOBODY would ever bother to do properly, and it
> all
> | has pretty much NO positive effect on the Registry and almost always has
> | SOME negative effect.
> |
> | Now, you say these tools can be used to find evidence of virus. Sounds
> far
> | fetched, but not impossible. But I can't imagine how you REPAIR an
> | application's Registry entries using any of the cited tools. Can you
> please
> | give an example? Note that I'm not talking about REGEDIT enhancements,
> or
> | RegSnap or the like, I'm talking about EasyCleaner, et. al., the ones
> that
> | advertise themselves in places... Seems like right down to my toilet
> paper.
> | Show me a thread where any of these tools were used to diagnose a
> mistaken
> | entry in the Registry and then FIX that problem. Because the BLOAT
> problem
> | is a false problem under normal and proper computer usage. ALL the MRUs,
> | etc., are self-cleaning at one point or another and don't even add up to
> a
> | single dry spit into the bucket.
> |
> | What I will say, here, is that SCANREG /FIX can make a significant
> | difference in performance IF there had recently been huge changes in
> | programming -- massive changes in the Registry. Otherwise, I found I
> could
> | go weeks or months without running it and it wouldn't make much
> difference
> | in performance. So, yes, to lose the ability to run that tool due to
> | Registry size is a sad affair, but I've seen plenty that were in that
> shape
> | that still ran just fine for what I consider normal lifespans, including
> | until the machines died in most cases.
> |
> | In short, for all practical purposes, the tools we're talking about are
> | essentially worthless for the purposes for which they are advertised
> (pretty
> | much anything you see advertised via SPAM or in fact ANY place other
> than
> | where pros and only pros hang out.)
> |
> | To drag other tools into the sample is dishonorable debate, seems to me,
> but
> | if you can show me one that has real value, and show me a sample of
> people
> | using these tools to actually accomplish anything serious.
> |
> | --
> | Gary S. Terhune
> | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | www.grystmill.com
> |
> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | news:OycJifGsIHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> | > Aw Gary, too decrepit??? That's like telling everyone to buy new
> | > computers...
> | >
> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > news:eLILfVGsIHA.5872@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> | > | Yes, but the "good" uses you propose have nothing to do with the
> | > advertised
> | > | intended use of the tools, and your examples depend on machines too
> | > decrepit
> | > | to be worth the effort, AFAIC.
> | > |
> | > | If the Registry is in such a state that it needs "cleaning", the
> tools
> | > will
> | > | do little if anything to help. In short, as a generally true
> statement,
> | > | proven over and over again, Registry Cleaners are dangerous and
> | > worthless.
> | > | Please read PA's reference to the Aumha.net thread wherein realities
> are
> | > | revealed after much testing. Hell, the most I've seen tagged by such
> a
> | > | program were several hundred entries (so called "empty" CLSIDs?),
> which
> | > are
> | > | a drop in the bucket compared to the entire Registry. In all, except
> the
> | > | most decrepit Windows 98 machine, those entries are perfectly
> harmless.
> | > | Note, too, that "empty" CLSIDs were put there by someone, presumably
> | > with
> | > | certain future situations in mind. IOW, the context may be missing
> that
> | > | would explain why the CLSID is there in the first place. IOW, if a
> | > | programmer put something in the Registry, my suggestion is that you
> | > leave
> | > it
> | > | there, since you have no ide3a what purpose it might be serving,
> even
> if
> | > | that purpose "breaks the rules" on proper Registry use.
> | > |
> | > | --
> | > | Gary S. Terhune
> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | > | www.grystmill.com
> | >
> | >
> | > Yes, in part. I have cautioned concerning removal pf ActiveX semmingly
> | > blank entries. These ARE place holders,,, which should be left as they
> are
> | > DISABLED...
> | >
> | > As for "leave it there" that attempts to indicate all programmers
> know
> | > what they are doing, and make proper installation files and
> uninstaller
> | > routines... that's a dream world, it would ber nice, but its not a
> | > reality.
> | >
> | > So again, these types of TOOLS can be of use, but must be used with
> | > caution AND only after making an effort to understand what they might
> | > find.
> | > IN FACT, several of these tools now include Search Tools built-in, and
> | > suggest using them BEFORE removal of any items. Its just like any
> | > application or program that a user might have, they MUST learn how to
> use
> | > it.
> | >
> | > |
> | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | news:O9RLrtAsIHA.524@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> | > | > Of course, but they are tools none the less. So naturally I like
> my
> | > | > statement better. At least it doesn't make me sound like NONE of
> them
> | > are
> | > | > worthy of use, just that the user should be aware of what can
> happen
> | > when
> | > | > used without knowledge.
> | > | >
> | > | > I have placed several "oh no" posts here when help is needed AFTER
> | > | > misuse..
> | > | >
> | > | > --
> | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > | > --
> | > | > _________
> | > | >
> | > | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > | > news:eduY226rIHA.3900@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | I'm going to modify my answer below... Such cases as you cite
> should
> | > be
> | > | > | generally be scrapped and replaced. If nothing else, as soon as
> that
> | > | > system
> | > | > | connects to any other system, in any manner, it is a *probable*
> | > danger
> | > | > to
> | > | > | others. If it is so obsolete and unsupported and the user was so
> | > | > | irresponsible that it is really impossible to rebuild, I say
> thumbs
> | > | > down.
> | > | > |
> | > | > | And I've decided that I like your mention of HJT. From what I
> see,
> | > those
> | > | > few
> | > | > | Registry Cleaners that aren't pure scam are JUST as dangerous as
> | > HJT.
> | > Do
> | > | > you
> | > | > | recommend the unassisted use of HJT? Would you not scream
> DANGER!!!
> | > if
> | > | > you
> | > | > | saw it advertised as a user-friendly, idiot-proof tool?
> | > | > |
> | > | > | --
> | > | > | Gary S. Terhune
> | > | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | > | > | www.grystmill.com
> | > | > |
> | > | > |
> | > | > | "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > | > | news:OfeA8t6rIHA.4376@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | > | > news:%23thP3H6rIHA.4228@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | >>
> | > | > | >> "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > | > | >> news:OIlgiP4rIHA.3632@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | >> | I don't use any such add-on and never have. Yes, I suppose
> they
> | > | > might
> | > | > | >> have
> | > | > | >> | come in handy once or twice, but by the time I thought of
> | > grabbing
> | > | > one
> | > | > | >> for
> | > | > | >> | the momentary purpose, I was done.
> | > | > | >> |
> | > | > | >> | I don't get involved in detailed spyware and virus removal.
> | > With
> | > | > minor
> | > | > | >> | exceptions, when I encounter a seriously infested machine,
> I
> | > | > recommend
> | > | > | >> a
> | > | > | >> | full rebuild. Once a machine is infested, I consider it
> | > permanently
> | > | > | >> suspect.
> | > | > | >> | Besides, it would seem to me that in the case of viruses
> and
> | > | > spyware
> | > | > | >> | removal, the experts should already know EXACTLY what
> spyware
> | > and
> | > | > | >> virus(es)
> | > | > | >> | they are dealing with and which Registry entries to remove,
> and
> | > | > even
> | > | > | >> have
> | > | > | >> | REG files for the purpose.
> | > | > | >>
> | > | > | >> In part you're right, many do have these reg files however,
> as
> | > these
> | > | > | >> things
> | > | > | >> are constantly being modified [variants] the "cleaning tools*
> are
> | > | > used
> | > | > to
> | > | > | >> locate potential entries and or files which *may be* that
> | > variant.
> | > | > | >> Without
> | > | > | >> the output of these programs, diagnostics becomes just
> guesses.
> | > One
> | > | > could
> | > | > | >> even, under the cleaner aspect, rate hijackthis as in the
> same
> | > class,
> | > | > yet
> | > | > | >> without this tool many would be at the mercy of any BHO or
> other,
> | > and
> | > | > | >> experts would be without the tools necessary to help.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > Can you provide a list of the most popular of these tools? I'm
> | > having
> | > | > a
> | > | > | > hard time associating any of the usually suggested and widely
> | > | > advertised
> | > | > | > Registry Cleaners with discovery of virus variants.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >> They can be far more effective than running tweakUI for other
> | > styles
> | > | > of
> | > | > | >> cleanup as well.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > I never use TUI, either. What kind of cleanup does TUI do? Are
> we
> | > back
> | > | > to
> | > | > | > "cleaning" MRUs, etc.?
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >> | If they are GUESSING to the point that they need
> | > | > | >> | tools to seek out (intelligently, one presumes) just the
> signs
> | > of
> | > | > crap,
> | > | > | >> then
> | > | > | >> | we're back to a full wipe and reinstall AFAIC. Not to be
> too
> | > blunt
> | > | > | >> about
> | > | > | >> it,
> | > | > | >> | but I consider such pastimes precisely that. Pastimes. Just
> | > like
> | > a
> | > | > lot
> | > | > | >> of
> | > | > | >> | "fixing" that goes on here, say in the networking and DUN
> | > sphere,
> | > | > for
> | > | > | >> | instance, with the interminable and often unresolved
> threads,
> | > all
> | > | > your
> | > | > | >> AT
> | > | > | >> | commands, blah, blah... The way to FIX a DUN problem is
> almost
> | > | > ALWAYS
> | > | > | >> to
> | > | > | >> | remove all networking and related devices and services and
> let
> | > them
> | > | > | >> | reinstall themselves.
> | > | > | >> |
> | > | > | >> | --
> | > | > | >> | Gary S. Terhune
> | > | > | >> | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | > | > | >> | www.grystmill.com
> | > | > | >>
> | > | > | >> The full wipe would be the safest, I agree however, that's
> just
> | > not
> | > | > | >> possible for many users. Either they no longer have the
> | > installation
> | > | > | >> disks
> | > | > | >> for their applications, or those applications may no longer
> be
> | > | > supported
> | > | > | >> [leaving them with only the installation disk{s}, but no
> | > updates].
> | > | > Then
> | > | > | >> you
> | > | > | >> run against many devices which once had drivers and/or
> updates
> | > posted
> | > | > | >> upon
> | > | > | >> the manufacturer's site, which may no longer be offered.
> Granted,
> | > one
> | > | > can
> | > | > | >> search the NET for them, but that places one in the hands of
> | > whatever
> | > | > is
> | > | > | >> found.
> | > | > | >> Yes, users should understand that they should have obtained
> and
> | > saved
> | > | > | >> these
> | > | > | >> during the course of their usage, sadly many don't
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > You're starting to get pretty rarified, there. One in ten
> million?
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > OK, I'll allow that for particular purposes and in the hands
> of
> | > truly
> | > | > | > experienced techs, one or more of these tools might come in
> handy,
> | > but
> | > | > | > that small exception doesn't come close to convincing me to
> desist
> | > in
> | > | > my
> | > | > | > blanket condemnation of such tools in this forum. Read PA's
> cite
> | > for
> | > | > the
> | > | > | > real skinny.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >> I think we agreed on the Network issue in the networking
> forum,
> | > and
> | > | > we
> | > | > | >> did
> | > | > | >> offer that as the best test solution, and the other factors
> were
> | > to
> | > | > work
> | > | > | >> through the potentials associated.
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > HUH!?!
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | > --
> | > | > | > Gary S. Terhune
> | > | > | > MS-MVP Shell/User
> | > | > | > www.grystmill.com
> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >>
> | > | > | >> --
> | > | > | >> MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > | > | >> --
> | > | > | >> _________
> | > | > | >>
> | > | > | >>
> | > | > | >> |
> | > | > | >> | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | > | >> | news:eQZZwCzrIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | >> | > I'll put the response here, rather than go through all
> the
> | > | > postings
> | > | > | >> for
> | > | > | >> | > individual responses...
> | > | > | >> | >
> | > | > | >> | > Locating the issue areas is the primary purpose for which
> I
> | > use
> | > | > the
> | > | > | >> | > programs for, though I have tested them extensively,
> which
> is
> | > why
> | > | > I
> | > | > | >> | > caution
> | > | > | >> | > not to use the auto cleanup.
> | > | > | >> | >
> | > | > | >> | > But for the rest, I suggest a perusal through the
> archives
> of
> | > | > this
> | > | > | >> group
> | > | > | >> | > remind the parties of their postings and direct to the
> | > SpyWare
> | > | > and
> | > | > | >> Virus
> | > | > | >> | > removal forums and sites.
> | > | > | >> | > These tools [ccleaner, regseeker, and others] are used
> | > regularly
> | > | > | >> during
> | > | > | >> | > the
> | > | > | >> | > process. Granted, under the guidance of people familiar
> with
> | > them
> | > | > and
> | > | > | >> the
> | > | > | >> | > registry, but certainly are used far more often than
> | > suggesting
> | > | > | >> manual
> | > | > | >> | > editing. Moreover, who in here, doesn't have their
> favorite
> | > | > regedit
> | > | > | >> addin
> | > | > | >> | > or
> | > | > | >> | > replacement that they use because of the limited
> capabilities
> | > of
> | > | > the
> | > | > | >> basic
> | > | > | >> | > regedit. Is there anyone still that far in the mud?
> | > | > | >> | >
> | > | > | >> | > So my statement stands, careful application of these
> cleaners
> | > can
> | > | > be
> | > | > | >> of
> | > | > | >> | > use, but not to those who fail to take the time to
> understand
> | > | > them.
> | > | > | >> | >
> | > | > | >> | > --
> | > | > | >> | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > | > | >> | > --
> | > | > | >> | > _________
> | > | > | >> | >
> | > | > | >> | > "Gary S. Terhune" <none> wrote in message
> | > | > | >> | > news:uJJ8wpwrIHA.4952@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | >> | > | Please provide documentation of Registry bloat causing
> any
> | > | > | >> significant
> | > | > | >> | > | failures". Only such thing I've heard of is SCANREG
> /FIX
> | > | > failing
> | > | > to
> | > | > | >> run
> | > | > | >> | > on
> | > | > | >> | > a
> | > | > | >> | > | large Registry. BFD.
> | > | > | >> | > |
> | > | > | >> | > | Yes, sometimes the Registry needs work, usually after a
> | > | > wide-spread
> | > | > | >> | > disaster
> | > | > | >> | > | involving the user doing something that shouldn't have
> been
> | > | > done,
> | > | > | >> but
> | > | > | >> | > only
> | > | > | >> | > | an expert is likely to know for sure, and while tools
> | > *might*
> | > | > | >> locate a
> | > | > | >> | > few
> | > | > | >> | > | of those entries, you know better than most, I think,
> how
> | > much
> | > | > of
> | > | > | >> any
> | > | > | >> | > real
> | > | > | >> | > | Registry *REPAIR*, as opposed to "cleaning", is a
> | > painstaking
> | > | > | >> MANUAL
> | > | > | >> | > search
> | > | > | >> | > | and research procedure that few if any tools do well at
> | > all.
> | > | > | >> | > |
> | > | > | >> | > | I used them regularly for several years, to find "crap"
> and
> | > | > delete
> | > | > | >> it,
> | > | > | >> | > | ALWAYS having to refuse the deletion of some things I
> had
> | > | > learned
> | > | > | >> | > weren't
> | > | > | >> | > a
> | > | > | >> | > | good idea to remove (or were unimportant MRUs, etc.),
> and
> | > after
> | > | > | >> many
> | > | > | >> | > years
> | > | > | >> | > | of such experience, I arrived at the stance I take now.
> | > I've
> | > | > never
> | > | > | >> once
> | > | > | >> | > had
> | > | > | >> | > | any success helping anyone else by having them run any
> | > Registry
> | > | > | >> tools,
> | > | > | >> | > | whereas I have several times dealt with people who were
> | > screwed
> | > | > by
> | > | > | >> their
> | > | > | >> | > | Registry tools, even the same ones I'd been using and
> | > thought
> | > | > were
> | > | > | >> | > | "idiot-proof".
> | > | > | >> | > |
> | > | > | >> | > | --
> | > | > | >> | > | Gary S. Terhune
> | > | > | >> | > | MS-MVP Shell/User
> | > | > | >> | > | www.grystmill.com
> | > | > | >> | > |
> | > | > | >> | > |
> | > | > | >> | > | "MEB" <meb@not here@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> | > | > | >> | > | news:OnaPSovrIHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | >> | > | > Ah gosh I hate to do this, BUT,,,,
> | > | > | >> | > | >
> | > | > | >> | > | > As we all know, the registry can become quite bloated
> | > with
> | > | > | >> entries
> | > | > | >> | > which
> | > | > | >> | > | > relate to nothing of value, from MRU lists to
> | > applications
> | > | > which
> | > | > | >> fill
> | > | > | >> | > the
> | > | > | >> | > | > registry with open files which no longer exist, to
> | > | > applications
> | > | > | >> | > supposedly
> | > | > | >> | > | > removed but actually leave, at times, countless
> worthless
> | > | > | >> entries
> | > | > | >> to
> | > | > | >> | > any
> | > | > | >> | > | > number of other things which aren't need, or may have
> | > somehow
> | > | > | >> been
> | > | > | >> | > changed
> | > | > | >> | > | > at sometime.
> | > | > | >> | > | > We also know or should know that the registry will
> FAIL
> | > or
> | > be
> | > | > | >> prone
> | > | > | >> to
> | > | > | >> | > | > failure after exceeding a certain size [parsing
> | > issues]....
> | > | > which
> | > | > | >> then
> | > | > | >> | > | > becomes an issue which may affect recoverability in a
> | > time
> | > of
> | > | > | >> crisis.
> | > | > | >> | > | >
> | > | > | >> | > | > All the MVP that I have observed here, have, at some
> | > time,
> | > | > posted
> | > | > | >> | > methods
> | > | > | >> | > | > to clean errant registry entries, compact the
> registry,
> | > and
> | > | > | >> otherwise
> | > | > | >> | > work
> | > | > | >> | > | > upon the registry... They also have repeatedly
> advised,
> | > when
> | > | > | >> | > confronted
> | > | > | >> | > | > with
> | > | > | >> | > | > ghost entries, bad drivers or applications or
> otherwise,,
> | > | > advised
> | > | > | >> HOW
> | > | > | >> | > to
> | > | > | >> | > | > *manually* search the registry to *clean it*.
> | > | > | >> | > | >
> | > | > | >> | > | > I personally have used [and still use] several tools
> to
> | > clean
> | > | > the
> | > | > | >> | > | > registry,
> | > | > | >> | > | > which IF PROPERLY USED can be relied upon to make a
> | > system
> | > | > lean
> | > | > | >> and
> | > | > | >> | > | > mean,,,
> | > | > | >> | > | > but the key is PROPERLY USED... ANY use of a cleaner
> | > should
> | > | > be
> | > | > | >> taken
> | > | > | >> | > with
> | > | > | >> | > | > *a
> | > | > | >> | > | > grain of salt*. AUTOMATIC cleaning is not a good
> idea.
> | > IF
> | > | > the
> | > | > | >> user
> | > | > | >> is
> | > | > | >> | > | > unfamiliar with the registry, then damage will likely
> | > occur.
> | > | > IF,
> | > | > | >> on
> | > | > | >> | > the
> | > | > | >> | > | > other hand, the user familiarizes theirselves with
> the
> | > | > registry,
> | > | > | >> makes
> | > | > | >> | > an
> | > | > | >> | > | > effort to first increase their knowledge of the
> entries
> | > by
> | > | > | >> searching
> | > | > | >> | > first
> | > | > | >> | > | > to see if they ARE un-needed PRIOR to removal, then
> the
> | > | > desired
> | > | > | >> | > results
> | > | > | >> | > | > can
> | > | > | >> | > | > be achieved.
> | > | > | >> | > | >
> | > | > | >> | > | > Never overlook the KEY, that personal knowledge and
> | > | > understanding
> | > | > | >> is
> | > | > | >> | > YOUR
> | > | > | >> | > | > responsibility. OR stay away from these cleaners as
> they
> | > | > MIGHT
> | > | > | >> cause
> | > | > | >> | > more
> | > | > | >> | > | > harm than good.
> | > | > | >> | > | >
> | > | > | >> | > | > These things ARE after all, relied upon quite heavily
> | > during
> | > | > | >> cleanup
> | > | > | >> | > | > activities from SpyWare, Virus, and other such
> | > activities...
> | > | > | >> | > | >
> | > | > | >> | > | > --
> | > | > | >> | > | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > | > | >> | > | > --
> | > | > | >> | > | > _________
> | > | > | >> | > | >
> | > | > | >> | > | >
> | > | > | >> | > | > "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote
> in
> | > | > message
> | > | > | >> | > | > news:O18TzSurIHA.5060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> | > | > | >> | > | > | letterman@invalid.com wrote:
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > On Mon, 5 May 2008 08:54:57 -0700, "Gary S.
> Terhune"
> | > | > <none>
> | > | > | >> wrote:
> | > | > | >> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >> | > | > | >> ALL registry cleaners are VERY dangerous to your
> | > system,
> | > | > and
> | > | > | >> will
> | > | > | >> | > | > | >> actually
> | > | > | >> | > | > | >> FIX a problem, even just "slowness",
> approximately
> | > | > NEVER.
> | > | > | >> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > I run Regseeker regularly and never had a
> problem.
> I
> | > | > have
> | > | > | >> never
> | > | > | >> | > seen
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > it fix any problems, but it does remove a lot of
> | > useless
> | > | > | >> junk.
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > Without such programs, it seems to me that the
> | > registry
> | > | > would
> | > | > | >> get
> | > | > | >> | > so
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > huge that it would be crash prone. For example,
> lets
> | > say
> | > | > I
> | > | > | >> | > created
> | > | > | >> | > a
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > folder called "JUNK". I used that folder to
> | > temporarily
> | > | > | >> place a
> | > | > | >> | > bunch
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > of things I find on my hard drive, which are
> | > everything
> | > | > from
> | > | > | >> text,
> | > | > | >> | > or
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > Wordpad notes, to downloaded pictures, file
> | > downloads,
> | > | > etc.
> | > | > | >> Then
> | > | > | >> | > I
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > begin sorting out the junk, and use winzip to
> open
> | > many
> | > | > of
> | > | > | >> the
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > downloads, and some photo viewer to look at the
> | > pictures,
> | > | > and
> | > | > | >> | > Wordpad
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > to look at many of the notes. ALL of these
> things
> | > are
> | > | > | >> documented
> | > | > | >> | > in
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > the registry. Wordpad, Winzip, Photo Viewers all
> | > store
> | > | > | >> "recently
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > opened files".
> | > | > | >> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > Eventually I get everything put on a CD or other
> | > media
> | > | > and
> | > | > I
> | > | > | >> | > delete
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > the "Junk" folder. Then I remove several of the
> demo
> | > | > | >> downloads
> | > | > | >> I
> | > | > | >> | > | > tried.
> | > | > | >> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > Running Regseeker finds multiple references to
> that
> | > JUNK
> | > | > | >> folder,
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > references to Winzip, Wordpad, etc opening files,
> and
> | > | > many
> | > | > | >> things
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > relating to the demos I tried and removed. All
> of
> | > that
> | > | > is
> | > | > | >> removed
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > from the registry, thus keeping it small and
> clean.
> | > Of
> | > | > | >> course I
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > always read what is being cleaned (removed).
> 99.9%
> | > of
> | > | > the
> | > | > | >> time
> | > | > | >> | > it's
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > just this old stuff that is not needed or wanted.
> | > | > | >> | > | > | >
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > So how can you say that Reg cleaners are
> dangerous
> | > and
> | > | > should
> | > | > | >> not
> | > | > | >> | > be
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > used.
> | > | > | >> | > | > |
> | > | > | >> | > | > | Because he (and a few others here) know what
> they're
> | > | > talking
> | > | > | >> about.
> | > | > | >> | > | > |
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > I do agree to be careful what is being removed,
> but
> | > | > without
> | > | > | >> | > | > | > them the registry will become a pile of useless
> | > garbage.
> | > | > | >> | > | > |
> | > | > | >> | > | > | Nonsense.
> | > --
> | > MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com
> | > --
> | > _________
> | >
> | >
> | >
> |
>
>
>