"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl***@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:50and4ha7n41p0p1rtltiugthmbidp6nkb@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 02:16:18 -0700 (PDT), "voujnbwuo***@yahoo.com"
> <voujnbwuo***@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Windows Vista Registry Cleaner is one such service
>> provider that is needed to maintain the operating system in good
>> working conditions.
>
>
> Nope!
>
> Registry cleaning programs are *all* snake oil. Cleaning of the
> registry isn't needed and is dangerous. Leave the registry alone and
> don't use any registry cleaner. Despite what many people think, and
> what vendors of registry cleaning software try to convince you of,
> having unused registry entries doesn't really hurt you.
>
> The risk of a serious problem caused by a registry cleaner
> erroneously
> removing an entry you need is far greater than any potential benefit
> it may have.
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

> Errant Twaddle.
>
> Use NTREGOPT.EXE.
>
> It's safe and easy to use.
>
> Freeware.

"John John (MVP)" <audetw***@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:#lsazUyHJHA.4080@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> NTRegOpt is not a registry cleaner.
>
> John
>
> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>> Errant Twaddle.
>>
>> Use NTREGOPT.EXE.
>>
>> It's safe and easy to use.
>>
>> Freeware.

> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
> > Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be
> > clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.
>
>
>      CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner.  I tried the latest
> version on a brand-new OS installation with no additional applications
> installed, and certainly none installed and then uninstalled, and
> CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred allegedly orphaned
> registry entries and dozens of purportedly "suspicious" files, making it
> clearly a *worthless* product, in this regard.  (Not that any registry
> cleaner can ever be anything but worthless, as they don't serve any
> *useful* purpose, to start with.)

> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>>> Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be
>>> clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.
>>
>>     CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner.  I tried the latest
>> version on a brand-new OS installation with no additional applications
>> installed, and certainly none installed and then uninstalled, and
>> CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred allegedly orphaned
>> registry entries and dozens of purportedly "suspicious" files, making
>> it clearly a *worthless* product, in this regard.  (Not that any
>> registry cleaner can ever be anything but worthless, as they don't
>> serve any *useful* purpose, to start with.)
>
> Did you check any of the "orphaned entries?" Perhaps the OS installation was
> the culprit...
>
>

> Bruce Chambers wrote:

>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>>> Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be
>>> clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.
>>
>>     CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner.

> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>> Nonsense...
>>
>> CCleaner is an:
>>
>> Excellent...
>>
>> Safe...
>>
>> Registry Cleaner.
>>
>
>     There is *NO* such thing.
>
>
>> I've been using it for several years now with good results.
>
>
>     Documentation?  Benchmarks from before and after?  Oh, and make sure
> they either been notarized or verified by an independent laboratory.  In
> other words, only when someone finally produces verifiable scientific
> evidence will I give such claims a lick of credence.
>
>

"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message news:%236TsWuAIJHA.1156@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>> Nonsense...
>>
>> CCleaner is an:
>>
>> Excellent...
>>
>> Safe...
>>
>> Registry Cleaner.
>>
>
> There is *NO* such thing.
>
>
>> I've been using it for several years now with good results.
>
>
> Documentation?  Benchmarks from before and after?  Oh, and make sure they either been notarized or verified by an independent
> laboratory.  In other words, only when someone finally produces verifiable scientific evidence will I give such claims a lick of
> credence.
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> Help us help you:
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375
>
> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
>
> Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell
>
> The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers.
> ~ Denis Diderot

> db.·.. ><))) ·>` .. . wrote:
>> tisk tisk tisk,
>> your wrong again.
>>
>> you know good and
>> well that anyone with
>> due deligence can
>> compare the before
>> and after of registry
>> cleaning....
>>
>
>
> .... and find absolutely no change for the better.  (Provided the
> computer boots at all, that is.)  If an one had ever found such
> evidense, they'd surely have made it public it by now.
>
>
>> besides, you have
>> admitted on several
>> occassions that you
>> use cc cleaner.
>>
>
>
> Certainly, I've always conceded that CCleaner is quite useful help in
> finding and cleaning up temporary files on the hard drive.  We're not
> discussing that function, but rather it's uselessness as a registry
> cleaner, which I merely tested.
>
>
>> don't you remember
>> i called you on it?
>>
>
>
> I really don't think that your repeatedly demonstrating a lack of
> reading comprehension can truly be considered as "calling" me on
> anything, do you?

> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>> Nonsense...
>>
>> CCleaner is an:
>>
>> Excellent...
>>
>> Safe...
>>
>> Registry Cleaner.
>>
>
> There is *NO* such thing.
>
>
>> I've been using it for several years now with good results.
>
>
> Documentation?  Benchmarks from before and after?  Oh, and make sure
> they either been notarized or verified by an independent laboratory.
> In other words, only when someone finally produces verifiable
> scientific evidence will I give such claims a lick of credence.

"N. Miller" <anonym***@msnews.aosake.net> wrote in message
news:f5q5g3rjl83j.dlg@msnews.aosake.net...

> On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:03:11 +0100, D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
>> Nonsense...
>>
>> CCleaner is an:
>>
>> Excellent...
>>
>> Safe...
>>
>> Registry Cleaner.
>>
>> I've been using it for several years now with good results.
>
> There is no such thing as a "safe" registry cleaner; except for the
> one not
> used. "Clean" the wrong key from your registry, and your system is
> hosed.

"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
news:#9zifVMIJHA.2408@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>> Twaddle.
>>
>> I approve every single registry change that is made.
>>
>> If I don't approve it, no change is made.
>>
>> Perfectly safe.
>
> If the registry cleaner is so "perfectly safe," why do you feel the
> need to approve each and every change?  You do realize, don't you,
> that you've just added weight to the position you're trying to argue
> against?

> Registry Cleaners are a con.  There [sic] only value is to give the
> users of such programs a 'feel good' feeling.  These programs remove
> entries in the Registry of entries that do not require removal and
> by doing so sometimes [sic] 'throws [sic] the baby out with the bath
> water'.

> Never happened to me...
>
> Fact:
>
> My system runs smoother and swifter since I started using the CCleaner
> registry cleaner.
>
> I'm not vouching for regcleaners in GENERAL.
>
> So your post was one long non sequitur.
>
> 'Nuff Said.

>
> John
>
> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
>> Never happened to me...
>>
>> Fact:
>>
>> My system runs smoother and swifter since I started using the
>> CCleaner registry cleaner.
>>
>> I'm not vouching for regcleaners in GENERAL.
>>
>> So your post was one long non sequitur.
>>
>> 'Nuff Said.

>>Cleaning the registry does absolutely nothing to improve speed and
>>performance, any increase in performance is more likely due to CC
>>getting rid of temp files.  Given the massive size of the registry,
>>cleaning it out and claiming that the computer runs faster is akin to
>>running the vacuum cleaner in your car and then claiming that the car
>>goes faster because you got rid of a pound of dust and dirt!  Once in
>>a blue moon a registry cleaner may be of help to experienced users
>>trying to troubleshoot problems, othewise these tools are next to
>>useless or worse.  These tools *do* cause problems but most of the
>>people who use them don't have enough experience to see the link to
>>the damage done by the cleaner.
>
>
> If they cause so many problems, how in the world can they be trusted as
> a trouble-shooting tool?  If you use it for TS, you're saying you accept
> its output.

> "D. Spencer Hines" <pant***@excelsior.com> wrote in message
> news:e9nt9aMIJHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Balderdash...
>>
>> Good software has checks and balances built in -- with full input by
>> the user.
>>
>> CCleaner does an excellent job of cleaning the registry -- and
>> incorporating user input -- just as a good physician or attorney
>> does. snip
>
> What on earth have physicians and attorneys got to do with CCleaner.
> You are a really strange person!
>
> I use to be an advocate of Registry Cleaners.  I use to try them all
> and was quite convinced they were an essential for efficient computer
> management. Perhaps in the days pre WINXP they were useful.  I read
> all the cautionary advice given in the NGs and like you dismissed
> them.  Everytime I experienced a glitch, time to run a 'cleaner' and
> I use to have 'glitches' at regular intervals.  I then decided
> perhaps I should stop running these Cleaners and see what happens. Now
> I no longer have these 'glitches' or any need to restore the
> Registry (ERUNT) from time to time.  My experience has been
> sufficient for me to relate machine problems (glitches) with Registry
> Cleaners.  Before you comment, I do run programs like CCleaner, not
> the Registry Cleaner component, and Disk Cleaner regularly to clear
> out the 'trash'  .  Actually I think Disk Cleaner is the better of
> the programs.
> What I do question is that Registry Cleaners will or may corrupt the
> Registry to the extent of preventing boot up.  This statement I
> simply find absurd.  For a Registry Cleaner to do this it would need
> to remove/corrupt Registry entries that are essential to the OS. Even
> with the most rudimentary Quality Control the software designer
> would identify and correct that before the program was issued.
> Registry Cleaners certainly do remove entries that are required by
> some programs to operate (empty keys no doubt) and this is where they
> fall down. I suppose the essential question is, in what way does the
> removal of empty and redundant data in the Registry improve machine
> performance and/or in what way do empty and redundant keys impair
> machine performance.  If the machine must read every Registry entry
> to permit it to execute a command then the answer is self evident but
> that is not the case.
> Registry Cleaners are a con.  There only value is to give the users
> of such programs a 'feel good' feeling.  These programs remove
> entries in the Registry of entries that do not require removal and by
> doing so sometimes 'throws the baby out with the bath water'.

> Balderdash...
>
> Good software has checks and balances built in -- with full input by
> the user.
>
> CCleaner does an excellent job of cleaning the registry -- and
> incorporating user input -- just as a good physician or attorney does.
>
> Chambers seems to be the resident Village Idiot here.
>
> Does he always provide Great Entertainment like this?
>
> It's like having a pet kigme -- always ready to take a sharp, swift
> kick to the derriere.

>
>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
>>> Twaddle.
>>>
>>> I approve every single registry change that is made.
>>>
>>> If I don't approve it, no change is made.
>>>
>>> Perfectly safe.
>>
>> If the registry cleaner is so "perfectly safe," why do you feel the
>> need to approve each and every change?  You do realize, don't you,
>> that you've just added weight to the position you're trying to argue
>> against?

"Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> schreef in bericht
news:eLZBdUNIJHA.4416@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Ildhund wrote:
>> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
>> news:#9zifVMIJHA.2408@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> ...
>> Bruce, DNFTEC; you'll only get bitten. See
>> http://lcngarc.twoshakesofalambstail.com/1998/12/1998120729.html
>
>
> I see your point, but my primary concern is to ensure that there's a
> rebuttal to the deliberately harmful advice these people post, so that
> newbies are at least warned of the dangers.  If doing so also boosts the
> sad little trolls' egos, I think it's a price I'll just have to accept.
> Anyway, they generally make themselves look increasingly desperate and
> pathetic with each new post.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Bruce Chambers
>
> Help us help you:
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375
>
> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
>
> Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand
> Russell
>
> The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
> killed a great many philosophers.
> ~ Denis Diderot

> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> schreef in bericht
> news:eLZBdUNIJHA.4416@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Ildhund wrote:
>>> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
>>> news:#9zifVMIJHA.2408@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> ...
>>> Bruce, DNFTEC; you'll only get bitten. See
>>> http://lcngarc.twoshakesofalambstail.com/1998/12/1998120729.html
>>
>>
>> I see your point, but my primary concern is to ensure that there's a
>> rebuttal to the deliberately harmful advice these people post, so
>> that newbies are at least warned of the dangers.  If doing so also
>> boosts the sad little trolls' egos, I think it's a price I'll just
>> have to accept. Anyway, they generally make themselves look
>> increasingly desperate and pathetic with each new post.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Bruce Chambers
>>
>> Help us help you:
>> http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
>>
>> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375
>>
>> They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
>> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
>>
>> Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand
>> Russell
>>
>> The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
>> killed a great many philosophers.
>> ~ Denis Diderot
>
> What a lot of crap I read here. cCleaner is not so good as some
> think. It produces a lot of problems and there are far better
> programs available with much less problems.

> Ildhund wrote:
>> "Bruce Chambers" <bchambers@cable0ne.n3t> wrote in message
>> news:#9zifVMIJHA.2408@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> ...
>> Bruce, DNFTEC; you'll only get bitten. See
>> http://lcngarc.twoshakesofalambstail.com/1998/12/1998120729.html
>
>
> I see your point, but my primary concern is to ensure that there's a
> rebuttal to the deliberately harmful advice these people post, so that
> newbies are at least warned of the dangers.  If doing so also boosts
> the sad little trolls' egos, I think it's a price I'll just have to
>  accept. Anyway, they generally make themselves look increasingly
> desperate and pathetic with each new post.

> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>> Twaddle.
>>
>> I approve every single registry change that is made.
>>
>> If I don't approve it, no change is made.
>>
>> Perfectly safe.
>
>
> If the registry cleaner is so "perfectly safe," why do you feel the
> need to approve each and every change?  You do realize, don't you,
> that you've just added weight to the position you're trying to argue
> against?

"N. Miller" <anonym***@msnews.aosake.net> wrote in message
news:2rhbsddunw96.dlg@msnews.aosake.net...
> On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 03:50:57 +0100, D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
>> Twaddle.
>>
>> I approve every single registry change that is made.
>>
>> If I don't approve it, no change is made.
>>
>> Perfectly safe.
>
> I don't need a registry cleaner to recommend changes which I then have to
> approve. Unless I have some indication that there is a registry change
> needed, I don't make changes. I've got a few "dead" keys. I don't see how
> they make any difference.
>
> Any tool which offers suggested changes is dangerous in the hands of those
> who don't know what the tool does. Anybody who does know what the registry
> cleaner is recommending, probably doesn't even need the cleaner.

> --
> Norman
> ~Oh Lord, why have you come
> ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

> Nonsense...
>
> CCleaner is an:
>
> Excellent...
>
> Safe...
>
> Registry Cleaner.
>
> I've been using it for several years now with good results.
>
>> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>
>>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>
>>>> Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be
>>>> clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.
>>>
>>>     CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner.

> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>>> Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be
>>> clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.
>>
>>     CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner.  I tried the latest
>> version on a brand-new OS installation with no additional applications
>> installed, and certainly none installed and then uninstalled, and
>> CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred allegedly orphaned
>> registry entries and dozens of purportedly "suspicious" files, making
>> it clearly a *worthless* product, in this regard.  (Not that any
>> registry cleaner can ever be anything but worthless, as they don't
>> serve any *useful* purpose, to start with.)
>
> Did you check any of the "orphaned entries?" Perhaps the OS installation was
> the culprit...
>
>

> HeyBub wrote:
>> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>>>> Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be
>>>> clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.
>>>
>>>     CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner.  I tried the latest
>>> version on a brand-new OS installation with no additional
>>> applications installed, and certainly none installed and then
>>> uninstalled, and CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred
>>> allegedly orphaned registry entries and dozens of purportedly
>>> "suspicious" files, making it clearly a *worthless* product, in
>>> this regard.  (Not that any registry cleaner can ever be anything
>>> but worthless, as they don't serve any *useful* purpose, to start
>>> with.)
>>
>> Did you check any of the "orphaned entries?" Perhaps the OS
>> installation was the culprit...
>>
>>
>
>
> Yes, of course I checked them; Wouldn't have been much of a test,
> otherwise.  They weren't remnants of the OS installation; all (dozens,
> I'd noticed the trend by then) of the ones I checked were legitimate
> keys.

> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>>> Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be
>>> clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.
>>
>>
>>     CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner.  I tried the latest
>> version on a brand-new OS installation with no additional
>> applications installed, and certainly none installed and then
>> uninstalled, and CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred
>> allegedly orphaned registry entries and dozens of purportedly
>> "suspicious" files, making it clearly a *worthless* product, in this
>> regard.  (Not that any registry cleaner can ever be anything but
>> worthless, as they don't serve any *useful* purpose, to start with.)
>
> Did you check any of the "orphaned entries?" Perhaps the OS
> installation was the culprit...

"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:#ZnPLJlIJHA.4280@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...

> f'ups set to reduce silly waste of ether
>
>> Bruce Chambers wrote:
>>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>>>> Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be
>>>> clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.
>>>
>>>
>>>     CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner.  I tried the
>>> latest
>>> version on a brand-new OS installation with no additional
>>> applications installed, and certainly none installed and then
>>> uninstalled, and CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred
>>> allegedly orphaned registry entries and dozens of purportedly
>>> "suspicious" files, making it clearly a *worthless* product, in
>>> this
>>> regard.  (Not that any registry cleaner can ever be anything but
>>> worthless, as they don't serve any *useful* purpose, to start
>>> with.)
>>
>> Did you check any of the "orphaned entries?" Perhaps the OS
>> installation was the culprit...
>
> The orphaned entries aren't actual problems unless their quantity
> gets so high it takes noticeable time for the os to traverse them.
> They are mostly "in case" type crap that MS puts all over the place
> for future use, but they are not necessary to have.  It's similar to
> the stuff left over after you uninstall an MS program; it leaves the
> folders and a bunch of files there on the disk and in the registry
> "just in case" you reinstall it or are upgrading something.  When
> their numbers reach a few thousand after a year or so, there can be
> noticeably longer boot times associated with all the crapola strewn
> all over the place, especially when you consider that some of the
> registry hives only exist after boot time; they are created on the
> fly during boot up, and then during normal day to day registry
> reads/writes they are all excess and useless data that has to be
> looked at and discarded.  The registry is a database but it's not
> really a relational database; it's much closer to a flat database in
> most of the ways it runs.
>   The time to run things like ccleaner is after a machine is
> installed and running; it's pretty much a waste of time right after
> a clean install of windows anyway.  There may not have been near as
> many after everything was installed, but I've never been sure
> whether in installation uses and already created point in the
> registry or goes ahead and creates it own anyway.
>   If you're so inclined, there are some registry monitoring programs
> (regmon for instance) that are interesting to watch at work.  An
> install usually creates a gazillion temporary files, its own install
> files get copied to disk, get uncompressed,  the install happens,
> and then supposedly they are removed from the disk and from the
> registry, although that seldom happens completely.  It's an
> interesting process to watch at work.
>
> Twayne

"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:OqKahBlIJHA.1968@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:

>>> Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be
>>> clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.
>>
>>     CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner.
> No, it is not worthless as a registry cleaner.  It doesn't clean
> deep, but it isn't worthless.
>
>  I tried the latest
>> version on a brand-new OS installation with no additional
>> applications
>> installed,
>
> a wasted effort at that point, since all it found were the "in case"
> chaff MS sticks in all over the place.  Big deal; if they're needed,
> they'll get put back with the installs, but ... it's really
> counterproductive and a waste of time to run a cleaner at that
> point.
>
> and certainly none installed and then uninstalled, and
>> CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred allegedly orphaned
>> registry entries and dozens of purportedly "suspicious" files,
>> making
>> it clearly a *worthless* product, in this regard.
>
> The orphaned entries were just that; orphaned.  It doesn't take a
> CRAY to determine that an entry is an orphan.
>
> Suspicious Files, well, if you RTFM, it told you how to treat those.
>
> (Not that any
>> registry cleaner can ever be anything but worthless, as they don't
>> serve any *useful* purpose, to start with.)
>
> And that is pure BS and you know it, as surely as you have a closed
> mind.
>
> Because of your claims, I did  the exact same test you claim to have
> done, here on a sandbox XP laptop not too long ago, got rid of the
> orphans it was willing to remove, and left the suspicious files
> alone since I didn't want to go see what they were.  Told it to not
> be so picky, reran the test & those didn't show up, just as the
> instructions predicted..
>   After completeion of build, machine ran perfectly. Installed
> Office, DVD support, OOo, local Apache Server, PHP, AV and
> anti-spyware with several other minor apps & all  were quite happy.
>   Repeated ccleaner, no more issues, no problems.   Then once I was
> sure all was well I re-imaged the drive, ran ccleaner, no problems
> found, and all is well since.
>
> Why you would bother to run a trgistry cleaner immediately after a
> clean install is beyond me, though.  Talk about a waste of time!
> But, speaking of waste ...
>
> If you want to actually help people out in this area, why don't you
> test and identify a set of reliable applications and/or offer to
> give an opinion on whether a chosen one is reliable or not?
>  But you won't; it's easier to just parrot your closed minded
> attitude that apparently knows very little about the subject.  If
> you were really knowledgeable, you would also consider normal day to
> day read/write sources to the registry and explain how you excuse
> those when you posit that anything that touches the registry is
> bunk?  How do you justify allowing that to happen?  I've actually
> encountered more MS-caused registry problems over the years than I
> have from non-MS applications that use the registry in similar
> manners.
>
> These aren't for you; they're for the many who enjoy follosing this
> kind of link and who might like a little information on the subject.
> Even with their own built in biases, these links are a breath of
> fresh air compared to yours.
>
> http://download.iolo.net/articles/Registry1.pdf
>
> http://www.raxco.com/products/perfectdiskRxSuite/PDRXSuite_wp.pdf
>
> Twayne

"Twayne" <nobody@devnull.spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:OqKahBlIJHA.1968@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> D. Spencer Hines wrote:
>>> Use NTREGOPT.EXE and CCleaner in tandem and your registry will be
>>> clean as a hound's tooth and nicely compacted.
>>
>>
>>     CCleaner is worthless as a registry cleaner.
> No, it is not worthless as a registry cleaner.  It doesn't clean deep, but
> it isn't worthless.
>
>  I tried the latest
>> version on a brand-new OS installation with no additional applications
>> installed,
>
> a wasted effort at that point, since all it found were the "in case" chaff
> MS sticks in all over the place.  Big deal; if they're needed, they'll get
> put back with the installs, but ... it's really counterproductive and a
> waste of time to run a cleaner at that point.
>
> and certainly none installed and then uninstalled, and
>> CCleaner still managed to "find" over a hundred allegedly orphaned
>> registry entries and dozens of purportedly "suspicious" files, making
>> it clearly a *worthless* product, in this regard.
>
> The orphaned entries were just that; orphaned.  It doesn't take a CRAY to
> determine that an entry is an orphan.
>
> Suspicious Files, well, if you RTFM, it told you how to treat those.
>
> (Not that any
>> registry cleaner can ever be anything but worthless, as they don't
>> serve any *useful* purpose, to start with.)
>
> And that is pure BS and you know it, as surely as you have a closed mind.
>
> Because of your claims, I did  the exact same test you claim to have done,
> here on a sandbox XP laptop not too long ago, got rid of the orphans it
> was willing to remove, and left the suspicious files alone since I didn't
> want to go see what they were.  Told it to not be so picky, reran the test
> & those didn't show up, just as the instructions predicted..
>   After completeion of build, machine ran perfectly. Installed Office, DVD
> support, OOo, local Apache Server, PHP, AV and anti-spyware with several
> other minor apps & all  were quite happy.
>   Repeated ccleaner, no more issues, no problems.   Then once I was sure
> all was well I re-imaged the drive, ran ccleaner, no problems found, and
> all is well since.
>
> Why you would bother to run a trgistry cleaner immediately after a clean
> install is beyond me, though.  Talk about a waste of time!  But, speaking
> of waste ...
>
> If you want to actually help people out in this area, why don't you test
> and identify a set of reliable applications and/or offer to give an
> opinion on whether a chosen one is reliable or not?
>  But you won't; it's easier to just parrot your closed minded attitude
> that apparently knows very little about the subject.  If you were really
> knowledgeable, you would also consider normal day to day read/write
> sources to the registry and explain how you excuse those when you posit
> that anything that touches the registry is bunk?  How do you justify
> allowing that to happen?  I've actually encountered more MS-caused
> registry problems over the years than I have from non-MS applications that
> use the registry in similar manners.
>
> These aren't for you; they're for the many who enjoy follosing this kind
> of link and who might like a little information on the subject.  Even with
> their own built in biases, these links are a breath of fresh air compared
> to yours.
>
> http://download.iolo.net/articles/Registry1.pdf
>
> http://www.raxco.com/products/perfectdiskRxSuite/PDRXSuite_wp.pdf
>
> Twayne
>
>
>
>