AVG PC Tuneup 2011

Is this any good?

<http://www.avg.com/gb-en/avg-pctuneup.tpl-mcr8>

Pepole have different tastes.
But I do not see any necessity and use for such programs.
greetings
Roland Schweiger

On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 18:59:30 +0100, AVG <> wrote:

>
> Is this any good?
>
> <http://www.avg.com/gb-en/avg-pctuneup.tpl-mcr8>


No!

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.

Read http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000643.html

and http://aumha.net/viewtopic.php?t=28099

and also
http://blogs.technet.com/markrussino...t-of-life.aspx

Let me point out that neither I nor anyone else who warns against the
use of registry cleaners has ever said that they always cause
problems. If they always caused problems, they would disappear from
the market almost immediately. Many people have used a registry
cleaner and never had a problem with it.

Rather, the problem with a registry cleaner is that it carries with it
the substantial *risk* of having a problem. And since there is no
benefit to using a registry cleaner, running that risk is a very bad
bargain.

"Ken Blake" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2011 18:59:30 +0100, AVG <> wrote:
> No!
>
> 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.

+1!!!!!!

AVG wrote:

> Is this any good?
>
> <http://www.avg.com/gb-en/avg-pctuneup.tpl-mcr8>

- What is currently wrong or failing with the registry?
- What convinced you that the registry needs to be "cleaned" up?
- What constitutes the "cleaning" actions?
- What do you expect to gain from the cleanup?
- What are you going to do if the registry changes hose over
your computer since a restore may not be possible?
- What is your recovery strategy from the registry changes?


*_Why the uneducated or lazy should never use registry cleaners_*

If YOU are not adept at *manually* editing the registry, don't use a
tool that you don't understand regarding its proposed changes.
Regardless of relinquishing the task to software, YOU are the final
authority in allowing it to make the changes. Any registry cleaner that
does not request for YOU to give permission to make its proposed changes
along with listing each proposed change should be discarded.

Do you have a backup & restore plan in place? When (and not if) the
registry cleaner corrupts your registry and when you can no longer boot
into Windows, just how are you going to restore that OS partition so it
is usable again? Even if you use a registry cleaner that provides for
backups of its changes so you can revert back to the prior state, how
are you going to perform that restore if you cannot boot the OS after
hosing over its registry? A registry cleaner that [automatically]
backups up a copy of the registry before you permit it to make changes
to the registry sounds nice but that feature is only usable if you can
actually load the OS to then run that utility to restore from its
backup. You need something ELSE to ensure you can restore your OS to a
prior state so it is bootable and usable, like an image backup (full or
incremental). If you don't backup then you have deemed your data as
worthless or reproducible.

What about entries in the registry that look to be orphaned under the
current OS load instance but are used under a different OS environment?
You delete what looks orphaned only to find out that they are required
under a different environment.

Say there was an unusually high amount of orphaned entries in your
registry, like 4MB. By deleting the orphaned entries, you would speed
up how long it takes Windows to load the registry's files when it starts
up - by all of maybe 1 second. Oooh, aaah. All that risk of modifying
the registry to save maybe a second, or less, during the Windows
startup. Most folks that clean the registry end up deleting only 10KB,
or less. They are doing nothing to improve their Windows load time.
Since the registry is only read from the memory copy of it, and since
memory is random access, there is no difference to read one byte of the
registry (in memory) from the another byte in the registry (also in
memory). The extra data in memory for orphaned entries has no effect on
the time to retrieve items from the memory copy of the registry because
orphaned entries are never retrieved (if they were, they aren't
orphaned).

Cleaning the registry will NOT improve performance in reading from the
memory copy of the registry. The reduced size of the registry's .dat
files might reduce the load time of Windows by all of a second and
probably much less. And you want to risk the stability of your OS for
inconsequential changes to its registry? The same boobs that get
suckered into these registry cleanup "tools" are the same ones that get
suckered into the memory defragment "tools".

A registry cleaner should only be used if you by yourself can correctly
cleanup the registry. The cleaner is just a tool to automate the same
process but you should know every change that it intends to make and
understand each of those changes. After all, and regardless of the
stagnant expertise that is hard coded into the utility, *YOU* are the
final authority in what registry changes are performed whether you do it
manually or with a utility. If YOU do not understand the proposed
change (which requires the product actually divulge the proposed change
before committing that change), how will you know whether or not to
allow that change?

Yes it is good but you can do better by downloading a free version of
CCleaner (slim) from this link:

<http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner/download/slim>

You should always make a habit to clear all the clutter from your system
on a monthly basis. The free version of CCleaner comes out almost every
month so it is a good idea to get an updated version before scanning
your system every month.

Ignore all the nutters who are saying you don't need and that you should
refrain from using them. The fact of the matter is they haven't used
any of them so they are not the proper people to get advise from.

Hope this helps.

AVG wrote:
> Is this any good?
>
> <http://www.avg.com/gb-en/avg-pctuneup.tpl-mcr8>
>
>

On 7/23/2011 4:06 PM, Tester wrote:
>
>
Some incredibly dumb advice!

Drew wrote:
> On 7/23/2011 4:06 PM, Tester wrote:

> Some incredibly dumb advice!
>

Better than yours. You haven't given any and all you do is browse the
porn sites where children are being abused. You are are a pediphile and
we shall come after you if you don't comply with Megan's Law.

Tester wrote:

> Yes it is good but you can do better by downloading a free version of
> CCleaner (slim) from this link:
>
> <http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner/download/slim>
>
> You should always make a habit to clear all the clutter from your system
> on a monthly basis. The free version of CCleaner comes out almost every
> month so it is a good idea to get an updated version before scanning
> your system every month.
>
> Ignore all the nutters who are saying you don't need and that you should
> refrain from using them. The fact of the matter is they haven't used
> any of them so they are not the proper people to get advise from.

Ignore all the nutters who are saying there are no hazards to registry
cleaners. The fact of the matter is they haven't had to maintain anyone
else's computer than their own so they don't have the experience to
advise.

On 7/23/2011 5:13 PM, Tester wrote:
>
>
> Drew wrote:
>> On 7/23/2011 4:06 PM, Tester wrote:
>
>> Some incredibly dumb advice!
>>
>
> Better than yours. You haven't given any and all you do is browse the
> porn sites where children are being abused. You are are a pediphile and
> we shall come after you if you don't comply with Megan's Law.
>
Plonk! Learn how to spell!