The Un-Official Proxomitron Forum

http://www.bold-fortune.com/forums/index.php?act=idx

Cool! Tnx...


edit: and after performing the 'safe to delete' for XP, 400 plus registry entries were able to be axed as well - and that's from a frequently cleaned-out registry...

For me, RegSeeker detected 319 registry entries

This told me everything I need to know about this guy and his"tweaks".

This was his answer to the question, "What are the results of all the tweaking that people have done, using Bold's slimming down XP guide, or nLite, or XPLite, or simply doing it by hand. Tell me what a difference all that hard work has made on your PC so the rest of us can see why tweaking the bloatware that is Windows XP is a good thing."

Quote:Hi, br0adband. I like your question.

I can't speak for anyone else.

This has always been difficult for me to explain, and get people to except as my answer, but deleting files from XP has never had anything to do with Windows Bloat. It has never been about anything to do with any performance gains (I may or may not have gotten).

And it certainly never had absolutely anything to do with showing results, or being realistic. (LOL. I like that part.) Although, I'm sure those things are important to some others, and can be fun to measure.

What it was really all about for me?

For me, it was always just about having fun. That's it. And that's all it's ever been for me. I have fun seeing what I can delete from Windows. (Pretty clunky answer, huh? Sorry about that. But it's the only one I have.)

hpguru Wrote:This told me everything I need to know about this guy and his "tweaks".

[quote]

It's like the whole services thing; any differences from tweaking/turning off/deleting is usually imagined rather than actual. But like he says; for some people it is fun and they usually have images to restore if they have a s.n.a.f.u.

lol, pretty much was my exact reason for doing the clean up...

for the FUN of it...

and of course i have a system-restore procedure - can axe EVERYTHNG and be back up and running with a fully patched OS in roughly 40 to 45 minutes (i've done it three times already this year, a slow year)...

Really? Ever use your PC for anything - eh - constructive.

That's okay if he or anyone else wants to cripple their OS for their own amusement but advising others to try as if it were the thing to do is damned irresponsible. I'll just bet he wouldn't give such advice if he were liable for it - which he should be.

As to liable, I definitely will agree with you there...

As to constructive, you bet... from engineering tasks, to portfolio management, to research on a couple of books I'm writing...

I guess everyone uses their PC differently - there once was a day that I was purging and restoring every weekend, and that was my "constructive use" for that day and age...

The "guest" post was mine; I wasn't paying attention and forgot to log in.

Computer useage by the average person is a conundrum. They are going to do something sooner or later to completely screw up their pc's.

Any tweaking software/guides should be held liable; as most users don't read any disclaimers and warnings and proceed to cripple certain aspects of or their entire pc.

For me computers are a toy to play with. I use them mainly for information, banking, shopping etc. But I do like testing out software and don't like programs that interfere with the OS operation.

I like to keep a very clean pc with no spyware etc. being able to get on to it in the first place; hence the use of apps like The Proxomitron. I have gleaned enough info over time to keep our pc's pretty well trouble free and working as they are supposed too. I don't want to be bothered every other day to clean up a mess.

I usually restore an image of my system about once or twice a year; mainly because I like to start fresh every now and then. Our other pc's far less often.

hpguru Wrote:..... I'll just bet he wouldn't give such advice if he were liable for it - which he should be.

ProxRocks Wrote:As to liable, I definitely will agree with you there...

besafe Wrote:Any tweaking software/guides should be held liable; as most users don't read any disclaimers and warnings and proceed to cripple certain aspects of or their entire pc.

Hmmmm. I seem to recall that a net-famous personage once said "Practice Safe Hex". The upshot of that discussion was that a user is ultimately responsible for his/her computer's safety, and if they don't take steps to protect themselves, then they shouldn't blame anyone else.

So the question here becomes, what's the difference between protecting one's self from malware and keeping one's machine in good operating order? Aren't they both laudable goals? And as pointed out in posts above (ProxRocks, et al), one man's usability may not be equally suitable for another.

My point is, if I am ultimately responsible for what's on my machine and how it works as far as I'm concerned, how can anyone else be held liable for my screw-ups? By extension, I agree with hpguru's earlier sentiment - any user who doesn't question the validity of his/her resources will probably get just exactly what he/she deserves.


Oddysey

Yes we are responsible for our own computers and all that that entails. What's that got to do with the liability of handing out bad and unprofessional advice on a public medium? Nothing.

ProxRocks Wrote:As to constructive, you bet... from engineering tasks, to portfolio management, to research on a couple of books I'm writing...

Sounds mission critical. Best of luck.

hpguru Wrote:Yes we are responsible for our own computers and all that that entails. What's that got to do with the liability of handing out bad and unprofessional advice on a public medium? Nothing.

Well, yes and no.

As far as I'm concerned, comparing an advice website to a snakeoil salesman is the ol' apples and oranges trick. In the case of the huckster, he or she does have an agenda (personal gain at the expense of someone else), and they should be held liable only insofar that we (the general public) insist that they execute on their promise(s), said execution being what would be expected by a "reasonable and prudent" person. That definition comes straight out of the law books, BTW.

OTOH, anyone dispensing advice, and who is well-meaning or well-intentioned, but is not necessarily the most proficient at his/her craft, that person is merely stating what he or she believes to be correct. When called to account, that person has a chance to either back up his/her claims, or to back down. But only if called to account - you can't expect everyone you encounter to provide a vitae curricula before even engaging in discourse.

It is my contention that if you choose to act upon the beliefs of another, you yourself are liable for the consequences, not that other person. The only exception I can think of, and admittedly, it could be pretty broad, is if it becomes obvious in hindsight that the advisor is indeed a malefactor, and not simply acting from beliefs. Then the person becomes worse than a snakeoil salesman, he or she becomes a Bozo of the first stripe.


Old Lawyer's proverb: The difference between advice and counsel is the cost. Think about it.


Oddysey

Oddysey Wrote:Well, yes and no.

Between your 'yes' and your 'no', how much difference is there?

hp;

My 'OTOH' paragraph is the qualifying statement that allowed the "Yes" portion of my previous answer.


Oddysey