Re: Windows XP - What you'll miss about Vista
Dzomlija wrote:
> David;732405 Wrote:
>
>> What a crock, regarding how XP "slows down". I've had XP loaded on my
>> desktop Pavilion for about over 4 years, and its no slower than the day
>> it was purchased. I haven't had to reload any of my OS's since I got
>> WIN3.1. I use each PC until i get the urge to buy another one in a few
>> years and the new PC has another version of Windows on it. I don't
>> understand why so many people claim they NEED to reinstall windows from
>> time to time. IMO, if they knew what they were doing they could keep
>> windows running as well after 2 years as the day they bought it. And NO,
>> I'm not just unaware of slowdowns--I can tell if somethings wonky.
>>
>
> Thats a valid argument, but there ARE scenarios where Windows XP can
> and will slow down over time. While I do not doubt your case, perhaps
> you should do a test. Clean install Windows XP, and all your usual
> applications, then run a benchmark test, and record the results. Then,
> after perhaps 6 months or so of genral daily use, run the exact same
> benchmark, and compare the results. The second test will likely give a
> lower score.
>
> David;732405 Wrote:
>
>> I've used 3.1, Win 95, Win 98SE, XP, and now Vista. Unless the hard
>> drive dies on my Vista machines, I anticipate the same longevity with
>> ONE installation of the OS,. rather then the PC-hobbyist mentality of
>> reloading it 3 or 4 times a year.
>>
>
> I too have been using Windows since 3.1. And I do agree with you that
> re-installing a couple of times a year is a bad idea - this is why too
> many people never learn how to keep their systems running smoothly. When
> something goes wrong, they re-install, instead of figuring out how to
> solve the problem and in turn how to prevent it from happening again.
> Re-installing to solve a problem is like curing the disease by killing
> the patient!
>
> But that still doesn't change the fact that Vista is far more stable
> than XP could ever hope to be, and does not *need* to be periodically
> reinstalled. As a rule, I always re-loaded all my XP systems once a year
> over the December holidays (when I had the time), in preparation for the
> new year.
>
> In now close to 15 months of using Vista x64 Ultimate, I've reloaded
> once, when the motherboard on my computer was destroyed. But that too
> was a choice - because when I plugged the Vista drive into the new
> computer, it simply detected the new hardware and continued normally.
> But I wanted to start fresh, and formatted and re-installed Vista
> anyway. Had that happened with XP, the reload would have been forced,
> because the XP installation would not have survived the motherboard
> change.
>
>
>
Yes, no question some Win installations cry out for a do-over, but for
me, it's not been necessary. Also, I have so many programs that it
would literally take more than 2 8 hour days to re-install everything
and even then, it's not likely that I would manage to get all the
patches for each program. I see no point in doing an image, as if a
reload is necessary, I wouldn't want to put everything back, including
the detrius that accumulates. and yes, for those not able to maintain
windows w/o reloading, I understand that for them, it's the only way
they can recover a usable system. I DO have plenty of redundant backups
of all the data, both on CD's and an external drive, so if the HDD takes
a dump, I won't have a nervous breakdown.. 
Dave