hello

I have read all the replies on this topic:

http://www.msfn.org/board/OS-faster-pc-t124421.html

even if it ended up a windows vs linux debate, most agreed that XP is the best choice

but you know what? XP need a periodic reinstall in order to run smooth and this is what bugs me most, while I read Vista are supposed to run for many months without any performance decrease

is this true?

XP need a periodic reinstall in order to run smooth

Depends what you do with it I guess. I've seen plenty of rather old XP installs that still work great.

Vista are supposed to run for many months without any performance decrease

Depends. It has things like automatic/scheduled defrag that helps a bit, but it still comes down to whatever you do with your PC.

I also do not understand this requirement to reinstall XP. I figure that if you keep having to reinstall it every x months, then you obviously are doing something wrong and not learning your lesson!

My computer at home is using an install of XP that is over 6 years old.

I think Vista's Windows Reliability and Performance Monitor is what helps it keep running smooth better than XP.

Either way I think periodic reinstalls are actually a good thing. Not only will the OS be fresh but your program installations too.

DOS.

fast boot time, low resource use, and it should run brilliantly on your machine spec!

well... you did ask.

Very funny . Good to see you posting more again.

ive had no internet for over a year!!!

had it for a short time when i moved house, like 2 months, but it was only temp before moving again. So actually... longer than a year.

I figure that if you keep having to reinstall it every x months, then you obviously are doing something wrong and not learning your lesson!

That's what it comes down to. People often install junk and act carelessly, thinking they'll reinstall in 6 months anyways.

My computer at home is using an install of XP that is over 6 years old.

I've seen many hundreds of those too (especially in office buildings). Working just as good as on the first day. Same goes for Win2k... Having to reinstall is a myth -- you only got to if you're doing something wrong.

Either way I think periodic reinstalls are actually a good thing. Not only will the OS be fresh but your program installations too.

Hmm, no. Bits don't rot, they don't need to be "refreshed". It should be the same binaries regardless... Recopying the same DLL over shouldn't make things any faster.

PCs get slower after people install 9823423 garbage shareware POS'es, heavy fragmentation, 7239213 more fonts installed (those hurt performance quite a bit, most people don't realize -- and the said garbage shareware POS'es tend to install many), dozens of unnecessary services for every little thing (bonjour garbage, itunes garbage, sun java updater, etc), a million systray icons (one for your vid card, one for the mouse, one for the wifi card, one for this, one for that...), malware in some cases, etc.

If you try to be more careful and not just install every app you've ever heard of, and try to limit the amount of things running in the background (unnecessary services, processes, tray icons, etc) and such, then you'll see no reason to reinstall.

Agreed - having to reinstall Windows over and over means the user is doing something to require it. Windows itself, once installed, doesn't change short of registering new files in hotfixes, minor registry changes, etc. I have an XP machine, now running SP3, that has been installed as-is since 2002. It works just as well today as it did 6 years ago, because I make sure of what is installed and used on it, and anything that is removed is fully removed when and if possible - and if not, I'll remove it myself (I take before and after snapshots of filesystem and registry so I know what an app did or did not do when installed, so if it doesn't change back on removal, I do it myself). Also, I defrag the system, scan it for viruses and malware, and back it up every evening - why? Because these things are important to system health, and avoiding them is not good long-term. Also, just in case (it is 6 years old) it dies, I have backups.

I don't use this box much anymore except for Visual Studio work, but it was used daily until November 2006 when I upgraded to a new machine and Vista.

Ultimately, it has been my experience that people who reinstall Windows every <insert timeframe here> are tweakers or installers, one or the other - either will get you an installation that is fraught with garbage.

Mint Linux (Ubuntu derivative) or XP.

it has been my experience that people who reinstall Windows every <insert timeframe here> are tweakers or installers,

Thats me... Too much live testing of addons and installers.

Ultimately, it has been my experience that people who reinstall Windows every <insert timeframe here> are tweakers or installers, one or the other - either will get you an installation that is fraught with garbage.

Garbage? Do tell.