How often do you reinstall your OS

Hi, I am new here, great forum...

Just a quickie, my XP has been installed for OVer a year now, and no reinstall, it still runs smooth, but could feel a bit quicker, how often do you reinstall your OS's

Thanks

 

Welcome to the BBS j1ohn.

I tend to reinstall less now, probably because as I've learnt a few of the limitatations of W2K,XP and W2K3 and I've caused less problems myself and am a little more carefull running problematic software. But the learning experience was worth the problems.

Now I tend to reinstall only as needed, which is usually well over a year. PC's will becone "stale" and eventually need a reinstall. This could be anywhere from 1,2 or 3+ years depending on what it has been subjected to. Reinstallation is also good practice and quickly teaches us the importance of regular backups.

Periodic registry and unecessary files cleaning, registry compacting and using XP's (or a third party) defragmenter is good PC maintenence practice. Some tools in my sig. below work well for me.

Cleaning out temp files, particularly from the temp folder under your (and other users) login is recommended. As is occasionally deleting all from the Windows/Prefetch folder.

I also use the following string in the search all files and folder box. *.old;*.bak;*.gid;*.tmp;*.dmp If you use this string leave the files you delete in the recycle bin till your happy all your programmes work. The same applies if using the unecessary files cleaner in EasyCleaner 2.0.

Regular driver and OS updates are advisable.

These things and others that will be suggested to you should help speed up a slowing PC. But after a while nothing is as good as a reformat.

 

What is being asked here ? A complete wipeout and re-install or a repair install. I have done the later a couple of times.

I have one machine that the HD had 98SE put on it when it first came out. That HD has been copied to a 2nd HD. The 2nd was copied to a 3rd HD and used as as base for XP Pro.

But ! The 2nd and 3rd machines were not allowed to boot directly to the HD the first time. The machines were booted to the Start up Disk and an overtop install done. I did have a Video problem once but that was expected. ( different cards )

Also the 1st and 2nd HDs have taken a beating from 2 to 18 year olds.

Also as Paul mentioned I do do some fairly regular house cleaning. But other than that I just keep the Anti-Virus up to date.

And climb all over the kids when they get into things they do not belong into. Itis amazing how fast they learn when they are not allow to go near the Computer for a week.

In fact I believe ( but not real sure ) that the 1st HD has 98SE put over 98FE.

BillyBob

 

well...

Well...I've had winxp for about six months and must have gone through the nagging installation process quite a couple of times. If only I could get my hands on a linux package... But really, I can't complain, WinXP runs pretty smooth compared to the other MS Products around. I mean it.

Stefano

 

Am I miss-reading or is there a bit of contradiction there ?

You say within app 6 months you have gone through the installation a couple of times but yet you say it runs smoother.

As to XP running better and smoother than say 98SE I disagree. It may not be worse but it is also not any better. Other than take up at least twice as much disk space I do not find it doing a thing more or better for me than 98SE did.

As to the original queston

For me it depends 100% on how much Ol' BillyBob here messes up.

BillyBob

PS
About the ONLY reason I am sticking with XP is that MOST ( or at least a lot of ) new hardware and software now requires it.

BB

 

I've been running XP for two years this month and haven't done a reinstall yet. It is getting to be time only because I'm real lazy about cleaning out the registry. I'm a freeware junkie and download, install, try and out and then usually dump a lot of software. They always leave registry entries behind.

Even with the registry clogged with useless junk as it currently is, I haven't had any performance degradation with XP like I experienced with 9x (never used ME).

Win 9x seems to suffer what I've heard called "bit rot" over time. When I ran 95/98, I did a reformat/reinstall at least once a year or when I started noticing the performance degrading.

 

I would only reinstall if something blew up too badly to recover from otherwise.

With all the good repair and cleanup tools available, a reinstall of the
- format
- install from the beginning
variety should never be needed and a 'repair install' over an existing OS load only if things have gone really bad and this option might allow me to avoid the complete/from scratch/kill everything sort.

 

WOW !!! That is sure news to me. The oldest install I have of 98SE is way back when it first came out. Even then it was put over top of 98FE.

As I said in another reply, that HD ( 98SE over top of 98FE ) was copied to another HD ( 40 to 40 ) and another overtop install done. And that HD copied over to the one that is in here. ( 40 to 80 ) Then XP Pro over it. The only thing that we have that the oldest machine will not run is our LS2003. And that is only CPU speed and RAM related. It will run but takes forever to do it.

Other than that one thing all three machines are running pretty much the same software.

So. There is no way that anyone will ever convince me that Win98SE is not a STABLE OS.

And remember I did not say the XP was not stable. I just don't find it any more stable than SE. And if I ever did lose it I am not real sure it would go back. #1 reason is that it takes up too **** much HD space. For what we use the machines 98SE does a fine job.

1.8 gig on C: for 98SE.
4.9 gig on C: for XP Pro.

BillyBob

 

Hey Newt

I am with you every step of the way

BillyBob

 

You and I (and, I suspect, most others in the XP forum) are never going to agree on this, BillyBob. Almost all of us have fought the Win9x wars and are happy to have moved on to XP, be it bloated or not.

Today, the size of the OS really isn't a consideration, unless you're stuck with an older laptop or simply can't afford a larger hard drive. The HD on my first PC, running Win95, was 4GB. Today, seven years later, I'm running XP Pro on a 100GB HD, with two others the same size for backup and video editing. Each of those 100GB drives cost less than the original 4GB drive.

Stability? Like Miz, I'm a freeware junkie, and my system takes a beating. In the more than 2½ years I've been running XP Pro, though, the number of times I've had BSODs probably could be counted on the fingers of one hand. With Win9x it was a weekly (at least) occurrence. A brute force shutdown, sometimes necessary with Win9x, was an open invitation to a BSOD or, at the very least, a session with ScanDisk on reboot. With XP, it's as though it never happened.

Where most of us probably see the biggest difference between XP and 9x (other than the new look and XP's apparent self-healing properties) is in the fact that we no longer have to be concerned about that old 9x bugaboo, System Resources ... it's simply not an issue with XP.

Because I'm responsible for several computers (all of them running 98 SE) belonging to friends and relatives, I continue to run it on one of my own machines. As a result, I use 98 SE and XP side-by-side, on a daily basis. Were it not for that, however (and you can take this to the bank), 98 would be long gone! It's not that 9x wasn't (isn't) a decent OS. It was ... but, no matter how long and how hard you blow the horn for Win9x, for the great majority of us, XP is a better OS.

 

JSS3rd

I know that we will never always agree. I am willing to except that.

I never had the BSODs as often as you say you did, I will not say that I did not have any because I did. I get one once in awhile in XP too. Every once in a while IT DOES lockup tight and I have to use the power switch to restart it just like SE did.

I believe if you read my previous post CAREFULLY that you will see that I beat the living hello out of 98SE. And I was told that copying HD to HD would not work. Western Digital Floppy did a fine job.

I was also told ( by many ) that you could not put one OS over the other and not have lots of problems. Again read my other reply and you will see that I proved that to be not quite correct.

I was told by a Professional Tech that XP Pro would not go over 98SE and work. That is not true. I did and it does.

So all I am trying to say is that as far as I am concerned Windows 98 SE is just as solid and problem free as XP Pro. And " That overall I do not find XP Pro to be any better or more solid than 98SE. "

Well then I must be in the SMALL minority because no matter now hard you blow the horn for XP, I disagree.

BillyBob

 

not impressed

Well, to be honest, I wasn't that impressed with WinXP when I first installed it. Maybe that's because I only have 128 RAM ( Athlon 1600 + 40 GB HDD GeForce mmx 440 ). But this OS does seem to request alot of resources. When I installed SuSE 9.0 it was very smooth and fast. No problems, and it had all the Plug & Play features of Windows. So, If I ever find my install CD i'm going to install it... Another thing is that I feel whenever XP crashes, Win9x OSs seemed a lot easyer to repair.

Stefano

P.S. Please don't hate me for using Linux from time to time!!!

 

I've been sitting here biting my tongue long enough. The best answer to this thread's title is "whenever it becomes absolutely necessary ". I leave any further interpretation to each individual.

Now, turning to the sub-topic of 98 vs XP and "How often do you re-install your OS? ", I would like to add a couple of observations - but, first an opinion -

98se is a great OS. If one sets it up right it is very, very, very stable and some of the IRQ problems in a "hardware heavy" machine can be easily handled when one learns how to access and re-assign the higher memory addresses to some devices that don't mind working above their normal default ranges. Anyone who's been around this board for a couple of years knows I love 98se. Excepting one multi boot bench machine, I don't have any 98 computers any more. Why? XP is a much better OS - no ifs, ands, or buts. Thats all opinion but I'll argue it with anybody.

Now for the observations. Over time, everybody is going to develop their own way of doing things based on what works best for them and what they are most comfortable with. We've already read how some are never going to re-format or re-install - great - OK - more power to you. Others (myself included) would rather rebuild from scratch or re-install the last "perfect image ". Who's right? Who's wrong? Who cares? How often do you reinstall your OS? Whenever it becomes absolutely necessary.

 

I installed the WinXP SP2 (just upgraded RC2 Sunday) on this PC last October and has been running flawlessly (*knock* *knock*) knock on wood. Nary a hang up or BSOD.

This is the first time I've actually kept a setup for so long. I usually do a reinstall 2-3 times a year just to clean out the slag. I like to check out the free software out there on the net. After I uninstall the programs I don't like I know lots of slag gets left behind. With Ghost it doesn't take that long to get up and running. Plus reinstalls tend to speed up the PC.

Sorry BillyBob I'm on the WinXP bandwagon. I will admit that I like Win98se for home use but we used Win98se in a corporate enviroment and was not impressed. I hated all the Win98 shutdown problems...the Spool32.dll errors. I was quite happy when we migrated over to NT 4.0 and now were slowly migrating over to WInXP.

 

How often do I reinstall? All the time through disk imaging.

Windows 98SE was a fine OS in its time. So was my VW Bug! It's kind of the same. It's a great OS for older machines surfing the net and doing light tasks.

Windows XP is a better OS for machines that can handle it. It's an immensely more stable OS. It can handle multimedia, especially video a lot better. I can multi task with this machine like nobody's business!

 

I don't think I will be doing my OS too often as I am preparing a complete fresh install on a new HD with XP Pro this time (I have XP HE) I have to admit it has got to the stage when I really do want a very clean sheet and to start afresh. I also want this done as I hope SP2 will install without issue on a clean system.

I didn't realise that it was not quite as easy as re-format and re-install (if I was going to be using the same HD) XP holds quite a bit even after a re-format as my friend has recently found out! As soon as my new set up is running I am going to try and keep to the software I know and not install anything 'just to try' (not sure how long I can keep it this way) I am also going to take a fresh image and then be able to use a good disc cleaner should anything go wrong and then restore my image to my drive which should have all the drivers and updates in place with no hidden left overs from XP.

I am still backing up and preparing so I don't think it would be something I would do to fill in time or anything like that!

 

The reason I use Drive Image is because I do try programs out. If they turn out to be bunk, I just restore out of them.

But what I do now is to keep a file that lists the changes that have occured between images. It helps a lot.

 

Good morning all. Now we are getting somewhere.

How often do I reinstall? All the time through disk imaging.

I have yet use to any type of Disk Imaging so I will not get into the pros & cons of that.

Windows 98SE was a fine OS in its time. So was my VW Bug! It's kind of the same. It's a great OS for older machines surfing the net and doing light tasks.

I also had and older car. I had a 1985 Chevy Caprice. It was by far a MUCH better car than ANTHING I have had since. And far less expensive to keep up and run. And it got us over the highways just as well ( and with more comfort/room ) and less gas than any we have had since.

Why did we get rid of it you may ask. Well some IDIOT that was speeding and cutting in and out of traffic did not realize that my Wife was waiting to make a left turn. You can guess the rest. SE would more than likely leave under the same circumstances. Some IDIOT destroying it.

Windows XP is a better OS for machines that can handle it. It's an immensely more stable OS. It can handle multimedia, especially video a lot better. I can multi task with this machine like nobody's business

It's a great OS for older machines surfing the net and doing light tasks.

I stll do not find XP to be any more stable. Maybe because it may fix its own problems ? I do not know.

98SE is it STILL a great OS for even NEWER machines doing lighter work. I myself do not need the Multitasking bit.

But one problem may now exist and IT IS NOT SEs' fault. Hardware and Software makers are designing things that REQUIRE XP.

So basicly what miniB may be saying. " It may/can well depend on how and for what the machine is being used. And the capabilities of the machine itself. "

Oh my I forgot. The user plays a big part too. I think the BIGGEST part.

I had MY FIRST really scarey/not understood error messsage ( in either OS ) last night. We were playing our usual Tuesady evening Glof with our Friend in Canada when up comes an error message " Buffer Overrun. Program will shut down " It did. I restarted/reconnected and all was well.

Now, I AM NOT going to do a thing unless the message comes up again. If it does then I may be asking for help.

BillyBob

 

Getting back to the original question, I have yet to reinstall or "repair" XP after two and a half years.

I'm aggressive about keeping the registry uncluttered.

Regards - Charles

 

And I can say the same about 98SE on one machine. The one " repair " re-install that I did on the other machine was STRICTLY MY FAULT as the USER.

I got carried away with regcleaning. I did not pay attention to warning messages. Can't blame the OS for that.

And the two machines that still have SE on them have kids ranging from 4 to 18 years running them.

BillyBob