Does XP need to be reinstalled every year or so like Win 98?

[glen]

I have no idea why, but ti sure seemed like it was nessecary to reinstall Win 98 every 6 monthes to a year.
Things would run slower, and applications,and even the OS woudl crash more frequently if you didn't.
Is that still the case with XP?

 

[HOOSDAMAN]

It is the case with any Windows operating system. You need to do maintenance. 98 or XP. Things like defrag, delete temp files, keep an eye on boot-up processes, be careful of spyware, and keep the taskbar icons to a minimum. I have been running my XP lapper for 2 years now without rebuilding and it is still fast when booting up and shutting down. It does not lag while opening or running programs. Maintenance is the key. Neglect will cause any operating system to not run at peak performance.

 

[timswim78]

I would say that XP is relatively more robust than 98, ME, and other versions of windows not based on the NT kernel. I have had to reinstall XP after screwing up with the installation of some drivers, but this is due to the fact that I was not using XP's system restore at the time. Now that I have switched to system restore, I have made the same stupid mistake and have not had to reinstall XP>

 

[HKSturboKID]

I have XP installed and upgraded my system 2 times and still no need to be re-installed.

 

[Diz2K2]

Originally posted by: HOOSDAMAN
It is the case with any Windows operating system. You need to do maintenance. 98 or XP. Things like defrag, delete temp files, keep an eye on boot-up processes, be careful of spyware, and keep the taskbar icons to a minimum. I have been running my XP lapper for 2 years now without rebuilding and it is still fast when booting up and shutting down. It does not lag while opening or running programs. Maintenance is the key. Neglect will cause any operating system to not run at peak performance.

I definitely agree. If you stay on top of your maintanence and of course hardware upgrades, that will keep your system performance at a high level.

 

[Abzstrak]

I'd say any geek should redo it yearly at least.... win98 was more like every 3months, maybe 6 months if you enjoy pain.

You can keep it running longer sure, but I think its good for people to backup all their stuff and have to reinstall regularly anyway, it ensures backup schemes and it reall doesn't take more than a few hours.

 

[Booty]

Just my personal opinion, but if you can't get by for more than a year without reinstalling Windows, you're probably doing something wrong... accumulating too much junk, etc. I used to reinstall Windows 98 every 6 months or so, back in the day, but that's not the case anymore, and I don't think it's just because my Windows box runs XP now... I think it's because I'm a more experienced user and thus my machine stays in better shape.

Anyone out there dealing with reinstalls all the time should really try Linux... the only time I change anything with it is when I get bored and want to try a new window manager or something.

 

[EeyoreX]

In a word. No. Period. End of story. The only reason you ever need to reinstall Windows XP is because you screwed something up. Or for a major hardware upgrade (and there are ways arond this problem too). I have been running or am responsible for/have set up and help maintain nearly a dozen Windows XP machines. None of them need a reinstall and most have been running at least a year. My system has been running since the day XP was released with one reinstall because of a major hardware upgrade. Anyone who does it more often either A) screwed something up or B) is living in the past, thinking they need to treat Windows XP/2000 like Windows 9x or C) has nothing better to do.

\Dan

 

[Nothinman]

I guess you missed the thread/poll on the first page of the software forum on this very subject...

You can keep it running longer sure, but I think its good for people to backup all their stuff and have to reinstall regularly anyway, it ensures backup schemes and it reall doesn't take more than a few hours.

It's a few hours I'd rather not waste on a pointless reinstall, my current Debian install has lasted me around 5 years and there's no way I'm going through resetting everything up again.

 

[xenos500]

yeah, I like to reinstall often.
I redo my whole computer after each semester of college...
take it apart, clean it, put it back together, make any hardware changes/configurations/reinstall software.

thats just me, some people obviously have different veiws

 

[corkyg]

Not really - unless you get your jollies doing that. I installed XP Pro about 2 years ago and have never looked back or had a problem. With serious system maintenance (registry cleanup, etc.) there really is no need to reinstall unbless that turns you on - or you don't have the patience or competence to clean up a system and keep it clean.

BTW - this is on three systems!

 

[boshuter]

I still have an old Win 98 system that hasn't had a reinstall in over 2 years..... my xp machine gets a new install at least 3-4 times a year..... mainly because I can't remember the last time I've ran the same CPU/MB/Mem combo for more than a few months

 

[Psych]

I have a 98 machine that I got in '99, and it was running like crap when I got my new (XP) computer. Once I got everything moved to the XP that I needed, I had a lot more freedom with the 98. Then I did a super purging and extreme scrutinization of just about everything on the computer, and I somehow fixed just about every problem that was on it. I have only had my new computer for 6 months, but nothing bad has happened to it yet...

In short, I believe any operating system can go a long time with proper maintenance, and if you are lucky, you can get away with extreme clean-up sessions. XP should hold up well, though.

 

[burnedout]

Here's my 2 cents based on experience:

We use an IBM box with an AMD 450 MHz CPU, 256 MB memory and Windows 98 in a role as a supplemental file server at work. This box was in place when I started with the company in Feb 01. The machine runs 24/7 attached to a UPS and has been rebooted maybe 10 times in 3 years. The system is set to defrag on schedule by itself. It's also on a schedule to incrementally backup to another system offsite. We've never had a problem with it.

Before we integrated the WinXP boxes at our main location 2 years ago, most of our machines ran Win98. Almost every one of the old boxes was hosed up. People installed screen saver programs, weather bugs, went surfing to all kinds of weird sites full of spyware, you name it. Once I took over the IT department, all of that noise ceased. Amazing what a policy can do. Anyway, we haven't had any issues with WinXP because users don't install every neat little freebie proggie under the sun.

In conclusion, the more one takes care of their system, the better and longer it will perform.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I know a well maintained 2K install doesn't do the whole "OS Decay" thing that 95/98/ME suffered. I would assume XP to be like 2K here.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Reinstalls are rarely necessary. Unless you're me. Then you break things a lot.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Reinstalls are rarely necessary. Unless you're me. Then you break things a lot.

*g*

I think I'm going to have to weigh in on this topic on the opposite end of the Win9x spectrum. I'm running effectively the same installation, that I had back in the Win3.1/WfWG days. I think that I had upgraded to Win95 beta, and possible restored from a backup, then upgraded to Win95 gold, and 95 OSR2, USB/AGP supplimental update, Win98, had some issues, restored from OSR2 backup, eventually installed Win98se, updates, and now that's where my C: stands. I still have programs on there that will only install properly under DOS or Win3.1, so I really haven't wanted or needed to re-install fresh. Plus, I have so many programs on there that I find useful, that I either: a) have no idea what I did with the original installers for, or b) no longer physically have a drive in my machine that can read the original program install media (5.25in, mainly). It's truely amazing what a proper set of backups and religious system-maintenance can do for a system. (Oh yeah, Norton/Symantec products suck, I tried installing those once under Win95 gold, what a mess. "CrashGuard" should have been called "CrashMore". I had to manually un-install them by hand , because I missed the small print about them being incompatible with OSR2 and having to do a full un-install before the OSR2 upgrade, which I did not do. After that, I haven't had N/S products on the system since, and it has always run pretty decently.)

I no longer boot my Win9x partition very much though, pretty much my usage is W2K Pro (95%), WinXP Pro (4%), and Win98se (1%, if that). Win9x has been useful though, for when one of my other OSes gets badly hosed due to a bad driver or something, and I need to boot into DOS mode and hack at the (FAT32) filesystem that way.

PS. n0cmonkey, re: our earlier discussion on FAT32 - here's a data-point for you. I had to boot into real DOS mode, and I deleted a directory tree comprising about 16 different variations of W2K slip-stream process working directories, probably about 16GB total, with many individual files per directory, off of a single FAT32 partition on a 160GB WD JB HD, connected to a Promise Ultra100 TX2 controller (which still runs in ATA-100 mode in DOS). This was also on an Athlon XP2000+ - rated machine. Guess how long it took? I'll save you the pain of finding out for yourself - it actually took longer than 24 hours to do a DELTREE! Sheesh. I get spoiled by the heavily-cached filesystem implementations in W2K/XP. I intentionally didn't run SMARTDRV, because I was making room on my "good drive", in preperation to use Ghost to backup another drive that potentially had bad sectors, and didn't want SMARTDRV being loaded to interfere with the Ghost setting to ignore bad sectors when backing up, as SMARTDRV does extensive read-ahead. I think that might be a record in terms of worst-case behavior from an implementation of FAT32.

 

[DaNorthface]

Originally posted by: Abzstrak
I'd say any geek should redo it yearly at least.... win98 was more like every 3months, maybe 6 months if you enjoy pain.

You can keep it running longer sure, but I think its good for people to backup all their stuff and have to reinstall regularly anyway, it ensures backup schemes and it reall doesn't take more than a few hours.

a wannabe geek would need to maybe, but someone who know what they're doing won't need to reinstall that often..

 

[DaNorthface]

Originally posted by: Booty
Just my personal opinion, but if you can't get by for more than a year without reinstalling Windows, you're probably doing something wrong... accumulating too much junk, etc. I used to reinstall Windows 98 every 6 months or so, back in the day, but that's not the case anymore, and I don't think it's just because my Windows box runs XP now... I think it's because I'm a more experienced user and thus my machine stays in better shape.

Anyone out there dealing with reinstalls all the time should really try Linux... the only time I change anything with it is when I get bored and want to try a new window manager or something.

i think it has alot to do with Windows XP.. go back to win 98 and you'll see.. I use to be using Windows 98/ME and it would just boot up and crash sometimes and i would have to reinstall. WindowsXP now for over 2 years and never had a problem - almost never crashes either - crashes maybe once every 6 months, but it just restarts and i'm back up.

 

[goblue420]

i just did a reinstall on my xp box after 2 years, it didnt really need it, but since i was used to the 6month reinstall with previous M$ OS'es i just felt the need to do it, well that and i had a buncha crap on the hdd that i didnt use anymore that i didnt feel like uninstalling, so i just formatted the sucker, semi-solid OS tho, props to ms for that

 

[hairygit1]

If you wanna take 12 hours out from the wife and kids, have a day in front of the screen with a good book.
You won't read the book, you'll just be looking at the little counter going up slowly from 1-100, or 25min to 0min or seeing lots of little blue rectangles lining up.

I download and test a lot of software - recommend to myself to format and reinstall every 6 months or so if i have the time. if not, i don't,

The computer is there to make things easier for me, not, I am here to make things easier for the computer.

That said, I've spent all today on the computer surfing bullshit, asking questions and not getting any answers, and answering other peoples questions.

The beer that i have just opened tastes nice.

 

[mikecel79]

We have some machines where I work that are still on the original install of Win2k since a week after it went gold! There are at least a dozen of these machines still on the original Win2k install. They are used daily and don't have any problems. My copy of WinXP has been on this system since the day after it went gold and has been through 2 hardware upgrades (MB/CPU combo) already with not a single reinstall and I don't see any reason that I will have to do it the near future.

If you take care of your machine and don't install everything you can find you'll be ok.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: glen
I have no idea why, but ti sure seemed like it was nessecary to reinstall Win 98 every 6 monthes to a year.
Things would run slower, and applications,and even the OS woudl crash more frequently if you didn't.
Is that still the case with XP?

A fragged drive or an out of date prefetch folder are about as bad as it really gets. Keep the adware and crap off of it and you won't have to touch it until longhorn hits.

 

[jagec]

If you REALLY feel like reinstalling that often, the least you can do is build a good Ghost image and use that instead of a manual reinstall. Will save you HOURS.

Of course, you COULD just keep the OS clean and defragged.

My winXP installs last about as long as I want them to with no slowdowns.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: glen
I have no idea why, but ti sure seemed like it was nessecary to reinstall Win 98 every 6 monthes to a year.
Things would run slower, and applications,and even the OS woudl crash more frequently if you didn't.
Is that still the case with XP?

A fragged drive or an out of date prefetch folder are about as bad as it really gets. Keep the adware and crap off of it and you won't have to touch it until longhorn hits.

Would you recommend clearing out the prefetch data on a regular basis, if you have significantly changed the installed programs over time? Is the prefetch data more based on profiles of the applications code and load behavior, or more based on it's current physical location on the disk?

Also, is there any easy way for an end-user to disable XP's idle-time disk-defrag feature? I run a multi-boot system, and I don't want XP deciding to re-order my various other OS partitions on me. (I really only boot into XP for LAN games, but I wouldn't want it to start de-fragging when I'm busy using the machine for fragging, if you know what I mean.)