Re: Alternatives to re-installing XP Home
From: Ben Hardy (bh_at_hb1.com)
Date: 01/04/05
- Next message: Scott: "Re: Dual Boot Possibility"
- Previous message: Brad: "Programs or links that start running automatically"
- In reply to: Ken Blake: "Re: Alternatives to re-installing XP Home"
- Next in thread: Bill: "Re: Alternatives to re-installing XP Home"
- Reply: Bill: "Re: Alternatives to re-installing XP Home"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2005 01:06:59 -0000
Thankyou Ken,
Feeling somewhat admonished I'll run off with my tail between my legs and do
a Format and Re-install
"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:%23bjDnxe8EHA.1392@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> In news:crcc2o$m0p$2@news6.svr.pol.co.uk,
> Ben Hardy <bh@hb1.com> typed:
>
>> OK Ken, so lets get this straight-
>>
>> You are saying:
>>
>> 'The size of the registry has no effect whatsoever on the speed of the
>> computer but it may affect the Startup time'
>> OK, I'll accept that.
>>
>> 'A 42Mb Registry is typical'.
>> Doesn't that depend on how much software/Fonts etc etc you have
>> installed? Surely a machine with say, 80 apps installed, which
>> according to 'Add/Remove Programs', mine has, will have a larger
>> Registry than a machine with 20 apps installed?
>
>
> Certainly it depends on things like that. But 42MB is well within normal
> range and not cause for concern.
>
>>
>> 'An OS doesn't slow down over time unless there are other issues such
>> as spyware etc'
>> Well I know many people that would disagree with that.
>
>
> I know many people who disagree with that too. However, none of the people
> whose views I trust do. As always, you are free to agree or disagree with
> whomever you wish.
>
>
>> As far as
>> Spyware, Adware, Viruses etc go I spend many hours checking and
>> scanning for suchlike - see my earlier post. I'm pretty confident
>> that I have a clean machine. Of course, I use numerous applications
>> for this but I am now beginning to distrust some of them, especially
>> Registry Cleaners.
>> 'It doesn't matter how long a PC takes to boot up'
>> I don't believe you said that! When I first installed the OS the PC
>> started up in less than 20 seconds - it now takes about four minutes.
>
>
> Well, I can't know for sure, but that sounds to me like you have
> accumulated more background programs that are starting automatically.
>
>
>> (Read the post from Bill in this group). Now four minutes is not a
>> long time
>
>
> Right. For most of us it's a once a day event, and not important.
>
>
>> I agree but what is concerning is why.
>
>
> As far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter, unless it also has an effect on
> the general speed of the machine. And, also as far as I'm concerned,
> that's the only issue to be concerned about. If startup is slow but speed
> is otherwise satisfactory, there's nothing to be concerned about. If
> general speed is *not* satisfactory, that should be a concern whether
> startup takes 20 seconds or four minutes.
>
> Startup speed and running speed are not necessarily related. That's the
> sense in which I mean that startup time is not important.
>
>
>> According to what
>> MSCONFIG and Event Viewer tells me, there's nothing untoward starting
>> up other than the usual stuff such as AV & Firewall. This was the
>> case when it started in 30 seconds! If start up time continues to
>> increase then not only will I have time to get a coffee but also
>> breakfast, shopping, brunch and who knows what else. I want it to
>> start in 20 seconds like it used to and like it would do if I was to
>> re-install
>
>
> Your choice, of course. I think you're worrying about the wrong thing.
>
>
>> 'Don't make the mistake of thinking that this is necessarily something
>> everyone experiences'.
>> Well, all of my colleagues and friends agree and many people on
>> numerous websites agree that it's a common problem. I've also run
>> many OSs and it seems to have been a problem since Win95. I agree
>> that it's easy to say 'reformat and reinstall' and that's why I'm
>> posting this before I'm forced to do that.
>>
>> So rather than rubbish my post, why not read it from the start and
>
>
> I wasn't trying to rubbish anything, but to give you what I thought was
> good advice. If you don't like my advice, feel free to ignore it.
>
> I came into the thread late, and didn't see all your earlier posts. And
> because I don't save already-read messages, it wasn't easy for me to back
> and see the entire thread.
>
>
>> you will discover that I've run all the usual Malware/Spyware apps,
>> Reg cleaners etc. My AV and Firewall is up to date. I regularly check
>> MSCONFIG, Event Viewer, Services and now SFC, I clean out Temp files,
>> Caches etc. I regularly run CHKDSK and Defrag. All of this
>> time-consuming s**t I go through just to have a smooth, fast computer
>> that I can do WORK on.
>> Suggestions would be helpful.
>
>
> Sorry, it's the end of the thread as far as I'm concerned. We apparently
> disagree on a number of fundamental issues, and that's fine with me.
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
- Next message: Scott: "Re: Dual Boot Possibility"
- Previous message: Brad: "Programs or links that start running automatically"
- In reply to: Ken Blake: "Re: Alternatives to re-installing XP Home"
- Next in thread: Bill: "Re: Alternatives to re-installing XP Home"
- Reply: Bill: "Re: Alternatives to re-installing XP Home"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
