Do we ever need to format/install. . .

Can we keep Vista healthy enough, after years of use, to keep running
optimally by cleaning, defragging etc. without needing to format/re-install
Vista? Seems that was the norm under Win 98 but is frowned upon in Xp and
Vista. Trying to see if I'm reading ya'll correctly.
--

Windows Vista Home Premium 64-BIT SP1
Intel Core 2 Duo CPU T5550 @ 1.83GHz
4.00 GB RAM
300 GB HDD

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 21:48:52 -0400, "Ed H"
<> wrote:

>Can we keep Vista healthy enough, after years of use, to keep running
>optimally by cleaning, defragging etc. without needing to format/re-install
>Vista? Seems that was the norm under Win 98 but is frowned upon in Xp and
>Vista. Trying to see if I'm reading ya'll correctly.

Take good care of your system you should never have to reinstall. I
ran XP for almost 7 years without ever reinstalling.

HOWEVER: I regularly make backups, and have needed to use a backup
once or twice when System Restore wouldn't do what I wanted it to do.

If you don't have an external drive and a good imaging program
(Acronis True Image is currently the most recommended, and I concru),
get both.

Thank you Paul. Yes, I use Image for Windows (Terabyte) and love it. But
that seems to be part of my question. I keep my images up to date but wonder
if I'm just saving a lot of bad registry items, orphaned files etc. that
cause systems to run poorly with time ???
--

Windows Vista Home Premium 64-BIT SP1
Intel Core 2 Duo CPU T5550 @ 1.83GHz
4.00 GB RAM
300 GB HDD


"Paul Montgomery" <> wrote in message
news...
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 21:48:52 -0400, "Ed H"
> <> wrote:
>
>>Can we keep Vista healthy enough, after years of use, to keep running
>>optimally by cleaning, defragging etc. without needing to
>>format/re-install
>>Vista? Seems that was the norm under Win 98 but is frowned upon in Xp and
>>Vista. Trying to see if I'm reading ya'll correctly.
>
> Take good care of your system you should never have to reinstall. I
> ran XP for almost 7 years without ever reinstalling.
>
> HOWEVER: I regularly make backups, and have needed to use a backup
> once or twice when System Restore wouldn't do what I wanted it to do.
>
> If you don't have an external drive and a good imaging program
> (Acronis True Image is currently the most recommended, and I concru),
> get both.

Paul Montgomery wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 21:48:52 -0400, "Ed H"
> <> wrote:
>
>> Can we keep Vista healthy enough, after years of use, to keep running
>> optimally by cleaning, defragging etc. without needing to format/re-install
>> Vista? Seems that was the norm under Win 98 but is frowned upon in Xp and
>> Vista. Trying to see if I'm reading ya'll correctly.
>
> Take good care of your system you should never have to reinstall. I
> ran XP for almost 7 years without ever reinstalling.
>
> HOWEVER: I regularly make backups, and have needed to use a backup
> once or twice when System Restore wouldn't do what I wanted it to do.
>
> If you don't have an external drive and a good imaging program
> (Acronis True Image is currently the most recommended, and I concru),
> get both.


Don't you believe anything Paul Montgomery a sissy and a sack of crap
has to say.

Ed H wrote:
> Thank you Paul. Yes, I use Image for Windows (Terabyte) and love it. But
> that seems to be part of my question. I keep my images up to date but
> wonder if I'm just saving a lot of bad registry items, orphaned files
> etc. that cause systems to run poorly with time ???

Don't you believe anything Paul Montgomery a sissy and a sack of crap
has to say.

Never had to do it with Win98, I see no reason why I'd have to with Vista.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"Ed H" <> wrote in message
news:u1CqqjP%...
> Can we keep Vista healthy enough, after years of use, to keep running
> optimally by cleaning, defragging etc. without needing to
> format/re-install Vista? Seems that was the norm under Win 98 but is
> frowned upon in Xp and Vista. Trying to see if I'm reading ya'll
> correctly.
> --
>
> Windows Vista Home Premium 64-BIT SP1
> Intel Core 2 Duo CPU T5550 @ 1.83GHz
> 4.00 GB RAM
> 300 GB HDD
>
>

On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 22:00:14 -0400, "Ed H"
<> wrote:

>Thank you Paul. Yes, I use Image for Windows (Terabyte) and love it. But
>that seems to be part of my question. I keep my images up to date but wonder
>if I'm just saving a lot of bad registry items, orphaned files etc. that
>cause systems to run poorly with time ???

Don't worry about the registry. If the system is working OK, it
doesn't matter how many "bad" items or orphanded files exist. If
something gets whacked in the registry, a System Restore will almost
always (always has been my case) fix the problem at the moment.

And do NOT use registry cleaners. The aren't needed, and the
possibility of having one mess up your registry is too high to make
the risk worth taking.

Like I said: keep your system clean with regular maintenance and
attendion to detail and make regular backups. You'll be fine.

If you are really worried that a backup might contain problems, keep a
really old one available as a "backup" backup just to check things
out.

I was proponent of reformatting with XP every 3-4 years, but I haven'
had Vista that long.. Good question

--
Brian the King

On Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:36:53 -0500, Paul Montgomery
<> wrote:

>On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 22:00:14 -0400, "Ed H"
><> wrote:
>
>>Thank you Paul. Yes, I use Image for Windows (Terabyte) and love it. But
>>that seems to be part of my question. I keep my images up to date but wonder
>>if I'm just saving a lot of bad registry items, orphaned files etc. that
>>cause systems to run poorly with time ???
>
>Don't worry about the registry.

What totally lame advice. The Registry is Windows central database
that directs EVERYTHING Vista does and how it interacts with your
hardware and software.

>If the system is working OK, it
>doesn't matter how many "bad" items or orphanded files exist.

Sure, don't worry. They told that to the people in the second World
Trade Center Tower. Everything is fine, go back to your offices, don't
worry. Bad items and orphaned files add clutter. This makes the
Registry larger. Windows is already such a pack rat adding to the
clutter by having hundreds maybe thousands of useless lines in the
Registry is foolish.

>And do NOT use registry cleaners. The aren't needed, and the
>possibility of having one mess up your registry is too high to make
>the risk worth taking.

Total baloney. A Registry Cleaner USED PROPERLY can be useful. Funny,
but nearly every MS fanboy is dead set against Registry Cleaners and
they always wail against them without ever documenting the horror
stories they claim.
>
>Like I said: keep your system clean with regular maintenance and
>attendion to detail and make regular backups. You'll be fine.

You suggesting soap and water? No, then you just flip flopped. If
you're dead set against Registry Cleaners, how are YOU cleaning your
system? Let me guess, you're one of those nuts that pretends he knows
what every single line in his Registry does, all the tens of thousands
of lines in a typical Registry and you adjust manually. Sure you do.
Sure. Excuse me if I giggle.

We won't know the answer to your question until the years have passed!!!
Re-read your question, lol.
--
Mick Murphy - Qld - Australia


"Ed H" wrote:

> Can we keep Vista healthy enough, after years of use, to keep running
> optimally by cleaning, defragging etc. without needing to format/re-install
> Vista? Seems that was the norm under Win 98 but is frowned upon in Xp and
> Vista. Trying to see if I'm reading ya'll correctly.
> --
>
> Windows Vista Home Premium 64-BIT SP1
> Intel Core 2 Duo CPU T5550 @ 1.83GHz
> 4.00 GB RAM
> 300 GB HDD
>
>
>