XP computer has become slow since fresh install of sp2 home in late 2004.
NAV was causing slow startups, so replaced with KAV (Kaspersky AV) less than a year ago. KAV allows some parts of
startup scan to delayed (or something that gets the computer working sooner).

KAv left some startup lag, and I don't think this has changed since installing KAV.


However, often starting an app or just doing some kind of file move in explorer.exe will cause everything to bog down.
Have to wait a few minutes for computer to reawaken. I think *most but not all* of this out-to-lunch behavior began
since the regular winupdate to IE7.

Belarc found one patch not correctly installed (WindowsXP-KB902400-x86-ENU.exe MS05-051 Vulnerabilities in MSDTC
and COM+ Could Allow Remote Code Execution 902400). So I reinstalled as recommended, and Belarc now says all
patches are ok.

I found urlblaze red-listed in BHO list in Spybot. (I don't know why urlblaze didn't show in Spybot's regular scan list.) I
used Spybot to remove usmon.dll

Have Ad-aware and Win Defender (installed since ms bought Giant Antispyware) and KAV has antispyware and/or
process-monitoring type components. Regular scans have found nothing else.

i've disabled some automatic processes: obvious unused processes, such as the mp3 or ipod whatever portable player
hookup, and I think there was a wifi-related service. But, I did this months before IE7, so I don't think i've disabled
something that's causing these "vacations".

Returning to the subject line of this post, how frequently does xp need reinstalling?
Win9x tends to need reinstall every couple years. Is winxp pretty much the same? i'd like to slipstream (presumably
including xp patches since sp2 can be slipstreamed?) but the xp computer lacks a cd burner. Can I collect the iso files on
the xp per slipstream instructions, then burn using the Win9x's CDRW drive?

thanks..

<8os.8@invalid.nomail> wrote:

> Returning to the subject line of this post, how frequently does xp
> need reinstalling?

Unless the system is infested by malware, there is no need to re-install.
All of my systems still run with their original WinXP installations
except those being upgraded from XP Home to XP Pro meanwhile - fast and
boring stable.

> Win9x tends to need reinstall every couple years.

Not true. I still run a Win98 system with its original installation,
upgraded to Win98SE in 1999. Boring stable w/o any loss of performance.

--
d-d

<8os.8@invalid.nomail> wrote in message
news:Xns98EAD548C8C89N8@207.46.248.16...
>
> Returning to the subject line of this post, how frequently does xp need
> reinstalling?
> Win9x tends to need reinstall every couple years. Is winxp pretty much the
> same? i'd like to slipstream (presumably
> including xp patches since sp2 can be slipstreamed?) but the xp computer
> lacks a cd burner. Can I collect the iso files on
> the xp per slipstream instructions, then burn using the Win9x's CDRW
> drive?
>
> thanks..
Time has nothing to do with the frequency of reinstalling XP. You only
reinstall when there is no other way to fix what you have allowed to happen.

The various versions of Win9x are different animals. However, I never
reinstalled Win95 or Win98SE. I never installed ME because quite frankly it
seemed to me to dead on arrival.
Jim

8os.8@invalid.nomail wrote:
> XP computer has become slow since fresh install of sp2 home in late 2004.
> NAV was causing slow startups, so replaced with KAV (Kaspersky AV) less than a year ago. KAV allows some parts of
> startup scan to delayed (or something that gets the computer working sooner).
>
> KAv left some startup lag, and I don't think this has changed since installing KAV.
>
>
> However, often starting an app or just doing some kind of file move in explorer.exe will cause everything to bog down.
> Have to wait a few minutes for computer to reawaken. I think *most but not all* of this out-to-lunch behavior began
> since the regular winupdate to IE7.
>
> Belarc found one patch not correctly installed (WindowsXP-KB902400-x86-ENU.exe MS05-051 Vulnerabilities in MSDTC
> and COM+ Could Allow Remote Code Execution 902400). So I reinstalled as recommended, and Belarc now says all
> patches are ok.
>
> I found urlblaze red-listed in BHO list in Spybot. (I don't know why urlblaze didn't show in Spybot's regular scan list.) I
> used Spybot to remove usmon.dll
>
> Have Ad-aware and Win Defender (installed since ms bought Giant Antispyware) and KAV has antispyware and/or
> process-monitoring type components. Regular scans have found nothing else.
>
> i've disabled some automatic processes: obvious unused processes, such as the mp3 or ipod whatever portable player
> hookup, and I think there was a wifi-related service. But, I did this months before IE7, so I don't think i've disabled
> something that's causing these "vacations".
>
> Returning to the subject line of this post, how frequently does xp need reinstalling?


If properly maintained, only after a catastrophic hard drive failure.


> Win9x tends to need reinstall every couple years.


Again, not if properly maintained. When properly maintained, even a
Win3.x or Win9x installation would last for many years.


Is winxp pretty much the same?


Not even close, in most regards. Comparing WinXP to Win9x is a lot
like comparing a Lexus to a Yugo -- any similarities are entirely
superficial and mostly coincidental.


> i'd like to slipstream (presumably
> including xp patches since sp2 can be slipstreamed?) but the xp computer lacks a cd burner. Can I collect the iso files on
> the xp per slipstream instructions, then burn using the Win9x's CDRW drive?
>

No, you'll need to create the slip-streamed CD on a WinXP machine.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. -Bertrand Russell