Maintaining Windows XP System Performance?

jerud wonders: "I assume that most people on Slashdot are forced to, at some point, touch Windows. Further, I assume that many of them are forced to administer Windows boxes. I am in the unfortunate situation of using Windows for about 90% of my tasks, due to the nature of my job. As a firm believer in 'if it isn't broke don't fix it', I've delayed moving to XP for just about as long as possible, holding onto my Windows 2000 installation, while my brother spent a lot of time complaining about the XP issues he dealt with, at work. Finally, I made the transition and, low and behold, it didn't seem to bad. In fact, there were a few things that I really liked. Now, a few years later I have quite a few XP machines and they all share the same problem: over time they have slowed so noticeably that they have made even the most solid configurations run like they were made in 1999. Is there any regular treatment out there that can minimize this kind of system degradation?"

"Solid practices are in use on most of these machines, or at least the ones that are completely under my control. Even with that, I know these machines are much slower now then when I bought them. I really don't want to spend two weekends every year starting over from scratch, simply because thats the only way to reclaim performance."

Re-install from scratch

[SpaceLifeForm]

Otherwise, it will never be clean.

And that includes re-formatting the partition.

Re:A problem I had recently

[BusDriver]

I agree.

To me the biggest way to put the brakes on a new system is to install Anti-Virus software. Also programs that install new associations or things in the right-click context menu don't help much either.

Tim

I Detect A Conspiracy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft built the gradual slowdown into Windows on purpose. When the machine slows, it convinces the average user that they need a new computer. They upgrade unknowingly, and pay the Micro$oft tax once more.

Re:I have the same feeling

[NanoGator]

"My Dell laptop seemed full of crud. I know that I had installed quite a few systems just to test them over the first year that I had the laptop. And now it was showing mysterious symptoms - Programs would seem to just hang when I started them. The responsiveness seemed down."

Ditto. I've basically gotten in the habit of reinstalling every 6 months to a year or so. I don't have problems with Windows stability, but the 'spring cleaning' bit is something I am not thrilled with at all. I have done a few things to minimize the down time, though:

1. I maintain a drive letter on every install of Windows I use. Either I format a partition to that drive letter, or I use the dos 'subst.exe' command to make the drive letter based on a folder. (depends on if I have a free partition or not.)

2. Since I have a constant drive letter, I keep folder around that has copies of the software I use. Most of the apps I use don't need to muck with the registry to be installed, so I can just fire up the app right away. For other apps like Office, I keep the installer around as well.

3. I have a 'Shortcuts' folder where I put shortcuts to these apps. When Windows is done installing, I set up the quicklaunch bar to look in that folder. (I rarely use the Start Menu.)

4. I'm using GMail now so my email's never interrupted.

5. Since I have so much giggage on my computer, I usually keep 10-20 gigs of partition space around so that when I do reinstall Windows, I can install it to that partition instead of having to blow away what I have. In an 'oh shit!' emergency, I can get it going again. (funny, I haven't needed that in a while.. hopefully I didn't just jinx myself.)

6. I also keep a running tally of drivers I need on this partition. Once I need the scanner or something, getting it going doesn't take long because I know where I kept my files.

The added benefit of my approach here is that I can mirror this setup to my laptop or to a new computer just by getting things hooked up to the network. Plus it simplifies backups by a considerable margin.

Re:Run as a Non-admin User

[Johnno74]

I'll second that. As well as the regular cleanups advocated elsewhere on this story (defrag (inc registry), prune startup crap with autoruns) you will accumulate a lot less crap if you run as non-admin.

I ripped this quote from somewhere...
        START
              Q. Why is Windows so insecure?
              A. Because everyone runs as Administrator.

              Q. Why does everyone run as Administrator (even when they know better)?
              A. Because they don't understand security and are afraid they will be prevented from doing things.

              Q. Why don't they understand security?
              A. Because they run as Administrator, bypassing all security.
        LOOP TO START

This [msdn.com] microsoftie blog has lots of good info about running as non-admin. It can be painful to switch, but once you do, you won't regret it.

Re:I have the same feeling

[PhilHibbs]

[Note 1 that in all of this, I have been using virus protection, adware protection, software firewalls, and up-todate patches]

Well, there's your problem. Anti-virus and active adware protection on server machines can't be a good idea. How's it going to get a virus? It's a server, not a user's email and browsing machine. Even my own WinXP laptop has been running for 18 months with no anti-virus and I've had not a single incident. Anti-virus is grossly over-rated.

Self-destruction is a "feature".

[Futurepower(R)]

We use Startup Monitor and ZoneAlarm Security Suite software firewall. The newest ZA pops up a window the first time anything suspicious happens. It's a big problem convincing users to report the ZA popups, but if they do, Windows is much safer.

However, it's a losing battle. The problem is that Microsoft makes more money if its operating systems self-destruct. What you call "vulnerabilities" billionaires call "maximizing shareholder value".

If rich people sold good operating systems, poor people would not buy the next upgrade.

Using an operating system is like having a partner in your business. If it is a Microsoft OS, your "partners" want some things that are bad for you. If you use Linux or BSD, you can breathe a huge sigh of relief; your partners want what you want.

It's absurd that governments of countries use Microsoft products. It's even absurd that state governments in the U.S. use Microsoft products. The U.S. federal government spends more money on world-wide surveillance than any country in the history of the world. Exploiting computer systems is now one of the biggest new frontiers in surveillance.

The U.S. government's Echelon [echelonwatch.org] surveillance [fas.org] system [hiwaay.net] watches everyone all the time. (Echelon quote: "Since the close of World War II, the US intelligence agencies have developed a consistent record of trampling the rights and liberties of the American people.")

The biggest discretionary expense of the U.S. government is the cost [nationalpriorities.org] of war [informatio...house.info]. The president and the vice-president of the U.S. are people who themselves and their families and friends made their money through oil and weapons. Is it any wonder that the price of oil is so high and we have war?

When a country uses Microsoft operating systems, it effectively has the U.S. government as one of its partners. Given the present climate of corruption and conflict of interest and adversarial behavior and using war as a justification for anything, why do countries want the U.S. government and U.S. billionaires as partners?

If volunteers can make a secure operating system [openbsd.org] ("Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 8 years!") is it difficult to believe that the amazing number of vulnerabilities we've seen in Windows are deliberately allowed?