Concerns about defrag's effect on hd

[Ken Blake, MVP]

BTW I know six people who've had to do clean installs of their XP in the
first year they had it...that doesn't count all who have mentioned it on the
microsoft.ngs.

My guess is that you know six people who did clean reinstallations of
Windows XP in the first year they had it. I doubt very much that they
"had to."

Unfortunately, many people do clean reinstallations as a substitute
for doing even the most minor troubleshooting. They've learned this
from the technical support people at many of the larger OEMs. Their
solution to almost any problem they don't quickly know the answer to
is "reformat and reinstall." That's the perfect solution for them. It
gets you off the phone quickly, it almost always works, and it doesn't
require them to do any real troubleshooting (a skill that most of them
obviously don't possess in any great degree).

I've seen at least a couple of people here in the newsgroups who "had
to" reinstall Windows because their Task Bar had "inexplicably" moved
to the top of their screen.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

<snipped thread>
To see the thread in its entiritey:
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...34902b72884?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#15f1b34902b72884

BTW I know six people who've had to do clean installs of their XP
in the first year they had it...that doesn't count all who have
mentioned it on the microsoft.ngs.

My guess is that you know six people who did clean reinstallations
of Windows XP in the first year they had it. I doubt very much that
they "had to."

Unfortunately, many people do clean reinstallations as a substitute
for doing even the most minor troubleshooting. They've learned this
from the technical support people at many of the larger OEMs. Their
solution to almost any problem they don't quickly know the answer to
is "reformat and reinstall." That's the perfect solution for them.
It gets you off the phone quickly, it almost always works, and it
doesn't require them to do any real troubleshooting (a skill that
most of them obviously don't possess in any great degree).

I've seen at least a couple of people here in the newsgroups who
"had to" reinstall Windows because their Task Bar had
"inexplicably" moved to the top of their screen.

Agreed.

As I said earlier...

Clean installs are rarely *actually* necessary...

Hardware issues (defective hard drives come to mind...) might create the
need for a clean install otherwise it is likely user error/user assumption.
Even the former is more of a lack of knowledge/proper maintenance than
an actual reason to perform a clean install - as proper backups/imaging
as well as proper computer maintenance would have likely warned of the
issue(s) and allowed the user to repair the hardware and restore their
system without a clean installation.

VERY seldom is it necessary to perform a clean installation of Windows
XP. In some cases, it may be easier - might even be faster - but seldom
is it necessary. Anyone who tells you differently is practicing the
"otherwise' found in the previous paragraph.

 

[Laughingstar~*]

I wouldn't do it for the last rationale you mentioned, Ken. But I was
working with MS Support since last June, and some changes made in t he
interim made things worse. I believe what you said though. I had to remind
the "Level I" and "Level II" techs many times of things that should or
should not be done...each time I was "correct." The last bloke knew what he
was doing, but had to start and stop a few times, but that was
understandable. All including their Manager !!! saw areas to prove the XP
Pro had corrupted. I have NO idea how, but there's not much one can do when
open windows are going by like a faded out slide show, and will not close.
;0-

thanks though. I understand your rationale. BTW the first time was in the
first 9 months (this business desktop will be 2 in October).

 

[Laughingstar~*]

I don't get it, and don't open links randomly -- thank y ou.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

I don't get it, and don't open links randomly -- thank y ou.

You don't get what?
Ah - you are a top-reader (much less a top poster)...

Scroll down the entire response (not attached here). The link I put at the
top is the Google Groups archive of this conversation
(thread/posting/whatever you want to call it.)

If you look - I snipped much of the conversation that would have nothing to
do with my response. I put a linkto the entire thread for anyone in the
future who came across it and wondered what started my response.

I left the parts that I felt should remain and put my response at the
bottom... You'd have to actually scroll down to the bottom to read the
response I put. I will respond again with NO quoted text so you won't miss
it in a moment...

For you --> I left only one line above so you would not have to scroll much
in this response...

For you I will also explain how to get to the link I posted previously on
your own - so it is not some random link as you called it...

You know what Google is - I suppose - go there.
(For everyone else: http://www.google.com/ )

When you get to the main page (Google) look towards the upper left of the
page contents. There you will see links like:
Web Images Video News Maps Gmail more
Click on "More" and choose "Groups"...

You are now on Google Groups.

Google Groups contains the world's most comprehensive archive of Usenet
postings, dating back to 1981. Google Groups eliminates the need for a
newsreader and lets you search this archive the same way you'd search on the
web. You can also use Google Groups to post your own comments to an existing
Usenet newsgroup.

Now that you are on Google Groups - you can search and find your posting,
answers to previous posting, etc. In this case I will demonstrate its use
by finding THIS conversation - which is the liknk I posted before that you
'feared'...

First - I choose to do an "Advanced Groups Search" --> which is a link to
the right of the "Google Groups" search input area.
In the new page - I decided to enter two pieces of information to narrow my
search...

Group: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
Author: Laughingstar

Everything else I left DEFAULT... And I clicked on the "Google Search"
(*NOT* "Lookup Message").

The first returned result is:
*****
Concerns about defrag's effect on hd
Group: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general

Laughingstar~* (e-mail address removed)
No, I had to do the clean install only once, b/c the XP Pro became
corrupted--as identified and concurred with by Level I microsoft
technologists, and their managers. HP (computer mfgr) Business
Computers support was in on this ...

Aug 15 by Laughingstar~* - 24 messages - 8 authors
*****
Which links to:
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...1ad15709344?lnk=st&q=&rnum=1#e019b1ad15709344

Which is slightly different than the link I sent before because the search
that returned the results was not EXACTLY the way I did it before.
However - it still links to the entire conversation - which this response
will soon be a part of.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

I don't get it, and don't open links randomly -- thank you.

Assuming you didn't *get* the last response because you did not understand
my response was at the bottom of the ordered conversation... Here is the
response... (I explained the 'link you feared' in my other response.)

As I said earlier...

Clean installs are rarely *actually* necessary...

Hardware issues (defective hard drives come to mind...) might
create the need for a clean install otherwise it is likely user
error/user assumption.
Even the former is more of a lack of knowledge/proper maintenance
than an actual reason to perform a clean install - as proper
backups/imaging as well as proper computer maintenance would have
likely warned of the issue(s) and allowed the user to repair the
hardware and restore their system without a clean installation.

VERY seldom is it necessary to perform a clean installation of
Windows XP. In some cases, it may be easier - might even be
faster - but seldom is it necessary. Anyone who tells you
differently is practicing the "otherwise' found in the previous
paragraph.

So - what part of that - if I am incorrectly assuming you did not scroll
down to read - do you 'not get'?