Earlier versions were more likely to blow up and require reinstallation. At least that was my experience until I started with Windows 7.
Since then only hardware failures have prompted a reinstall. Actually, even replacing a motherboard didn't require it. The new one was very similar to one that just stopped working and a disk transplant did the trick.
There are still plenty of people using XP, considering it to be the best version ever. These people often report that they have to reinstall Windows.
Of course, some people make life harder for themselves by throwing things like CCleaner at their systems. People use it because it is there and makes extravagant promises. Were it commercial software that you had to pay for, it might well come under closer scrutiny.
After reading Leo's messages on that particular issue, I stopped playing silly buggers.
I have experienced the same problem and am currently re-installing Windows for what feels like the 1,000th time. Before anyone accuses me of being careless or something, I have over twenty-five years experience in IT and, although not as clever as Leo, am generally regarded as an expert in IT and PC matters.
My 'problem' is that I 'really use' my PC. My partner complains I have too many programs installed. I try new programs, I experiment with different settings, although am always careful to install and uninstall the 'proper' way. For example, I avoid editing the Registry, etc. I'm sure I can't be alone in this - as a heavy PC user. In fact, the activity on this forum seems to be largely from people who are playing around with configuration settings in DO, trying out new things. Eventually you find you have gone too far (well, I do...) and need to uninstall and then re-install.
Leo, I believe you of course, but am amazed that you haven't had to re-install Windows.
Whether this idea of installing portable app versions of programs will resolve this problem is moot. but I am tempted to give it a try. After all, what have I got to lose, as I seem to have to re-install Windows every few months anyway.
I recommend using a virtual machine for trying out programs and any =drastic changes. That way you only need to keep/apply the things that work.
There is very good, free virtual machine software out there. It's not a technology that's reserved for business or "pro" users anymore.
Changing configuration settings in Opus (or just about anything else) should never do anything so drastic that you have to re-install the entire operating system. You'd normally just need to change the settings back to how they were, or unininstall/re-install the program in question.
I'm amazed people are still having to re-install windows regularly so long after the Win9x days.
It won't change anything, at least in the case of Opus. Why would it? All portable mode gives you, at least with Opus, is a copy that you can carry around on a USB drive. If you don't want to do that, don't waste your time as it won't gain you anything else.
If your machine is hosed so badly that it needs reinstalling, I'd work out how/why it got so bad, to avoid the same thing happening again. (It's hard to give advice about that without knowing the particulars of the problem(s) that keep prompting y'all to reinstall, although we don't have the resources to be a general PC Support Centre anyway. But you can post in the CoffeeShop area if you want advice from us & other forum members about diagnosing/solving problems.) Understanding the problem is more important than throwing random voodoo at the problem, like switching to portable installers.
Remember that even a "portable" version of something can modify the registry etc.
Time and complexity by going off the beaten path.
Backing up and transferring your Opus config between machines/installs is already simple, even with a normally installed version. In both cases, it is just a directory that you need to copy. In the installed case, there is a wizard which can back it up to a zip file for you, making things even simpler.
Full system-drive backups are another very useful thing. If I do find my system completely hosed by something I (or some software) did, I can always go back to how things were last night because I've got Windows set to do a disk-image backup every day. That's built-into Windows and only some disk space (which is cheap these days; cheaper than time).
There's nothing wrong with using a restore point if something goes horribly wrong. That's another thing (with the other safety nets I mention above) which should mean you'll only need to re-install if you're really unlucky. (Which can happen, but if it's happening to lots of people, regularly, then I think something is wrong.)
I often wonder that myself.
CCleaner is something I might run when there is a problem, but not pre-emptively. I haven't used it myself and don't have a strong opinion on it in particular -- and I hear it is one of the better tools in this category -- but it's not something I or anyone I know has needed to use to keep a machine stable.
Running something that changes the registry and has to make guess about other program's registry usage can only cause problems when things are running fine. Why use it, unless there is a problem? That's trying to fix something that isn't broken.
Registry "bloat" is almost completely a myth on modern versions of Windows, too. It's almost always irrelevant.
Sandboxie seems a good piece of software, but I'd say it is for running applications that you do not trust to have full access to the machine. My solution to that is to not run anything I don't trust in the first place. I can't think why I would want to run a program I didn't trust, or what problems I might run into that would not usually be picked up by anti-virus/anti-spyware tools. I'm sure there are rare cases where that level of paranoia has saved people, but in every other case it has just made things more complex and time-consuming, for nothing.
That's very different. They've designed their operating systems, APIs and app-deployment mechanisms around the concept of isolated applications. It's a good idea. But it is not how Windows, or the software that runs on Windows, was designed to work, and it is impossible to retrofit that idea to Windows. (Except by doing with Microsoft are doing with Metro-style apps in Windows 8, but really that is a new OS which runs side-by-side with Windows, not a change to Windows itself, and normal desktop apps are completely unchanged.)
True for some apps, but not for Opus. Your configuration is stored in a single directory, either way.
No insult was intended. This is just how I see it, and I'm trying to explain that if a system fails it's better to work out what caused the failure than to go to a lot of complexity doing things differently because they might solve the problem.
I'm guessing people who were frequently reinstalling Windows, and now do this, still find their machines get in the same kind of state after a while?
It's always a trade-off, but I don't see that we are blocking anyone from doing anything that useful.
True, and some apps have might more invasive DRM than Opus. It's a balance. We change things sometimes (like recently enabling people to use portable TrueCrypt drives etc.) but only when there's a clear technical problem which needs to be solved.
What's the actual issue which a HDD install causes that a HDD-based "portable" install would avoid?
Or, to put the question another way, what is it that you think our installer does which is potentially harmful and that someone might want to avoid? (Other than placing a shortcut icon on the desktop. )
