>>> There is still a lot of work reinstalling apps and restoring data from the external hard drive but it's great being past this first step.
>>
>>Depending on what you're using, most of the decent apps don't need registry at all. From my last six reinstalls, the only lousy players are Office, SQL server and Toad (because it's written in dot net, I guess). The rest of the stuff I use (Libre Office, Gimp, Mozilla's stuff, e editor, LD dictionary and a few more) either finds the registration on disk or doesn't need one. I regularly copy everything (I mean everything, not just what M$ decides we're allowed to see) from my old profile to the new one and then start launching apps.
>
>same here: if I need a new tool, I actively search for USB-installable versions, as those are xCopy portable. And I have a slowly growing xCopy Dir with my favorite tools
>
>>
>>Even Fox doesn't really need the registry, except for the settings we already know (and I've exported the .reg file for that). It's the stuff it borrowed from the rest of M$ (mostly XML related) that won't run without proper install, which is why I do get it properly reinstalled, as this is an important part of the GUI.
>>
>>The reinstall woes are among the main reasons why I don't bother installing Office anymore.
>
>With Office my main beef is the always growing need for more CPU speed and the - at least in part - unneccessary reshuffling of GUI elements. Office 97 is nice and fast in VM even on an old clunker or Atom (although Excel 2 and IV and same level WinWord are even faster, 97 is best compromize), even if nowadays I can access newer Office legally from many HW boxes via the VM's where the license is legally installed. Ease of installing illegal versions is the flip side eating into profits - I do understand that there is a problem, sometimes found even in honour-driven US military - but for me the licensing model up to Office97 prof was best: I can install from "my" CD using my keys on any hard or soft box. So I keep those install files and the key ready and don't misuse it - but hate being forced to jump through hoops in newer versions to use the functionality I really did pay for. Starting with Office XP it became a PITA, which is only now bearable via having dedicated VM's for those 2 installs allowed to me. I probably will install one of the new Office versions for the PDF / XML options, but only becasue VM's have arrived - and even then I don't expect to use them as regularly as the 15 year old stuff. Tried Openoffice halfheartedly (as many send me MS files) and preferred to stay in 97 or XP to read in if necessary. Should tuck the chin in and try Libre for 3 months...

Of course, one reason that folks often stay with MS Office is for sake of compatibility. Compatibility -- what compatibility? Newer versions usually default to mode that creates formats unreadable in older versions. When you try to "downgrade" you often lose much of the formatting -- even if you happen to choose format (e.g. Word97) that has certain features but you lose some of the formatting anyway. In the cases where the formatting seems to come through OK -- the resulting document can't be edited without having "side effects" -- forcing you to go through the document and re-formatting everything so that it comes out OK. It's also annoying that often stylesheet formatting gets "in-lined" so now it's nearly impossible to maintain consistent formatting if you're switching between different versions of Office (one might "why is that ever a concern? Why even downgrade?" -- ever try collaborating with folks, and each person has different version?). And of course, there's the situation where certain "legacy" formats aren't supported anymore -- ever come across old Word documents that can't be opened by latest edition of Word? I have -- and it occurs with enough frequency to be annoying. So one might ask... why stick with MS Office?

Although compatibility with LibreOffice isn't 100%, I've noticed that it's not any worse than with MS Office.