I have a 4-5 year old PC running Windows XP for software development at work. It struggles to run all development tools I need at the same time. Management feels I need to reimage my computer to "speed it up". The last time it was imaged was about 3 years ago.
What resources books, websites, blogs, articles, etc are out there that supports/debunks this well known belief that reimaging an old PC running Windows XP will make it faster once again?
A resource I remember reading is from Lifehacker.com:
UPDATE: I just wanted to add that the PC runs 1-2 programs (SQL Management Studio and Visual Studio 2008) just fine, but having more programs open (say Outlook or Chrome) significantly brings down the performance. It's obvious to me that the machines are old and outdated. They have never been upgraded as far as I know.
Update #2: Further description of the situation: the PC isn't cluttered with toolbars, plugins, and/or widgets from the web. The startup folder is empty, every single program that is installed, is used for development. It is not a play computer, every program has it's purpose/use.
So, for the PCs/workstations out there that is used properly for work/development, what evidence/resources out there point to support/debunk that reimaging a work PC actually makes it faster? If management's plan is to do this for every single PC that is 'slow', is it really worth the time? Imagine there's not just 1, but 10, 50, 100, or even 500 PCs that are like this. Obviously it's impossible to say that every PC install is squeaky clean already or is only used for 'work'. Maybe then, reimaging is the default thing to do as a first step before replacing the PC?