Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Upgrading to XP from W2K - advantages?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 10:20:58 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

I have got the opportunity to upgrade my PC from W2K Pro to XP Pro.

What are the advantages to wiping the slate clean (HD wise) and
installing XP Pro in place of W2K Pro?

I currently use the PC for gaming, with some Office2K work, the PC
shares a home network via a router with the other PCs still running W2KPro.

tia

Ginga
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 10:28:05 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Gingangooli wrote:
> I have got the opportunity to upgrade my PC from W2K Pro to XP Pro.
>
> What are the advantages to wiping the slate clean (HD wise) and
> installing XP Pro in place of W2K Pro?
>
> I currently use the PC for gaming, with some Office2K work, the PC
> shares a home network via a router with the other PCs still running W2KPro.
>
> tia
>
> Ginga

BTW...Ive read:
http://www.microsoft.com/uk/windows/editions/xp-pro/cha...

But Im looking for user-type feedback, positive and negative.

Ginga
Anonymous
February 3, 2005 10:28:06 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Upgrade first. There is no reason to do a clean install unless you have
problems afterwards. This is especially true of laptops because laptops
usually have special device drivers that you do not want to blow away.

Back up the system first and scan for spyware and viruses.

The next step should be to boot into W2k, insert the XP Pro cd, and then run
the upgrade advisor. That will identify incompatible programs that need to
be removed or updated and device drivers that need to be updated to their XP
versions.

Check the computer manufacturer's website for information about XP
compatibility.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"Gingangooli" <aintusingemail@thisplace.net> wrote in message
news:eahQcZiCFHA.3652@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Gingangooli wrote:
>> I have got the opportunity to upgrade my PC from W2K Pro to XP Pro.
>>
>> What are the advantages to wiping the slate clean (HD wise) and
>> installing XP Pro in place of W2K Pro?
>>
>> I currently use the PC for gaming, with some Office2K work, the PC shares
>> a home network via a router with the other PCs still running W2KPro.
>>
>> tia
>>
>> Ginga
>
> BTW...Ive read:
> http://www.microsoft.com/uk/windows/editions/xp-pro/cha...
>
> But Im looking for user-type feedback, positive and negative.
>
> Ginga
Related resources
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 2:42:25 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

You're not upgrading. Per post text, you're doing a "clean" install. Doing
compatability checks is essential, but "clean" install formats HD
automatically, all progs will have to be re-installed. Set aside a full day
to do this exercise, 'cos it takes 2 hours to install XP, another 2 hours or
more to d/l and install SP2 and later updates - before you even load any
progs!
Good Luck! Len.
"Gingangooli" <aintusingemail@thisplace.net> wrote in message
news:eahQcZiCFHA.3652@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Gingangooli wrote:
>> I have got the opportunity to upgrade my PC from W2K Pro to XP Pro.
>>
>> What are the advantages to wiping the slate clean (HD wise) and
>> installing XP Pro in place of W2K Pro?
>>
>> I currently use the PC for gaming, with some Office2K work, the PC shares
>> a home network via a router with the other PCs still running W2KPro.
>>
>> tia
>>
>> Ginga
>
> BTW...Ive read:
> http://www.microsoft.com/uk/windows/editions/xp-pro/cha...
>
> But Im looking for user-type feedback, positive and negative.
>
> Ginga
Anonymous
February 4, 2005 6:11:42 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Hi, Ginga.

I've never regretted upgrading from Win2K to WinXP Pro on the day it came
out in 2001! ;<) But I do very little gaming and don't have a network or
other users on my computer.

If your WinXP CD-ROM is a current version, it will have SP2 integrated into
it and the whole process should take no more than an hour or two, including
formatting your HD. It's a good idea to unplug unnecessary peripherals
before you begin. Especially any HD with an Active (bootable) primary
partition on it; if Setup detects an Active partition on any HD, it will let
that keep drive letter C:, assigning another letter (G:?) to your System
(and Boot?) volume - and that can't be changed without starting over.

If you upgrade from Win2K, your boot folder will inherit the prior name
(\WinNT?), rather than WinXP's default, \Windows. Neither the boot folder
name nor the drive letter will matter to WinXP, but it will almost certainly
confuse you - and all the applications you will install that expect to put
their files on Drive C:.

Upgrades from Win2K to WinXP usually go smoothly, since they both are on the
NT platform, as opposed to upgrades from Win9x/ME, which require all new
drivers and sometimes new versions of software. But a clean install,
including a reformat, clears out the accumulated deadwood and garbage,
making it worth the time to reinstall apps and restore data, in many cases.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
rc@corridor.net
Microsoft Windows MVP

"Gingangooli" <aintusingemail@thisplace.net> wrote in message
news:eLrWeViCFHA.868@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>I have got the opportunity to upgrade my PC from W2K Pro to XP Pro.
>
> What are the advantages to wiping the slate clean (HD wise) and installing
> XP Pro in place of W2K Pro?
>
> I currently use the PC for gaming, with some Office2K work, the PC shares
> a home network via a router with the other PCs still running W2KPro.
>
> tia
>
> Ginga
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 6:57:28 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

R. C. White wrote:
> Hi, Ginga.
>
> I've never regretted upgrading from Win2K to WinXP Pro on the day it
> came out in 2001! ;<) But I do very little gaming and don't have a
> network or other users on my computer.
>
> If your WinXP CD-ROM is a current version, it will have SP2 integrated
> into it and the whole process should take no more than an hour or two,
> including formatting your HD. It's a good idea to unplug unnecessary
> peripherals before you begin. Especially any HD with an Active
> (bootable) primary partition on it; if Setup detects an Active partition
> on any HD, it will let that keep drive letter C:, assigning another
> letter (G:?) to your System (and Boot?) volume - and that can't be
> changed without starting over.
>
> If you upgrade from Win2K, your boot folder will inherit the prior name
> (\WinNT?), rather than WinXP's default, \Windows. Neither the boot
> folder name nor the drive letter will matter to WinXP, but it will
> almost certainly confuse you - and all the applications you will install
> that expect to put their files on Drive C:.
>
> Upgrades from Win2K to WinXP usually go smoothly, since they both are on
> the NT platform, as opposed to upgrades from Win9x/ME, which require all
> new drivers and sometimes new versions of software. But a clean
> install, including a reformat, clears out the accumulated deadwood and
> garbage, making it worth the time to reinstall apps and restore data, in
> many cases.
>
> RC
Thanks for the replies guys.

I will probably go for a clean install, reformatting both my HDs, just
to (as RC said) to clean out all the deadwood.

I have XP SP2 on CD anyway (free with a games mag).. so Im ready for
that bit. Also I would want to stick SP2 on before ANYTHING else.

One last question.... With W2K installation you had the option to set up
the HD as FAT32 or NTFS. I assume that option is also the case with XP?
So which one is better? FAT32 or NTFS?

tia Ginga
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 7:40:43 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

NTFS
Len
"Gingangooli" <aintusingemail@thisplace.net> wrote in message
news:%23F2SDt5CFHA.2608@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> R. C. White wrote:
>> Hi, Ginga.
>>
>> I've never regretted upgrading from Win2K to WinXP Pro on the day it came
>> out in 2001! ;<) But I do very little gaming and don't have a network
>> or other users on my computer.
>>
>> If your WinXP CD-ROM is a current version, it will have SP2 integrated
>> into it and the whole process should take no more than an hour or two,
>> including formatting your HD. It's a good idea to unplug unnecessary
>> peripherals before you begin. Especially any HD with an Active
>> (bootable) primary partition on it; if Setup detects an Active partition
>> on any HD, it will let that keep drive letter C:, assigning another
>> letter (G:?) to your System (and Boot?) volume - and that can't be
>> changed without starting over.
>>
>> If you upgrade from Win2K, your boot folder will inherit the prior name
>> (\WinNT?), rather than WinXP's default, \Windows. Neither the boot
>> folder name nor the drive letter will matter to WinXP, but it will almost
>> certainly confuse you - and all the applications you will install that
>> expect to put their files on Drive C:.
>>
>> Upgrades from Win2K to WinXP usually go smoothly, since they both are on
>> the NT platform, as opposed to upgrades from Win9x/ME, which require all
>> new drivers and sometimes new versions of software. But a clean install,
>> including a reformat, clears out the accumulated deadwood and garbage,
>> making it worth the time to reinstall apps and restore data, in many
>> cases.
>>
>> RC
> Thanks for the replies guys.
>
> I will probably go for a clean install, reformatting both my HDs, just to
> (as RC said) to clean out all the deadwood.
>
> I have XP SP2 on CD anyway (free with a games mag).. so Im ready for that
> bit. Also I would want to stick SP2 on before ANYTHING else.
>
> One last question.... With W2K installation you had the option to set up
> the HD as FAT32 or NTFS. I assume that option is also the case with XP?
> So which one is better? FAT32 or NTFS?
>
> tia Ginga
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 7:44:48 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Yabbadoo wrote:
> NTFS
> Len
> "Gingangooli" <aintusingemail@thisplace.net> wrote in message
> news:%23F2SDt5CFHA.2608@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
>>R. C. White wrote:
>>
>>>Hi, Ginga.
>>>
>>>I've never regretted upgrading from Win2K to WinXP Pro on the day it came
>>>out in 2001! ;<) But I do very little gaming and don't have a network
>>>or other users on my computer.
>>>
>>>If your WinXP CD-ROM is a current version, it will have SP2 integrated
>>>into it and the whole process should take no more than an hour or two,
>>>including formatting your HD. It's a good idea to unplug unnecessary
>>>peripherals before you begin. Especially any HD with an Active
>>>(bootable) primary partition on it; if Setup detects an Active partition
>>>on any HD, it will let that keep drive letter C:, assigning another
>>>letter (G:?) to your System (and Boot?) volume - and that can't be
>>>changed without starting over.
>>>
>>>If you upgrade from Win2K, your boot folder will inherit the prior name
>>>(\WinNT?), rather than WinXP's default, \Windows. Neither the boot
>>>folder name nor the drive letter will matter to WinXP, but it will almost
>>>certainly confuse you - and all the applications you will install that
>>>expect to put their files on Drive C:.
>>>
>>>Upgrades from Win2K to WinXP usually go smoothly, since they both are on
>>>the NT platform, as opposed to upgrades from Win9x/ME, which require all
>>>new drivers and sometimes new versions of software. But a clean install,
>>>including a reformat, clears out the accumulated deadwood and garbage,
>>>making it worth the time to reinstall apps and restore data, in many
>>>cases.
>>>
>>>RC
>>
>>Thanks for the replies guys.
>>
>>I will probably go for a clean install, reformatting both my HDs, just to
>>(as RC said) to clean out all the deadwood.
>>
>>I have XP SP2 on CD anyway (free with a games mag).. so Im ready for that
>>bit. Also I would want to stick SP2 on before ANYTHING else.
>>
>>One last question.... With W2K installation you had the option to set up
>>the HD as FAT32 or NTFS. I assume that option is also the case with XP?
>>So which one is better? FAT32 or NTFS?
>>
>>tia Ginga
>
>
>
Awwwww...cummon Yabbadoo...dont do that !!! you gotta say why!!! ;-)
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 7:44:49 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Gingangooli wrote:
> Yabbadoo wrote:
>
>> NTFS

> Awwwww...cummon Yabbadoo...dont do that !!! you gotta say why!!! ;-)


Personally, I wouldn't even consider using FAT32 when NTFS is an
option. FAT32 has no security capabilities, no compression
capabilities, no fault tolerance, and a lot of wasted hard drive space
on volumes larger than 8 Gb in size. But your computing needs may
vary, and there is no hard and fast answer.

To answer your questions without getting too technical is
difficult, but has been handled quite well by Alex Nichol in the
article here:

FAT & NTFS File Systems in Windows XP
http://www.aumha.org/a/ntfs.htm

Somewhat more technical information is here:

Limitations of the FAT32 File System in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/directory/article.asp?ID=k...;en-us;Q314463

Choosing Between File Systems
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?u...

NTFS file system
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ntfs/

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 8:29:15 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Hi, Ginga.

The only reason I can think of to use FAT (any version) anymore is if you
plan to install MS-DOS or Win3.x/9x/ME on this computer (dual-booting,
perhaps). Otherwise, it's NTFS all the way - for all the reasons Bruce
gave. NTFS is much more secure, both in the sense of secure from
unauthorized access, and in the sense of secure from loss of time and data
from file system glitches.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
rc@corridor.net
Microsoft Windows MVP

"Gingangooli" <aintusingemail@thisplace.net> wrote in message
news:%23F2SDt5CFHA.2608@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> R. C. White wrote:
>> Hi, Ginga.
>>
>> I've never regretted upgrading from Win2K to WinXP Pro on the day it came
>> out in 2001! ;<) But I do very little gaming and don't have a network
>> or other users on my computer.
>>
>> If your WinXP CD-ROM is a current version, it will have SP2 integrated
>> into it and the whole process should take no more than an hour or two,
>> including formatting your HD. It's a good idea to unplug unnecessary
>> peripherals before you begin. Especially any HD with an Active
>> (bootable) primary partition on it; if Setup detects an Active partition
>> on any HD, it will let that keep drive letter C:, assigning another
>> letter (G:?) to your System (and Boot?) volume - and that can't be
>> changed without starting over.
>>
>> If you upgrade from Win2K, your boot folder will inherit the prior name
>> (\WinNT?), rather than WinXP's default, \Windows. Neither the boot
>> folder name nor the drive letter will matter to WinXP, but it will almost
>> certainly confuse you - and all the applications you will install that
>> expect to put their files on Drive C:.
>>
>> Upgrades from Win2K to WinXP usually go smoothly, since they both are on
>> the NT platform, as opposed to upgrades from Win9x/ME, which require all
>> new drivers and sometimes new versions of software. But a clean install,
>> including a reformat, clears out the accumulated deadwood and garbage,
>> making it worth the time to reinstall apps and restore data, in many
>> cases.
>>
>> RC
> Thanks for the replies guys.
>
> I will probably go for a clean install, reformatting both my HDs, just to
> (as RC said) to clean out all the deadwood.
>
> I have XP SP2 on CD anyway (free with a games mag).. so Im ready for that
> bit. Also I would want to stick SP2 on before ANYTHING else.
>
> One last question.... With W2K installation you had the option to set up
> the HD as FAT32 or NTFS. I assume that option is also the case with XP?
> So which one is better? FAT32 or NTFS?
>
> tia Ginga
Anonymous
February 5, 2005 8:29:16 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

These days the desire to run DOS and earlier versions of Windows can be met
by running Virtual PC 2004. No partitioning and no reboots required. It is
much easier to maintain and the guest operating system runs in a virtual
computer as a window on the XP desktop. Almost any x86 operating system
works.

--
Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
(Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
"R. C. White" <rc@corridor.net> wrote in message
news:o mQ3Cq9CFHA.4052@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hi, Ginga.
>
> The only reason I can think of to use FAT (any version) anymore is if you
> plan to install MS-DOS or Win3.x/9x/ME on this computer (dual-booting,
> perhaps). Otherwise, it's NTFS all the way - for all the reasons Bruce
> gave. NTFS is much more secure, both in the sense of secure from
> unauthorized access, and in the sense of secure from loss of time and data
> from file system glitches.
>
> RC
> --
> R. C. White, CPA
> San Marcos, TX
> rc@corridor.net
> Microsoft Windows MVP
>
> "Gingangooli" <aintusingemail@thisplace.net> wrote in message
> news:%23F2SDt5CFHA.2608@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> R. C. White wrote:
>>> Hi, Ginga.
>>>
>>> I've never regretted upgrading from Win2K to WinXP Pro on the day it
>>> came out in 2001! ;<) But I do very little gaming and don't have a
>>> network or other users on my computer.
>>>
>>> If your WinXP CD-ROM is a current version, it will have SP2 integrated
>>> into it and the whole process should take no more than an hour or two,
>>> including formatting your HD. It's a good idea to unplug unnecessary
>>> peripherals before you begin. Especially any HD with an Active
>>> (bootable) primary partition on it; if Setup detects an Active partition
>>> on any HD, it will let that keep drive letter C:, assigning another
>>> letter (G:?) to your System (and Boot?) volume - and that can't be
>>> changed without starting over.
>>>
>>> If you upgrade from Win2K, your boot folder will inherit the prior name
>>> (\WinNT?), rather than WinXP's default, \Windows. Neither the boot
>>> folder name nor the drive letter will matter to WinXP, but it will
>>> almost certainly confuse you - and all the applications you will install
>>> that expect to put their files on Drive C:.
>>>
>>> Upgrades from Win2K to WinXP usually go smoothly, since they both are on
>>> the NT platform, as opposed to upgrades from Win9x/ME, which require all
>>> new drivers and sometimes new versions of software. But a clean
>>> install, including a reformat, clears out the accumulated deadwood and
>>> garbage, making it worth the time to reinstall apps and restore data, in
>>> many cases.
>>>
>>> RC
>> Thanks for the replies guys.
>>
>> I will probably go for a clean install, reformatting both my HDs, just to
>> (as RC said) to clean out all the deadwood.
>>
>> I have XP SP2 on CD anyway (free with a games mag).. so Im ready for that
>> bit. Also I would want to stick SP2 on before ANYTHING else.
>>
>> One last question.... With W2K installation you had the option to set up
>> the HD as FAT32 or NTFS. I assume that option is also the case with XP?
>> So which one is better? FAT32 or NTFS?
>>
>> tia Ginga
>
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 1:11:51 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

You asked a straight question, I gave you a straight answer.
Bruce has now given the comprehensive reasons why.
( But you hadn't asked for reasons, just for an answer!) (g)

Sincerely, Len
"Gingangooli" <aintusingemail@thisplace.net> wrote in message
news:u8zpfH6CFHA.1296@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Yabbadoo wrote:
>> NTFS
>> Len
>> "Gingangooli" <aintusingemail@thisplace.net> wrote in message
>> news:%23F2SDt5CFHA.2608@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>
>>>R. C. White wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hi, Ginga.
>>>>
>>>>I've never regretted upgrading from Win2K to WinXP Pro on the day it
>>>>came out in 2001! ;<) But I do very little gaming and don't have a
>>>>network or other users on my computer.
>>>>
>>>>If your WinXP CD-ROM is a current version, it will have SP2 integrated
>>>>into it and the whole process should take no more than an hour or two,
>>>>including formatting your HD. It's a good idea to unplug unnecessary
>>>>peripherals before you begin. Especially any HD with an Active
>>>>(bootable) primary partition on it; if Setup detects an Active partition
>>>>on any HD, it will let that keep drive letter C:, assigning another
>>>>letter (G:?) to your System (and Boot?) volume - and that can't be
>>>>changed without starting over.
>>>>
>>>>If you upgrade from Win2K, your boot folder will inherit the prior name
>>>>(\WinNT?), rather than WinXP's default, \Windows. Neither the boot
>>>>folder name nor the drive letter will matter to WinXP, but it will
>>>>almost certainly confuse you - and all the applications you will install
>>>>that expect to put their files on Drive C:.
>>>>
>>>>Upgrades from Win2K to WinXP usually go smoothly, since they both are on
>>>>the NT platform, as opposed to upgrades from Win9x/ME, which require all
>>>>new drivers and sometimes new versions of software. But a clean
>>>>install, including a reformat, clears out the accumulated deadwood and
>>>>garbage, making it worth the time to reinstall apps and restore data, in
>>>>many cases.
>>>>
>>>>RC
>>>
>>>Thanks for the replies guys.
>>>
>>>I will probably go for a clean install, reformatting both my HDs, just to
>>>(as RC said) to clean out all the deadwood.
>>>
>>>I have XP SP2 on CD anyway (free with a games mag).. so Im ready for that
>>>bit. Also I would want to stick SP2 on before ANYTHING else.
>>>
>>>One last question.... With W2K installation you had the option to set up
>>>the HD as FAT32 or NTFS. I assume that option is also the case with XP?
>>>So which one is better? FAT32 or NTFS?
>>>
>>>tia Ginga
>>
>>
>>
> Awwwww...cummon Yabbadoo...dont do that !!! you gotta say why!!! ;-)
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 1:36:37 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Bruce Chambers wrote:
> Gingangooli wrote:
>
>> Yabbadoo wrote:
>>
>>> NTFS
>
>
>> Awwwww...cummon Yabbadoo...dont do that !!! you gotta say why!!! ;-)
>
>
>
> Personally, I wouldn't even consider using FAT32 when NTFS is an
> option. FAT32 has no security capabilities, no compression
> capabilities, no fault tolerance, and a lot of wasted hard drive space
> on volumes larger than 8 Gb in size. But your computing needs may
> vary, and there is no hard and fast answer.
>
> To answer your questions without getting too technical is
> difficult, but has been handled quite well by Alex Nichol in the
> article here:
>
> FAT & NTFS File Systems in Windows XP
> http://www.aumha.org/a/ntfs.htm
>
> Somewhat more technical information is here:
>
> Limitations of the FAT32 File System in Windows XP
> http://support.microsoft.com/directory/article.asp?ID=k...;en-us;Q314463
>
> Choosing Between File Systems
> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?u...
>
>
> NTFS file system
> http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ntfs/
>
Thank you Bruce.
!