xp upgrade from 98se

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

Hi,

I have xp pro upgrade package from win 98 and would like some info about if
I need to reformat my hdd - do i need to completely reinstall win98 before
xp pro or can i simply copy a few files across from win 98 to allow xp pro
to recognise that I have a license for both?

thanks

--
___,
\o
| |>
/ \ . l
____________o
49 answers Last reply
More about upgrade 98se
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Formatting the drive defeats the purpose of upgrading because it destroys
    everything on the drive. All you have to do is start Win98 and at the
    desktop insert the XP cd. When the XP splash screen appears, select
    install. That's it. All your files and settings will be preserved.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "dougie" <queanbeyan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:42202c82$0$5186$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I have xp pro upgrade package from win 98 and would like some info about
    > if I need to reformat my hdd - do i need to completely reinstall win98
    > before xp pro or can i simply copy a few files across from win 98 to allow
    > xp pro to recognise that I have a license for both?
    >
    > thanks
    >
    > --
    > ___,
    > \o
    > | |>
    > / \ . l
    > ____________o
    >
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "dougie" <queanbeyan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:42202c82$0$5186$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I have xp pro upgrade package from win 98 and would like some info about
    if
    > I need to reformat my hdd - do i need to completely reinstall win98 before
    > xp pro or can i simply copy a few files across from win 98 to allow xp pro
    > to recognise that I have a license for both?
    >


    it's best to do a clean install of XP rather than do an "inplace" upgrade of
    win98

    backup and data you need first...
    then bootup with the XP cd and do a clean install
    (you will get the option to format the drive)

    during the install, you will need to insert your win98 cd for product
    verification
    but win98 does not need to be installed first..

    believe me, i have done many upgrades
    and a clean install is the way to go...
    "inplace" upgrades of win9x , though they can work...often tend to have
    problems
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    dougie wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > I have xp pro upgrade package from win 98 and would like some info about if
    > I need to reformat my hdd - do i need to completely reinstall win98 before
    > xp pro or can i simply copy a few files across from win 98 to allow xp pro
    > to recognise that I have a license for both?
    >
    > thanks
    >


    Should it become necessary, sometime in the future, it's quite
    possible to perform a clean installation using the Upgrade CD, provided
    you have the true installation CD for the earlier OS.

    Simply boot from the WinXP Upgrade CD. You'll be offered the
    opportunity to delete, create, and format partitions as part of the
    installation process. The Upgrade CD checks to see if a qualifying OS
    is installed, and, if it finds none, it asks you to insert the
    installation media (CD) of that OS. Unfortunately, an OEM
    "Recovery/Restore" CD will not work for this purpose; you must have a
    true installation CD, complete with the "\Win98" folder and *.cab
    files, or the "\i386" folder of WinNT/2K.


    --

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

    "dougie" <queanbeyan@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >Hi,
    >
    >I have xp pro upgrade package from win 98 and would like some info about if
    >I need to reformat my hdd - do i need to completely reinstall win98 before
    >xp pro or can i simply copy a few files across from win 98 to allow xp pro
    >to recognise that I have a license for both?
    >
    >thanks

    You have several practical (although perhaps not strictly legal)
    options when using the XP Pro upgrade disk.

    1) A true upgrade to your Win 98 computer in which case you simply
    stick in the XP Pro upgrade disk and proceed. Not advised.

    2) A clean install of XP Pro to the old Win 98 computer, in which case
    the best option is to simply Fdisk the Win 98 OS into oblivion
    beforehand. Keep reading...

    3) A clean install of XP Pro to a *new* computer, different from your
    old Win 98 computer. In this case simply stick a virgin hard drive
    into your new machine and install away. Keep reading...

    For cases 2 and 3, the XP Pro "upgrade" installation will ask for a
    Win 98 install CD for proof of ownership. Note that a Win 98 SE
    upgrade CD will suffice for such proof.

    If you want to do case 2 or 3 but you don't have a Win 98 install disk
    for proof, then you can try to borrow one. Otherwise, you will have
    to install XP Pro onto a system with Win 98 OS installed. If you are
    building a new computer for your XP Pro system then simply clone your
    working Win 98 hard drive and install the clone in the new computer.
    It doesn't matter that your cloned drive might not actually boot to
    Win 98 on your new computer (hardware conflicts etc). All that
    matters is that the Win 98 OS is on the drive. Be warned, however,
    that if you attempt to do a *clean* install of XP Pro using your XP
    Pro *upgrade* CD onto a Win 98 computer that has more than one hard
    drive partition available (C and D partitions for example), XP Pro
    will *insist* on creating a dual boot system. Therefore, for the
    special case detailed in this paragraph, simply make sure that the
    drive with Win 98 on it has only one partition and that there is only
    one hard drive in the new system when you attempt your clean install
    using your XP Pro upgrade disk.

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

    Check here http://www.webtree.ca/windowsxp/upgrade_tips.htm

    --

    Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
    www.webtree.ca/windowsxp


    "dougie" <queanbeyan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:42202c82$0$5186$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I have xp pro upgrade package from win 98 and would like some info about
    if
    > I need to reformat my hdd - do i need to completely reinstall win98 before
    > xp pro or can i simply copy a few files across from win 98 to allow xp pro
    > to recognise that I have a license for both?
    >
    > thanks
    >
    > --
    > ___,
    > \o
    > | |>
    > / \ . l
    > ____________o
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Hi, Philo.

    > it's best to do a clean install of XP rather than do an "inplace" upgrade
    > of
    > win98

    An upgrade from one version of Windows (Win98) to another (WinXP) is an
    "upgrade", but not an "in-place upgrade".

    An "in-place upgrade" is what we might call an upgrade from one version
    (WinXP) to the same version (WinXP). See KB article 315341 for instructions
    for doing this.
    How to perform an in-place upgrade (reinstallation) of Windows XP
    http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;q315341

    We frequently recommend an in-place upgrade when a user needs to reinstall
    WinXP without destroying the existing Registry. The Registry is contained
    in several files within the \Windows folder. It holds a lot of critical
    information about the existing WinXP installation, including entries for all
    the installed applications, users, etc. A "clean install" erases the
    existing Registry and creates a new, empty one, with none of that history or
    other information. A reformat, of course, would do that and much more. But
    an in-place upgrade will reinstall WinXP itself while leaving most of the
    Registry intact, preserving the installed applications and data, plus most
    of the user's "tweaks". The in-place upgrade reinstalls the version that is
    on the WinXP CD-ROM used, so a visit to Windows Update is urged -as soon as
    the proper protection (firewall, antivirus, etc.) are in place - to be sure
    that SP2 and any later updates are (re)installed.

    > and a clean install is the way to go...
    > "inplace" upgrades of win9x , though they can work...often tend to have
    > problems

    I agree with this (if we delete "inplace"). While many (most?) users have
    success with an upgrade from Win98 to WinXP, others report - as you said -
    that the "migration" of drivers and applications is less than 100%
    successful. Many upgraders experience nagging minor hassles later and end
    up doing a clean install after all. As you said, an upgrade from Win98 to
    WinXP requires only that the Win98 CD be inserted momentarily to verify that
    the upgrade is permissible.

    Dougie, you can boot into Win98, then insert the WinXP CD-ROM and upgrade
    that way, as Colin suggested. Or you can boot from the WinXP CD and choose
    to upgrade; this way, the Win98 drivers (which WinXP cannot use) never get
    loaded and don't have to be migrated to the WinXP version. (I've never
    actually done a Win98-WinXP upgrade, so this advice is based on theory, not
    on my own experience.)

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

    "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:O9fjzgAHFHA.4084@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >
    > "dougie" <queanbeyan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:42202c82$0$5186$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> I have xp pro upgrade package from win 98 and would like some info about
    > if
    >> I need to reformat my hdd - do i need to completely reinstall win98
    >> before
    >> xp pro or can i simply copy a few files across from win 98 to allow xp
    >> pro
    >> to recognise that I have a license for both?
    >
    > it's best to do a clean install of XP rather than do an "inplace" upgrade
    > of
    > win98
    >
    > backup and data you need first...
    > then bootup with the XP cd and do a clean install
    > (you will get the option to format the drive)
    >
    > during the install, you will need to insert your win98 cd for product
    > verification
    > but win98 does not need to be installed first..
    >
    > believe me, i have done many upgrades
    > and a clean install is the way to go...
    > "inplace" upgrades of win9x , though they can work...often tend to have
    > problems
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    philo wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    > it's best to do a clean install of XP rather than do an "inplace" upgrade of
    > win98
    >


    On what specific data do you base this assertion? WinXP is designed to
    install and upgrade the existing operating system while simultaneously
    preserving your applications and data, and translating as many
    personalized settings as possible. The process is designed to be, and
    normally is, quite painless.

    Some people will always recommend that you perform a clean
    installation, rather than upgrade over an earlier OS. For the most
    part, I feel that these people, while well-meaning, are living in the
    past, and are basing their recommendation on their experiences with
    older operating systems.

    WinXP is designed to install and upgrade the existing operating
    system while simultaneously preserving your applications and data, and
    translating as many personalized settings as possible. The process is
    designed to be, and normally is, quite painless. That said, things
    can go wrong, in a small number of cases. If your data is at all
    important to you, back it up before proceeding.


    > backup and data you need first...


    Always a good idea. Things can go wrong, in a small number of cases.
    If the data is at all important, it should be backed up before proceeding.


    > then bootup with the XP cd and do a clean install
    > (you will get the option to format the drive)
    >


    Again, why? The OP'd probably save a lot of time by upgrading his PC
    to WinXP, rather than performing a clean installation, if he's no
    hardware or software incompatibilities, and if his current OS has no
    problems. Microsoft has greatly improved (over earlier versions of
    Windows) WinXP's ability to smoothly upgrade an earlier OS.


    > during the install, you will need to insert your win98 cd for product
    > verification
    > but win98 does not need to be installed first..
    >


    Correct.

    > believe me, i have done many upgrades
    > and a clean install is the way to go...
    > "inplace" upgrades of win9x , though they can work...often tend to have
    > problems
    >


    Only if one hasn't properly prepared the system for the upgrade, or if
    there are underlying hardware and/or software incompatibilities.


    --

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

    In news:g67121p2u9517fsf1vcsmsiemc9qkruie0@4ax.com,
    JT <nomail@ever.com> typed:

    > "dougie" <queanbeyan@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> I have xp pro upgrade package from win 98 and would like some
    >> info
    >> about if I need to reformat my hdd - do i need to completely
    >> reinstall win98 before xp pro or can i simply copy a few files
    >> across from win 98 to allow xp pro to recognise that I have a
    >> license for both?
    >>
    >> thanks
    >
    > You have several practical (although perhaps not strictly
    > legal)
    > options when using the XP Pro upgrade disk.
    >
    > 1) A true upgrade to your Win 98 computer in which case you
    > simply
    > stick in the XP Pro upgrade disk and proceed. Not advised.


    Not advised by you, but advised by many of us.
    Unlike with previous versions of Windows, an upgrade to XP
    replaces almost everything, and usually works very well.


    My recommendation is to at least try the upgrade, since it's much
    easier than a clean installation. You can always change your mind
    and reinstall cleanly if problems develop.


    However, don't assume that doing an upgrade relieves you of the
    need to backup your data, etc. before beginning. Before starting
    to upgrade, it's always prudent to recognize that things like a
    sudden power loss can occur in the middle of it and cause the
    loss of everything. For that reason you should make sure you have
    backups and anything else you need to reinstall if the worst
    happens.


    --
    Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    Please reply to the newsgroup
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    That is always an option after the OP tries an upgrade. He can always
    convert to NTFS afterwards.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:O9fjzgAHFHA.4084@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >
    > "dougie" <queanbeyan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:42202c82$0$5186$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> I have xp pro upgrade package from win 98 and would like some info about
    > if
    >> I need to reformat my hdd - do i need to completely reinstall win98
    >> before
    >> xp pro or can i simply copy a few files across from win 98 to allow xp
    >> pro
    >> to recognise that I have a license for both?
    >>
    >
    >
    > it's best to do a clean install of XP rather than do an "inplace" upgrade
    > of
    > win98
    >
    > backup and data you need first...
    > then bootup with the XP cd and do a clean install
    > (you will get the option to format the drive)
    >
    > during the install, you will need to insert your win98 cd for product
    > verification
    > but win98 does not need to be installed first..
    >
    > believe me, i have done many upgrades
    > and a clean install is the way to go...
    > "inplace" upgrades of win9x , though they can work...often tend to have
    > problems
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    He cannot do a clean install if his XP is an upgrade edition and his Win98
    was preinstalled or he does not have a retail cd to use during the
    installation. Just saying do a clean install without checking his
    preparation could cause the OP to not have a functioning computer anymore.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:O9fjzgAHFHA.4084@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >
    > "dougie" <queanbeyan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:42202c82$0$5186$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> I have xp pro upgrade package from win 98 and would like some info about
    > if
    >> I need to reformat my hdd - do i need to completely reinstall win98
    >> before
    >> xp pro or can i simply copy a few files across from win 98 to allow xp
    >> pro
    >> to recognise that I have a license for both?
    >>
    >
    >
    > it's best to do a clean install of XP rather than do an "inplace" upgrade
    > of
    > win98
    >
    > backup and data you need first...
    > then bootup with the XP cd and do a clean install
    > (you will get the option to format the drive)
    >
    > during the install, you will need to insert your win98 cd for product
    > verification
    > but win98 does not need to be installed first..
    >
    > believe me, i have done many upgrades
    > and a clean install is the way to go...
    > "inplace" upgrades of win9x , though they can work...often tend to have
    > problems
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    dougie,
    I did not see it mentioned yet, but you should go to Microsoft's
    compatibility page, and make sure that your PC is capable of handling XP.

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/sysreqs.mspx

    1. I would recommend that you have 512 MB of RAM on your PC, for XP.
    2. Either way you chose to upgrade, clean install or upgrade over present
    OS, make sure that you back up all your important data, such as email
    messages and other data files. Just in case things go wrong.
    3. You should check all your hardwares' manufacturer sites and make sure
    that there is an upgrade drivers for XP. Such as printers, scanners, modems,
    digital cameras, network equipment, etc... If they don't have the XP
    drivers, sometimes Win2000 drivers may work, if available.

    --

    Add MS to your News Reader: news://msnews.microsoft.com
    Rich/rerat

    (RRR News) <message rule>
    <<Previous Text Snipped to Save Bandwidth When Appropriate>>
    >
    > "dougie" <queanbeyan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:42202c82$0$5186$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> I have xp pro upgrade package from win 98 and would like some info about
    > if
    >> I need to reformat my hdd - do i need to completely reinstall win98
    >> before
    >> xp pro or can i simply copy a few files across from win 98 to allow xp
    >> pro
    >> to recognise that I have a license for both?
    >
    > it's best to do a clean install of XP rather than do an "inplace" upgrade
    > of
    > win98
    >
    > backup and data you need first...
    > then bootup with the XP cd and do a clean install
    > (you will get the option to format the drive)
    >
    > during the install, you will need to insert your win98 cd for product
    > verification
    > but win98 does not need to be installed first..
    >
    > believe me, i have done many upgrades
    > and a clean install is the way to go...
    > "inplace" upgrades of win9x , though they can work...often tend to have
    > problems
  12. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "R. C. White" <rc@corridor.net> wrote in message
    news:%238dhekBHFHA.3200@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    > Hi, Philo.
    >
    > > it's best to do a clean install of XP rather than do an "inplace"
    upgrade
    > > of
    > > win98
    >
    > An upgrade from one version of Windows (Win98) to another (WinXP) is an
    > "upgrade", but not an "in-place upgrade".
    >
    > An "in-place upgrade" is what we might call an upgrade from one version
    > (WinXP) to the same version (WinXP). See KB article 315341 for
    instructions
    > for doing this.
    > How to perform an in-place upgrade (reinstallation) of Windows XP
    > http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;q315341
    >
    > We frequently recommend an in-place upgrade when a user needs to reinstall
    > WinXP without destroying the existing Registry. The Registry is contained
    > in several files within the \Windows folder. It holds a lot of critical
    > information about the existing WinXP installation, including entries for
    all
    > the installed applications, users, etc. A "clean install" erases the
    > existing Registry and creates a new, empty one, with none of that history
    or
    > other information. A reformat, of course, would do that and much more.
    But
    > an in-place upgrade will reinstall WinXP itself while leaving most of the
    > Registry intact, preserving the installed applications and data, plus most
    > of the user's "tweaks". The in-place upgrade reinstalls the version that
    is
    > on the WinXP CD-ROM used, so a visit to Windows Update is urged -as soon
    as
    > the proper protection (firewall, antivirus, etc.) are in place - to be
    sure
    > that SP2 and any later updates are (re)installed.
    >
    > > and a clean install is the way to go...
    > > "inplace" upgrades of win9x , though they can work...often tend to have
    > > problems
    >
    > I agree with this (if we delete "inplace"). While many (most?) users have
    > success with an upgrade from Win98 to WinXP, others report - as you said -
    > that the "migration" of drivers and applications is less than 100%
    > successful. Many upgraders experience nagging minor hassles later and end
    > up doing a clean install after all. As you said, an upgrade from Win98 to
    > WinXP requires only that the Win98 CD be inserted momentarily to verify
    that
    > the upgrade is permissible.
    >
    > Dougie, you can boot into Win98, then insert the WinXP CD-ROM and upgrade
    > that way, as Colin suggested. Or you can boot from the WinXP CD and
    choose
    > to upgrade; this way, the Win98 drivers (which WinXP cannot use) never get
    > loaded and don't have to be migrated to the WinXP version. (I've never
    > actually done a Win98-WinXP upgrade, so this advice is based on theory,
    not
    > on my own experience.)
    >
    thank you for the clarification

    at any rate, i have performed many XP installs
    and upgrading an existing win98 installation
    is just plain looking for trouble
  13. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
    news:evevosBHFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    > philo wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > it's best to do a clean install of XP rather than do an "inplace"
    upgrade of
    > > win98
    > >
    >
    >
    > On what specific data do you base this assertion? WinXP is designed to
    > install and upgrade the existing operating system while simultaneously
    > preserving your applications and data, and translating as many
    > personalized settings as possible. The process is designed to be, and
    > normally is, quite painless.
    >
    > Some people will always recommend that you perform a clean
    > installation, rather than upgrade over an earlier OS. For the most
    > part, I feel that these people, while well-meaning, are living in the
    > past, and are basing their recommendation on their experiences with
    > older operating systems.
    >
    > WinXP is designed to install and upgrade the existing operating
    > system while simultaneously preserving your applications and data, and
    > translating as many personalized settings as possible. The process is
    > designed to be, and normally is, quite painless. That said, things
    > can go wrong, in a small number of cases. If your data is at all
    > important to you, back it up before proceeding.
    >
    >
    > > backup and data you need first...
    >
    >
    > Always a good idea. Things can go wrong, in a small number of cases.
    > If the data is at all important, it should be backed up before proceeding.
    >
    >
    > > then bootup with the XP cd and do a clean install
    > > (you will get the option to format the drive)
    > >
    >
    >
    > Again, why? The OP'd probably save a lot of time by upgrading his PC
    > to WinXP, rather than performing a clean installation, if he's no
    > hardware or software incompatibilities, and if his current OS has no
    > problems. Microsoft has greatly improved (over earlier versions of
    > Windows) WinXP's ability to smoothly upgrade an earlier OS.
    >
    >
    >
    > > during the install, you will need to insert your win98 cd for product
    > > verification
    > > but win98 does not need to be installed first..
    > >
    >
    >
    > Correct.
    >
    > > believe me, i have done many upgrades
    > > and a clean install is the way to go...
    > > "inplace" upgrades of win9x , though they can work...often tend to have
    > > problems
    > >
    >
    >
    > Only if one hasn't properly prepared the system for the upgrade, or if
    > there are underlying hardware and/or software incompatibilities.


    first off...
    a direct upgrade of win98 to XP *can* certainly work...
    but it is less likely to.

    win9x opertating systems
    are quite different from NT-based operating systems
    and only *rarely* would use the same drivers.
    and yes, the drivers are supposed to be replaced during an upgrade...
    but in actual practice there are often compromises made that leave one with
    an unsatable
    system

    to upgrade win95 to win98 for example is quite safe

    to upgrade win2k to XP is quite safe...

    but it's not a good practice to attempt an upgrade from a win9x based OS to
    an NT based OS
    (regarless of what Microsoft has designed for)

    FWIW: i have done well over 500 installations (of various operating
    systems... not all microsoft)
    for people over the last few years and have just wasted too much time
    attempting to repair
    bad upgrades!

    OTOH: clean installs have worked fine virtually 100% of the time
    ( the ones that had problems, were typically minor and easy to fix)
  14. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    And then there is the issue of motherboard drivers as well.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
    news:evevosBHFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    > philo wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> it's best to do a clean install of XP rather than do an "inplace" upgrade
    >> of
    >> win98
    >>
    >
    >
    > On what specific data do you base this assertion? WinXP is designed to
    > install and upgrade the existing operating system while simultaneously
    > preserving your applications and data, and translating as many
    > personalized settings as possible. The process is designed to be, and
    > normally is, quite painless.
    >
    > Some people will always recommend that you perform a clean
    > installation, rather than upgrade over an earlier OS. For the most part,
    > I feel that these people, while well-meaning, are living in the past, and
    > are basing their recommendation on their experiences with older operating
    > systems.
    >
    > WinXP is designed to install and upgrade the existing operating
    > system while simultaneously preserving your applications and data, and
    > translating as many personalized settings as possible. The process is
    > designed to be, and normally is, quite painless. That said, things
    > can go wrong, in a small number of cases. If your data is at all
    > important to you, back it up before proceeding.
    >
    >
    >> backup and data you need first...
    >
    >
    > Always a good idea. Things can go wrong, in a small number of cases. If
    > the data is at all important, it should be backed up before proceeding.
    >
    >
    >> then bootup with the XP cd and do a clean install
    >> (you will get the option to format the drive)
    >>
    >
    >
    > Again, why? The OP'd probably save a lot of time by upgrading his PC to
    > WinXP, rather than performing a clean installation, if he's no hardware or
    > software incompatibilities, and if his current OS has no problems.
    > Microsoft has greatly improved (over earlier versions of Windows) WinXP's
    > ability to smoothly upgrade an earlier OS.
    >
    >
    >
    >> during the install, you will need to insert your win98 cd for product
    >> verification
    >> but win98 does not need to be installed first..
    >>
    >
    >
    > Correct.
    >
    >> believe me, i have done many upgrades
    >> and a clean install is the way to go...
    >> "inplace" upgrades of win9x , though they can work...often tend to have
    >> problems
    >>
    >
    >
    > Only if one hasn't properly prepared the system for the upgrade, or if
    > there are underlying hardware and/or software incompatibilities.
    >
    >
    > --
    >
    > 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
  15. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    I agree with Ken. Do a virus scan and remove any spyware, defrag, and then
    upgrade.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
    news:uZBz93BHFHA.3312@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    > In news:g67121p2u9517fsf1vcsmsiemc9qkruie0@4ax.com,
    > JT <nomail@ever.com> typed:
    >
    >> "dougie" <queanbeyan@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Hi,
    >>>
    >>> I have xp pro upgrade package from win 98 and would like some info
    >>> about if I need to reformat my hdd - do i need to completely
    >>> reinstall win98 before xp pro or can i simply copy a few files
    >>> across from win 98 to allow xp pro to recognise that I have a
    >>> license for both?
    >>>
    >>> thanks
    >>
    >> You have several practical (although perhaps not strictly legal)
    >> options when using the XP Pro upgrade disk.
    >>
    >> 1) A true upgrade to your Win 98 computer in which case you simply
    >> stick in the XP Pro upgrade disk and proceed. Not advised.
    >
    >
    > Not advised by you, but advised by many of us.
    > Unlike with previous versions of Windows, an upgrade to XP replaces almost
    > everything, and usually works very well.
    >
    >
    >
    > My recommendation is to at least try the upgrade, since it's much easier
    > than a clean installation. You can always change your mind and reinstall
    > cleanly if problems develop.
    >
    >
    >
    > However, don't assume that doing an upgrade relieves you of the need to
    > backup your data, etc. before beginning. Before starting to upgrade, it's
    > always prudent to recognize that things like a sudden power loss can occur
    > in the middle of it and cause the loss of everything. For that reason you
    > should make sure you have backups and anything else you need to reinstall
    > if the worst happens.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    > Please reply to the newsgroup
    >
    >
  16. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    It depends on whether motherboard drivers are available to the OP on a cd.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:ucW0iLCHFHA.2740@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >
    > "R. C. White" <rc@corridor.net> wrote in message
    > news:%238dhekBHFHA.3200@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >> Hi, Philo.
    >>
    >> > it's best to do a clean install of XP rather than do an "inplace"
    > upgrade
    >> > of
    >> > win98
    >>
    >> An upgrade from one version of Windows (Win98) to another (WinXP) is an
    >> "upgrade", but not an "in-place upgrade".
    >>
    >> An "in-place upgrade" is what we might call an upgrade from one version
    >> (WinXP) to the same version (WinXP). See KB article 315341 for
    > instructions
    >> for doing this.
    >> How to perform an in-place upgrade (reinstallation) of Windows XP
    >> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;en-us;q315341
    >>
    >> We frequently recommend an in-place upgrade when a user needs to
    >> reinstall
    >> WinXP without destroying the existing Registry. The Registry is
    >> contained
    >> in several files within the \Windows folder. It holds a lot of critical
    >> information about the existing WinXP installation, including entries for
    > all
    >> the installed applications, users, etc. A "clean install" erases the
    >> existing Registry and creates a new, empty one, with none of that history
    > or
    >> other information. A reformat, of course, would do that and much more.
    > But
    >> an in-place upgrade will reinstall WinXP itself while leaving most of the
    >> Registry intact, preserving the installed applications and data, plus
    >> most
    >> of the user's "tweaks". The in-place upgrade reinstalls the version that
    > is
    >> on the WinXP CD-ROM used, so a visit to Windows Update is urged -as soon
    > as
    >> the proper protection (firewall, antivirus, etc.) are in place - to be
    > sure
    >> that SP2 and any later updates are (re)installed.
    >>
    >> > and a clean install is the way to go...
    >> > "inplace" upgrades of win9x , though they can work...often tend to have
    >> > problems
    >>
    >> I agree with this (if we delete "inplace"). While many (most?) users
    >> have
    >> success with an upgrade from Win98 to WinXP, others report - as you
    >> said -
    >> that the "migration" of drivers and applications is less than 100%
    >> successful. Many upgraders experience nagging minor hassles later and
    >> end
    >> up doing a clean install after all. As you said, an upgrade from Win98
    >> to
    >> WinXP requires only that the Win98 CD be inserted momentarily to verify
    > that
    >> the upgrade is permissible.
    >>
    >> Dougie, you can boot into Win98, then insert the WinXP CD-ROM and upgrade
    >> that way, as Colin suggested. Or you can boot from the WinXP CD and
    > choose
    >> to upgrade; this way, the Win98 drivers (which WinXP cannot use) never
    >> get
    >> loaded and don't have to be migrated to the WinXP version. (I've never
    >> actually done a Win98-WinXP upgrade, so this advice is based on theory,
    > not
    >> on my own experience.)
    >>
    > thank you for the clarification
    >
    > at any rate, i have performed many XP installs
    > and upgrading an existing win98 installation
    > is just plain looking for trouble
    >
    >
  17. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Or insert the cd and run the upgrade advisor from the splash screen.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "RRR_News" <rrr_news@isp.com> wrote in message
    news:uQ17F0BHFHA.1172@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    > dougie,
    > I did not see it mentioned yet, but you should go to Microsoft's
    > compatibility page, and make sure that your PC is capable of handling XP.
    >
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/evaluation/sysreqs.mspx
    >
    > 1. I would recommend that you have 512 MB of RAM on your PC, for XP.
    > 2. Either way you chose to upgrade, clean install or upgrade over present
    > OS, make sure that you back up all your important data, such as email
    > messages and other data files. Just in case things go wrong.
    > 3. You should check all your hardwares' manufacturer sites and make sure
    > that there is an upgrade drivers for XP. Such as printers, scanners,
    > modems,
    > digital cameras, network equipment, etc... If they don't have the XP
    > drivers, sometimes Win2000 drivers may work, if available.
    >
    > --
    >
    > Add MS to your News Reader: news://msnews.microsoft.com
    > Rich/rerat
    >
    > (RRR News) <message rule>
    > <<Previous Text Snipped to Save Bandwidth When Appropriate>>
    >>
    >> "dougie" <queanbeyan@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >> news:42202c82$0$5186$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    >>> Hi,
    >>>
    >>> I have xp pro upgrade package from win 98 and would like some info about
    >> if
    >>> I need to reformat my hdd - do i need to completely reinstall win98
    >>> before
    >>> xp pro or can i simply copy a few files across from win 98 to allow xp
    >>> pro
    >>> to recognise that I have a license for both?
    >>
    >> it's best to do a clean install of XP rather than do an "inplace" upgrade
    >> of
    >> win98
    >>
    >> backup and data you need first...
    >> then bootup with the XP cd and do a clean install
    >> (you will get the option to format the drive)
    >>
    >> during the install, you will need to insert your win98 cd for product
    >> verification
    >> but win98 does not need to be installed first..
    >>
    >> believe me, i have done many upgrades
    >> and a clean install is the way to go...
    >> "inplace" upgrades of win9x , though they can work...often tend to have
    >> problems
    >
    >
  18. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    philo wrote:


    >
    > first off...
    > a direct upgrade of win98 to XP *can* certainly work...
    > but it is less likely to.
    >

    Again, what documentation or evidence can you provide to support this
    claim? *Why* is it less likely to work? Nothing you've said below even
    applies.


    > win9x opertating systems
    > are quite different from NT-based operating systems


    Obviously.


    > and only *rarely* would use the same drivers.


    That should read "never..."


    > and yes, the drivers are supposed to be replaced during an upgrade...


    Not only "supposed to be," but have to be, if the device is to work
    under the new operating system. WinXP won't even attempt to use the
    Win9x device drivers, even if the files do remain on the hard drive.
    The worst problem the Win9x drivers can cause is a the waste of a small
    amount of hard drive space.


    > but in actual practice there are often compromises made that leave one with
    > an unsatable
    > system
    >


    "Unsatable?" Does an upgrade somehow make the computer hungry? (And
    the correct word would be "insatiable.") If you mean "unstable," this
    would occur only if the original OS were problematic to start with, if
    other installed applications were incompatible with the new OS, or if
    the hardware platform were incompatible, defective, or sub-standard.


    > to upgrade win95 to win98 for example is quite safe
    >


    Assuming there are no problems with the original OS, that all of the
    Win95 device drivers were compatible with Win98 (which was often not the
    case, if memory serves), other installed applications were compatible
    with the new OS, and if the hardware platform is compatible,
    non-defective, and not sub-standard, and there is no malware installed.


    > to upgrade win2k to XP is quite safe...
    >


    Again, assuming there are no problems with the original OS, that all of
    the Win2K device drivers were compatible with WinXP (or were replaced by
    WinXP-specific drivers), other installed applications were compatible
    with the new OS, and if the hardware platform is compatible,
    non-defective, and not sub-standard, and there is no malware installed.

    Do you notice a trend, yet? Any upgrade can be problem-free, if the
    underlying hardware is fully compatible with the new OS, if the existing
    applications are fully compatible, and if the computer user properly
    prepares and plans for the upgrade. Conversely, any upgrade over a
    problematic OS, onto incompatible, defective, or sub-standard hardware
    is likely to fail.


    > but it's not a good practice to attempt an upgrade from a win9x based OS to
    > an NT based OS


    Again, can you produce any industry white-papers to this affect? On
    what do you base your opinion?


    >
    > FWIW: i have done well over 500 installations (of various operating
    > systems... not all microsoft)


    Relevance? What percentage of these were properly prepared and
    performed upgrades? What percentage were ill-prepared and poorly
    performed upgrades? What, specifically, went "wrong" in the majority of
    cases? What single common factor applies universally, to lead you to
    summarily conclude that all upgrades are "bad?"


    > for people over the last few years and have just wasted too much time
    > attempting to repair
    > bad upgrades!
    >

    Well, obviously, an improperly performed upgrade can cause problems.
    But how many properly executed upgrades have caused problems, though?


    --

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

    "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:eEEGeSCHFHA.2276@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    >
    > "Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:evevosBHFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    > > philo wrote:
    [snip]
    >
    > FWIW: i have done well over 500 installations (of various operating
    > systems... not all microsoft)
    > for people over the last few years and have just wasted too much time
    > attempting to repair
    > bad upgrades!
    >
    > OTOH: clean installs have worked fine virtually 100% of the time
    > ( the ones that had problems, were typically minor and easy to fix)
    >


    check here for instructions on how to be more successful with your upgrades
    http://www.webtree.ca/windowsxp/upgrade_tips.htm

    --

    Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
    www.webtree.ca/windowsxp
  20. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
    news:%23JkgX8DHFHA.2420@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    > philo wrote:
    >
    >
    > >
    > > first off...
    > > a direct upgrade of win98 to XP *can* certainly work...
    > > but it is less likely to.
    > >
    >
    > Again, what documentation or evidence can you provide to support this
    > claim? *Why* is it less likely to work? Nothing you've said below even
    > applies.
    >
    >
    > > win9x opertating systems
    > > are quite different from NT-based operating systems
    >
    >
    > Obviously.
    >
    >
    > > and only *rarely* would use the same drivers.
    >
    >
    > That should read "never..."
    >
    >
    Nope, i once could not find an XP or win2k driver for a modem...
    and tried a win98 driver...it worked fine.
    Note: that was a one time only experience!

    > > and yes, the drivers are supposed to be replaced during an upgrade...
    >
    >
    > Not only "supposed to be," but have to be, if the device is to work
    > under the new operating system. WinXP won't even attempt to use the
    > Win9x device drivers, even if the files do remain on the hard drive.
    > The worst problem the Win9x drivers can cause is a the waste of a small
    > amount of hard drive space.
    >
    >
    > > but in actual practice there are often compromises made that leave one
    with
    > > an unsatable
    > > system
    > >
    >
    >
    > "Unsatable?" Does an upgrade somehow make the computer hungry? (And
    > the correct word would be "insatiable.") If you mean "unstable," this
    > would occur only if the original OS were problematic to start with, if
    > other installed applications were incompatible with the new OS, or if
    > the hardware platform were incompatible, defective, or sub-standard.
    >
    >
    you know darn well that's a typo. *unstable*

    > > to upgrade win95 to win98 for example is quite safe
    > >
    >
    >
    > Assuming there are no problems with the original OS, that all of the
    > Win95 device drivers were compatible with Win98 (which was often not the
    > case, if memory serves), other installed applications were compatible
    > with the new OS, and if the hardware platform is compatible,
    > non-defective, and not sub-standard, and there is no malware installed.
    >
    >
    > > to upgrade win2k to XP is quite safe...
    > >
    >
    >
    > Again, assuming there are no problems with the original OS, that all of
    > the Win2K device drivers were compatible with WinXP (or were replaced by
    > WinXP-specific drivers), other installed applications were compatible
    > with the new OS, and if the hardware platform is compatible,
    > non-defective, and not sub-standard, and there is no malware installed.
    >
    > Do you notice a trend, yet? Any upgrade can be problem-free, if the
    > underlying hardware is fully compatible with the new OS, if the existing
    > applications are fully compatible, and if the computer user properly
    > prepares and plans for the upgrade. Conversely, any upgrade over a
    > problematic OS, onto incompatible, defective, or sub-standard hardware
    > is likely to fail.
    >
    >
    > > but it's not a good practice to attempt an upgrade from a win9x based OS
    to
    > > an NT based OS
    >
    >
    > Again, can you produce any industry white-papers to this affect? On
    > what do you base your opinion?
    >

    > >
    > > FWIW: i have done well over 500 installations (of various operating
    > > systems... not all microsoft)
    >
    >
    > Relevance? What percentage of these were properly prepared and
    > performed upgrades? What percentage were ill-prepared and poorly
    > performed upgrades? What, specifically, went "wrong" in the majority of
    > cases? What single common factor applies universally, to lead you to
    > summarily conclude that all upgrades are "bad?"
    >

    Note: none of my statements have been an opinion. I have emperical results
    for
    anything I have posted. If I've ever posted on usenet something that I have
    not personally
    tested I've said so. Now, to answer your question...I did not want to imply
    that I've attempted 500
    upgrades of win98 to XP...I just wanted to say that I have a lot of
    experience with installing operating systems in general...and of the many
    installs i've performed...maybe only 50 involved an upgrade of win98 to XP.

    The first time I did it (my own system)...I thought...well why not just take
    the easy route and just directly
    upgrade the win98 to XP? I checked compatability and uninstalled one app
    that was questionable...
    then did the upgrade. It all was quite simple and painless and seemed to all
    go well. *However*
    even though the win98(se) installation had been working well ...my XP
    experience was not a good one. There were occasional crashes and subtle
    system instabilites
    which led me to question whether or not XP was really as good as I was told.
    Anyway...since I has already backed up my data, I decided to just do a fresh
    install , then reinstall all the same apps...That was two years ago or so
    and my XP installation
    has been rock stable.

    Anyway...since i am an experimentor by nature...I have done perhaps 20 or so
    direct upgrades of win98 to XP on either test machines...or for other
    people...and found
    approx half of them to be less than desirable . Although for the most part,
    the upgrade
    did work...the system was not as stable as it was after I formatted the
    drive and just did a clean
    install. After that, I decided to just stick to clean installs and have had
    virtually no problems since.
    That's why I always recommend a clean install.

    Additionally: How likely is it that the win98 installtion is 100 % trouble
    free?
    Doing a fresh install of XP pretty much eliminates that unknown.
    Also, with a clean install, the drive is formatted again...and if there were
    any drive problems...
    that should also be taken care of.

    Plus, it turns out that to do a completely fresh installation really does
    not take all that long...
    even including re-installing the apps.

    I still recall the time I had spent over 4 hours trying to rid someone's
    machine that was plagued
    with viruses...And ending up just formatting the drive and reinstalling
    their apps...all
    within 90 minutes!


    for more reading see this:
    http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_sg_9xupgrade.asp

    Note: on google, if you look for problems upgrading from Win98 to XP
    you will get thousands of hits. Most of the experts advise to perform a
    clean install.
  21. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "Harry Ohrn" <harry---@webtree.ca> wrote in message
    news:%23XLVQVEHFHA.3628@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    > "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
    > news:eEEGeSCHFHA.2276@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    > >
    > > "Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
    > > news:evevosBHFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    > > > philo wrote:
    > [snip]
    > >
    > > FWIW: i have done well over 500 installations (of various operating
    > > systems... not all microsoft)
    > > for people over the last few years and have just wasted too much time
    > > attempting to repair
    > > bad upgrades!
    > >
    > > OTOH: clean installs have worked fine virtually 100% of the time
    > > ( the ones that had problems, were typically minor and easy to fix)
    > >
    >
    >
    > check here for instructions on how to be more successful with your
    upgrades
    > http://www.webtree.ca/windowsxp/upgrade_tips.htm
    >


    I assure you I've read and followed advice even more stringent that listed
    on that site!
  22. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    I'll just bet you have.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:uSuj3jEHFHA.3416@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    >
    > "Harry Ohrn" <harry---@webtree.ca> wrote in message
    > news:%23XLVQVEHFHA.3628@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    >> "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
    >> news:eEEGeSCHFHA.2276@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
    >> >
    >> > "Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
    >> > news:evevosBHFHA.3928@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    >> > > philo wrote:
    >> [snip]
    >> >
    >> > FWIW: i have done well over 500 installations (of various operating
    >> > systems... not all microsoft)
    >> > for people over the last few years and have just wasted too much time
    >> > attempting to repair
    >> > bad upgrades!
    >> >
    >> > OTOH: clean installs have worked fine virtually 100% of the time
    >> > ( the ones that had problems, were typically minor and easy to fix)
    >> >
    >>
    >>
    >> check here for instructions on how to be more successful with your
    > upgrades
    >> http://www.webtree.ca/windowsxp/upgrade_tips.htm
    >>
    >
    >
    > I assure you I've read and followed advice even more stringent that listed
    > on that site!
    >
    >
  23. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:uVyjMwEHFHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    > I'll just bet you have.
    >
    >
    yes,
    before i did the first upgrade i had done a lot of reading.
    from the time XP first came out...until I actually took the plunge...was
    about 6 months.
    no i did not spend the entire time reading...but I did do a lot of it.

    Now that said...how many upgrades have you performed?
    have the systems you've upgraded *ever* crashed?

    I'd like to hear your results.

    If you have done a lot of upgrades...
    and they have all worked 100% then all I can say is...that's great...
    but it does not always work out that way.
  24. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Hundreds and no crashes. I simply prepared well first and did not attempt
    upgrades to any systems that were not certified by the manufacturer's for
    XP. I also ran the Upgrade Advisor and resolved issues before attempting to
    proceed. All were straightforward retail cd upgrades. I got the same
    results from upgrading Win 2000 Pro systems to XP Pro.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:%23Nyzw5EHFHA.2136@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >
    > "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote in message
    > news:uVyjMwEHFHA.3376@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >> I'll just bet you have.
    >>
    >>
    > yes,
    > before i did the first upgrade i had done a lot of reading.
    > from the time XP first came out...until I actually took the plunge...was
    > about 6 months.
    > no i did not spend the entire time reading...but I did do a lot of it.
    >
    > Now that said...how many upgrades have you performed?
    > have the systems you've upgraded *ever* crashed?
    >
    > I'd like to hear your results.
    >
    > If you have done a lot of upgrades...
    > and they have all worked 100% then all I can say is...that's great...
    > but it does not always work out that way.
    >
    >
  25. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:exVaigFHFHA.3624@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > Hundreds and no crashes. I simply prepared well first and did not attempt
    > upgrades to any systems that were not certified by the manufacturer's for
    > XP. I also ran the Upgrade Advisor and resolved issues before attempting
    to
    > proceed. All were straightforward retail cd upgrades. I got the same
    > results from upgrading Win 2000 Pro systems to XP Pro.
    >
    OK
    fair enough!

    i'd not expect any problems with win2k > XP


    did any of those win98 > XP upgrades *ever* have a crash during
    let's say a one year period of time? not an application failure...but a full
    system failure?
    just curious.
    thank you
  26. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    In news:u8JJNpFHFHA.1476@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl,
    philo <philo@privacy.net> respectfully replied ;-)
    > "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote in message
    > news:exVaigFHFHA.3624@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >> Hundreds and no crashes. I simply prepared well first and did not
    >> attempt upgrades to any systems that were not certified by the
    >> manufacturer's for XP. I also ran the Upgrade Advisor and resolved
    >> issues before attempting to proceed. All were straightforward
    >> retail cd upgrades. I got the same results from upgrading Win 2000
    >> Pro systems to XP Pro.
    >>
    > OK
    > fair enough!
    >
    > i'd not expect any problems with win2k > XP
    >
    >
    > did any of those win98 > XP upgrades *ever* have a crash during
    > let's say a one year period of time? not an application failure...but
    > a full system failure?
    > just curious.
    > thank you

    My experience is much the same as Colin's and for the life of me I don't
    understand how a crash during any period of time would relate any argument
    that a clean install would be better than an upgrade. Grasping for straws?
    The XP upgrade when properly prepped is very close to a clean install, and
    since the Windows folder is completely removed and replaced with a new CLEAN
    Windows folder, old drivers are NOT migrated. The same drivers that a clean
    install would use are also used for the upgrade [hint! they are on the XP
    CD]. When you remove incompatible hardware and software before the upgrade,
    the upgrade is going to be a success.
    --
    Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
    xpnews@bogusmichaelstevenstech.com
    http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
    For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
    http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
  27. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    In news:%231tRRXCHFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl,
    Colin Barnhorst <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> respectfully replied ;-)
    > I agree with Ken. Do a virus scan and remove any spyware, defrag,
    > and then upgrade.
    >
    >> In news:g67121p2u9517fsf1vcsmsiemc9qkruie0@4ax.com,
    >> JT <nomail@ever.com> typed:
    >>
    >>> "dougie" <queanbeyan@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Hi,
    >>>>
    >>>> I have xp pro upgrade package from win 98 and would like some info
    >>>> about if I need to reformat my hdd - do i need to completely
    >>>> reinstall win98 before xp pro or can i simply copy a few files
    >>>> across from win 98 to allow xp pro to recognise that I have a
    >>>> license for both?
    >>>>
    >>>> thanks
    >>>
    >>> You have several practical (although perhaps not strictly legal)
    >>> options when using the XP Pro upgrade disk.
    >>>
    >>> 1) A true upgrade to your Win 98 computer in which case you simply
    >>> stick in the XP Pro upgrade disk and proceed. Not advised.
    >>
    >>
    >> Not advised by you, but advised by many of us.
    >> Unlike with previous versions of Windows, an upgrade to XP replaces
    >> almost everything, and usually works very well.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> My recommendation is to at least try the upgrade, since it's much
    >> easier than a clean installation. You can always change your mind
    >> and reinstall cleanly if problems develop.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> However, don't assume that doing an upgrade relieves you of the need
    >> to backup your data, etc. before beginning. Before starting to
    >> upgrade, it's always prudent to recognize that things like a sudden
    >> power loss can occur in the middle of it and cause the loss of
    >> everything. For that reason you should make sure you have backups
    >> and anything else you need to reinstall if the worst happens.
    >> >>
    >> --
    >> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    >> Please reply to the newsgroup

    To add to the great advise both of you give, I suggest prepping for a clean
    install but opt for the upgrade as the first option. This way if some freak
    act of the unknown [power loss, hard drive failure, mental fart, etc.]
    happens, everything is in place to do the clean install. The time spent on
    an unsuccessful upgrade would be hardly noticed when added to the time it
    takes to configure a clean install.
    --
    Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
    xpnews@bogusmichaelstevenstech.com
    http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
    For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
    http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
  28. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "Michael Stevens" <mstevens@bogusmvps.org> wrote in message
    news:OB6rNpIHFHA.4084@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    > In news:u8JJNpFHFHA.1476@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl,
    > philo <philo@privacy.net> respectfully replied ;-)
    > > "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote in message
    > > news:exVaigFHFHA.3624@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > >> Hundreds and no crashes. I simply prepared well first and did not
    > >> attempt upgrades to any systems that were not certified by the
    > >> manufacturer's for XP. I also ran the Upgrade Advisor and resolved
    > >> issues before attempting to proceed. All were straightforward
    > >> retail cd upgrades. I got the same results from upgrading Win 2000
    > >> Pro systems to XP Pro.
    > >>
    > > OK
    > > fair enough!
    > >
    > > i'd not expect any problems with win2k > XP
    > >
    > >
    > > did any of those win98 > XP upgrades *ever* have a crash during
    > > let's say a one year period of time? not an application failure...but
    > > a full system failure?
    > > just curious.
    > > thank you
    >
    > My experience is much the same as Colin's and for the life of me I don't
    > understand how a crash during any period of time would relate any
    argument
    > that a clean install would be better than an upgrade. Grasping for straws?
    > The XP upgrade when properly prepped is very close to a clean install, and
    > since the Windows folder is completely removed and replaced with a new
    CLEAN
    > Windows folder, old drivers are NOT migrated. The same drivers that a
    clean
    > install would use are also used for the upgrade [hint! they are on the XP
    > CD]. When you remove incompatible hardware and software before the
    upgrade,
    > the upgrade is going to be a success.


    Actually i was not grasping at straws...
    because the systems i have performed clean installs on have been running
    flawlessly for
    several years now. Although i have had a few system crashes due to hardware
    failure
    (ie: cpu fan quit etc) the system itself has never crashed. That's several
    machines
    over a two year period of time.

    Even though, in theory XP may have been designed to upgrade win98...
    in practice (even if compatability is checked first) I've found that that
    just is not the case.

    One side point I'd like to make is that i was quite surprised at how well XP
    really works...
    even with legacy devices. I've install XP many times on machines that still
    had some fairly old
    ISA devices and have never had a problem. So hardware compatability is (at
    least in my experience) , virtually a non-issue.


    Now, getting back to my original question, which no one has answered yet. In
    all the systems
    which were upgraded from win98 to XP...Did any of them ever crash within
    (let's say), a one year
    period? Now if you'd say , sure so it crashed once or twice in that year, so
    what...that's
    normal. All I can say is..."How do you know that a clean install would not
    have worked better?"

    Finally...If one can truely say that they've performed hundreds of upgrades
    and none of them have ever crashed, ever...then maybe I'll quit harping so
    much on the clean
    install method!
    However , of course not all older software will work under XP...but for the
    most part...
    that which does not function is pretty darn old (such as dos games for
    example)
  29. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    In news:O%23idkzLHFHA.904@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
    philo <philo@privacy.net> respectfully replied ;-)
    > "Michael Stevens" <mstevens@bogusmvps.org> wrote in message
    > news:OB6rNpIHFHA.4084@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >> In news:u8JJNpFHFHA.1476@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl,
    >> philo <philo@privacy.net> respectfully replied ;-)
    >>> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:exVaigFHFHA.3624@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >>>> Hundreds and no crashes. I simply prepared well first and did not
    >>>> attempt upgrades to any systems that were not certified by the
    >>>> manufacturer's for XP. I also ran the Upgrade Advisor and resolved
    >>>> issues before attempting to proceed. All were straightforward
    >>>> retail cd upgrades. I got the same results from upgrading Win 2000
    >>>> Pro systems to XP Pro.
    >>>>
    >>> OK
    >>> fair enough!
    >>>
    >>> i'd not expect any problems with win2k > XP
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> did any of those win98 > XP upgrades *ever* have a crash during
    >>> let's say a one year period of time? not an application
    >>> failure...but a full system failure?
    >>> just curious.
    >>> thank you
    >>
    >> My experience is much the same as Colin's and for the life of me I
    >> don't understand how a crash during any period of time would relate
    >> any argument that a clean install would be better than an upgrade.
    >> Grasping for straws? The XP upgrade when properly prepped is very
    >> close to a clean install, and since the Windows folder is completely
    >> removed and replaced with a new CLEAN Windows folder, old drivers
    >> are NOT migrated. The same drivers that a clean install would use
    >> are also used for the upgrade [hint! they are on the XP CD]. When
    >> you remove incompatible hardware and software before the upgrade,
    >> the upgrade is going to be a success.
    >
    >
    >
    > Actually i was not grasping at straws...
    > because the systems i have performed clean installs on have been
    > running flawlessly for
    > several years now. Although i have had a few system crashes due to
    > hardware failure
    > (ie: cpu fan quit etc) the system itself has never crashed. That's
    > several machines
    > over a two year period of time.
    >
    > Even though, in theory XP may have been designed to upgrade win98...
    > in practice (even if compatability is checked first) I've found that
    > that just is not the case.
    >
    > One side point I'd like to make is that i was quite surprised at how
    > well XP really works...
    > even with legacy devices. I've install XP many times on machines that
    > still had some fairly old
    > ISA devices and have never had a problem. So hardware compatability
    > is (at least in my experience) , virtually a non-issue.
    >
    >
    > Now, getting back to my original question, which no one has answered
    > yet. In all the systems
    > which were upgraded from win98 to XP...Did any of them ever crash
    > within (let's say), a one year
    > period? Now if you'd say , sure so it crashed once or twice in that
    > year, so what...that's
    > normal. All I can say is..."How do you know that a clean install
    > would not have worked better?"
    >

    Yes, and so did a couple of clean installs, what exactly does this prove? I
    also have a couple of dual boot systems that are a mixture of clean and
    upgrade and neither have crashed, and I have to check to see which is the
    clean or upgrade OS I am booted into. You really don't understand how the XP
    upgrade works from what have you posted
    95/98/Me drivers are not migrated to XP, any hardware that doesn't have XP
    drivers by now, should be junked or if the hardware is very important the
    system should not be upgraded at all.
    Bottom line is a poorly prepped clean install will give about the same
    results as a poorly prepped upgrade and the same goes for a well prepped
    upgrade and clean install. The XP upgrade is vastly improved from previous
    Windows upgrades and should not be treated the same as previous upgrades.
    When done correctly, it is very close to a clean install in both stability
    and final installed footprint with a major savings in time spent in
    configuration and productivity.

    --
    Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
    xpnews@bogusmichaelstevenstech.com
    http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
    For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
    http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm


    > Finally...If one can truely say that they've performed hundreds of
    > upgrades and none of them have ever crashed, ever...then maybe I'll
    > quit harping so much on the clean
    > install method!
    > However , of course not all older software will work under XP...but
    > for the most part...
    > that which does not function is pretty darn old (such as dos games for
    > example)
  30. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "Michael Stevens" <mstevens@bogusmvps.org> wrote in message news:e%> >>>

    <portions trimmed>

    > > Actually i was not grasping at straws...
    > > because the systems i have performed clean installs on have been
    > > running flawlessly for
    > > several years now. Although i have had a few system crashes due to
    > > hardware failure
    > > (ie: cpu fan quit etc) the system itself has never crashed. That's
    > > several machines
    > > over a two year period of time.
    > >
    > > Even though, in theory XP may have been designed to upgrade win98...
    > > in practice (even if compatability is checked first) I've found that
    > > that just is not the case.
    > >
    > > One side point I'd like to make is that i was quite surprised at how
    > > well XP really works...
    > > even with legacy devices. I've install XP many times on machines that
    > > still had some fairly old
    > > ISA devices and have never had a problem. So hardware compatability
    > > is (at least in my experience) , virtually a non-issue.
    > >
    > >
    > > Now, getting back to my original question, which no one has answered
    > > yet. In all the systems
    > > which were upgraded from win98 to XP...Did any of them ever crash
    > > within (let's say), a one year
    > > period? Now if you'd say , sure so it crashed once or twice in that
    > > year, so what...that's
    > > normal. All I can say is..."How do you know that a clean install
    > > would not have worked better?"
    > >
    >
    > Yes, and so did a couple of clean installs, what exactly does this prove?
    I
    > also have a couple of dual boot systems that are a mixture of clean and
    > upgrade and neither have crashed, and I have to check to see which is the
    > clean or upgrade OS I am booted into. You really don't understand how the
    XP
    > upgrade works from what have you posted
    > 95/98/Me drivers are not migrated to XP, any hardware that doesn't have XP
    > drivers by now, should be junked or if the hardware is very important the
    > system should not be upgraded at all.


    Although I do understand the upgrade process...
    I think there are a few people here who missed my point entirely.

    I have done a number of upgrades after carefully
    following advice and checking compatability...yet still have ended up with
    some
    less than optimal systems. Though the upgrades did not "fail" so to
    speak...the system
    was not as stable as i had expected it to be...and by formatting the drive
    and performing
    a clean install...all was well. Note: that was using the *same* hardware and
    *same* apps.
    As I said...I have certainly had quite a few upgrades work just fine...but
    I've had enough
    that didn't to generally discourage such.


    > Bottom line is a poorly prepped clean install will give about the same
    > results as a poorly prepped upgrade and the same goes for a well prepped
    > upgrade and clean install. The XP upgrade is vastly improved from previous
    > Windows upgrades and should not be treated the same as previous upgrades.


    The following are your words, not mine:


    > When done correctly, it is very close to a clean install in both stability
    > and final installed footprint


    with a major savings in time spent in
    > configuration and productivity.


    In my experience, "very close" is not good enough.
    Maybe I am too much of a perfectionist...but even if it takes a little bit
    longer to
    backup your data and perform a clean install...it's time well spent...
    especially considering it may only take an extra hour or two...
    compared to the many years one will probably be using the OS!

    One more point...
    one must examine how much time is spent in "prepping" a marginal win98
    installation
    in order to ready it for an upgrade... vs the time spent just backing up the
    data
    and reinstalling. More than likely it's actually quicker to just to a clean
    install.
  31. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    In news:%23q3odrMHFHA.2276@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl,
    philo <philo@privacy.net> respectfully replied ;-)
    > "Michael Stevens" <mstevens@bogusmvps.org> wrote in message news:e%>
    > >>>
    >
    > <portions trimmed>
    >
    >>> Actually i was not grasping at straws...
    >>> because the systems i have performed clean installs on have been
    >>> running flawlessly for
    >>> several years now. Although i have had a few system crashes due to
    >>> hardware failure
    >>> (ie: cpu fan quit etc) the system itself has never crashed. That's
    >>> several machines
    >>> over a two year period of time.
    >>>
    >>> Even though, in theory XP may have been designed to upgrade win98...
    >>> in practice (even if compatability is checked first) I've found that
    >>> that just is not the case.
    >>>
    >>> One side point I'd like to make is that i was quite surprised at how
    >>> well XP really works...
    >>> even with legacy devices. I've install XP many times on machines
    >>> that still had some fairly old
    >>> ISA devices and have never had a problem. So hardware compatability
    >>> is (at least in my experience) , virtually a non-issue.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Now, getting back to my original question, which no one has answered
    >>> yet. In all the systems
    >>> which were upgraded from win98 to XP...Did any of them ever crash
    >>> within (let's say), a one year
    >>> period? Now if you'd say , sure so it crashed once or twice in that
    >>> year, so what...that's
    >>> normal. All I can say is..."How do you know that a clean install
    >>> would not have worked better?"
    >>>
    >>
    >> Yes, and so did a couple of clean installs, what exactly does this
    >> prove? I also have a couple of dual boot systems that are a mixture
    >> of clean and upgrade and neither have crashed, and I have to check
    >> to see which is the clean or upgrade OS I am booted into. You really
    >> don't understand how the XP upgrade works from what have you posted
    >> 95/98/Me drivers are not migrated to XP, any hardware that doesn't
    >> have XP drivers by now, should be junked or if the hardware is very
    >> important the system should not be upgraded at all.
    >
    >
    > Although I do understand the upgrade process...
    > I think there are a few people here who missed my point entirely.
    >
    > I have done a number of upgrades after carefully
    > following advice and checking compatability...yet still have ended up
    > with some
    > less than optimal systems. Though the upgrades did not "fail" so to
    > speak...the system
    > was not as stable as i had expected it to be...and by formatting the
    > drive and performing
    > a clean install...all was well. Note: that was using the *same*
    > hardware and *same* apps.
    > As I said...I have certainly had quite a few upgrades work just
    > fine...but I've had enough
    > that didn't to generally discourage such.
    >
    >

    I have found any system that gave problems when I upgraded, were the same on
    the clean install. But that is because of the way I approach an upgrade is
    the same as a clean install.

    >> Bottom line is a poorly prepped clean install will give about the
    >> same results as a poorly prepped upgrade and the same goes for a
    >> well prepped upgrade and clean install. The XP upgrade is vastly
    >> improved from previous Windows upgrades and should not be treated
    >> the same as previous upgrades.
    >
    >
    >
    > The following are your words, not mine:
    >
    >
    >> When done correctly, it is very close to a clean install in both
    >> stability and final installed footprint
    >
    >
    >
    > with a major savings in time spent in
    >> configuration and productivity.
    >
    >
    > In my experience, "very close" is not good enough.
    > Maybe I am too much of a perfectionist...but even if it takes a
    > little bit longer to
    > backup your data and perform a clean install...it's time well spent...
    > especially considering it may only take an extra hour or two...
    > compared to the many years one will probably be using the OS!
    >

    In my experience very close is just a concession that a clean install must
    logically be better, but I have not actually noticed a difference in
    stability. The only real noticeable difference is in the footprint.
    If it only takes you an extra hour or two to do a clean install, then my hat
    is off to you and please tell us your secret.

    > One more point...
    > one must examine how much time is spent in "prepping" a marginal win98
    > installation

    I would not upgrade a marginal 98 system at this time.


    > in order to ready it for an upgrade... vs the time spent just backing
    > up the data

    What would make a difference in time? I would prep for a clean install
    whether upgrading or clean installing

    > and reinstalling. More than likely it's actually quicker to just to a
    > clean install.

    No way is it quicker.

    --
    Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
    xpnews@bogusmichaelstevenstech.com
    http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
    For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
    http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
  32. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "Michael Stevens" <mstevens@bogusmvps.org> wrote in message
    news:%23OT2tDNHFHA.472@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    > In news:%23q3odrMHFHA.2276@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl,
    > philo <philo@privacy.net> respectfully replied ;-)
    > > "Michael Stevens" <mstevens@bogusmvps.org> wrote in message news:e%>
    > > >>>
    > >
    > > <portions trimmed>
    > >
    > I have found any system that gave problems when I upgraded, were the same
    on
    > the clean install. But that is because of the way I approach an upgrade is
    > the same as a clean install.
    >
    > >> Bottom line is a poorly prepped clean install will give about the
    > >> same results as a poorly prepped upgrade and the same goes for a
    > >> well prepped upgrade and clean install. The XP upgrade is vastly
    > >> improved from previous Windows upgrades and should not be treated
    > >> the same as previous upgrades.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > The following are your words, not mine:
    > >
    > >
    > >> When done correctly, it is very close to a clean install in both
    > >> stability and final installed footprint
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > with a major savings in time spent in
    > >> configuration and productivity.
    > >
    > >
    > > In my experience, "very close" is not good enough.
    > > Maybe I am too much of a perfectionist...but even if it takes a
    > > little bit longer to
    > > backup your data and perform a clean install...it's time well spent...
    > > especially considering it may only take an extra hour or two...
    > > compared to the many years one will probably be using the OS!
    > >
    >
    > In my experience very close is just a concession that a clean install must
    > logically be better, but I have not actually noticed a difference in
    > stability. The only real noticeable difference is in the footprint.
    > If it only takes you an extra hour or two to do a clean install, then my
    hat
    > is off to you and please tell us your secret.
    >

    > > One more point...
    > > one must examine how much time is spent in "prepping" a marginal win98
    > > installation
    >
    > I would not upgrade a marginal 98 system at this time.
    >
    >
    > > in order to ready it for an upgrade... vs the time spent just backing
    > > up the data
    >
    > What would make a difference in time? I would prep for a clean install
    > whether upgrading or clean installing
    >
    > > and reinstalling. More than likely it's actually quicker to just to a
    > > clean install.
    >
    > No way is it quicker.
    >

    When upgrading a Win98 system to XP...
    it's really not that likely that the Win98 system is 100% good...
    even if there are no conflicts...and assuming XP properly replaces all the
    drivers...
    there still could be some minor registry errors that though they were not
    casing any real problems...
    would be multplied after an ungrade.

    So, if one were to fully examine the win98 system and correct all errors
    before upgrading...
    it could take a bit of time.
    A fresh install of XP, to me just has not seemed too terribly time
    consuming...
    I have no "secret" method other than just being sure to export the OE and IE
    data first.

    Now that said...even assuming one had a 100% funtional win98 system
    which would lend itself to a 100% functional XP upgrade...
    My question is...why would you want to upgrade a system that is perfectly
    good in the
    first place?

    I never recommend to anyone that they upgrade a perfectly good win98 system
    to XP...
    OTOH: if someone is having incurable win98 stability problems... I generally
    do recommend
    a move to the more stable Win2k or XP...but of course would never do
    anything but a clean
    install in those cases...

    Now that I've put my case down in writing it's obvious why I stand at odds
    with some of the people here...It's simply because the main reason I upgrade
    people's machines to XP is simply becasue of their win98 problems...so of
    course do a clean install.

    The win98 systems, that are working fine...i generally don't upgrade.

    So now all I am left to ask is why you guys are upgrading perfectly good
    100% working
    win98 systems?
  33. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    In news:eJl5LRNHFHA.2924@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl,
    philo <philo@privacy.net> respectfully replied ;-)
    > "Michael Stevens" <mstevens@bogusmvps.org> wrote in message
    > news:%23OT2tDNHFHA.472@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >> In news:%23q3odrMHFHA.2276@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl,
    >> philo <philo@privacy.net> respectfully replied ;-)
    >>> "Michael Stevens" <mstevens@bogusmvps.org> wrote in message news:e%>
    >>>>>>
    >>>
    >>> <portions trimmed>
    >>>
    >> I have found any system that gave problems when I upgraded, were the
    >> same on the clean install. But that is because of the way I approach
    >> an upgrade is the same as a clean install.
    >>
    >>>> Bottom line is a poorly prepped clean install will give about the
    >>>> same results as a poorly prepped upgrade and the same goes for a
    >>>> well prepped upgrade and clean install. The XP upgrade is vastly
    >>>> improved from previous Windows upgrades and should not be treated
    >>>> the same as previous upgrades.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> The following are your words, not mine:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> When done correctly, it is very close to a clean install in both
    >>>> stability and final installed footprint
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> with a major savings in time spent in
    >>>> configuration and productivity.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> In my experience, "very close" is not good enough.
    >>> Maybe I am too much of a perfectionist...but even if it takes a
    >>> little bit longer to
    >>> backup your data and perform a clean install...it's time well
    >>> spent... especially considering it may only take an extra hour or
    >>> two... compared to the many years one will probably be using the OS!
    >>>
    >>
    >> In my experience very close is just a concession that a clean
    >> install must logically be better, but I have not actually noticed a
    >> difference in stability. The only real noticeable difference is in
    >> the footprint.
    >> If it only takes you an extra hour or two to do a clean install,
    >> then my hat is off to you and please tell us your secret.
    >>
    >
    >>> One more point...
    >>> one must examine how much time is spent in "prepping" a marginal
    >>> win98 installation
    >>
    >> I would not upgrade a marginal 98 system at this time.
    >>
    >>
    >>> in order to ready it for an upgrade... vs the time spent just
    >>> backing up the data
    >>
    >> What would make a difference in time? I would prep for a clean
    >> install whether upgrading or clean installing
    >>
    >>> and reinstalling. More than likely it's actually quicker to just to
    >>> a clean install.
    >>
    >> No way is it quicker.
    >>
    >
    > When upgrading a Win98 system to XP...
    > it's really not that likely that the Win98 system is 100% good...
    > even if there are no conflicts...and assuming XP properly replaces
    > all the drivers...
    > there still could be some minor registry errors that though they were
    > not casing any real problems...
    > would be multplied after an ungrade.
    >
    > So, if one were to fully examine the win98 system and correct all
    > errors before upgrading...
    > it could take a bit of time.
    > A fresh install of XP, to me just has not seemed too terribly time
    > consuming...
    > I have no "secret" method other than just being sure to export the OE
    > and IE data first.
    >
    > Now that said...even assuming one had a 100% funtional win98 system
    > which would lend itself to a 100% functional XP upgrade...
    > My question is...why would you want to upgrade a system that is
    > perfectly good in the
    > first place?
    >
    > I never recommend to anyone that they upgrade a perfectly good win98
    > system to XP...
    > OTOH: if someone is having incurable win98 stability problems... I
    > generally do recommend
    > a move to the more stable Win2k or XP...but of course would never do
    > anything but a clean
    > install in those cases...
    >
    > Now that I've put my case down in writing it's obvious why I stand at
    > odds with some of the people here...It's simply because the main
    > reason I upgrade people's machines to XP is simply becasue of their
    > win98 problems...so of course do a clean install.
    >
    > The win98 systems, that are working fine...i generally don't upgrade.
    >
    > So now all I am left to ask is why you guys are upgrading perfectly
    > good 100% working
    > win98 systems?

    Unfortunately you do not have a realistic grasp on how the XP upgrade works.
    There is nothing left of 98 after the upgrade except for the registry
    settings you allowed it to migrate.
    We stand in agreement upgrading a 98 system, I very rarely suggest anyone
    upgrade a 98 system to XP. With the prices of entry level XP systems so very
    close to the cost of upgrading a 98 system, I find it very foolish to
    upgrade. Any 98 system you upgrade to XP would be obsolete and the cheapest
    entry level Dell system would run circles around the 98 system upgraded to
    XP.
    I suggest lean out the 98 system, network it with a new XP system and get a
    lot more bang for the buck.
    --
    Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
    xpnews@bogusmichaelstevenstech.com
    http://www.michaelstevenstech.com
    For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
    http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.htm
  34. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Michael Stevens" <mstevens@bogusmvps.org>
    Newsgroups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics
    Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 8:27 AM
    Subject: Re: xp upgrade from 98sephilo@privacy.net> respectfully replied ;-)
    > >>> "Michael Stevens" <mstevens@bogusmvps.org> wrote in message news:e%>
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>
    <portions trimmed>

    > > > >>
    > >> In my experience very close is just a concession that a clean
    > >> install must logically be better, but I have not actually noticed a
    > >> difference in stability. The only real noticeable difference is in
    > >> the footprint.
    > >> If it only takes you an extra hour or two to do a clean install,
    > >> then my hat is off to you and please tell us your secret.
    > >>
    > >
    > >>> One more point...
    > >>> one must examine how much time is spent in "prepping" a marginal
    > >>> win98 installation
    > >>
    > >

    > >> Unfortunately you do not have a realistic grasp on how the XP upgrade
    works.
    > There is nothing left of 98 after the upgrade except for the registry
    > settings you allowed it to migrate.

    My understanding is probably not perfect...
    but if win98 has registry flaws...chances are the XP upgrade will too.
    If the win98 registry flaws are repairable...
    then they should of course be repaired.(and if win98 then works fine...why
    upgrade?)
    If they are not repairable...then that would call for a clean installtion of
    XP
    I don't see anything here that is a point of argument.

    > We stand in agreement upgrading a 98 system, I very rarely suggest anyone
    > upgrade a 98 system to XP. With the prices of entry level XP systems so
    very
    > close to the cost of upgrading a 98 system, I find it very foolish to
    > upgrade. Any 98 system you upgrade to XP would be obsolete and the
    cheapest
    > entry level Dell system would run circles around the 98 system upgraded to
    > XP.
    > I suggest lean out the 98 system, network it with a new XP system and get
    a
    > lot more bang for the buck.


    Well now that all that's been said...
    I guess I can think of one reason to upgrade to XP...
    and that would be for a larger hardrive and the better cluster size and
    fault tolerence of NTFS.
    But most machines old enough to have win98 on them probably don't have the
    hardware to run XP
    too well.
    BTW: I just worked on a guy's P-4 3.5ghz with a gig of RAM
    and even with that hardware...the machine ran much better (faster) with
    animations turned off...
    I typicall work on older equipment (200 mhz - 2ghz)
  35. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    In news:%239HNY9KHFHA.3200@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl,
    Michael Stevens <mstevens@bogusmvps.org> typed:

    > In news:%231tRRXCHFHA.580@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl,
    > Colin Barnhorst <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> respectfully
    > replied
    > ;-)
    >> I agree with Ken. Do a virus scan and remove any spyware,
    >> defrag,
    >> and then upgrade.
    >>
    >>> In news:g67121p2u9517fsf1vcsmsiemc9qkruie0@4ax.com,
    >>> JT <nomail@ever.com> typed:
    >>>
    >>>> "dougie" <queanbeyan@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Hi,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I have xp pro upgrade package from win 98 and would like
    >>>>> some info
    >>>>> about if I need to reformat my hdd - do i need to
    >>>>> completely
    >>>>> reinstall win98 before xp pro or can i simply copy a few
    >>>>> files
    >>>>> across from win 98 to allow xp pro to recognise that I have
    >>>>> a
    >>>>> license for both?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> thanks
    >>>>
    >>>> You have several practical (although perhaps not strictly
    >>>> legal)
    >>>> options when using the XP Pro upgrade disk.
    >>>>
    >>>> 1) A true upgrade to your Win 98 computer in which case you
    >>>> simply
    >>>> stick in the XP Pro upgrade disk and proceed. Not advised.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Not advised by you, but advised by many of us.
    >>> Unlike with previous versions of Windows, an upgrade to XP
    >>> replaces
    >>> almost everything, and usually works very well.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> My recommendation is to at least try the upgrade, since it's
    >>> much
    >>> easier than a clean installation. You can always change your
    >>> mind
    >>> and reinstall cleanly if problems develop.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> However, don't assume that doing an upgrade relieves you of
    >>> the need
    >>> to backup your data, etc. before beginning. Before starting
    >>> to
    >>> upgrade, it's always prudent to recognize that things like a
    >>> sudden
    >>> power loss can occur in the middle of it and cause the loss
    >>> of
    >>> everything. For that reason you should make sure you have
    >>> backups
    >>> and anything else you need to reinstall if the worst happens.
    >>>>>
    >>> --
    >>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    >>> Please reply to the newsgroup
    >
    > To add to the great advise both of you give, I suggest prepping
    > for a
    > clean install but opt for the upgrade as the first option.


    Yes, I completely agree.

    --
    Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    Please reply to the newsgroup


    > This way
    > if some freak act of the unknown [power loss, hard drive
    > failure,
    > mental fart, etc.] happens, everything is in place to do the
    > clean
    > install. The time spent on an unsuccessful upgrade would be
    > hardly
    > noticed when added to the time it takes to configure a clean
    > install.
  36. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:

    >Unlike with previous versions of Windows, an upgrade to XP
    >replaces almost everything, and usually works very well.

    "Usually" being the operative word. Sorry, but I many others don't
    wish to gamble seven plus years of software purchases, updates, and
    data on "usually".

    >However, don't assume that doing an upgrade relieves you of the
    >need to backup your data, etc. before beginning. Before starting
    >to upgrade, it's always prudent to recognize that things like a
    >sudden power loss can occur in the middle of it and cause the
    >loss of everything. For that reason you should make sure you have
    >backups and anything else you need to reinstall if the worst
    >happens.

    The mistake that you and a few others make is the false assumption
    that most users have the technical ability to make such backups. For
    most users, your caveat to "have backups and anything else needed to
    reinstall" would be virtually impossible to achieve without hands-on
    expert assistance. No, the safest way to effect an XP Pro upgrade is
    to first have someone who knows what they are doing either image the
    drive(s) beforehand and store the image externally or clone the
    drive(s) beforehand. That way, reverting back to a working Win98
    system is just a matter of restoring the image or swapping drives.
  37. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "JT" <nomail@ever.com> wrote in message
    news:l94421p7of1tt1175lvte8sg3e2it05ohb@4ax.com...
    > "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
    >
    > >Unlike with previous versions of Windows, an upgrade to XP
    > >replaces almost everything, and usually works very well.
    >
    > "Usually" being the operative word. Sorry, but I many others don't
    > wish to gamble seven plus years of software purchases, updates, and
    > data on "usually".
    >
    > >However, don't assume that doing an upgrade relieves you of the
    > >need to backup your data, etc. before beginning. Before starting
    > >to upgrade, it's always prudent to recognize that things like a
    > >sudden power loss can occur in the middle of it and cause the
    > >loss of everything. For that reason you should make sure you have
    > >backups and anything else you need to reinstall if the worst
    > >happens.
    >
    > The mistake that you and a few others make is the false assumption
    > that most users have the technical ability to make such backups. For
    > most users, your caveat to "have backups and anything else needed to
    > reinstall" would be virtually impossible to achieve without hands-on
    > expert assistance. No, the safest way to effect an XP Pro upgrade is
    > to first have someone who knows what they are doing either image the
    > drive(s) beforehand and store the image externally or clone the
    > drive(s) beforehand. That way, reverting back to a working Win98
    > system is just a matter of restoring the image or swapping drives.
    >
    >

    Good answer...
    I agree ...
    I did my first upgrade of win98 to XP on a drive that was all backed up...
    so of course was able to "go back" when it did not work out well.
    You are also right in that the average home user does not necessarily know
    how to backup their OS.
    Not only that, you really need a spare drive to *test* the backup like I
    always do.
    It's kind of scary to see that once in a while the backup is no good and you
    have to
    do it again. Not everyone uses removable drive kits like i do, to make the
    whole
    thing easy... I have a special machine setup with three removable drive
    bays...
    which i made specifically for cloing OS's.


    Howerver...in this day and age, even my non-computer savvy friends know
    enough
    about it to at least backup their data to cd's or DVD's. If the OS or
    harddrive dies...
    it's not the end of the world to reinstall...just as long as the data is
    safe.
    One friend of mine in particular is a professional photographer...who's got
    over 500
    gigs of data!!!

    "Usually works" and "almost as good" are not words in my vocabulary!

    I've noticed that many of the people who post here are quite well seasoned
    and know how to properly install and upgrade operating systems... The casual
    user looking for advice here should not be assumed to use the same
    precautions.
  38. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    JT wrote:

    >
    > "Usually" being the operative word. Sorry, but I many others don't
    > wish to gamble seven plus years of software purchases, updates, and
    > data on "usually".
    >
    >

    What's the gamble? In the rare instances where an upgrade doesn't
    work, the computer is no worse off than if he'd prepared for a clean
    installation.


    >
    >
    > The mistake that you and a few others make is the false assumption
    > that most users have the technical ability to make such backups.


    It's no assumption. It takes little more intelligence to back up one's
    data, than it does to pound sand. You're either grossly
    under-estimating the intelligence of the average human, or vastly
    over-exaggerating the difficulty of safely using a computer.


    > For
    > most users, your caveat to "have backups and anything else needed to
    > reinstall" would be virtually impossible to achieve without hands-on
    > expert assistance.


    Nonsense. Are you saying that most computer users are too dim to
    manage a few mouse-clicks or to master the concept of click-and-drag?
    How, then, are they using their computers in the first place?


    --

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

    "Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
    news:OsApNAQHFHA.3484@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    > JT wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > "Usually" being the operative word. Sorry, but I many others don't
    > > wish to gamble seven plus years of software purchases, updates, and
    > > data on "usually".
    > >
    > >
    >
    > What's the gamble? In the rare instances where an upgrade doesn't
    > work, the computer is no worse off than if he'd prepared for a clean
    > installation.
    >


    I think you missed the point...
    although an upgrade generally does complete...
    that does not guarantee a 100% working or stable system.
    If the upgrade "hoses" the system...unless the drive was backed up...
    there is nothing to go back to.
    Unless the data itself was backed up...
    at that point one would have to perform a clean install *without* formatting
    etc
    to at least keep the data.

    In my opinion...the proper way to upgrade win98 to XP is to
    first back up the data...and confirm its good.
    Export any OE and IE data.(Netscaspe etc)
    Then boot with the XP cd
    and format the drive NTFS and do a clean install.
    Reinstall the apps.
    Import OE and IE data.(etc)
    Copy the data to the appropriate folders.

    Yes, it just may take a bit more work...
    but there is little room for failure.
  40. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    The only advantage to formatting ntfs rather converting to ntfs later is
    that the files system should run a little faster. However, even that can be
    rectified with a boot time defragger such as the one in Diskeeper 9 Pro and
    Perfect Disk which can defrag the file system in addition to the files.

    This whole thread is simply too esoteric. Veterans to this newsgroup are
    contantly encouraging users to back up their systems with all sorts of
    backup programs, frequently Acronis or another imaging program. It cannot
    be that hard to do, especially if the user has a dvd rewriter or a second
    hard drive.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "philo" <philo@privacy.net> wrote in message
    news:OX0qhMQHFHA.3008@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    >
    > "Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:OsApNAQHFHA.3484@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >> JT wrote:
    >>
    >> >
    >> > "Usually" being the operative word. Sorry, but I many others don't
    >> > wish to gamble seven plus years of software purchases, updates, and
    >> > data on "usually".
    >> >
    >> >
    >>
    >> What's the gamble? In the rare instances where an upgrade doesn't
    >> work, the computer is no worse off than if he'd prepared for a clean
    >> installation.
    >>
    >
    >
    > I think you missed the point...
    > although an upgrade generally does complete...
    > that does not guarantee a 100% working or stable system.
    > If the upgrade "hoses" the system...unless the drive was backed up...
    > there is nothing to go back to.
    > Unless the data itself was backed up...
    > at that point one would have to perform a clean install *without*
    > formatting
    > etc
    > to at least keep the data.
    >
    > In my opinion...the proper way to upgrade win98 to XP is to
    > first back up the data...and confirm its good.
    > Export any OE and IE data.(Netscaspe etc)
    > Then boot with the XP cd
    > and format the drive NTFS and do a clean install.
    > Reinstall the apps.
    > Import OE and IE data.(etc)
    > Copy the data to the appropriate folders.
    >
    > Yes, it just may take a bit more work...
    > but there is little room for failure.
    >
    >
  41. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    philo wrote:

    >
    >
    >
    > I think you missed the point...
    > although an upgrade generally does complete...
    > that does not guarantee a 100% working or stable system.


    Neither does a clean installation.


    > If the upgrade "hoses" the system...unless the drive was backed up...
    > there is nothing to go back to.
    > Unless the data itself was backed up...


    Which is why one always backs up data before making any serious changes
    to an OS, including installing patches and service packs.


    --

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

    In news:l94421p7of1tt1175lvte8sg3e2it05ohb@4ax.com,
    JT <nomail@ever.com> typed:

    > "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote:
    >
    >> Unlike with previous versions of Windows, an upgrade to XP
    >> replaces almost everything, and usually works very well.
    >
    > "Usually" being the operative word. Sorry, but I many others
    > don't
    > wish to gamble seven plus years of software purchases, updates,
    > and
    > data on "usually".


    I certainly don't think that you should gamble anything, and
    nowhere did I suggest that.


    >> However, don't assume that doing an upgrade relieves you of
    >> the
    >> need to backup your data, etc. before beginning. Before
    >> starting
    >> to upgrade, it's always prudent to recognize that things like
    >> a
    >> sudden power loss can occur in the middle of it and cause the
    >> loss of everything. For that reason you should make sure you
    >> have
    >> backups and anything else you need to reinstall if the worst
    >> happens.
    >
    > The mistake that you and a few others make is the false
    > assumption
    > that most users have the technical ability to make such
    > backups.


    I think you miss the critical point entirely. Backup is
    essential, whether you are doing an upgrade or not. Not having a
    backup is *always* "gambl[ing] seven plus years of software
    purchases, updates, and data" and is a foolhardy thing to do.

    Although making backups is generally easy and well within the
    technical skills of most beginners I know (with a little help to
    get started), I make no assumptions about what technical
    abilities most users have. But anyone who doesn't have that
    ability desparately needs to acquire it. It's not hard to learn
    and is a far greater need than upgrading your version of Windows.


    > For
    > most users, your caveat to "have backups and anything else
    > needed to
    > reinstall" would be virtually impossible to achieve without
    > hands-on
    > expert assistance.


    Nonsense! That's not at all true in my experience. There may be
    an occasional person like that, but the great majority of
    beginners I'ved worked with have easily learned to do backups
    with just a little help from me.


    > No, the safest way to effect an XP Pro upgrade is
    > to first have someone who knows what they are doing either
    > image the
    > drive(s) beforehand and store the image externally or clone the
    > drive(s) beforehand. That way, reverting back to a working
    > Win98
    > system is just a matter of restoring the image or swapping
    > drives.


    That's one form of backup, and it happens to be a good one for
    many people. It's the method I personally use. But it's not the
    only choice.

    --
    Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    Please reply to the newsgroup
  43. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    In news:eDF5izPHFHA.2704@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
    philo <philo@privacy.net> typed:

    > "Usually works" and "almost as good" are not words in my
    > vocabulary!


    Then you need to enrich your vocabulary. The point I was making
    when I said "usually works" was that because it "usually works,"
    it makes sense to try that way first. If it doesn't work, you can
    always revert to a clean installation.

    Do you own a car? Does it always work or does it "usually work"?
    Do you refrain from using it because it only "usually works"?

    Is your car a Ford (substitute Chevrolet, Toyota, or whatever you
    have)? Why don't you have a Rolls-Royce (substitute Ferrari,
    Maserati, or whatever you think is the best)? Your Ford (or
    whatever) is only "almost as good."

    "Usually works" and "almost as good" are facts of life. Nothing
    is guaranteed to work all the time, and very few of us have the
    luxury of being able to always buy the best of everything.

    --
    Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    Please reply to the newsgroup
  44. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    In news:OX0qhMQHFHA.3008@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl,
    philo <philo@privacy.net> typed:

    > "Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote in
    > message
    > news:OsApNAQHFHA.3484@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >> JT wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Usually" being the operative word. Sorry, but I many others
    >>> don't
    >>> wish to gamble seven plus years of software purchases,
    >>> updates, and
    >>> data on "usually".
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >> What's the gamble? In the rare instances where an upgrade
    >> doesn't
    >> work, the computer is no worse off than if he'd prepared for a
    >> clean
    >> installation.
    >>
    >
    >
    > I think you missed the point...
    > although an upgrade generally does complete...
    > that does not guarantee a 100% working or stable system.
    > If the upgrade "hoses" the system...unless the drive was backed
    > up...
    > there is nothing to go back to.


    On the contrary, I think you're the one who missed the point.
    Bruce's comment was in reply to JT's reply to my message
    recommending at least *trying* an upgrade first, but *only*
    after first making a backup. I said "However, don't assume that
    doing an upgrade relieves you of the need to backup your data,
    etc. before beginning. Before starting to upgrade, it's always
    prudent to recognize that things like a sudden power loss can
    occur in the middle of it and cause the loss of everything. For
    that reason you should make sure you have backups and anything
    else you need to reinstall if the worst happens."

    --
    Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    Please reply to the newsgroup
  45. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "Bruce Chambers" <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> wrote in message
    news:enfp7TRHFHA.1476@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    > philo wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > I think you missed the point...
    > > although an upgrade generally does complete...
    > > that does not guarantee a 100% working or stable system.
    >
    >
    > Neither does a clean installation.
    >
    >
    > > If the upgrade "hoses" the system...unless the drive was backed up...
    > > there is nothing to go back to.
    > > Unless the data itself was backed up...
    >
    >
    > Which is why one always backs up data before making any serious changes
    > to an OS, including installing patches and service packs.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    Hey guys...
    you've all made some great points...
    and though I may not agree with everyone 100%...
    I just wanted to say how refreshing it was to talk to everyone in an
    intelligent and cool manner.
    None of the stupid name calling and inane comments found on some of the
    other news
    groups.
    A real pleasure
    and thanks for the great discussion!
  46. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
    news:%23HsPA$RHFHA.3352@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    > In news:eDF5izPHFHA.2704@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
    > philo <philo@privacy.net> typed:
    >
    > > "Usually works" and "almost as good" are not words in my
    > > vocabulary!
    >
    >
    > Then you need to enrich your vocabulary. The point I was making
    > when I said "usually works" was that because it "usually works,"
    > it makes sense to try that way first. If it doesn't work, you can
    > always revert to a clean installation.
    >

    As long as your important data is backed up...I have no problem with
    your statement

    > Do you own a car? Does it always work or does it "usually work"?
    > Do you refrain from using it because it only "usually works"?
    > Is your car a Ford (substitute Chevrolet, Toyota, or whatever you
    > have)? Why don't you have a Rolls-Royce (substitute Ferrari,
    > Maserati, or whatever you think is the best)? Your Ford (or
    > whatever) is only "almost as good."
    >
    > "Usually works" and "almost as good" are facts of life. Nothing
    > is guaranteed to work all the time, and very few of us have the
    > luxury of being able to always buy the best of everything.
    >

    Now you may not believe this, but I do not own a car (or a TV)...
    however i do have a "company van" .It now has close to 90,000 miles on it
    and has *never* failed yet...I keep it maintained very well...better than if
    I owned my own car.

    Same with my computer systems... If one goes down for maintenance or an
    upgrade...
    I have quite a few more that can go on-line... so I am *never* without a
    working computer
    here...generally I have over a dozen ready to go on-line at any time.
    Also have 3 UPS systems and enough batteries to run everything for over 48
    hours.
    Maybe I am a bit too over-cautious...
    I wear a belt but no suspenders...so as you can see...I am willing to take
    an occasional risk :)


    here are links to *some* of my backup systems

    www.plazaearth.com/philo/comps.jpg

    www.plazaearth.com/philo/batt.jpg
  47. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    In news:eIEDraSHFHA.2704@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
    philo <philo@privacy.net> typed:

    > "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
    > news:%23HsPA$RHFHA.3352@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    >> In news:eDF5izPHFHA.2704@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
    >> philo <philo@privacy.net> typed:
    >>
    >>> "Usually works" and "almost as good" are not words in my
    >>> vocabulary!
    >>
    >>
    >> Then you need to enrich your vocabulary. The point I was
    >> making
    >> when I said "usually works" was that because it "usually
    >> works,"
    >> it makes sense to try that way first. If it doesn't work, you
    >> can
    >> always revert to a clean installation.
    >>
    >
    > As long as your important data is backed up...I have no problem
    > with
    > your statement


    Then it would seem that we basically agree. Having a backup was
    an important part of my recommendation.

    --
    Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    Please reply to the newsgroup
  48. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
    news:us%23gBrSHFHA.400@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    > In news:eIEDraSHFHA.2704@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
    > philo <philo@privacy.net> typed:
    >
    > > "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
    > > news:%23HsPA$RHFHA.3352@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    > >> In news:eDF5izPHFHA.2704@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
    > >> philo <philo@privacy.net> typed:
    > >>
    > >>> "Usually works" and "almost as good" are not words in my
    > >>> vocabulary!
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> Then you need to enrich your vocabulary. The point I was
    > >> making
    > >> when I said "usually works" was that because it "usually
    > >> works,"
    > >> it makes sense to try that way first. If it doesn't work, you
    > >> can
    > >> always revert to a clean installation.
    > >>
    > >
    > > As long as your important data is backed up...I have no problem
    > > with
    > > your statement
    >
    >
    > Then it would seem that we basically agree. Having a backup was
    > an important part of my recommendation.
    >


    yes..
    it was not all that long ago that i had an extreme phobia of computers
    and was just using a manual typewriter...
    then thanks to my girlfriend who gave me her old computer...
    i was bitten by the bug...and lurked (and occasionally posted) on some of
    the win98
    groups...
    i got a *lot* of good advice from you (and others) and doubt if i ever
    thanked you

    so now, five years later: Thanks!!!!
  49. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    In news:ewg$1xSHFHA.2740@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl,
    philo <philo@privacy.net> typed:
    > "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
    > news:us%23gBrSHFHA.400@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    >> In news:eIEDraSHFHA.2704@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
    >> philo <philo@privacy.net> typed:
    >>
    >>> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in
    >>> message
    >>> news:%23HsPA$RHFHA.3352@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
    >>>> In news:eDF5izPHFHA.2704@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
    >>>> philo <philo@privacy.net> typed:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "Usually works" and "almost as good" are not words in my
    >>>>> vocabulary!
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Then you need to enrich your vocabulary. The point I was
    >>>> making
    >>>> when I said "usually works" was that because it "usually
    >>>> works,"
    >>>> it makes sense to try that way first. If it doesn't work,
    >>>> you
    >>>> can
    >>>> always revert to a clean installation.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> As long as your important data is backed up...I have no
    >>> problem
    >>> with
    >>> your statement
    >>
    >>
    >> Then it would seem that we basically agree. Having a backup
    >> was
    >> an important part of my recommendation.
    >>
    >
    >
    > yes..
    > it was not all that long ago that i had an extreme phobia of
    > computers
    > and was just using a manual typewriter...
    > then thanks to my girlfriend who gave me her old computer...
    > i was bitten by the bug...and lurked (and occasionally posted)
    > on
    > some of the win98
    > groups...
    > i got a *lot* of good advice from you (and others) and doubt if
    > i ever
    > thanked you
    >
    > so now, five years later: Thanks!!!!


    Thanks very much for the kind words, and you're most welcome.
Ask a new question

Read More

Windows XP Microsoft Hard Drives