Fear and Loathing on the Migration Trail

[Michael]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

As is often the case, my own thread "Migration" (and dilemma) has caused
me to to focus on similar "problems" in this group. Mainly "how to get
one's OS from one place to another." Be it a new drive, a different
partition--the same drive, moving to a new machine or a new drive on a
new machine. (And I probably left something out.) Well, "Setup" appears
to usually not mean "install"...

Anyway, are there two solutions ?: 1. Reinstall 2. Repair

Having acknowledged the benefits of both, I am surprised by the
reflexive response that tends to eminate from the MS culture (here).
One might expect they would be the group that would encourage users
avoid the countless hours involved in re-installing scores of
applications and often reconfiguring those applications. Further, the
Knowledge Base appears to provide a path for nearly every possible
migration.

Is the Knowledge Base full of methods or madness?

Again, not only is the repair path not guaranteed to be successful, no
one (I know of) should argue a clean install might not be a sound ritual
regardless of whether one is migrating or not. (No, never had a colonic)

So...(finally dear reader?) given these two provocative avenues?

I would prefer if someone could/would enlighten me on what/how/why/when
repair is not worth a try?

*That is -- besides spending an hour or so and not succeeding---I'm not
aware of any "risk".*

How can "repair" be dangerous? Correct me, but in my countless
"repairs" (all successful) it has only been the OS "at risk". Not the
drive, not other apps and not the machine.

While one should not be given false hope of success---am I missing
something? Might the wisest in this group be able to draft a short
outline that addresses the above scenarios and post it here regularly?

As it is, my query has left me less clear (and more fearful) as regards
moving my data to a new machine. Do I choose to believe the KB and
proceed with repair, thus saving me the effort of reconfiguring
everthing on the machine? Or do I start from scratch? I realize going
to the usenet rarely results in final conclusion, but I only know the
benefits of a clean install---am I missing the risks?

Is it possible to dilute this issue? We seem to need a path both devoid
of myth and legend yet one which defines (if any) the particular risk(s)
that repair may entail.

A week ago I thought repair was an option. Now I feel as though if it
is, it is one best not exercized...It's as if we've all been issued a
parachute---but are told they don't work.

Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

> I would prefer if someone could/would enlighten me on what/how/why/when
> repair is not worth a try?


When time is an issue.

A lot of people in these groups support a company's network of multiple
computers. I know that there are times when I don't have the time to try
this and try that to maybe get things up and working, only to have to result
to a clean install in the end.

Sometimes time makes you cut to the chase because this "might" work (If not
I reinstall) or that "might" work (If not I reinstall) or if I do this, it
"might" work (if not I reinstall), but if I do a total reinstall, this WILL
work.


> One might expect they would be the group that would encourage users
> avoid the countless hours involved in re-installing scores of
> applications and often reconfiguring those applications.

Corporate computers, common programs. I've done it enough times that I can
set up a computer for a user in a couple of hours. If I were to totally
concentrate on that computer, but with a clean install I can start the
Windows setup, go help a user with Word or printing problem, come back to
the install, OK something, go help a laptop user log in, come back and start
the Office install, go show the president of the company how to sync his
palm. Come back and finish the install.

As far as application settings Office XP has a "save my settings wizard"
Just save them before you start, then import the settings to the new
computer. This whole process only takes at most 3 minutes.

With time as a issue (not to mention 30 to 40 users that you can bet 10
percent will have a problem when you are your busiest), you don't always
have time to experiment, you have to take the sure way.

This is one of those choices each admin has to make at their particular work
place. If I had say 5 help desk personnel I would be more inclined to
dedicate one person to trying to repair a computer while the other 4 put out
the fires and serviced the users. But as it is it is just me. I have
determined that in my situation it is actually easier to reinstall from
scratch. I don't have the time for a repair to fail.


hth
DDS W 2k MVP MCSE

"Michael" <G-2@att.net> wrote in message
news:MMA2d.601050$Gx4.495669@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> As is often the case, my own thread "Migration" (and dilemma) has caused
> me to to focus on similar "problems" in this group. Mainly "how to get
> one's OS from one place to another." Be it a new drive, a different
> partition--the same drive, moving to a new machine or a new drive on a
> new machine. (And I probably left something out.) Well, "Setup" appears
> to usually not mean "install"...
>
> Anyway, are there two solutions ?: 1. Reinstall 2. Repair
>
> Having acknowledged the benefits of both, I am surprised by the
> reflexive response that tends to eminate from the MS culture (here).
> One might expect they would be the group that would encourage users
> avoid the countless hours involved in re-installing scores of
> applications and often reconfiguring those applications. Further, the
> Knowledge Base appears to provide a path for nearly every possible
> migration.
>
> Is the Knowledge Base full of methods or madness?
>
> Again, not only is the repair path not guaranteed to be successful, no
> one (I know of) should argue a clean install might not be a sound ritual
> regardless of whether one is migrating or not. (No, never had a colonic)
>
> So...(finally dear reader?) given these two provocative avenues?
>
> I would prefer if someone could/would enlighten me on what/how/why/when
> repair is not worth a try?
>
> *That is -- besides spending an hour or so and not succeeding---I'm not
> aware of any "risk".*
>
> How can "repair" be dangerous? Correct me, but in my countless
> "repairs" (all successful) it has only been the OS "at risk". Not the
> drive, not other apps and not the machine.
>
> While one should not be given false hope of success---am I missing
> something? Might the wisest in this group be able to draft a short
> outline that addresses the above scenarios and post it here regularly?
>
> As it is, my query has left me less clear (and more fearful) as regards
> moving my data to a new machine. Do I choose to believe the KB and
> proceed with repair, thus saving me the effort of reconfiguring
> everthing on the machine? Or do I start from scratch? I realize going
> to the usenet rarely results in final conclusion, but I only know the
> benefits of a clean install---am I missing the risks?
>
> Is it possible to dilute this issue? We seem to need a path both devoid
> of myth and legend yet one which defines (if any) the particular risk(s)
> that repair may entail.
>
> A week ago I thought repair was an option. Now I feel as though if it
> is, it is one best not exercized...It's as if we've all been issued a
> parachute---but are told they don't work.
>
> Michael
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

Danny Sanders wrote:

>>I would prefer if someone could/would enlighten me on what/how/why/when
>>repair is not worth a try?
>
>
>
> When time is an issue.
>
> A lot of people in these groups support a company's network of multiple
> computers. I know that there are times when I don't have the time to try
> this and try that to maybe get things up and working, only to have to result
> to a clean install in the end.
>
> Sometimes time makes you cut to the chase because this "might" work (If not
> I reinstall) or that "might" work (If not I reinstall) or if I do this, it
> "might" work (if not I reinstall), but if I do a total reinstall, this WILL
> work.
>
>
>
>>One might expect they would be the group that would encourage users
>>avoid the countless hours involved in re-installing scores of
>>applications and often reconfiguring those applications.
>
>
> Corporate computers, common programs. I've done it enough times that I can
> set up a computer for a user in a couple of hours. If I were to totally
> concentrate on that computer, but with a clean install I can start the
> Windows setup, go help a user with Word or printing problem, come back to
> the install, OK something, go help a laptop user log in, come back and start
> the Office install, go show the president of the company how to sync his
> palm. Come back and finish the install.
>
> As far as application settings Office XP has a "save my settings wizard"
> Just save them before you start, then import the settings to the new
> computer. This whole process only takes at most 3 minutes.
>
> With time as a issue (not to mention 30 to 40 users that you can bet 10
> percent will have a problem when you are your busiest), you don't always
> have time to experiment, you have to take the sure way.
>
> This is one of those choices each admin has to make at their particular work
> place. If I had say 5 help desk personnel I would be more inclined to
> dedicate one person to trying to repair a computer while the other 4 put out
> the fires and serviced the users. But as it is it is just me. I have
> determined that in my situation it is actually easier to reinstall from
> scratch. I don't have the time for a repair to fail.
>

In your case it sounds like you are a prime candidate for
imaging software. Restoring a previously saved image
takes a lot less time than doing a reinstall and since you
can just start the process and let it run unattended it
requires a *lot* less your time - you can do other work while
the image is loaded from the network, a CD, or whatever.

The only installing you will need to do will be the patches,
hotfixes, etc, that have been released since you created the
image.

If the clients at your workplace are standardized, a single
image can be used for all of them. Just create your standard
machine by installing the OS and all of the apps and then
tweak it to your heart's content, create the image with a
program like Drive Image, and then use that image next time
one of your user's buggers up his system.

I also use imaging extensively at home.
MicroSoft has a long and painful history of sh*tty patches
that make your machine unbootable, so for the last few
years I have saved an image of my system partition before
installing *anything* from MicroSoft. When a patch trashes
my system it only takes me about 12 minutes to restore the
system *exactly* as it was - I'm never one of those guys who
has to post here for help in escaping from the clutches of
the evil Q123456 hotfix.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

I agree. I'm in the market for some imaging software now.

Even without the imaging software I'm still more prone to do a reinstall.

DDS
"Rob Stow" <rob.stow@sasktel.net> wrote in message
news:u%23n1UgNnEHA.2764@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Danny Sanders wrote:
>
> >>I would prefer if someone could/would enlighten me on what/how/why/when
> >>repair is not worth a try?
> >
> >
> >
> > When time is an issue.
> >
> > A lot of people in these groups support a company's network of multiple
> > computers. I know that there are times when I don't have the time to try
> > this and try that to maybe get things up and working, only to have to
result
> > to a clean install in the end.
> >
> > Sometimes time makes you cut to the chase because this "might" work (If
not
> > I reinstall) or that "might" work (If not I reinstall) or if I do this,
it
> > "might" work (if not I reinstall), but if I do a total reinstall, this
WILL
> > work.
> >
> >
> >
> >>One might expect they would be the group that would encourage users
> >>avoid the countless hours involved in re-installing scores of
> >>applications and often reconfiguring those applications.
> >
> >
> > Corporate computers, common programs. I've done it enough times that I
can
> > set up a computer for a user in a couple of hours. If I were to totally
> > concentrate on that computer, but with a clean install I can start the
> > Windows setup, go help a user with Word or printing problem, come back
to
> > the install, OK something, go help a laptop user log in, come back and
start
> > the Office install, go show the president of the company how to sync his
> > palm. Come back and finish the install.
> >
> > As far as application settings Office XP has a "save my settings wizard"
> > Just save them before you start, then import the settings to the new
> > computer. This whole process only takes at most 3 minutes.
> >
> > With time as a issue (not to mention 30 to 40 users that you can bet 10
> > percent will have a problem when you are your busiest), you don't always
> > have time to experiment, you have to take the sure way.
> >
> > This is one of those choices each admin has to make at their particular
work
> > place. If I had say 5 help desk personnel I would be more inclined to
> > dedicate one person to trying to repair a computer while the other 4 put
out
> > the fires and serviced the users. But as it is it is just me. I have
> > determined that in my situation it is actually easier to reinstall from
> > scratch. I don't have the time for a repair to fail.
> >
>
> In your case it sounds like you are a prime candidate for
> imaging software. Restoring a previously saved image
> takes a lot less time than doing a reinstall and since you
> can just start the process and let it run unattended it
> requires a *lot* less your time - you can do other work while
> the image is loaded from the network, a CD, or whatever.
>
> The only installing you will need to do will be the patches,
> hotfixes, etc, that have been released since you created the
> image.
>
> If the clients at your workplace are standardized, a single
> image can be used for all of them. Just create your standard
> machine by installing the OS and all of the apps and then
> tweak it to your heart's content, create the image with a
> program like Drive Image, and then use that image next time
> one of your user's buggers up his system.
>
> I also use imaging extensively at home.
> MicroSoft has a long and painful history of sh*tty patches
> that make your machine unbootable, so for the last few
> years I have saved an image of my system partition before
> installing *anything* from MicroSoft. When a patch trashes
> my system it only takes me about 12 minutes to restore the
> system *exactly* as it was - I'm never one of those guys who
> has to post here for help in escaping from the clutches of
> the evil Q123456 hotfix.

 

[Michael]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

<Snipped thoughtful and realistic responses>

You have drawn an obvious but necessary (and often) ignored distinction
as concerns migration. That is, posts concerning migration don't
distinguish whether the path involves multiple (I don't know if there is
a magic number) machines or moving data to a single box.

However, though mine is a simply migration from the standpoint of being
a single machine (networked to my laptop, it is complicated due to the
fact that the source machine is six years old and has (easily) fifty
plus applicatons. (Internet/graphics/DTP...). I might prefer fifty
machines that has the MS Office Suite...and an OS that was "out of the
box". Yeah M.P.W2000.reg is a great newsgroup until one realizes those
settings one applied over four years may disappear overnight.

Imaging didn't really stir me...With Drive Copy I sensed I had more
control in "how/where/what fashion I moved data. It wasn't lightning
fast, but I had a good idea of the results.

As I will be moving two drives, multiple partitions to a single
drive(with larger partitions)---does an image account for the different
environment?

Thanks fot not getting defensive. I was prepared for a barrage (my tone
often deserves that?.

Nothing so far seems to prohibit the upgrade/repair path (for me) and
being a single user I'm gambling it will take more time to reconfigure
the OS and applications than repair them at their destination.

My outstanding question remains: Is there any risk in taking my path
(that can't be reversed) or is it simply a time/management decision that
precludes some from upgrade/repair?

The ususal cautious KB articles seem to offer few cavets (other than
warning of degree of difficulty or lack of success). I don't have a
sense that chosing the upgrade/repair path disallows turning back...and
taking the re-install route.

Funny, I recall when dual-booting was venturing into the great
unknown...now (simply?) moving data seems to polarize people into
factions. With OS's and applications outliving machines, the topic
demands unemotional attention.

Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win2000.setup (More info?)

> My outstanding question remains: Is there any risk in taking my path
> (that can't be reversed) or is it simply a time/management decision that
> precludes some from upgrade/repair?



My decision is based on time alone. I don't have any hard facts that there
is more risk involved with upgrading/repair.

hth
DDS W 2k MVP MCSE

"Michael" <G-2@att.net> wrote in message
news5W2d.604825$Gx4.176640@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> <Snipped thoughtful and realistic responses>
>
> You have drawn an obvious but necessary (and often) ignored distinction
> as concerns migration. That is, posts concerning migration don't
> distinguish whether the path involves multiple (I don't know if there is
> a magic number) machines or moving data to a single box.
>
> However, though mine is a simply migration from the standpoint of being
> a single machine (networked to my laptop, it is complicated due to the
> fact that the source machine is six years old and has (easily) fifty
> plus applicatons. (Internet/graphics/DTP...). I might prefer fifty
> machines that has the MS Office Suite...and an OS that was "out of the
> box". Yeah M.P.W2000.reg is a great newsgroup until one realizes those
> settings one applied over four years may disappear overnight.
>
> Imaging didn't really stir me...With Drive Copy I sensed I had more
> control in "how/where/what fashion I moved data. It wasn't lightning
> fast, but I had a good idea of the results.
>
> As I will be moving two drives, multiple partitions to a single
> drive(with larger partitions)---does an image account for the different
> environment?
>
> Thanks fot not getting defensive. I was prepared for a barrage (my tone
> often deserves that?.
>
> Nothing so far seems to prohibit the upgrade/repair path (for me) and
> being a single user I'm gambling it will take more time to reconfigure
> the OS and applications than repair them at their destination.
>
> My outstanding question remains: Is there any risk in taking my path
> (that can't be reversed) or is it simply a time/management decision that
> precludes some from upgrade/repair?
>
> The ususal cautious KB articles seem to offer few cavets (other than
> warning of degree of difficulty or lack of success). I don't have a
> sense that chosing the upgrade/repair path disallows turning back...and
> taking the re-install route.
>
> Funny, I recall when dual-booting was venturing into the great
> unknown...now (simply?) moving data seems to polarize people into
> factions. With OS's and applications outliving machines, the topic
> demands unemotional attention.
>
> Michael
>
>