UPGRADING/Dual-Boot/Migration - anything to avoid a clean ..

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

Hi - There have been some opinions posted that if I'm moving from
WIN98SE to XP, I should do a clean install. Like motherhood, this is
hard to argue against. But my WIN98SE machine is well-maintained (i
installed all SW myself, I keep it clean of unneeded or rogue apps, I
run adaware and scandisk daily, and Mcafee continually, etc)., it's
quite stable, and the time it would take to manually re-install ALL my
apps and migrate over all my data files, and make sure everything works,
would be measured in days. So I see two options

1) Upgrade - is this really such a bad idea for a sophisticated user?
Upgrade Advisor found virtually no problems, and from reading "...Inside
out", it looks like Msoft went to a lot of effort to make this work.

2) Setup a dual boot, and re-install the apps I use a lot (if they need
it). This seems less painful than starting over, and gives me an 'out'
if an old app won't run. The way I understand it - I don't need
multiple copies of the apps. Some (that don't rely much on the windows
directory or registry), will just run. Some might run but revert to
default values (since they're referencing a different O/S folder and
registry) and some may require re-installation (but the data files will
stay put). So this is sort of a new O/S (that I have to re-setup my
environment manually, a small pain), without re-installing ALL the apps.

2b) Are the migration tools mentioned in "...inside out" of any use
here? For example, XP hs one that will save settings of most apps
before the XP install, and then restore them (on the same machine)?
would that work with the dual-boot approach?

finally - if I set up dual-boot - will the WIN98SE setup suffer from
'software rot' - i.e., a year from now I'll try to boot and for some
reason it won't work?

thanks!
/j
7 answers Last reply
More about upgrading dual boot migration avoid clean
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    "Jeff W" <msnews@Kwcpa.com> wrote in message
    news:ugMhY2plEHA.3756@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
    > Hi - There have been some opinions posted that if I'm moving from
    > WIN98SE to XP, I should do a clean install. Like motherhood, this is
    > hard to argue against. But my WIN98SE machine is well-maintained (i
    > installed all SW myself, I keep it clean of unneeded or rogue apps, I
    > run adaware and scandisk daily, and Mcafee continually, etc)., it's
    > quite stable, and the time it would take to manually re-install ALL my
    > apps and migrate over all my data files, and make sure everything works,
    > would be measured in days. So I see two options
    >
    > 1) Upgrade - is this really such a bad idea for a sophisticated user?
    > Upgrade Advisor found virtually no problems, and from reading "...Inside
    > out", it looks like Msoft went to a lot of effort to make this work.
    >
    > 2) Setup a dual boot, and re-install the apps I use a lot (if they need
    > it). This seems less painful than starting over, and gives me an 'out'
    > if an old app won't run. The way I understand it - I don't need
    > multiple copies of the apps. Some (that don't rely much on the windows
    > directory or registry), will just run. Some might run but revert to
    > default values (since they're referencing a different O/S folder and
    > registry) and some may require re-installation (but the data files will
    > stay put). So this is sort of a new O/S (that I have to re-setup my
    > environment manually, a small pain), without re-installing ALL the apps.
    >
    > 2b) Are the migration tools mentioned in "...inside out" of any use
    > here? For example, XP hs one that will save settings of most apps
    > before the XP install, and then restore them (on the same machine)?
    > would that work with the dual-boot approach?
    >
    > finally - if I set up dual-boot - will the WIN98SE setup suffer from
    > 'software rot' - i.e., a year from now I'll try to boot and for some
    > reason it won't work?
    >
    > thanks!
    > /j

    If you upgrade and do not like the result you can always do a fresh install.
    You have 30 days to activate Windows XP, so you can check out your system
    and decide. You can also activate and then decide to do a fresh install.
    At worst, you will need to use the telephone activation option.

    Microsoft recommends the NTFS file system for Windows. Any partition to
    change to NTFS cannot be accessed by Windows 98.

    Don
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    Thanks - but you didn't really comment on the strength of a Dual-boot
    option. In a stand-alone home environment, does NTFS really buy me
    anything?
    thanks
    /j

    >
    >If you upgrade and do not like the result you can always do a fresh install.
    >You have 30 days to activate Windows XP, so you can check out your system
    >and decide. You can also activate and then decide to do a fresh install.
    >At worst, you will need to use the telephone activation option.
    >
    >Microsoft recommends the NTFS file system for Windows. Any partition to
    >change to NTFS cannot be accessed by Windows 98.
    >
    >Don
    >
    >
    >
    >
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    The advice to do a clean install rather than an upgrade often has a
    knee-jerk aspect (especially when bundled with the recommendations to
    reformat the drive first. This makes no sense at all as there's nothing to
    lose then by trying the upgrade.)
    If your machine is clean and stable and you check out compatibility issues
    first, the odds are excellent that an XP upgrade will work just fine. (It
    did in the many upgrade installations I ran for clients.) A full backup is,
    of course, always a wise precaution.

    Dual boot installations (assuming you have an available partition) are
    straightforward, but you will still have to reinstall most apps. Migration
    tools can have some value, but limited. There's no reason the Win 98
    partition should "rot" or fail later, though you'll find it becomes a chore
    to keep both up to date as time goes on and you rarely use the 98 anymore.
    --

    "Jeff W" <msnews@Kwcpa.com> wrote in message
    news:ugMhY2plEHA.3756@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
    > Hi - There have been some opinions posted that if I'm moving from
    > WIN98SE to XP, I should do a clean install. Like motherhood, this is
    > hard to argue against. But my WIN98SE machine is well-maintained (i
    > installed all SW myself, I keep it clean of unneeded or rogue apps, I
    > run adaware and scandisk daily, and Mcafee continually, etc)., it's
    > quite stable, and the time it would take to manually re-install ALL my
    > apps and migrate over all my data files, and make sure everything works,
    > would be measured in days. So I see two options
    >
    > 1) Upgrade - is this really such a bad idea for a sophisticated user?
    > Upgrade Advisor found virtually no problems, and from reading "...Inside
    > out", it looks like Msoft went to a lot of effort to make this work.
    >
    > 2) Setup a dual boot, and re-install the apps I use a lot (if they need
    > it). This seems less painful than starting over, and gives me an 'out'
    > if an old app won't run. The way I understand it - I don't need
    > multiple copies of the apps. Some (that don't rely much on the windows
    > directory or registry), will just run. Some might run but revert to
    > default values (since they're referencing a different O/S folder and
    > registry) and some may require re-installation (but the data files will
    > stay put). So this is sort of a new O/S (that I have to re-setup my
    > environment manually, a small pain), without re-installing ALL the apps.
    >
    > 2b) Are the migration tools mentioned in "...inside out" of any use
    > here? For example, XP hs one that will save settings of most apps
    > before the XP install, and then restore them (on the same machine)?
    > would that work with the dual-boot approach?
    >
    > finally - if I set up dual-boot - will the WIN98SE setup suffer from
    > 'software rot' - i.e., a year from now I'll try to boot and for some
    > reason it won't work?
    >
    > thanks!
    > /j
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    "Jeff W" <msnews@Kwcpa.com> wrote in message
    news:uSxVHHrlEHA.2340@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
    > Thanks - but you didn't really comment on the strength of a Dual-boot
    > option. In a stand-alone home environment, does NTFS really buy me
    > anything?
    > thanks

    I considered dual boot with Windows 98 a non-starter. As I do not
    understand why you would consider a dual boot with Windows 98, I did not
    comment. I you are considering a dual boot as a way to go back to Windows
    98 if you have a problem, then I would suggest you consider an image program
    such as Norton Ghost {or others}. Image your system prior to update to
    Windows XP. If you have a major problem restore your image, solve the
    problem and try again. The current versions are Norton Ghost Version 9
    {Windows XP/2000} and Norton Ghost 2003 {All versions of Windows}. The
    Norton Ghost Version 9 retail package contains both CDs.

    A Google search will provide more than I can provide. NTFS permits greater
    security. With NTFS you can set a fix cluster size independent of partition
    size. With FAT32, the cluster size increases incrementally with partition
    size resulting in more lost slack space. IMO your should use NTFS.

    Don
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    The dual boot seems like best of both worlds - I get a clean XP install
    but I don't have to fresh-install my apps, just re-install them (the
    difference is that i retain all the settings in the program area (and
    the system area with the migration wizard), and I don't have to worry
    about moving the data in the program area. There's also a good chance
    that many of the little apps that I have (which don't use any system
    dlls or registry settings) will just work without re-install. With a
    clean install I have to put everything on the machine again and port all
    the data. With an upgrade I don't have a clean XP install. For one
    computer, where I must still be able to run apps going back 15years (my
    wife is a tax accountant), dual-boot keeps me from EVER having to worry
    about the old apps running under XP. For my other systems, it gives me
    what I described above, even if I never boot 98 again.

    Since I have plenty of disk space, and don't need ACLs and other
    inter-user protections (i expect to have the same admin logged in all
    the time), I have yet to see any advantage from NTFS. I get the sense
    most (all) of the advantage of NTFS becomes visable in a multi-user or
    corporate environment.

    make sense?

    thanks
    /j
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    thanks - i have a lot of 'small' shareware apps (directory size finder,
    file/directory compare, financial calculator, putty, WSFTP, etc) which
    I suspect use so little windows resources that they may not require
    re-installation. but if they do, re-installation is a lot less painful
    then fresh installation as I keep all my settings in the program area
    (and in the system areas if I use the setting migration wizard).

    seems like a better choice than a clean install, and possibly safer than
    an upgrade. On one machine I have 15 years of old tax preparation apps
    (my wife does it for a living) that have to still work, so dual-boot is
    a no-brainer.

    /j


    GTS wrote:

    >The advice to do a clean install rather than an upgrade often has a
    >knee-jerk aspect (especially when bundled with the recommendations to
    >reformat the drive first. This makes no sense at all as there's nothing to
    >lose then by trying the upgrade.)
    >If your machine is clean and stable and you check out compatibility issues
    >first, the odds are excellent that an XP upgrade will work just fine. (It
    >did in the many upgrade installations I ran for clients.) A full backup is,
    >of course, always a wise precaution.
    >
    >Dual boot installations (assuming you have an available partition) are
    >straightforward, but you will still have to reinstall most apps. Migration
    >tools can have some value, but limited. There's no reason the Win 98
    >partition should "rot" or fail later, though you'll find it becomes a chore
    >to keep both up to date as time goes on and you rarely use the 98 anymore.
    >
    >
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (More info?)

    Yes.

    With the long time frame that you are working in and since Microsoft will
    stop supporting Windows 98 in a few years, you should consider imaging your
    Windows 98 partition or at least have a CD with the Windows 98 updates you
    have installed. www.lang.com has some suggestions for the latter.

    Don

    "Jeff W" <msnews@kwcpa.com> wrote in message
    news:uTOqdtulEHA.3536@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    > The dual boot seems like best of both worlds - I get a clean XP install
    > but I don't have to fresh-install my apps, just re-install them (the
    > difference is that i retain all the settings in the program area (and
    > the system area with the migration wizard), and I don't have to worry
    > about moving the data in the program area. There's also a good chance
    > that many of the little apps that I have (which don't use any system
    > dlls or registry settings) will just work without re-install. With a
    > clean install I have to put everything on the machine again and port all
    > the data. With an upgrade I don't have a clean XP install. For one
    > computer, where I must still be able to run apps going back 15years (my
    > wife is a tax accountant), dual-boot keeps me from EVER having to worry
    > about the old apps running under XP. For my other systems, it gives me
    > what I described above, even if I never boot 98 again.
    >
    > Since I have plenty of disk space, and don't need ACLs and other
    > inter-user protections (i expect to have the same admin logged in all
    > the time), I have yet to see any advantage from NTFS. I get the sense
    > most (all) of the advantage of NTFS becomes visable in a multi-user or
    > corporate environment.
    >
    > make sense?
    >
    > thanks
    > /j
Ask a new question

Read More

Dual Boot Windows XP