Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Upgrade from 98SE by installing XP to it's own partition, ..

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 8:01:51 PM

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

Hi - I'm planning a win98SE -> XP migration. ..I'm finding that there
are a number of ways to do it, like

1) wipe the disk clean and start over - great if you don't have much on
it, or are out-of-work and have time on your hands 8-}

2) upgrade - some people say this is risky. One point that was made to
me is that you never know if an APP is using its old DLLs or its new
ones (unless you re-install it, in which case you might as well remove
the risk of a 'dirty' windows directory and....(see #3)

3) Install XP to a different partition than WIN98SE (maybe to its own
dedicated partition?).

You use the migration wizard to move all your registry settings and
app-specific files stored in the windows directory. All your APPs and
data files stay where they are. Small Apps, shareware, etc, mostly
probably run Ok without re-install. For everything else you just have
to do a re-install in place.

I'm thinking that for time and quality of results this is a good
compromise. Since the XP install is clean it doesn't risk the legacy
clutter of an upgrade, but you eliminate most of the time and effort
involved in re-building your system, as re-installing an app is much
faster than the first time. As a bonus, your XP partition is separated
from everything else, which means you don't have to worry about your
backup strategy being complete and bit-accurate (e.g., partition image)
except for a small partition. Maybe that partition contains ONLY XP...

oh yes, and if you do want to do dual-boot - it comes for free.

fatal flaw? make sense?

thanks for your comments.
/j

Ps - if you do like this scheme - can anyone comment on whether it's
required, or safer, or easier, to make the XP partition the first one on
the drive - a bit harder to do for legacy systems admittedly.
Supposedly XP doesn't care, I think any partition can be marked as
active (or can it?)
September 10, 2004 9:33:18 PM

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

You missed one ...........the upgrade with the deletion of the old OS
no space wasted by an older OS
no dual booting headaches when you decide you need that space and want the old
OS gone
no reinstallation of all programs so that they can run under both OS's
no having to build the partitions necesary to hold 98SE/programs/XP
no having to think ahead to how more space is needed in the XP partition to
accomodate SP2 or the ever growing "documents&settings
peter
"Jeff W" <msnews@Kwcpa.com> wrote in message
news:eOgktD3lEHA.2820@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> Hi - I'm planning a win98SE -> XP migration. ..I'm finding that there
> are a number of ways to do it, like
>
> 1) wipe the disk clean and start over - great if you don't have much on
> it, or are out-of-work and have time on your hands 8-}
>
> 2) upgrade - some people say this is risky. One point that was made to
> me is that you never know if an APP is using its old DLLs or its new
> ones (unless you re-install it, in which case you might as well remove
> the risk of a 'dirty' windows directory and....(see #3)
>
> 3) Install XP to a different partition than WIN98SE (maybe to its own
> dedicated partition?).
>
> You use the migration wizard to move all your registry settings and
> app-specific files stored in the windows directory. All your APPs and
> data files stay where they are. Small Apps, shareware, etc, mostly
> probably run Ok without re-install. For everything else you just have
> to do a re-install in place.
>
> I'm thinking that for time and quality of results this is a good
> compromise. Since the XP install is clean it doesn't risk the legacy
> clutter of an upgrade, but you eliminate most of the time and effort
> involved in re-building your system, as re-installing an app is much
> faster than the first time. As a bonus, your XP partition is separated
> from everything else, which means you don't have to worry about your
> backup strategy being complete and bit-accurate (e.g., partition image)
> except for a small partition. Maybe that partition contains ONLY XP...
>
> oh yes, and if you do want to do dual-boot - it comes for free.
>
> fatal flaw? make sense?
>
> thanks for your comments.
> /j
>
> Ps - if you do like this scheme - can anyone comment on whether it's
> required, or safer, or easier, to make the XP partition the first one on
> the drive - a bit harder to do for legacy systems admittedly.
> Supposedly XP doesn't care, I think any partition can be marked as
> active (or can it?)
Anonymous
September 10, 2004 11:39:16 PM

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

your point about documents and settings argues well against an XP-only
partition. I think you have to re-install the same # of apps whether
you upgrade or use my plan (if you never installed the elements needed
for XP, an O/S upgrade won't keep you from having to do so).

when you want the old O/S gone just remove it and never boot to it again 8-}

thanks
/j
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
September 11, 2004 2:00:04 AM

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

Jeff
I dual booted for quite awhile and you cannot just delete the old OS because
under Program Files it builds up its own little nest of files.
If you leave them you lose space.If you format the partition you lose the
ability to restart the system.
I used 4 partitions C=ME D=ME programs E=XP F=xp programs..... After awhile I
was using ME programs under XP and vice versa and work files sort of got
mixed.It was not fun finding them all and saving before wiping C and D and E and
doing a reinstall of XP onto C.
I wont go into details but I have an upgrade version of XP and the old ME CD is
also an upgrade version and XP seems to have a problem reading it to verify the
upgrade so I need to do a minimum install of ME before I can install XP....at
which time I let XP format ME out of exsitance and load fresh.The last time I
did this I just let XP erase ME (if I remember right nothing else on the disk
was touched) and then install itself in its place.It found all the programs and
created the proper shortcuts.I keep outlook express info in a seperate folder
and just pointed outlook to that folder.The Favourites folder I just copied and
pasted into its proper place from where I had saved it to.The upgrade path with
the deletion of old OS is the way I would go.
peter
"Jeff W" <msnews@kwcpa.com> wrote in message
news:ey8mg94lEHA.2948@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> your point about documents and settings argues well against an XP-only
> partition. I think you have to re-install the same # of apps whether
> you upgrade or use my plan (if you never installed the elements needed
> for XP, an O/S upgrade won't keep you from having to do so).
>
> when you want the old O/S gone just remove it and never boot to it again 8-}
>
> thanks
> /j
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 4:12:24 AM

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

If you dual boot you have to be strict about which programs run under XP
and which don't My goal, remember, is NOT to dual-boot, but to get the
advantage of a clean XP install without the disadvantage of having to
re-install everything else onto a clean disk. This is kind of more like
an upgrade except you put XP elsewhere. You get dual boot for free
but I don't really expect to use it
/j
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 5:24:57 AM

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

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:01:51 -0400, Jeff W wrote:

> Hi - I'm planning a win98SE -> XP migration. ..I'm finding that there
> are a number of ways to do it, like
>
> 1) wipe the disk clean and start over - great if you don't have much on
> it, or are out-of-work and have time on your hands 8-}
>
> 2) upgrade - some people say this is risky. One point that was made to
> me is that you never know if an APP is using its old DLLs or its new
> ones (unless you re-install it, in which case you might as well remove
> the risk of a 'dirty' windows directory and....(see #3)
>
> 3) Install XP to a different partition than WIN98SE (maybe to its own
> dedicated partition?).
>
> You use the migration wizard to move all your registry settings and
> app-specific files stored in the windows directory. All your APPs and
> data files stay where they are. Small Apps, shareware, etc, mostly
> probably run Ok without re-install. For everything else you just have
> to do a re-install in place.
>
> I'm thinking that for time and quality of results this is a good
> compromise. Since the XP install is clean it doesn't risk the legacy
> clutter of an upgrade, but you eliminate most of the time and effort
> involved in re-building your system, as re-installing an app is much
> faster than the first time. As a bonus, your XP partition is separated
> from everything else, which means you don't have to worry about your
> backup strategy being complete and bit-accurate (e.g., partition image)
> except for a small partition. Maybe that partition contains ONLY XP...
>
> oh yes, and if you do want to do dual-boot - it comes for free.
>
> fatal flaw? make sense?
>
> thanks for your comments.
> /j
>
> Ps - if you do like this scheme - can anyone comment on whether it's
> required, or safer, or easier, to make the XP partition the first one on
> the drive - a bit harder to do for legacy systems admittedly.
> Supposedly XP doesn't care, I think any partition can be marked as
> active (or can it?)

When I first installed XP onto my desktop, I took the dual boot route. Both
hard drives FAT32, later converting the XP partition to NTFS. That first
setup was basically a test bed. Explored the new operating system and
experimented with different settings.

Also used the setup to check that my hardware devices and critical programs
were supported. This bought time while waiting for hardware drivers to be
released for a printer and a camera. I'm an artist so these things had to
be present and working for everyday use. Until those drivers were released,
I booted to WinME to use the unsupported items.

I also teach beginner Windows classes. So I installed XP again using all of
the default options for an upgrade install. This was done on purpose so
that I could see exactly what my students would see when/if they upgraded.
This turned out not be as onerous as other Windows upgrades. XP is built on
an entirely different kernel than Win9x so there were very few traces of
that older operating system in the upgrade results.

Finally, I redid the whole system and clean installed. If I hadn't done the
interim upgrade that I needed to do as a reference, I probably would have
simply have removed Win98 when I was 100% ready.

One thing to keep in mind for a Win98/WinXP dual boot system -- the boot
files for Win98 need to be on a FAT or FAT32 partition. XP's boot files
will end up in C: as well so when/if you remove Win98, you'll want to leave
those files on C: and edit the boot.ini to reflect the absence of Win98.

I think it's easiest to have Win98 installed first, then install WinXP.
While it's possible to retrofit Win98 after XP has been installed, it's not
supported and has a few caveats that must be taken into consideration.
These are discussed in the following article:
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/tips/xp_repair_9x.htm

Also, a good guide to read beforehand:
How To Create a Multiple-Boot System in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=306559

> > Ps - if you do like this scheme - can anyone comment on whether it's
> > required, or safer, or easier, to make the XP partition the first one on
> > the drive - a bit harder to do for legacy systems admittedly.
> > Supposedly XP doesn't care, I think any partition can be marked as
> > active (or can it?)

Correct. XP doesn't care what drive it's on. Some users seem very
distracted by the arrangement of boot files on C: and XP on whatever but XP
will operate just fine under those conditions.

--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows XP Shell/User
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 3:10:02 PM

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

Thanks Sharon - buried in your note it sound like you're saying I
shouldn't be too afraid of upgrading either. One machine of mine
-needs- dual boot, but the other - well, i'm thinking of dual boot so
that I get a clean XP OS install because of negative comments i've read
about a straight upgrade from SE.

/j
Anonymous
September 11, 2004 4:55:37 PM

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

On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 11:10:02 -0400, Jeff W wrote:

> Thanks Sharon - buried in your note it sound like you're saying I
> shouldn't be too afraid of upgrading either. One machine of mine
> -needs- dual boot, but the other - well, i'm thinking of dual boot so
> that I get a clean XP OS install because of negative comments i've read
> about a straight upgrade from SE.

I see a lot of folks recommending "clean install only" as well. I'm never
entirely sure if they base that on past experiences of one version of Win9x
to another (where I would agree) or not. During the public preview of XP, I
upgraded WinME and Win98SE often for testing. Never saw a problem with the
results - well, "no problems" if not counting the two devices that didn't
have XP drivers. However, those two were expected problems until new
drivers came onto the scene.

Before upgrading, I would recommend removing any software that is not
proper for XP: antivirus, some disk tools or software that uses a plethora
of *.vxd files (not supported in XP). Some programs include files for
Win2000/XP and for Win9x. Found it helpful to reinstall those so that the
WinXP file set would be available.

There is a compatibility program on the XP CD that can be run before
upgrading. It is not all inclusive but will target many common problems
that need attention before upgrading (checks a variety of software and
hardware).

--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows XP Shell/User
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 1:44:35 AM

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

Thanks Sharon - I've run the upgrade advisor and am aware of the issues
you mention.

my larger concern are the people who say that, if you upgrade, XP runs
slower or is more problem-prone, because of legacy files, DLLs, registry
keys, and the like. I have one registry which dates back to the
original WIN95 and is about 12 years old. There's something attractive
I guess, about "starting over", unless the upgrade process does a good
enough job cleaning up on it's own.

thanks
/j
Anonymous
September 12, 2004 2:18:27 AM

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

"Jeff W" <msnews@kwcpa.com> wrote in message
news:%23%23JbMoGmEHA.1356@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Thanks Sharon - I've run the upgrade advisor and am aware of the issues
> you mention.
>
> my larger concern are the people who say that, if you upgrade, XP runs
> slower or is more problem-prone, because of legacy files, DLLs, registry
> keys, and the like. I have one registry which dates back to the
> original WIN95 and is about 12 years old. There's something attractive
> I guess, about "starting over", unless the upgrade process does a good
> enough job cleaning up on it's own.
>
> thanks
> /j

I advise prepping for a clean install and upgrade as the first option. That
way you are covered in the unlikely outcome the upgrade is a bust.
Prepping means removal of all anti-virus software, CD-Burning applications,
other incompatible software and hardware. Checking for bios updates,
hardware and software updates, service pack and critical updates. Download
and burn to CD prior to running setup. And finally making sure you have all
your important data backed up. I find imaging the hard drive to CD, DVD, or
my favorite at this time a USB external hard drive. Running F.A.S.T is also
a good idea as it is one of the best ways to restore your email, contacts,
address books, etc.
F.A.S.T is covered on my web site along with other useful articles.
--
Michael Stevens MS-MVP XP
xpnews@bogusmichaelstevenstech.com
http://michaelstevenstech.com
For a better newsgroup experience. Setup a newsreader.
http://michaelstevenstech.com/outlookexpressnewreader.h...
!