Re: xp upgrade from 98se
From: Michael Stevens (mstevens_at_bogusmvps.org)
Date: 02/27/05
- Next message: Andy in NJ: "Re: Can't boot without XP CD"
- Previous message: David Candy: "Re: paging file neccessary or not ?"
- In reply to: philo: "Re: xp upgrade from 98se"
- Next in thread: philo: "Re: xp upgrade from 98se"
- Reply: philo: "Re: xp upgrade from 98se"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 05:33:14 -0800
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
- Next message: Andy in NJ: "Re: Can't boot without XP CD"
- Previous message: David Candy: "Re: paging file neccessary or not ?"
- In reply to: philo: "Re: xp upgrade from 98se"
- Next in thread: philo: "Re: xp upgrade from 98se"
- Reply: philo: "Re: xp upgrade from 98se"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
