Re: Upgrade 98 to XP Is it worth it?

Tech Tip: Click here to run a free scan for Windows Errors and optimize PC performance

From: José Gallardo (jogalb_at_QUITALOono.com)
Date: 02/05/05 

Date: Sat, 5 Feb 2005 19:43:49 +0100

In my case, perhaps I'm more ignorant than neophytus. Of cousre I'm neophytus on this group but not on Spanish newsgroups. There are several examples on which the clean install is better than upgrading (even from Home to Professional). Moreover in the KB you can find some articles related to this upgrading and problems that appear when upgrading (I know they are little problems but problems in any case). I think (and of course I may be wrong) that if there is a chance to backup (what is always necessary), it's better the clean installation. I only asked to learn. And I'm learning a lot!

"Raymond J. Johnson Jr." <RayJ@nospam.net> escribió en el mensaje news:36khnvF53n03kU1@individual.net...
> Leythos wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 10:27:23 -0600, Raymond J. Johnson Jr. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Leythos wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 08:29:44 +0100, José Gallardo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I think it's better a clean install than the upgrade? Do you?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>If you've backed up your data and files, then a clean install is the
>>>>proper way to go. While an Upgrade will work, it will leave legacy items
>>>>behind that are not needed.
>>>>
>>>>It's kind of like wiping and reinstalling every 16 months and seeing the
>>>>dramatic increase in performance.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Here we go again with the dramatic increase in performance BS. 16
>>>months? Did you just pull that number out of your rear? On this
>>>particular machine I'm running the original, 3-year-old install, and
>>>there has been *no* difference in performance since day one. On another
>>>two-year-old install that was trashed by an SP2 installation, there was
>>>*no* noticeable increase in performance after a format and clean
>>>install. Encouraging people to do pointless reinstallations in hopes of
>>>mythical performance increases is ignorant and irresponsible.
>>
>>
>> Here we go again with someone that doesn't have a vast amount of
>> experience saying that in their limited scope they know better than others.
>>
>> We handle over 1000 Windows XP systems and I have many in my home. My
>> typical XP box is a P4/250GB/512MB RAM machine. I run MS SQL server on it,
>> Visual Studio 2005, MS Office 2003, any many other development tools.
>> After about a years use, even with Defragging, the registry bloat, the
>> extraneous files, the remnants of uninstalled applications, etc... makes
>> it worth while to wipe and reinstall.
>>
>> Sure, if you're just surfing and emailing you won't see much in the way of
>> performance, but if you work with your machines instead of just play with
>> them, there are some real benefits - and that's from direct personal
>> experience, not just an uninformed guess like yours.
>>
>
> I said "ignorant" originally, but I apologize--ignorance is just lack of
> knowledge. Experience combined with ignorance is stupidity. Why do you
> assume that I have less experience than you? Please share the technical
> details. What's an "extraneous" file, and how does it contribute to
> performance loss, keeping in mind that clean installation is overkill if
> disk space is a problem? How *exactly* does "registry bloat" contribute
> to poor performance? What's the difference between "registry bloat" and
> "remnants of uninstalled applications? Or are those the "extraneous
> files" you were referring to? Your response was to an obvious neophyte
> who wants to know about moving from 98 to XP. How are remarks about the
> mythical benefits of reinstallation relevant to him, since you say
> yourself that they don't? Please enlighten us.
>