Re: Upgrade 98 to XP Is it worth it?

From: mrpsychology (mrpsychology_at_msn.com)
Date: 02/06/05 

Date: Sun, 6 Feb 2005 07:56:17 -0500

"José Gallardo" <jogalb@QUITALOono.com> wrote in message
news:uoAKhK7CFHA.2632@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
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!

I clean installed from xp home to xp pro after upgrading and it was a lot
better. When i just upgraded ontop of the xp home i noticed NO difference,
but on clean install i noticed a HUGE difference. My eyes could see it from
the get-go, huge difference. That is why i clean install, because there was
no noticeable difference on the upgrade ontop of the home but was i would
swear 30% on clean to 0% noticeability on upgrade. However, this is by eye.
I upgraded my 5400rpm hardrive and went to a 7200rpm way back, well I
noticed a difference of course, well the difference between teh upgrade and
clean install was just like that to the eye.

"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.
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: WARNING:DO NOT UPGRADE TO CORE 4
    ... except that I used Knoppix rather than the Fedora CD, ... is that when I followed the instructions to make a clean install ... > luckily works around a new bug. ... I have never had any problems of this kind when upgrading. ...
    (Fedora)
  • Re: Desktop shortcuts vs Documents and Settingsusernamedesktop
    ... The eight shortcuts showing were in C:\D&S\all ... > to the main users's desktop with Windows Explorer, ... Oh - unless you upgraded your OS before instead of a clean install (and ... those applications were installed prior to the upgrading of the OS) - then ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.customize)
  • Re: Upgrading to XP from ME
    ... at least a 400MHz CPU, 5 GB free disk space. ... Then Read Gary Woodruff's article on upgrading to XP at ... Specific advice is to uninstall and system utility ... it should not you can *still* do a clean install, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)
  • Re: Upgrading RH 9 to RHEL 3: problems? gotchas? what are your experiences?
    ... I always vote for a clean install. ... upgrading sometimes missed RPM prerequisites ... if your machine presently has a RH9 identity with ... installing RHEL should automatically switch your entitlement ...
    (linux.redhat)
  • Re: Upgrade 98 to XP Is it worth it?
    ... >> neophytus on this group but not on Spanish newsgroups. ... >> examples on which the clean install is better than upgrading (even from ... > tasks, not for Developing MS applications, Linux runs well on older/slower ... My computer uses 500-600mb of physical ram on average, ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)