Re: Upgrade 98 to XP Is it worth it?
From: R. McCarty (PcEngWork-NoSpam__at_mindspring.com)
Date: 02/06/05
- Next message: Michael Stevens: "Re: Windows XP Issue (Activation) II"
- Previous message: philo: "Re: Serious corruption problem"
- In reply to: mrpsychology: "Re: Upgrade 98 to XP Is it worth it?"
- Next in thread: Leythos: "Re: Upgrade 98 to XP Is it worth it?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sun, 06 Feb 2005 13:15:08 GMT
A Clean install is always going to be perceived as faster than an upgrade.
But it's misleading. A fresh install has a small/minimal Registry size. The
OS doesn't have the loading of Startups & Watchdogs. The Shell Ext's
aren't in place. The User's profile isn't fully populated with 3rd party App
settings & values.
After installing your 3rd party drivers and applications, the system load
increases. The "Performance" at a fresh install isn't what you'll have once
the system is fully loaded/configured.When you add in your Security
software (Real time monitoring) the performance is going to diminish a
little.
Upgrade performance depends greatly on how well the Old OS was
kept up. If it has issues, then the end result may be shaky. I've done
many 9X to XP upgrades and they mostly work fine. I think if you read
up you'll discover that an XP upgrade is more like a "Lift Up the Old OS
and drive XP underneath it" type of process.
I used to believe a "Yearly" fresh install was warranted. However, if you
take care of your setup & Image the system, I doubt if it's really useful.
It's like the All-Day-Saturday car detailing. It's still the same car, but
if
you've got the time to spend and want to spiff it up - go ahead and indulge
yourself.
"mrpsychology" <mrpsychology@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%23GNU8sEDFHA.1932@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>
> "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.
>>
>
>
- Next message: Michael Stevens: "Re: Windows XP Issue (Activation) II"
- Previous message: philo: "Re: Serious corruption problem"
- In reply to: mrpsychology: "Re: Upgrade 98 to XP Is it worth it?"
- Next in thread: Leythos: "Re: Upgrade 98 to XP Is it worth it?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
