I've got a couple of questions about upgrading to Windows XP: My computer came with Windows 98 SE. I upgraded to Windows ME (or should I say downgraded?). I think I'd like to upgrade to Windows XP Home Edition. Here's my question: I want to start all over; clean install. Do I need to get the full version to do that, or is there a way to do that have XP (upgrade version) recognize the previous Windows version but then install like there's no previous version there, just like it was going on a brand new hard drive? Thanks in advance; you guys are great.
Typically, you'll need to have the full version if you want to do an install from scratch. Now there are simple ways around this (well, there used to be . . . dunno 'bout xp), but the upgrade edition basically requires that you already have a copy of windows on your machine. What you'd need to do is install 98 or ME, then run the upgrade. With upgrading to 98, there were like four files you could just copy to a formatted C drive, and it would think you had windows on there, and let you install. But that's likely different in XP.
All I can say is DONT DO IT !!!!! XP has major configuration issues. As a former person who worked with Microsoft, I would not buy anything from them until it has been out a year at least. Remember at Microsoft, quality is job 1.1 DaDakota
I remember for the longest time, all I had was an upgrade of win98. I used that to do clean installs on my box, all you do is boot up with the win98 cdrom, the computer will ask you to have proof that you do have a copy of a full version of windows. So I popped in my full version of win95, then placed my win98 cdrom back in and im in business. I *believe* the only difference between an upgrade and a full version is that the upgrade checks for proof for ownership of windows, checking for a cdrom or if windows is indeed on your hard drive. I know for sure win9x did this. I have not tried this with windowsXP. You definitely want to check around on the net to see if someone has done the upgrade trick with XP. http://forums.anandtech.com/message...eadid=578349&highlight_key=y&keyword1=upgrade http://forums.anandtech.com/message...id=589218&highlight_key=y&keyword1=xp upgrade
ditto what movement says. Though I can't say for sure that XP is this way, ALL MS OS's that I can remember have been this way. Clean installs are a breeze with an upgrade disk; just make sure you have a disk of an older OS that's in the upgrade path, and you'll be fine. The new OS justs wants to "take a look" at that older disk to see if your compliant. In fact, I'm pretty sure the upgrade disk is happy just looking at an upgrade disk from an older OS (upgrade the upgrade). Also, I'm not with DaDakota on this one. MS IS known for releasing things before their ready, but Win2K...although having it's own bugs....was quite a departure from MS's other OS's. As a network manager who's not just responsible for the WAN equipment, but keeping some of the users happy too, I can honestly say that Win2K has made my life MUCH easier (at least over 98....though that probably isn't saying much). It's MUCH more stable. XP isn't a HUGE departure from Win2K. I'm going to the roleout in Houston today and getting my $50 coupon. I'll be buying XP just as soon as I can decide on a new motherboard. Now....when will those awesome new <a href="http://www.amdmb.com/article-display.php?ArticleID=130">NVIDIA</a> motherboards be out?
The nForce boards should be out anytime now. But apparently they have onboard video which I don't want -- I'm not sure if you can disable it; maybe you can. But if you keep waiting, it'll be next year... maybe you should wait for the DDR 333 chipsets that are even faster.
XP is a big piece of crap. Pole, if you are a netmgr, then you should really read up on the security issues with WinXP. The implementation of MS' remote control, which basically allows users to setup a VPN into their workstation is going to cause some major problems. Sure you can "turn it off," even "remove it." Microsoft has assured us that it has proper security controls for this. Well, as a sysadmin responsible for net security, I've worked MANY weekends installing patches for IIS, let alone the MS OS itself. Most recently, they couldn't even get the patch they offered to work right! They had to retract their W2K patch because after installing it, customers were experiencing issues! So, yea, XP can suck this. Thank GOD I have a manager who doesn't sit and listen to MS propaganda. He finally agreed to let me change our NT-based FTP server from IIS to yes....Linux! And as far as a file/print server goes, NetWare 5x/6.0 is the way to go. But you see, MS masks the technology being implemented with "easy-to-use wizards." So these moron MCSE's are going around implementing MS services, without a full understanding of the technology. If you offer a service on your network, without being able to properly implement, customize, and troubleshoot it, then what you get is a network as vulnerable as Jason Collier in the paint. Plus a lot of the "cool" features of W2K were stolen from Unix and NetWare. Hello, ADS is a big piece of crap. They STOLE the idea from Novell, and they still couldn't get it right.
I'm happy for you coma, and I'm sure if I looked hard enough, I could find a job where I work on Linux. But the fact is, I'm a 34 year old realist whose job is five minutes from my house. I get paid WELL, and I work fewer hours than most admins. I'm no fan of MS, but I'm content to be a well paid moron MCSE right now.
If you must get XP, don't get the home version (get Pro). No SMP for you!! I was turned off by XP the moment I heard 2 things: 1) product activation (forced registration) and 2) XP purposely degrading (illegal) MP3 sound quality. I've stopped reading up on XP after that, so I'm not sure if the MP3 degradation thing was actually put into the product (was it all just a bad rumor??). I hear, though, there's a product activation hack somewhere. Is this true? I would consider upgrading if that stupid registration crap was disabled. Of course, I would only upgrade after the standard Microsoft 6 month bug-fixing period that plagues all their products. I'll stick to Win2000 Professional for now...
Pole, Sorry if I offended you. Nine out of ten MCSE's i've met are complete morons. If you're the one that isn't then fine. Just my take on the MCSE's I've met. Yea, simply having your MSCE can mean a 80k job. And that is why I have my MCSE, along with my MCNE and CDE. I was simply venting at the times and resources I've spent fixing a problem created by these coveted MCSE's. Once again, sorry if I offended you.
my friend has the retail version of XP on his computer for more than a month now (from newsgroups)...The product activation feature could be disabled you know....from what I hear, It is extremely stable just like 2000, it never crashes...it takes a long long time to boot up & you need a really good computer to run it with....I've used that computer running XP a few times a while back and its quite similar to 2000, only aesthetic differences from what I see...2000 is the way to go...
What I find funny is that when Win2k came out all we heard about is how many bugs were in it and what a piece of crap it is. I had been in desktop support for 4 years and network support for about 2 and agree with the previous poster about MCSE's. We call them paper techs. MCSE only means that you can take a test. Anyway, to make a short story long, I would probably bet that most of you that say that XP sucks have never even used the product. I have been at Chevron for the past 8 months working on the merger with Texaco. We have been doing software integration on an XP Professional platform. I have had nothing but success with XP and will go out on the proverbial limb and say that there are probably as many "issues" with XP as there were with Win2k. I cannot say anything about the XP Home edition because I have never used it. If it is like any other home or consumer edition that I have used then it probably sucks. I recommend to everyone to use win2k and I think that XP will probably be a pretty good OS also.
W2K, as a reliable (meaning it doesn't crash every 30m) OS, is the best MS has offered. WinXP, built upon the same kernel as W2K, is just as "stable." With that said, I don't care about that. My responsibility is security. And I'm not done testing, therefore, not yet convinced that XP is a secure OS. With what I have found so far, and this is with the final RC, it might've been fixed with the commercial release. Although I doubt it, but we'll see in about a week or so.
It'll let you do a clean install just by popping in the CD? hmm . . . I've never been able to do that, but maybe I didn't do it correctly or something . . . I wouldn't go XP, especially right now. Wait for at least a month, so they can patch it, or until they release a service pack. I've actually heard a lot of good things about it, but I just installed windows 2k, and that looks to be the way to go -- that or WinME. The problem with WinME is that you either have GREAT experiences with it, or absolutely horrible. It's very hardware finnicky -- I couldn't get it to let me use any 3d applications (anything that referenced the AGP slot) on my new Athlon XP. 2K, with all the service packs installed, is really quite nice. It hasn't crashed on me yet, and it's got some good features. Setup was not as simple as ME, but it wasn't a problem. But if you want stability . . . www.linux.org
So...bottom line, if ya gotta have a MS Windows....is 98 still the best we have at this point? should i just "stay put"?
Microsoft turned you into a robot, didn't they? DaDakota has been assimilated. Damn you, Microsoft! Damn you all to hell!!!
What exactly is the benefit of having XP Professional over XP Home? They both use the same kernel, right? I don't really understand the difference between those two as I do between 2000 and ME. The reason I'd like to move to XP is to get away from 9x/ME. I get really tired of my computer crashing. My system doesn't shut down correctly (at least not all the time). It doesn't shut down; it just shows a flashing cursor, so I turn it off manually. When I turn the computer on, I get ScanDisk because it didn't shut down properly. My move to XP is not eminent. I actually pre-ordered ME, and I've been wondering why I wasted the money ever since. When I do order XP, it will most likely be when I put in a new hard drive in a few months. That's my reason for asking about doing a clean install with an XP upgrade disk in the first place. I will also likely give Linux a try at that time as well. I don't have to be compatible with anyone, and I can't stand Microsoft, but I'm not comfortable enough to just switch either. Which version of Linux (Red Hat, Mandrake. SuSE)? Any advice for setting up a system to run both Windows and Linux? As far as security is concerned, I'm just a guy who uses his computer at home. What risks are there with XP (Home and Professional)? I know you can access your computer remotely with XP, but I'll most likely turn that function off. I have no need for it. I certainly won't be relying on XP's firewall. By the way, if you happen to use the Opera browser, go take a look at www.msn.com. You've got to love Microsoft. Although I can't think of how not being able to access msn.com would effect me in the least.
Red Hat is the simplest Linux to set up. I read somewhere Red Hat is like the MS of Linux. Something like that. As for having a system run the 2 OSes, what I did was install Windows ME, then Win2K, and lastly Red Hat. I chose to have LILO run from the MBR. I don't know what else to say. I'm not exactly the most experienced in the world of *nix. Here's a link for you to check out. http://www.linuxiso.org/ I'll probably remove Red Hat and go with Debian some time in the future. Sorry I can't help much, but I'm sure there are plenty of others here that can help you out.
