[jhb] Re: Windows XP
- From: "Paul Reynolds" <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <jhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2008 23:33:04 -0000
Is there not a suitable third option? As you have an OEM disk, why not
install a new, clean drive, temporarily disconnect your Win2K drive, carry
out a fresh OEM install onto the new drive then re-connect the old Win2K
disk. You can then choose your preferred boot disk depending on what you
are doing as well as having a fresh disk to work with, reslove the XP issues
and not risk losing the current Win2K install.
I understand a non-OEM upgrade is your preferred option but it's frought
with risk and you may end up having to do a fresh install anyway. My
suggestion at least offers an extra level of security, I'm a great believer
in leaving what you have intact and only remove it when you know that what
replaces it is suitable.
As for data encryption etc (ie. the differences between XP Pro and Home
versions) there are plenty of free options to cover these available online.
Paul
-----Original Message-----
From: jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Mike Lucas
Sent: 07 January 2008 22:58
To: jhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb] Re: Windows XP
Bones
I understand the reasoning behind upgrading being deprecated in favour
of a clean install. But I prefer to try an upgrade and see whether my
strict regime of Registry cleaning after uninstalling software and
drivers which are no longer required provides a better platform than the
pessimists suggest. I don't see that I have anything to lose: if an
upgrade doesn't work, I can either go with a clean install or revert to
Win 2K Pro from a backup image; if it does work then I have saved a fair
bit of work.
You could solve your SP2 installation problem by slipstreaming it with
your original XP CD. And a decent SPI router would protect you from the
nasties which you might encounter by going online without AV.
Mike L
bones wrote:
> I think there was a long discussion about the option to install from
> scratch versus the upgrade existing OS options. The thinking was that
> the new install was better - despite the painfully slow job of
> rebuilding the whole software/hardware on the new OS. Upgrading works
> fine but it carries over a lot of garbage from the previous OS that
> may be long redundant - old drivers for hardware long dumped, DLL's
> for software long ago removed but had bad uninstall routines that
> didn't clear everything out and the inevitable Registry entries left
> by both the above.
>
> My problem is that I still have an original XP disk here too and I
> know that once I install it I am going to face a huge online process
> of upgrading with all the SP2 changes and security patches. I'm
> tempted to ask MS if I can upgrade the CD to an SP2 version and save
> all the hassle. The last time I did the above routine I didn't have
> any AV software running and in the hours I was online I picked up a
> good few attacks and then had to clear the viruses out. That's the
> snag - the installation requires an online connection to complete and
> it is only when completed that you can add further software to stop
> the hacks..
>
> bones
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:jhb-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Mike Lucas
> Sent: 07 January 2008 15:44
> To: jhb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [jhb] Re: Windows XP
>
>
> Frank
>
> As well as some features (encrypting file system, access control,
> offline files) which I want but which are not available in XP Home,
> the obvious thing is that there is no upgrade path from Win 2K Pro to
> Win XP Home.
>
> You mention availability of OEM versions. As I said in my initial
> post, I already have the OEM version - but it does not allow upgrading
> an existing Windows o/s. I would prefer to upgrade rather than
> install XP from scratch, in order to avoid the considerable added
> burden of re-installing a LOT of software. From my experience last
> week installing XP Pro from scratch on a spare Win 2K box, together
> with all patches, security updates, then all applications and
> settings, it took the best part of a day. With Linux this would take
> 15 minutes - you can see why I prefer it.
>
> Mike L
>
> franklyn fisher wrote:
>
>
>
Other related posts:
