Formatting The HD to Upgrade Is So Win. 95!

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by =?Utf-8?B?YmVhdGxlZ3V5OTI=?=, Sep 9, 2005.

  1. don't you think that by now, we should be able to upgrade an os without
    fromatting the hard drive?
     
    =?Utf-8?B?YmVhdGxlZ3V5OTI=?=, Sep 9, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. =?Utf-8?B?YmVhdGxlZ3V5OTI=?=

    NoNoBadDog! Guest

    "beatleguy92" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > don't you think that by now, we should be able to upgrade an os without
    > fromatting the hard drive?


    If you "upgrade" on OS to another, you *Don't* format the HDD.

    Upgrading means that you install a newer OS over the older one.

    It also depends upon the kind of Windows CD you have.

    A retail Windows XP CD Upgrade CD requires a previous qualifying version of
    Windows, and will install over the existing Os if you select that option.

    The retail "full" version can do a clean install to a bare system without a
    prior version of Windows.

    An OEM version CD will only do a "wipe and install".

    In the future, when making sophomoric posts like yours, you should at least
    know what you are talking about before you put your foot in your mouth.

    Bobby
     
    NoNoBadDog!, Sep 9, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. =?Utf-8?B?YmVhdGxlZ3V5OTI=?=

    Rick Guest

    beatleguy92 wrote:
    > don't you think that by now, we should be able to upgrade an os without
    > fromatting the hard drive?


    I guess it depends on your level of intelligence and experience. If
    you're not too smart, then just install the new OS on top of the old one
    and when it has problems, bitch that the new OS is screwed up!

    However, if you're an intelligent and experienced system builder, you
    would prefer to do a format and 'clean' install of the new OS because
    you eliminate the probability of problems from leftover files.

    So, the question is:

    Do you want your new installation to work as designed? The
    intelligent approach!

    Or, do you want to bitch because there are problems related to
    leftover files from the previous system? The stupid approach!
     
    Rick, Sep 9, 2005
    #3
  4. the file formats (fat-ntfs) have changed over the years. if your 'upgrade' is
    from 95 to xp64, then you probably need or should do that.

    "beatleguy92" wrote:

    > don't you think that by now, we should be able to upgrade an os without
    > fromatting the hard drive?
     
    =?Utf-8?B?enhub3M=?=, Sep 9, 2005
    #4
  5. "Rick" wrote:
    > However, if you're an intelligent and experienced system builder, you
    > would prefer to do a format and 'clean' install of the new OS because
    > you eliminate the probability of problems from leftover files.


    'leftover files' is interesting.

    i installed autocad 2005 on my laptop when i got it early this year - xp
    32-bit. i then got the trial of x64. did a full (not the quick) format before
    installing the trial. i did not install autocad under the trial version. i
    then received my TAP in the mail. not only did i do a full format but i
    partitioned my drive into three. two for windows and a third for linux. i
    installed the OEM x64 then linux.

    a few days later (after degrag etc.) i installed autocad 2005. autocad never
    asked me to activate. it found the license info from my first install - even
    after the three new partitions and two full formats.
     
    =?Utf-8?B?enhub3M=?=, Sep 9, 2005
    #5
  6. =?Utf-8?B?YmVhdGxlZ3V5OTI=?=

    zekolas Guest

    beatleguy92 wrote:
    > don't you think that by now, we should be able to upgrade an os without
    > fromatting the hard drive?


    Usually upgrades don't work too well, installing an OS over the top of a
    prevouse version is usually not the best way to go about it. However you
    can still do a "clean" install without fromatting the disk. Just delete
    the windows directory then reinstall windows, you will still have to
    re-install most program though, but all data outside the windows
    directory will still be there.

    Also to format and re-install windows takes me about 1.5 hours tops. It
    takes me about 10 min to back up all my personal files (90% are in "my
    documents) then it only takes me about 10 min to restore them after the
    os is installed. Also with MS turning out a new os every 5 years, I
    don't think this is a big deal.
     
    zekolas, Sep 10, 2005
    #6
  7. Andre Da Costa [Extended64], Sep 10, 2005
    #7
  8. =?Utf-8?B?YmVhdGxlZ3V5OTI=?=

    Mirko Guest

    Could it be that you backed-up your "Documents and Settings" folder (or
    parts of it) in XP 32bit and later restored the contents into the "Documents
    and Settings" folder of your XP 64bit installation?

    See the following info from Autocad:

    "To prevent reactivation, files in the Documents and Settings\All
    Users\Application Data\Autodesk\Software Licenses directory should not be
    deleted or tampered with. Do not attempt to open and save the .dat file in a
    third-party application."


    "zxnos" <>
    :...
    > "Rick" wrote:
    >> However, if you're an intelligent and experienced system builder, you
    >> would prefer to do a format and 'clean' install of the new OS because
    >> you eliminate the probability of problems from leftover files.

    >
    > 'leftover files' is interesting.
    >
    > i installed autocad 2005 on my laptop when i got it early this year - xp
    > 32-bit. i then got the trial of x64. did a full (not the quick) format
    > before
    > installing the trial. i did not install autocad under the trial version. i
    > then received my TAP in the mail. not only did i do a full format but i
    > partitioned my drive into three. two for windows and a third for linux. i
    > installed the OEM x64 then linux.
    >
    > a few days later (after degrag etc.) i installed autocad 2005. autocad
    > never
    > asked me to activate. it found the license info from my first install -
    > even
    > after the three new partitions and two full formats.
     
    Mirko, Sep 10, 2005
    #8
  9. Rick wrote:

    >
    > However, if you're an intelligent and experienced system builder, you
    > would prefer to do a format and 'clean' install of the new OS because
    > you eliminate the probability of problems from leftover files.
    >



    Except that an "intelligent and experienced" system builder wouldn't
    have any such preference, nor would he/she prattle on about such
    superstitious nonsense as the supernatural afterlife of allegedly
    malevolent leftover files.

    While it's not unusual for uninformed/inexperienced people to
    recommend that that a clean installation, rather than upgrading over an
    earlier OS, is the only way to go, these people, while usually
    well-meaning, are clearly living in the past, and are basing their
    recommendations upon their very limited experiences with some older
    operating systems.

    Modern operating systems, such as WinXP, for example, are designed to
    install and upgrade the existing operating system while simultaneously
    preserving your applications and data, and translating as many
    personalized settings as possible. The process is designed to be, and
    normally is, quite painless.


    --

    Bruce Chambers

    Help us help you:
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    both at once. - RAH
     
    Bruce Chambers, Sep 10, 2005
    #9
  10. beatleguy92 wrote:
    > don't you think that by now, we should be able to upgrade an os without
    > fromatting the hard drive?



    Performing in-place upgrades from an earlier OS to a newer OS has been
    the norm for well over a decade, now. What ever made you think that it
    can't be done, under most circumstances?

    Granted, there's no upgrade path from a 32-bit OS to a 64-bit OS, but
    that's to be expected. Further, WinXPx64 is an OEM license, and OEM
    licenses cannot perform upgrades, as they're specifically designed to
    perform clean installations.


    --

    Bruce Chambers

    Help us help you:
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    both at once. - RAH
     
    Bruce Chambers, Sep 10, 2005
    #10
  11. zxnos wrote:
    > the file formats (fat-ntfs) have changed over the years. if your 'upgrade' is
    > from 95 to xp64, then you probably need or should do that.
    >


    Before or replacing/upgrading every single hardware component in the
    computer? ;-}


    --

    Bruce Chambers

    Help us help you:
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    both at once. - RAH
     
    Bruce Chambers, Sep 10, 2005
    #11
  12. =?Utf-8?B?YmVhdGxlZ3V5OTI=?=

    Rick Guest

    Bruce Chambers wrote:
    > Rick wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> However, if you're an intelligent and experienced system builder, you
    >> would prefer to do a format and 'clean' install of the new OS because
    >> you eliminate the probability of problems from leftover files.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Except that an "intelligent and experienced" system builder wouldn't
    > have any such preference, nor would he/she prattle on about such
    > superstitious nonsense as the supernatural afterlife of allegedly
    > malevolent leftover files.
    >
    > While it's not unusual for uninformed/inexperienced people to
    > recommend that that a clean installation, rather than upgrading over an
    > earlier OS, is the only way to go, these people, while usually
    > well-meaning, are clearly living in the past, and are basing their
    > recommendations upon their very limited experiences with some older
    > operating systems.
    >
    > Modern operating systems, such as WinXP, for example, are designed
    > to install and upgrade the existing operating system while
    > simultaneously preserving your applications and data, and translating as
    > many personalized settings as possible. The process is designed to be,
    > and normally is, quite painless.
    >
    >

    But, if you've been building systems for more that a day, Microsoft has
    always recommended a clean install. I agree it is stated that you can
    upgrade over a current installation (within the same architecture and
    family), but there are times when you cause problems by doing this.

    I learned early in my system building (over 20 years) that I had fewer
    customer complaints about idiosyncrocies when I wiped the hard drive
    clean and did a clean install. And when the repair work is done under
    warranty, you lose money!

    The only upgrade I will do for a customer is a Service Pack. Anything
    else is a clean install and I have more than enough business because I
    have built a reputation for quality work the first time!
     
    Rick, Sep 10, 2005
    #12
  13. Rick wrote:

    > But, if you've been building systems for more that a day, Microsoft has
    > always recommended a clean install.



    That's a flat-out falsehood. Otherwise, why would Microsoft even
    bother to produce and market both Upgrade licenses and Full installation
    CDs capable of performing upgrade installations? Please provide a link
    to the web site where Microsoft states that a clean installation is
    universally the preferred installation method, and that upgrades should
    always be avoided.


    > I agree it is stated that you can
    > upgrade over a current installation (within the same architecture and
    > family), but there are times when you cause problems by doing this.
    >



    Certainly, there are times when an in-place upgrade is contra-indicated:

    1) When the underlying hardware isn't certified as being fully
    compatible with the newer OS, and/or updated device drivers are not
    available from the device's manufacturer. Of course, this condition also
    causes problems with clean installations.

    2) When the original OS is corrupt, damaged, and/or virus/malware
    infested. I've also seen simple, straight-forward upgrades from WinXP
    Home to WinXP Pro fail because the computer owner had let the system
    become malware-infested. Upgrading over a problematic OS isn't normally
    a wise course to establishing a stable installation.

    3) When the new OS isn't designed to properly, correctly, and safely
    perform an upgrade.

    But to cavalierly dismiss *all* upgrades as unsafe and inadvisable is
    patently absurd. A properly prepared and maintained PC can almost
    always be successfully upgraded by a knowledgeable and competent
    technician. I've lost count of the systems I've seen that have been
    upgraded from Win95 to Win98 to Win2K to WinXP, without the need for a
    clean installation, and that are still operating without any problems
    attributable to upgrades.



    > I learned early in my system building (over 20 years)



    It might be time to "refresh" some of that 20-year-old experience; it's
    not even close to being relevant to today's operating systems and
    hardware. ;-}


    > that I had fewer
    > customer complaints about idiosyncrocies when I wiped the hard drive
    > clean and did a clean install. And when the repair work is done under
    > warranty, you lose money!
    >



    Ah, but who had maintained those customers' PCs prior to the upgrade?
    An experienced hobbyist/user who performed preventative maintenance and
    practiced "safe-hex," or someone who things a PC is like a toaster oven,
    requiring no care? Additionally, when one's reputation and livelihood
    are dependent upon results, and when one cannot trust the computer and
    OS to have been properly maintained, then a clean installation is the
    wiser course. But this fact doesn't invalidate the entire concept of
    upgrading; it merely confirms that, under *some* circumstances, a clean
    installation is better. No one has, to my knowledge, ever denied that.


    --

    Bruce Chambers

    Help us help you:
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    both at once. - RAH
     
    Bruce Chambers, Sep 10, 2005
    #13
  14. =?Utf-8?B?YmVhdGxlZ3V5OTI=?=

    Rick Guest

    I think the subject should be closed. We all have our own opinions
    based on education and experience, so I'll continue to do what I think
    is best for my business and customers and you can do or think whatever
    you so desire.

    I may disagree with your opinion, but I have done my part to protect
    your right to that opinion by serving my country.


    Bruce Chambers wrote:
    > Rick wrote:
    >
    >> But, if you've been building systems for more that a day, Microsoft
    >> has always recommended a clean install.

    >
    >
    >
    > That's a flat-out falsehood. Otherwise, why would Microsoft even
    > bother to produce and market both Upgrade licenses and Full installation
    > CDs capable of performing upgrade installations? Please provide a link
    > to the web site where Microsoft states that a clean installation is
    > universally the preferred installation method, and that upgrades should
    > always be avoided.
    >
    >
    >> I agree it is stated that you can upgrade over a current installation
    >> (within the same architecture and family), but there are times when
    >> you cause problems by doing this.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Certainly, there are times when an in-place upgrade is
    > contra-indicated:
    >
    > 1) When the underlying hardware isn't certified as being fully
    > compatible with the newer OS, and/or updated device drivers are not
    > available from the device's manufacturer. Of course, this condition also
    > causes problems with clean installations.
    >
    > 2) When the original OS is corrupt, damaged, and/or virus/malware
    > infested. I've also seen simple, straight-forward upgrades from WinXP
    > Home to WinXP Pro fail because the computer owner had let the system
    > become malware-infested. Upgrading over a problematic OS isn't normally
    > a wise course to establishing a stable installation.
    >
    > 3) When the new OS isn't designed to properly, correctly, and safely
    > perform an upgrade.
    >
    > But to cavalierly dismiss *all* upgrades as unsafe and inadvisable
    > is patently absurd. A properly prepared and maintained PC can almost
    > always be successfully upgraded by a knowledgeable and competent
    > technician. I've lost count of the systems I've seen that have been
    > upgraded from Win95 to Win98 to Win2K to WinXP, without the need for a
    > clean installation, and that are still operating without any problems
    > attributable to upgrades.
    >
    >
    >
    >> I learned early in my system building (over 20 years)

    >
    >
    >
    > It might be time to "refresh" some of that 20-year-old experience;
    > it's not even close to being relevant to today's operating systems and
    > hardware. ;-}
    >
    >
    >> that I had fewer customer complaints about idiosyncrocies when I wiped
    >> the hard drive clean and did a clean install. And when the repair
    >> work is done under warranty, you lose money!
    >>

    >
    >
    > Ah, but who had maintained those customers' PCs prior to the
    > upgrade? An experienced hobbyist/user who performed preventative
    > maintenance and practiced "safe-hex," or someone who things a PC is like
    > a toaster oven, requiring no care? Additionally, when one's reputation
    > and livelihood are dependent upon results, and when one cannot trust the
    > computer and OS to have been properly maintained, then a clean
    > installation is the wiser course. But this fact doesn't invalidate the
    > entire concept of upgrading; it merely confirms that, under *some*
    > circumstances, a clean installation is better. No one has, to my
    > knowledge, ever denied that.
    >
    >
     
    Rick, Sep 10, 2005
    #14
  15. Rick wrote:
    > I think the subject should be closed.



    As you wish.


    > We all have our own opinions
    > based on education and experience, so I'll continue to do what I think
    > is best for my business and customers and you can do or think whatever
    > you so desire.
    >


    And no one has ever suggested that *you* do otherwise. I simply
    pointed out that your advice to always perform clean installations was
    not universally appropriate.


    > I may disagree with your opinion, but I have done my part to protect
    > your right to that opinion by serving my country.
    >
    >



    Relevance? Other than explaining where your "one size fits all"
    approach to the question may have come from, that is? (For that matter,
    I spent 24 years in the Air Force, so I don't think it was _my_ rights
    you were protecting; I did that for myself.)


    --

    Bruce Chambers

    Help us help you:
    http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
    http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

    You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
    both at once. - RAH
     
    Bruce Chambers, Sep 11, 2005
    #15
  16. =?Utf-8?B?YmVhdGxlZ3V5OTI=?=

    Rick Guest

    Bruce Chambers wrote:
    > Relevance? Other than explaining where your "one size fits all"
    > approach to the question may have come from, that is? (For that matter,
    > I spent 24 years in the Air Force, so I don't think it was _my_ rights
    > you were protecting; I did that for myself.)
    >
    >


    And apparently you haven't changed since you worked for me, either.
    Still the same old hardheaded intransigent that thinks he's always right!
     
    Rick, Sep 14, 2005
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Mark T.
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,006
    Dan Boyd
    Nov 24, 2003
  2. Trent C
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    599
    Billy
    Dec 17, 2003
  3. Mike

    Re-formatting under WinXP Upgrade

    Mike, Sep 21, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    515
    Ingeborg
    Sep 21, 2004
  4. Colin Williams

    Formatting from sp2 upgrade

    Colin Williams, Jan 1, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    457
    WormWood
    Jan 2, 2005
  5. =?Utf-8?B?WFB4NjQ=?=
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    697
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Feb 22, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page