This is not an Upgrade. Win 2k came out before Win ME. This is a downgrade.
Downgrades are performed by formatting and reinstalling.

hth
DDS W 2k MVP MCSE

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:98642E94-8AFB-4F94-A72E-(E-Mail Removed)...
>

Greetings --



It's not technically possible to perform an upgrade from WinMe to
Win2K. You'll have to back up your data and start with a clean hard
drive.

Windows Me to Windows 2000 Upgrade Is Not Supported
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;272627.

Before proceeding, though, you'd better take a few minutes to
ensure that there are Win2K device drivers available for your PC's
specific components. There may not be, if the PC was specifically
designed for WinMe. Have you made sure the PC is capable of
supporting Win2K? This information will be found at the PC's
manufacturer's web site, and on Microsoft's Hardware Compatibility
List (http://www.microsoft.com/hcl/default.asp). Also bear in mind
that computers designed for, and sold with, WinMe very often fail to
meet Win2K's much more stringent hardware quality requirements.


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


<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:98642E94-8AFB-4F94-A72E-(E-Mail Removed)...
>

"(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

Windows 2000 was released before Windows Me so you cannot "upgrade"
per se.

You'll have to purchase the full product and perform a "clean"
install. Even for migrations where an upgrade is supported a clean
build is often preferred anyway.

--
>iv< Paul >iv<

[ Mail: (E-Mail Removed) ]
[ WWW: http://www.hopwood.org.uk/ ]

On 1/7/04 5:53 PM, in article #(E-Mail Removed), "Danny
Sanders" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> This is not an Upgrade. Win 2k came out before Win ME. This is a downgrade.
> Downgrades are performed by formatting and reinstalling.
>
> hth
> DDS W 2k MVP MCSE
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:98642E94-8AFB-4F94-A72E-(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>
>
I have a question with that then. I installed win2000 on a computer that was
running ME and did not have to format the harddrive. Did I do something
wrong or right? Would changing the file system from fat to ntfs qualify as
"formatting"?

Kevin

Kevin Nelson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> This is not an Upgrade. Win 2k came out before Win ME. This is a downgrade.
>> Downgrades are performed by formatting and reinstalling.

>I have a question with that then. I installed win2000 on a computer that was
>running ME and did not have to format the harddrive. Did I do something
>wrong or right? Would changing the file system from fat to ntfs qualify as
>"formatting"?

It does not actually *require* a re-format; you can, and probably
have, installed Windows 2000 on the same partition as your old Windows
Me installation and then converted it to NTFS.

The Windows Me files will still be on the disk, using space. Although
you old OS has been left intact you won't be able to boot into Me
because Windows 2000 will not have recognised and added it as a boot
option and, more to the point, Windows Me can't read NTFS volumes.

--
>iv< Paul >iv<

[ Mail: (E-Mail Removed) ]
[ WWW: http://www.hopwood.org.uk/ ]

On 1/7/04 7:32 PM, in article (E-Mail Removed),
"Paul Hopwood" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Kevin Nelson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>> This is not an Upgrade. Win 2k came out before Win ME. This is a downgrade.
>>> Downgrades are performed by formatting and reinstalling.
>
>> I have a question with that then. I installed win2000 on a computer that was
>> running ME and did not have to format the harddrive. Did I do something
>> wrong or right? Would changing the file system from fat to ntfs qualify as
>> "formatting"?
>
> It does not actually *require* a re-format; you can, and probably
> have, installed Windows 2000 on the same partition as your old Windows
> Me installation and then converted it to NTFS.
>
> The Windows Me files will still be on the disk, using space. Although
> you old OS has been left intact you won't be able to boot into Me
> because Windows 2000 will not have recognised and added it as a boot
> option and, more to the point, Windows Me can't read NTFS volumes.
Well it was actually convert and then install, but I get the idea.

Thanks
Kevin

On Wed, 07 Jan 2004 20:59:42 -0500, Kevin Nelson wrote:

>Well it was actually convert and then install, but I get the idea.
>
>Thanks
>Kevi

And replacing WinME w/ Win2000 is _definitely_ an upgrade. ME is just the
last and fanciest version of Windows 3.x, IOW, a nice menu system for MS-DOS
with a few added capabilities, all of which could have been implemented as
DOS features (and were, in other DOSs.)

If you want the best that MS has to offer, go for XP-Professional.(You'll
also need a Pentium4 based mobo, etc.) If you want the best - well, that's
another story.

--
Wolf Kirchmeir, Blind River ON Canada
"Nature does not deal in rewards or punishments, but only in consequences."
(Robert Ingersoll)

"Wolf Kirchmeir" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>>Well it was actually convert and then install, but I get the idea.

>And replacing WinME w/ Win2000 is _definitely_ an upgrade.

I wouldn't dispute it's better but it's *not* an upgrade in the true
sense because Windows Me is newer than 2000 so you can't run Windows
2000 as an upgrade and migrate from Me - you have to do a "clean"
install.

>ME is just the
>last and fanciest version of Windows 3.x, IOW, a nice menu system for MS-DOS
>with a few added capabilities, all of which could have been implemented as
>DOS features (and were, in other DOSs.)

Windows 95 could hardly be described a version of Windows 3.x and Me
is a Windows 9x variant, thus very different to Windows 3, in terms of
structure and usability. Thought it's probably fair to say that Me
was the *worst* revision of Windows 9x ever released! ;-)

>If you want the best that MS has to offer, go for XP-Professional.(You'll
>also need a Pentium4 based mobo, etc.) If you want the best - well, that's
>another story.

As much as I happen like XP it's not always the most appropriate
choice and some people prefer 2000 and this *is* a Windows 2000
newsgroup after all. <g>

--
>iv< Paul >iv<

[ Mail: (E-Mail Removed) ]
[ WWW: http://www.hopwood.org.uk/ ]

"Danny Sanders" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:<#(E-Mail Removed)>...
> This is not an Upgrade. Win 2k came out before Win ME. This is a downgrade.
> Downgrades are performed by formatting and reinstalling.
>
> hth
> DDS W 2k MVP MCSE
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:98642E94-8AFB-4F94-A72E-(E-Mail Removed)...
> >

I can't help but add my two cents, here. Just because something is
prior does not mean that it is inferior. From my own personal
experience and everyone else's that I've spoken to on the subject, I
can confidently affirm that Windows ME is the largest piece of OS
trash that Bill Gates and Co. have ever foisted upon the unspsecting
public. I'm no cheerleading fan of any Windows OS, but I will be the
first to admit that Windows 2K is FAR more stable than ME, or any
other flavor of 9X, for that matter. From a developer's perspective,
ME is a nightmare. The same can be said of the OS from a user's
perspective: Spontaneous reboots, task management that works only
about 40% of the time, a broken Graphical Device Interface (which MS
knew about), various and sundry lockups for no reason, etc..

I have used both Windows 2K and ME extensively at work, I've
programmed in both environments, and I have found 2K to be stable
(...and as a Linux user, it is quite a feat for me to admit that
fact). My question has always been: How has MS avoided ME
out-the-wazoo suits for as long as it has?