>>>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.

And this all goes back to my original posting. The computer was running
windows ME, I put the win2000 disk in and installed it as an upgrade. All of
the files and folders and programs were still on the harddrive when I was
finished. All I had to do was get updates for some of the drivers and the
computer was done.

So I guess that makes it a backwards upgrade? Or in MS Speak, a legacy
compatible upgrade option.

:-)

Kevin Nelson

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 15:11:33 -0500, Kevin Nelson wrote:

>
>And this all goes back to my original posting. The computer was running
>windows ME, I put the win2000 disk in and installed it as an upgrade. All of
>the files and folders and programs were still on the harddrive when I was
>finished. All I had to do was get updates for some of the drivers and the
>computer was done.
>
>So I guess that makes it a backwards upgrade? Or in MS Speak, a legacy
>compatible upgrade option.

No, since ME is the legacy, not 2K.

>:-)
>
>Kevin Nelson

Technically, you "installed 2K over ME," and in the course of doing that, ME
was destroyed. A true upgrade would have replaced parts of ME with newer
versions, just as 98-->ME replaced parts of 98 with ME versions.

There is no functional ME code left on your machine. ME drivers will not work
with 2K, for example. -- It's possible that some bits of ME are still lying
around - it's worth eliminating them, as they merely take up space. But doing
that isn't easy. That's why a "clean install" is the preferred route of
migration from ME to 2K.

But all this is really a quibble. :-)


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

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

>>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.

>And this all goes back to my original posting. The computer was running
>windows ME, I put the win2000 disk in and installed it as an upgrade. All of
>the files and folders and programs were still on the harddrive when I was
>finished. All I had to do was get updates for some of the drivers and the
>computer was done.

I don't think you ran as an upgrade as such. An "upgrade", in the
technical sense, takes an existing installation and migrates settings,
installed software etc, replacing your previous version or giving you
the option with running both.

I suspect you simply installed Windows 2000 on the same partition so
it was, in effect, a "clean" install of the OS. Windows 2000 Setup
will of been insensitive to the existing installation and, as you
ended up doing, installing Windows 2000 while neither trying to
maintain or remove the previous OS cleanly.

While I've never tried it, I also suspect it would be impossible to
perform the installation from a Windows 2000 Upgrade CD-ROM as SETUP
wouldn't recognise Windows Me as qualifying product.

>So I guess that makes it a backwards upgrade? Or in MS Speak, a legacy
>compatible upgrade option.



--
>iv< Paul >iv<

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