Upgrade or New Installation?

Im wanting to Upgrade my 2000 pro to XP Pro whats the
differnces bewteen upgrade and new Installation what
should I do?

Upgrade keeps all your current settings and software and migrates them to
the new platform, clean install is going to be an OS only with no data.
Personally I prefer clean installs, but thats just me.

--
Joseph Conway [MSFT]
Windows 2000/2003 Server group

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights
"Steve" <anonymous@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:12d1901c3f6be$2780fdd0$a401280a@phx.gbl...
> Im wanting to Upgrade my 2000 pro to XP Pro whats the
> differnces bewteen upgrade and new Installation what
> should I do?

It ain't just you, Joseph - it's a widely-held preference among lots of
experienced people here.

Too many upgrades propagate not only old correct settings/software but
also defective ones that weren't particularly noticeable on the prior
system. The upgrade path seems inuitively a laborsaver when compared to
a clean install, but from the traffic in these newsgroups it would
appear that when problems from upgrading do occur those problems can be
persistent, subtle, take sometimes a long time to appear, very tough to
resolve, and cause headaches that ultimately get resolved by a fresh
install anyhow. After extended conversations in forums like this.

It occurs to me that the apparent simplicity of upgrading (a great
marketing approach) may deceive the unwitting into failing to realize
that W2k can't use prior drivers and may not have the required new ones
in its admittedly very large library. F'rinstance, motherboard-device
drivers. I'd bet a great many people who choose the upgrade path don't
even know that such things exist and are unlikely to find out without a
lot of heartache.

And it would be interesting to know the percentage of users going to a
new OS or app who actually read, much less absorb, the included
instruction manuals.

Joseph Conway [MSFT] wrote:
> Upgrade keeps all your current settings and software and migrates them to
> the new platform, clean install is going to be an OS only with no data.
> Personally I prefer clean installs, but thats just me.
>

Agreed.


>-----Original Message-----
>It ain't just you, Joseph - it's a widely-held preference
among lots of
>experienced people here.
>
>Too many upgrades propagate not only old correct
settings/software but
>also defective ones that weren't particularly noticeable
on the prior
>system. The upgrade path seems inuitively a laborsaver
when compared to
>a clean install, but from the traffic in these newsgroups
it would
>appear that when problems from upgrading do occur those
problems can be
>persistent, subtle, take sometimes a long time to appear,
very tough to
>resolve, and cause headaches that ultimately get resolved
by a fresh
>install anyhow. After extended conversations in forums
like this.
>
>It occurs to me that the apparent simplicity of upgrading
(a great
>marketing approach) may deceive the unwitting into
failing to realize
>that W2k can't use prior drivers and may not have the
required new ones
>in its admittedly very large library. F'rinstance,
motherboard-device
>drivers. I'd bet a great many people who choose the
upgrade path don't
>even know that such things exist and are unlikely to find
out without a
>lot of heartache.
>
>And it would be interesting to know the percentage of
users going to a
>new OS or app who actually read, much less absorb, the
included
>instruction manuals.
>
>Joseph Conway [MSFT] wrote:
>> Upgrade keeps all your current settings and software
and migrates them to
>> the new platform, clean install is going to be an OS
only with no data.
>> Personally I prefer clean installs, but thats just me.
>>
>
>.
>