Upgrade 98 to XP Is it worth it?

[Leythos]

I said "ignorant" originally, but I apologize--ignorance is just lack of
knowledge. Experience combined with ignorance is stupidity. Why do you
assume that I have less experience than you? Please share the technical

I assumed that because of the way you responded, the tone of your reply
(disrespectful), and that you've obviously not encountered the situation
that would give you the same results that I've (as well as others) have
experienced. I was rude of me to reply with the tone that I did, but I
considered it responding in kind - which should have been beneath me. I
apologize for the "rude" tone of my reply.

details. What's an "extraneous" file, and how does it contribute to
performance loss, keeping in mind that clean installation is overkill if

Extraneous files are ones that are no longer needed when moving to a new
OS or when wiping/doing a reinstall. You often find that when you remove
applications/services that they do not remove ALL of the files they
installed and don't remove all of the files that were created by the user
during the use of those file.

disk space is a problem? How *exactly* does "registry bloat" contribute
to poor performance? What's the difference between "registry bloat" and
"remnants of uninstalled applications? Or are those the "extraneous
files" you were referring to? Your response was to an obvious neophyte

The larger the registry the longer it takes to search. I've seen systems
where the application added more than 2K to the registry - yea, bad
applications, poor programming, etc... How many neophytes do you know that
can go in and hack the registry without messing up?

who wants to know about moving from 98 to XP. How are remarks about the
mythical benefits of reinstallation relevant to him, since you say
yourself that they don't? Please enlighten us.

In every migration of Windows, from 3 to XP or every server version from
NT 3.51 to 2003, it's been my experience (and my teams experience) that
you get better performance, better reliability, and significantly less
problems when doing a clean install. You can try and argue that if you
want, but I've got about 10+ years of doing it both ways to say otherwise.

Wait till you get a system loaded with all sorts of development tools, the
beta's, then updates to beta's, the final beta, then the RTM, and then the
next version, and then all the service packs, etc.... If you do any
serious work with your system, a wipe/reinstall can lend to better
performance. If all you do it play Solitate, POPCAP, Browse, and use
Email, then you don't need it.

 

[Leythos]

In my case, perhaps I'm more ignorant than neophytus. Of cousre I'm
neophytus on this group but not on Spanish newsgroups. There are several
examples on which the clean install is better than upgrading (even from
Home to Professional). Moreover in the KB you can find some articles
related to this upgrading and problems that appear when upgrading (I
know they are little problems but problems in any case). I think (and of
course I may be wrong) that if there is a chance to backup (what is
always necessary), it's better the clean installation. I only asked to
learn. And I'm learning a lot!

There are also alternative options, since it's an old machine it's likely
to be fully supported by Linux and as long as it's just used for minor
tasks, not for Developing MS applications, Linux runs well on older/slower
machines without the inherent risks that XP has and without the need for
better hardware that XP requires. I'm running Linux Fedora Core 3 on a
P3/833/256 machine and it's fast, reliable, and does everything I need
except offer the SQL Server and Office 2003 suite of tools, but it's good
enough to most everyone I know that owns a personal computer.

With XP you're going to need at least 256MB of RAM to be comfortable at
doing anything, less than 256 and you'll be swapping to the drive all the
time. If you don't run MS Office (any variant) then 128MB or 192MB might
not be a problem, but with MS Office you'll want at least 256MB on that
system.

A clean install would be the best method in my experience, but if you
don't have a backup of the data you might have to live with a Upgrade -
but you should make a backup of the data before the Upgrade anyway.

 

[Raymond J. Johnson Jr.]

I assumed that because of the way you responded, the tone of your reply
(disrespectful), and that you've obviously not encountered the situation
that would give you the same results that I've (as well as others) have
experienced. I was rude of me to reply with the tone that I did, but I
considered it responding in kind - which should have been beneath me. I
apologize for the "rude" tone of my reply.

I wasn't reverential, as you apparently expect, and I haven't had the
same fantasies as you, in other words.

Extraneous files are ones that are no longer needed when moving to a new
OS or when wiping/doing a reinstall. You often find that when you remove
applications/services that they do not remove ALL of the files they
installed and don't remove all of the files that were created by the user
during the use of those file.

Note the avoidance of the salient question. How do those pesky
extraneous files contribute to poor performance? And you're now going in
circles. First you say that extraneous files are a source of poor
performance of the *present* OS, then you suggest that those files only
become "extraneous" when migrating or doing a clean install. Are you dizzy?

The larger the registry the longer it takes to search. I've seen systems
where the application added more than 2K to the registry - yea, bad
applications, poor programming, etc... How many neophytes do you know that
can go in and hack the registry without messing up?

This is the great "registry bloat" fallacy. Everytime the OS needs to
find a key or entry in the registry, it must sequentially search the
whole thing. Do you really believe that the registry works that way, or
was there another reason you didn't provide the technical details?

In every migration of Windows, from 3 to XP or every server version from
NT 3.51 to 2003, it's been my experience (and my teams experience) that
you get better performance, better reliability, and significantly less
problems when doing a clean install. You can try and argue that if you
want, but I've got about 10+ years of doing it both ways to say otherwise.

You're changing the subject. I concur that a clean install is less
likely to be result in issues, but your statement, and the one I
challenged was about clean installing the *same* OS.

 

[Leythos]

I wasn't reverential, as you apparently expect, and I haven't had the
same fantasies as you, in other words.

Note the avoidance of the salient question. How do those pesky
extraneous files contribute to poor performance? And you're now going in
circles. First you say that extraneous files are a source of poor
performance of the *present* OS, then you suggest that those files only
become "extraneous" when migrating or doing a clean install. Are you dizzy?

No, I was not avoiding it. The files that are on the machine sit on the
drive and cause other files to be pushed farther out on different sectors,
which cause the r/w head to have to move more than on a cleaner drive.

This is the great "registry bloat" fallacy. Everytime the OS needs to
find a key or entry in the registry, it must sequentially search the
whole thing. Do you really believe that the registry works that way, or
was there another reason you didn't provide the technical details?

Nope, I'm quite clear on how to access the registry pragmatically, but I
also know that the crap left over in the registry can impact performance -
I can't state where, just that I've experienced it in 2000/xp/2003.

You're changing the subject. I concur that a clean install is less
likely to be result in issues, but your statement, and the one I
challenged was about clean installing the *same* OS.

Now I wasn't, it was all part of the same thing - he wanted to know about
upgrading and I still advocate a clean install for the same reasons that I
wipe my systems about ever 16 months, and yes, I do, clearly feel a
performance increase in most operations after doing so.

So, I guess the question for you is: Since you see no benefit of a
wipe/reinstall, what is it that you do with your computer?

 

[Tom]

Nope, I'm quite clear on how to access the registry pragmatically, but I
also know that the crap left over in the registry can impact performance -
I can't state where, just that I've experienced it in 2000/xp/2003.

Then you do not understand the registry as you make yourself out that you do so well. XP's registry setup is different than that of 2000, so there is a greater performance gain with XP (and 2003) from 2000. Also, XP handles old registries just fine, by ignoring them and storing existing relevant entries to run alongside themselves. Even if you had an extremely (as you say ) bloated registry, the performance difference is so negligible, that you would need minimal system requirements for XP, with everything else turned off (if that were possible) and running the registry on its own to see how minute the hit is (like in the thousandths of a percent). A good registry optimizer (not editor) is a good thing also.

Now I wasn't, it was all part of the same thing - he wanted to know about
upgrading and I still advocate a clean install for the same reasons that I
wipe my systems about ever 16 months, and yes, I do, clearly feel a
performance increase in most operations after doing so.

So, I guess the question for you is: Since you see no benefit of a
wipe/reinstall, what is it that you do with your computer?

I disagree, and this is the typical practice of one that cannot take care of an often used machine. My previous machine, in which I did lots of music/graphics/document editing, I never once formatted it in the over 3 years I had it, nor did it slow down. It had 512megs of DDR 800 RAMBUS, and a 1.7gig Intel P4. My current PC has 2gigs PC3200 DDR SDRAM, 3.2 P4, and is a year old, and runs like it did when new when it had much less applications. I needed this one because the software I run is newer and requires more resources.

 

[Leythos]

Then you do not understand the registry as you make yourself out that
you do so well. XP's registry setup is different than that of 2000, so
there is a greater performance gain with XP (and 2003) from 2000. Also,
XP handles old registries just fine, by ignoring them and storing
existing relevant entries to run alongside themselves. Even if you had
an extremely (as you say ) bloated registry, the performance difference
is so negligible, that you would need minimal system requirements for
XP, with everything else turned off (if that were possible) and running
the registry on its own to see how minute the hit is (like in the
thousandths of a percent). A good registry optimizer (not editor) is a
good thing also.


I disagree, and this is the typical practice of one that cannot take
care of an often used machine. My previous machine, in which I did lots
of music/graphics/document editing, I never once formatted it in the
over 3 years I had it, nor did it slow down. It had 512megs of DDR 800
RAMBUS, and a 1.7gig Intel P4. My current PC has 2gigs PC3200 DDR SDRAM,
3.2 P4, and is a year old, and runs like it did when new when it had
much less applications. I needed this one because the software I run is
newer and requires more resources.

I guess that I'll have to leave this with us disagreeing, as we're not
experiencing the same issues based on the machines we maintain. I see a
very real benefit in the practice of doing a fresh install every 12~16
months, in fact I've been doing this since the W95 days and find it works
quite well for me and select workstations.

 

[Tom]

I guess that I'll have to leave this with us disagreeing, as we're not
experiencing the same issues based on the machines we maintain. I see a
very real benefit in the practice of doing a fresh install every 12~16
months, in fact I've been doing this since the W95 days and find it works
quite well for me and select workstations.

Well, when you included 2000 with your registry experiences, that was telling, as it has changed dramatically. It is nothing personal, but based on your registry experience, your need to format and re-install is more knee-jerk reaction, or just something to do, than having to reload out of a real need based on what you say. Unless of course, you are really screwing around with the system over time whereas it really needs to be reloaded.

Read here for a good concise explanation of the XP registry, I just found it myself.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1159563,00.asp

 

[Raymond J. Johnson Jr.]

Upgrading isn't an option, it's a necessity, and
it doesn't matter if we want to upgrade or not. Microsoft has forced it
on us by their planned obsolescence of Windows 98.

A necessity? There are still people out there merrily using 3.1.

 

[Jupiter Jones [MVP]]

"Microsoft has forced it on us..."
That is a myth often mentioned by the Microsoft critics, you should ignore
them.
Sales people often get stuck with that myth as well.

Nothing is forced on anyone.
If someone wants newer hardware or software then that may require an
upgrade.
Simply because something is old is insufficient reason to upgrade.
There should be software, hardware or other issues requiring upgrade before
the expense of resources is made.
Often the needs do not change and an older operating system meets all needs.
There is no reason to encourage spending $ on something that is not needed.
Some still use Windows 95 and older safely and securely while efficiently
performing the need of that machine.
It is only obsolete to you if it no longer meets your needs.

 

[aa]

I would not recommed it unless 98 prevents you from performing some tasks
you need. Apart from the need to upgrade your computer beyond recognition
(in practical terms you will have to buy a new one), working with XP is a
pain. Things which on 98 you could perform by your intuition without reading
manual, on XP requires a lot of investigation. Just at this moment I am
trying to figure out two basic things, and for two days I still cannot get
an easy solution dispite a lot of knowleadgable people here try to help me.

If 98 does not support functionalities you need, upgrade to w2k.
w2k is also much more stable then 98.
The only good think I can tell about XP is that it installs easy, including
network settings. I also like the little dog which searches for files.
But in terms of stability and installation it is not better then w2k.
However they added so many bells and wistles that a simple task becomes
frustration.

After using XP for two weeks I arrived to the conclusion that the only
reason to replace w2k with XP was that famous activation which forces a
legal owner of XP on a destop to pay for another licence to install it on
his/her notebook. All these bells and wistles including the Teletubbies
landscape destop are only made to divert the user attention from that
unpleasent fact.

 

[Tom]

I would not recommed it unless 98 prevents you from performing some tasks
you need. Apart from the need to upgrade your computer beyond recognition
(in practical terms you will have to buy a new one), working with XP is a
pain. Things which on 98 you could perform by your intuition without reading
manual, on XP requires a lot of investigation. Just at this moment I am
trying to figure out two basic things, and for two days I still cannot get
an easy solution dispite a lot of knowleadgable people here try to help me.

If 98 does not support functionalities you need, upgrade to w2k.
w2k is also much more stable then 98.
The only good think I can tell about XP is that it installs easy, including
network settings. I also like the little dog which searches for files.
But in terms of stability and installation it is not better then w2k.
However they added so many bells and wistles that a simple task becomes
frustration.

After using XP for two weeks I arrived to the conclusion that the only
reason to replace w2k with XP was that famous activation which forces a
legal owner of XP on a destop to pay for another licence to install it on
his/her notebook. All these bells and wistles including the Teletubbies
landscape destop are only made to divert the user attention from that
unpleasent fact.

While I agree with the "bells and whistles" part, I disagree with most of the rest of your summarization. Firstly, if one doesn't want to use those bells and whistles (funny you like the dog, which is part of that Disney theme), they can turn them off. XP is much better than 2000, and more stable, as it uses it's NT code (though newer), while it carried over the functions of 98/ME for ease of use, and to ease those that used 98/ME into finding familiarity between the OSes.

Also, 2000 is not as friendly when making legacy apps work with it, that did in 98/ME, whereas XP has the ability to do this, as well as having many more legacy drivers written into the operating system. 2000, only carried the majority of these over from the NT version(s) which do not work in many cases carrying over from the DOS based systems of 98 and on. This in turn makes XP more stable than 2000,as well as more useful.

I agree in part with your stance on activation, though part of me finds that it is needed. I don't like it, and it is intrusive somewhat. But, when one reads and agrees to something, they should honor it if they intend to use it. If you feel the need to use it, but don't like the hit, you can complain. I do feel that the licensing agreement for personal/home use is not fair, and that the OS should be able to be installed in the same household. But, I agree to the rules. The one thing I ABSOLUTELY will not abide by, is the interpretation that even the same install disk cannot be used and installed twice on the SAME MACHINE.

In summary, your stance is from inexperience, and not giving enough time to use it (2 weeks?). If you seem as familiar with 2000 and 98 as you imply, then XP should be of no problem for you, if other than to have a gripe for non-operating issues.

 

[mrpsychology]

When I owned an hp pavilion 734n i bought upgrade xp pro from xp home and
didnt notice a difference in performance. However, when i clean installed
the xp pro it was noticeable, i couldnt believe it. xp does run stable i
have had no issues with it. It does use a lot of memory thought but it is
good.

 

[mrpsychology]

In my case, perhaps I'm more ignorant than neophytus. Of cousre I'm
neophytus on this group but not on Spanish newsgroups. There are several
examples on which the clean install is better than upgrading (even from Home
to Professional). Moreover in the KB you can find some articles related to
this upgrading and problems that appear when upgrading (I know they are
little problems but problems in any case). I think (and of course I may be
wrong) that if there is a chance to backup (what is always necessary), it's
better the clean installation. I only asked to learn. And I'm learning a
lot!

I clean installed from xp home to xp pro after upgrading and it was a lot
better. When i just upgraded ontop of the xp home i noticed NO difference,
but on clean install i noticed a HUGE difference. My eyes could see it from
the get-go, huge difference. That is why i clean install, because there was
no noticeable difference on the upgrade ontop of the home but was i would
swear 30% on clean to 0% noticeability on upgrade. However, this is by eye.
I upgraded my 5400rpm hardrive and went to a 7200rpm way back, well I
noticed a difference of course, well the difference between teh upgrade and
clean install was just like that to the eye.

 

[mrpsychology]

There are also alternative options, since it's an old machine it's likely
to be fully supported by Linux and as long as it's just used for minor
tasks, not for Developing MS applications, Linux runs well on older/slower
machines without the inherent risks that XP has and without the need for
better hardware that XP requires. I'm running Linux Fedora Core 3 on a
P3/833/256 machine and it's fast, reliable, and does everything I need
except offer the SQL Server and Office 2003 suite of tools, but it's good
enough to most everyone I know that owns a personal computer.

With XP you're going to need at least 256MB of RAM to be comfortable at
doing anything, less than 256 and you'll be swapping to the drive all the
time. If you don't run MS Office (any variant) then 128MB or 192MB might
not be a problem, but with MS Office you'll want at least 256MB on that
system.

A clean install would be the best method in my experience, but if you
don't have a backup of the data you might have to live with a Upgrade -
but you should make a backup of the data before the Upgrade anyway.

My computer uses 500-600mb of physical ram on average, and 300-400 swap on
average. From what I use I would definitely agree with the 256, but i would
go with 512mb or 2 sticks of 512mb. However, it is funny how actually ram
is more expensive than the motherboard itself lol. My motherboard cost me
125 dollars my abit av8, my 4 sticks of 512mb pc3200 ram cost around
400bucks. my cpu the 3200+ amd winchester 90nm cost 213 bucks which is
about equal to two sticks of ram.

 

[R. McCarty]

A Clean install is always going to be perceived as faster than an upgrade.
But it's misleading. A fresh install has a small/minimal Registry size. The
OS doesn't have the loading of Startups & Watchdogs. The Shell Ext's
aren't in place. The User's profile isn't fully populated with 3rd party App
settings & values.

After installing your 3rd party drivers and applications, the system load
increases. The "Performance" at a fresh install isn't what you'll have once
the system is fully loaded/configured.When you add in your Security
software (Real time monitoring) the performance is going to diminish a
little.

Upgrade performance depends greatly on how well the Old OS was
kept up. If it has issues, then the end result may be shaky. I've done
many 9X to XP upgrades and they mostly work fine. I think if you read
up you'll discover that an XP upgrade is more like a "Lift Up the Old OS
and drive XP underneath it" type of process.

I used to believe a "Yearly" fresh install was warranted. However, if you
take care of your setup & Image the system, I doubt if it's really useful.
It's like the All-Day-Saturday car detailing. It's still the same car, but
if
you've got the time to spend and want to spiff it up - go ahead and indulge
yourself.

 

[aa]

In summary, your stance is from inexperience, and not giving enough time to
use it (2 weeks?). If you seem as familiar with 2000 and 98 as you imply,
then XP should be of no problem for you, if other than to have a gripe for
non-operating issues.

Perhaps. However I moved from 98 to 2000 in no time and even hardly remeber
any problems getting used to 2000 GUI. I even did not have to look into the
help.
It looks like wit the age I bacame more stupid.

OK. I will accept your stanse provided you tell me right now and here how I
can quickly do two basic things on XP (preferrably without messing with the
Registry or third party software):

1. W2000 has a useful icon sittin next to the START button, which minimises
all opened applications so that you can see the desktop. How do I restore
this icon on XP?

2. How do I stop all these tips, hints and reminders for update to pop up
once and for good? They obstrucy the screen and I got tired of closing them
down.

 

[Alias]

| In summary, your stance is from inexperience, and not giving enough time
to
| use it (2 weeks?). If you seem as familiar with 2000 and 98 as you imply,
| then XP should be of no problem for you, if other than to have a gripe for
| non-operating issues.
|
| Perhaps. However I moved from 98 to 2000 in no time and even hardly
remeber
| any problems getting used to 2000 GUI. I even did not have to look into
the
| help.
| It looks like wit the age I bacame more stupid.
|
| OK. I will accept your stanse provided you tell me right now and here how
I
| can quickly do two basic things on XP (preferrably without messing with
the
| Registry or third party software):
|
| 1. W2000 has a useful icon sittin next to the START button, which
minimises
| all opened applications so that you can see the desktop. How do I restore
| this icon on XP?

Enable Quick Launch just like you did with W2K by right clicking on your
task bar/Tool Bars/Quick Launch.

| 2. How do I stop all these tips, hints and reminders for update to pop up
| once and for good? They obstrucy the screen and I got tired of closing
them
| down.

It would help if you would tell us what these tips, hints, reminders, etc.
are about, now wouldn't it? If it has to do with your Anti Virus and
Firewall, open up the Control Panel/Security Center and I am sure you can
figure out how to stop *those* tips, hints, reminders, etc. Hint/Tip: tell
it to let you manage your AV and Firewall. I haven't gotten a tip, hint or
reminder about *anything* in ages.

 

[Rock]

aa wrote:

1. W2000 has a useful icon sittin next to the START button, which minimises
all opened applications so that you can see the desktop. How do I restore
this icon on XP?

Use the Win key + D to show the desktop. Or use the quick launch bar
which sits on the taskbar next to the Start button. That has button on
it for show desktop.

2. How do I stop all these tips, hints and reminders for update to pop up
once and for good? They obstrucy the screen and I got tired of closing them
down.

This second part was answered in your other post.

 

[aa]

This second part was answered in your other post.

Yes, but in this very post were are discussing easiness of XP usage and my
second part was asking how to do this without inviting Regestry or third
party software

 

[Alias]

|
| > This second part was answered in your other post.
|
| Yes, but in this very post were are discussing easiness of XP usage and
my
| second part was asking how to do this without inviting Regestry or third
| party software

2. How do I stop all these tips, hints and reminders for update to pop up
| once and for good? They obstrucy the screen and I got tired of closing
them
| down.

It would help if you would tell us what these tips, hints, reminders, etc.
are about, now wouldn't it? If it has to do with your Anti Virus and
Firewall, open up the Control Panel/Security Center and I am sure you can
figure out how to stop *those* tips, hints, reminders, etc. Hint/Tip: tell
it to let you manage your AV and Firewall. I haven't gotten a tip, hint or
reminder about *anything* in ages.