Upgrading to XP from W2K - advantages?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gingangooli
  • Start date Start date
G

Gingangooli

I have got the opportunity to upgrade my PC from W2K Pro to XP Pro.

What are the advantages to wiping the slate clean (HD wise) and
installing XP Pro in place of W2K Pro?

I currently use the PC for gaming, with some Office2K work, the PC
shares a home network via a router with the other PCs still running W2KPro.

tia

Ginga
 
Gingangooli said:
I have got the opportunity to upgrade my PC from W2K Pro to XP Pro.

What are the advantages to wiping the slate clean (HD wise) and
installing XP Pro in place of W2K Pro?

I currently use the PC for gaming, with some Office2K work, the PC
shares a home network via a router with the other PCs still running W2KPro.

tia

Ginga
Click to expand...

BTW...Ive read:
http://www.microsoft.com/uk/windows/editions/xp-pro/chart.mspx

But Im looking for user-type feedback, positive and negative.

Ginga
 
Upgrade first. There is no reason to do a clean install unless you have
problems afterwards. This is especially true of laptops because laptops
usually have special device drivers that you do not want to blow away.

Back up the system first and scan for spyware and viruses.

The next step should be to boot into W2k, insert the XP Pro cd, and then run
the upgrade advisor. That will identify incompatible programs that need to
be removed or updated and device drivers that need to be updated to their XP
versions.

Check the computer manufacturer's website for information about XP
compatibility.
 
You're not upgrading. Per post text, you're doing a "clean" install. Doing
compatability checks is essential, but "clean" install formats HD
automatically, all progs will have to be re-installed. Set aside a full day
to do this exercise, 'cos it takes 2 hours to install XP, another 2 hours or
more to d/l and install SP2 and later updates - before you even load any
progs!
Good Luck! Len.
 
Hi, Ginga.

I've never regretted upgrading from Win2K to WinXP Pro on the day it came
out in 2001! ;<) But I do very little gaming and don't have a network or
other users on my computer.

If your WinXP CD-ROM is a current version, it will have SP2 integrated into
it and the whole process should take no more than an hour or two, including
formatting your HD. It's a good idea to unplug unnecessary peripherals
before you begin. Especially any HD with an Active (bootable) primary
partition on it; if Setup detects an Active partition on any HD, it will let
that keep drive letter C:, assigning another letter (G:?) to your System
(and Boot?) volume - and that can't be changed without starting over.

If you upgrade from Win2K, your boot folder will inherit the prior name
(\WinNT?), rather than WinXP's default, \Windows. Neither the boot folder
name nor the drive letter will matter to WinXP, but it will almost certainly
confuse you - and all the applications you will install that expect to put
their files on Drive C:.

Upgrades from Win2K to WinXP usually go smoothly, since they both are on the
NT platform, as opposed to upgrades from Win9x/ME, which require all new
drivers and sometimes new versions of software. But a clean install,
including a reformat, clears out the accumulated deadwood and garbage,
making it worth the time to reinstall apps and restore data, in many cases.

RC
 
R. C. White said:
Hi, Ginga.

I've never regretted upgrading from Win2K to WinXP Pro on the day it
came out in 2001! ;<) But I do very little gaming and don't have a
network or other users on my computer.

If your WinXP CD-ROM is a current version, it will have SP2 integrated
into it and the whole process should take no more than an hour or two,
including formatting your HD. It's a good idea to unplug unnecessary
peripherals before you begin. Especially any HD with an Active
(bootable) primary partition on it; if Setup detects an Active partition
on any HD, it will let that keep drive letter C:, assigning another
letter (G:?) to your System (and Boot?) volume - and that can't be
changed without starting over.

If you upgrade from Win2K, your boot folder will inherit the prior name
(\WinNT?), rather than WinXP's default, \Windows. Neither the boot
folder name nor the drive letter will matter to WinXP, but it will
almost certainly confuse you - and all the applications you will install
that expect to put their files on Drive C:.

Upgrades from Win2K to WinXP usually go smoothly, since they both are on
the NT platform, as opposed to upgrades from Win9x/ME, which require all
new drivers and sometimes new versions of software. But a clean
install, including a reformat, clears out the accumulated deadwood and
garbage, making it worth the time to reinstall apps and restore data, in
many cases.

RC
Click to expand...
Thanks for the replies guys.

I will probably go for a clean install, reformatting both my HDs, just
to (as RC said) to clean out all the deadwood.

I have XP SP2 on CD anyway (free with a games mag).. so Im ready for
that bit. Also I would want to stick SP2 on before ANYTHING else.

One last question.... With W2K installation you had the option to set up
the HD as FAT32 or NTFS. I assume that option is also the case with XP?
So which one is better? FAT32 or NTFS?

tia Ginga
 
NTFS
Len
Gingangooli said:
Thanks for the replies guys.

I will probably go for a clean install, reformatting both my HDs, just to
(as RC said) to clean out all the deadwood.

I have XP SP2 on CD anyway (free with a games mag).. so Im ready for that
bit. Also I would want to stick SP2 on before ANYTHING else.

One last question.... With W2K installation you had the option to set up
the HD as FAT32 or NTFS. I assume that option is also the case with XP?
So which one is better? FAT32 or NTFS?

tia Ginga
Click to expand...
 
Awwwww...cummon Yabbadoo...dont do that !!! you gotta say why!!! ;-)
Click to expand...


Personally, I wouldn't even consider using FAT32 when NTFS is an
option. FAT32 has no security capabilities, no compression
capabilities, no fault tolerance, and a lot of wasted hard drive space
on volumes larger than 8 Gb in size. But your computing needs may
vary, and there is no hard and fast answer.

To answer your questions without getting too technical is
difficult, but has been handled quite well by Alex Nichol in the
article here:

FAT & NTFS File Systems in Windows XP
http://www.aumha.org/a/ntfs.htm

Somewhat more technical information is here:

Limitations of the FAT32 File System in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/directory/article.asp?ID=kb;en-us;Q314463

Choosing Between File Systems
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tr...prodtechnol/winntas/tips/techrep/filesyst.asp

NTFS file system
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ntfs/

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
 
You asked a straight question, I gave you a straight answer.
Bruce has now given the comprehensive reasons why.
( But you hadn't asked for reasons, just for an answer!) (g)

Sincerely, Len
 
Bruce said:
Personally, I wouldn't even consider using FAT32 when NTFS is an
option. FAT32 has no security capabilities, no compression
capabilities, no fault tolerance, and a lot of wasted hard drive space
on volumes larger than 8 Gb in size. But your computing needs may
vary, and there is no hard and fast answer.

To answer your questions without getting too technical is
difficult, but has been handled quite well by Alex Nichol in the
article here:

FAT & NTFS File Systems in Windows XP
http://www.aumha.org/a/ntfs.htm

Somewhat more technical information is here:

Limitations of the FAT32 File System in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/directory/article.asp?ID=kb;en-us;Q314463

Choosing Between File Systems
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tr...prodtechnol/winntas/tips/techrep/filesyst.asp


NTFS file system
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ntfs/
Click to expand...
Thank you Bruce.
 
Hi, Ginga.

The only reason I can think of to use FAT (any version) anymore is if you
plan to install MS-DOS or Win3.x/9x/ME on this computer (dual-booting,
perhaps). Otherwise, it's NTFS all the way - for all the reasons Bruce
gave. NTFS is much more secure, both in the sense of secure from
unauthorized access, and in the sense of secure from loss of time and data
from file system glitches.

RC
 
These days the desire to run DOS and earlier versions of Windows can be met
by running Virtual PC 2004. No partitioning and no reboots required. It is
much easier to maintain and the guest operating system runs in a virtual
computer as a window on the XP desktop. Almost any x86 operating system
works.
 
Gingangooli said:
Thank you Bruce.
Click to expand...


You're welcome.

--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
 
Back
Top