John said:
Snipped.... but the usual
recommendation for best results is to do a clean install.
That's not at all true.
Granted, some people will blindly recommend that one always perform a
clean installation, rather than upgrade over an earlier OS. For the most
part, I feel that these people, while usually well-meaning, are living
in the past, and are either basing their recommendation on their
experiences with older operating systems, or are simply inexperienced
and uninformed.
Certainly, there are times when an in-place upgrade is
contra-indicated:
1) When the underlying hardware isn't certified as being fully
compatible with the newer OS, and/or updated device drivers are not
available from the device's manufacturer. Of course, this condition also
causes problems with clean installations.
2) When the original OS is corrupt, damaged, and/or virus/malware
infested. I've also seen simple, straight-forward upgrades from WinXP
Home to WinXP Pro fail because the computer owner had let the system
become malware-infested. Upgrading over a problematic OS isn't normally
a wise course to establishing a stable installation.
3) When the new OS isn't designed to properly, correctly, and safely
perform an upgrade.
A properly prepared and maintained PC can almost always be
successfully upgraded by a knowledgeable and competent individual. I've
lost count of the systems I've seen that have been upgraded from Win95
to Win98 to Win2K to WinXP (usually with incremental hardware upgrades
over the same time period), without the need for a clean installation,
and that are still operating without any problems attributable to upgrades.
--
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin
Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell
The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot