Up grade to 2000
This is a discussion about Up grade to 2000 in the Customization Tweaking category; I was just at the Microsoft site and was reading information, about upgrading NT 4. 0 too 2000. Is it advisable to do it this way or go for the clean install. Has anyone used this method, and had sucess.
I was just at the Microsoft site and was reading information, about upgrading NT 4.0 too 2000.
Is it advisable to do it this way or go for the clean install.
Has anyone used this method, and had sucess.
Thanks
Is it advisable to do it this way or go for the clean install.
Has anyone used this method, and had sucess.
Thanks
Participate in our website and join the conversation
This subject has been archived. New comments and votes cannot be submitted.
Jul 17
Aug 1
0
3 minutes
Responses to this topic
Any time you go to a new OS, it's really best to do a clean install in the long run. You will avoid a lot of problems by doing so.
Pretty much what Brian said. I have done both the upgrade and clean install routes, and the clean install is the better way to go.
Clean install.
there is a 50 chance for upgrade. and even then user profiles etc are not configured properly.
there is a 50 chance for upgrade. and even then user profiles etc are not configured properly.
I do agree at 100% !
Upgrading the OS sometimes end up with twice the same folders ! Bad renaming of folders and such strange things... believe me, I've seen this many a time, so:
DO A CLEAN INSTALL ! It's worth the time it takes...
Upgrading the OS sometimes end up with twice the same folders ! Bad renaming of folders and such strange things... believe me, I've seen this many a time, so:
DO A CLEAN INSTALL ! It's worth the time it takes...
Antoine
I would have hoped that, after making the original post over a year ago, that JMD had made the upgrade by now...
If not, that's a serious case of delaying!!
Just joking
AndyF
I would have hoped that, after making the original post over a year ago, that JMD had made the upgrade by now...
If not, that's a serious case of delaying!!
Just joking
AndyF
eh?
17th July 2001 01:09 was the date/time of the original post. Am I missing something?
17th July 2001 01:09 was the date/time of the original post. Am I missing something?
OP
LOL yes your right..that is quite a delay. But If I had of installed it back then I,m sure I would have 3 times the posts that I have now.
I was hoping I could install over top of the existing OS and it would be just as good as the clean install.
I'll stay with 4.0 until i finish CO OP
I was hoping I could install over top of the existing OS and it would be just as good as the clean install.
I'll stay with 4.0 until i finish CO OP
Quote:
eh?
17th July 2001 01:09 was the date/time of the original post. Am I missing something?
OK, so call me Mr Blind and slap me with a kipper...
I was looking at the wrong place, and saw JMD's registration date and got confused and...and...
Just goes to show that humans can't multitask as well as PCs...despite what my wife says:D
AndyF
eh?
17th July 2001 01:09 was the date/time of the original post. Am I missing something?
OK, so call me Mr Blind and slap me with a kipper...
I was looking at the wrong place, and saw JMD's registration date and got confused and...and...
Just goes to show that humans can't multitask as well as PCs...despite what my wife says:D
AndyF
While going from NT to Win2k would probably be safer than from Windows 9x, there would probably still be something that doesn't sit right. I wouldn't know, as I've never used NT before, but I suspect that would be the case. If NT is serving you well, you should be safe.
I'm going to stay with Win2k, as XP doesn't seem to hold anything I find necessary or worth the trouble it has (other than prodcut activation).
Even in Linux, I'd rather do a clean install. It took about a day to upgrade that when I tried it, so I decided not to do that again.
I'd suspect that would probably be the same for Unix and BSD flavors.
Soooo, to wrap it all up, do a clean install now as opposed to being forced to later on, with a possibility for some inconvienece.
I'm going to stay with Win2k, as XP doesn't seem to hold anything I find necessary or worth the trouble it has (other than prodcut activation).
Even in Linux, I'd rather do a clean install. It took about a day to upgrade that when I tried it, so I decided not to do that again.
I'd suspect that would probably be the same for Unix and BSD flavors.
Soooo, to wrap it all up, do a clean install now as opposed to being forced to later on, with a possibility for some inconvienece.
