Up grade to 2000

#1 JMD

enthusiast

Group: Members
Posts: 202
Joined: 18-May 00

Posted 17 July 2001 - 03:09 AM

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

#2 Brian Frank

Carpal Tunnel

Group: Members
Posts: 3088
Joined: 21-January 01

Posted 17 July 2001 - 06:37 AM

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.

#3 clutch

Carpal Tunnel

Group: Moderators
Posts: 3859
Joined: 29-March 00

Posted 17 July 2001 - 03:55 PM

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.

#4 Uykucu

addict

Group: Members
Posts: 540
Joined: 28-February 01

Posted 30 July 2001 - 01:24 PM

Clean install.
there is a 50 chance for upgrade. and even then user profiles etc are not configured properly.

#5 Ant -|- One

member

Group: Members
Posts: 140
Joined: 28-May 01

Posted 30 July 2001 - 04:06 PM

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...

#6 AndyFair

old hand

Group: Members
Posts: 748
Joined: 21-May 01

Posted 30 July 2001 - 11:39 PM

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

#7 Xiven

addict

Group: Members
Posts: 690
Joined: 21-May 00

Posted 31 July 2001 - 12:46 AM

eh?

17th July 2001 01:09 was the date/time of the original post. Am I missing something?

#8 JMD

enthusiast

Group: Members
Posts: 202
Joined: 18-May 00

Posted 31 July 2001 - 01:17 AM

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

#9 AndyFair

old hand

Group: Members
Posts: 748
Joined: 21-May 01

Posted 31 July 2001 - 03:26 PM

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

#10 Brian Frank

Carpal Tunnel

Group: Members
Posts: 3088
Joined: 21-January 01

Posted 01 August 2001 - 11:07 PM

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.