> In 468501c34108$28a87ba0$a601280aphx.gbl, Rick wrote:
> > I have an older desktop that was originally loaded with
> > Windows 95, but was upgraded to W98 several years ago.
> > With the various problems I have had with W98 (blue
> > screens, system lockup, etc.), I can't help but wonder if
> > I would not be better off by reformatting my hard drive
> > and installing XP from scratch versus buying the upgrade
> > and installing it on top of W98. Pardon my lack of
> > understanding, but if I buy the XP upgrade, will it
> > resolve the problems I have been having with W98?
> > Upgrading is certainly the least expensive route, but I am
> > tired of the problems and want to do it right. Appreciate
> > all guidance/recommendations. Thanks.
> No, upgrading is *not* "the least expensive route." The price is
> the same either way.
> The first thing for you to realize is that if go to you XP. you
> should buy a copy of the Windows XP upgrade, since it's the
> chepaest way to go, and as an owner of Windows 98, you qualify to
> use it. That's true whether you decide to upgrade over the top of
> 98 or do a clean installation.
> The requirement for the upgrade version is to *own* a previous
> version, not to have it installed, and you can install the
> upgrade on a freshly-formatted hard drive by inserting the
> qualifying versions' media when it prompts you for it.
> So now your question is, should you do a clean installation (with
> the upgrade CD) or an upgrade. Normally, my advice is for almost
> everyone to at least try the upgrade first. It often works very
> well, and worst case, if it doesn't and you have problems, you
> can always revert to a clean installation. On the other hand, if
> you are currently having problems, it's possible that some of
> those problems might survive the upgrade and you would have been
> better off clean installing from scratch.
> Another very important consideration for you is your statement "I
> have an older desktop that was originally loaded with Windows
> 95." You need to realize up front that a Windows 95-era computer
> does not have a very good chance of running XP successfully.
> Besides possible having incompatible hardware (and software),
> your hard drive is likely too small, the processor too slow, and
> you don't have sufficient RAM. You can't get away with much less
> than a 400MHz processor with 256MB of RAM, and a 10GB hard drive.
> My guess is that you probably don't come up to those minimums and
> therefore shouldn't go to XP unless you're willing to first spend
> some money on new hardware. It may well be cheaper and easier to
> buy an entire new computer rather than to try to upgrade almost
> everything (which would likely be necessary).
> One of the first things for you to do is evaluate your hardware
> and software at
> Ken Blake
> Please reply to the newsgroup