re: Clean install performance versus upgrade (from ME) Thursday, November 15, 2001 at 9:07 pm Windows XP Annoyances Discussion Forum Posted by Ray B (393 messages posted) Although I think there's lots of merit for a clean install, I have done two upgrade installs of XP, both of Millennium, and I'm happy as a clam. The install took about 1-1/2-2 hours and I had no problems with either machine, except had to upgrade a driver or two. For what it's worth, today's install over Millennium was on a P-166 machine with 74 mb of ram (64 SIMM and 10 DIMM, don't ask...). XP is running great on the P-166 machine. On Wednesday, November 14, 2001 at 8:34 pm, Xian wrote: >Everyone suggests doing a clean install, but for me that induces a bunch of backup >related headaches. My question is whether upgrading over WinMe has any significant >performance disadvantages versus a clean install... or is this somewhat nitpicky, >like folks that defrag weekly or scan EVERY file they d/l with anti-virus programs? > There tends to be a lot of supersitition for OSes... like everyone saying ME sucks >(does it)? Written in response to: Clean install performance versus upgrade (from ME) (Xian: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 at 8:34 pm) There are presently no replies to this message. All messages in this thread [show all] Clean install performance versus upgrade (from ME) (Xian: Wed, Nov 14, 2001, 8:34 pm) re: Clean install performance versus upgrade (from ME) (Krezno: Wed, Nov 14, 2001, 9:29 pm) re: Clean install performance versus upgrade (from ME) (Ralph Wiggum: Thu, Nov 15, 2001, 3:44 am) re: Clean install performance versus upgrade (from ME) (John: Thu, Nov 15, 2001, 6:00 am) re: Clean install performance versus upgrade (from ME) (Ray B: Thu, Nov 15, 2001, 9:07 pm) Reply or follow-up to this message Search this forum Start a new thread on a different subject Report abuse of the forum Return to the Windows XP Discussion Forum