G
D
Danny Sanders
This is not an Upgrade. Win 2k came out before Win ME. This is a downgrade.
Downgrades are performed by formatting and reinstalling.
hth
DDS W 2k MVP MCSE
Downgrades are performed by formatting and reinstalling.
hth
DDS W 2k MVP MCSE
B
Bruce Chambers
Greetings --
It's not technically possible to perform an upgrade from WinMe to
Win2K. You'll have to back up your data and start with a clean hard
drive.
Windows Me to Windows 2000 Upgrade Is Not Supported
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;272627.
Before proceeding, though, you'd better take a few minutes to
ensure that there are Win2K device drivers available for your PC's
specific components. There may not be, if the PC was specifically
designed for WinMe. Have you made sure the PC is capable of
supporting Win2K? This information will be found at the PC's
manufacturer's web site, and on Microsoft's Hardware Compatibility
List (http://www.microsoft.com/hcl/default.asp). Also bear in mind
that computers designed for, and sold with, WinMe very often fail to
meet Win2K's much more stringent hardware quality requirements.
Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH
It's not technically possible to perform an upgrade from WinMe to
Win2K. You'll have to back up your data and start with a clean hard
drive.
Windows Me to Windows 2000 Upgrade Is Not Supported
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;272627.
Before proceeding, though, you'd better take a few minutes to
ensure that there are Win2K device drivers available for your PC's
specific components. There may not be, if the PC was specifically
designed for WinMe. Have you made sure the PC is capable of
supporting Win2K? This information will be found at the PC's
manufacturer's web site, and on Microsoft's Hardware Compatibility
List (http://www.microsoft.com/hcl/default.asp). Also bear in mind
that computers designed for, and sold with, WinMe very often fail to
meet Win2K's much more stringent hardware quality requirements.
Bruce Chambers
--
Help us help you:
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH
P
Paul Hopwood
Windows 2000 was released before Windows Me so you cannot "upgrade"
per se.
You'll have to purchase the full product and perform a "clean"
install. Even for migrations where an upgrade is supported a clean
build is often preferred anyway.
--
[ Mail: (e-mail address removed) ]
[ WWW: http://www.hopwood.org.uk/ ]
per se.
You'll have to purchase the full product and perform a "clean"
install. Even for migrations where an upgrade is supported a clean
build is often preferred anyway.
--
[ Mail: (e-mail address removed) ]
[ WWW: http://www.hopwood.org.uk/ ]
K
Kevin Nelson
I have a question with that then. I installed win2000 on a computer that was
running ME and did not have to format the harddrive. Did I do something
wrong or right? Would changing the file system from fat to ntfs qualify as
"formatting"?
Kevin
P
Paul Hopwood
It does not actually *require* a re-format; you can, and probably
have, installed Windows 2000 on the same partition as your old Windows
Me installation and then converted it to NTFS.
The Windows Me files will still be on the disk, using space. Although
you old OS has been left intact you won't be able to boot into Me
because Windows 2000 will not have recognised and added it as a boot
option and, more to the point, Windows Me can't read NTFS volumes.
--
[ Mail: (e-mail address removed) ]
[ WWW: http://www.hopwood.org.uk/ ]
K
Kevin Nelson
Well it was actually convert and then install, but I get the idea.
Thanks
Kevin
W
Wolf Kirchmeir
And replacing WinME w/ Win2000 is _definitely_ an upgrade. ME is just the
last and fanciest version of Windows 3.x, IOW, a nice menu system for MS-DOS
with a few added capabilities, all of which could have been implemented as
DOS features (and were, in other DOSs.)
If you want the best that MS has to offer, go for XP-Professional.(You'll
also need a Pentium4 based mobo, etc.) If you want the best - well, that's
another story.
P
Paul Hopwood
I wouldn't dispute it's better but it's *not* an upgrade in the true
sense because Windows Me is newer than 2000 so you can't run Windows
2000 as an upgrade and migrate from Me - you have to do a "clean"
install.
Windows 95 could hardly be described a version of Windows 3.x and Me
is a Windows 9x variant, thus very different to Windows 3, in terms of
structure and usability. Thought it's probably fair to say that Me
was the *worst* revision of Windows 9x ever released! ;-)
As much as I happen like XP it's not always the most appropriate
choice and some people prefer 2000 and this *is* a Windows 2000
newsgroup after all. <g>
--
[ Mail: (e-mail address removed) ]
[ WWW: http://www.hopwood.org.uk/ ]
L
lzf
Danny Sanders said:
I can't help but add my two cents, here. Just because something is
prior does not mean that it is inferior. From my own personal
experience and everyone else's that I've spoken to on the subject, I
can confidently affirm that Windows ME is the largest piece of OS
trash that Bill Gates and Co. have ever foisted upon the unspsecting
public. I'm no cheerleading fan of any Windows OS, but I will be the
first to admit that Windows 2K is FAR more stable than ME, or any
other flavor of 9X, for that matter. From a developer's perspective,
ME is a nightmare. The same can be said of the OS from a user's
perspective: Spontaneous reboots, task management that works only
about 40% of the time, a broken Graphical Device Interface (which MS
knew about), various and sundry lockups for no reason, etc..
I have used both Windows 2K and ME extensively at work, I've
programmed in both environments, and I have found 2K to be stable
(...and as a Linux user, it is quite a feat for me to admit that
fact). My question has always been: How has MS avoided ME
out-the-wazoo suits for as long as it has?
W
Wolf Kirchmeir
We're quibbling.
IMO, the release date has nothing to with it, unless you are in fact moving
to another version of the _same_ OS. If you move to something different and
better, you are "upgrading" in my book, regardless of the release dates of
the OSs involved. Moving from ME to 2K is moving to something different and
better (much better IMO.)
It doesn't matter that WinME is newer than Win 2000*. The two are completely
different OSs. Win ME is a DOS in fancy packaging**. Win2000 is something
else entirely - it's not a DOS at all. (It's an upgrade of WinNT4 ***, if you
want to technical about it.) Migrating from the DOS-based Windows to any
version of NT is an "upgrade" IMO, in the sense that you are moving from a
soso OS to something better.
But you're right - it's not possible to upgrade from ME to 2K in the usual
sense, but only because it it involves a change in OS architecture, not
because of their respective release dates.
* Win ME is really just Win98 with bugfixes.
** Both NT and OS/2 use DOS emulators to run DOS programs. Win3x/etc use the
DOS that underlies them to run DOS programs (but it's better to shut down
Win3/etc and run DOS programs from the command line or from DOSShell.) You
can't "shut down" NT or OS/2 and run a DOS program from the command line -
their command lines are simply not DOS, even though they look like DOS.
*** The NT series of OSs is an outgrowth of an MS-IBM alliance that was
supposed to produce a radically new OS for x86 CPU chips, one that would
enable true multi-tasking on a desktop machine. The result was OS/2 1.x. Then
there was a parting of the ways, but both MS and IBM retained rights to the
core code of OS/2. MS eventually developed WinNT (which was upgraded to
W2K/XP), and IBM developed OS/2 2.x (which was upgraded to OS/2 Warp.) Large
parts of the core code of both NT and OS/2 is owned by both MS and IBM, and
IBM also has rights to a large chunks of Win3x. Both WinNT and OS/2 are true
multitasking OSs unlike Win3x/9x/ME, which was little more than nice looking
menu system for DOS. NT and OS/2 have diverged so much that you can't run
apps designed for one on the other.
Hope this clarifies things.
W
Wolf Kirchmeir
Sorry, I disagree. Win9x/ME are still fundamentally versions of DOS. True,
there was an effort made to improve the "multitasking" of Win3.x, but
otherwise, they were essentially the same. There was reduction in DOS
capabilities in the move to the 9x series, and that IMO was Very Dumb Thing -
most of the woes of trying to use the 9x OSs for serious work are due to
their DOS limitations. The 32-bit capability was an add-on - at its core the
9x OS was still 16-bit. By contrast, NT was designed as a 32-bit OS from the
ground up (it retains some 16-bit code in its hardware layer, but that was
concession to the hardware available at the time.)
W
Wolf Kirchmeir
AFAICT, enterprise users did not get ME - home users did. (Enterprise users
were already on WinNT 3 or 4, the predecessor of 2K.). And most of those
home users got it bundled with a cheap machine that they bought at Wally's or
Best Buy or some such place. Thus, they didn't know they were getting crap,
not having anything better to compare it with, and they put their problems
down to their own inexperience. How do I know? Because that's what I heard
from people who needed help with their computers and thought I could provide
it.
You can't get a class action suit going unless you have c riticalmass of people who not only believe they've been burned, but also have some
facts and experience on which to base that opinion.
BTW, I personally know not one person who upgraded from 98 to ME, but most
that I know who had 95 went to 98.
P
Paul Hopwood
I doubt most people would disagree with you. I suspect Danny was
replying from a technical stand-point rather than being critical of
the operation system.
Windows Me to 2000 is NOT an Upgrade as far as Windows 2000 Setup is
concerned because 2000 was released prior to Me and SETUP is unable to
detect and perform an upgrade an existing Windows Me installation.
I would think that many people, depending on their requirements, will
agree that Windows 2000 is a superior OS to Windows Me but it's not an
"upgrade" in the technical sense of the word.
--
[ Mail: (e-mail address removed) ]
[ WWW: http://www.hopwood.org.uk/ ]