Installing XP

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uncle Nobby
  • Start date Start date
U

Uncle Nobby

Hi

I have a computer that has Win 98 and I want to install XP, not an upgrade.

Can I install XP over Win 98 or should I re format the disc and install XP?

Thanx
 
Uncle Nobby said:
Hi

I have a computer that has Win 98 and I want to install XP, not an
upgrade.

Can I install XP over Win 98 or should I re format the disc and install
XP?

Thanx
Click to expand...


Is your machine up to spec for XP? You really need at LEAST 512 MB RAM......
 
I have a computer that has Win 98 and I want to install XP, not an upgrade.

Can I install XP over Win 98 or should I re format the disc and install XP?
Click to expand...



If yours is a retail copy of Windows XP (either Full or Upgrade), not
an OEM one, yes, you can do an upgrade. OEM copies, however, can not
do upgrades.

The more important question, and the one where you will get dissenting
opinions, is *should* you do an upgrade. Here's my view:

Although many people will tell you that formatting and installing
cleanly is the best way to go, I disagree. Unlike with previous
versions of Windows, an upgrade to XP replaces almost everything, and
usually works very well.

My recommendation is to at least try the upgrade, since it's much
easier than a clean installation. You can always change your mind and
reinstall cleanly if problems develop.

However, don't assume that doing an upgrade relieves you of the need
to backup your data, etc. before beginning. Before starting to
upgrade, it's always prudent to recognize that things like a sudden
power loss can occur in the middle of it and cause the loss of
everything. For that reason you should make sure you have backups and
anything else you need to reinstall if the worst happens.

By the way, if you do decide to do a clean installation rather than an
upgrade, formatting is done as part of the installation, and doesn't
have to be done first. Just boot from the Windows XP CD (change the
BIOS boot order if necessary to accomplish this) and follow the
prompts for a clean installation (delete the existing partition by
pressing "D" when prompted, then create a new one).

You can find detailed instructions here:
http://michaelstevenstech.com/cleanxpinstall.html

or here
http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org/how_do_i_install_windows_xp.htm

or here http://windowsxp.mvps.org/XPClean.htm

or here http://www.webtree.ca/windowsxp/clean_install.htm
 
Uncle Nobby said:
Hi

I have a computer that has Win 98 and I want to install XP, not an upgrade.

Can I install XP over Win 98 or should I re format the disc and install XP?

Thanx
Click to expand...

Since you specifically said you want to install XP without upgrading your
win98...
you can format the drive from within the context of your XP installation.
Just boot with your XP cd and go.
If you still have your win98 cd...you can purchase an XP upgrade cd and
still perform a clean install.

NOTE: Be sure to backup your data first!!!!!

Also...if your machine was old enough to have win98 on it...
you should be sure of the specs that XP needs to run well.

Regardless of what is stated as the minimum hardware...
Unless you have a 500mhz cpu and 256 megs of ram...there would be no sense
in even attempting to run XP.

Realistically you should have about a 1ghz cpu (or more) and 512 megs of RAM
or more
 
Gordon said:
Is your machine up to spec for XP? You really need at LEAST 512 MB RAM......
Click to expand...
Not quite true. I run XP on my 4-year-old laptop with just 256 mb ram.
I've also installed Office 2007 Pro. However, I don't push it by running
more than two applications at a time. And, yes, it takes a while to
start up.

Bill
 
Gordon said:
Is your machine up to spec for XP? You really need at LEAST 512 MB
RAM......
Click to expand...


I agree that 256 MB can be frustrating and painful but XP Pro does work with
just 256 MB. I certainly agree that we need to recommend more than 256 MB.
 
philo said:
Unless you have a 500mhz cpu and 256 megs of ram...there would be no sense
in even attempting to run XP.
Click to expand...


More than 256 MB is more important than 500 MHz. With just 256 MB, XP is
choked for memory more than it is choked for processing.
 
I agree that 256 MB can be frustrating and painful but XP Pro does work with
just 256 MB. I certainly agree that we need to recommend more than 256 MB.
Click to expand...


I don't agree at all. It depends entirely on what apps you run. For
many people running XP, 256MB is fine.
 
Describe the 'many people' you think are happy with 256 meg.
Click to expand...


One is a 5'8" man with gray hair and a beard. Another is a woman about
50, with brown hair, and... ;-)

I don't know how to describe them in any meaningful way. These are
people who run typical business applications. They are not power
users, and don't run particular memory-hungry applications--certainly
no photo- or video-editing. They do E-mail, browse the web, some
word-processing, etc.

For such people, 256MB is often just fine. And *many* people fall into
that category of relatively light use. The point again is that how
much RAM you need for good performance is *not* the same for everyone,
and depends entirely on what apps you run.



 
In other words, you posted emotions rather than facts.
I have yet to hear from anyone who would say they noticed no improvement
in updating from 256 to 512 megs.
Following these newsgroups, indications are that the best improvement one
can make on their system is a memory increase from 256 to 512 megs.
If they are perfectly happy with speed, they don't post here asking about
it.
Ken Blake said:
Describe the 'many people' you think are happy with 256 meg.
Click to expand...


One is a 5'8" man with gray hair and a beard. Another is a woman about
50, with brown hair, and... ;-)

I don't know how to describe them in any meaningful way. These are
people who run typical business applications. They are not power
users, and don't run particular memory-hungry applications--certainly
no photo- or video-editing. They do E-mail, browse the web, some
word-processing, etc.

For such people, 256MB is often just fine. And *many* people fall into
that category of relatively light use. The point again is that how
much RAM you need for good performance is *not* the same for everyone,
and depends entirely on what apps you run.
Click to expand...
 
Ken Blake said:
I don't agree at all. It depends entirely on what apps you run. For
many people running XP, 256MB is fine.
Click to expand...

I said nothing about applications. I said XP.

I have only 256 MB of physical memory. XP for me definitely thrashes when
it boots and I have tried to eliminate everything from the startup that
might contribute to the problem. The reason I know there is a problem is
because I am using the performance monitor. I have a 350 MHz processor that
is not the bottleneck.

People might be happy with 256 MB of memory but probably because they don't
realize how much their system thashes.
 
In other words, you posted emotions rather than facts.
Click to expand...


Feel free to draw whatever conclusions you want, whether or not they
are justified. But argue with someone else. I'm not interested.

I have yet to hear from anyone who would say they noticed no improvement
in updating from 256 to 512 megs.
Following these newsgroups, indications are that the best improvement one
can make on their system is a memory increase from 256 to 512 megs.
If they are perfectly happy with speed, they don't post here asking about
it.
Click to expand...
 
I said nothing about applications. I said XP.

I have only 256 MB of physical memory. XP for me definitely thrashes when
it boots and I have tried to eliminate everything from the startup that
might contribute to the problem. The reason I know there is a problem is
because I am using the performance monitor. I have a 350 MHz processor that
is not the bottleneck.
Click to expand...


I am certainly not claiming that adding RAM to *your* 256MB system
will not result in a speedup. Even if that were true (and I will
accept that it probably isn't, based on what you say), there's no way
I could know that. What I stated is that it is *not* true that adding
RAM to *any* 256MB system will result in a speedup. The point is that
it depends entirely on what apps you run.

To start at the lowest possible level, consider a person who uses his
computer to do nothing but play solitaire. Do you agree that a 512MB
system will be no faster than a 256MB one?

Good. Now lets take the next step. Imagine someone who plays solitaire
and also sends and receives E-mail. He too will see no improvement by
going from 256MB to 512MB.

And so on. There is a wide spectrum of what people do with their
systems, starting with those who do little more than play solitaire at
the low end and ending with those who do things like photo- and
video-editing at the high end. These people do *not* have identical
memory needs. Those at the high-end need more (*much* more) than those
at the low end. You apparently need 512MB (or maybe more). The next
person, who edits large photographic images, may need 2GB. And for a
third person, who does little more than E-mail, some web-browsing, and
writing an occasional document in Wordpad (and make no mistake about
it--there are *many* people who don't do much more than that), 256MB
can be just fine.
 
Unknown said:
Describe the 'many people' you think are happy with 256 meg.
Click to expand...

My PC at work has only 256 MB of RAM, and it's plenty fast. It rarely
uses the pagefile. Then again, I don't have any resource-hungry apps
running in the background and I don't multitask. Just e-mail, light Web
browsing. and Office applications like Word and Excel.

Now would I recommend 256 MB to the average PC user. Certainly not. Most
people I know like to be able to multitask and/or view streaming media.
But for non-demanding use, 256 MB is fine.
 
Daave said:
My PC at work has only 256 MB of RAM, and it's plenty fast. It rarely
uses the pagefile. Then again, I don't have any resource-hungry apps
running in the background and I don't multitask. Just e-mail, light Web
browsing. and Office applications like Word and Excel.

Now would I recommend 256 MB to the average PC user. Certainly not. Most
people I know like to be able to multitask and/or view streaming media.
But for non-demanding use, 256 MB is fine.
Click to expand...
i agree
 
My PC at work has only 256 MB of RAM, and it's plenty fast. It rarely
uses the pagefile. Then again, I don't have any resource-hungry apps
running in the background and I don't multitask. Just e-mail, light Web
browsing. and Office applications like Word and Excel.

Now would I recommend 256 MB to the average PC user. Certainly not. Most
people I know like to be able to multitask and/or view streaming media.
But for non-demanding use, 256 MB is fine.
Click to expand...


Yes, my point exactly. How much RAM you need for good performance
depends on your use--what apps you run. It is *not* a
one-size-fits-all situation.

Many computer users use their computers in non-demanding ways. I
personally know dozens of people, starting with my wife, who do
nothing but E-mail, a little web browsing, and some light word
processing. I don't want to claim that most computer users fall into
that category, because I have no statistics to support it, but clearly
there are many who do.
 
But, they are surprised at the difference when they operate with 512 megs.
And I might add the cost is ridiculously low.
 
They're only surprised if they *need* the extra RAM.

I've used 512 MB RAM on an identical system. No difference in
performance when using the PC in a very conservative manner (e-mail,
light Web browsing, word processing, no multitasking, no viewing
streaming media, no RAM-hungry apps); 256 MB is ample and Commit Charge
figures verify this.

But I do agree that people should run with at least 512 MB because the
price of memory *is* low, and most people I would suspect don't run
their PCs as conservatively as I do when I'm at work. Also, habits and
needs change over time, so more memory is usually not a bad idea.
 
Back
Top