Overtop vs Clean Install

Why is an overtop install a not so recommended procedure ?

And why are so many against it ?

I have not done a clean install of any version of Window on any machine since Win95 other than the one where I had a very UNSTABLE Windows ME.

I put 98 over 95. 98SP1 over it. 98SE over 98 and now XP Pro over SE. And NO problems.

I myself see an overtop install as not being a waste of time unless one is having serious Hardware problems.

Even if things do go wrong and a format is required I still see nothing any more lost than what would be if a format was done in the first place. Time wise yes. But data and program wise no.

And backups should have been made on media other than the same HD and/or the same partition as the OS before either install/re-install anyway. This is where Partitioning comes in VERY handy.

A few of the main things to do first.

1--The system should be as error free as possible. That is important.

2--Make sure that the C: Drive is large enough for the new OS. Especially with XP as it requires almost twice as much ( if not more ) than 98SE does.

3--Set the Video back to a Standard VGA 640x480 mode and restart the existing OS at least twice with it set that way. That allows Windows to settle itself into the new setting more solidly.

4--It is best also to shut any Anti-Virus programs down. And do this to the point where they DO NOT reload at startup.

5-- Do not boot from the HD. Boot from either a Floppy or the CD.

6-- Make sure during the install/re-install that Windows does indeed go into the EXISTING Windows folder.

7--Leave all connected equipment turned ON. XP Pro did an EXCELENT job of setting things up. I even wound up with 1024x768 32bit color immedeately after the install of XP. But that may well depend on the Video card make and model. I did not want it there but that is another matter.

8-- The one hardware Item that might cause problems is an Internal Modem. But they can be a problem even on a clean install. But that is an individaul piece of hardware problem NOT WINDOWS. And is the ONLY piece of hardware that has ever caused me any problems in any OS.

Over the years this has saved me many, many hours of reinstalling things. When I Put XP Pro over SE I only lost ONE ( 1 ) OLD DOS Program due to the fact that it required Audio settings in the Config,sys and Autoexec,bat. But the program itself ran fine. Just no audio.

And those on the BBS that know and follow many of my posts know that I had ( still have on the other HD ) a VERY solid Win98SE and a VERY solid Windows XP Pro. I don't really see XP as boing any better but that id beside the point.

And also with XP Pro ( and I think Home is the same ) we have 30 days before we need to activate XP or lose it. I waited till the 29th day.

I had tried XP on several machines before I put it on here. ( final destination anyway ) I tried the other machines first to get the basic idea of what was going to occur. And it set EVERYTHING up on them too. I did not leave XP on them as neither of them was really CPU & RAM wise capable of handling XP PROPERLY.

BillyBob

PS

This could get quite interesting.

BB

 

I would agree with you that an over the top install can and does work just fine if the system is in good shape to begin with. Problem is, I've found most people don't even know what defrag or chkdsk etc. are let alone what to do with them. I'm not saying I or you or the next guy are better than they, only that they just don't know. The majority just want to turn the computer on and use it. With win9x (remember those GPF's) , most don't know they should reboot the computer when a GPF occurs. This has been my experience anyway. They just close the GPF window and if things are still fuctional they continue on. Not a good thing to do. Don't know how many people I've told this through the years but the number that knew this was few and far between. A lot of people upgrade the OS in hopes of getting rid of some problem they're having only to find out that it didn't take care of the problem and in some cases it made things worse. That said, it would seem to me that for the average user a clean install is probably the best bet.

This is a valid point but I myself have always done clean installs if for no other reason then to get rid of all the junk that accumulates over time. Plus all the stuff that may get left from the previous OS. I have to admit, I don't know if it's a lot or if there's even any left. But I wonder. I remember when you first installed XP. I read a post of your's saying the installation was over 3 GB. Correct me if I'm wrong here. When I installed XP I did a clean install and mine was 1.8 GB. While reading your first post here I got to thinking about this and I wonder if this could account for some of the differences you see in the size of XP installs (left over junk). I know some of it can be due to options selected during the install but it seems to me that more than 1GB difference is a heck of a lot.

In the end, I'll not try to argue with you. I've done over the top installs for other people (after a good house cleaning and tune up) and they always turned out just fine. My personal preference though is to do it clean. It makes up for my lack of tidyness.

Tidyness? Is there such a word?

 

Keep up the good replys folks. I am getting what I was fishing for.

With win9x (remember those GPF's) , most don't know they should reboot the computer when a GPF occurs

AGREED. That is a MUST do. But convincing some users was fruitless. I finally gave up on one RELATIVE and said YOU fix it next time. And the sad part is the problem was created by the order in which two programs were run. Run B before A and all was well. Or restart Windows after running A and all was well. I knew this from my own machine(s)

And I found a complete shutdown to be better yet. That was better assurance than RAM was cleaned out.

Another thng that many user ignore is The restarting Windows ( any version ) immediately after the install of new software. Other wise it may not ( so called ) get registered properly.

I found that to be true to some extent in XP Pro also. I tried to cut corners and paid dearly for it by MANUALLY having to un-installed the software and re-install. And as we all know that is NOT as easy in XP as it was in 98.

Edit/add

BTW. The problem mentioned above was when I discoverd that XP was NOT making a restore point on every install of software. Now I just plain make my own first.

BillyBob

 

Pro, Cons and ideas. I like it.

This is a discussion and there will be ( and SHOULD BE ) points for both for and against. And that is exactly what I am after.

In no way are you wrong. I agree that some of the space may well be taken up by " leftover "

And anyone thinking about upgrading can read it and get a good idea of what would be the better thing to do. And make a decision that suits them best.

Up till now I do not recall anything other than Yes or No, Do or Don't with no discussion as to why or why not.

And what I miss someone else may pickup on.

But that is also why I made ( or tired to make ) a point about making sure the C: drive had plenty of room for an Overtop install because it may well take a little extra room.

But at the same time even the extra used space may be compensated for by the lack of having to re-install everything.

And with todays Hard drives a 6gig C: drive is nothing.

BillyBob

 

Zander

Got a problem Please help.

While discussing install numbers I happened to think of something. " Why the big difference ? " Then the light bulb lit. Not too bright. But it lit

You say after a clean install the usage was 1.8 gig. Is that refering to just the install of XP ?

Now please think about this and give my your ideas.

My install was an overtop install. Therefore it would contain not only maybe some leftovers but also EVERYTHING that had been installed into 98SE before hand.

And I had a LOT of stuff, including Norton System Works installed in SE.

I think we should clear this up for others that read this post.

I also just found that My Documents is taking up almost 60meg.

What do you think ?

BillyBob

 

The 1.8 gig was pretty much just the windows installation. There was a lot more stuff on the hd but it was all on separate partitions. I remember it was one of the first things I did. Out of curiosity I checked the properties of the D: drive (where XP resides). I may have misread your post back then but for some reason I got the impression that your 3 gig was pretty much just the windows installation. Guess I'll have to try to resurrect your old post and have a look at it. I don't remember if I posted to that thread or not. Don't think so. Maybe having a look at it will brighten my light bulb a bit. It was in early March of this year that I installed it. I just checked the properties of my D: drive and it has since grown to around 2.6 gig. This is pretty much just the OS aside from a some files that some apps want to put there regardless of the choice of installation folder (common files etc). Maybe those files add up to more than I think. Don't know. I'm not near ambitious enough to find out. Come to think of it, if you installed over the top those types of files could account for some of the extra space taken. Norton for instance adds files to common files folder. All my apps are installed to different drives, my documents folder is on another drive, mail, page file etc. That reminds me. The 1.8 gig included the page file. Still had windows default size and hadn't moved it to a different drive yet. At the time it was 750 MB. It's no longer on the same drive as the OS. Guess my D: drive has grown more than I thought. I like to keep the OS drive as slim and trim as I can. It's not really necessary but it's what I do.

 

The 1.8 gig was pretty much just the windows installation

That is what I was thinking.

I think the difference is now clear. I do not think is due to your mis-reading at all.

I did not make it clear that stuff like Norton, the page file and everything that software installs by default is on the C: drive where XP resides also.

Norton ( other than the Utility part ) is no longer there but other things have taken its' place.

I do believe I now see the difference in numbers. Your XP in on a partition other than C:

Also by doing an overtop install It required me to put it in the same place that 98SE was. Otherwise I would more than likely wound up with a Dual Boot setup unless I did formated first.

So, I see it now the difference in numbers are due to the different ways and locations of various things.

You are also helping me to bring out these various points of making a difference by the way things are done.

So as things stand I do not think my C: drive contents equalling app 3gig is bad at all.

I may or may not be on here tomorrow. And if I am not I will get back on as soon as I can get a Computer in Gerogia working again. From 900 miles away I have already made a very possible cause of an Internal Modem and the Sound card are messing things up. They both quit at the same time. I am taking my long time unused External with me.

Thanks for your help.

BillyBob

 

BB - I see a big difference here between a home user with one or maybe two systems to deal with and someone who will be doing quite a few or will be doing them to servers (OK, so there aren't any XP servers but the topic is here so I'll say it anyway).

For a home system running anything other than ME, I'm perfectly willing to clean up the system and try an upgrade.

For a server running NT4 properly, I'm comfortable with an upgrade to 2K server. Maybe 2003 would be fine too but never tried one of those.

For any other situation, it simply isn't worth the aftercare time for me. If I upgrade 10 machines, at least one of them will require lots of work later and maybe more than one. If I clean-install a new OS version on 100 machines and assuming their hardware is OK, I don't expect problems with more than maybe 0, 1 or 2.

As far as the home user with 1 or 2 PCs, I'd have to say it depended entirely on the experience level of the user. A complete novice should IMO go with a scrub/clean install. No question in my mind. An expert can simply decide on which option based on past experience and the knowledge that he/she can either fix problems or scrub and clean-install later. An intermediate user needs to decide if possible problems later and maybe the need for a clean install after wasting some time dealing with issues (and maybe messing up data files) is worth doing.

 

Welcome aboard Newt

Thanks for joining in.

You are doing nothing more than what I was looking for.

Which are ideas, experiences. And different things to take into consideration.

Thank you also

BillyBob

 

Newt

Thanks for bringing other OS and various situations into the picture.

It can be a case of what we are attempting to put over what. But, I have to admit that I really do not ( or did not ) think of much more than a home user.

Also I see a case here about learning. If we do not do it we do not learn.

Speaking of learning.

I had a case of same last evening. I lost my WHOLE complete LAN. All I had was the Internet from all 3 machines. The final cure was to go to the Router, release and reset DHCP, shut all machines down and restart them ONE AT A TIME starting with this one AFTER I did a COMPLETE Virus, Spyware, Trojan check on THIS ONE. WHEW !! all were clean.

What happened " I have NO idea "

We just need to be prepared if something should go wrong.

Like having backups of important things. And having them on a different media ( or at least a different partition ) than the one the OS is on.

BillyBob

 

BillyBob,
Do I remember correctly that you kept FAT32 instead of utilizing XP's NTFS?

Johanna

 

Yes I did keep fat32.


BB

 

Just curious as to why? You said you don't dual boot. If this issue has been discussed before, and you have time to explain it, PM me so I can understand your reasons.

Johanna

 

Zander wrote:

• "Tidyness? Is there such a word? "

Yes, there is, but it's spelled "tidiness ".

 

Thanks Jim. I knew something didn't look right there.

 

I meant to add a smiley, and forgot, so you get two big ones, now.

 

sorry for the dupe

 

I read this topic with some interest. I have a Win98SE system that is pretty clean--defragged once a week, checked for virii once a week, spyware regularly, registry cleaned regularly, etc.--and not many complaints.

I'd like to upgrade to WinXP but two things hold me back:

One, I'd have to flash my bios, and install a ton of new drivers for my scanner, printers (two) modem, etc.:

And two, I have some older programs...well, not that old--Access 97, Ventura 8, CorelDraw amd Corel PhotoPaint 9, WordPerfect 2000--that may or may not work correctly with WinXP without significant patches and even then may be troublesome...and no $$$ or inclination to upgrade all my major apps.

If I were going to go to WinXP I'd definitely want to install over Win98, so as to not lose my setting and such and have to re-install all these program again.

I guess my question is...has anyone else experience with a similar set up? What was your solution to the problem?

And, is there a good reason to upgrade in the first place?

 

XP comes loaded with alot of drivers for a lot of devices and you most likely wouldn't have problems with any of them. It also has a compatability mode that will allow you to run many older apps. if any proved troublesome.
One good reason for upgrading, MS SUPPORT! No longer available for 98.