Upgrade or New Install of Windows XP

Discussion in 'Software' started by pbjarrett, Sep 1, 2005.

  1. pbjarrett

    pbjarrett Private E-2

    We currently have computers running Windows 2000. We would like to install Windows XP Professional on them. Is it cheaper to upgrade, but I have heard that you sometimes run into problems. What do you recommend? Also, if upgrading I see Windows XP Professional and Windows XP Profession w/SP2. Which do I get?
     
  2. bubbles

    bubbles Private E-2

    If you must upgrade, I would suggest XP Pro with SP1. None of this SP2 garbage. Yuck.

    Windows 2K is better than XP for networking, IMHO.
     
  3. Mada_Milty

    Mada_Milty MajorGeek

    I agree, though the moderators here will tell you that you MUST get SP2...
    In SP2, MS has disabled raw socket support, which can make it a pain to run port scanners.

    Microsoft is moving more and more towards complete autonomy. While this is fine for beginners, it often leaves something to be desired for advanced users. (Or at the very least, alot of effort to wrest control from their grasp) Win2K is a solid OS, and has less of the automatic features of XP. Though, it should be noted that it is close to reching the end of it's lifecycle, and MS will discontinue support for it, practically forcing you to use XP. They would have you believe that it is in the best interests of the customer, but its hard for me to escape the thought that it is a cash grab. They could just as easily invest more in refining one product to perfection.

    </rant>
     
  4. pbjarrett

    pbjarrett Private E-2

    Thanks for your comments. So you feel it is okay to upgrade - not do a new install to Windows XP Professional - but - install Windows XP SP1 not 2. Is that correct?
     
  5. Ragnarok

    Ragnarok Private E-2

    SP2 is essential IMHO. :)
     
  6. Adrynalyne

    Adrynalyne Guest

    Worst...advice...ever.
     
  7. Adrynalyne

    Adrynalyne Guest


    A couple things. Any need to run a port scanner so much that you won't get SP2, causes me to raise an eyebrow in suspicion. Being a moderator has nothing to do with suggesting SP2, by the way. Its common sense.

    As for Windows 2000 ending its lifecycle, it stops 6/30/2010.
    http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3071

    Maybe its just me, but I don't know if I would refer to that as 'close'.

    ;)
     
  8. Mada_Milty

    Mada_Milty MajorGeek

    C'mon buddy! At least offer something constructive. This is as childish as it is inane. You obviously have never felt the sting of MS' often shoddy patching. Next time, how about not being a jackass and giving an intelligent arguement with examples to support your case.
     
  9. Mada_Milty

    Mada_Milty MajorGeek

    Depends on the network I would say...my particular company (a SMB) definitely would take that long to consider upgrades. However, I concede that I may have been mistaken with the date. I am quoting an article I read on itworld.com. Please elaborate on your common sense! From what I can tell, you're going completely on blind faith. As I said earlier, I have witnessed MS' patching do more harm than good on several occasions.
     
  10. Adrynalyne

    Adrynalyne Guest

    Careful where you direct your insults and namecalling. I'll say no more on that.

    I worked doing MS support for 4 years, ending in Feb 2005, when I went back to school full time. I'm pretty familiar with them, to say the least. I'm also familiar with their 'shoddy' patching, and its not that bad of a track record.

    How long has SP2 been out? Now, how many changes have been made to it?

    Over a year since release and there have been no revisions to it. Naturally, there are updates to the OS after SP2, but thats a different conversation.
     
  11. Mada_Milty

    Mada_Milty MajorGeek

    Okay, now you are speaking my language. I am less offended. I am beginning to see why you place such a high value on SP2.

    However, I must take exception to the namecalling bit. I feel it was you who threw the first stone. I am familiar with Bubbles' experience, and am confident of her ability.
     
  12. Adrynalyne

    Adrynalyne Guest

    I am also familiar with the rules of this forum, and namecalling is breaking them.

    Nothing I said warranted namecalling, and if it were to continue, I'd have to close the thread.

    In addition, I was in the process of explaining further, after throwing that post out there. I am sorry if it hurts for some peopel to hear, but in no circumstance was that good advice.
     
  13. Adrynalyne

    Adrynalyne Guest


    In my experience, its better to do a clean install, if you can get away with it. Upgrades are often fraught with stability issues. Contrary to what you have read here, I reccomend SP2.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 1, 2005
  14. waltaja

    waltaja Private First Class

    There is a reason SP2 is around in my opinion. if you look at all of the security updates that came along with it, i think you'll see what i'm saying. maybe it's just me, but i'll give up raw socket support in favor of a more secure OS
     
  15. ComputerGate

    ComputerGate Specialist

    I completly disagree with this statement. I have an older Epson
    printer that doesn't play well with SP2. I had to uninstall it
    because Epson is too slow to get newer drivers.
    And I'm sure my Epson isn't the only thing that won't play
    well with SP2.
     
  16. ComputerGate

    ComputerGate Specialist

    Security = internet.

    If you download the basic security updates and use
    Firefox, SP2 becomes a non-issue.
     
  17. Adrynalyne

    Adrynalyne Guest

    Until you realize that Firefox has nothing to do with trojans or viruses, and whether you use it or not, you can still get them. Then, you take into consideration updates in SP2 that you can't get standalone, and updates you will NOT receive in the future due to not having SP2. XP doesn't support PAE for 64 bit CPUs until you have SP2, either.

    Don't blame MS that Epson was too thick to make Sp2 compatible drivers.

    So, I disagree with you :)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 1, 2005
  18. ComputerGate

    ComputerGate Specialist

    Which has 100% of nothing to do with the topic. Viruses
    and trojans are not prevented by SP2.


    And I'd like to see a company that has to jump through more
    hoops than a printer company does, every time Microsoft
    decides to fix problems with the os.
     
  19. theefool

    theefool Geekified

    I really do hate to step into this situation.

    But, IMHO, (notice MY HUMBLE OPINION), you are wrong.

    If you have read ANY IT related articles in the past. There are many reasons to upgrade to SP2. There are MANY viruses that attack/affect non-sp2 machines. Yes, yes, yes, there have been issues with sp2 and viruses.

    I have personally, battled many viruses in the years. I see less malware in a FULLY patched XP sp2 machine than any other machine.

    Microsoft may not be perfect, but neither is Apple, or any of the linux flavours (including Solaris, or HPUX). It is a never ending battle against exploits.
     
  20. ComputerGate

    ComputerGate Specialist


    You said it yourself.
    There are and will continue to be viruses and trojans
    that will attack SP2. Anyway, nobody that has a clue runs
    a computer without anitvirus, antispyware, anti-adware, firewall,
    key services shut off, active x locked down or
    the use of Firefox, etc. etc etc.

    This changes not one single thing that I said about my epson not working
    well with SP2.
    To say that Epson is somehow lazy, is to show a lack of understanding on
    their circumstances. Every single different driver for their printers
    winds up needing an update. I know this because I checked out their site
    looking for mine.

    I also started getting more blue screens with SP2 installed. Something
    the newest nvidia drivers did not help. And yeah, my video card is
    a crappy fx-5200 but a lot of people are running that crappy card.

    SP2 comes with a supposedly sturdier IE. But it is a lot more involved for
    the average user to be able to secure it.
    I haven't had a single virus get past my Norton since uninstalling SP2.
    And my spyware/adware scans haven't caught any more junk then they ever did, even with p2p downloading. And I am online on average over 12 hours a day, every day on a dsl line.
    And there are legitimate uses for port scanners which is mentioned below
    as having been disabled via raw socket being eliminated.
     
  21. waltaja

    waltaja Private First Class

    there may be virus's and trojans with SP2 as well. with SP2 though there are less "holes" for the virus' to get through. at least that is what i would have assumed to be MS original intent. and i myself have seem computer with out SP2 even with running up to date AV and firewalls that are way more virus ridden that fully patched SP2 computers. safe surfing does come into play, but i know people who do practice safe surfing with SP1 and still are riddled with virus'/trojans etc..
     
  22. Mada_Milty

    Mada_Milty MajorGeek

    Well, that's sure not me! The number of PCs I run w/o SP2 is growing. The number of networks I run them on is growing. Not one has become a zombie. Not one has fell victim to viral infection. There has been the odd file downloaded with malicious code, but that will be true of ANY system with a careless user.
    Many times, I have seen MS patches lead to the type of conflicts that ComputerGate has been describing. Even worse, some have lead to system unstability, and I've had to take drastic steps to correct it.
    Almost my entire class of computer and network engineers felt the same. And this was from a microsoft academy! I cannot have as much faith in the patching process as others here.
     
  23. ComputerGate

    ComputerGate Specialist

    I recently read that Microsoft spends 1/3 of it's annual research
    budget on security. That works out to over a billion dollars a year
    to patch the holes that the c++ freaks (and script kiddies)
    come up with.
    I have a two computers, one connected
    to the internet, and one that is not. Just in case.
    And it's seeming like a better plan everyday.


    SP1, SP2, Longhorn (or whatever the newest nick is), it's all
    futile. There is always going to be bb's like this one
    out there that will have to help people out of the mess that
    is created by the bad guys.

    But meanwhile maybe the message should be to go ahead and try
    SP2 because if it messes with your computer,
    at least it has a good uninstall.
     
  24. Adrynalyne

    Adrynalyne Guest

    I would not hire, or keep in my employ, an IT guy that didn't believe in patching. I've not seen one problem with any computer I have installed SP2 on. Of course, I use hardware from companies who believe in updating their drivers, too.

    I could use the example that every MS OS support network, be it Win2000, Win9X, or WinXP, was upgraded to SP2 without issue. They all worked and continued to work. Those are not small networks. No point in mentioning it of course, its nto going to change your mind.

    MS tested Sp2 for ages before it came out, and warned companies they would need to update drivers and applications. Its a shame that some didn't heed the warning. They had plenty of time.
     
  25. DavidGP

    DavidGP MajorGeeks Forum Administrator - Grand Pooh-Bah Staff Member

    As to the topic starters original post, then if you backup all your important data, download for later use all XP hardware drivers and installed software updates then go ahead, but make sure you have no virii or spyware before doing so.

    As mentioned by Adryn a clean install is a prefered method over upgrading, but not always possible in every curcumstance I know.

    I also would install SP2 as matter of course as I have not yet in the time its been out had a PC I have, built or worked on with etc have a problem with SP2 due to the update, but 2 have failed because of virii/spyware and 1 because of an anomaly that a clean install cured ( insert saying "sh*t happens" )

    I have to disagree that companies that produce 3rd party hardware dont update drivers to comply with any updates to the OS, they are given fair warning to do so, even now a year+ until Vista will hit the shelves they have the beta OS and codeing info to work too... but do they really want to upgrade drivers for older ( not sumising that anyones new 1yr old printer is old ) printers, when they would more like you to buy their new models with working drivers that come with those products as it saves THEM not MS time, money and resources with updating old products.... profitability!

    Edit: typed more but its not relevent to the topic
     

MajorGeeks.Com Menu

Downloads All In One Tweaks \ Android \ Anti-Malware \ Anti-Virus \ Appearance \ Backup \ Browsers \ CD\DVD\Blu-Ray \ Covert Ops \ Drive Utilities \ Drivers \ Graphics \ Internet Tools \ Multimedia \ Networking \ Office Tools \ PC Games \ System Tools \ Mac/Apple/Ipad Downloads

Other News: Top Downloads \ News (Tech) \ Off Base (Other Websites News) \ Way Off Base (Offbeat Stories and Pics)

Social: Facebook \ YouTube \ Twitter \ Tumblr \ Pintrest \ RSS Feeds