WinXP Clean Install

[thom]

Not sure if this is the right forum. I am about to do a clean install to upgrade from Win98 to WinXP. Do I wipe my hard drive before beginning the installation or does the installation itself wipe the hard drive. This is my first time doing this as you may know from the question:).

Thanks

Thom

[Cricket]

The WinXP installer will ask if you want to delete the existing partitions on the hard drive and then create new partitions...this is sort of like starting from scratch.

Personally, I would zero-fill the hard drive first and then do the WinXP installation.

Darik's Boot and Nuke (http://dban.sourceforge.net/)

KillDisk (http://www.killdisk.com/)

:) Cricket

[thom]

By "zero fill", do you mean "format"?

[Cricket]

No, zero-filling is not the same thing as formatting. Zero-filling a hard drive essentially wipes it clean and puts the hard drive in a blank state.

:) Cricket

[thom]

Thanks, so much.

Thom

[Kiwi]

Not sure if this is the right forum. I am about to upgrade from Win98 to WinXP. When Windows98 was last being installed on new computers, the hardware was comparatively low powered relative to modern PC's. XP puts a very heavy burden on any PC, and if yours barely meets Microsoft's minimum suggested limits, you will not be at all happy with how slowly XP will run.

It really needs 512 MB's of RAM, for instance, not the puny "128" you will see on the bottom of the XP Home package. It really soaks up the storage space also, unless reined in hard. I can't recall for certain, but I think Microsoft even claims that a P-II PC at 300 MHz will run XP. That amounts to a bad joke an anyone trying it.

The hard drives on old Windows98 machines are also quite slow when compared tp a modern PC. I have recent experience testing XP Home on two old and slow PC's from the Windows98 and WindowsME time period. The oldest and slowest had the 128 MB's of RAM, a 475 MHz K6-2 cpu, and a 5200 rpm 30 GB hard drive. It took two to three minutes to even finish loading WinXP after a reboot.

Attempting actually DO anything in XP was like trying to run through quicksand, it was so slow! That same machine was quite quick with Win98se. You would not like it at all! I did try W2K as well, and it was not slowed down nearly as much. With some trimming of the extra services, I think that old PC and W2K would be fine together.

I also assembled a P-III PC with an 866 MHz cpu, 384 MB's of RAM, and a 20 GB 5200 rpm hard drive. Xp was not "quick" in that one (what the heck, it hasn't been close to as responsive as Win98 in any PC, right up to an XP 3000, that I've tested XP with). But while the boot up was slow with the second PC, it was not as bad as the older one by any means (I had XP on the newer of the two about 8-9 weeks ago, and on the older one more recently than that).

I do think that by using a product such as Nlite to remove much of the BLOAT from XP, and choosing the "Classic" Windows interface, a PC of that class, around 900 MHz, with the addition of another 128 MB's of RAM, would be capable of running fairly acceptably with WinXP. I'd have to consider that one to be a "practical minimum" for the OS, in my opinion.

(You may desire to consider that many old-timers in computing, like myself, do not like XP in general, but BLOAT is among our more serious complaints. XP is huge. Too huge. Vista probably will be even worse.)


:(

[glc]

Well, I feel the same way about XP, but I've seen it run quite acceptably on 500 MHz with 256 ram and a 10gb 5400 rpm drive. Just turn off the eye candy and trim down the startups.

[not important]

Same feeling here about XP, but I do have it installed on an older Compaq PII 350Mhz with 256MB of RAM / 15G HDD 5400RPM and it does work surprisingly well. I just use that PC for testing software and it does have a minimum of software installed.

[rspassey]

Well, I feel the same way about XP, but I've seen it run quite acceptably on 500 MHz with 256 ram and a 10gb 5400 rpm drive. Just turn off the eye candy and trim down the startups.

There is a performance mode which takes away all the 'fancy' XP stuff which would help running it on systems with slower processors and little RAM - heck, I even use it sometimes with the PC in my Sig.

[Kiwi]

There is a performance mode which takes away all the 'fancy' XP stuff which would help running it on systems with slower processors and little RAM - heck, I even use it sometimes with the PC in my Sig.So far, I haven't run into that one. If it's in there, I'll want to know where. I bought and tested both XP Home and XP Pro during the first year they were available. I never did have SP1 for it. On an XP 1500 with 256 MB's of RAM that first year, it wasn't at all acceptable. Later, I got the "Home" version when I had a faster PC, and still didn't like it with an XP 2600 that had 512 MB's of RAM.

Except for a couple of experimental installs since then, both have sat on the shelf up near the ceiling in here. I did begin using Win2000 more often after that, although I haven't pushed that one as hard as over the years I used to push on whatever OS I used most -- I'm not as actively involved in the "business" of computing since my last employer stopped offering any more teaching contracts.

I didn't optimize the install of XP on either of the oldies, other than to use the classic interface. I didn't do so when XP was new. I am now waiting to see if Microsoft will ever suggest an address I can send them their $1.75 plus tax to get a new copy of SP2 on CD. I've not had credit cards since my last divorce, never liked them at all, and my neighborhood still has copper for the POTS here. With only one cable franchise, there is no competition for broadband yet -- not where I'm located. So I'm still on dial-up.

Yes, glc, I asked the one local PC shop I do enough business with to ask favors of, and they have never had SP2 on CD, and never copied it to a CD of their own when they downloaded a copy via broadband. I might need to ask in person while the owner/ primary tech is out of his work shop, as possibly the front guy didn't recognize my name when I made the call.


;)

[rspassey]

for the 'performance mode' go Start > Right-click MyComputer > Properties > Advanced Tab > Performance Settings Button > and this click on the radio button that says "Adjust for best performnace" > apply it.
it will take a second to take effect... so wait patiently.

[glc]

Yep - and if you switch to the classic start menu, it will be hard to tell from a Win2000 machine. No more cartoon taskbar, etc.

[rspassey]

Yep - and if you switch to the classic start menu, it will be hard to tell from a Win2000 machine. No more cartoon taskbar, etc.

Some time I want to test it to see how much it really improves performance. It might not ne noticlible on high end gaming machines - but I could attempt it on my parents PC and run something like SuperPi and see what the difference (if any) there is. But sometimes - I like the clasic look better anyway.