Colin Barnhorst

I'm not so much thinking of the OP as I am just thinking out loud. Just as
the upgrade process is buggy, so is the whole of 5384. That's why its all
beta. I'm for letting them upgrade and see what happens.

Keep in mind, the advice is still not to do any of this on a production or
primary home computer, so if a participant has XP up on a test box or at
least an extra partition, then they should try an upgrade. If not, well
they shouldn't even be trying Vista.

"Mark D. VandenBeg" <mvan103@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%236yh1uasGHA.452@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> It's not oxymoronic at all. I bet we have read the same articles. I
> think I understand the theory, but as with everything in life, sometimes a
> subtle nuance makes a large difference.
>
> Are we sure that Vista is doing this properly? What I mean is, are we
> sure that the Vista registry isn't getting clogged up with invalid keys
> and other such phenomena moved over from the previous XP installation?
> There have been a few instances where the upgrade was done with Office 12
> Beta installed previously in XP that rendered Office 12 Beta not only
> unusable but uninstallable and unrepairable, as an example.
>
> And I do appreciate the advice, believe me.
>
> But here is the conundrum: it seems the majority have done something
> incorrectly before they come here for advice and they average CPP'er is
> not here to get advice first.
>
> In the case of the OP in this thread, my goal was to perhaps obtain some
> information regarding what the problem could be. I will endeavour to keep
> the sarcasm in check, however.
>
> Mark
>
> "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(remove)@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:uthMzjasGHA.3952@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Mark, an upgrade with Vista is a different animal than an upgrade with
>> previous versions of Windows. It is a new kind of clean installation of
>> Windows, but with preservation of programs, files, and settings. I know
>> it soundd oxymoronic, but as I read more about this I am coming to the
>> conclusion that the old common wisdom about upgrades just does not apply
>> to Vista.
>>
>> The Vista installer lays down a preconfigured image of Windows, but not a
>> Ghost image. Setup then completes the device driver installations,
>> registers programs, and so on. I have little understanding of just what
>> that means, but I do understand that the process does not leave the bits
>> and pieces of the previous version of Windows that tend to mess things up
>> for the new version.
>>
>> I think what is going wrong with these posters is that they have not run
>> the Upgrade Advisor and removed the incompatible programs recommended by
>> the UA for removal. I think the rules we have been playing by have
>> changed a lot.
>>
>> It may be that the advice we need to be giving is not whether or not to
>> upgrade, but how to do it properly.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> "Mark D. VandenBeg" <mvan103@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:e8vkcLasGHA.4956@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> "JohnnyPerko" <JohnnyPerko@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:39886231-E460-4E91-9E2A-287AC499FA95@microsoft.com...
>>>> Any clue how to get back to my desktop?
>>>
>>> Is it possible for you to provide some details, such as system
>>> configuration, Vista build number, whether it is x86 or x64, why you are
>>> upgrading instead of doing a clean install as has been recommended with
>>> everything but death threats, etc...
>>>
>>
>>
>
>