Vista Tutorial - Vista installation hangs up

Any clue how to get back to my desktop?

A clean install of Windows XP.

William
"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?

"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...

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...
>

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...
>>
>
>

"I think the rules we have been playing by have changed a lot."
-Sage Colin

I think you may be right, Colin.

If I have time this weekend, I might test upgrading
on a different machine. I will definitely be trying the
upgrade install for RC1. Even though, our past
experiences almost force us to advise others against
the upgrade install, I think it is important that we understand
Vista is different. It is also important for beta users to
do this so that we can find bugs in the upgrade procedure.


-Michael

"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...
>>
>
>

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...
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

Exactly.

I think what is confusing things is that the basic assumption still has to
be that none of this is done on a production or primary home computer. The
problems pouring into here resulting from fouled up upgrades really has more
to do with folks ignoring that instruction than anything to do with a beta
upgrade process.

The dominant theme isn't "What's wrong with the upgrade process?" but "How
do I get XP back on my primary home computer?"

We need to advise them to only upgrade a test installation of XP at this
time.


"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:OnbvFvasGHA.1976@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "I think the rules we have been playing by have changed a lot."
> -Sage Colin
>
> I think you may be right, Colin.
>
> If I have time this weekend, I might test upgrading
> on a different machine. I will definitely be trying the
> upgrade install for RC1. Even though, our past
> experiences almost force us to advise others against
> the upgrade install, I think it is important that we understand
> Vista is different. It is also important for beta users to
> do this so that we can find bugs in the upgrade procedure.
>
>
> -Michael
>
> "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...
>>>
>>
>>
>

I'm going to do the same, Michael. Maybe we'll be able to see some of the
problems and come up with real answers instead of the standard "Well you
shouldn't have done that."

"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:OnbvFvasGHA.1976@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "I think the rules we have been playing by have changed a lot."
> -Sage Colin
>
> I think you may be right, Colin.
>
> If I have time this weekend, I might test upgrading
> on a different machine. I will definitely be trying the
> upgrade install for RC1. Even though, our past
> experiences almost force us to advise others against
> the upgrade install, I think it is important that we understand
> Vista is different. It is also important for beta users to
> do this so that we can find bugs in the upgrade procedure.
>
>
> -Michael
>
> "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...
>>>
>>
>>
>

I've seen this kind of warning in many posts and I'd like to know what
the deal is here with regard to data loss when Vista is on a seperate
partition to XP.

I have good backups of all important data and several machines to play
with but I'm running Vista on a "production" machine. Now by production
I don't mean a development machine as I'm not doing any at present. If I
were then I might well be a lot more cautious. But it is still the
machine I use most for communication with clients and friends.

It has two large drives of around 250GB each. The first is divided into
two partitions with XP on the primary and Vista. The other disk is
purely a data disk.

I'm aware of the thing with restore points. I'm not worried if Vista or
even XP goes belly up for some reason. I'm sure I can reinstall without
a problem. It will be a pain to reinstall XP because of all the apps
that are installed on it but I have all the disks and licenses I need to
do that.

All my email and my email program is on the data disk. The program can
be run from Vista or XP and all the mail gets copied to a USB stick
every day as it is also used from other machines. (Portable Thunderbird
in case you're interested).

If anyone thinks my data is at risk with this kind of setup please tell
me how that could happen. It is backed up but I still wouldn't want to
restore unless I had to.




Colin Barnhorst wrote:
>
> 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.
>