![]() |
![]() |
|
|||||||
| Register | Forum Rules | Getting Started! - Guide | Blog | Videos | Gallery | Members List | Social Groups | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
A different upgrade approach
I have XPPro SP2 installed on C:, HD 0, and plan on installing Win 2K SP4 on
D:, HD 1, in a dual boot installation. Will repair the XP boot. Will I be able to install Vista Ultimate Upgrade in a clean install on D: from Win 2K, while maintaining dual boot capability with XP? XP will be the default OS for a while. |
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: A different upgrade approach
You don't have to install Win2k onto D: to install Vista upgrade.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=196 -- Regards, Richard Urban Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User (For email, remove the obvious from my address) Quote from George Ankner: If you knew as much as you think you know, You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew! "Ian D" <taurus@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:O9xiV3LpHHA.3968@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... >I have XPPro SP2 installed on C:, HD 0, and plan on installing Win 2K SP4 >on > D:, HD 1, in a dual boot installation. Will repair the XP boot. Will I > be able > to install Vista Ultimate Upgrade in a clean install on D: from Win 2K, > while > maintaining dual boot capability with XP? XP will be the default OS for > a while. > |
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: A different upgrade approach
Thanks Richard, I was already aware of that, but that article
does make the interesting point that the upgraded OS does not have to be activated, contrary to what I've read elsewhere. The reason for upgrading from Win 2K is that it is unused, and I don't want to tie my XP license to the upgrade. Also, I want a path to future reinstallations if MS ever decides to kill that loophole. My question is now; will the dual boot capability with XP be preserved with either upgrade route? Ian |
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Re: A different upgrade approach
I have not heard of any problems with dual boot when doing as the article
says. It is a valid installation. -- Regards, Richard Urban Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User (For email, remove the obvious from my address) Quote from George Ankner: If you knew as much as you think you know, You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew! "Ian D" <taurus@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:e05EZJSpHHA.3968@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl... > Thanks Richard, I was already aware of that, but that article > does make the interesting point that the upgraded OS does > not have to be activated, contrary to what I've read elsewhere. > > The reason for upgrading from Win 2K is that it is unused, > and I don't want to tie my XP license to the upgrade. Also, > I want a path to future reinstallations if MS ever decides > to kill that loophole. > > My question is now; will the dual boot capability > with XP be preserved with either upgrade route? > > Ian > > |
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| advise needed: storing huge structure persistent or alternative approach | busnet | PHP | 3 | 05-09-2007 10:30 AM |
| Best way to approach data entry to document | aneasiertomorrow | Microsoft Office | 0 | 28-08-2007 03:40 PM |
| "Secure" approach for remote execution of commands (least priv) | msb-2007@nospam.nospam | Windows Server 2003 | 2 | 28-08-2007 10:23 AM |
| "Secure" approach for remote execution of commands (least priv) | msb-2007@nospam.nospam | Windows Server 2003 | 0 | 28-08-2007 10:08 AM |
| The twelve affirmations of the Linux/Ubuntu Anonymous 12-step approach are | NOT Alias - Thank GOD | Windows Vista All | 1 | 18-08-2007 07:48 AM |
< Home - Windows Help - MS Office Help - Hardware Support >
| New To Site? | Need Help? |