Moderator… Please delete this post if you find it to be inappropr

Moderator… Please delete this post if you find it to be inappropriate.



Don’t know if this is legal. I had no intention of breaking any copywriter
law. And am posting this for Microsoft information .. This problem may apply
to upgrade versions of the new Vista OS.

Being inquisitive. I started thinking. (This activity sometimes gets me
into trouble, J, ). I had tried to install Vista on a Win 2000 machine.
But install stated that a unexpected OS was encountered and the install was
halted..

Wonder what would happen if I installed a second hard drive on this
computer. A hard drive that had a copy of XP from another machine…

Would I be able to upgrade to Vista on this second hard drive? And still
authenticate?

The answer is yes…

Boot into 2000. Insert Vista DVD. Run Install program. The install
program recognizes the second hard drive as partition #2 and as a XP drive,
even though it had a copy of XP, from another machine, that would not boot
correctly on it‘s own.. (Hard drive came out of neighbors puter. And for what
ever reason, OS would not boot up.) Vista installed flawlessly.. On second
hard drive, as a clean install.

Boot up screen shows , ‘earlier version of windows‘. This is the Win 2000.
HDD #1
Next is the Vista OS, “Microsoft Windows“.. HDD #2
Then follows another ‘Microsoft Windows�. This I suppose is the original XP
on HDD #2. And will not boot.

This install does not suffer any of the slowdowns I experienced with my
original install back in the first of June. And I am using the same 800 /
512 mb machine I used during the original install last June. I used the
original DVD from my June download.

Have there been performance improvements that have been addressed in the
updates?

Problems with the hard drive running all the time during my first install
have disappeared. CA Eztrust seems to be working much better. But I am still
a little disappointed that ATI 9200 will not work with Movie Maker. It
works fine with XP Movie Maker..

I have only been using this dual boot/hard drive for a couple of days. But
it appears at first glance. The New Vista performance is about equal to the
Win 2000 Professional.

This is in comparison to the unbearably slow performance I suffered through
during my June install trial. Performance that was so dismal. That I gave
up and uninstalled after only a week long trial..


I still would not recommend installing the beta on a primary machine. But
if the performance improvements scaled up with increases in CPU speed and
memory . I think I would be satisfied with the New Vista OS in a machine of
at least 3 Ghrtz and 1 gig Ram..

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/com...unts_passwords

On Sat, 2 Sep 2006 21:43:01 -0700, BIA <BIA@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote:

>
>Moderator… Please delete this post if you find it to be inappropriate.
>
>
>
>Don’t know if this is legal. I had no intention of breaking any copywriter
>law. And am posting this for Microsoft information .. This problem may apply
>to upgrade versions of the new Vista OS.
>
>Being inquisitive. I started thinking. (This activity sometimes gets me
>into trouble, J, ). I had tried to install Vista on a Win 2000 machine.
>But install stated that a unexpected OS was encountered and the install was
>halted..
>
>Wonder what would happen if I installed a second hard drive on this
>computer. A hard drive that had a copy of XP from another machine…
>
>Would I be able to upgrade to Vista on this second hard drive? And still
>authenticate?
>
>The answer is yes…
>
>Boot into 2000. Insert Vista DVD. Run Install program. The install
>program recognizes the second hard drive as partition #2 and as a XP drive,
>even though it had a copy of XP, from another machine, that would not boot
>correctly on it‘s own.. (Hard drive came out of neighbors puter. And for what
>ever reason, OS would not boot up.) Vista installed flawlessly.. On second
>hard drive, as a clean install.
>
>Boot up screen shows , ‘earlier version of windows‘. This is the Win 2000.
>HDD #1
>Next is the Vista OS, “Microsoft Windows“.. HDD #2
>Then follows another ‘Microsoft Windows”. This I suppose is the original XP
>on HDD #2. And will not boot.
>
>This install does not suffer any of the slowdowns I experienced with my
>original install back in the first of June. And I am using the same 800 /
>512 mb machine I used during the original install last June. I used the
>original DVD from my June download.
>
>Have there been performance improvements that have been addressed in the
>updates?
>
>Problems with the hard drive running all the time during my first install
>have disappeared. CA Eztrust seems to be working much better. But I am still
>a little disappointed that ATI 9200 will not work with Movie Maker. It
>works fine with XP Movie Maker..
>
>I have only been using this dual boot/hard drive for a couple of days. But
>it appears at first glance. The New Vista performance is about equal to the
>Win 2000 Professional.
>
>This is in comparison to the unbearably slow performance I suffered through
>during my June install trial. Performance that was so dismal. That I gave
>up and uninstalled after only a week long trial..
>
>
>I still would not recommend installing the beta on a primary machine. But
>if the performance improvements scaled up with increases in CPU speed and
>memory . I think I would be satisfied with the New Vista OS in a machine of
>at least 3 Ghrtz and 1 gig Ram..
>
>----------------
>This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
>suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
>Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
>link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
>click "I Agree" in the message pane.
>
>http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/com...unts_passwords

Actually, you did nothing untoward, since Vista needs at least XP Home
to do an upgrade. Win2k is not in the authorized Upgrade Path for
Vista.

If you had simply done a New ("Clean") installation of Vista on the HD
containing Win2k, there would have been not a whimper from the Vista
Installer.

Your problem was in trying to do an "Upgrade" install using an
unauthorized previous version (Win2k).

Vista cannot do an in-place Upgrade (keeping the existing file
structure intact) of an OS previous to XP. Any previous OS other than
XP must be removed (deleted) and Vista must be installed "cleanly".

==

================================================== =========
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread
================================================== =========