SD> TW> And MS by design went that route knowing that upgrading could cause   
   SD> TW> problems.   
      
   SD>Hold on with the judgement call, Tom.   
      
   SD>Windows 7 is echelons above Windows XP in reliability and performance.   
   SD>Trying to compare Windows XP to Windows 7 is like comparing apples and   
   SD>oranges.  There -is- no comparison.  Think of it like this: you know you   
   SD>have worn spark plugs in your car.  Instead of replacing them with a fresh   
   SD>set, you instead use a jeweler's file to clean them up and put them back in.   
      
   SD>You know eventually you're going to have to replace them, but it's foolish   
   SD>to do that when it's easier to replace them with new plugs.   
      
   SD>That's how it is with any MS operating system above XP.  You must replace XP   
   SD>with a brand-new installation of Vista/7/8.  If you try to kludge it, you   
   SD>will break it and waste your time fixing it again and again.   
      
   SD> TW> Teh MS instructions were written for businesses running Win XP that   
   SD> TW> most likely would have minimum problems because theri machines are   
   SD> TW> typically not grundged up with every program that comes down the pike   
   SD> TW> like a lot of home User machines.   
      
   SD>Those instructions were written as a stop-gap measure.   
      
   SD>Every business that I've installed Windows 7/8 on had me wipe the drive on   
   SD>every computer and install the new OS fresh.   
      
   SD>Yeah, you can do an upgrade, but sooner or later, you'll be breaking down to   
   SD>fix it.   
      
   Well MS did not offer an Upgrade veersion like they did for Win   
   95/98/ME/Vista, Which was my point early in this thread.   
   And as you said above there is a "Stop Gap" measure but requires   
   jumping through some hoops instead of simply instaling an MS "Upgrade"   
   Disk.   
   ---   
    þ SLMR 2.1a þ Typo Tom Strkes Again   
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 bbs.docsnetservices.com (1:123/140)