This is true and goes all the way back
into the dark days of Windows 3.1. I remember working in a Computer Retail
store in SA back in 95 when Windows 95 was launched. Probably 90% of the user
issues and complaints I was involved with troubleshooting were traced to inplace
upgrades of Windows 3.1. Particularly true with crappy installations of Windows
3.1. I think the stability of a Server OS is far more important than a
Workstation and this adds more weight to the idea of clean installs.
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Al Mulnick
Sent: 17 July 2006 15:01
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Clean
install VS Upgrade of Windows 2003
Perfect world scenarios are good for one thing only: understanding a
known state. Since this is a science, it helps to understand some known
way points somewhere along the way, especially when explaining pros and
cons. As for upgrades, I'd be inclined to agree with the idea of improved
upgrades except that the upgrades only take into account the first 7 layers of
the OSI stack. Unfortunately, in layer 8 v1.0 there is no really good way
to outsmart the settings and migrate them during the upgrade without just
assuming that layer 8 v1.0 made the informed choice and did so on purpose.
In other words, the problem inherent in upgrades is that what was valid for the
previous version is not necessarily something that can be changed on the fly
for the next. Therefore, the vendor will always have to err on the side
of caution ( i.e. choose not to break vs. overwrite) whenever possible.
You always have to rely on the vendor to make the *right* choices in your
unique environment with your unique settings and requirements.
Clean installs also take care of another layer 8 v1.0 problem: program
bloat. For some crazy reason that admin that was here when it was set up
and for a few months after, decided to try that new widget from joeware :) and
several other sources. Then never uninstalled them. Or partially
uninstalled them. Or didn't realize that it put hooks deep into the OS
and didn't come out clean as can happen when you change third party vendors (AV
for example). You're left with crud on the machine that's often
undocumented or otherwise lost to the winds of time. (speaking of OT.... lost
changes are often an artifact and a testament to the longevity of the OS. It's
not unique to Windows, but rather a badge of courage for many shops. Not
that I agree it should be, but just pointing that out.)
I have yet to see an inplace upgrade (define that please?) be the best
solution to a given problem outside of upgrading the boss' kid's desktop before
she leaves for college.
My $0.04 worth anyway (USD)
On 7/16/06, David
Adner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Drifting OT... I find
myself often following behind those "perfect world"
folks, having to break the news that their wonderful product (I've seen no
monopoly by Microsoft (no pun intended); this seems an equal opportunity
offense by sales folks and certain types of consultants of all
vendors). I
think I get a much better response by customers when I don't simply read
them the marketing material but actually describe the pro's and con's in all
their gory detail.
_____
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 10:31 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Clean install VS Upgrade of Windows 2003
Oh I'm definitely not saying it isn't getting better. It truly is. But with
each release they tell you it is great and go ahead and do it and then the
next rev is when they tell you all the things that were done wrong that they
now do fine. While they don't tell you it is perfect, you certainly could
get that impression when dealing with them and the propaganda that is
released.
It is the same with all of the MSFT products though, I had an OSS guy
chewing me out for it just this week how MSFT tells you how great the
product is until the next rev and then they tell you how horrible the last
was and how this one fixes everything. I really didn't debate the topic as I
have been onsite at MSFT for different events in a two week consecutive
period where the first week you are looking at the current product and they
are telling you how great it is and it doesn't have perf issues etc that you
may have heard about and then the next week you're there for a pre-release
NDA event and they are telling you how crappy the old (current that you just
saw the week before) product is and how all of these perf issues have been
corrected, etc. I am not even saying that people are lying because it was
completely different sets of people, had it been the same people I would
have called them out for it.
--
O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition -
http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
_____
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of David Adner
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 9:55 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Clean install VS Upgrade of Windows 2003
The statement that with each new OS the upgrade in place scenario has
improved, at least to date, has been true. If they said it's
perfected each
time then I could see your point. I've been to many customers that
have
done in-place upgrades of the OS with great success. Is it the
preferred
method assuming you have a choice? I think everyone would agree a
clean
install is always preferred. But it's a very valid option given some
of the
challenges that can crop up.
_____
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of joe
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 6:28 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Clean install VS Upgrade of Windows 2003
I agree with Jorge on this. Every new OS MSFT comes out with they tell you
that it is much better at handling upgrades than the last and how bad the
last one actually did it. So if someone tells me K3 does it great I tell
them to say that when say LongHorn comes out. :)
Anyway, you will have legacy settings that stay around when you do an
upgrade say like the replication holdback reg settings, etc when you do an
upgrade and it could be confusing later when troubleshooting something.
Unless there is absolutely no way possible to do a fresh install then I
would recommend going that way.
Going slightly OT, I even reinstall my personal home clients on a regular
basis (normally every 6 months but occasionally that slides depending on how
busy I am) to get away from Windows rot and clean off crap that I don't
currently use. I am also getting big into using virtual machines for most
desktop functions now so that makes things even easier as I can roll back to
a predetermined point or just pull the backup image off of a DVD that I made
when I first made the image. Of course make sure you update the image with
new patches first thing. :) In fact right now, I am writing this
email on a
virtual XP instance running with about 15 other virtuals on a machine that
is on the other side of my house. Also all web surfing to untrusted
sites
is done through a virtual I have with undo disks, after I finish surfing I
tell it to undo and it is ready for the next time.
--
O'Reilly Active Directory Third Edition -
http://www.joeware.net/win/ad3e.htm
_____
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Almeida Pinto,
Jorge de
Sent: Sunday, July 16, 2006 3:25 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Clean install VS Upgrade of Windows 2003
Personally I hate OS upgrades and try hard to avoid them and prefer to
choose a fresh clean install...
Although supported when upgrading an OS old stuff from the previous OS is
kept and besides that you might run into issues because of incompatibilities
with software, drivers, etc. A clean install in combination the migration of
the stuff hosted on the old server to the new server gives you a phased
approach. Upgrading directly impacts the server and if the upgrade fails you
might end up with a trouble server.
IMHO:
* avoid OS upgrades when possible and only use it when really necessary
(like for example NT4 PDC -> W2K3 DC, which is mandatory)
Met vriendelijke groeten / Kind regards,
Ing. Jorge de Almeida Pinto
Senior Infrastructure Consultant
MVP Windows Server - Directory Services
LogicaCMG Nederland B.V. (BU RTINC Eindhoven)
( Tel : +31-(0)40-29.57.777
( Mobile
: +31-(0)6- 26.26.62.80
* E-mail : <see sender address>
_____
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on behalf of Bahta, Nathaniel V CTR
USAF NASIC/SCNA
Sent: Sun 2006-07-16 20:53
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ActiveDir] Clean install VS Upgrade of Windows 2003
Hey all,
Does anyone have any comments/articles, etc on the benefits or concerns of a
clean install of Windows 2003 Server VS an Upgrade? My opinion is
that
doing a clean install keeps system root clean. It also pristinely
adopts
the security best practices of 2003 Server. Disk performance will
improve
as well. Does anyone have anything they can add to
this? I have migrated a
great portion of my network in a clean install path, and now it is coming
into question why did I not choose the upgrade path.
Any comments would be greatly appreciated,
Thanks,
Nate
|
