Upgrading the CPU?

I was thinking about possibly upgrading my current 1.6 GHz CPU on my Dell 
Desktop with a faster 2.2 GHz CPU (which is compatible and available), but I 
had a couple of general questions:

Would upgrading the CPU would require some, or perhaps most, apps to need to 
be reactivated again, due to tripping some copy protection features of the 
apps?
IOW, will apps typically look at that alone and that's enough, or does it 
take 2 or more large changes to the system to normally trigger it?

Also, when making image backups on my system to my second internal SATA2 
drive, I am now getting a throughput of around 1.5 GBytes per minute.  Is 
that max transfer speed limit likely due to my slow CPU speed (I have a 1.6 
GHz CPU), or more likely a limit of the disk drive (or other motherboard 
components)?   As I recall, I think the theoretical transfer limit of SATA2 
hard drives is supposed to be around 3 Gbits per second, so I'm not sure if 
the hard drive itself is the primary limit here.  If so, then a CPU upgrade 
wouldn't affect that transfer rate either.

I'm also assuming that the byte to bit conversion is 8 bits per byte, but 
I'm not sure if that's correct (maybe there are some overhead bits, and it's 
more like 10 bits per byte should be used for the conversions?) 


0
Bill
9/8/2010 8:32:19 PM
windowsxp.general 3897 articles. 1 followers. Follow

7 Replies
1154 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 13

In-line

Bill in Co wrote:
> I was thinking about possibly upgrading my current 1.6 GHz CPU on my Dell 
> Desktop with a faster 2.2 GHz CPU (which is compatible and available), but I 
> had a couple of general questions:
> 
> Would upgrading the CPU would require some, or perhaps most, apps to need to 
> be reactivated again, due to tripping some copy protection features of the 
> apps?
Not likely.

> IOW, will apps typically look at that alone and that's enough, or does it 
> take 2 or more large changes to the system to normally trigger it?
> 
As before, not likely

> Also, when making image backups on my system to my second internal SATA2 
> drive, I am now getting a throughput of around 1.5 GBytes per minute.  Is 
> that max transfer speed limit likely due to my slow CPU speed (I have a 1.6 
> GHz CPU), or more likely a limit of the disk drive (or other motherboard 
> components)?   As I recall, I think the theoretical transfer limit of SATA2 
> hard drives is supposed to be around 3 Gbits per second, so I'm not sure if 
> the hard drive itself is the primary limit here.  If so, then a CPU upgrade 
> wouldn't affect that transfer rate either.
> 

CPU isn't particularly involved in DMA transfers. (Direct Memory Access)

> I'm also assuming that the byte to bit conversion is 8 bits per byte, but 
> I'm not sure if that's correct (maybe there are some overhead bits, and it's 
> more like 10 bits per byte should be used for the conversions?) 
> 

Huh?

0
Bob
9/8/2010 9:06:08 PM
Bill in Co wrote:
> I was thinking about possibly upgrading my current 1.6 GHz CPU on my
> Dell Desktop with a faster 2.2 GHz CPU (which is compatible and
> available), but I had a couple of general questions:
>
> Would upgrading the CPU would require some, or perhaps most, apps to
> need to be reactivated again, due to tripping some copy protection
> features of the apps?
> IOW, will apps typically look at that alone and that's enough, or
> does it take 2 or more large changes to the system to normally
> trigger it?

You have apps that needed to be activated??  Or are you talking about XP? 
If the latter, I don't know if changing just the CPU would require a new 
activation or not but if it does it is no big deal.
_____________

> Also, when making image backups on my system to my second internal
> SATA2 drive, I am now getting a throughput of around 1.5 GBytes per
> minute.  Is that max transfer speed limit likely due to my slow CPU
> speed (I have a 1.6 GHz CPU), or more likely a limit of the disk
> drive (or other motherboard components)?

Not the CPU.  Drive or program doing the imaging.
______________

> As I recall, I think the
> theoretical transfer limit of SATA2 hard drives is supposed to be
> around 3 Gbits per second, so I'm not sure if the hard drive itself
> is the primary limit here.  If so, then a CPU upgrade wouldn't affect
> that transfer rate either.

I get 76 MB/sec...4.56 GB/min.  My older drive does about 60 of that,
____________

> I'm also assuming that the byte to bit conversion is 8 bits per byte,
> but I'm not sure if that's correct (maybe there are some overhead
> bits, and it's more like 10 bits per byte should be used for the
> conversions?)

8 bits in a byte.  4 bits in a nybble, 2 nybbles in a byte.

-- 

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico



0
dadiOH
9/8/2010 9:12:28 PM
Bill in Co wrote:
> I was thinking about possibly upgrading my current 1.6 GHz CPU on my Dell 
> Desktop with a faster 2.2 GHz CPU (which is compatible and available), but I 
> had a couple of general questions:
> 
> Would upgrading the CPU would require some, or perhaps most, apps to need to 
> be reactivated again, due to tripping some copy protection features of the 
> apps?
> IOW, will apps typically look at that alone and that's enough, or does it 
> take 2 or more large changes to the system to normally trigger it?
> 
> Also, when making image backups on my system to my second internal SATA2 
> drive, I am now getting a throughput of around 1.5 GBytes per minute.  Is 
> that max transfer speed limit likely due to my slow CPU speed (I have a 1.6 
> GHz CPU), or more likely a limit of the disk drive (or other motherboard 
> components)?   As I recall, I think the theoretical transfer limit of SATA2 
> hard drives is supposed to be around 3 Gbits per second, so I'm not sure if 
> the hard drive itself is the primary limit here.  If so, then a CPU upgrade 
> wouldn't affect that transfer rate either.
> 
> I'm also assuming that the byte to bit conversion is 8 bits per byte, but 
> I'm not sure if that's correct (maybe there are some overhead bits, and it's 
> more like 10 bits per byte should be used for the conversions?) 
> 
> 

Test the hard drive with HDTune, to get a measure of the media (platter)
limited transfer rate. (The "burst speed" field in the benchmark window,
gives some idea of the SATA cable rate available to you.)

http://www.hdtune.com/files/hdtune_255.exe

The motherboard hard drive controller would normally prefer to use DMA for data
transfer. That means, when the disk has data to transfer, the motherboard
controller moves the data immediately into RAM using direct memory access
on the bus. The hard drive controller then informs the OS, via an interrupt,
that the transfer is complete, and many sectors may be sitting in a
RAM buffer. By doing that, the CPU load due to disk transfers, can be
kept small. The CPU can be off doing other things, until the interrupt
announce the good news, that the command is complete.

If you have the misfortune to have a disk running in PIO mode, you'll
immediately notice the difference the extra work makes. The CPU will only
manage between 4MB/sec to perhaps 8MB/sec, when in PIO mode. DMA mode
allows one of my drives here, to bench at 125MB/sec, which shows how
much better it can be when done via DMA and with less CPU intervention.

SATA uses 8B10B encoding on the cable. That means 10 bits of data on the
cable, represent an 8 bit byte. That means the encoding format is 80%
efficient. If you have a cable operating at 1500Mbit/sec, you end
up getting 150MB/sec after decoding the data format used on the
cable. The encoding format has high clock content, DC balance, and
allows AC coupling of the differential wiring used on the interface.
They did not choose that particular format for fun - it is a proven
encoding technique, first used with fiber optic modules years ago.
It is used for some of the highest speed interfaces inside your computer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8B10B

    (See section "Technologies that use 8b/10b" for a list)

*******

Windows activation is described here. Changing the processor is just
one of the hardware components being monitored.

http://aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.htm

    "Processor Type"

The Processor Serial Number, as far as I know, was only supported on
one processor. Due to customer feedback on the issue, later processors
didn't support it. So I doubt the serial number accounts for a significant
number of WinXP re-activations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processor_Serial_Number#Controversy_about_privacy_issues

    "The Pentium III was the first x86 CPU to include a unique,
     retrievable, identification number, called PSN (Processor Serial Number).

     Eventually Intel decided to remove the PSN feature on Tualatin-based
     Pentium IIIs, and the feature was not carried through to the
     Pentium 4 or Pentium M."

HTH,
    Paul
0
Paul
9/8/2010 9:20:15 PM
dadiOH wrote:
> Bill in Co wrote:
>> I was thinking about possibly upgrading my current 1.6 GHz CPU on my
>> Dell Desktop with a faster 2.2 GHz CPU (which is compatible and
>> available), but I had a couple of general questions:
>>
>> Would upgrading the CPU would require some, or perhaps most, apps to
>> need to be reactivated again, due to tripping some copy protection
>> features of the apps?
>> IOW, will apps typically look at that alone and that's enough, or
>> does it take 2 or more large changes to the system to normally
>> trigger it?
>
> You have apps that needed to be activated??  Or are you talking about XP?
> If the latter, I don't know if changing just the CPU would require a new
> activation or not but if it does it is no big deal.
> _____________
>
>> Also, when making image backups on my system to my second internal
>> SATA2 drive, I am now getting a throughput of around 1.5 GBytes per
>> minute.  Is that max transfer speed limit likely due to my slow CPU
>> speed (I have a 1.6 GHz CPU), or more likely a limit of the disk
>> drive (or other motherboard components)?
>
> Not the CPU.  Drive or program doing the imaging.
> ______________
>
>> As I recall, I think the
>> theoretical transfer limit of SATA2 hard drives is supposed to be
>> around 3 Gbits per second, so I'm not sure if the hard drive itself
>> is the primary limit here.  If so, then a CPU upgrade wouldn't affect
>> that transfer rate either.
>
> I get 76 MB/sec...4.56 GB/min.  My older drive does about 60 of that,
> ____________

60?    60 of what?   You mean 60% of the 4.56 GB/min?

Well then, I don't get it.   My Dell desktop system (Dell 530 Inspiron) 
isn't too old (dated around 2008), and has two internal SATA-II drives, and 
I can't get anything close to that (using Acronis True Image to make the 
image backups).   Instead, it takes around 10 minutes to create a 15 GB 
image (between my two internal SATA-II drives), which is 1.5 GB/min.    For 
what you quoted above, it would only take  you about 3 minutes, which is 
phenomenal!   Wonder why the difference? 


0
Bill
9/10/2010 2:19:50 AM
Paul wrote:
> Bill in Co wrote:
>> I was thinking about possibly upgrading my current 1.6 GHz CPU on my Dell
>> Desktop with a faster 2.2 GHz CPU (which is compatible and available), 
>> but I
>> had a couple of general questions:
>>
>> Would upgrading the CPU would require some, or perhaps most, apps to need 
>> to
>> be reactivated again, due to tripping some copy protection features of 
>> the
>> apps?
>> IOW, will apps typically look at that alone and that's enough, or does it
>> take 2 or more large changes to the system to normally trigger it?
>>
>> Also, when making image backups on my system to my second internal SATA2
>> drive, I am now getting a throughput of around 1.5 GBytes per minute.  Is
>> that max transfer speed limit likely due to my slow CPU speed (I have a 
>> 1.6
>> GHz CPU), or more likely a limit of the disk drive (or other motherboard
>> components)?   As I recall, I think the theoretical transfer limit of 
>> SATA2
>> hard drives is supposed to be around 3 Gbits per second, so I'm not sure 
>> if
>> the hard drive itself is the primary limit here.  If so, then a CPU 
>> upgrade
>> wouldn't affect that transfer rate either.
>>
>> I'm also assuming that the byte to bit conversion is 8 bits per byte, but
>> I'm not sure if that's correct (maybe there are some overhead bits, and 
>> it's
>> more like 10 bits per byte should be used for the conversions?)
>>
>>
>
> Test the hard drive with HDTune, to get a measure of the media (platter)
> limited transfer rate. (The "burst speed" field in the benchmark window,
> gives some idea of the SATA cable rate available to you.)
>
> http://www.hdtune.com/files/hdtune_255.exe

OK, did that, results below.    TNX.

> The motherboard hard drive controller would normally prefer to use DMA for
> data transfer. That means, when the disk has data to transfer, the 
> motherboard
> controller moves the data immediately into RAM using direct memory access
> on the bus. The hard drive controller then informs the OS, via an 
> interrupt,
> that the transfer is complete, and many sectors may be sitting in a
> RAM buffer. By doing that, the CPU load due to disk transfers, can be
> kept small. The CPU can be off doing other things, until the interrupt
> announce the good news, that the command is complete.
>
> If you have the misfortune to have a disk running in PIO mode, you'll
> immediately notice the difference the extra work makes.

I don't think that's happening here, fortunately! (more below)

> The CPU will only
> manage between 4MB/sec to perhaps 8MB/sec, when in PIO mode. DMA mode 
> allows one of my drives here, to bench at 125MB/sec, which shows how
> much better it can be when done via DMA and with less CPU intervention.

TNX for that info, Paul.    OK, so I ran the "HD Tune" program, and got 
results of approx 50 MB/sec and 80 MB/sec for the ave transfer rates of the 
two internal SATA-II drives, and about 170 MB/sec and 146 MB/sec for the 
burst rates.

So I gather from this that the drives are NOT the limiting factor in my 
case.   Because using the lower ave transfer figure of  50 MB/sec (or 50*60 
= 3 GB/min), that's about double what I'm getting using Acronis True Image 
to backup the disk images (which shows me a throughput of around 1.5 GB/min 
or so).  (BTW, all of this is done with write caching left OFF on my main C: 
drive, but not the backup drive, this being done by preference to help 
prevent any potential data loss on C: during any operations).

So the apparent transfer limit I'm seeing is due to some other Intel 
motherboard/bridge limitations on my system, or??   From what I infer, 
you're saying that by using DMA and interrupts, the CPU speed is essentially 
irrelevant here, right?   But still, the CPU does get interrupted every so 
often, so I would think that the CPU speed isn't entirely irrrelant.   (my 
system has 1 GB of RAM but I'm not sure how that plays in here - is it using 
any of that 1 GB RAM as a buffer for these disk transfers?)

> SATA uses 8B10B encoding on the cable. That means 10 bits of data on the
> cable, represent an 8 bit byte.

OK, now that is interesting!

> That means the encoding format is 80%
> efficient. If you have a cable operating at 1500Mbit/sec, you end
> up getting 150MB/sec after decoding the data format used on the
> cable. The encoding format has high clock content, DC balance, and
> allows AC coupling of the differential wiring used on the interface.
> They did not choose that particular format for fun - it is a proven
> encoding technique, first used with fiber optic modules years ago.
> It is used for some of the highest speed interfaces inside your computer.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8B10B
>
>    (See section "Technologies that use 8b/10b" for a list)
>
> *******

Interesting!   Thanks.

> Windows activation is described here. Changing the processor is just
> one of the hardware components being monitored.
>
> http://aumha.org/win5/a/wpa.htm
>
>    "Processor Type"

Right, and that alone (not the CPU serial number) might be enough to trip 
some software reactivation, but as some have said, it's no big deal.

> The Processor Serial Number, as far as I know, was only supported on
> one processor. Due to customer feedback on the issue, later processors
> didn't support it. So I doubt the serial number accounts for a significant
> number of WinXP re-activations.

No I was just thinking of the CPU type/version, and not its actual serial 
number.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Processor_Serial_Number#Controversy_about_privacy_issues
>
>    "The Pentium III was the first x86 CPU to include a unique,
>     retrievable, identification number, called PSN (Processor Serial 
> Number).
>
>     Eventually Intel decided to remove the PSN feature on Tualatin-based
>     Pentium IIIs, and the feature was not carried through to the
>     Pentium 4 or Pentium M."
>
> HTH,
>    Paul

Thanks Paul (with comments above, inline) 


0
Bill
9/10/2010 7:51:08 AM
Bill in Co wrote:
> dadiOH wrote:

>> I get 76 MB/sec...4.56 GB/min.  My older drive does about 60 of that,
>> ____________
>
> 60?    60 of what?   You mean 60% of the 4.56 GB/min?


Yeah, 60%.
___________

> Well then, I don't get it.   My Dell desktop system (Dell 530
> Inspiron) isn't too old (dated around 2008), and has two internal
> SATA-II drives, and I can't get anything close to that (using Acronis
> True Image to make the image backups).   Instead, it takes around 10
> minutes to create a 15 GB image (between my two internal SATA-II
> drives), which is 1.5 GB/min.    For what you quoted above, it would
> only take  you about 3 minutes, which is phenomenal!   Wonder why the
> difference?

The difference is that I told you what the write speed of my drives is. 
Making an image involves much more than just writing to the drive.  Ten 
minutes to image 15GB doesn't sound bad.  If you want to know actual disk 
speed, use HDTune.

http://www.hdtune.com/

-- 

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico



0
dadiOH
9/10/2010 11:25:24 AM
Bill in Co wrote:

>> Test the hard drive with HDTune, to get a measure of the media (platter)
>> limited transfer rate. (The "burst speed" field in the benchmark window,
>> gives some idea of the SATA cable rate available to you.)
>>
>> http://www.hdtune.com/files/hdtune_255.exe
> 
> OK, did that, results below.    TNX.
> 
> TNX for that info, Paul.    OK, so I ran the "HD Tune" program, and got 
> results of approx 50 MB/sec and 80 MB/sec for the ave transfer rates of the 
> two internal SATA-II drives, and about 170 MB/sec and 146 MB/sec for the 
> burst rates.
> 
> So I gather from this that the drives are NOT the limiting factor in my 
> case.   Because using the lower ave transfer figure of  50 MB/sec (or 50*60 
> = 3 GB/min), that's about double what I'm getting using Acronis True Image 
> to backup the disk images (which shows me a throughput of around 1.5 GB/min 
> or so).  (BTW, all of this is done with write caching left OFF on my main C: 
> drive, but not the backup drive, this being done by preference to help 
> prevent any potential data loss on C: during any operations).
> 
> So the apparent transfer limit I'm seeing is due to some other Intel 
> motherboard/bridge limitations on my system, or??   From what I infer, 
> you're saying that by using DMA and interrupts, the CPU speed is essentially 
> irrelevant here, right?   But still, the CPU does get interrupted every so 
> often, so I would think that the CPU speed isn't entirely irrrelant.   (my 
> system has 1 GB of RAM but I'm not sure how that plays in here - is it using 
> any of that 1 GB RAM as a buffer for these disk transfers?)
> 

Backup software will generally never work at the flat out transfer
rate of the disk.

One reason for this, is file by file transferring, requires consulting
the file system for details of each file. So the head flies back and
forth, from data area, to $MFT or whatever. Benchmarks such as HDTune,
measure smooth movement of the head from cylinder to cylinder, which
means head movement makes a minimal contribution to the performance
picture. Real world disk activity can be dominated by head seeks.

If you want an example of "disappointment" some time, use the Performance
plugin from the Administrative Tools control panel. Add some counters
from the PhysicalDisk section. This is something I do quite frequently, when
doing maintenance on my computer. If I run a defrag, I get around 1MB/sec,
on a disk that can achieve 130MB/sec sustained. The reason for that,
is for safety, defrag makes nothing but tiny accesses to the disk. That
sucks the life out of the disk (and annoys the hell out of me). And that
is an example of how inefficient access methods, cause poor performance.
I was shocked, the first time I tried a defrag, left it running overnight,
and it wasn't finished in the morning. Now that I've had a chance to study
it further, I just don't use the built-in defrag to fix it any more.

Defrag is done that way for safety, the idea being, if the power goes off,
the file system is supposed to remain intact. It's too bad there isn't a flag
that says "I'm on a UPS with an infinite battery", so that you could throw
safety to the wind. I'm willing to back up my C: drive first, if it would
mean a defrag could run faster. I can back up the C: drive, in a fraction
of the time it takes to get a defrag to complete, so I could be further
ahead, incorporating a backup and an "unsafe" defrag as a replacement for
what is available in the OS now.

    Paul
0
Paul
9/10/2010 3:22:58 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

1.0 to 1.2 upgrade error (AD and SQLAccessGroup)
I am attempting to upgrade to 1.2. I have CRM server and SQL on the same server. 1.0 works fine and I have all the upgrades in place as far as I can tell. During 1.2 setup i get the error: Setup was unable to install Microsoft CRM Server. Setup was unable to add the account to SQLAccessGroup in Active Directory. There is no such object on the server. (80072030) The SQLAccessGroup does in fact exist in AD and I am installing using the administrator account. Thanks. How many DC's do you have? "Don Bishop" <newsgroup@affinigent.com> wrote in message news:016a01...

Cannot log on to the system After upgrade from 1.2 to 3.0
Hi The CRM Server 1.2 upgrade to 3.0 and SQL Server 2000 sp4 in the Same box. Windows Server 2003 SP1 Environment After upgraded from CRM 1.2 and everything went good. When i tried to log on to the CRM 3.0 i recieved the following error: Authentication Error Microsoft CRM could not log you on to the system. Make sure your user record is enabled and that you have been assigned at least one security role. For more information, contact your system administrator. I have checked the authetication is checked to Windows integrated but received the same error message. Any help ...

Vista x86 Upgrade to Win7 x64
I have purchased an Acer Aspire 6930G laptop that came with Vista x86 (32 bit) installed but with a free 'upgrade' to Windows 7 x86. I have a 'desktop' and an update copy of Windows 7 (legit) that came with both 32 and 64 bit disks. I have installed the 64 bit version onto the desktop. I want to install the 64 bit version of Win7 onto my laptop but Microsoft insist they will only provide the 32 bit version as I am 'updating' from a 32 bit version. (seems that they are being simply bloody minded). My question is can I successfully install the 64 bit ve...

Upgrading the CPU?
I was thinking about possibly upgrading my current 1.6 GHz CPU on my Dell Desktop with a faster 2.2 GHz CPU (which is compatible and available), but I had a couple of general questions: Would upgrading the CPU would require some, or perhaps most, apps to need to be reactivated again, due to tripping some copy protection features of the apps? IOW, will apps typically look at that alone and that's enough, or does it take 2 or more large changes to the system to normally trigger it? Also, when making image backups on my system to my second internal SATA2 drive, I am now get...

CPU Usage consistently above 75%
When highlighting cells in Excel 2000, the CPU usage is constantly at 75% and higher. The OS is Windows 2000, 500 Mb ram. Why is this a bad thing? Shouldn't windows decide how many resources excel will need and allocate things accordingly? From a non-technical person, I'd say let windows be windows and let excel be excel. On the other hand, do you have a co-worker with the same set up as you (and about the same number of applications/processes running)? If you do, what do they show? (This non-technical person doesn't have a response in either case, though.) hparteep wrote...

8.0 Upgrade
We are going to be performing an upgrade to 8.0 in the next month. Next week we will be doing a test migration and have 3+ weeks scheduled for testing. Does anyone have any documentation of things to consider or issues they had with the upgrade. Anything would be helpful, as I am just trying to ensure all the bases are covered. Thanks, Zach Morgan zachary.morgan@cbs.fiserv.com What are you upgrading from? "Zach Morgan" <ZachMorgan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:B4011720-BF9F-4155-AF3C-131AEB8FFD0E@microsoft.com... > We are going to be performing...

VBA causing Excel to max out 100% CPU when opening the Font Property dialog box
Hi, I'm trying to solve an issue that a client at work got with VBA in Excel 2003. The Client has a SS that got a few 'Combo Boxes' on it, if he select just 1 of the Boxes, anyone and tries to change the 'FONT PROPERTY' as soon as the ellipse ' 3 ... ' is clicked on XL then max's out the CPU sometimes talking 10 - 20 minutes before opening the 'FONT PROPERTY ' dialog box, or you can end the VBA task, this give error that it can't close XL, you OK this and then the 'FONT PROPERTY ' dialog box opens, once it finally open you can go on and ed...

Still battling 1.2>3.0 upgrade
Hi, Well, it's been six months and I still haven't got it. What I have gotten good at is moving SQL databases around and restoring from backup images. I've gotten that down to under 25 minutes for both the system and CRM+CRM website drives. Us newbies just beat our heads against the box until it breaks, restore, read, read, read and try again. First it was the ImportDefaultDataAction failure, then the GrantDatabaseAccessAction failure, now I am hitting a UpgradeCustomizationsAction failure, Object reference not set to an instance of the object, sheesh. I've learned...

XP Upgrade
Can I run XP Pro upgrade on Windows 2000 or do I need to do a fresh XP Pro install? Thanks. KenP KenP <KenP@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: > Can I run XP Pro upgrade on Windows 2000 or do I need to do a fresh XP > Pro > install? > > Thanks. > > KenP If I'm not mistaken, it should work just fine upgrading from win2000. -- Jason "KenP" <KenP@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:B00F9489-9E56-4A14-B43B-33A927C98D23@microsoft.com... > Can I run XP Pro upgrade on Windows 2000 or do I need to do ...

Upgrading to Money 2004 Premium
Hi, I just upgraded my money 2003 to Money 2004 Premium, and am being told that my money file with all my data is not compatable, has any one else had this problem, and if yes what was the work around. -- Cheers Catherine PM Community Team This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. In microsoft.public.money, Catherine Feldhausen [MSFT] wrote: > >I just upgraded my money 2003 to Money 2004 Premium, and am being told that >my money file with all my data is not compatable, has any one else had this >problem, and if yes what was the wo...

Upgrade? or not to upgrade.
I accepted the invitation to try office 2010. Upon installation, outlook 2007 quit working. Since that is the only critical piece i need out of office, and all my emails etch i desperately need are on there, I uninstalled. Now I get no out look. I get the error: "Cannot start Microsoft Office Outlook. Cannot open the Outlook window. I am really kicking myself, I knew i shouldn't have done the upgrade trial. I am bordering on hysteria here. Can anyone help? Tried to open in compatibility mode xp but no go same error. Outlook now does not appear in the start ...

downloading Office 2007 Professional didn't upgrade my outlook 20.
I downloaded a trial version of Office 2007 Professional which I then converted to my own. I also have Office 2000 still on my computer. How do I get outlook to upgrade from 2000 to 2007? The trial version of Outlook will not install if any other version of Outlook is installed What does "converted to my own" mean? "rmeadie" <rmeadie@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:A302D5A5-12EA-4C56-8944-53FAD9A7A0C1@microsoft.com... >I downloaded a trial version of Office 2007 Professional which I then > converted to my own. I also have Office ...

Upgrade to 8.0/Upgrade FRX
When upgrading Great Plains (from 7.5 to 8.0) do you suggest installing over the 7.5 client or uninstalling 8.0 fresh? How about FRX? (6.5 to 6.7) Thanks, Annalisa I like to keep the GP installation clean but I've had success installing over the existing client. Just make sure you export all modified reports and forms to package files. For FRx, it will give you options during the installation process. I would keep the existing version and install in a new directory. "afollo" wrote: > When upgrading Great Plains (from 7.5 to 8.0) do you suggest installing over > ...

Office 2004 Upgrade from Office 98 Macintosh Edition Upgrade
I am looking into purchasing the Microsoft Office 2004 for Mac Standard Edition Upgrade - and would like some clarification on my eligibility (along with the installation procedure)... 1. Could you confirm whether I am eligible for the Microsoft Office 2004 for Mac Standard Edition Upgrade as a registered user of Microsoft Office 98 Macintosh Edition Upgrade (as the literature on the Microsoft website does not specifically mention the Office 98 Upgrade version)? 2. I am intending to install Microsoft Office 2004 on Mac OS x 10.4 Tiger. However I do not have Mac OS 9.2 [Classic] installed - m...

Upgrade pains...
Hi all, I'm trying to upgrade from CRM 1.2 to CRM 3.0. I'm getting an error that says the "database is not published for merge replication"... Which sounds like a really dumb error (and check to make), because 3.0 doesn't even use replication! If anybody has come across this one and has a solution I'd be most grateful. (I've tried republishing, removing replication totally, even running the script at the end of the upgrade white paper to 'eliminate replication' hangover issues... Thanks, Dave -- Log file contents --- 12:51:55| Error| Install exceptio...

Domain Upgrade
We have a Windows 2003 Native Domain with Exchange 2003 running on Windows 2003 member servers. We intend to upgrade our AD domain to 2008 and would like to know its impact on Exchange, OCS, LCS etc There should be none. Good luck! -- Ed Crowley MVP "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." .. "Glen" <Glen@live.com> wrote in message news:OHx5MsykKHA.2468@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > We have a Windows 2003 Native Domain with Exchange 2003 running on Windows > 2003 member servers. We intend to upgrade our AD doma...

Upgrade Error
I purchased and downloaded Money 2006. I noticed that I cannot use the Reports Feature. When I select that feature, I get a page that tell sme that a Money upgrade is in progress and that I will be able to use the feature when that is complete. The problem is that the progress bar never moves and the update has never completed. I am not sure what is going on and I would appreciate any help. Thanks in advance. In microsoft.public.money, Beal Boru <Beal Boru@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote: >I purchased and downloaded Money 2006. I noticed that I cannot use the >Report...

Upgrade
Are there any special considerations in migrating/upgrading a Windows Server 2003 domain controller running on a VM server? Is P2V process a recommended approach if yes Why? if noy why? Howdie! Am 03.05.2010 20:57, schrieb Collins: > Are there any special considerations in migrating/upgrading a Windows Server > 2003 domain controller running on a VM server? > > Is P2V process a recommended approach if yes Why? if noy why? You're asking a couple of questions here, each of them being a broad topic that one can't just answer with "yes, no, maybe&q...

Upgrading 2005 from 2004
This is a message for ya'll trying to convert that file from 2004 to the new "improved" 2005. This worked for me running a XP SP2 laptop with 2 users. First uninstall 2005. Reinstall 2004. Under the file menu you will find "repair money File". Click on that and do a standard repair. Reinstall 2005. Use the new repaired file and it works. I noticed that the repaired file was half the size of the old file. It apparently had a record file error. Hope this helps ya'll out. Now to find out what new problems I will find. Matt You should have stopped ...

went for microsoft office 2003 to upgrade enterprise office 2007
I just upgrade from ms office 2003 to enterprise office 2007, I made my website in ms office 2003 and try to open in enterprise office 2007, it didn't load my pictures and background. What is the problem? ...

Upgrade 2006 to Small Business
Is it possible to upgrade from Money 2006 to Money Small Business? If so, how? In microsoft.public.money, CF wrote: >Is it possible to upgrade from Money 2006 to Money Small Business? If so, how? See http://www.microsoft.com/products/info/editorial/22/cswspring06/default.mspx or visit a store. I would first just try to install over the existing installation. If Money asks if it should uninstall the previous version for you, say yes. If there is a problem, you could uninstall the old first, and then install the new. In addition to Cal's comments, when you install the new version it...

To upgrade or not upgrade, that is the question
My current server is SBS 2003 Premium and my practice managment software uses a SQL 2000 DB. I also run Exchange. I do not have the SBS2003 R2 upgrade. My practice management software no longer supports SQL 2000. Their minimum requirement is SQL 2005. My current server is a 4 year old Dell PE 2800 with a 3 GHz Xeon single processor (room for another) and 2GB ram. I'm not sure if it is 64bit capable but I think it is. I have 9 workstations which are accessing the database pretty much continuously. I wouldn't say that my practice managment program seems slow, although t...

Cannot open Money08 after upgrading from Money06
I have upgraded from Money2006 to 2008 last week after getting the MS upgrade notices. I was able to use Money08 for several days. Currently Money will crash as soon as I enter my logon name and password. I have tried to logon in offline mode but it doesn't work as well. In addition, I cannot launch MSN messenger. Not sure if they are all related. Also, it says there is no-charge (unlimited request) to contact Money tech support via email or chat, but then down below it says there's a charge of $35. Any idea? Thank you in advance. In microsoft.public.money, Money06to08_b...

MS Publisher 2007 UPGrade
At work, I have a new computer with Vista OS and MS Office 2007, I would like to add MS Publisher 2007. Can I buy the upgrade version of this program rather than the full version since I already have the MS Office 2007? Thank you, Brenda <brenda.schmidt@gmail.com> wrote in message news:dc8fc259-091a-4d0d-9b46-c681d9e9bdb5@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com... > At work, I have a new computer with Vista OS and MS Office 2007, I > would like to add MS Publisher 2007. Can I buy the upgrade version of > this program rather than the full version since I already have the MS > Office ...

CRM Upgrade 3.0 to 4.0
Hi, We are upgrading our Microsoft CRM system from 3.0 to 4.0. The upgrade wizard stalls on the final step, the part where it upgrades the Workflows. We let it run all day and overnight, it never finished. We have 200,000 Opportunities that are following a 12 step Workflow in our v3.0 The upgrade is attempting to upgrade all 200,000 workflow processes, it never finished. We have used scripts we found to purge old Workflowprocesses from the database tables, but we still have an active 200,000 workflows that we need upgraded. We can access the v4.0 site once we kill the upgrade wizard, b...