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