Microsoft Confirms XP Data Loss

ShackNews ^ | Nov 11, 2001

[John Jorsett]

According to The Inquirer, Microsoft has admitted that under certain circumstances, the repairing, reinstalling or upgrading of Windows XP may lead to data loss on your hard drive. Though some of this data might be on a backup that XP makes, there could still be data lost that can't be retreived. There's no word on an upcoming fix.

[John Jorsett]

I know that a lot of people are buying new machines with XP right now (this warning only applies to machines with XP pre-installed), so I thought this notice would be appropriate. Make a backup of your data before you reinstall or upgrade.

[Nataku X]

I've yet to hear a good reason to upgrade from 2K.

[freedomcrusader]

According to Microsoft in a note on its humungous site, this only applies to PCs with Windows XP pre-installed by a computer manufacturer.

If it is just limited to PCs preinstalled with XP, then those considering upgrading to XP have nothing to worry about.

[homeschool mama]

bump

[freedomcrusader]

...then those considering upgrading to XP have nothing to worry about.

Until after they upgrade, of course :) Sorry, Monday morning fog...

[Johnny B.]

If it is just limited to PCs preinstalled with XP, then those considering upgrading to XP have nothing to worry about.

Given the enormous number of security problems Microsoft has, they have plenty to worry about, even if this isn't one of those things.

[wesdale]

Yes, ALWAYS backup... New Compaq, 5320 series comes with oem version of XP HOME... Home edition does not allow user to log on to any domain!!! Microsofts solution? Upgrade to XP Professional. I upgraded to XP Pro, went to My Documents folder and everything was gone, no shared files,no mp3s, pictures, nothing... Microsoft has a fix but requires that you delete an oem file BEFORE the upgrade. Oh well....

[Ragin1]

Just bought an AMD 1.4 with XP loaded. Fdisk, format, and running 2000. Pretty darn zippy if I must say so.

[SoDak]

That should be understood anytime you upgrade ANY operating system software. I lost data once on a system I was migrating from AIX 4.1.5 to 4.3.3. I learned my lesson. It took me 8 hours to reconstruct the database.

[Neanderthal]

"I've yet to hear a good reason to upgrade from 2K."

I'm one of the evil pirates who bought 1 copy of W2K and installed it on 4 or 5 machines. I frequently cull old parts that are laying around and put together new machines, installing that same copy of W2K.

With XP I'd be screwed. I'd need to buy separate copies for each machine and beg MS for permission each time I changed something . . .

XP - no way. I will switch to Linux when W2K becomes obsolete.

[Justa]

You should just use the Files and Settings Transfer Wizard. Also, installing a second, larger drive and putting your database on that is 'the way to go' imo. OSs shouldn't have control over your database. I've got 5 yr.s worth of computing in 10GBs of data on a seperate drive so no OS owns it.

[Dimensio]

I'm one of the evil pirates who bought 1 copy of W2K and installed it on 4 or 5 machines. I frequently cull old parts that are laying around and put together new machines, installing that same copy of W2K.

With XP I'd be screwed. I'd need to buy separate copies for each machine and beg MS for permission each time I changed something . . .

Actually, you probably wouldn't. If you were moving from W2K to XP, you would want XP Pro which does not have the same Product Activation crap as the Home edition (IIRC).
Well, you'd not be screwed on that level. As for whether "upgrading" from 2000 to XP is inheritly screwing yourself, someone else can comment.

I stick with 2K because I see no reason to go to XP and I refuse to pay for an MS OS (I got my legal 2K copy directly from MS for free).

[JoeMomma]

"XP - no way. I will switch to Linux when W2K becomes obsolete."

I agree. I'm presently running Windoze ME right now, and I absolutely refuse to get XP. I've got multiple PCs at home too. When ME becomes obsolete, I'll upgrade to Linux -- probably either the Red Hat or Mandrake distributions.

[John Jorsett]

I'm sticking with Windows 2000, myself, even though I have an MSDN Universal subscription that would allow me to install XP Pro on up to 10 machines. There's just no good reason to move right now, and giving MSFT data about my machines (the registration string that you have to give them contains a lot of info about your system) rubs me the wrong way. I'll probably stick with W2K until I buy a new machine (which might be a while - I'm a software developer and my 2-year-old system is holding up just fine. I think many people feel the same, which is bad news for new computer sales.)

[Mr. Jeeves]

If you were moving from W2K to XP, you would want XP Pro which does not have the same Product Activation crap as the Home edition (IIRC).

Um...unfortunately, XP Pro has EXACTLY the same Product Activation crap. But despite that, it is working well for me so far.

[Nataku X]

High five... Linux all the way when 2K is no good.

[John Jorsett]

Actually, you probably wouldn't. If you were moving from W2K to XP, you would want XP Pro which does not have the same Product Activation crap as the Home edition (IIRC).

XP Pro still has the activation requirement. You're probably thinking of the corporate version of XP, available to large business with lots of machines to administer. Copies of that have already been posted to places like alt.binaries.cd.image.

[Landru]

According to Fred Langa, an upgrade to XP hardly ever goes-off without multiple hitches.
Moreover, the "improved" performance of XP over Win9x products is debatable.
In addition, XP has been proven to NOT be compatible with a lot of existing hardware, ie printers, sound & video cards et al; in spite of what uSoft's saying in their promotions.
FLanga recommends if one's "happy" with Win 9x; forget XP.

I would elect taking Fred Langa's advise over that of uSoft's any day; & that means no XP for me.

[razorback-bert]

I will wait for XPse v.3.2

[TankerKC]

This looks like an MS hit piece to me. Why note that MS has confirmed this on its "humungous site". What is the Inquirer, anyway?