home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
- Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!gatech!asuvax!ncar!uchinews!ellis!sip1
- From: sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
- Subject: Re: Reformat needed to install 2.1 over 2.1 beta?
- Message-ID: <1993Jan6.040700.17360@midway.uchicago.edu>
- Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
- Reply-To: sip1@midway.uchicago.edu
- Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
- References: <1993Jan2.221103.8199@wam.umd.edu> <1ia6thINN4i@hpscit.sc.hp.com> <1993Jan5.043207.28908@midway.uchicago.edu>
- Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 04:07:00 GMT
- Lines: 21
-
- In article <1993Jan5.043207.28908@midway.uchicago.edu> soh3@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
- >I am not too sure, but this time I did not find any such warning written
- >any where in the beta. In fact, in the README file, there is a bullet
- >point saying: "If you installed OS/2 2.1 beta on a computer that had OS/2
- >2.0 preinstalled: ...." Judging from this, 2.1 beta do not seem to mind
- >how you install it.
- >I installed the beta on top of 2.0 GA + SPG, and found that
- >the beta even went so far as to migrate my config.sys and preserved
- >all the EA's. So when I boot up with 2.1 beta, I had exactly the same
- >WPS as before.
-
- I've found the same thing, generally. However, I would still
- recommend a reformat if you have some odd customization. The OS/2 2.1
- beta seems much better at anticipating existing system configurations,
- but there are still a couple kinks that they need to work out.
-
- --
- Timothy F. Sipples | Read the OS/2 FAQ List 2.0h, available from
- sip1@ellis.uchicago.edu | 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, in /pub/os2/all/info
- Dept. of Econ., Univ. | /faq, or from LISTSERV@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP")
- of Chicago, 60637 | [Read the List, THEN post to ONE OS/2 newsgroup.]
-