On 3/10/06, Timothy Murphy <tim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Craig White wrote: > > > One fact is never > > going to change though...a 'clean' install is going to be entirely more > > predictable than an upgraded installation. > > How can you be so dogmatic? > The fact is, a "clean install" is going to fail completely on some machines, > so unless you call that "predictable" > I don't see how your statement can be true. > His statement is true. A clean install is entirely "more predictable" than an upgrade. With a clean install the installer doesn't have to deal with all the possible permutations it could face during an upgrade. He didn't state it was more successful, or better, or anything else other than "more predictable". I've never written an installer, but I can't see that being anything but true.
