Again, I have to completely disagree. If you're using a high quality salt, which more than likely is the same salt you used to make the batch of water that you're replacing, the differences in chemistry are going to be vanishingly small. In a worse case scenario, you'll have water that's severely depleted in carbonate, calcium, and magnesium if you've got lots of actively growing stony corals in the tank, but if you're doing it right, they shouldn't be depleted to the point where anything in the tank is at risk of damage. In this tank, there's nothing in it that's using anything, so the new water, assuming he's using the same salt, should be darn near exactly the same as the old water.
Doing a 100% water change will simply bring all the levels of all the ions back to exactly where they were when you first mixed your salt and added things to your tank. The bacteria that do all the biological processing in our tanks are, for the most part, aerobic, so briefly exposing the substrates they're on to air isn't going to do anything unless you leave it long enough to dry out. That large reef system I linked to is loaded with fish, if doing a 95% water change really did anything at all to the biological filter, it should have experienced a major ammonia spike every week. Considering how beautiful and healthy it is, that's clearly not the case. Here's a link to another large tank in Australia that gets regular, near 50% water changes:
http://www.masa.asn.au/phpBB3/viewto...f=147&t=234823. It's a slightly different method, and those two Australian tanks are only possible due to their proximity to the ocean (I can't fathom the cost of mixing 200 gallons of high quality salt water every week), but the principle is the same - they rely on massive water changes to bring all the levels back in-line with NSW. If doing a 100% water change damages something in my pico, I should also have expected to see a spike in ammonia after each change, as I still feed those corals meaty foods several times a week. Nothing of the sort happens, nor does it bother any of the bristleworms that have colonized the rock structure, the copious amount of pods, or the stomatella snails that I somehow managed to get in there.
We've gotten in to a weird habit in this hobby of seeing new salt water as toxic or something. Completely mixed new salt water (assuming it's a good salt and has appropriate levels of the right ions - the only kind you should be using in a reef anyway) is the standard to which we are trying to return the water in our tanks to with all the fancy dosing, nutrient export systems, and additives we add. Skipping all that extra work and just replacing the water outright does the exact same thing we're already doing with the dosing, and has been shown in both small and very large systems to not only not be dangerous, but to actually greatly improve the system. Damage to the biological filter is testable - if bacteria die, there will be an ammonia spike. I've never seen one, the other systems that use large water changes don't see them, so from my point of view, saying large water changes are bad because of an undefined threat to something you can't see that has no testable or noticeable outcome either in the chemistry (other than parameters being returned to optimal concentrations) or the macro biology sounds like superstition more than science.
If someone shows me a video under a microscope of an established bed of nitrifying bacteria suddenly expiring when they are taken from water with a dKH of 7 and placed in salinity and temperature matched water water with a dKH of 9, I will eat my words. Aquatic life is far more resilient than we give it credit for.
egads, sorry for the hijack. good luck with the tank move.