Activation Limbo

[Phil McCracken]

Responses in line....

And in kind...

You don't say what you used to format the drive--you could have used
your XP CD.

I used Partition Magic. From Dos/Floppy. I believed PM gave me more
control over the multi-partitioning and advance diagnostics that PM allows.

Why were you using FDISK and not the XP CD?

After partitioning, my first step required me to install DOS. It must
go in first. I had my floppy ready to go---it did not "see" anything
but a single unformatted partition. As did subsequent utilities with
direct disk access.

Which you wouldn't have to do if you had used the XP CD to format and
partition the drive.

Again, XP was a secondary phase. I did not consider using XP, it was
not part of my migration progression--- until I had dealt with phase
one, the FAT dos partition.

The activation process gives you the opportunity to activate by
telephone. Another blunder on your part, not understanding that XP must
be activated, and not following the activation instructions.

Upon completion of install, I believe I was given two choice on the
screen? Activate via the Internet or do it later.

As per my manual? It treats the issue in retrospect. That is, following
it as a guide, it is an afterthought:

"During set-up I *was* [my emphasis] prompted to "activate" [not my
quotes]....

Again, I will probably now read the multiple pages of a EULA that would
disclose a procedure that I have never heard of nor is not by any
stretch commoon practice---

Given that, I would suspect most people do not "Activate" then. Further,
I had barely begun my effort. I merely wanted XP "in" so I could use it
to migrate my info from the other box. I hoped that W2k would migrate,
so I didn't choose to clean install it first. Again, XP as a minor tool
in the process and the likely primary OS. It was a stopgap to allow the
me to proceed. I didn't wish to spend any more time than necessary with
it. Given the above, why should I stop the process when there was no
evidence doing so would do anything but slow what was going to be an
intense migration of over 20gig of data and an OS that would be my primary.

XP includes a Files and Settings Transfer wizard which is described in
the documentation. Another blunder.

I used it. It didn't have a chance at configuring W2k to face the
complexities of the new box. I knew going in that it was not likely W2k
would escape a clean install.

You expected to be able to "migrate" one OS *into* another? What?

No. I expected (hoped) to migrate W2k as a stand alone OS. I would be
my primary OS. Where did I indicate W2k would migrate *into* XP. Don't
read between the lines. Of course you haven't followed this or you not
have missed the distinction.

At this point you had probably screwed up your XP installation to the
point where a simple repair install wasn't possible.

Hmpf. That should have been my choice. Or, as per the repair in W2k, I
would have found out if it was viable rather than the OS not
distinguishing between *repair" and install.

While your claim may be correct? We won't know. Repair---as most would
define it---is not an option. It exists as a choice in name only.

Agree completely with the first four words of the sentence.

Well, your true character is finally showing. When you run out of facts,
assult your opponent.

Again, it was so screwed up at this point that a simple repair install
wasn't possible. After "migrating" elements of 2k how would the XP
install routine have any way of knowing what you were trying to do? If
you wanted XP at this point, a clean install was *necessary*.

Wrong again. XP is mearly too limited to perform such a task. The only
"damage" done by loading the command console was to the boot files.
Easily fixed by W2k. Are you familiar with the degree of repair offered
in W2k. The choices, levels? No, only bad engineering/progamming
prevents XP from preforming such a minor repair.

You clearly have little experience with the ability to W2k to handle
much more complicate repair routines. Again, why that was neglected in
XP (which was released after W2k) isn't rational.

Not surprised that you needed to repair your 2k installation "countless
times".

I'll let that pass. You don't have a clue what I've done in the 4 1/2
years that I've had W2k. However, with little evidence of W2k experience
on your part? You would probably consider many tasks ask beyond the
realm of XP. Again, repair in W2k is a breeze. It is repair, not install.

For a procedure that would have taken a few hours at most if not for
your own blunders.

No, the blunders took little time to fix---they were simply avoidable
with a more robust OS.

It was a methodical process and I didn't work 24/7.

If there's no prompt to activate, why worry? Of course you don't mention
if your XP CD is OEM or retail. If the former, it could be
preactivated, meaning it is "bios locked" and won't install on another
PC, which precludes the need for activation. This doesn't explain, of
course, the initial activation prompt, but nonetheless if it doesn't
prompt you to activate, it means it's activated already.

Yep, you have the same questions and lack of answers I did. And that's
why I'm here. I did mention the manufacturer provided me with a disk.
More than once. It was a condition of purchase knowing I would have to
install after DOS. You're tiresome...

But you are correct---I was seeking an explanation that, um, you don't
have. I was just laying out the facts. Sorry that they don't fit your
perfect world. To bad you didn't start out admitting that this was an
anomoly instead of assigning blame.

How can you be certain of anything at this point?

Oh, I can see that you are way behind in this thread...

Don't know.

Sure you don't want to blame me? Seems that's the ususal course when you
don't know?

Could be, I suppose, that the fact that 2K components were installed had
*everything* screwed up.

Yeah, blame W2k. Me, W2k---how about terrorists? Man, you have a short
list of answers.

Again, not too surprising.

Were you a fat kid who got beat up all the time. Do you feel secure now
that Usenet allows you to lash out?

No, in fact, the need to activate is *less* likely with an OEM install.

There you go with your facts. I'm here 'cause your facts are
contradicted by empirical evidence.

You're asking to much. You obviously screwed things up *beyond* repair.

Oh you are behind. It's all fixed.

I'll bet you do.

And more since you read this outdated post.

If you want anything other than a standard OEM installation, and it's
expected to be a condition of the sale, did you get it in writing? Was
that fact documented on the invoice you received with the computer? Did
you read the warranty *before* the purchase?

You forgot fingerprints, DNA and a criminal background check.

This is a standard caveat with OEM systems. The OEM will support only
their factory installation. This is to protect them from blundering oafs
like you who think they should be able to screw everything up and have
an underachieving support person in India get them out of it.

Oh yeah. Reformatting a HD had cause many a triving OEM to bite the
dust. In fact, a small FAT partition is probably the most dangerous
thing one can do to a computer.

Have you the courage to boot out of safe mode? It's a wonderful
world---albeit full of risks you cannot contemplate taking...Then again,
you're already baffled at things that I found silly, needless and wrong.

If your computer is working now, and doing what you want it to do, be
happy. If it's not nagging you to activate, don't worry about it. Leave
well enough alone.

Get a better newsserver or learn how to follow a thread. Did you hear
Franco died?

This issue is so far in the past you're gonna really feel stupid when
you wake up and find out what day it is.

Jeez, I love when I run into adults who confirm my suspicion of how
companies can make a jillion bucks and have a lousey product.

Get yourself into a focus group...you are Exhibit A for a market waiting
to be exploited.

By the way, it really is important to follow a thread --- it won't make
you appear less stupid, but it will save me time answering question that
needn't be asked.

Oh, I forgot to say **** off.

**** off!

Oh my. You understand, of course, that your original post is a little
south of coherent, don't you? You didn't follow reasonable procedure in
migrating data and/or your OS to a new HD. You tried to install XP in a
highly and unnecessarily precarious way. You were totally ignorant of
the potential need to activate XP, which was documented on the package
it came in, and despite your claims to the contrary, is one of the most
well-known and controversial anti-piracy strategies in computerdom. You
missed completely the option to activate by phone (it's there). You
apparently still believe that the procedure for performing a repair
installation, or what happens when you do, is different in XP than in 2K
(it's not). You are still (apparently) totally unaware that everything
you wanted to do was possible using the XP CD, or some combination of
Partition Magic and the XP CD. I am far from being a big fan of
Microsoft, but in this case I have to give the devil his due--you made
this much harder than it needed to be by not having an intelligent plan
to begin with. What you did is the very definition of blundering.

 

[Michael]

Responses in line....

And in kind...

Michael wrote:

You may know part of my story...I wrote Microsoft today and am
awaiting word...

I purchaced a new computer about two weeks ago. (It came with XP PRO
installed,)

This is very complicated...bear with me

My goal (old PC had died)... I needed to move the data over from two
small drives to the new large drive. (I did receive the full install
XP Pro CD)

Further, I wanted to format a small partition and (to boot with DOS)
repartition the new drive.

Well, the new drive had a single partition (NTFS) nearly 40 gig. It
also had a small "utility" partition" 47 meg.

So, I was forced to reformat (wipe out XP PRO?) the drive----


You don't say what you used to format the drive--you could have used
your XP CD.

I used Partition Magic. From Dos/Floppy. I believed PM gave me more
control over the multi-partitioning and advance diagnostics that PM
allows.

But that did not remove the small utility partition!---(or so I found
out after reformatting and creating new partitions...)

FDISK only "saw" a single, unformatted drive after all that effort.


Why were you using FDISK and not the XP CD?

After partitioning, my first step required me to install DOS. It must
go in first. I had my floppy ready to go---it did not "see" anything
but a single unformatted partition. As did subsequent utilities with
direct disk access.

I had to delete the Master Boot Record and reformat the drive...again.


Which you wouldn't have to do if you had used the XP CD to format and
partition the drive.

Again, XP was a secondary phase. I did not consider using XP, it was
not part of my migration progression--- until I had dealt with phase
one, the FAT dos partition.

So, I re-install XP Pro from the CD. Of course it prompted me to
"Activate" it.

Not only did I not know what that meant (then, I thought it meant
"register")...the computer was not, and still does not have Internet
access. (I just skipped it and finished install)


The activation process gives you the opportunity to activate by
telephone. Another blunder on your part, not understanding that XP must
be activated, and not following the activation instructions.

Upon completion of install, I believe I was given two choice on the
screen? Activate via the Internet or do it later.

As per my manual? It treats the issue in retrospect. That is,
following it as a guide, it is an afterthought:

"During set-up I *was* [my emphasis] prompted to "activate" [not my
quotes]....

Again, I will probably now read the multiple pages of a EULA that
would disclose a procedure that I have never heard of nor is not by
any stretch commoon practice---

Given that, I would suspect most people do not "Activate" then.
Further, I had barely begun my effort. I merely wanted XP "in" so I
could use it to migrate my info from the other box. I hoped that W2k
would migrate, so I didn't choose to clean install it first. Again,
XP as a minor tool in the process and the likely primary OS. It was a
stopgap to allow the me to proceed. I didn't wish to spend any more
time than necessary with it. Given the above, why should I stop the
process when there was no evidence doing so would do anything but slow
what was going to be an intense migration of over 20gig of data and an
OS that would be my primary.

Well, I found out what activation meant----I was warned for two more
days.

(I was still in the process of migrationg data from my old
machine....I wanted to keep my "old" version of Windows 2000) I
figured I'd get to "activating" it when my project was complete


XP includes a Files and Settings Transfer wizard which is described in
the documentation. Another blunder.

I used it. It didn't have a chance at configuring W2k to face the
complexities of the new box. I knew going in that it was not likely
W2k would escape a clean install.

Well, Windows 2000 wouldn't "migrate". I had to do a clean install.
(Yeah, I was warned)


You expected to be able to "migrate" one OS *into* another? What?

No. I expected (hoped) to migrate W2k as a stand alone OS. I would be
my primary OS. Where did I indicate W2k would migrate *into* XP.
Don't read between the lines. Of course you haven't followed this or
you not have missed the distinction.

And..., since I did that after the install of XP PRO?

Yep, I had to re-install XP PRO again! (Actually I booted from the XP
CD and chose Repair----It went through the reinstall process anyway?!)


At this point you had probably screwed up your XP installation to the
point where a simple repair install wasn't possible.

Hmpf. That should have been my choice. Or, as per the repair in W2k, I
would have found out if it was viable rather than the OS not
distinguishing between *repair" and install.

While your claim may be correct? We won't know. Repair---as most
would define it---is not an option. It exists as a choice in name only.

I again was stupid a couple of days later----after installing the
command console in Windows 2000? (I didn't know the XP cmdcons would
work for both)


Agree completely with the first four words of the sentence.

Well, your true character is finally showing. When you run out of
facts, assult your opponent.

Well, XP PRO wouldn't boot---so when I ran "repair"? Yep, it went
into a new install phase. Um, I believe I know the difference between
setup and repair---I've run W2k since its release)


Again, it was so screwed up at this point that a simple repair install
wasn't possible. After "migrating" elements of 2k how would the XP
install routine have any way of knowing what you were trying to do? If
you wanted XP at this point, a clean install was *necessary*.

Wrong again. XP is mearly too limited to perform such a task. The only
"damage" done by loading the command console was to the boot files.
Easily fixed by W2k. Are you familiar with the degree of repair
offered in W2k. The choices, levels? No, only bad
engineering/progamming prevents XP from preforming such a minor repair.

You clearly have little experience with the ability to W2k to handle
much more complicate repair routines. Again, why that was neglected in
XP (which was released after W2k) isn't rational.

An aside? That is odd---In Windows 2000, I have had to use "repair" (
"choose "R"?) countless times and it never started an install from
scratch...


Not surprised that you needed to repair your 2k installation "countless
times".

I'll let that pass. You don't have a clue what I've done in the 4 1/2
years that I've had W2k. However, with little evidence of W2k
experience on your part? You would probably consider many tasks ask
beyond the realm of XP. Again, repair in W2k is a breeze. It is
repair, not install.

All is well now. I have my small DOS partition, I have a reformatted
drive and can boot to XP Pro and Windows 2000. Whew! What a week.


For a procedure that would have taken a few hours at most if not for
your own blunders.

No, the blunders took little time to fix---they were simply avoidable
with a more robust OS.

It was a methodical process and I didn't work 24/7.

However, after the repair/re-install of XP PRO (following the Windows
2000 install)---I have received no warning to activate!


If there's no prompt to activate, why worry? Of course you don't mention
if your XP CD is OEM or retail. If the former, it could be
preactivated, meaning it is "bios locked" and won't install on another
PC, which precludes the need for activation. This doesn't explain, of
course, the initial activation prompt, but nonetheless if it doesn't
prompt you to activate, it means it's activated already.

Yep, you have the same questions and lack of answers I did. And that's
why I'm here. I did mention the manufacturer provided me with a disk.
More than once. It was a condition of purchase knowing I would have to
install after DOS. You're tiresome...

But you are correct---I was seeking an explanation that, um, you don't
have. I was just laying out the facts. Sorry that they don't fit your
perfect world. To bad you didn't start out admitting that this was an
anomoly instead of assigning blame.

Further, I went to Programs/Accessories/Systems Tools---and there is
no opportunity to activate (per the MS website). I will still have to
do it by phone as the machine is not and probably won't be connected
to the Internet for some time...but as of now---I get no warning and
see no means to activate.

I am certain it is not activated. I read in a Microsoft newsgroup to
run the program "jellybean". All the checkboxes are greyed out and it
tell me so.


How can you be certain of anything at this point?

Oh, I can see that you are way behind in this thread...

So, why was I "warned" after the first install and even given a daily
warning on days 29 & 28 to activate? ---


Don't know.

Sure you don't want to blame me? Seems that's the ususal course when
you don't know?

(Before the second and third re-installs?)

Again, no warning after the second install (after installing Windows
2000) or the third install after installing the Windows 2000 command
console?


Could be, I suppose, that the fact that 2K components were installed had
*everything* screwed up.

Yeah, blame W2k. Me, W2k---how about terrorists? Man, you have a
short list of answers.

I have no idea how much time I have left, how I'll activate it and
while it appears I do have to (or at least I did for three
days...)---Why isn't there any warning of how much time I have left or
the option there to "do it"? (or a means to do it?)



I would probably prefer to do it over the Internet---punching in 50
numbers is not my strongest suit...I never get the 25 numbers in from
the cd key under two or three tries...


Again, not too surprising.

Were you a fat kid who got beat up all the time. Do you feel secure
now that Usenet allows you to lash out?

Seriously, this seems very odd indeed!

I understand that reformatting the drive and reinstalling
might/would/should require Activation on an OEM install----but I don't
understand why that option (warning---means to do it in the System
utils) is no longer there after the 2nd and 3rd re-installs?


No, in fact, the need to activate is *less* likely with an OEM

install.

There you go with your facts. I'm here 'cause your facts are
contradicted by empirical evidence.

So, can you explain this--?

Also, since I do have access to the Internet with another computer
(Duh, I'm using one now!), can I use this one some how (I doubt it)
instead of the phone?

Sorry for the long story...

But, (I do wish "repair" in XP PR didn't go to a full install)....

No, I didn't lose my applications, but I did lose all configuration
and settings. In Windows 2000, repair means repair...It only fixed
what was wrong---it was not an install. XP just started install on
it's own, and said it would take x minutes...


You're asking to much. You obviously screwed things up *beyond*

repair.

Oh you are behind. It's all fixed.

So, it is obvious I'll need to activate--- I don't know how much time
I have left?

Oh, please don't refer me to the manufacturer---we have some
outstanding issues.


I'll bet you do.

And more since you read this outdated post.

Before I purchased, they knew my intention to have a Fat partition (I
knew I'd have to reinstall after I sysed DOS and wanted to make sure I
got a full CD)


If you want anything other than a standard OEM installation, and it's
expected to be a condition of the sale, did you get it in writing? Was
that fact documented on the invoice you received with the computer? Did
you read the warranty *before* the purchase?

You forgot fingerprints, DNA and a criminal background check.

----After the job was done, or after they made the sale?

They are of no help with anything...After I told them I reformated the
drive for DOS---they told my they wouldn't support me...So, I'm on my
own and I think time is running out...


This is a standard caveat with OEM systems. The OEM will support only
their factory installation. This is to protect them from blundering oafs
like you who think they should be able to screw everything up and have
an underachieving support person in India get them out of it.

Oh yeah. Reformatting a HD had cause many a triving OEM to bite the
dust. In fact, a small FAT partition is probably the most dangerous
thing one can do to a computer.

Have you the courage to boot out of safe mode? It's a wonderful
world---albeit full of risks you cannot contemplate taking...Then
again, you're already baffled at things that I found silly, needless
and wrong.

Michael

If your computer is working now, and doing what you want it to do, be
happy. If it's not nagging you to activate, don't worry about it. Leave
well enough alone.

Get a better newsserver or learn how to follow a thread. Did you hear
Franco died?

This issue is so far in the past you're gonna really feel stupid when
you wake up and find out what day it is.

Jeez, I love when I run into adults who confirm my suspicion of how
companies can make a jillion bucks and have a lousey product.

Get yourself into a focus group...you are Exhibit A for a market
waiting to be exploited.

By the way, it really is important to follow a thread --- it won't
make you appear less stupid, but it will save me time answering
question that needn't be asked.

Oh, I forgot to say **** off.

**** off!

Oh my. You understand, of course, that your original post is a little
south of coherent, don't you? You didn't follow reasonable procedure in
migrating data and/or your OS to a new HD. You tried to install XP in a
highly and unnecessarily precarious way.

And there are how many ways to install XP? Given that one has a blank
HD, except for a Fat partition and two primary partitions. I inserted
the CD and followed the choices available. If there were multiple
options, they didn't appear on my screen. It was enter or escape.

You were totally ignorant of

the potential need to activate XP, which was documented on the package
it came in, and despite your claims to the contrary, is one of the most
well-known and controversial anti-piracy strategies in computerdom. You
missed completely the option to activate by phone (it's there).

Yeah, I was ignorant--but why? I'm not stupid. My package consisted of
a CD and a manual that was smaller than the CDR book.

Yep, I was in the final phase of install---I could chose to activate or
finalize the install.

What is it about "I only required XP as a means transfer data from my
old system" that you don't get?

Skipping activation, which seemed not only unnecessary at that
point---should not have had any impact on any future event(s). If it is
required then,(you do not suggest that?) at that point, there is a clear
lacking of the ramifications of skipping it, then.

You chose an interesting grammitical product: "well-known and
controversial".
I would conclude that any procedure that is both well known and
controversial might suffer the worst of both worlds? I might prefer an
OS which is well known as popular---is or unknown and flawed any better?
I can imagine your marketing campaign for XP:

"Well Known and Controversial"

Yeah, they'll be flying off the shelves. Begging the question: Why is it
well known---> Is the word out?

You

apparently still believe that the procedure for performing a repair
installation, or what happens when you do, is different in XP than in 2K
(it's not).

Cite. I don't believe, I know.

We'll meet here in 24 hours. I'll have the repair lowdown for W2k, you
come with the same for XP. We'll let the reader(s) judge the difference.

I shall try and be here before noon CST. Your dare, I'm ready. (MS will
be my primary source supported by empirical evidence)




You are still (apparently) totally unaware that everything

you wanted to do was possible using the XP CD, or some combination of
Partition Magic and the XP CD.

Better clue MS into your vast knowledge. They hand off much heavy
lifting to third party disk utilities. Do you need a list of what XP/W2k
cannot do? Not from me, but from multiple MS documents.

But then you hedge---leave an escape route. No, you bail.

One might sense your choice of the word "combination" requires a
why/when/where? No, I tend to refrain using "everything" in the same
sentence with "or some combinition". Remember, I blunder, but I'm not
stupid?

One can survive a failure inflight---with a combination of an ejection
seat and/or parrachute. One could survive such an incident---but *not*
without the combination. My effort required the combination. Thanks for
the endorsement.

I am far from being a big fan of

Microsoft, but in this case I have to give the devil his due--you made
this much harder than it needed to be by not having an intelligent plan
to begin with. What you did is the very definition of blundering.

I don't care if you're a fan or not---though one may conclude your
defense suggests otherwise. (Fan being useless as concerns the utility
of an Operating System.)

I've failed to attach any emotional bond with any application---it is a
tool, not a person. If it performs well, if I am able to rely upon it?
It earns my trust.

Odd that in 20 years of intense use of hundreds of applications, I would
suddenly, in two weeks I would become a blunderer.

Check out your last post. You fail to account for the very roadblocks
that brought me to this group for answers. Did I blunder or did the OS
fail? I would feel more secure and more responsible had *you* not failed
to account for said OS failures to comply with predicted procedures.

You had answers for everything except my questions. I was to blame,
except when you couldn't account for why the OS glitched---which is why
I wrote.

See ya tomorrow, before noon?

I'm looking forward to finding out how XP can perform the same feats of
W2k. It will bring a sense of relief. Thanks ahead of time for the
help---but I will have a formidable list of tasks for XP to match.

Of course, if you have the stuff, the KB will be due for a rewrite. Or,
W2k is due for the graveyard.

I have no dog in this fight, I own both, both are up and running---yes,
one has a four year track record but it was a replacemnt then. So, let
the best OS win?

We may wish to invite an W2k group to this competition? I would be
curious to hear their defense of W2k V XP---this is your home turf.

I'm off to bed---won't take but a few minutes to prepare my case.

Again, I look forward seeing how XP can replace W2k. I like the jazzy
folders!

 

[Michael]

Youin 2K
(it's not).

I hope you're correct, Phil. As I said yesterday---I would return with
a rundown of the repair options in W2k.

It is simple. An W2k user may believe XP will offer the same. That is,
after booting to the CD (or in W2k using 4 floppies as an alternative)
one sees various files loading.

In both (this is detailed below) one is give a choice to to repair.

As I stated yesterday, with XP, if one chooses repair one is sent
(without warning or recourse to confirm) to the reinstall of the OS.

However---this article begins at that same point with W2k. That is, one
has two choices *even* after they've chosen repair in W2k. (and
multiple options after that)

[Not only is one not "sent" into a re-install phase---they are give a a
choice of Manual or Fast Repair, with subroutines that evolve after that---
Check it out and I'll return at the end of the article with some comments.

I could (and will, if you wish) providd other documents the contrast W2k
and XP---I believe we were limiting the discussion to repair? See you
at the bottom of the page-->




KB 238358
Differences Between Manual and Fast Repair in Windows
View products that this article applies to.
This article was previously published under Q238359
SUMMARY
Windows includes two repair choices: Manual Repair or Fast Repair.

To see these choices, boot from the Windows installation media, press R
to repair, and then press R to use the Emergency Repair process. When
you do this, you see the following options:

* Manual Repair: To choose from a list of repair options, press M.
* Fast Repair: To perform all repair options, press F.

The two repair choices cause the Repair process to perform different tasks.
MORE INFORMATION
IMPORTANT: Please do not perform a manual or fast repair on a domain
controller without specific knowledge of how to back up the Active
directory database. If you do these options on a Windows 2000 Server
domain controller you run the risk of overwriting the Active directory
database at \WINNT\NTDS\ntds.dit.

The Ntds.dit file contains your Active Directory,including user accounts.
Manual Repair
The Manual Repair option provides the following choices:

[X] Inspect startup environment
[X] Verify Windows system files
[X] Inspect Boot Sector
Continue <perform selected tasks>


Inspect Startup Environment
This option checks the ARC path in the boot.ini file for a path to the
Windows boot partition and %SystemRoot% folder. It does this by using
the Setup.log file on the Emergency Repair disk by reading the following
values:

[Paths]
TargetDirectory = "\WINNT"
TargetDevice = "\Device\Harddisk1\Partition1"
SystemPartitionDirectory = "\"
SystemPartition = "\Device\Harddisk1\Partition1"
If the Boot.ini file is missing, a new one is created with a valid ARC
path. If the Boot.ini file is present, the ARC path is checked and
updated if needed.
Verify Windows System Files
This selection verifies that each file in the Windows system/boot
partition is good and matches the files that were originally installed.
This includes the Ntldr, Ntdetect.com, Arcsetup.exe, and Arcldr.exe
files that are used for booting various computers. The optional
Ntbootdd.sys file is never checked. Repair performs this check by using
the Setup.log file to compare cyclical redundancy check (CRC) values for
each file. If files are missing or corrupted, you are prompted to
replace or skip the file. If you choose to replace the file, you need
the Windows installation CD-ROM or an OEM driver disk that contains the
correct file(s).
Inspect Boot Sector
This option repairs the active system partition boot sector and
reinstalls the boot loader functionality. If the partition uses the FAT
or FAT32 file system and contains a non-Windows boot sector, this repair
option also creates a new Bootsect.dos file to be used to dual-boot
MS-DOS, Microsoft Windows 95, or Microsoft Windows 98 if these operating
systems were previously available to be booted. If you also select the
Inspect Startup Environment option and a new Bootsect.dos file is
created, Repair adds the following entry to the Boot.ini file:

C:\ = "Microsoft Windows"
Note that the Manual Repair option does not give you a choice to repair
the Windows registry files.
Fast Repair
The Fast Repair option performs all the repairs as the Manual Repair
option, but you are not prompted for choices. Additionally the Fast
Repair option tries to load each Windows registry file (SAM, SECURITY,
SYSTEM, and SOFTWARE). If a registry file is damaged or cannot be
loaded, Repair copies the missing or corrupted registry file from the
SystemRoot\Repair folder to the SystemRoot\System32\Config folder.

Because the Fast Repair option can replace registry files with those
from the SystemRoot\Repair folder, it may revert parts of your operating
system configuration back to the time when Windows was first installed.
If this occurs, you need to restore your last "system state" backup or
manually copy a more recent version of the registry files from the
SystemRoot\Repair\Regback folder to the SystemRoot\System32\Config
folder by using Recovery Console. The files that are located in the
Regback folder are from the last time you created an Emergency Repair
Disk and choose the option to also back up the registry files to the
repair folder.
General Information
Both the Manual Repair and Fast Repair options start by performing a
system/boot partition file system check. If file system problems are
detected and corrected during this portion of the Repair process, you
may need to restart your computer and start another Repair process
before the actual repair operations take place.

Neither of the repair options replaces the SystemRoot\System32\Config.nt
or Autoexec.nt files. Although these files are located on the Emergency
Repair Disk, they are not checked or replaced during any Repair operations.
------------------------

I'm back. I was probably in the grips of hyperbole yesterday when I
claimed I've run repair "countless" times in W2k. On the other hand, I
estimate I have nearly 15,000 hours behind W2k. I'll amend my claim and
say I've used repair around a dozen times.

I've found it to be harmless (no fear of going into a new install mode!)
and below area few instances were it is handy.

1. Any time the OS is relocated to a new environment. That is, if a
migration of W2k offer new drivers--hardware abstraction layer, Repair
will in the scanning process detect the differences and install the
necessary files so W2k will boot in the new environment. (not changes in
the config of the OS)

2. Adding an new OS. Usually installing an earlier Windows product or
other OS will only affect the boot files---thus, one can rely on the
recover console as in XP.

However, as the article suggests---both Fast and Manual Repair automate
the process and I've found that even after using the various options
available in the console---repair is able to detect changes that were
not fixed via the console.

3. Disaster Recovery. No this is not documented but I have found W2k to
be resiliant beyond their claims.

For example: Last week I simply backed up and restored W2k to the new
HD. I the past, repair was able to detect the install even though it was
not ruly installed (it was restored or copied). Thus, after a system or
disk failure one is often left with one's data (and OS) but no way to
activate it. (Essentially it is secure yet not of use)

By booting from a CD (or the floppies), and in conjunction with a
current ERD (which will access the most recent registry backup which
occurs when one makes an Emergency Repair Disk) the repair process goes
through a lengthy process of comparing "what it has" against "what it
needs" --- I refer to it as an install that only replaces that which
doesn't affect the user's configuration.

It is not rapid and may take even longer than a clean install. Again, it
is not simply laying down a new system---it is comparing (my words) what
it "has" versus what it needs.

However---the bonus? Upon completion, even a severely damaged OS or
environment is truly "repaired".

As one who tweaks my OS and has scores of applications---the extra time
required to repair and return the system to it's previous state is not
only a value --- but in the long run, it saves time (by avoiding no only
the reconfig of the OS, and the intall of all the apps---my apps also
are configured) versus a faster clean install.

So, if repair of XP is the same as W2k, I am not aware of it.

No, in my experience the recovery console is not always sufficient. In
fact, I have tended to use the options on the recovery console with
confidence only when I knew that I could target the problem.

There are times when I used Manual or Fast repair in W2k and had little
doubt I was wasting my time. After much much "thinking/working"---the
process ended and voila---a reboot with my system "as it was".

I can cite other more detailed accounts of the repair proceedure in W2k,
but I have been overly verbose already.

Let me conclude it is not my intent to denegrate XP.

Nor will I detail the other advantages W3k offers. And, I will admit
that XP offers features not available in 2k. I like it!

However, my consternation arose because I was offered a choice in XP to
repair. It was a minor problem (accounting for the install of W2k after
XP).

None of the options in the console were sufficient---which surprised me.

I reflexively went to and booted the CD (upon the advise from tech
support), was told to accept the license/F8...and I could "repair" as in
W2k.

No, it did not offer me a choice between Fast or Manual. I was not
overly concerned. However, upon choosing "R", I did not --- had no
reason to expect to revert to a new install.

Some words require a narrow/limited definition. I believe repair is one
such word. While MS does acknowledge (in XP) repair is an install---it
does not offer any warning explanation or option to back out after "R"
is chosen.

It is either a poor choice of words, misleading/deceptive and/or a
double standard that one should be aware of before making that choice.

Since it is not a repair in XP, (it is an install), it should at least
be explained on the screen what will happen next.

However, I believe "repair" would best be left out as an option---

That is, unless "repair" is going to do what it does in W2k, why offer
it? Isn't install a more appropriate title for the operation that one is
choosing?

 

[Michael]

Check out your last post. You fail to account for the very roadblocks
that brought me to this group for answers. Did I blunder or did the OS
fail? I would feel more secure and more responsible had *you* not failed
to account for said OS failures to comply with predicted procedures.

You had answers for everything except my questions. I was to blame,
except when you couldn't account for why the OS glitched---which is why
I wrote.

See ya tomorrow, before noon?

I'm looking forward to finding out how XP can perform the same feats of
W2k. It will bring a sense of relief. Thanks ahead of time for the
help---but I will have a formidable list of tasks for XP to match.

Of course, if you have the stuff, the KB will be due for a rewrite. Or,
W2k is due for the graveyard.

I have no dog in this fight, I own both, both are up and running---yes,
one has a four year track record but it was a replacemnt then. So, let
the best OS win?

We may wish to invite an W2k group to this competition? I would be
curious to hear their defense of W2k V XP---this is your home turf.

I'm off to bed---won't take but a few minutes to prepare my case.

Again, I look forward seeing how XP can replace W2k. I like the jazzy
folders!

A no show, Phil?

 

[Phil McCracken]

A no show, Phil?

I have a life, you know. If you think I was hanging on the edge of my
seat waiting, well, I hope you weren't holding your breath. I will
respond as time permits, or perhaps not at all, trusting that the thread
as it stands will speak for itself.

 

[Michael]

I have a life, you know. If you think I was hanging on the edge of my
seat waiting, well, I hope you weren't holding your breath. I will
respond as time permits, or perhaps not at all, trusting that the thread
as it stands will speak for itself.

Or, you're full of shit?

As for the thread? I didn't see *it* addressing the "repair" topic...it
was you, Phil, who brought it up...I asked you to cite (substantiate)
your claim?

Said Phil: "You apparently still believe that the procedure for
performing a repair installation, or what happens when you do, is
different in XP than in 2K (it's not)."

I differed & explained.

You watched.

The thread did not speak to that, it was up to you.

 

[Michael]

OK. Did you happen to notice that I was referring to a

repair *installation* and not some other type of repair
procedure that you might have done in 2K? In all of the
reading that you claim to have done, did you bother to try
and find out what might be different about XP? Did you
expect that a new NT version would be released and it
would be exactly the same as the previous version? You're
a bleedin' idiot, Mikey, let's face it. And I'm done with
this now.

Well, Phil, the oldest trick on Usenet is to ignore the substance of a
question (or the problem)---provide an answer that doesn't addres the
issue---
Then, when one is called on it, to lash out at the original poster and
accuse the poster of being wrong.

So, first you twisted the words in my original question---(came up with
an answer to a question I did not ask) and now claim I should have done
more reading on a subject that I don't care about?

How could I have been clearer?

Question 1 : When one boots from the CD in XP and choses "R"
(repair)---What happens next?

Question 2 : When one boots from the CD in W2k and choses "R"
(repair)---What happens next?

It really doesn't matter whether you "are done with with this" or not.
You have been no help when you have "been here".

So no, I haven't bothered to do any reading on a subject that is not
relevent to my question.

No, I don't expect a new version to be "exactly the same as the previous
version"...I would hope that any changes in the new version would be for
the better.

Thus far, I haven't been shown (regarding the two, precice questions
above) that XP offers anywhere near the number of options available in W2k.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

There are two opportunities to press 'R'. The second is the one for a
Repair Install.

 

[Michael]

There are two opportunities to press 'R'. The second is the one for a
Repair Install.


W2k.

Ok, but keep going...what does choice 2 *do*? What is *Repair Install*?

Am I correct or not?

Based on my experience.

The first repair choice in both W2k and XP will produce the Recovery
Console. Very nice, and if one knows what is wrong it allows the user
to target a specific problem, manipulate files...well, both OS's allow
for the first option.

But, what happens in choice 2?---what are the choices or levels of
repair available in XP when on elects to bypass the recovery console.

I detailed the routines available in W2k.

I also related my two experiences in XP and quoted from the help section.

Am I correct that W2k allows multiple options after (Manual, Fast)---all
of which *only* repair the system---while the quote I provided from XP
Help (and supported by my experience) makes it very clear: If one
chooses the second repair option in XP it is *repair" in name only?
That is, what takes place is a re-install?

Not only did my entire configuration change after choosing the second
option in XP, (It flat out went to a screen that was no different than
"set-up" and said it was installing XP)---but all system files were
overwritten, (new dates?) and I had to start from scratch.

I had to set-up XP as if it were never installed.

So far, I have yet to hear anyone refute my contention that the second
option in XP (forget about what happens in W2k, you may not know) is
*repair* in name only.

If one has the *full understanding* that the repair will in fact result
in a new install---I suppose that's OK for XP users. Is that obvious?

I contend *repair* has a narrow definition that should not include
re-install. At least not without a prompt that indicates that will
happen upon hitting the Enter key.

Before less serious choices are made, (one is given a
prompt/warning/confirmation before deleting a file)---that's always been
the the case.

Is it to much to expect, upon choosing repair option 2, to be warned
that the system will go into re-install mode?

Does *repair" imply or infer a new setup?

And, regardless---isn't a safeguard, warning, prompt required to confirm
an important (dangerous?) choice?

Fine, XP doesn't have (or so I have not found) the option for
multi-level repair options other than the recovery console.

But, does that disallow the notification that choice 2, is re-install?

Nothing more and nothing less take place--with no way back after one
hits "Enter"?

 

[Wislu Plethora]

-----Original Message-----

There are two opportunities to press 'R'. The second is the one for a
Repair Install.





Ok, but keep going...what does choice 2 *do*? What is *Repair Install*?

Am I correct or not?

Based on my experience.

The first repair choice in both W2k and XP will produce the Recovery
Console. Very nice, and if one knows what is wrong it allows the user
to target a specific problem, manipulate files...well, both OS's allow
for the first option.

But, what happens in choice 2?---what are the choices or levels of
repair available in XP when on elects to bypass the recovery console.

I detailed the routines available in W2k.

I also related my two experiences in XP and quoted from the help section.

Am I correct that W2k allows multiple options after (Manual, Fast)---all
of which *only* repair the system---while the quote I provided from XP
Help (and supported by my experience) makes it very clear: If one
chooses the second repair option in XP it is *repair" in name only?
That is, what takes place is a re-install?

Not only did my entire configuration change after choosing the second
option in XP, (It flat out went to a screen that was no different than
"set-up" and said it was installing XP)---but all system files were
overwritten, (new dates?) and I had to start from scratch.

I had to set-up XP as if it were never installed.

So far, I have yet to hear anyone refute my contention that the second
option in XP (forget about what happens in W2k, you may not know) is
*repair* in name only.

If one has the *full understanding* that the repair will in fact result
in a new install---I suppose that's OK for XP users. Is that obvious?

I contend *repair* has a narrow definition that should not include
re-install. At least not without a prompt that indicates that will
happen upon hitting the Enter key.

Before less serious choices are made, (one is given a
prompt/warning/confirmation before deleting a file)--- that's always been
the the case.

Is it to much to expect, upon choosing repair option 2, to be warned
that the system will go into re-install mode?

Does *repair" imply or infer a new setup?

And, regardless---isn't a safeguard, warning, prompt required to confirm
an important (dangerous?) choice?

Fine, XP doesn't have (or so I have not found) the option for
multi-level repair options other than the recovery console.

But, does that disallow the notification that choice 2, is re-install?

Nothing more and nothing less take place--with no way back after one
hits "Enter"?

Never saw anyone take such apparent pleasure in flogging
a dead horse.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
us;315341&Product=winxp

NEWS FLASH: New Version of Operating System is Different!!

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

Repair install does a new install of the windows system while leaving
everything else in place. It works exactly like an Upgrade install, except
upgrade installs are intended to upgrade from an earlier version of windows
to xp. The repair install upgrades the current version to itself and
performs a repair by replacing windows files with fresh copies from the cd.

 

[Michael]

Never saw anyone take such apparent pleasure in flogging
a dead horse.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
us;315341&Product=winxp

NEWS FLASH: New Version of Operating System is Different!!

Never saw anyone take such apparent pleasure in flogging
a dead horse.

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-
us;315341&Product=winxp

NEWS FLASH: New Version of Operating System is Different!!

Yeah, remember "NEW" Coke??

You're too smart by half. Or maybe 10%?

Get on the same page as Colin --- He seems to understand the difference
between Upgrade Install (that is the link you provided) and Repair Install.

Though, it may be more of a difference without distinctions than Colin
would hope?

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/learnmore/tips/doug92.mspx

The info on "repair" is scant. I love the "repair" routine---read it,
I'll be back with ya at the end.(Skip to Step # 6)

How do you perform a reinstallation of Windows XP, sometimes called a
repair installation?

Configure your computer to start from the CD-ROM drive. For more
information about how to do this, refer to your computer's documentation
or contact your computer manufacturer. Then insert your Windows XP Setup
CD, and restart your computer.

1.When the Press any key to boot from CD message is displayed on your
screen, press a key to start your computer from the Windows XP CD.

2.Press ENTER when you see the message To setup Windows XP now, and then
press ENTER displayed on the Welcome to Setup screen.

3.Do not choose the option to press R to use the Recovery Console.

4.In the Windows XP Licensing Agreement, press F8 to agree to the
license agreement.

5.Make sure that your current installation of Windows XP is selected in
the box, and then press R to repair Windows XP.

6.Follow the instructions on the screen to complete Setup.

Well, that's it ol' buddy.

Steps one through five? They get to to the "r" scren.

See: "then press R to repair Windows XP."

However? There is one more step.

#6? Why, Um---wait!, yes, those are instructions to "complete Setup"---

Repair? Repair? I want repair!

No, Mr. "New Version of Operating System is Different!!"----?

It sure is. If you hit repair?....Leave the building, or sit back and
watch a re-install take place.

Now, while you clearly do not even know about this, or would have
provided the proper link?

Or...

( YOU ARE NOT ANY HELP, STAY OFF USENET! )

Yes, Colin notes a the distinction with little difference (very little
info on it because it is called *reinstall* in XP HELP?).

My experience is that the "new" version of repair is, alas, not as
flexible, not as varied and no, not as good as *older* W2k.

I'm not flogging a dead horse. You refuse to admit you're dead-wrong.
Wave the white flag and say:

"Yes, though XP is newer than W2k, the repair options in W2k were more
comprehensive, allowed greater use control and provided for a targeted
repair that guaranteed fewer changes and thus less loss data".

"There was nothing wrong with "repair" in W2k...it was great. But it
was changed for the worse"

Hubris.

Again, XP is a nice OS...but why even dare compare it to W2k? XP is
newer, not better. Different, not better.

More fans? Not smarter fans.

 

[Wislu Plethora]

-----Original Message-----
Different!!



Yeah, remember "NEW" Coke??

You're too smart by half. Or maybe 10%?

Get on the same page as Colin --- He seems to understand the difference
between Upgrade Install (that is the link you provided) and Repair Install.

Though, it may be more of a difference without distinctions than Colin
would hope?

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/le arnmore/tips/doug92.mspx

The info on "repair" is scant. I love the "repair" routine---read it,
I'll be back with ya at the end.(Skip to Step # 6)

How do you perform a reinstallation of Windows XP, sometimes called a
repair installation?

Configure your computer to start from the CD-ROM drive. For more
information about how to do this, refer to your computer's documentation
or contact your computer manufacturer. Then insert your Windows XP Setup
CD, and restart your computer.

1.When the Press any key to boot from CD message is displayed on your
screen, press a key to start your computer from the Windows XP CD.

2.Press ENTER when you see the message To setup Windows XP now, and then
press ENTER displayed on the Welcome to Setup screen.

3.Do not choose the option to press R to use the Recovery Console.

4.In the Windows XP Licensing Agreement, press F8 to agree to the
license agreement.

5.Make sure that your current installation of Windows XP is selected in
the box, and then press R to repair Windows XP.

6.Follow the instructions on the screen to complete Setup.

Well, that's it ol' buddy.

Steps one through five? They get to to the "r" scren.

See: "then press R to repair Windows XP."

However? There is one more step.

#6? Why, Um---wait!, yes, those are instructions to "complete Setup"---

Repair? Repair? I want repair!

No, Mr. "New Version of Operating System is Different!!"-- --?

It sure is. If you hit repair?....Leave the building, or sit back and
watch a re-install take place.

Now, while you clearly do not even know about this, or would have
provided the proper link?

Or...

( YOU ARE NOT ANY HELP, STAY OFF USENET! )

Yes, Colin notes a the distinction with little difference (very little
info on it because it is called *reinstall* in XP HELP?).

My experience is that the "new" version of repair is, alas, not as
flexible, not as varied and no, not as good as *older* W2k.

I'm not flogging a dead horse. You refuse to admit you're dead-wrong.
Wave the white flag and say:

"Yes, though XP is newer than W2k, the repair options in W2k were more
comprehensive, allowed greater use control and provided for a targeted
repair that guaranteed fewer changes and thus less loss data".

"There was nothing wrong with "repair" in W2k...it was great. But it
was changed for the worse"

Hubris.

Again, XP is a nice OS...but why even dare compare it to W2k? XP is
newer, not better. Different, not better.

More fans? Not smarter fans.

The link I provided is for XP REPAIR install, you dolt.
Colin was differentiating between a REPAIR install and
an UPGRADE install. The two are similar, with the
difference being that the latter is used in upgrading
from one OS version to a newer one. User files and
settings are retained, to the extent possible. The
former is used to REPAIR an existing installation with
the SAME VERSION of the OS. System files are replaced,
but again, user files are left alone. You like Win 2k's
repair procedure more than XP's. Good for you. But you
had no reason to assume that XP's would be the same. You
goofed. Although I was earlier convinced that you could
do no more to solidify your standing as a blithering
oblivious nitwit, you pleasantly surprise me with each
ensuing post. I will gladly extend this thread ad
infinitum just for the amusement provided.

 

[gls858]

the difference


and Repair Install.


distinctions than Colin


routine---read it,


sometimes called a


For more


computer's documentation


Windows XP Setup


displayed on your


Windows XP CD.


XP now, and then


agree to the


is selected in


to "complete Setup"---


sit back and


would have


(very little


alas, not as


W2k were more


for a targeted


great. But it


W2k? XP is



The link I provided is for XP REPAIR install, you dolt.
Colin was differentiating between a REPAIR install and
an UPGRADE install. The two are similar, with the
difference being that the latter is used in upgrading
from one OS version to a newer one. User files and
settings are retained, to the extent possible. The
former is used to REPAIR an existing installation with
the SAME VERSION of the OS. System files are replaced,
but again, user files are left alone. You like Win 2k's
repair procedure more than XP's. Good for you. But you
had no reason to assume that XP's would be the same. You
goofed. Although I was earlier convinced that you could
do no more to solidify your standing as a blithering
oblivious nitwit, you pleasantly surprise me with each
ensuing post. I will gladly extend this thread ad
infinitum just for the amusement provided.

The URL wrapped. OP probably didn't notice.

gls858

 

[Michael]

the difference


and Repair Install.


distinctions than Colin


routine---read it,


sometimes called a


For more


computer's documentation


Windows XP Setup


displayed on your


Windows XP CD.


XP now, and then


agree to the


is selected in


to "complete Setup"---


sit back and


would have


(very little


alas, not as


W2k were more


for a targeted


great. But it


W2k? XP is



The link I provided is for XP REPAIR install, you dolt.
Colin was differentiating between a REPAIR install and
an UPGRADE install. The two are similar, with the
difference being that the latter is used in upgrading
from one OS version to a newer one. User files and
settings are retained, to the extent possible. The
former is used to REPAIR an existing installation with
the SAME VERSION of the OS. System files are replaced,
but again, user files are left alone. You like Win 2k's
repair procedure more than XP's. Good for you. But you
had no reason to assume that XP's would be the same. You
goofed. Although I was earlier convinced that you could
do no more to solidify your standing as a blithering
oblivious nitwit, you pleasantly surprise me with each
ensuing post. I will gladly extend this thread ad
infinitum just for the amusement provided.


W2k were more


for a targeted


great. But it


W2k? XP is



The link I provided is for XP REPAIR install, you dolt.
Colin was differentiating between a REPAIR install and
an UPGRADE install.

You seem to be lacking in a long list of necessary human essentials.

I, will admit my error. Perhaps the title is what mislead me"

"How to perform an in-place upgrade (reinstallation) of Windows XP
Further, thought repair is mentioned...it is far from cogent:

This article describes how to perform an in-place upgrade, or
reinstallation, of Microsoft Windows XP. This is also named a repair
installation. It reinstalls Windows XP to the same folder. You may want
to perform an in-place upgrade if your installation of Windows XP must
be repaired.

So, it "describes how to perform an in-place upgrade, or reinstallation"

But, well, it's also named "repair...".

Now, where I come from, an application (OS or otherwise) often allows
for a repair option.

Or a upgrade.

Or reinstallation.

It is probably an exception rather than the rule for an application to
lump all three proceedures under one operation, sharing three different
titles.





The two are similar, with the

difference being that the latter is used in upgrading
from one OS version to a newer one. User files and
settings are retained, to the extent possible. The
former is used to REPAIR an existing installation with
the SAME VERSION of the OS. System files are replaced,
but again, user files are left alone.

Well, that is not what happened to me, twice, upon choosing "repair"
from the CD at boot. My system was re-installed, I went through the
language, time zone---onto the Network Configuration.

After choosing repair, I do not recall anything but a fresh install
taking place and I did not notice any of my previous setting or
configuration from the previous install being there.

Not once, but twice. I chose repair.

I don't care if you don't believe me. You are so dogmatic your faith
will not allow you to account for what I describe.

If it happened once, fine. I could have been mistaken, not chosen repair
or don't recall the result.

But it happened twice. I believe you understand my claim. So, either
explain it, as I know what happened, or evade it by calling me a liar.

Regardless, I came here for an answer, not to wave a banner.

You like Win 2k's

repair procedure more than XP's. Good for you. But you
had no reason to assume that XP's would be the same.

Well, one may expect evolution to allow for the repair function in one
OS to not be discarded in a subsequent OS.

I had numerous reasons to assume that --- XP in fact borrowed more from
the NT generation than the 9x generation.

No, it *need* not be the same as W2k, but is there any reason an
amazing, varied, targeted--oh, it's a long list-- "repair" path was
discarded?

Yes, I did assume that one of the finest features of W2k would be found
in XP.





You

goofed. Although I was earlier convinced that you could
do no more to solidify your standing as a blithering
oblivious nitwit, you pleasantly surprise me with each
ensuing post. I will gladly extend this thread ad
infinitum just for the amusement provided.

No, I did not goof. I read a confusing document that combines three
different operations under the title of:
How to perform an in-place upgrade (reinstallation) of Windows XP

If you mean goof with XP...no, it came with the box, I still have 2k.

Did I goof with the repair procedure. You will insist I did. I know
what I did---there was one choice--repair---I did it and I believe I
have already told you the result.

Now, you can continue to call what I experienced a repair. My results
suggest it has been given the wrong name.

Or, if I obtained a different result than I shoud have? That must be
explained.

But, I am asking the questions, this is a forum for answers. If you
don't have them, shut the **** up.

If you have them, provide them and do not insult me.

So far, you are reciting what should be----I know what should be, and it
ain't hapnin'

What is it you don't get? Something is wrong. You saying it isn't so?
NO, that does not make it not wrong.

Wrong repair path...I'll deal with that---but, it isn't even working in
the limited fashion you pretend.

So, either explain, admit confusion or shut the **** up.

But you sound like a broken record, or stupid or on someone's payroll.
I came here for answers and you do not have them.

You have a story you've heard or read, or a link or an excuse. You do
not have an answer. You are not able to solve my problem, you can only
quote from the book.

I do no dislike you, I do not know you. But you are not only not helping?

You are an insult to the good name of these newgroups. No information is
better than bad information. So, figure it out, as it is clear you're
in over your head at this point.