Does an XP repair replace the whole registry?

  • Thread starter Thread starter beemer
  • Start date Start date
B

beemer

When carrying out an XP repair installation does it replace the whole
registry with a new one?

regards,

Beemer
 
Not the "whole". In a simple explanation, it only repairs/replaces those
parts relating to the core operating system, not installed 3rd party
applications or user's settings.

The registry is made up of a handfull of files located on the hard drive
which when loaded into the registry are called hives.

"Windows registry information for advanced users"
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/256986
 
No it does not.
However you should read and follow the instructions and links
posted below as it all to easy to end up selecting the wrong option,
mainly the "Recovery Console" is what you DO NOT want to select.

Using your original Windows Setup CD, boot from the CD and follow all the
instructions until you get to the point where Setup finds your current
Windows installation. Just follow the instructions posted at one of the web
sites below, read each of the steps carefully so you understand what you
will be doing step by step before you actually start the repair process.
Windows will keep your previous settings, including applications and device
drivers.

Word of warning: Always backup any important data files just incase
things don't go as expected. Read all three articles mention below
"carefully" and see if a Repair Install meets your needs

See: http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/XPrepairinstall.htm
and: How to perform an in-place upgrade (reinstallation) of Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/315341
Also: Fred Langa:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=189400897

Finally go to Windows Update site and install all the updates as they will
need to be reinstalled.

JS
http://www.pagestart.com
 
CTOS said:
Not the "whole". In a simple explanation, it only repairs/replaces those
parts relating to the core operating system, not installed 3rd party
applications or user's settings.

The registry is made up of a handfull of files located on the hard drive
which when loaded into the registry are called hives.

"Windows registry information for advanced users"
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/256986
Click to expand...
CTOS,

I used a merge to try to install RAID on an existing XP installation. I am
wondering whether a repair or restore is appropriate to remove this?

Beemer
 
JS said:
No it does not.
However you should read and follow the instructions and links
posted below as it all to easy to end up selecting the wrong option,
mainly the "Recovery Console" is what you DO NOT want to select.

Using your original Windows Setup CD, boot from the CD and follow all the
instructions until you get to the point where Setup finds your current
Windows installation. Just follow the instructions posted at one of the
web sites below, read each of the steps carefully so you understand what
you will be doing step by step before you actually start the repair
process.
Windows will keep your previous settings, including applications and
device drivers.

Word of warning: Always backup any important data files just incase
things don't go as expected. Read all three articles mention below
"carefully" and see if a Repair Install meets your needs

See: http://www.michaelstevenstech.com/XPrepairinstall.htm
and: How to perform an in-place upgrade (reinstallation) of Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/315341
Also: Fred Langa:
http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=189400897

Finally go to Windows Update site and install all the updates as they will
need to be reinstalled.

JS
http://www.pagestart.com
Click to expand...
JS,

I have made a SP3 slipstreamed (but untested) disk. Can I use this for a
repair of an XP Sp2+Sp3 installation insted of the "original XP" disk you
mentioned?

regards,

Beemer
 
I would try a system restore point prior to the "merged" changes. If you
installed RAID software, I would uninstall that and see if that will suffice.
 
Yes, it's the best choice.

JS

beemer said:
JS,

I have made a SP3 slipstreamed (but untested) disk. Can I use this for
a repair of an XP Sp2+Sp3 installation insted of the "original XP" disk
you mentioned?

regards,

Beemer
Click to expand...
 
JS said:
JS,

I have made a SP3 slipstreamed (but untested) disk. Can I use this
for a repair of an XP Sp2+Sp3 installation insted of the "original
XP" disk you mentioned?

regards,

Beemer
Click to expand...

You could; and in fact should if it's untested. You may as well find
out now whether it works or not. Very often slipstreams don't work.
 
When carrying out an XP repair installation does it replace the whole
registry with a new one?
Click to expand...


No. I don't like the term "repair installation" at all. It's much more a
repair than any kind of installation.

Why do you ask? What are you trying to accomplish and why?
 
Ken said:
No. I don't like the term "repair installation" at all. It's much more a
repair than any kind of installation.
Click to expand...

Which ever way you cut it, Ken, it is an installation, to repair the
damaged operating system you "reinstall" it. Although the real term is
"In-place upgrade" it seems to me that "repair installation" is an
acceptable or appropriate term that is certainly less confusing for
novice users.

John
 
John John (MVP) said:
Which ever way you cut it, Ken, it is an installation, to repair the
damaged operating system you "reinstall" it. Although the real term is
"In-place upgrade" it seems to me that "repair installation" is an
acceptable or appropriate term that is certainly less confusing for novice
users.
Click to expand...


I'm aware that there are many who disagree with me, but I still think it's
an inappropriate and confusing thing to call it.
 
Ken said:
I'm aware that there are many who disagree with me, but I still think it's
an inappropriate and confusing thing to call it.
Click to expand...

What would you call it?

John
 
Ken said:
As I said, just "Repair."
Click to expand...

There are different ways to "repair" Windows. It seems to me that if
someone has problems that can only be fixed by using the XP CD and
"reinstalling" the operating system simply calling it a "repair" would
be even more confusing! The term "Repair Installation" is by now so
well entrenched and it is understood by almost all but the most novice
of users, it is self explanatory and usually requires little or no
additional instructions. If you simply tell people to "repair" Windows
you will have to elaborate and explain how to perform the "in-place
upgrade". Seems like reinventing the wheel to me but at time we all
have different ideas, it's what makes people interesting and that is
what makes the world a great place!

John
 
There are different ways to "repair" Windows. It seems to me that if
someone has problems that can only be fixed by using the XP CD and
"reinstalling" the operating system simply calling it a "repair" would be
even more confusing! The term "Repair Installation" is by now so well
entrenched and it is understood by almost all but the most novice of
users, it is self explanatory and usually requires little or no additional
instructions. If you simply tell people to "repair" Windows you will have
to elaborate and explain how to perform the "in-place upgrade". Seems
like reinventing the wheel to me but at time we all have different ideas,
it's what makes people interesting and that is what makes the world a
great place!
Click to expand...


Right. We have slight disagreement about a relatively minor point. I
certainly don't want to get involved in a major argument over this.
 
Ken Blake said:
No. I don't like the term "repair installation" at all. It's much more a
repair than any kind of installation.

Why do you ask? What are you trying to accomplish and why?
Click to expand...
Ken,

I had installed XP then SP3 without using F6 to install RAID driver for a
separate RAID pair which would not include the boot drive. Hence I thought
that a "simple" XP repair which I had never done before would be
appropriate. However after reading the ensuing thread I decided to go the
fresh install route. I made an XP Prof + SP£ slipstreamed disk and am still
in the process of getting the RAID 1 installation working.

After completing the slipstreamed installation I do not think I will ever
need do to an XP "repair"

thanks,

Beemer
 
Ken,

I had installed XP then SP3 without using F6 to install RAID driver for a
separate RAID pair which would not include the boot drive. Hence I
thought that a "simple" XP repair which I had never done before would be
appropriate. However after reading the ensuing thread I decided to go the
fresh install route. I made an XP Prof + SP£ slipstreamed disk and am
still in the process of getting the RAID 1 installation working.
Click to expand...


My view is that almost everyone should avoid using RAID1. Except for large
corporations, almost everyone who uses RAID1 thinks of it as a backup
technique, but it's not that at all.

The purpose of RAID1 is redundancy. It's used in situations where it's
critical that the system stay up, and any down time costs them a lot of
money. So RAID1 achieves that by keeping the system running if a drive fails
without having any down time.

Since home users hardly ever need that kind of redundancy, RAID1 is almost
always wrong for them. The reason that RAID1 should not be considered a
backup technique is that it leaves you vulnerable to all kinds of potential
losses of your data: for example, severe power problems, electrical storms,
virus attacks, even theft of the computer. Companies that use RAID1 almost
invariably *also* have a backup procedure in place. Almost all home users
don't need both and should have backup in place, not RAID1. And the backup
should be stored on *external* media, kept separate from the computer.
 
Ken Blake said:
My view is that almost everyone should avoid using RAID1. Except for large
corporations, almost everyone who uses RAID1 thinks of it as a backup
technique, but it's not that at all.

The purpose of RAID1 is redundancy. It's used in situations where it's
critical that the system stay up, and any down time costs them a lot of
money. So RAID1 achieves that by keeping the system running if a drive
fails without having any down time.

Since home users hardly ever need that kind of redundancy, RAID1 is almost
always wrong for them. The reason that RAID1 should not be considered a
backup technique is that it leaves you vulnerable to all kinds of
potential losses of your data: for example, severe power problems,
electrical storms, virus attacks, even theft of the computer. Companies
that use RAID1 almost invariably *also* have a backup procedure in place.
Almost all home users don't need both and should have backup in place, not
RAID1. And the backup should be stored on *external* media, kept separate
from the computer.
Click to expand...
Ken,

I do not disagree with you although now that I have my Intel Raid 1 up and
running I do feel more confident about my data. Yes of course it does not
protect against accidental deletion and corruption but after having had one
drive develop multiple sector errors I know that this will be less of a
problem.

There are many posts about eSATA causing boot problems and even posts about
problems with 1394 drives. Have we all moved too soon from tape drives?

The best solution as I see it is CDRW with father and grandfather disks.
I really should Google for CDRW software solutions.

thanks,

Beemer
 
beemer said:
Ken,

I do not disagree with you although now that I have my Intel Raid 1 up and
running I do feel more confident about my data. Yes of course it does
not protect against accidental deletion and corruption but after having
had one drive develop multiple sector errors I know that this will be less
of a problem.
Click to expand...


OK, your choice of course. I have no real problem with someone using RAID1
*if* he also has a backup procedure in place. If RAID1 is thought of as a
substitute for backup, I think it's a terrible mistake.
There are many posts about eSATA causing boot problems and even posts
about problems with 1394 drives. Have we all moved too soon from tape
drives?
Click to expand...


Not in my book. I think backup to an external hard drive is a much better
alternative.
 
Back
Top