Correction: The word should be "Can"; a goiter is a lay name for a thyroid
tumor; and Darryl spells his last name Gorter as in:
Diffences between Upgrading versus Repair
Darrell Gorter [MSFT] details the differences between Upgrading versus
Repairing Windows XP.
It would be preferable to do an upgrade from inside the OS rather than
a repair if possible. If the evaluation period has not expired, then just
insert the cd and let setup run, tell it to do an upgrade.
Setup does a refresh of the OS files, so OS files are overwritten with
the files from setup. This would include any OS updates that have been
installed on the system. Running setup presumes to go to a known good state
with known OS files, so setup does not do version checking. Most settings
should be preserved, installed applications and drivers should be preserved.
So if you do a repair rather than an upgrade, here are some
differences that may take place:
1) you may need to use F6 to install mass storage drivers if your
system needs them. ( upgrade uses the installed drivers)
2) Drive lettering is re-enumerated during setup, so there is
potential that some of your drive letters could change. Since you boot from
the CD to start setup, the drives have to be enumerated before you can get
into setup.
3) netcard setting may have to reconfigured if they are not default
settings. Netcards are redetected so some of the settings may not be moved
over.
4) Hal is redected rather than migrated.
Darrell Gorter[MSFT]
CH
Chad Harris said:
It makes plenty of sense when it dawns on you that under Sinofsky, quality
will not be very important. He figures they cna slap the MSFT logo on it
and the suckers will buy anything. I'm trying to inform some of the
suckers as to what I see when I see it. I look forward to your review on
RC1 aka 5487.0 or whatever decimal point gets slapped on it very soon.
Everyone working on vista largely hides and they hide their bug fix. Why
do you think Darryl Goiter [MSFT] from the Vista setup team rarely ever
posts in here? Notice how many cheerleaders praise anything MSFT does
anyway.
CH
Bernie said:
As an update to what I said about builds and broken functionality I would
add that an RC build is not the same as an interim build. When you slap
RC in front of it you are in effect saying, "Hey guys this is it. Unless
you find anything seriously wrong with this we are going to release it."
Everyone working on Vista would know that is what is meant by RC and so
would either; get their stuff right, remove that stuff without making it
look broken, or delay the release of an RC. Otherwise what is the point
in calling it an RC?
The only excuse I can think of is that releasing an RC might keep the
less technically informed "stakeholders" happy that you are still on
track for your final release date. But that doesn't make sense either
because the moment you release it the whole world will be informed by the
more knowledgable that it aint what it's meant to be.