Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Activation Limbo

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
September 30, 2004 10:04:04 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

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----

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.

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

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)

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

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

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?!)

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)

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)

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...

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.

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

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.

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

(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?

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...

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?

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...

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.
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)

----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...

Michael

More about : activation limbo

Anonymous
September 30, 2004 10:04:05 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:04:04 GMT, Michael wrote:

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

To start the activation wizard when there's no other obvious way to do so:

Click Start> Run> and type in the following:
%systemroot%\system32\oobe\msoobe.exe /a
Press OK

A screen will appear and it will either tell you that XP is already
activated or it will start the activation wizard and walk you through the
process.

If you end up calling, don't fret entering the numbers/letters. This is
usually done in groups of 5 characters or so and you can repeat each group
until you're positive that you have it right. Then move to the next group
and so on until finished.

--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows XP Shell/User
Anonymous
September 30, 2004 10:04:05 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Read through the information here by Alex Nichol's published to Jim
Eshelman's site http://www.aumha.org/a/wpa.htm

--

Harry Ohrn MS-MVP [Shell/User]
www.webtree.ca/windowsxp


"Michael" <G-2@att.net> wrote in message
news:o UX6d.649973$Gx4.238743@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| 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----
|
| 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.
|
| I had to delete the Master Boot Record and reformat the drive...again.
|
| 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)
|
| 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
|
| Well, Windows 2000 wouldn't "migrate". I had to do a clean install.
| (Yeah, I was warned)
|
| 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?!)
|
| 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)
|
| 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)
|
| 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...
|
| 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.
|
| However, after the repair/re-install of XP PRO (following the Windows
| 2000 install)---I have received no warning to activate!
|
| 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.
|
| So, why was I "warned" after the first install and even given a daily
| warning on days 29 & 28 to activate? ---
|
| (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?
|
| 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...
|
| 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?
|
| 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...
|
| 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.
| 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)
|
| ----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...
|
| Michael
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related resources
October 1, 2004 4:58:11 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On 9/30/2004 1:28 PM, Sharon F wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:04:04 GMT, Michael wrote:
>
>
>>So, it is obvious I'll need to activate--- I don't know how much time I
>>have left?
>
>
> To start the activation wizard when there's no other obvious way to do so:
>
> Click Start> Run> and type in the following:
> %systemroot%\system32\oobe\msoobe.exe /a
> Press OK
>
> A screen will appear and it will either tell you that XP is already
> activated or it will start the activation wizard and walk you through the
> process.
>
> If you end up calling, don't fret entering the numbers/letters. This is
> usually done in groups of 5 characters or so and you can repeat each group
> until you're positive that you have it right. Then move to the next group
> and so on until finished.
>

Thanks for the insight...

I did read the article that Harry referred to. It cast an entire new
light on the terms ownership or purchase. Yes, one does own their
operating system...but depending on what they do to their computer (and
that point system is really wild) they're always tied to MS. I imagine
it will be a bi of a mess in a few years when XP machines start ending
up in the hands of second owners?

I'm all for anti-piracy, but as my case shows---the system seems to have
its glitches. I'm sure (without a reminder in the tray as I don't have?)
many people find themselves with a machine "stuck" and don't know why.

We are so accustomed to "ignoring" the constant gathering of
information---well, do people stop during install to complete the
procedure?

Just a guess, when that EULA comes on? Most people reach for F8
reflexively. What is one's choice? Hire an attorney and see if the
contract is sound? Seriously, what choice does one have at that point
anyway? I'll wager a tiny percent of the public ever reads let alone
does not "agree" with a license.

In this case it's more serious---ignore it and your computer may blink
out in a month (again, my only warning came after the first re-install).
I am very aware, but wouldn't have had a clue what it meant if I didn't
subscribe to Usenet. I've ignored countless "registrations"...it has
never been worth the bother. Plus, as I wasn't online and didn't even
have a phone jack within twenty five feet---what was I going to do?


Further, the help topic in XP is hardly well written. I read it four
times yesterday and couldn't recount it up to a stranger. Oh, I
understand the basics (either you own a legal copy of XP and all will be
ok, or if you don't it won't work after thirty days)---my eyes glazed
over about half-way through. I clicked on it this morning and still
think the language is hobbled.

Of course the OEM manual is worthless. I believe the index is about as
large as the content. It's mostly: Check out help, got to the website
(or a topic is ignored). Wold they go broke by giving me a manual size
of what I get with a TV or DVD player? I still have my first Windows
manual---one could really learn something from that. It's a book.

As for XP? No one has explained why "r"--"repair" caused the system to
go into a full install mode? Twice? I've done some pretty complicated
repairs in W2k and it never went reinstalled, never.

Actually, I think I could have manually fixed the problem with it not
booting after installing command console for W2k----had I known it was
going to wipe out my configuration (again) I would have paused and
thought my way out if it. I have zero confidence in hitting "R" in XP.

Sorry if my tone is harsh---I was happy with my old computer and the
manufacturer of the new one has been difficult. I was "dragged" to XP
by two friends and expected it go go a bit more smoothly. Migration is
never easy and I had a number of added glitches that weren't needed.
Anonymous
October 1, 2004 4:58:12 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:58:11 GMT, Michael wrote:

> Sorry if my tone is harsh---I was happy with my old computer and the
> manufacturer of the new one has been difficult. I was "dragged" to XP
> by two friends and expected it go go a bit more smoothly. Migration is
> never easy and I had a number of added glitches that weren't needed.

No problem. I'm not particularly a fan of WPA either but it's there. I've
triggered activation several times with my desktop's copy of XP. Sometimes
it was due to moved installations, upgraded hardware, repair installs, etc.
I've activated on the internet, on the phone with a human and on the phone
with an automated menu. Usually this process is a small inconvenience (30
seconds to 5 minutes). By the way, no personal info is tied to activation.
Personal info is transmitted if you register the software - an optional
action that is separate and different than activation.

Yours is a rather complex setup. Your OEM copy of XP is, by default,
pre-activated. Certain circumstances can trigger a request for activation
on the preactivated copy which is what I suspect your unusual setup ran
into. It's not clear if that request is still active or if it dropped into
the ether. Running the check should give you the answer to that.

--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows XP Shell/User
Anonymous
October 1, 2004 4:58:12 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"I imagine
it will be a bi of a mess in a few years when XP machines start ending
up in the hands of second owners?"

Not at all, activation ties the OS to the machine, not the owner.
Activation is anonymous. If you sell or give away your machine with the XP
disk that came with it, the new owner can continue to use it and activate
the product if necessary upon a format and reinstall or some change in the
hardware that requires it.


--
Michael Solomon MS-MVP
Windows Shell/User
Backup is a PC User's Best Friend
DTS-L.Org: http://www.dts-l.org/

"Michael" <G-2@att.net> wrote in message
news:D vc7d.652580$Gx4.426829@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> On 9/30/2004 1:28 PM, Sharon F wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:04:04 GMT, Michael wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So, it is obvious I'll need to activate--- I don't know how much time I
>>>have left?
>>
>>
>> To start the activation wizard when there's no other obvious way to do
>> so: Click Start> Run> and type in the following:
>> %systemroot%\system32\oobe\msoobe.exe /a
>> Press OK
>>
>> A screen will appear and it will either tell you that XP is already
>> activated or it will start the activation wizard and walk you through the
>> process.
>>
>> If you end up calling, don't fret entering the numbers/letters. This is
>> usually done in groups of 5 characters or so and you can repeat each
>> group
>> until you're positive that you have it right. Then move to the next group
>> and so on until finished.
>>
>
> Thanks for the insight...
>
> I did read the article that Harry referred to. It cast an entire new light
> on the terms ownership or purchase. Yes, one does own their operating
> system...but depending on what they do to their computer (and that point
> system is really wild) they're always tied to MS. I imagine it will be a
> bi of a mess in a few years when XP machines start ending up in the hands
> of second owners?
>
> I'm all for anti-piracy, but as my case shows---the system seems to have
> its glitches. I'm sure (without a reminder in the tray as I don't have?)
> many people find themselves with a machine "stuck" and don't know why.
>
> We are so accustomed to "ignoring" the constant gathering of
> information---well, do people stop during install to complete the
> procedure?
>
> Just a guess, when that EULA comes on? Most people reach for F8
> reflexively. What is one's choice? Hire an attorney and see if the
> contract is sound? Seriously, what choice does one have at that point
> anyway? I'll wager a tiny percent of the public ever reads let alone does
> not "agree" with a license.
>
> In this case it's more serious---ignore it and your computer may blink out
> in a month (again, my only warning came after the first re-install). I am
> very aware, but wouldn't have had a clue what it meant if I didn't
> subscribe to Usenet. I've ignored countless "registrations"...it has never
> been worth the bother. Plus, as I wasn't online and didn't even have a
> phone jack within twenty five feet---what was I going to do?
>
>
> Further, the help topic in XP is hardly well written. I read it four times
> yesterday and couldn't recount it up to a stranger. Oh, I understand the
> basics (either you own a legal copy of XP and all will be ok, or if you
> don't it won't work after thirty days)---my eyes glazed over about
> half-way through. I clicked on it this morning and still think the
> language is hobbled.
>
> Of course the OEM manual is worthless. I believe the index is about as
> large as the content. It's mostly: Check out help, got to the website (or
> a topic is ignored). Wold they go broke by giving me a manual size of what
> I get with a TV or DVD player? I still have my first Windows manual---one
> could really learn something from that. It's a book.
>
> As for XP? No one has explained why "r"--"repair" caused the system to go
> into a full install mode? Twice? I've done some pretty complicated
> repairs in W2k and it never went reinstalled, never.
>
> Actually, I think I could have manually fixed the problem with it not
> booting after installing command console for W2k----had I known it was
> going to wipe out my configuration (again) I would have paused and thought
> my way out if it. I have zero confidence in hitting "R" in XP.
>
> Sorry if my tone is harsh---I was happy with my old computer and the
> manufacturer of the new one has been difficult. I was "dragged" to XP by
> two friends and expected it go go a bit more smoothly. Migration is never
> easy and I had a number of added glitches that weren't needed.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
October 1, 2004 6:22:19 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On 10/1/2004 8:46 AM, Sharon F wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:58:11 GMT, Michael wrote:
>
>
>>Sorry if my tone is harsh---I was happy with my old computer and the
>>manufacturer of the new one has been difficult. I was "dragged" to XP
>>by two friends and expected it go go a bit more smoothly. Migration is
>>never easy and I had a number of added glitches that weren't needed.
>
>
> No problem. I'm not particularly a fan of WPA either but it's there. I've
> triggered activation several times with my desktop's copy of XP. Sometimes
> it was due to moved installations, upgraded hardware, repair installs, etc.
> I've activated on the internet, on the phone with a human and on the phone
> with an automated menu. Usually this process is a small inconvenience (30
> seconds to 5 minutes). By the way, no personal info is tied to activation.
> Personal info is transmitted if you register the software - an optional
> action that is separate and different than activation.
>
> Yours is a rather complex setup. Your OEM copy of XP is, by default,
> pre-activated. Certain circumstances can trigger a request for activation
> on the preactivated copy which is what I suspect your unusual setup ran
> into. It's not clear if that request is still active or if it dropped into
> the ether. Running the check should give you the answer to that.
>

Well, now I'm really confused...

I typed "oobe/msoobe /a" at the command prompt?

The screen came up and told me Windows was activated. I supppose that
explains why there is no warning and no means to activate it in System
Tools?

Actually though? It was odd that upon first re-install I was asked to
activate and I did get a warning in my tray for two days prior to my
next two re-installs (that were actually requests for "repair")?

So, it appears that the system worked---that is my OEM version was
already activated at the factory...but somehow it "forgot" that, or I
screwed it up by reformating?

Again---Is all well? Is that subject closed? Do I need to do anything?

As for the "repair" option? I don't believe it functions as it does in
W2k. Well, I know it doesn't.

When I choose repair in W2k I have no fear that it will go to a complete
re-install procedure. It is a safe, reliable technique and I have never
worried that repair would cause me to lose my configuration/settings. I
have done some very complicated repairs via the W2k method and while
slow, the system returned to it's previous state.

With XP? I have no such confidence. Why should I? Again, why should I
believe that choosing to repair XP will not go to install mode wipe out
my installation?

While this may not be something major to many users, I tweak my settings
and it takes more than a bit of time to restore them. As for
backup/restore? I'll have to go back to a second HD in order to have
the space for all the data that XP requires to save.

I'm also skeptical about all the space that is being used by the restore
files. If I don't have access to them during a failure and they get
wiped out during a "repair" anyway....well, why are they there? And, do
they work any better than repair is supposed to?

No, between my experience with the manufacturer and the glitches with XP
my step into the future has not been pleasant. Yes, the extra ram is
great and I suppose the faster CPU is worth it...at what cost?

I was mislead before purchase about what I could do to the computer----I
was never told reformatting would void my chance for support. (I was
very clear about my intentions to format a primary Dos partition)

As for XP, perhaps it is too early to conlude. However, I will have to
experience some success after a misshap before I trust it. I am rather
savy, (this is my business)---but I've never felt a lack of control
before. That is, I usually could predict the outcome of my actions.
Currently, I'm hoping for the best and preparing for the worst. With
W2k, I never lacked any sense of security that it would do exactly what
I requested---nothing more/nothing less.

Michael
Anonymous
October 1, 2004 6:22:20 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 14:22:19 GMT, Michael wrote:

> Well, now I'm really confused...
>
> I typed "oobe/msoobe /a" at the command prompt?
>
> The screen came up and told me Windows was activated. I supppose that
> explains why there is no warning and no means to activate it in System
> Tools?

I think when things finally settled down with your installation, that the
request for activation was dropped

OR

it came from a program other than Windows. MS Office programs (XP, 2003 and
some localized versions of 2000) include activation.

> So, it appears that the system worked---that is my OEM version was
> already activated at the factory...but somehow it "forgot" that, or I
> screwed it up by reformating?
>
> Again---Is all well? Is that subject closed? Do I need to do anything?

Sounds like you're safe. The forced check says you're activated. If it was
me, I would "go with it" and not argue. ;) 

> As for the "repair" option? I don't believe it functions as it does in
> W2k. Well, I know it doesn't.
>
> When I choose repair in W2k I have no fear that it will go to a complete
> re-install procedure. It is a safe, reliable technique and I have never
> worried that repair would cause me to lose my configuration/settings. I
> have done some very complicated repairs via the W2k method and while
> slow, the system returned to it's previous state.
>
> With XP? I have no such confidence. Why should I? Again, why should I
> believe that choosing to repair XP will not go to install mode wipe out
> my installation?

I'm not familiar with Win2000 repair so can't comment on the differences.
Repair mode from an XP retail CD does require updates to be reinstalled.
OEM tweaked repair functions will require that as well and - depending on
how they work - maybe more. Check documentation to be absolutely certain
what "repair" entails.

> While this may not be something major to many users, I tweak my settings
> and it takes more than a bit of time to restore them. As for
> backup/restore? I'll have to go back to a second HD in order to have
> the space for all the data that XP requires to save.

May want to check out the Files and Settings Transfer Wizard. A good
article by by Gary Woodruff on this subject can be found here:
http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/fast.htm

> I'm also skeptical about all the space that is being used by the restore
> files. If I don't have access to them during a failure and they get
> wiped out during a "repair" anyway....well, why are they there? And, do
> they work any better than repair is supposed to?

System Restore is best suited for "short term repairs." An "oops" situation
where you wish you could roll back the clock a day or two and no more than
a week. I wouldn't trust older restore points to be reliable since so much
of the software I use is updated frequently. You can change the amount of
space allowed for restore points in System properties> System Restore>
Settings. Minimum setting is 200MB and that is enough for at least 4
restore points on most system.

> No, between my experience with the manufacturer and the glitches with XP
> my step into the future has not been pleasant. Yes, the extra ram is
> great and I suppose the faster CPU is worth it...at what cost?
>
> I was mislead before purchase about what I could do to the computer----I
> was never told reformatting would void my chance for support. (I was
> very clear about my intentions to format a primary Dos partition)

I agree that it appears you were short changed in support. It's not unusual
for support to be dropped when the system is not running the factory
configuration. However, you were up front about this and it would have been
nice if the OEM would have been more forthcoming about how they intended to
handle this for you.

For many years, I've dumped what ships with OEM systems and installed from
retail packages so that I wouldn't have to deal with OEM restrictions. I've
been lucky that the systems I've had didn't need OEM only drivers or that
those drivers were readily available. However, I stopped pushing my luck
and started building my own systems instead. If needed, tracking down
support from many sources instead of one can be a bit of a pain but feel
it's been a worthwhile path.

> As for XP, perhaps it is too early to conlude. However, I will have to
> experience some success after a misshap before I trust it. I am rather
> savy, (this is my business)---but I've never felt a lack of control
> before. That is, I usually could predict the outcome of my actions.
> Currently, I'm hoping for the best and preparing for the worst. With
> W2k, I never lacked any sense of security that it would do exactly what
> I requested---nothing more/nothing less.

As with all the versions of Windows, there are things I like and don't like
in XP. With use, it grew on me and was a bit surprised when I realized I
liked it more than I thought I would. Biggest plus: Once it's setup, it's
acceptably stable (for me anyhow) and instead of constantly massaging the
operating system, I can launch my other programs and concentrate on getting
work done.

--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows XP Shell/User
Anonymous
October 1, 2004 6:22:20 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

>-----Original Message-----
>On 10/1/2004 8:46 AM, Sharon F wrote:
>> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:58:11 GMT, Michael wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sorry if my tone is harsh---I was happy with my old
computer and the
>>>manufacturer of the new one has been difficult. I
was "dragged" to XP
>>>by two friends and expected it go go a bit more
smoothly. Migration is
>>>never easy and I had a number of added glitches that
weren't needed.
>>
>>
>> No problem. I'm not particularly a fan of WPA either
but it's there. I've
>> triggered activation several times with my desktop's
copy of XP. Sometimes
>> it was due to moved installations, upgraded hardware,
repair installs, etc.
>> I've activated on the internet, on the phone with a
human and on the phone
>> with an automated menu. Usually this process is a small
inconvenience (30
>> seconds to 5 minutes). By the way, no personal info is
tied to activation.
>> Personal info is transmitted if you register the
software - an optional
>> action that is separate and different than activation.
>>
>> Yours is a rather complex setup. Your OEM copy of XP
is, by default,
>> pre-activated. Certain circumstances can trigger a
request for activation
>> on the preactivated copy which is what I suspect your
unusual setup ran
>> into. It's not clear if that request is still active or
if it dropped into
>> the ether. Running the check should give you the answer
to that.
>>
>
>Well, now I'm really confused...
>
>I typed "oobe/msoobe /a" at the command prompt?
>
>The screen came up and told me Windows was activated. I
supppose that
>explains why there is no warning and no means to activate
it in System
>Tools?
>
>Actually though? It was odd that upon first re-install I
was asked to
>activate and I did get a warning in my tray for two days
prior to my
>next two re-installs (that were actually requests
for "repair")?
>
>So, it appears that the system worked---that is my OEM
version was
>already activated at the factory...but somehow
it "forgot" that, or I
>screwed it up by reformating?
>
>Again---Is all well? Is that subject closed? Do I need
to do anything?
>
>As for the "repair" option? I don't believe it functions
as it does in
>W2k. Well, I know it doesn't.
>
>When I choose repair in W2k I have no fear that it will
go to a complete
>re-install procedure. It is a safe, reliable technique
and I have never
>worried that repair would cause me to lose my
configuration/settings. I
>have done some very complicated repairs via the W2k
method and while
>slow, the system returned to it's previous state.
>
>With XP? I have no such confidence. Why should I?
Again, why should I
>believe that choosing to repair XP will not go to install
mode wipe out
>my installation?
>
>While this may not be something major to many users, I
tweak my settings
>and it takes more than a bit of time to restore them. As
for
>backup/restore? I'll have to go back to a second HD in
order to have
>the space for all the data that XP requires to save.
>
>I'm also skeptical about all the space that is being used
by the restore
>files. If I don't have access to them during a failure
and they get
>wiped out during a "repair" anyway....well, why are they
there? And, do
>they work any better than repair is supposed to?
>
>No, between my experience with the manufacturer and the
glitches with XP
>my step into the future has not been pleasant. Yes, the
extra ram is
>great and I suppose the faster CPU is worth it...at what
cost?
>
>I was mislead before purchase about what I could do to
the computer----I
>was never told reformatting would void my chance for
support. (I was
>very clear about my intentions to format a primary Dos
partition)
>
>As for XP, perhaps it is too early to conlude. However,
I will have to
>experience some success after a misshap before I trust
it. I am rather
>savy, (this is my business)---but I've never felt a lack
of control
>before. That is, I usually could predict the outcome of
my actions.
>Currently, I'm hoping for the best and preparing for the
worst. With
>W2k, I never lacked any sense of security that it would
do exactly what
>I requested---nothing more/nothing less.
>
>Michael
>

It seems that despite your tenacious efforts to screw
things up, you have a working install of XP. Your original
post is about as clear as mud, but it seems that after
already installing XP, you formatted and tried to install
2K ("I wanted to keep my 'old' version of Windows 2000").
Why does it surprise you that a *repair* install of *XP*
wouldn't work at that point? I can't wait to see your
first post after installing SP2.
October 2, 2004 12:47:48 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

<snip>


> It seems that despite your tenacious efforts to screw
> things up, you have a working install of XP. Your original
> post is about as clear as mud, but it seems that after
> already installing XP, you formatted and tried to install
> 2K ("I wanted to keep my 'old' version of Windows 2000").
> Why does it surprise you that a *repair* install of *XP*
> wouldn't work at that point? I can't wait to see your
> first post after installing SP2.

Stop the presses..."tenacious efforts to screw
things up"?

You really didn't want to insult me. (?)

1. I bought a new computer
2. Old computer had two drives, a DOS partition and W2k
3. New computer had hidden "first" partition (with obscure MBR that
#controlled* the entire disk) filled with useless utilities--- + one
large NTFS partition with XP.
4. I was upfront before purchase about formating the new drive to match
the config on my old drive.

So far, the above seems not to be an effort to screw things up. One
should not have to start from scratch with a new computer? "Oh, just
toss out a jillion apps/"

The worst I was told to expect was a clean install of W2k on the new box.

And ya know what? Even though I did a clean install over my migrated
copy of W2k (cmdcons didn't even *see* the install I migrated). Well,
after a clean install of W2k---my settings remained, nuttin' changed.
All apps were associated---after an *clean* install!

Installing W2k *after* XP? Bad move. Should not have been fatal. I
thought they could/would share the same boot files. In retrospect, I
believe I only needed to replace the XP sys files (I'd saved them,
anyway) and didn't need to go the "repair" route.

But, and I will stand firm:

*Repair* should not instantly throw one into install mode. Not without
an on screen warning.

Hey, I was given a choice. A fork in the road? If I wanted "install",
why would I choose R? The next thing I know, a screen says "installing
Windows".

What is it about "repair" that I didn't get? Well, the rules have changed.

No, repair in XP is *not* repair. Or, one chooses *repair* but gets a
surprise:

Sez the help file under "Repair": (That one can't read if the OS is down?)

[quoted]
Feature: Windows Installation compact disc
When to use it: When you cannot start the computer in Safe Mode, neither
Last Known Good nor Recovery Console has been successful, and you have
no backup to use with Automated System Recovery.
What it does: Reinstalls the operating system. You will then need to
reinstall your applications and restore your data files from backups.
Available on: All versions of Windows XP.

So, if it *re-installs* the OS---WTF do they call it repair? Why offer a
choice? Jeeze, W2k has multiple *types* of repair---none wipe out the
OS. (Remember, even my clean install over the migrated W2k didn't change
anything?)

There can be no greater distinction than a "repair" of an application
and its *Reinstallation*. I recall no warning that I would "need to
reinstall your applications and restore your data files from backups".
Name one application where given a choice between repair and install,
the latter happens if one choses repair.

Based on my experience with scores of applications? If one has the
choice to re-install or repair? Well, I've never known where repair was
the *same* as install. (Um, why give a choice?) MS had better get some
kind of warning on that repair option screen indicating what comes
next...cause there is no turning back...

As for running W2k? I've run it *with* DOS, 3X, NT, 95, 98, 98SE...One
doesn't have to be a logician to conclude that W2k is accomodating?

No, your warning concerning XP SP2 should go wide and deep. From all
I've read, SP2 can/is/may be a problem regardless of another OS being
present. Do a search and you won't be able to count the number of
applications SP2 has impacted.

Just an observation? You are aware of the stampede toward open source
software? No, it hasn't hit the personal user..yet. But people have
limits. When they buy something, they expect to --- *own* it?

Do you realize it took 685 words to describe (via Help) "What is Windows
Product Activation?" After reading that and
http://www.aumha.org/a/wpa.htm --- I doubt that anyone really knows what
is in their future.

One string at a time, there will come a point where "too many strings
become attached" to a purchase. Then people will conclude they really
don't need what they thought they needed. There are choices?

History is ripe with instances where a business acted as if its
customers had no choice. Yeah, MS has some great stuff...but, there
seems to be a tendency for them to paint one into a corner?

Countless businesses have already become tired of the attitude:
1. You're wrong, we're right

and

2. Yes, you bought it---but we still control it.

Thus, businesses have found alternatives. Sadly, in an effort (well
placed perhaps?) to succeed, companies often go too far in protecting
their interest(s) and do not understand the customer.

Thus, my recent experience with the leading software (and) hardware
retailer has left me feeling that in the future I will probably be more
aware of the choices available. If that is not their intention? They
might want to review their *after the sale is made* philosoply.

No, you really didn't want to insult me.
Anonymous
October 2, 2004 12:47:49 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:47:48 GMT, Michael wrote:

> Installing W2k *after* XP? Bad move. Should not have been fatal. I
> thought they could/would share the same boot files. In retrospect, I
> believe I only needed to replace the XP sys files (I'd saved them,
> anyway) and didn't need to go the "repair" route.

Here's a link to an article describing a method of installing Win2000 after
XP that you may want to save for future reference:
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/tips/xp_repair_2k.htm

If you were just mulitbooting XP and Win2000, the hurdles would have been
more simple. Adding DOS to the mix, I think I would have opted to use a
third party boot manager.

--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows XP Shell/User
Anonymous
October 2, 2004 12:47:49 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Michael wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
> > It seems that despite your tenacious efforts to screw
> > things up, you have a working install of XP. Your original
> > post is about as clear as mud, but it seems that after
> > already installing XP, you formatted and tried to install
> > 2K ("I wanted to keep my 'old' version of Windows 2000").
> > Why does it surprise you that a *repair* install of *XP*
> > wouldn't work at that point? I can't wait to see your
> > first post after installing SP2.
>
> Stop the presses..."tenacious efforts to screw
> things up"?
>
> You really didn't want to insult me. (?)
>
> 1. I bought a new computer
> 2. Old computer had two drives, a DOS partition and W2k
> 3. New computer had hidden "first" partition (with obscure MBR that
> #controlled* the entire disk) filled with useless utilities--- + one
> large NTFS partition with XP.
> 4. I was upfront before purchase about formating the new drive to match
> the config on my old drive.
>
> So far, the above seems not to be an effort to screw things up. One
> should not have to start from scratch with a new computer? "Oh, just
> toss out a jillion apps/"
>
> The worst I was told to expect was a clean install of W2k on the new box.
>
> And ya know what? Even though I did a clean install over my migrated
> copy of W2k (cmdcons didn't even *see* the install I migrated). Well,
> after a clean install of W2k---my settings remained, nuttin' changed.
> All apps were associated---after an *clean* install!
>
> Installing W2k *after* XP? Bad move. Should not have been fatal. I
> thought they could/would share the same boot files. In retrospect, I
> believe I only needed to replace the XP sys files (I'd saved them,
> anyway) and didn't need to go the "repair" route.
>
> But, and I will stand firm:
>
> *Repair* should not instantly throw one into install mode. Not without
> an on screen warning.
>
> Hey, I was given a choice. A fork in the road? If I wanted "install",
> why would I choose R? The next thing I know, a screen says "installing
> Windows".
>
> What is it about "repair" that I didn't get? Well, the rules have changed.
>
> No, repair in XP is *not* repair. Or, one chooses *repair* but gets a
> surprise:
>
> Sez the help file under "Repair": (That one can't read if the OS is down?)
>
> [quoted]
> Feature: Windows Installation compact disc
> When to use it: When you cannot start the computer in Safe Mode, neither
> Last Known Good nor Recovery Console has been successful, and you have
> no backup to use with Automated System Recovery.
> What it does: Reinstalls the operating system. You will then need to
> reinstall your applications and restore your data files from backups.
> Available on: All versions of Windows XP.
>
> So, if it *re-installs* the OS---WTF do they call it repair? Why offer a
> choice? Jeeze, W2k has multiple *types* of repair---none wipe out the
> OS. (Remember, even my clean install over the migrated W2k didn't change
> anything?)
>
> There can be no greater distinction than a "repair" of an application
> and its *Reinstallation*. I recall no warning that I would "need to
> reinstall your applications and restore your data files from backups".
> Name one application where given a choice between repair and install,
> the latter happens if one choses repair.
>
> Based on my experience with scores of applications? If one has the
> choice to re-install or repair? Well, I've never known where repair was
> the *same* as install. (Um, why give a choice?) MS had better get some
> kind of warning on that repair option screen indicating what comes
> next...cause there is no turning back...
>
> As for running W2k? I've run it *with* DOS, 3X, NT, 95, 98, 98SE...One
> doesn't have to be a logician to conclude that W2k is accomodating?
>
> No, your warning concerning XP SP2 should go wide and deep. From all
> I've read, SP2 can/is/may be a problem regardless of another OS being
> present. Do a search and you won't be able to count the number of
> applications SP2 has impacted.
>
> Just an observation? You are aware of the stampede toward open source
> software? No, it hasn't hit the personal user..yet. But people have
> limits. When they buy something, they expect to --- *own* it?
>
> Do you realize it took 685 words to describe (via Help) "What is Windows
> Product Activation?" After reading that and
> http://www.aumha.org/a/wpa.htm --- I doubt that anyone really knows what
> is in their future.
>
> One string at a time, there will come a point where "too many strings
> become attached" to a purchase. Then people will conclude they really
> don't need what they thought they needed. There are choices?
>
> History is ripe with instances where a business acted as if its
> customers had no choice. Yeah, MS has some great stuff...but, there
> seems to be a tendency for them to paint one into a corner?
>
> Countless businesses have already become tired of the attitude:
> 1. You're wrong, we're right
>
> and
>
> 2. Yes, you bought it---but we still control it.
>
> Thus, businesses have found alternatives. Sadly, in an effort (well
> placed perhaps?) to succeed, companies often go too far in protecting
> their interest(s) and do not understand the customer.
>
> Thus, my recent experience with the leading software (and) hardware
> retailer has left me feeling that in the future I will probably be more
> aware of the choices available. If that is not their intention? They
> might want to review their *after the sale is made* philosoply.
>
> No, you really didn't want to insult me.
>
>
I think he *did* want to insult you, but let's face it, you're an awful
easy target. You screwed up almost everything you touched and then
blamed it on the operating system. What should have been an uneventful
upgrade turned into a Cecil B. DeMille production because of *your*
blundering and failure to follow simple instructions. Waaaah, waaah
waaah, I have to *read* something? Yes, little girl, it *does* help to
read the instructions.
October 2, 2004 12:47:50 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Fascinating thread: Read with great interest, even a little
empathy and sympathy.

Know what I think the -real- problem is/was?
When you use the CD for "Repair", you do NOT take the first
path toward Repair that pops up! You go to the NEXT screen, and
do the Repair from there! I think the first "repair" reference
is to run the Console, but to do the "reinstall" repair, you have
to go the the next screen.
It messed me up once, and several other people I know of, just
because of the lazy language used. "r" doesn't have a consistant
usage there. Once you KNOW the difference, you can remember
there are TWO repair areas, and they aren't together on the same
screen!
It looks like engineers or coders wrote the docs for XP. MOO.

I am SO positive of myself that I'd bet a free cup of coffee at
any company cafeteria during break time!

Pop <g>


"Sharon F" <sharonfDEL@ETEmvps.org> wrote in message
news:%236A9Rj$pEHA.3428@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:47:48 GMT, Michael wrote:
|
| > Installing W2k *after* XP? Bad move. Should not have been
fatal. I
| > thought they could/would share the same boot files. In
retrospect, I
| > believe I only needed to replace the XP sys files (I'd saved
them,
| > anyway) and didn't need to go the "repair" route.
|
| Here's a link to an article describing a method of installing
Win2000 after
| XP that you may want to save for future reference:
| http://www.dougknox.com/xp/tips/xp_repair_2k.htm
|
| If you were just mulitbooting XP and Win2000, the hurdles would
have been
| more simple. Adding DOS to the mix, I think I would have opted
to use a
| third party boot manager.
|
| --
| Sharon F
| MS-MVP ~ Windows XP Shell/User
October 2, 2004 12:48:59 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Wislu Plethora wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>On 10/1/2004 8:46 AM, Sharon F wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 12:58:11 GMT, Michael wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sorry if my tone is harsh---I was happy with my old
>
> computer and the
>
>>>>manufacturer of the new one has been difficult. I
>
> was "dragged" to XP
>
>>>>by two friends and expected it go go a bit more
>
> smoothly. Migration is
>
>>>>never easy and I had a number of added glitches that
>
> weren't needed.
>
>>>
>>>No problem. I'm not particularly a fan of WPA either
>
> but it's there. I've
>
>>>triggered activation several times with my desktop's
>
> copy of XP. Sometimes
>
>>>it was due to moved installations, upgraded hardware,
>
> repair installs, etc.
>
>>>I've activated on the internet, on the phone with a
>
> human and on the phone
>
>>>with an automated menu. Usually this process is a small
>
> inconvenience (30
>
>>>seconds to 5 minutes). By the way, no personal info is
>
> tied to activation.
>
>>>Personal info is transmitted if you register the
>
> software - an optional
>
>>>action that is separate and different than activation.
>>>
>>>Yours is a rather complex setup. Your OEM copy of XP
>
> is, by default,
>
>>>pre-activated. Certain circumstances can trigger a
>
> request for activation
>
>>>on the preactivated copy which is what I suspect your
>
> unusual setup ran
>
>>>into. It's not clear if that request is still active or
>
> if it dropped into
>
>>>the ether. Running the check should give you the answer
>
> to that.
>
>>>
>>
>>Well, now I'm really confused...
>>
>>I typed "oobe/msoobe /a" at the command prompt?
>>
>>The screen came up and told me Windows was activated. I
>
> supppose that
>
>>explains why there is no warning and no means to activate
>
> it in System
>
>>Tools?
>>
>>Actually though? It was odd that upon first re-install I
>
> was asked to
>
>>activate and I did get a warning in my tray for two days
>
> prior to my
>
>>next two re-installs (that were actually requests
>
> for "repair")?
>
>>So, it appears that the system worked---that is my OEM
>
> version was
>
>>already activated at the factory...but somehow
>
> it "forgot" that, or I
>
>>screwed it up by reformating?
>>
>>Again---Is all well? Is that subject closed? Do I need
>
> to do anything?
>
>>As for the "repair" option? I don't believe it functions
>
> as it does in
>
>>W2k. Well, I know it doesn't.
>>
>>When I choose repair in W2k I have no fear that it will
>
> go to a complete
>
>>re-install procedure. It is a safe, reliable technique
>
> and I have never
>
>>worried that repair would cause me to lose my
>
> configuration/settings. I
>
>>have done some very complicated repairs via the W2k
>
> method and while
>
>>slow, the system returned to it's previous state.
>>
>>With XP? I have no such confidence. Why should I?
>
> Again, why should I
>
>>believe that choosing to repair XP will not go to install
>
> mode wipe out
>
>>my installation?
>>
>>While this may not be something major to many users, I
>
> tweak my settings
>
>>and it takes more than a bit of time to restore them. As
>
> for
>
>>backup/restore? I'll have to go back to a second HD in
>
> order to have
>
>>the space for all the data that XP requires to save.
>>
>>I'm also skeptical about all the space that is being used
>
> by the restore
>
>>files. If I don't have access to them during a failure
>
> and they get
>
>>wiped out during a "repair" anyway....well, why are they
>
> there? And, do
>
>>they work any better than repair is supposed to?
>>
>>No, between my experience with the manufacturer and the
>
> glitches with XP
>
>>my step into the future has not been pleasant. Yes, the
>
> extra ram is
>
>>great and I suppose the faster CPU is worth it...at what
>
> cost?
>
>>I was mislead before purchase about what I could do to
>
> the computer----I
>
>>was never told reformatting would void my chance for
>
> support. (I was
>
>>very clear about my intentions to format a primary Dos
>
> partition)
>
>>As for XP, perhaps it is too early to conlude. However,
>
> I will have to
>
>>experience some success after a misshap before I trust
>
> it. I am rather
>
>>savy, (this is my business)---but I've never felt a lack
>
> of control
>
>>before. That is, I usually could predict the outcome of
>
> my actions.
>
>>Currently, I'm hoping for the best and preparing for the
>
> worst. With
>
>>W2k, I never lacked any sense of security that it would
>
> do exactly what
>
>>I requested---nothing more/nothing less.
>>
>>Michael
>>
>
>
> It seems that despite your tenacious efforts to screw
> things up, you have a working install of XP. Your original
> post is about as clear as mud, but it seems that after
> already installing XP, you formatted and tried to install
> 2K ("I wanted to keep my 'old' version of Windows 2000").
> Why does it surprise you that a *repair* install of *XP*
> wouldn't work at that point? I can't wait to see your
> first post after installing SP2.
>



Good of you to not blame me---you saw my response to WS?

I will probably grow to appreciate the advantages XP holds (allready
stole some icons for W2k!). No, it is not fair to compare it to W2k.
And yes, there were some rough starts with W2k---when I longed for NT.

Sharon, I try to remain accomodating. I jumped into IT after I was 40
(nearly a decade ago)---I love it and look forward to change. However my
other note does address some valid concerns. The last two weeks needn't
have gone the way they did. I was asking very little and shouldn't have
been jumping through hoops. Thanks for you calming influence. The
migration is nearly complete, I'm looking forward to using the stuff
instead of getting it to work!

Michael
Anonymous
October 2, 2004 2:05:20 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Responses in line....

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.


> 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?

> 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.

> 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.

>
> 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.
>
> 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?
>
> 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.

> 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, 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*.
>
> 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".
>
> 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.

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

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.
>
> 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.

>
> 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.
>

> 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.

>
> 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.

> 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?
>
> ----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.
>
> 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.
Anonymous
October 2, 2004 4:13:32 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:48:59 GMT, Michael wrote:

> Good of you to not blame me---you saw my response to WS?
>
> I will probably grow to appreciate the advantages XP holds (allready
> stole some icons for W2k!). No, it is not fair to compare it to W2k.
> And yes, there were some rough starts with W2k---when I longed for NT.
>
> Sharon, I try to remain accomodating. I jumped into IT after I was 40
> (nearly a decade ago)---I love it and look forward to change. However my
> other note does address some valid concerns. The last two weeks needn't
> have gone the way they did. I was asking very little and shouldn't have
> been jumping through hoops. Thanks for you calming influence. The
> migration is nearly complete, I'm looking forward to using the stuff
> instead of getting it to work!

Michael, good luck to you with this setup and enjoy it!
--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows XP Shell/User
October 2, 2004 4:55:15 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

> I think he *did* want to insult you, but let's face it, you're an awful
> easy target. You screwed up almost everything you touched and then
> blamed it on the operating system. What should have been an uneventful
> upgrade turned into a Cecil B. DeMille production because of *your*
> blundering and failure to follow simple instructions. Waaaah, waaah
> waaah, I have to *read* something? Yes, little girl, it *does* help to
> read the instructions.

I read every KB and Tech paper available. I also commuinicated with
several other IT associates.

The only caveat I received was that I would need to do a clean install
of W2k as it would not adjust to the vastly different computer.

*I* didn't screw anything up. The drive had a propriatry MBR that would
not allow the drive to be formatted (?) until the MBR was "wiped".
Manually with a Dos program.

I consuleted several "manuals", documents and Usenet postings---none
accounted for the pitfalls that awaited me. In retrospect, most agree
that it is a miracle all my data migrated and arrived in a pristine
fashion condidering the traps in front of me.

I am not a girl nor little? Why would you assume a girl would be an
"easy target"?

Your attitude confirms the worst perceptions people hold of MS loyalists.

It's always someone elses fault. Your accusations might hold weight if I
did not consult, research and plan this operation in great detail.

No, the burden of proof is on you to show where I might have found
reason not to proceed as I did. I still have piles of info to use as
evidence should you wish to challenge me. I relied upon a diverse range
of experts as I knew this would be complicated. Everthing was laid out
and rehearsed.

I'm sure your reality demands failure bases on not "following
instructions"--in this case you'll have to find another straw man.
October 2, 2004 5:15:47 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On 10/1/2004 7:00 PM, Pop wrote:

> Fascinating thread: Read with great interest, even a little
> empathy and sympathy.
>
> Know what I think the -real- problem is/was?
> When you use the CD for "Repair", you do NOT take the first
> path toward Repair that pops up! You go to the NEXT screen, and
> do the Repair from there! I think the first "repair" reference
> is to run the Console, but to do the "reinstall" repair, you have
> to go the the next screen.
> It messed me up once, and several other people I know of, just
> because of the lazy language used. "r" doesn't have a consistant
> usage there. Once you KNOW the difference, you can remember
> there are TWO repair areas, and they aren't together on the same
> screen!
> It looks like engineers or coders wrote the docs for XP. MOO.
>
> I am SO positive of myself that I'd bet a free cup of coffee at
> any company cafeteria during break time!
>
> Pop <g>

Sorry Pop, I did go to the second screen. The first screen is repair
console...

Actually I had the repair console loaded and tried that route before
going to the direct boot from the CD. None of the options on the repair
console were sufficient to repair the "damaage".

Yes, in retrospect I do believe I only needed to replace the W2k boot
files with XP---However, I did not kinow at the time they were the
problem. Since I preformed fixboot and bootcfg [sp] I concluded the
problem was elsewhere.

No, I quoted how MS defines repair in XP---It means re-install. Again,
in W2k one has the option of recovery console, or a quick repair (that
examines system files, drivers etc) or manual repair (one chooses which
areas to repair) or, one can choose to use an Emergency Repair Disk (yet
another repair option) that relies on registry data.

None of those various "repair" options from W2k (Why/Why not?) remotlely
resemble the re-install which occurs during the repair (not recovery)
option in XP.

Again, and I hope finally? XP (and I quote the Help file) does not
offer an option of automated or manual repair outside of the repair
console. It appears rather clear what will happen when you choose R from
the CD boot:

[quoted]
Feature: Windows Installation compact disc
When to use it: When you cannot start the computer in Safe Mode, neither
Last Known Good nor Recovery Console has been successful, and you have
no backup to use with Automated System Recovery.
What it does: Reinstalls the operating system. You will then need to
reinstall your applications and restore your data files from backups.
Available on: All versions of Windows XP.

So, forget about how the world perceivs *repair*---in XP is means
r-install. As odd as that is, it should be noted on the option screen.
It's a loaded gun and most people think they're using blanks.
October 2, 2004 5:29:53 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On 10/1/2004 3:55 PM, Sharon F wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 20:47:48 GMT, Michael wrote:
>
>
>>Installing W2k *after* XP? Bad move. Should not have been fatal. I
>>thought they could/would share the same boot files. In retrospect, I
>>believe I only needed to replace the XP sys files (I'd saved them,
>>anyway) and didn't need to go the "repair" route.
>
>
> Here's a link to an article describing a method of installing Win2000
after
> XP that you may want to save for future reference:
> http://www.dougknox.com/xp/tips/xp_repair_2k.htm
>
> If you were just mulitbooting XP and Win2000, the hurdles would have been
> more simple. Adding DOS to the mix, I think I would have opted to use a
> third party boot manager.
>

No, Sharon, DOS was not the factor. It was in, had to be in before
XP---they were fine (as is Dos with W2k in my other machine)together

The two flaws were the odd MBR that prohibitted formatting the disk the
odd and wrong way XP defines "repair"----it is not. Once wiped,
formattin was SOP.

And the deceptive repair option---which isn't...

No, MS should simply give one the choice of the console and say your
next option will result in re-install.

It is folly to suggest one would perceive "r" (repair) is going to
re-install the OS? That is the most drastic drastic step and I don't
believe it should be allowed to be chosen without warning.

In fact, there should be a "fail-safe" screen that appears asking "are
you sure you want to re-install Windows?"

Face it, the OS is loaded with warnings "Do you want to empty the
recycle bin" DUH? ---what more serious option is there than wiping
your OS out--and MS offers a deceptive title for the action and no
confirmation that you agree to the consequences.
October 3, 2004 5:33:34 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

> 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 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?
October 3, 2004 9:34:51 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

<snip>


> 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?
Anonymous
October 4, 2004 1:27:10 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Michael wrote:
> <snip>
>
>
>> 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?

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.
October 6, 2004 4:46:52 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

> 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.
Anonymous
October 6, 2004 6:28:13 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

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

"Michael" <G-2@att.net> wrote in message
news:0PR8d.496973$OB3.153546@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
October 7, 2004 4:35:38 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

On 10/6/2004 3:28 PM, Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> There are two opportunities to press 'R'. The second is the one for a
> Repair Install.
>
> "Michael" <G-2@att.net> wrote in message
> news:0PR8d.496973$OB3.153546@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

>>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?
>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"?
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 4:35:39 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

>-----Original Message-----
>On 10/6/2004 3:28 PM, Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> > There are two opportunities to press 'R'. The second
is the one for a
> > Repair Install.
> >
> > "Michael" <G-2@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:0PR8d.496973$OB3.153546@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> >>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?
> >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"?
>

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!!
Anonymous
October 7, 2004 4:48:34 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.setup_deployment,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

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" <G-2@att.net> wrote in message
news:uKa9d.673526$Gx4.631024@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> On 10/6/2004 3:28 PM, Colin Barnhorst wrote:
> > There are two opportunities to press 'R'. The second is the one for a
> > Repair Install.
> >
> > "Michael" <G-2@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:0PR8d.496973$OB3.153546@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> >>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?
> >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"?
>
>
>
>
October 8, 2004 4:36:38 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.setup_instal (More info?)

On 10/7/2004 7:52 AM, Wislu Plethora wrote:

> 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!!

On 10/7/2004 7:52 AM, Wislu Plethora wrote:

> 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...

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.
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 4:36:39 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

>-----Original Message-----
>On 10/7/2004 7:52 AM, Wislu Plethora wrote:
>
>> 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!!
>
>On 10/7/2004 7:52 AM, Wislu Plethora wrote:
>
> > 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...
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.
Anonymous
October 8, 2004 4:36:40 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Wislu Plethora wrote:
>>-----Original Message-----
>>On 10/7/2004 7:52 AM, Wislu Plethora wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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!!
>
>>On 10/7/2004 7:52 AM, Wislu Plethora wrote:
>>
>>
>>>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...
>
> 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.
>
The URL wrapped. OP probably didn't notice.

gls858
!