• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Which way do I go george? repair or reinstall

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

bigtwinlvr

Registered
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
This is coming from a novice on such matters, so bear with me and be as plain with suggestions as possible,lol.
Current setup is a p55 mb with a quadcore I5, 8gb of ram, a 320gb HD with windows and some other programs on it, and a 1tb drive with games, pics, and a complete backup of the system on it. Running Vista ultimate 64bit. The system has bugs in it, partially due to bad memory from before. There is two security updates from 2 years ago that Ive never been able to get to install. The system hasnt worked as smooth and as fast as I think it should, in a long time. I have the MS win7 home edition 3pack upgrade, for which I have only used once, as well as my vista ultimate discs. If I did an upgrade to vista, would it fix some of the buggy files deep in the system, or just do a visual update and leave my bugs? I know Im going to be told, clean install, but is there an easy method to saving what I have, and doing a fairly simple reinstall of those files? If I do clean install, redo the vista ultimate, or do win7 and pay to unlock pro or ultimate? Remember, consider me a noob.
 
What are you wanting to save is the big question? Windows vista is crap at best. Win is a much better OS. Just as 95 was crap and 98 was better. etc etc. A clean install is always best but sometimes is not the best option for you. This is why i'm asking what you are wanting to save. Email, bookmarks and things like that can often be back-up with easy.
 
those could probably be backed up easily.
if it were me i'd do a reinstall, but thats just b/c repairs never really worked that well for me for some reason.
 
those could probably be backed up easily.
if it were me i'd do a reinstall, but thats just b/c repairs never really worked that well for me for some reason.
+1 I agreed if you can back up and live with out what you cant get you will be happier in the long run. Take this from someone who can done this a few times.
 
Don't listen to them, Windows Vista with latest Service Packs is perfectly fine...

Windows 7 just looks different and adds a few things like slideshow wallpapers.
 
Don't listen to them, Windows Vista with latest Service Packs is perfectly fine...

Windows 7 just looks different and adds a few things like slideshow wallpapers.

What lol they look different? See the way MS works and this is not new is they release a semi beta to the public. Then fine tine it and release the real verison a year or two later. Let me break it down. I'm going to go back a bit


3.0>3.1
95>98
ME>XP Yes there is one called me but it was so bad they fixed it fast and did not sell it long
Vista>7

The main changes are not with what they look like so much but there back ground services and core. Service packs them this just less likely to BSOD to the masses.

Also home edition of WIN7 is more then enough I don't think you will need to upgrade it at all.
 
What lol they look different? See the way MS works and this is not new is they release a semi beta to the public. Then fine tine it and release the real verison a year or two later. Let me break it down. I'm going to go back a bit


3.0>3.1
95>98
ME>XP Yes there is one called me but it was so bad they fixed it fast and did not sell it long
Vista>7
Do I look like an idiot to you?
"Let you break it down"?...you don't need to give me an education about the history of Windows operating systems. I'm not five years old. By the way, Windows 98 was quickly superseded by 98SE...Your rundown is incomplete and wrong. You also seem to forget that ME and XP have literally nothing in common. ME has a monolithic kernel while 2000/XP are the NT Hybrid kernel. If you are going to call XP the "fix" to anything, it would be Windows 2000, which wasn't broken.

The main changes are not with what they look like so much but there back ground services and core.
The main difference in useability between Windows Vista SP2 and Windows 7 is that they look different. I'm sorry to :rain: on your parade but you are missing the big picture. Windows Vista was a radical change compared to Windows XP. I bought a copy mid-summer 2007, trust me, you don't need to be the one telling me how bad it was. NVIDIA WDDM drivers at the time for 8800 series cards were so buggy that you would get random BSODs on desktop, let alone in any sort of game. :bang head

However, by SP1/SP2, Vista was a very stable OS. Both Vista and 7 have almost identical kernels and similar low-level software and hardware support. That means that exactly what you mention changed:
not with what they look like so much but there back ground services and core
...didn't change (very much) at all!

Do you not notice that Windows Vista and Windows 7 run the exact same driver packages? Get the exact same security updates (in most cases)?
Service packs them this just less likely to BSOD to the masses.
:blah: Of course. However "just less likely to BSOD to the masses" isn't really what happens...I consider Vista SP2 with good drivers to be just as stable as Windows XP SP3, albeit a bit slower on older machines, especially once it becomes bloated.

Also home edition of WIN7 is more then enough I don't think you will need to upgrade it at all.
Again,
Windows 7 is Vista with a mask. Both OS's have almost identical kernels and similar low-level support. Do you not notice that Windows Vista and Windows 7 run the exact same driver packages? Get the exact same security updates (in most cases)?

Please, educate yourself:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/153624/under_the_hood_windows_7_is_vistas_twin.html
http://blogs.computerworld.com/is_windows_7_really_vista_sp2_in_disguise
http://windowssecrets.com/top-story/does-vista-already-have-windows-7s-new-kernel/
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/ne...-for-windows-7-same-requirements-as-vista.ars
http://searchwinit.techtarget.com/news/1315206/Mixed-reaction-on-keeping-Vista-kernel-for-Windows-7
 
Last edited:
Gees no your don't look 5 to me. Kinda hard to say how old you look. But I'm guessing you spent a lot of time making sure to prove me 100 percent wrong. And you did. I am sorry that you took it in a way. To be honest I have not spent much time looking at the kernel for Vista. Because at the time that I was running it there was a lot of problems with it. I'm really not going to spend time reading about a OS that i'm never going to run out and buy.
 
9 minutes isn't all that much of my time, and it's fine, I just hate hearing people say things like-
Windows vista is crap at best.
In 2012...
If it were 2007 I think I'd agree. ;)

I come off rather blunt sometimes (even though I am wrong sometimes too), though I love to help people...it is just amazing sometimes the kind of stuff someone can read on tech forums in advice/news threads about some product or the next.

So I vote for OP to repair / perform upgrade re-install from within windows.
 
Last edited:
Glad I blew Vista OFF

Not to cause any kind of disturbance but i'm glad I blew off Vista entirely..


Hung onto my XP until Windows 7 was stable (in a matter of speaking). I've rebuilt and repaired alot of friends Pc's and my first response was ditch the vista.. Haven't had an unhappy camper yet..

Vista reminds me of exactly how Microsoft ran Windows ME up the flagpole and wanted everyone to buy buy buy.. To me Vista and Windows Me will always be brother and sister...

lol
 
You know...I didn't have any problems out of Vista. I ran the 64 bit on the same computer I'm running now. Win7 seen to be alot snappier so.....I've had every windows OS since 3.1 so. I had to try um all and I still have them in a box somewhere.:thup:Just my 2cents.:D
 
The old Trs-80 days

You know...I didn't have any problems out of Vista. I ran the 64 bit on the same computer I'm running now. Win7 seen to be alot snappier so.....I've had every windows OS since 3.1 so. I had to try um all and I still have them in a box somewhere.:thup:Just my 2cents.:D


Lol... yeah i been computing back since the late trs-80 days lol I remember 3.1 too.. lol funny when ya think about the rigs nowadays compared to back then :) lol.

I like 7 actually... (only because i haven't jumped into the linux arena with both feet yet although I should). I just finished re-installing my OS.. the easiest thing i think i've found is on a clean install i simply redirect 7 user files to a seperate hdd and i can get a clean install back up and running in under 15 minutes with drive image software...
 
I agree with the fact that vista has matured by now, is stable, and gets the same updates as Win7. I don't agree with the notion that Win7 is just a visual upgrade from vista. I have used both, vista was bumpy at first but has matured by now. There's just something about Win7 that feels fine tuned and polished. On identical equipment I just feel that Win7 is faster and more responsive.
 
Back