Do XP Repair install make things so significantly slower?

January 8, 2013 at 19:00:11
Specs: Windows XP Service Pack 3 and VectorLinux 7, Pentium 4B 2.4GHz + 1GB RAM
I did a repair install on a Windows XP installation that happened to be unbootable (boot loader was messed up and fixboot/fixmbr didn't work) and now it takes ages to boot up.

Do repair installs usually make things so significantly slower?
I'm just going to do a clean reinstall, it would be a lot faster...


See More: Do XP Repair install make things so significantly slower?

Report •

#1
January 8, 2013 at 20:54:19
repair fixes the OS damage but not damage to applications that load upon bootup.

Answers are only as good as the information you provide.
How to properly post a question:
Sorry no tech support via PM's


Report •

#2
January 8, 2013 at 21:07:25
Yeah but it should not reduce system performance; that's silly.

Report •

#3
January 8, 2013 at 21:11:08
*frown* what do you think misbehaving programs do? Make the OS run better? Reinstall with format if you want to achieve max performance results.

Answers are only as good as the information you provide.
How to properly post a question:
Sorry no tech support via PM's


Report •

Related Solutions

#4
January 8, 2013 at 21:15:11
Read the OP properly...
It was a perfectly running XP installation which booted up as fast as an SSD (except it wasn't an SSD) and NOTHING was wrong with it except the boot loader.

And yes, I reformatted and reinstalled, and for some reason it was slower! Whaaaat?


Report •

#5
January 8, 2013 at 23:53:19
"Specs: Windows XP Service Pack 3 and VectorLinux 7, Pentium 4B 2.4GHz + 1GB RAM"
Are the 2 systems on 1 or 2 drives?

Report •

#6
January 9, 2013 at 00:01:52
Sorry when I posted the question it must have kept the same data as the previous question, long story short VectorLinux 7 messed up the boot loader and the OSes were on separate drives.

Report •

#7
January 9, 2013 at 01:13:51
So we now have 1 drive with XP on it.

I would reinstall again.

Make sure when you reinstall, you delete ALL partitions & format to NTFS.
D to Delete the selected partition ( XP )
http://www.blackviper.com/os-instal...

Here are some examples of why you delete all partitions.
http://forums.spybot.info/showthrea...
http://forums.whatthetech.com/index...
http://blog.eset.com/2011/10/18/tdl...


Report •

#8
January 9, 2013 at 01:34:25
Yep, did all that, and somehow it's slower than the previous Windows installation.

Same install disk, same hard disk, same PC and hardware configuration, same everything. I guess no two Windows installations are ever the same, no matter how hard you try to make them the same?


Report •

#9
January 9, 2013 at 01:57:46
"It was a perfectly running XP installation which booted up as fast as an SSD (except it wasn't an SSD) and NOTHING was wrong with it except the boot loader."

All other things being equal that is physically impossible. There wouldn't be much point in spending money on SSDs if they weren't any faster than mechanical drives.

Had you installed some software that somehow speeded up boot time over stock XP?

And if all that was wrong with it was the bootloader then there is no way that correcting that would slow down booting time. I find that it is never wise to make assumptions about what is wrong with a system; there may be several faults.

But I'm confused. You start by saying that you did a Repair Installation and then you say that you reformatted and did a clean install. Do you mean that since your OP you did a full reinstall; and have you already updated it with all SPs and patches?


Report •

#10
January 9, 2013 at 02:00:48
Don't worry about the SSD comparisons... I was just pointing out how fast it was, compared to my main Windows 7 PC which has significantly better hardware yet boots slower.

All I installed on XP was the drivers (audio, graphics, motherboard chipset, etc), Google Chrome, Taskbar Shuffle (very useful program if you don't have Windows 7 :P) and Comodo Firewall.

The install disk had all SPs and patches slipstreamed.

The new software configuration is basically the same as the old one, I can't think of anything did differently.


Report •

#11
January 9, 2013 at 02:14:37
Well, computers operate according to the laws of logic. Two identical installations will act identically. And the only way to be sure of things like boot-up times is to actually time them and record those results. Comparison with a different OS is not really useful.

I can't guess what your problem may be, other than what has already been said, but you must have done something differently. It may even be that you have somehow changed or damaged the hardware (something as simple as a slightly displaced hard-disk cable can cause all sorts of strange problems) or changed BIOS settings.

Whatever it is, you have changed something. There is no magic involved.


Report •

#12
January 9, 2013 at 02:37:18
Well I approximately measure the duration of the XP boot screen by looking at how many times the blue bar slides across the screen.

On the previous install it loops 3 times before the OS boots, now it takes about 7-8 loops before I reach the welcome screen.

Where did you get "Comparison with a different OS" from? I did not mention that anywhere in my post. I'm comparing Windows XP to Windows XP. Same install disk, same hardware, same software. The only thing I can think of is installing the drivers in a different order.


Report •

#13
January 9, 2013 at 02:58:10
I agree with ijack, you have done something different.

You have changed the bios back to boot from the HD first?

If you only have one HD, make sure it is jumpered to Master ( not MS or Master with Slave )

You may find something here that helps.
Hacking Windows XP: Speed Up Your Boot ( 17 pages )
http://www.extremetech.com/article2...


Report •

#14
January 9, 2013 at 03:04:55
So far you have mentioned "Repair Install", when it seems that you are talking about a fresh install.

You have mentioned "as fast as an SSD", and then said that is not the case.

You have talked about comparing boot times with a Windows 7 system and then ask where I get "comparison with another OS" from.

You'll have to forgive my confusion.

Good luck with discovering the difference between the two installs, but I am out of useful ideas.


Report •

#15
January 9, 2013 at 05:36:28
I literally did not change anything.

I did a repair install, which made things really slow, so I nuked the whole thing and did a clean install from scratch, following the same procedure as I did the first time. The new install, while much faster than the repair install, was still slower to boot than the first install (non-repaired)

In short:
Clean installation attempt 1 - fastest
Repair install - slowest
Clean nstallation attempt 2 - in between

(As for the SSD and Windows 7 comparisons... you know what, just forget about it, my small talk must have confused you.)

You know how Einstein said insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results? Sadly it does not apply to computers...


Report •

#16
January 9, 2013 at 05:49:04
If your P4 is running hot & throttling, that could explain the slowness. I also see you only have 1GB RAM, which is acceptable but not great. And in your previous thread you had to make a BIOS change to get the system to boot properly. Did you change any other settings while you were in the BIOS that may have decreased performance?

"I reformatted and reinstalled"

Did you wipe out the existing partition(s), create a new partition(s), then format?

What else have you installed other than XP, the lastest drivers, & all the windows updates? (I assume you did all that stuff, right?) Is it possible something else you installed (antivirus for example) is slowing the system?


Report •

#17
January 9, 2013 at 05:55:11
Only settings in the BIOS that were changed was the boot order (HDD0 instead of HDD1 which didn't work anyway)

CPU isn't throttling

As I said, the only programs installed are Chrome and Comodo Firewall (which has a minimal performance impact, and it was installed on the previous installation as well which still booted faster)

Drivers are installed as necessary


And yes I deleted the partitions and created new ones which were then formatted

Let's not forget the initial point of this thread, which was whether repair installations make Windows slower.
Would programs like AV and Firewalls, which integrated deeply into the system, be broken by Windows replacing all its files? That would be the only explanation I can think of.


Report •

#18
January 9, 2013 at 07:24:30
"Only settings in the BIOS that were changed was the boot order (HDD0 instead of HDD1 which didn't work anyway)"

That's odd, in the other thread you claimed it worked?

http://www.computing.net/answers/wi...

"CPU isn't throttling"

OK, have to take your word for it. I assume the idle temp is below 40C?

"Let's not forget the initial point of this thread, which was whether repair installations make Windows slower"

I believe that was already answered. No, a repair install will NOT make Windows slower, but it does "reset the clock" so to speak. Any Windows updates that were installed prior to the repair are replaced with whatever versions are on the disc, so there may be "slowness" in the beginning as the auto-updater plays catch-up (assuming you have it enabled). And as stated by wanderer, the repair is for the OS, it will not fix problems unrelated to Windows.

Did you tweak XP for best performance? Things such as disabling indexing, disabling the majority of the visual effects, disabling System Restore, etc? Have you ruled out a hardware problem? Did you disconnect the HDD with Linux on it? I think they are IDE drives, right? How are they connected? Generally, HDDs should not be connected to the same IDE cable/channel. The XP HDD should be the primary master, the Linux HDD should be on the 2ndary channel.


Report •

#19
January 9, 2013 at 08:49:46
Disable all items in msconfig startup and see how the boot up is then. If it is faster then let them back in one at a time to see which one is slowing it down.

Sometimes new faults can happen to come along by coincidence after you've done something - hardware or software.

Always pop back and let us know the outcome - thanks


Report •

#20
January 10, 2013 at 17:40:37
I basically just left the settings as default both times...
IDE channel 1 has a 40GB and 160GB slave, while IDE channel 2 has two optical drives - has been this way since the PC was originally built way back in 2003 (but the 160GB was added I think in 2008)

Nevertheless this does not matter, the question is why are the boot times different on the same configuration?

Disabling all startup items did not increase performance (since there are almost no startup items anyway)


Report •

#21
Report •

#22
January 10, 2013 at 17:57:31
Thanks I'll try those later

But the question still hasn't been properly answered (I am not trying to make the PC faster as it already runs well enough for my liking BUT I want to know from others if repair installs have ever made things slower or not)


Report •

#23
January 10, 2013 at 18:21:39
That's too big a question, I personally have never had it happen.

xp repair install slower
http://is.gd/cIynnL



Report •

#24
January 10, 2013 at 18:25:39
Ok that's all I really needed to know, though I find it odd that it happened to me

Report •

#25
January 10, 2013 at 19:01:49
"Ok that's all I really needed to know"
That's why no one answered.

"though I find it odd that it happened to me"
Your not the only, do your research/googling, click the link I gave you.


Report •

#26
January 10, 2013 at 19:14:35
I have already done my research, and I don't see many other cases of it happening

Report •

Ask Question