>On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:05:48 -0700, Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov wrote:
>
>> "DL" <address@invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Personally I've had a good 'restore' using Erunt
>>Very nice program I use it instead of some restore point. To use a
>>restore point you need to be in the OS. ERUNT you can use if the OS
>>won't boot, by many options.
>This is intriguing - I'd not heard of Erunt until reading this. For
>the uninitiated (me), could you describe a good strategy to use with
>Erunt that will effectively mimick the intended functionality of
>System Restore?
>That is, a way to have it run automatically, and save at least ten
>days worth of "Erunt restore points?"
Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?
ERUNT is a good supplement to System Restore, but it's not the same thing.
ERUNT *only* restores the registry (and its associated files), and nothing
more, which sometimes is a good thing!
System Restore does that, and a whole lot more - which is sometimes useful,
and sometimes not.
DL wrote:
> Personally I've had a good 'restore' using Erunt
>
> <foobar5@home.com> wrote in message
> news:lhip64d0h7g9d0h8sid3jf6f88vhhik82c@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 07:46:45 -0400, "R. McCarty"
>> <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It works much like an incremental backup. If you want to Restore
>>> to Monday and it is Friday - all the interim points must be valid.
>>> Once the chain is broken, no restores past the unusable point will
>>> be possible.
>>
>> I'd not known this.
>>
>> If I *create* a restore point (versus the restore points XP
>> automatically creates), will that created restore point be full (and
>> thus usable pretty much no matter what), or will that also be
>> incremental?
Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?
That would be my understanding.
(UNLESS you say turned System Restore off, and then back on again, which
starts afresh - but that is very different from what you're saying).
If you actually look at some of the restore files in the System Volume
Folder (in each RPnnn subdirectory), you will notice a bunch of ini (and
some other) files in addition to the registry files (like the SAM stuff,
etc, which are in the snapshot subfolder).
And the net folder content varies considerably in both size and number of
files, between the different RPnnn restore point subfolders.
Unknown wrote:
> Are you saying if I do a disk cleanup and elect to delete all restore
> points
> except the latest that the latest restore point is rendered useless after
> disk cleanup finishes???
>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:O65qn5U3IHA.3508@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> OK, so let's see if I understand this better now:
>>
>> If, and *only if*, one purges all the previous restore points (as in
>> turning it off and then back on again), and then one creates a new
>> restore
>> point, that is the ONLY time it will be a complete restore point which
>> does not depend on any previous ones.
>>
>> (although actually that's not exactly true, because as soon as one turns
>> System Restore off and then back on again, a restore point will be
>> created
>> right then - but you know what I mean)
>>
>> OR, to put it another way: if someone has two or more restore points on
>> their system, they ARE always dependent on each other like a chain link
>> (right down to the earliest restore point), and if any of them were
>> somehow deleted, System Restore would be rendered useless.
>>
>> I think that's the way it is, but I'm not positive.
>>
>> R. McCarty wrote:
>>> I didn't phrase the answer very clearly. What I meant was if he purged
>>> all
>>> points and then either the daily timer or change detector created a
>>> "Single"
>>> point then that would have a higher reliability than points that extend
>>> over
>>> several days. Regardless a 1-day roll back is always going to have a
>>> higher
>>> chance of success than if you try and take the machine back to a earlier
>>> date because of the chained points dependency.
>>>
>>> Sometimes I have the concept, but don't explain it very well.
>>>
>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:eCCs0eU3IHA.3348@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>> But at what point does System Restore NOT have to depend on previous
>>>> restore points?
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like you're saying here that if he now creates a new one, it
>>>> doesn't rely on the previous ones. But yet in other cases, it's
>>>> incremental.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> R. McCarty wrote:
>>>>> The way you describe it, the most recent Restore point would have
>>>>> the highest reliability since it alone is required to roll-back the
>>>>> system
>>>>> state. To me the reliability decreases with each point ( or day ) back
>>>>> in time you try to restore to.
>>>>>
>>>>> System Restore is more of a remedy for the "Oh ****" type of
>>>>> change where something is done and the change is immediately seen
>>>>> as unwanted. I've seen SR move a system back by months, but it's
>>>>> not something you'd want to depend on. System Imaging is a much
>>>>> better approach to restoring a system to a previous setup.
>>>>>
>>>>> <foobar5@home.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:lhip64d0h7g9d0h8sid3jf6f88vhhik82c@4ax.com...
>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 07:46:45 -0400, "R. McCarty"
>>>>>> <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It works much like an incremental backup. If you want to Restore
>>>>>>> to Monday and it is Friday - all the interim points must be valid.
>>>>>>> Once the chain is broken, no restores past the unusable point will
>>>>>>> be possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd not known this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I *create* a restore point (versus the restore points XP
>>>>>> automatically creates), will that created restore point be full (and
>>>>>> thus usable pretty much no matter what), or will that also be
>>>>>> incremental?
Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?/little know fact
Richard in AZ wrote:
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%23slkhdU3IHA.2524@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> kineton1 wrote:
>>> <foobar5@home.com> wrote in message
>>> news:d6dp645eqkt74718iprilooq77pt1npfq8@4ax.com...
>>> I very rarely use the system restore feature, but of course it's a
>>> godsend when I do.
>>>
>>> (snipped)
>>>
>>> If you have downloaded a program and then you wish to do a restore to a
>>> point before you installed that program, someone told me that you must
>>> uninstall the program before activating the restore procedure. Else you
>>> will get a "Cannot restore" message.
>>> How true this is I cannot be sure .....
>>> Paul
>>
>> I don't think that is true (or at least not always true) (but someone can
>> correct me if I'm wrong). I say that, because I think I have done that
>> successfully.
>>
>> IOW, if you have installed a program, and for some reason it created
>> problems, and you forgot (or were unable to) uninstall it, I think you
>> CAN
>> use System Restore to roll back. It's not the preferred way of doing
>> things, however.
>
> If you installed a program, and did not uninstall it, then did a system
> restore, the registry lines that support that program are gone.
Right.
> You will still have the program files and folder,
I'm not so sure about that. I think if you restore to a previous
setpoint, it *will* remove the program files exe's (and other monitored
types) in that one subfolder, but leave any .txt and .doc files (etc) in it
alone.
Be that as it may, the program IS effectively uninstalled, with a few
harmless files lying around on the disk.
> and may have some files in the "system" folder, but the program will not
> run.
That I am sure of. :-)
> You have to then remove the files and folders manually.
Well, at least some of them. Except you really don't have to remove them,
as they are doing no harm.
Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?
Correction to the below (added just below):
Bill in Co. wrote:
> That would be my understanding.
> (UNLESS you say turned System Restore off, and then back on again, which
> starts afresh - but that is very different from what you're saying).
In retrospect, I think System Restore has to be a bit more robust than this,
meaning that if one did manually delete some of the previous restore points
as you said, it might be able to at least recover and reboot using the last
saved registry (if you chose to do so), BUT it may not be able to restore
the system completely to the previous point in time.
So I'm hypothesizing that System Restore basically saves a couple of things
here:
1) the current (and full) registry and its associated files (like ERUNT
does), AND
2) a logging of other prior system changes (and what other monitored files
were changed), and it is this which would be lost, if one deleted some of
the previous restore points. It must work something like this, because as
we know, the oldest restore points eventually get deleted by the system to
make room for new ones, since the total space reserved for them is fixed.
<end note>
> If you actually look at some of the restore files in the System Volume
> Folder (in each RPnnn subdirectory), you will notice a bunch of ini (and
> some other) files in addition to the registry files (like the SAM stuff,
> etc, which are in the snapshot subfolder).
>
> And the net folder content varies considerably in both size and number of
> files, between the different RPnnn restore point subfolders.
>
> Unknown wrote:
>> Are you saying if I do a disk cleanup and elect to delete all restore
>> points
>> except the latest that the latest restore point is rendered useless after
>> disk cleanup finishes???
>>
>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:O65qn5U3IHA.3508@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> OK, so let's see if I understand this better now:
>>>
>>> If, and *only if*, one purges all the previous restore points (as in
>>> turning it off and then back on again), and then one creates a new
>>> restore
>>> point, that is the ONLY time it will be a complete restore point which
>>> does not depend on any previous ones.
>>>
>>> (although actually that's not exactly true, because as soon as one turns
>>> System Restore off and then back on again, a restore point will be
>>> created
>>> right then - but you know what I mean)
>>>
>>> OR, to put it another way: if someone has two or more restore points
>>> on
>>> their system, they ARE always dependent on each other like a chain link
>>> (right down to the earliest restore point), and if any of them were
>>> somehow deleted, System Restore would be rendered useless.
>>>
>>> I think that's the way it is, but I'm not positive.
>>>
>>> R. McCarty wrote:
>>>> I didn't phrase the answer very clearly. What I meant was if he purged
>>>> all
>>>> points and then either the daily timer or change detector created a
>>>> "Single"
>>>> point then that would have a higher reliability than points that extend
>>>> over
>>>> several days. Regardless a 1-day roll back is always going to have a
>>>> higher
>>>> chance of success than if you try and take the machine back to a
>>>> earlier
>>>> date because of the chained points dependency.
>>>>
>>>> Sometimes I have the concept, but don't explain it very well.
>>>>
>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:eCCs0eU3IHA.3348@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>> But at what point does System Restore NOT have to depend on previous
>>>>> restore points?
>>>>>
>>>>> It sounds like you're saying here that if he now creates a new one, it
>>>>> doesn't rely on the previous ones. But yet in other cases, it's
>>>>> incremental.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> R. McCarty wrote:
>>>>>> The way you describe it, the most recent Restore point would have
>>>>>> the highest reliability since it alone is required to roll-back the
>>>>>> system
>>>>>> state. To me the reliability decreases with each point ( or day )
>>>>>> back
>>>>>> in time you try to restore to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> System Restore is more of a remedy for the "Oh ****" type of
>>>>>> change where something is done and the change is immediately seen
>>>>>> as unwanted. I've seen SR move a system back by months, but it's
>>>>>> not something you'd want to depend on. System Imaging is a much
>>>>>> better approach to restoring a system to a previous setup.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <foobar5@home.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:lhip64d0h7g9d0h8sid3jf6f88vhhik82c@4ax.com...
>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 07:46:45 -0400, "R. McCarty"
>>>>>>> <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It works much like an incremental backup. If you want to Restore
>>>>>>>> to Monday and it is Friday - all the interim points must be valid.
>>>>>>>> Once the chain is broken, no restores past the unusable point will
>>>>>>>> be possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd not known this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I *create* a restore point (versus the restore points XP
>>>>>>> automatically creates), will that created restore point be full (and
>>>>>>> thus usable pretty much no matter what), or will that also be
>>>>>>> incremental?
Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?/little know fact
"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%23JCdN7X3IHA.784@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Richard in AZ wrote:
>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:%23slkhdU3IHA.2524@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> kineton1 wrote:
>>>> <foobar5@home.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:d6dp645eqkt74718iprilooq77pt1npfq8@4ax.com...
>>>> I very rarely use the system restore feature, but of course it's a
>>>> godsend when I do.
>>>>
>>>> (snipped)
>>>>
>>>> If you have downloaded a program and then you wish to do a restore to
>>>> a
>>>> point before you installed that program, someone told me that you must
>>>> uninstall the program before activating the restore procedure. Else you
>>>> will get a "Cannot restore" message.
>>>> How true this is I cannot be sure .....
>>>> Paul
>>>
>>> I don't think that is true (or at least not always true) (but someone
>>> can
>>> correct me if I'm wrong). I say that, because I think I have done that
>>> successfully.
>>>
>>> IOW, if you have installed a program, and for some reason it created
>>> problems, and you forgot (or were unable to) uninstall it, I think you
>>> CAN
>>> use System Restore to roll back. It's not the preferred way of doing
>>> things, however.
>>
>> If you installed a program, and did not uninstall it, then did a system
>> restore, the registry lines that support that program are gone.
>
> Right.
>
>> You will still have the program files and folder,
>
> I'm not so sure about that. I think if you restore to a previous
> setpoint, it *will* remove the program files exe's (and other monitored
> types) in that one subfolder, but leave any .txt and .doc files (etc) in
> it alone.
System Restore does not remove any non-windows-system files. Therefore
the program files will still be there.
> Be that as it may, the program IS effectively uninstalled, with a few
> harmless files lying around on the disk.
>
>> and may have some files in the "system" folder, but the program will not
>> run.
>
> That I am sure of. :-)
>
>> You have to then remove the files and folders manually.
>
> Well, at least some of them. Except you really don't have to remove
> them, as they are doing no harm.
>
Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?
I did have an occasion to use System Restore after deleting all but the
latest Restore Point and it was successful.
"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:OvbdPec3IHA.4036@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Correction to the below (added just below):
>
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> That would be my understanding.
>> (UNLESS you say turned System Restore off, and then back on again, which
>> starts afresh - but that is very different from what you're saying).
>
> In retrospect, I think System Restore has to be a bit more robust than
> this, meaning that if one did manually delete some of the previous restore
> points as you said, it might be able to at least recover and reboot using
> the last saved registry (if you chose to do so), BUT it may not be able to
> restore the system completely to the previous point in time.
>
> So I'm hypothesizing that System Restore basically saves a couple of
> things here:
> 1) the current (and full) registry and its associated files (like ERUNT
> does), AND
> 2) a logging of other prior system changes (and what other monitored files
> were changed), and it is this which would be lost, if one deleted some of
> the previous restore points. It must work something like this, because
> as we know, the oldest restore points eventually get deleted by the system
> to make room for new ones, since the total space reserved for them is
> fixed.
>
> <end note>
>
>> If you actually look at some of the restore files in the System Volume
>> Folder (in each RPnnn subdirectory), you will notice a bunch of ini (and
>> some other) files in addition to the registry files (like the SAM stuff,
>> etc, which are in the snapshot subfolder).
>>
>> And the net folder content varies considerably in both size and number of
>> files, between the different RPnnn restore point subfolders.
>>
>> Unknown wrote:
>>> Are you saying if I do a disk cleanup and elect to delete all restore
>>> points
>>> except the latest that the latest restore point is rendered useless
>>> after
>>> disk cleanup finishes???
>>>
>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:O65qn5U3IHA.3508@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> OK, so let's see if I understand this better now:
>>>>
>>>> If, and *only if*, one purges all the previous restore points (as in
>>>> turning it off and then back on again), and then one creates a new
>>>> restore
>>>> point, that is the ONLY time it will be a complete restore point which
>>>> does not depend on any previous ones.
>>>>
>>>> (although actually that's not exactly true, because as soon as one
>>>> turns
>>>> System Restore off and then back on again, a restore point will be
>>>> created
>>>> right then - but you know what I mean)
>>>>
>>>> OR, to put it another way: if someone has two or more restore points
>>>> on
>>>> their system, they ARE always dependent on each other like a chain link
>>>> (right down to the earliest restore point), and if any of them were
>>>> somehow deleted, System Restore would be rendered useless.
>>>>
>>>> I think that's the way it is, but I'm not positive.
>>>>
>>>> R. McCarty wrote:
>>>>> I didn't phrase the answer very clearly. What I meant was if he purged
>>>>> all
>>>>> points and then either the daily timer or change detector created a
>>>>> "Single"
>>>>> point then that would have a higher reliability than points that
>>>>> extend
>>>>> over
>>>>> several days. Regardless a 1-day roll back is always going to have a
>>>>> higher
>>>>> chance of success than if you try and take the machine back to a
>>>>> earlier
>>>>> date because of the chained points dependency.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sometimes I have the concept, but don't explain it very well.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:eCCs0eU3IHA.3348@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> But at what point does System Restore NOT have to depend on previous
>>>>>> restore points?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It sounds like you're saying here that if he now creates a new one,
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> doesn't rely on the previous ones. But yet in other cases, it's
>>>>>> incremental.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> R. McCarty wrote:
>>>>>>> The way you describe it, the most recent Restore point would have
>>>>>>> the highest reliability since it alone is required to roll-back the
>>>>>>> system
>>>>>>> state. To me the reliability decreases with each point ( or day )
>>>>>>> back
>>>>>>> in time you try to restore to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> System Restore is more of a remedy for the "Oh ****" type of
>>>>>>> change where something is done and the change is immediately seen
>>>>>>> as unwanted. I've seen SR move a system back by months, but it's
>>>>>>> not something you'd want to depend on. System Imaging is a much
>>>>>>> better approach to restoring a system to a previous setup.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <foobar5@home.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:lhip64d0h7g9d0h8sid3jf6f88vhhik82c@4ax.com...
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 07:46:45 -0400, "R. McCarty"
>>>>>>>> <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It works much like an incremental backup. If you want to Restore
>>>>>>>>> to Monday and it is Friday - all the interim points must be valid.
>>>>>>>>> Once the chain is broken, no restores past the unusable point will
>>>>>>>>> be possible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd not known this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I *create* a restore point (versus the restore points XP
>>>>>>>> automatically creates), will that created restore point be full
>>>>>>>> (and
>>>>>>>> thus usable pretty much no matter what), or will that also be
>>>>>>>> incremental?
>
>
Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?
"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:
>In retrospect, I think System Restore has to be a bit more robust than this,
>meaning that if one did manually delete some of the previous restore points
>as you said, it might be able to at least recover and reboot using the last
>saved registry (if you chose to do so), BUT it may not be able to restore
>the system completely to the previous point in time.
Note: I don't use the restore program - it takes up a huge amount of
space.
Restore points are stored in windows/System Volume Information
It's a hidden directory and it won't let you in,; without jumping thru
a few hoops, I dual boot so just go to another OS to view it.
So if you delete anything in this directory with the restore program
(a restore point) it's history.
Using the last saved registry won't save ya, and why ERUNT is
different that a restore point, it restores registry backups from
times you really like the way your computer is running, or before a
major change; Or me once a month.
Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?/little know fact
Richard in AZ wrote:
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%23JCdN7X3IHA.784@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> Richard in AZ wrote:
>>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:%23slkhdU3IHA.2524@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>>> kineton1 wrote:
>>>>> <foobar5@home.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:d6dp645eqkt74718iprilooq77pt1npfq8@4ax.com...
>>>>> I very rarely use the system restore feature, but of course it's a
>>>>> godsend when I do.
>>>>>
>>>>> (snipped)
>>>>>
>>>>> If you have downloaded a program and then you wish to do a restore to
>>>>> a point before you installed that program, someone told me that you
>>>>> must
>>>>> uninstall the program before activating the restore procedure. Else
>>>>> you
>>>>> will get a "Cannot restore" message.
>>>>> How true this is I cannot be sure .....
>>>>> Paul
>>>>
>>>> I don't think that is true (or at least not always true) (but someone
>>>> can
>>>> correct me if I'm wrong). I say that, because I think I have done
>>>> that
>>>> successfully.
>>>>
>>>> IOW, if you have installed a program, and for some reason it created
>>>> problems, and you forgot (or were unable to) uninstall it, I think you
>>>> CAN
>>>> use System Restore to roll back. It's not the preferred way of doing
>>>> things, however.
>>>
>>> If you installed a program, and did not uninstall it, then did a system
>>> restore, the registry lines that support that program are gone.
>>
>> Right.
>>
>>> You will still have the program files and folder,
>>
>> I'm not so sure about that. I think if you restore to a previous
>> setpoint, it *will* remove the program files exe's (and other monitored
>> types) in that one subfolder, but leave any .txt and .doc files (etc) in
>> it alone.
>
> System Restore does not remove any non-windows-system files. Therefore
> the program files will still be there.
>
Actually, it can, and does. For example, if you have downloaded some
programs and saved them on your HD (and even have not installed them yet),
and then do a System Restore back to a prior point in time, you WILL lose
those exe (and other monitored type) files, UNLESS you had saved them in a
user protected folder like My Documents.
And that is one big annoyance in using System Restore. But as long as you
are aware of it, you can work around it (by saving things in My Documents).
But that is a bit of a nuisance.
>> Be that as it may, the program IS effectively uninstalled, with a few
>> harmless files lying around on the disk.
>>
>>> and may have some files in the "system" folder, but the program will not
>>> run.
>>
>> That I am sure of. :-)
>>
>>> You have to then remove the files and folders manually.
>>
>> Well, at least some of them. Except you really don't have to remove
>> them, as they are doing no harm.
Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what? 
Linear Mode
