XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?

OK, good to know. I presume you deleted those other restore points
manually by getting to them in Windows Explorer (once you got past the
Access Denied crap and straightened that out).

However, I bet what happened was you were able to restore your system, but
probably some of the other changes in system files (if any) (monitored
previously, and kept track of by the earlier restore points), weren't
restored to that prior state.

Unknown wrote:
> 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?

Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov wrote:
> "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.

I've set up those hoops so that I *do* have access to those restore points
in Explorer.

> So if you delete anything in this directory with the restore program
> (a restore point) it's history.

Well, but as "unknown" just said, that's not always true. Check his reply.

> 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.

Yes, but keep in mind ERUNT *only* backs up and restores the registry and
its associated files (which is sometimes all you need or want). ERUNT
doesn't replace System Restore, it supplements it.

I look at it as using the right (i.e. appropriate) tool, for the right job.
:-)

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

>> 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.

>Yes, but keep in mind ERUNT *only* backs up and restores the registry and
>its associated files (which is sometimes all you need or want). ERUNT
>doesn't replace System Restore, it supplements it.
>
>I look at it as using the right (i.e. appropriate) tool, for the right job.
>:-)

Just offering advice or another view.

I have never used the system restore, on any windows OS, so ERUNT is
all I have to offer

--

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_-RdAzkKlXY

Bill: I have a folder called "downloads" in my C drive.
I save all downloaded files there. I have never lost a file from this
folder with System Restore.

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:OnBD7zg3IHA.5088@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Richard in AZ wrote:
,snip>
> 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.
<snip>

Interesting. I have lost exe (and other file types) of files I've saved
but didn't store in the MS designated safe place (My Documents), IF I
restore back to a point prior in time to when I got those files. Why?
Because it's one of the several monitored file types monitored by System
Restore, and System Restore, in its "limited wisdom", assumes it could have
been problematic, so it removes them when I restore back to a previous
setpoint.

Consequentially, I have HAD to get in the habit of either 1) NOT saving such
files anywhere I feel like on my hard drive, but putting them in the MS
recommended folder of My Documents, OR 2) simply create a new System Restore
point after I've got the files, in which case I can leave them there, and
they will stay there (unless I restore back to an earlier point).

Richard in AZ wrote:
> Bill: I have a folder called "downloads" in my C drive.
> I save all downloaded files there. I have never lost a file from this
> folder with System Restore.
>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:OnBD7zg3IHA.5088@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Richard in AZ wrote:
> ,snip>
>> 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.
> <snip>

"Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:%23QN5J3g3IHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> OK, good to know. I presume you deleted those other restore points
> manually by getting to them in Windows Explorer (once you got past the
> Access Denied crap and straightened that out).
I deleted them by using disk cleanup.

>
> However, I bet what happened was you were able to restore your system, but
> probably some of the other changes in system files (if any) (monitored
> previously, and kept track of by the earlier restore points), weren't
> restored to that prior state.
That's impossible since I used the latest restore point. Why, on some files
would
I want to go further back?? Am I misunderstanding something?

>
> Unknown wrote:
>> 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?
>
>

Hey, hey, you're doing exactly the same thing I am doing. And oddly enough I
have the same name for the file (Downloads)
It's easy to remember. I also have never lost a file. The bad time I had to
use system restore was after I let my granddaughter
use my computer. Needless to say, never again.
"Richard in AZ" <me@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:%23Aj7UPj3IHA.2332@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Bill: I have a folder called "downloads" in my C drive.
> I save all downloaded files there. I have never lost a file from this
> folder with System Restore.
>
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:OnBD7zg3IHA.5088@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Richard in AZ wrote:
> ,snip>
>> 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.
> <snip>
>
>

Unknown wrote:
> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:%23QN5J3g3IHA.3544@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> OK, good to know. I presume you deleted those other restore points
>> manually by getting to them in Windows Explorer (once you got past the
>> Access Denied crap and straightened that out).
> I deleted them by using disk cleanup.
>
>>
>> However, I bet what happened was you were able to restore your system,
>> but
>> probably some of the other changes in system files (if any) (monitored
>> previously, and kept track of by the earlier restore points), weren't
>> restored to that prior state.
> That's impossible since I used the latest restore point. Why, on some
> files
> would I want to go further back?? Am I misunderstanding something?

I'm still trying to tease out the belief that System Restore seems on the
one hand to be incrementally based, suggesting that it needs the previous
restore point data (in each of the previous subfolders) for complete success
for a restore operation, with the belief that on the other hand, maybe it
does NOT need those other (prior) restore points and whatever information is
contatined there. OK, maybe this is the explanation below:

I think each time you create a Restore Point it is:
1) saving the complete registry as of that point in time (just like ERUNT),
and
2) saving other program and system changes (not in the registry) made since
the last saved restore point, in a separate set of files. This would be
the incremental logging part I was talking about.

That being said, however, implies that if one deleted the previous restore
points, one could not get all the monitored program and system files back to
their previous state.

>> Unknown wrote:
>>> 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?

Maybe when you create a folder called Downloads, it (for some reason) isn't
monitored by System Restore. Is it in the Documents and Settings folder,
or right in the root of the drive, as in C:\Downloads ?

One thing I *can* tell you for a fact is when I have used System Restore to
roll back to a previous point, I *have* lost files (of the monitored types),
UNLESS I had saved them previously in the MS recommended, safe personal
folders (as also mentioned in one of their articles at their web site),
which is not monitored by System Restore.

Unknown wrote:
> Hey, hey, you're doing exactly the same thing I am doing. And oddly enough
> I
> have the same name for the file (Downloads)
> It's easy to remember. I also have never lost a file. The bad time I had
> to
> use system restore was after I let my granddaughter
> use my computer. Needless to say, never again.
> "Richard in AZ" <me@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> news:%23Aj7UPj3IHA.2332@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>> Bill: I have a folder called "downloads" in my C drive.
>> I save all downloaded files there. I have never lost a file from this
>> folder with System Restore.
>>
>> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:OnBD7zg3IHA.5088@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>> Richard in AZ wrote:
>> ,snip>
>>> 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.
>> <snip>

On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 12:45:42 -0600, "Bill in Co."
<not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Maybe when you create a folder called Downloads, it (for some reason) isn't
> monitored by System Restore. Is it in the Documents and Settings folder,
> or right in the root of the drive, as in C:\Downloads ?


It's not listed as an unmonitored folder in
http://bertk.mvps.org/html/filesfolders.html


> One thing I *can* tell you for a fact is when I have used System Restore to
> roll back to a previous point, I *have* lost files (of the monitored types),
> UNLESS I had saved them previously in the MS recommended, safe personal
> folders (as also mentioned in one of their articles at their web site),
> which is not monitored by System Restore.
>
> Unknown wrote:
> > Hey, hey, you're doing exactly the same thing I am doing. And oddly enough
> > I
> > have the same name for the file (Downloads)
> > It's easy to remember. I also have never lost a file. The bad time I had
> > to
> > use system restore was after I let my granddaughter
> > use my computer. Needless to say, never again.
> > "Richard in AZ" <me@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> > news:%23Aj7UPj3IHA.2332@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >> Bill: I have a folder called "downloads" in my C drive.
> >> I save all downloaded files there. I have never lost a file from this
> >> folder with System Restore.
> >>
> >> "Bill in Co." <not_really_here@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> news:OnBD7zg3IHA.5088@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> >>> Richard in AZ wrote:
> >> ,snip>
> >>> 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.
> >> <snip>
>

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup