XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?

Why do you care. Don't read if it bothers you. Are you the watchman of this
group?
Who are you trying to impress with all that foul language?? Certainly not
us.

"Aardvark" <aardvark@youllnever.know> wrote in message
news1pck.149370$8H5.82115@newsfe10.ams2...
> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:45:11 -0600, Bill in Co. wrote:
>
>>> If that's the case, the latest restore point is no good anyway.
>>
>> Well, not exactly. I expect that one can at least use the latest
>> restore point to at least get their system back, based just on the
>> registry restore (and its associated files) portion. True, the
>> computer may not have ALL of the other monitored files that were being
>> monitored and not restored, but at least the system is back again.
>> And as you have already pointed out, you've successfully done that. So
>> it appears that just having the last restore point can work, as you have
>> pointed out.
>> I haven't tried that experiment yet.
>
> Why the **** do you two insist on either a) top-posting a reply then re-
> posting the whole ****ing thread or b) replying to some point in the
> middle of the other's post and re-posting the whole ****ing thread? It's
> a real pain in the ****ing *** scrolling down a 258 line post to look for
> other pearls of wisdom only to find nothing else new.
>
> Snip all the **** except the point to which you wish to reply (while, of
> course, endeavouring to keep it in context), leave a blank line and then
> post your ****ing reply.
>
> ****ing pair of nitwits.
>
>
>
> --
> Liverpool. European City Of Culture 2008
> http://www.liverpool08.com

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:41:21 -0500, Unknown wrote:

<knucklehead top-posting corrected>

> "Aardvark" <aardvark@youllnever.know> wrote in message
> news1pck.149370$8H5.82115@newsfe10.ams2...
>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:45:11 -0600, Bill in Co. wrote:
>>
>>>> If that's the case, the latest restore point is no good anyway.
>>>
>>> Well, not exactly. I expect that one can at least use the latest
>>> restore point to at least get their system back, based just on the
>>> registry restore (and its associated files) portion. True, the
>>> computer may not have ALL of the other monitored files that were being
>>> monitored and not restored, but at least the system is back again. And
>>> as you have already pointed out, you've successfully done that. So
>>> it appears that just having the last restore point can work, as you
>>> have pointed out.
>>> I haven't tried that experiment yet.
>>
>> Why the **** do you two insist on either a) top-posting a reply then
>> re- posting the whole ****ing thread or b) replying to some point in
>> the middle of the other's post and re-posting the whole ****ing thread?
>> It's a real pain in the ****ing *** scrolling down a 258 line post to
>> look for other pearls of wisdom only to find nothing else new.
>>
>> Snip all the **** except the point to which you wish to reply (while,
>> of course, endeavouring to keep it in context), leave a blank line and
>> then post your ****ing reply.
>>
>> ****ing pair of nitwits.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Liverpool. European City Of Culture 2008 http://www.liverpool08.com
>
> Why do you care. Don't read if it bothers you. Are you the watchman of
> this group?
> Who are you trying to impress with all that foul language?? Certainly
> not us.
>

Not only top-posting with no context and no snippage. The ****ing idiot
even re-posts a sig!!! (see above)

You're more of a ****ing nincompoop than I thought.


--
Liverpool. European City Of Culture 2008
http://www.liverpool08.com

Like I said 'don't read if you don't like contents'.
Who are you trying to impress?

"Aardvark" <aardvark@youllnever.know> wrote in message
news:kirck.149964$8H5.126979@newsfe10.ams2...
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:41:21 -0500, Unknown wrote:
>
> <knucklehead top-posting corrected>
>
>> "Aardvark" <aardvark@youllnever.know> wrote in message
>> news1pck.149370$8H5.82115@newsfe10.ams2...
>>> On Sun, 06 Jul 2008 15:45:11 -0600, Bill in Co. wrote:
>>>
>>>>> If that's the case, the latest restore point is no good anyway.
>>>>
>>>> Well, not exactly. I expect that one can at least use the latest
>>>> restore point to at least get their system back, based just on the
>>>> registry restore (and its associated files) portion. True, the
>>>> computer may not have ALL of the other monitored files that were being
>>>> monitored and not restored, but at least the system is back again. And
>>>> as you have already pointed out, you've successfully done that. So
>>>> it appears that just having the last restore point can work, as you
>>>> have pointed out.
>>>> I haven't tried that experiment yet.
>>>
>>> Why the **** do you two insist on either a) top-posting a reply then
>>> re- posting the whole ****ing thread or b) replying to some point in
>>> the middle of the other's post and re-posting the whole ****ing thread?
>>> It's a real pain in the ****ing *** scrolling down a 258 line post to
>>> look for other pearls of wisdom only to find nothing else new.
>>>
>>> Snip all the **** except the point to which you wish to reply (while,
>>> of course, endeavouring to keep it in context), leave a blank line and
>>> then post your ****ing reply.
>>>
>>> ****ing pair of nitwits.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Liverpool. European City Of Culture 2008 http://www.liverpool08.com
>>
>> Why do you care. Don't read if it bothers you. Are you the watchman of
>> this group?
>> Who are you trying to impress with all that foul language?? Certainly
>> not us.
>>
>
> Not only top-posting with no context and no snippage. The ****ing idiot
> even re-posts a sig!!! (see above)
>
> You're more of a ****ing nincompoop than I thought.
>
>
> --
> Liverpool. European City Of Culture 2008
> http://www.liverpool08.com

On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:46:28 -0500, Unknown wrote:

> Like I said 'don't read if you don't like contents'. Who are you trying
> to impress?

Certainly not you, moron.

Consideration for one's readers is a simple concept but it seems it's too
****ing difficult for you to grasp.

****ing top-posting imbecile.



--
Liverpool. European City Of Culture 2008
http://www.liverpool08.com

And you have consideration for posters? With your foul mouth? But, you
erroneously are trying to impress someone.

"Aardvark" <aardvark@youllnever.know> wrote in message
news:bOxck.150003$8H5.91946@newsfe10.ams2...
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:46:28 -0500, Unknown wrote:
>
>> Like I said 'don't read if you don't like contents'. Who are you trying
>> to impress?
>
> Certainly not you, moron.
>
> Consideration for one's readers is a simple concept but it seems it's too
> ****ing difficult for you to grasp.
>
> ****ing top-posting imbecile.
>
>
>
> --
> Liverpool. European City Of Culture 2008
> http://www.liverpool08.com

Hi. R. McCarty -- Hoping you can help. About 6-7 weeks ago, I deleted a bunch
of old stuff trying to free up space. Apparently, I didn't know what I was
deleting and accidentally deleted all of my photos from the last several
years. These were my kids growing up. Being a total loser when it comes to
computers, I JUST figured out today that I could do a system restore to get
stuff back. Problem is, it will only restore up to about three weeks ago and
I need to go back to 6/3/08 and restore. Is it possible to do this? Thanks.
M.H.

"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?
>
>
>

On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:49:00 -0700, M.H.
<M.H.@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Hi. R. McCarty -- Hoping you can help. About 6-7 weeks ago, I deleted a bunch
>of old stuff trying to free up space. Apparently, I didn't know what I was
>deleting and accidentally deleted all of my photos from the last several
>years. These were my kids growing up. Being a total loser when it comes to
>computers, I JUST figured out today that I could do a system restore to get
>stuff back. Problem is, it will only restore up to about three weeks ago and
>I need to go back to 6/3/08 and restore. Is it possible to do this? Thanks.
>M.H.
>
>"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?
>>
>>
>>

To MH - a system restore ONLY restores the registry , anything else
requires *recover* software .

Thanks for responding Jimbo. So where does one get "recover" software?

"jimbo571@operamail.com" wrote:

> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:49:00 -0700, M.H.
> <M.H.@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> >Hi. R. McCarty -- Hoping you can help. About 6-7 weeks ago, I deleted a bunch
> >of old stuff trying to free up space. Apparently, I didn't know what I was
> >deleting and accidentally deleted all of my photos from the last several
> >years. These were my kids growing up. Being a total loser when it comes to
> >computers, I JUST figured out today that I could do a system restore to get
> >stuff back. Problem is, it will only restore up to about three weeks ago and
> >I need to go back to 6/3/08 and restore. Is it possible to do this? Thanks.
> >M.H.
> >
> >"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?
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> To MH - a system restore ONLY restores the registry , anything else
> requires *recover* software .
>

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 07:09:06 -0700, M.H.
<MH@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Thanks for responding Jimbo. So where does one get "recover" software?
>
>"jimbo571@operamail.com" wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 20:49:00 -0700, M.H.
>> <M.H.@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Hi. R. McCarty -- Hoping you can help. About 6-7 weeks ago, I deleted a bunch
>> >of old stuff trying to free up space. Apparently, I didn't know what I was
>> >deleting and accidentally deleted all of my photos from the last several
>> >years. These were my kids growing up. Being a total loser when it comes to
>> >computers, I JUST figured out today that I could do a system restore to get
>> >stuff back. Problem is, it will only restore up to about three weeks ago and
>> >I need to go back to 6/3/08 and restore. Is it possible to do this? Thanks.
>> >M.H.
>> >
>> >"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?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>> To MH - a system restore ONLY restores the registry , anything else
>> requires *recover* software .
>>

Google - recover software .