Jump to content

XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?

Guest foobar5@home.com

By Guest foobar5@home.com
in Windows XP

 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest foobar5@home.com

Guest foobar5@home.com

Posted
Posted

I very rarely use the system restore feature, but of course it's a

godsend when I do.

 

Last night, I inadvertantly cleaned up some desktop icons I didn't

wish to, so I figured I'd just do a restore to that morning's restore

point to put my desktop back the way it was.

 

So the standard stuff happened, then upon restart, I got the message

saying "Cannot restore. No changes have been made to your system"

 

The only "cure" I'm aware of for this is to disable system restore,

then re-enable it. Which is fine, but what if I really really really

needed a restoration?

 

Again, in this case, it's not a life or death thing; I was restoring

for a cosmetic fix.

 

Questions:

 

1. What causes system restores to not work? In my case, I can be very

sure it's not viruses or malware. I'm a safe computing person, and

the system is regularly cleanly scanned for such threats. The only

time I've ever seen this happen before was when I had a bad physical

sector on the disk of an older computer.

 

2. Is there a way to use the system restore data I have to somehow

"restore" my system, independent of the system restore utility?

 

3. Other than doing an occasional pointless "set a restore point, then

immediately restore to that point," is there any way to ensure that my

system restore capabilities are intact? Why doesn't XP warn that

something is wrong with this capability?

 

4. Any trick other than the disable system restore, then re-enable it,

that I can try to reinstitute system restore functionality?

  • Replies 50
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest R. McCarty

Guest R. McCarty

Posted
Posted

Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?

 

Unfortunately System Restore has no Validate or integrity checks.

 

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. SR is basically a short-term roll back and it's best to

only depend on a week to 10-days of points. There isn't a repair

feature so turning it off and back on is the way to "Reset it". Even

then there is no way to ensure that the points are usable.

 

<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.

>

> Last night, I inadvertantly cleaned up some desktop icons I didn't

> wish to, so I figured I'd just do a restore to that morning's restore

> point to put my desktop back the way it was.

>

> So the standard stuff happened, then upon restart, I got the message

> saying "Cannot restore. No changes have been made to your system"

>

> The only "cure" I'm aware of for this is to disable system restore,

> then re-enable it. Which is fine, but what if I really really really

> needed a restoration?

>

> Again, in this case, it's not a life or death thing; I was restoring

> for a cosmetic fix.

>

> Questions:

>

> 1. What causes system restores to not work? In my case, I can be very

> sure it's not viruses or malware. I'm a safe computing person, and

> the system is regularly cleanly scanned for such threats. The only

> time I've ever seen this happen before was when I had a bad physical

> sector on the disk of an older computer.

>

> 2. Is there a way to use the system restore data I have to somehow

> "restore" my system, independent of the system restore utility?

>

> 3. Other than doing an occasional pointless "set a restore point, then

> immediately restore to that point," is there any way to ensure that my

> system restore capabilities are intact? Why doesn't XP warn that

> something is wrong with this capability?

>

> 4. Any trick other than the disable system restore, then re-enable it,

> that I can try to reinstitute system restore functionality?

Guest Fred

Guest Fred

Posted
Posted

Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?

 

Try running system restore after booting into safe mode

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/304449

 

<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.

>

> Last night, I inadvertantly cleaned up some desktop icons I didn't

> wish to, so I figured I'd just do a restore to that morning's restore

> point to put my desktop back the way it was.

>

> So the standard stuff happened, then upon restart, I got the message

> saying "Cannot restore. No changes have been made to your system"

>

> The only "cure" I'm aware of for this is to disable system restore,

> then re-enable it. Which is fine, but what if I really really really

> needed a restoration?

>

> Again, in this case, it's not a life or death thing; I was restoring

> for a cosmetic fix.

>

> Questions:

>

> 1. What causes system restores to not work? In my case, I can be very

> sure it's not viruses or malware. I'm a safe computing person, and

> the system is regularly cleanly scanned for such threats. The only

> time I've ever seen this happen before was when I had a bad physical

> sector on the disk of an older computer.

>

> 2. Is there a way to use the system restore data I have to somehow

> "restore" my system, independent of the system restore utility?

>

> 3. Other than doing an occasional pointless "set a restore point, then

> immediately restore to that point," is there any way to ensure that my

> system restore capabilities are intact? Why doesn't XP warn that

> something is wrong with this capability?

>

> 4. Any trick other than the disable system restore, then re-enable it,

> that I can try to reinstitute system restore functionality?

Guest Bert Hyman

Guest Bert Hyman

Posted
Posted

Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?

 

In news:d6dp645eqkt74718iprilooq77pt1npfq8@4ax.com foobar5@home.com

wrote:

> I very rarely use the system restore feature, but of course it's a

> godsend when I do.

>

> Last night, I inadvertantly cleaned up some desktop icons I didn't

> wish to, so I figured I'd just do a restore to that morning's restore

> point to put my desktop back the way it was.

 

Is System Restore supposed to recover deleted files?

 

Isn't removing icons from your desktop simply deleting some files?

 

--

Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com

Guest foobar5@home.com

Guest foobar5@home.com

Posted
Posted

Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?

 

On 03 Jul 2008 12:22:01 GMT, Bert Hyman <bert@iphouse.com> wrote:

>Is System Restore supposed to recover deleted files?

>

>Isn't removing icons from your desktop simply deleting some files?

>

>--

>Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com

 

I've got the great PC Inspector File Recovery tool for recovering

deleted files. It's even pulled long-"deleted" files from my camera

memory cards.

 

For whatever reason, I used the desktop cleanup utility that was

bugging me about unused icons. I usually ignore it. It moves these

icons to an "unused icons" folder on the desktop. It's easy enough to

then "drag" them back, but I can't remember where some were and my

desktop just doesn't "look right" in terms of where these icons are.

 

So I'd hoped that if I did the system restore, I'd revert to the

desktop the way it had been.

Guest foobar5@home.com

Guest foobar5@home.com

Posted
Posted

Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?

 

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?

Guest R. McCarty

Guest R. McCarty

Posted
Posted

Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?

 

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 Damn" 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?

Guest Edna Boxe

Guest Edna Boxe

Posted
Posted

Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?

 

 

 

<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.

>

> Last night, I inadvertantly cleaned up some desktop icons I didn't

> wish to, so I figured I'd just do a restore to that morning's restore

> point to put my desktop back the way it was.

>

> So the standard stuff happened, then upon restart, I got the message

> saying "Cannot restore. No changes have been made to your system"

>

> The only "cure" I'm aware of for this is to disable system restore,

> then re-enable it. Which is fine, but what if I really really really

> needed a restoration?

>

> Again, in this case, it's not a life or death thing; I was restoring

> for a cosmetic fix.

>

> Questions:

>

> 1. What causes system restores to not work? In my case, I can be very

> sure it's not viruses or malware. I'm a safe computing person, and

> the system is regularly cleanly scanned for such threats. The only

> time I've ever seen this happen before was when I had a bad physical

> sector on the disk of an older computer.

>

> 2. Is there a way to use the system restore data I have to somehow

> "restore" my system, independent of the system restore utility?

>

> 3. Other than doing an occasional pointless "set a restore point, then

> immediately restore to that point," is there any way to ensure that my

> system restore capabilities are intact? Why doesn't XP warn that

> something is wrong with this capability?

>

> 4. Any trick other than the disable system restore, then re-enable it,

> that I can try to reinstitute system restore functionality?

 

Make sure any AV software is disabled before attempting system restore, if

you have Norton it's advisable to also remove the tick from 'turn on

protection for the Norton products.'

 

HTH,

Edna.

Guest PA Bear [MS MVP]

Guest PA Bear [MS MVP]

Posted
Posted

Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?

 

Is Norton AntiVirus installed?

--

~Robear Dyer (PA Bear)

MS MVP-IE, Mail, Security, Windows Desktop Experience - since 2002

AumHa VSOP & Admin http://aumha.net

DTS-L http://dts-l.net/

 

foobar5@home.com wrote:

> I very rarely use the system restore feature, but of course it's a

> godsend when I do.

>

> Last night, I inadvertantly cleaned up some desktop icons I didn't

> wish to, so I figured I'd just do a restore to that morning's restore

> point to put my desktop back the way it was.

>

> So the standard stuff happened, then upon restart, I got the message

> saying "Cannot restore. No changes have been made to your system"

>

> The only "cure" I'm aware of for this is to disable system restore,

> then re-enable it. Which is fine, but what if I really really really

> needed a restoration?

>

> Again, in this case, it's not a life or death thing; I was restoring

> for a cosmetic fix.

>

> Questions:

>

> 1. What causes system restores to not work? In my case, I can be very

> sure it's not viruses or malware. I'm a safe computing person, and

> the system is regularly cleanly scanned for such threats. The only

> time I've ever seen this happen before was when I had a bad physical

> sector on the disk of an older computer.

>

> 2. Is there a way to use the system restore data I have to somehow

> "restore" my system, independent of the system restore utility?

>

> 3. Other than doing an occasional pointless "set a restore point, then

> immediately restore to that point," is there any way to ensure that my

> system restore capabilities are intact? Why doesn't XP warn that

> something is wrong with this capability?

>

> 4. Any trick other than the disable system restore, then re-enable it,

> that I can try to reinstitute system restore functionality?

Guest kineton1

Guest kineton1

Posted
Posted

Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?/little know fact

 

Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?/little know fact

 

 

<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

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Posted
Posted

Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?/little know fact

 

Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?/little know fact

 

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.

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Posted
Posted

Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?

 

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 Damn" 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?

Guest R. McCarty

Guest R. McCarty

Posted
Posted

Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?

 

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 Damn" 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?

>

>

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Posted
Posted

Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?

 

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 Damn" 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?

Guest Unknown

Guest Unknown

Posted
Posted

Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?

 

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 Damn" 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?

>

>

Guest Richard in AZ

Guest Richard in AZ

Posted
Posted

Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?/little know fact

 

Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?/little know fact

 

 

"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.

You will still have the program files and folder, and may have some files in

the "system" folder, but the program will not run.

You have to then remove the files and folders manually.

Guest DL

Guest DL

Posted
Posted

Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?

 

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?

Guest Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov

Guest Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov

Posted
Posted

Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?

 

"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.

 

 

><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?

>

 

--

 

http://tinyurl.com/5p744l

Guest foobar5@home.com

Guest foobar5@home.com

Posted
Posted

Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?

 

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?"

Guest John John (MVP)

Guest John John (MVP)

Posted
Posted

Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?

 

foobar5@home.com wrote:

> 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?

 

Erunt is a fine program but it can't effectively "mimick the intended

functionality of System Restore".

 

System Restore does much more than simple registry backups. "System

Restore reinstates the registry, local profiles, the COM+ database, the

Windows File Protection (WFP) cache (wfp.dll), the Windows Management

Instrumentation (WMI) database, the Microsoft IIS metabase, and files

that the utility copies by default into a Restore archive. You can't

specify what to restore: it's all or nothing."

 

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb490854.aspx

 

> That is, a way to have it run automatically, and save at least ten

> days worth of "Erunt restore points?"

 

You could use Task Scheduler for this.

 

John

Guest Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov

Guest Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov

Posted
Posted

Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?

 

foobar5@home.com wrote:

>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?"

 

by bad forgot the address

http://www.larshederer.homepage.t-online.de/erunt/

read Detailed information it explains how to back up each time you

startup.

--

 

http://tinyurl.com/5p744l

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Posted
Posted

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?

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Posted
Posted

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 Damn" 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?

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Posted
Posted

Re: XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?/little know fact

 

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.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...