XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?

July 4, 2008

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.

> 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?

July 4, 2008

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:%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.

>

July 4, 2008

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 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?

>

July 4, 2008

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.

--

My mom said I could

http://wtfurls.com/videos/313/my-mom-said-i-could

July 4, 2008

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:%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.

July 4, 2008

Re: 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 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?

July 4, 2008

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

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.

:-)

July 4, 2008

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

"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

July 5, 2008

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: 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>

July 5, 2008

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

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

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>

July 5, 2008

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

"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 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?

>

July 5, 2008

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

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

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>

>

July 5, 2008

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

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 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?

July 5, 2008

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

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

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>

July 5, 2008

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

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

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

July 5, 2008

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

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

Then I don't know why he hasn't noticed the problem yet. I *have* seen the

problem first hand on several occasions.

Moral to the story: if you don't save the monitored file types in one of the

properly designated places (meaning, unmonitored by System Restore), you

*will* lose some files when you restore back to a previous setpoint.

(BTDT).

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

> 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

July 5, 2008

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

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

news:OdTNa6s3IHA.4800@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> 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.

That is true. In other words, if the last restore point stored something

that was already bad

there is no way to go back further in time. To be 100% successful, the

latest restore point

must have good/correct data. This is precisely why I allow the maximum

amount of space

for restore points. Almost four months worth.

>>> 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 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?

>

July 6, 2008

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

Unknown wrote:

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

> news:OdTNa6s3IHA.4800@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>> 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.

>

> That is true. In other words, if the last restore point stored something

> that was already bad there is no way to go back further in time.

No, but it is more than that. The last restore point didn't have to store

something that was bad - it's just that it (that one restore point) doesn't

contain everything.

> To be 100% successful, the latest restore point

> must have good/correct data. This is precisely why I allow the maximum

> amount of space for restore points. Almost four months worth.

>

>>>> 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 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?

July 6, 2008

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

No restore point contains everything. There are many files that are not

saved. If you had 20 restore points you still cannot

restore a system 100%. Use a backup system for that, such as an external HD.

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

news:ePBDECw3IHA.3576@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Unknown wrote:

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

>> news:OdTNa6s3IHA.4800@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>> 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.

>>

>> That is true. In other words, if the last restore point stored something

>> that was already bad there is no way to go back further in time.

>

> No, but it is more than that. The last restore point didn't have to

> store something that was bad - it's just that it (that one restore point)

> doesn't contain everything.

>

>> To be 100% successful, the latest restore point

>> must have good/correct data. This is precisely why I allow the maximum

>> amount of space for restore points. Almost four months worth.

>>

>>>>> 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 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?

>

July 6, 2008

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

Right. My point was that if you remove some of the older system restore

points, you ARE also also removing some of the capability to get back some

of the other monitored files to the prior state, when using System Restore

to go back in time.

Of course, the ONLY sure way to get everything back is to use a partition

backup routine (like True Image), and restore the backup image or partition.

Unknown wrote:

> No restore point contains everything. There are many files that are not

> saved. If you had 20 restore points you still cannot

> restore a system 100%. Use a backup system for that, such as an external

> HD.

>

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

> news:ePBDECw3IHA.3576@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> Unknown wrote:

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

>>> news:OdTNa6s3IHA.4800@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>> 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.

>>>

>>> That is true. In other words, if the last restore point stored something

>>> that was already bad there is no way to go back further in time.

>>

>> No, but it is more than that. The last restore point didn't have to

>> store something that was bad - it's just that it (that one restore point)

>> doesn't contain everything.

>>

>>> To be 100% successful, the latest restore point

>>> must have good/correct data. This is precisely why I allow the maximum

>>> amount of space for restore points. Almost four months worth.

>>>

>>>>>> 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 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?

July 6, 2008

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

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

news:%23775gp53IHA.4332@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Right. My point was that if you remove some of the older system restore

> points, you ARE also also removing some of the capability to get back some

> of the other monitored files to the prior state, when using System Restore

> to go back in time.

If that's the case, the latest restore point is no good anyway.

>

> Of course, the ONLY sure way to get everything back is to use a partition

> backup routine (like True Image), and restore the backup image or

> partition.

>

> Unknown wrote:

>> No restore point contains everything. There are many files that are not

>> saved. If you had 20 restore points you still cannot

>> restore a system 100%. Use a backup system for that, such as an external

>> HD.

>>

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

>> news:ePBDECw3IHA.3576@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>> Unknown wrote:

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

>>>> news:OdTNa6s3IHA.4800@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>>> 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.

>>>>

>>>> That is true. In other words, if the last restore point stored

>>>> something

>>>> that was already bad there is no way to go back further in time.

>>>

>>> No, but it is more than that. The last restore point didn't have to

>>> store something that was bad - it's just that it (that one restore

>>> point)

>>> doesn't contain everything.

>>>

>>>> To be 100% successful, the latest restore point

>>>> must have good/correct data. This is precisely why I allow the maximum

>>>> amount of space for restore points. Almost four months worth.

>>>>

>>>>>>> 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 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?

>

July 6, 2008

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

Unknown wrote:

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

> news:%23775gp53IHA.4332@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>> Right. My point was that if you remove some of the older system restore

>> points, you ARE also also removing some of the capability to get back

>> some

>> of the other monitored files to the prior state, when using System

>> Restore

>> to go back in time.

>

> 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. :-)

>>

>> Of course, the ONLY sure way to get everything back is to use a partition

>> backup routine (like True Image), and restore the backup image or

>> partition.

>>

>> Unknown wrote:

>>> No restore point contains everything. There are many files that are not

>>> saved. If you had 20 restore points you still cannot

>>> restore a system 100%. Use a backup system for that, such as an external

>>> HD.

>>>

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

>>> news:ePBDECw3IHA.3576@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>> Unknown wrote:

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

>>>>> news:OdTNa6s3IHA.4800@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>>>> 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.

>>>>>

>>>>> That is true. In other words, if the last restore point stored

>>>>> something

>>>>> that was already bad there is no way to go back further in time.

>>>>

>>>> No, but it is more than that. The last restore point didn't have to

>>>> store something that was bad - it's just that it (that one restore

>>>> point) doesn't contain everything.

>>>>

>>>>> To be 100% successful, the latest restore point

>>>>> must have good/correct data. This is precisely why I allow the

>>>>> maximum

>>>>> amount of space for restore points. Almost four months worth.

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> 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 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?

July 17, 2008

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

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 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?

>

July 17, 2008

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

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 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?

>>

To MH - a system restore ONLY restores the registry , anything else

requires *recover* software .

July 17, 2008

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

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 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?

> >>

>

> To MH - a system restore ONLY restores the registry , anything else

> requires *recover* software .

>

Sign In

XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?

Recommended Posts

Guest Bill in Co.

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest Richard in AZ

Guest Unknown

Guest Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Pennywise@DerryMaine.Gov

Guest Richard in AZ

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Unknown

Guest Unknown

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Ken Blake, MVP

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Unknown

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Unknown

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Unknown

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest M.H.

Guest jimbo571@operamail.com

Guest M.H.

Similar Content

System restore windows 10

System Restore? Recovery Key Fail

FreePCHelp.uk is Now Part of Extreme Tech Support

system device cannot be found

Folders missing from e/ drive. Claim to be unavailable. Microsoft support did a system restore and it didn't work. What do I do now?

Browse

Activity

Site Info