Windows xp system restore

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

Just clicking on it in windows explorer results in this error message:

 

"C:\System Volume Information is not accessible."

"Access is denied"

 

 

Bert Kinney wrote:

> What where you doing to produce the "access is denied" error message?

> And what was the exact error message?

>

> Regards,

> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User

> http://bertk.mvps.org

> Member: http://dts-l.net

>

>

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> That's part of the problem. I'm using WinXP Home, and access is denied.

>> :-)

>> (and if I read correctly, it can't be initiated - for WinXP Home with

>> NTFS)

>>

>> But it's more than a "snapshot", Bert. It actually saves the files

>> that

>> it needs to restore. But yeah, I know what you mean.

>>

>> Bert Kinney wrote:

>>> Think of it this way Bill. Each restore point is a snapshot of all

>>> monitored

>>> files, folders and most of the registry at the time the restore point

>>> was

>>> created, including an undo restore point.

>>>

>>> Where are the System Restore files located on the drive?

>>> http://bertk.mvps.org/html/tips.html#14

>>>

>>> Regards,

>>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User

>>> http://bertk.mvps.org

>>> Member: http://dts-l.net

>>>

>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>> One thing I haven't tried yet is "undoing" the restore point - and

>>>> seeing

>>>> if

>>>> I get back ALL of my exe (and other "monitored" files) that were

>>>> (somewhat

>>>> erroneously) removed by System Restore (and I mean all the ones that

>>>> shouldn't have been!)

>>>>

>>>> I think you're implying here that they will ALL be restored. So System

>>>> Restore must have a special location for all the files it deletes, but

>>>> I

>>>> don't know where it hides them (so I can go look)

>>>>

>>>> Bert Kinney wrote:

>>>>> Sure it can. Selecting the undo restore point will restore all

>>>>> monitored

>>>>> file types and the registry to the way they were before the undo

>>>>> restore

>>>>> point was created.

>>>>>

>>>>> Regards,

>>>>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>> http://bertk.mvps.org

>>>>> Member: http://dts-l.net

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> PD43 wrote:

>>>>>> Bert Kinney <bert@NSmvps.org> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Yes, if the monitored files did not exist when the restore point in

>>>>>>> question

>>>>>>> was created, they will be gone.

>>>>>> So when someone decides to UNDO the previous restore... it can't

>>>>>> really be undone, huh?

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

PD43 wrote:

> Bert Kinney <bert@NSmvps.org> wrote:

>

>>> I've used SR frequently enough since upgrading to XP (Oct. 2001) - and

>>> I'm a tinkerer/experimenter - but I've never played around with

>>> running a restore and then undoing it just to see what it does. I've

>>> only used it for restoring.

>>

>> Bill is correct in that experimenting is a good way to learn. Just don't

>> do

>> it on a main system you rely on for day to day use.

>

> But he was wrong in stating that such an UNDO would NOT really undo

> ALL of what the restore did.

 

I may have misspoken then (assuming System Restore succeeds in following

through with the undo). But as I mentioned, I had that case where it

couldn't - and failed.

 

Also, it appears that many people don't realize this (including you), that

certain previously saved recent files will NOT be restored IF you use System

Restore to go back to the previous restore point, which I have done on a few

occasions. They will be lost - unless you had taken some very special

precautions to hide them in a certain safe place - which is very annoying.

 

The best way to learn this is to get down in the trenches and try it for

yourself, rather than just reading about it.

[Guest PD43]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

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

>Also, it appears that many people don't realize this (including you), that

>certain previously saved recent files will NOT be restored IF you use System

>Restore to go back to the previous restore point, which I have done on a few

>occasions. They will be lost - unless you had taken some very special

>precautions to hide them in a certain safe place - which is very annoying.

 

I think one of the first subjects I found you interested in on this

subject was whether or not SR would restore program files. If you

like, I can find the exact thread and your comments/questions on that

issue to jog your memory on that.

 

I AM FULLY AWARE of what SR can and cannot do. I've been using it for

over 6 years.

 

You admit you are a noob with XP. While you haven't said how recently

you upgraded, it would appear from your activity here that you

upgraded THIS YEAR.

 

You are the one with the problem, not I.

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

PD43 wrote:

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

>

>> Also, it appears that many people don't realize this (including you),

>> that

>> certain previously saved recent files will NOT be restored IF you use

>> System

>> Restore to go back to the previous restore point, which I have done on a

>> few

>> occasions. They will be lost - unless you had taken some very special

>> precautions to hide them in a certain safe place - which is very

>> annoying.

>

> I think one of the first subjects I found you interested in on this

> subject was whether or not SR would restore program files. If you

> like, I can find the exact thread and your comments/questions on that

> issue to jog your memory on that.

 

I did ask something about that. That is true. Actually, we had a

spirited debate on that subject, and *I* was the one who pointed out that

not ONLY does it backup and restore "program files", but it also can mess

with some other ones, too (as we've already discussed). Perhaps YOU don't

remember that part. I think I was discussing this with Grumpy, or maybe

it was you, or maybe you are Grumpy for all I know. :-)

> I AM FULLY AWARE of what SR can and cannot do. I've been using it for

> over 6 years.

 

No, I don't think you are "FULLY aware". That much seems a bit evident by

some of the discussions we've had here.

> You admit you are a noob with XP.

 

Yes, I do. But NOT to operating systems, which I have played around with,

and investigated considerably more than you. I mean, down in the trenches

(and not just reading about it).

> While you haven't said how recently

> you upgraded, it would appear from your activity here that you

> upgraded THIS YEAR.

 

January. But that is for WinXP, my dear. Not for Win98SE, not for

Win98, not Win95, not Win 3.1, not DOS 6.22, not DOS 5.0, not DOS 3.3., not

DOS 2.0, etc, etc, etc, etc.

> You are the one with the problem, not I.

 

Not really. See lad, the first step is admitting to yourself that you even

have a problem. You have to recognize it first. But I'll leave the

light on for ya, when (I mean IF) you ever decide to come down from the

bleachers, and into the trenches, to *actually try* and DO some of this

stuff - instead of being so recalcitrant and just reading about it. :-)

[Guest PD43]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

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

>> While you haven't said how recently

>> you upgraded, it would appear from your activity here that you

>> upgraded THIS YEAR.

>

>January.

 

I knew that.

 

That said, and after all of your talk about experimenting and

getting under the hood, if you've had to restore your LESS than

two-month-old Dell system as many times as it would appear from

your posts on the subject of System Restore, maybe you should

stay in the driver's seat and let the under-the-hood stuff wait

until you know what you're doing.

 

Most certainly, gain more experience with XP before you start giving

me advice.

[Guest PD43]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

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

>Not really. See lad, [snip]

 

BTW... if I'm a "lad", then you'd best tell your local undertaker to

keep a close monitor on your condition: I'm 64.

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

PD43 wrote:

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

>

>> Not really. See lad, [snip]

>

> BTW... if I'm a "lad", then you'd best tell your local undertaker to

> keep a close monitor on your condition: I'm 64.

 

We're in the same vintage. But at least I remember some things from the

FDR legacy.

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

PD43 wrote:

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

>

>>> While you haven't said how recently

>>> you upgraded, it would appear from your activity here that you

>>> upgraded THIS YEAR.

>>

>> January.

>

> I knew that.

>

> That said, and after all of your talk about experimenting and

> getting under the hood, if you've had to restore your LESS than

> two-month-old Dell system as many times as it would appear from

> your posts on the subject of System Restore, maybe you should

> stay in the driver's seat and let the under-the-hood stuff wait

> until you know what you're doing.

 

I know a bit about what I am doing, and at least I am DOING some things

(trying out some things, and yes, that includes editing a bit in the

registry, as needbe. But I wouldn't classify myself as an expert on WinXP.

Nor would I you, or for that matter, quite a few here. Just a select few

from what I've seen, who really know it, from the ground up.

> Most certainly, gain more experience with XP before you start giving

> me advice.

 

You don't seem to get it. You could have had Win XP for years, and never

have been under the hood, so to speak - OR you could have had it for a

month, and picked up even more.

 

Actually, I'm not trying to give you advice - it started with you and your

childish quips. Perhaps your memory is fading, but I'm sure I could pull

up *quite* a few posts illustrating the same.

 

Experience isn't just measured in years, it's also measured in what you've

actually done down there, and not just "read about". And that means

getting down into the trenches, and yes, working your way around a bit in

regedit, too. Sitting on the sidelines for 10 years doesn't count.

[Guest Bert Kinney]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

Two things to keep in mind.

1. Only *monitored* files will be effected.

2. And if monitored files do not exist in the restore point you are

restoring to, they will not exist when the restore is complete. They are not

being deleted, they just were not there before. :)

 

Regards,

Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User

http://bertk.mvps.org

Member: http://dts-l.net

 

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>> I've used SR frequently enough since upgrading to XP (Oct. 2001) - and

>>>> I'm a tinkerer/experimenter - but I've never played around with

>>>> running a restore and then undoing it just to see what it does. I've

>>>> only used it for restoring.

>>> Bill is correct in that experimenting is a good way to learn. Just don't

>>> do it on a main system you rely on for day to day use.

>> But he was wrong in stating that such an UNDO would NOT really undo

>> ALL of what the restore did.

>

> I may have misspoken then (assuming System Restore succeeds in following

> through with the undo). But as I mentioned, I had that case where it

> couldn't - and failed.

>

> Also, it appears that many people don't realize this (including you), that

> certain previously saved recent files will NOT be restored IF you use System

> Restore to go back to the previous restore point, which I have done on a few

> occasions. They will be lost - unless you had taken some very special

> precautions to hide them in a certain safe place - which is very annoying.

>

> The best way to learn this is to get down in the trenches and try it for

> yourself, rather than just reading about it.

[Guest Bert Kinney]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

Think of it in terms of *monitored files*, not "program files".

 

Regards,

Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User

http://bertk.mvps.org

Member: http://dts-l.net

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

> I did ask something about that. That is true. Actually, we had a

> spirited debate on that subject, and *I* was the one who pointed out that

> not ONLY does it backup and restore "program files", but it also can mess

> with some other ones, too (as we've already discussed). Perhaps YOU don't

> remember that part. I think I was discussing this with Grumpy, or maybe

> it was you, or maybe you are Grumpy for all I know. :-)

[Guest Bert Kinney]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

That's because the System Volume Information folder is a super hidden

folder. The following instruction will allow you to view the System Volume

Information folder.

 

http://bertk.mvps.org/html/tips.html#14

 

Regards,

Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User

http://bertk.mvps.org

Member: http://dts-l.net

 

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

> Just clicking on it in windows explorer results in this error message:

>

> "C:\System Volume Information is not accessible."

> "Access is denied"

>

>

> Bert Kinney wrote:

>> What where you doing to produce the "access is denied" error message?

>> And what was the exact error message?

>>

>> Regards,

>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User

>> http://bertk.mvps.org

>> Member: http://dts-l.net

>>

>>

>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>> That's part of the problem. I'm using WinXP Home, and access is denied. :-)

>>> (and if I read correctly, it can't be initiated - for WinXP Home with NTFS)

>>>

>>> But it's more than a "snapshot", Bert. It actually saves the files

>>> that it needs to restore. But yeah, I know what you mean.

>>>

>>> Bert Kinney wrote:

>>>> Think of it this way Bill. Each restore point is a snapshot of all monitored

>>>> files, folders and most of the registry at the time the restore point

>>>> was created, including an undo restore point.

>>>>

>>>> Where are the System Restore files located on the drive?

>>>> http://bertk.mvps.org/html/tips.html#14

>>>>

>>>> Regards,

>>>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>> http://bertk.mvps.org

>>>> Member: http://dts-l.net

>>>>

>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>>> One thing I haven't tried yet is "undoing" the restore point - and seeing

>>>>> if I get back ALL of my exe (and other "monitored" files) that were

>>>>> (somewhat erroneously) removed by System Restore (and I mean all the ones that

>>>>> shouldn't have been!)

>>>>>

>>>>> I think you're implying here that they will ALL be restored. So System

>>>>> Restore must have a special location for all the files it deletes, but

>>>>> I don't know where it hides them (so I can go look)

>>>>>

>>>>> Bert Kinney wrote:

>>>>>> Sure it can. Selecting the undo restore point will restore all monitored

>>>>>> file types and the registry to the way they were before the undo

>>>>>> restore point was created.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Regards,

>>>>>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>> http://bertk.mvps.org

>>>>>> Member: http://dts-l.net

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> PD43 wrote:

>>>>>>> Bert Kinney <bert@NSmvps.org> wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Yes, if the monitored files did not exist when the restore point in

>>>>>>>> question was created, they will be gone.

>>>>>>> So when someone decides to UNDO the previous restore... it can't

>>>>>>> really be undone, huh?

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

Exactly. Good terminology. I just wish it were a bit more intelligent

on what it monitors.

 

Still, it sure beats what we had to do back in the days in Win95, and

perhaps even Win98SE (although I got the latter one down with

scanreg/restore pretty well)

Of course, that didn't monitor stuff like System Restore does. I'd say it

was more comparable to ERUNT. :-)

 

Bert Kinney wrote:

> Think of it in terms of *monitored files*, not "program files".

>

> Regards,

> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User

> http://bertk.mvps.org

> Member: http://dts-l.net

>

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> I did ask something about that. That is true. Actually, we had a

>> spirited debate on that subject, and *I* was the one who pointed out that

>> not ONLY does it backup and restore "program files", but it also can mess

>> with some other ones, too (as we've already discussed). Perhaps YOU

>> don't

>> remember that part. I think I was discussing this with Grumpy, or

>> maybe

>> it was you, or maybe you are Grumpy for all I know. :-)

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

Bert Kinney wrote:

> Two things to keep in mind.

> 1. Only *monitored* files will be effected.

> 2. And if monitored files do not exist in the restore point you are

> restoring to, they will not exist when the restore is complete. They are

> not

> being deleted, they just were not there before. :)

 

But I had saved them on my hard drive as real physical files. So restore

is evidently deleting them, because those files are no longer physically

there on the drive anymore.

> Regards,

> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User

> http://bertk.mvps.org

> Member: http://dts-l.net

>

>

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>>> I've used SR frequently enough since upgrading to XP (Oct. 2001) - and

>>>>> I'm a tinkerer/experimenter - but I've never played around with

>>>>> running a restore and then undoing it just to see what it does. I've

>>>>> only used it for restoring.

>>>> Bill is correct in that experimenting is a good way to learn. Just

>>>> don't

>>>> do it on a main system you rely on for day to day use.

>>> But he was wrong in stating that such an UNDO would NOT really undo

>>> ALL of what the restore did.

>>

>> I may have misspoken then (assuming System Restore succeeds in following

>> through with the undo). But as I mentioned, I had that case where it

>> couldn't - and failed.

>>

>> Also, it appears that many people don't realize this (including you),

>> that

>> certain previously saved recent files will NOT be restored IF you use

>> System

>> Restore to go back to the previous restore point, which I have done on a

>> few

>> occasions. They will be lost - unless you had taken some very special

>> precautions to hide them in a certain safe place - which is very

>> annoying.

>>

>> The best way to learn this is to get down in the trenches and try it for

>> yourself, rather than just reading about it.

[Guest PD43]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

Bert Kinney <bert@NSmvps.org> wrote:

>Think of it in terms of *monitored files*, not "program files".

 

He'll get it after another couple dozen visits under the hood followed

by system restores to get his computer working again ;->

[Guest Daave]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

> Bert Kinney wrote:

>> Two things to keep in mind.

>> 1. Only *monitored* files will be effected.

>> 2. And if monitored files do not exist in the restore point you are

>> restoring to, they will not exist when the restore is complete. They

>> are not

>> being deleted, they just were not there before. :)

>

> But I had saved them on my hard drive as real physical files. So

> restore is evidently deleting them, because those files are no longer

> physically there on the drive anymore.

 

Yes, we've gone over this already. Both you and Nepatsfan made the

correct point that these "real physical files" will be deleted after a

System Restore provided they are the "monitored" files Bert mentioned

(such as .exe files) *and* they weren't saved to the My Documents

folder. Perhaps there are other "safe" locations, too. But I know that

the Desktop is not one of them.

 

To PD43, for a listing of other monitored files, see:

 

http://bertk.mvps.org/html/filesfolders.html

 

and scroll down to "List of file extensions System Restores Monitors in

Windows XP."

 

Or see

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/expert/russel_sysrestore.mspx

[Guest Daave]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

> One thing I haven't tried yet is "undoing" the restore point - and

> seeing if I get back ALL of my exe (and other "monitored" files) that

> were (somewhat erroneously) removed by System Restore (and I mean all

> the ones that shouldn't have been!)

 

Regarding your "somewhat erroneously" remark, it's a feature, not a bug,

:-)

 

And why haven't you tried undoing the restore point? This way you could

see for yourself if the monitored files come back or not. And if you're

extra anxious, you could always image the drive first.

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

Daave wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> Bert Kinney wrote:

>>> Two things to keep in mind.

>>> 1. Only *monitored* files will be effected.

>>> 2. And if monitored files do not exist in the restore point you are

>>> restoring to, they will not exist when the restore is complete. They

>>> are not

>>> being deleted, they just were not there before. :)

>>

>> But I had saved them on my hard drive as real physical files. So

>> restore is evidently deleting them, because those files are no longer

>> physically there on the drive anymore.

>

> Yes, we've gone over this already. Both you and Nepatsfan made the

> correct point that these "real physical files" will be deleted after a

> System Restore provided they are the "monitored" files Bert mentioned

> (such as .exe files) *and* they weren't saved to the My Documents

> folder. Perhaps there are other "safe" locations, too. But I know that

> the Desktop is not one of them.

>

> To PD43, for a listing of other monitored files, see:

>

> http://bertk.mvps.org/html/filesfolders.html

>

> and scroll down to "List of file extensions System Restores Monitors in

> Windows XP."

>

> Or see

> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/expert/russel_sysrestore.mspx

 

LOL.

But that might tax his "patience", seeing how he even finds Anna's posts too

long to follow. Well, and for Grumpy, too.

[Guest PD43]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

"Daave" <dcwashNOSPAM@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote:

>Bill in Co. wrote:

>> One thing I haven't tried yet is "undoing" the restore point - and

>> seeing if I get back ALL of my exe (and other "monitored" files) that

>> were (somewhat erroneously) removed by System Restore (and I mean all

>> the ones that shouldn't have been!)

>

>Regarding your "somewhat erroneously" remark, it's a feature, not a bug,

>:-)

>

>And why haven't you tried undoing the restore point? This way you could

>see for yourself if the monitored files come back or not. And if you're

>extra anxious, you could always image the drive first.

 

He's a NOOB.

 

Don't pick on him.

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

Daave wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> One thing I haven't tried yet is "undoing" the restore point - and

>> seeing if I get back ALL of my exe (and other "monitored" files) that

>> were (somewhat erroneously) removed by System Restore (and I mean all

>> the ones that shouldn't have been!)

>

> Regarding your "somewhat erroneously" remark, it's a feature, not a bug,

> :-)

 

Well, sort of. :-) But it would be a better feature if it were a bit

more intelligent about it - i;e, only messing with the monitored files that

truly are or can be problematic, and not extra files that (for example) I

just recently downloaded but haven't even installed (like some future

programs to try out).

 

Admitedly, for MS to write the System Restore program to be intelligent

enough to be aware of such things would be more difficult.

> And why haven't you tried undoing the restore point? This way you could

> see for yourself if the monitored files come back or not. And if you're

> extra anxious, you could always image the drive first.

 

My point was, even doing it the way I have been (by restoring to a previous

setpoint), I *know* what the outcome is. There is NO ambiguity there, so

I don't need to run more tests on that.

[Guest Daave]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

> Daave wrote:

>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>> One thing I haven't tried yet is "undoing" the restore point - and

>>> seeing if I get back ALL of my exe (and other "monitored" files)

>>> that were (somewhat erroneously) removed by System Restore (and I

>>> mean all the ones that shouldn't have been!)

 

[snip]

>> And why haven't you tried undoing the restore point? This way you

>> could see for yourself if the monitored files come back or not. And

>> if you're extra anxious, you could always image the drive first.

>

> My point was, even doing it the way I have been (by restoring to a

> previous setpoint), I *know* what the outcome is. There is NO

> ambiguity there, so I don't need to run more tests on that.

 

I don't understand, Bill. The whole point of this part of the thread is

that these monitored files really *aren't* gone forever because all one

needs to do is undo the System Restore. You're the one who said you lost

some of these files and you're the one who said you haven't tried

undoing System Restore yet (see above). You should.

 

It seems to me that both you and PD43 are being argumentative just for

the sake of it!

[Guest PD43]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

"Daave" <dcwashNOSPAM@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote:

>I don't understand, Bill. The whole point of this part of the thread is

>that these monitored files really *aren't* gone forever because all one

>needs to do is undo the System Restore. You're the one who said you lost

>some of these files and you're the one who said you haven't tried

>undoing System Restore yet (see above). You should.

 

ayup

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

Daave wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> Daave wrote:

>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>> One thing I haven't tried yet is "undoing" the restore point - and

>>>> seeing if I get back ALL of my exe (and other "monitored" files)

>>>> that were (somewhat erroneously) removed by System Restore (and I

>>>> mean all the ones that shouldn't have been!)

>

> [snip]

>

>>> And why haven't you tried undoing the restore point? This way you

>>> could see for yourself if the monitored files come back or not. And

>>> if you're extra anxious, you could always image the drive first.

>>

>> My point was, even doing it the way I have been (by restoring to a

>> previous setpoint), I *know* what the outcome is. There is NO

>> ambiguity there, so I don't need to run more tests on that.

>

> I don't understand, Bill. The whole point of this part of the thread is

> that these monitored files really *aren't* gone forever because all one

> needs to do is undo the System Restore. You're the one who said you lost

> some of these files and you're the one who said you haven't tried

> undoing System Restore yet (see above). You should.

 

I don't understand why you don't understand what I just explained.

Sometimes it is desireable to go back to a previous set point (and not just

do an undo operation), and in such a case, the problem arises. That is,

the files are gone.

 

But I see what you're saying here. But it sure seems to be an extra

unnecesary step (or rather, should be). One should be able to just go

back to a previous setpoint, and still have their orignally saved (and

innoculous) files.

[Guest Daave]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

> Daave wrote:

>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>> Daave wrote:

>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>>> One thing I haven't tried yet is "undoing" the restore point - and

>>>>> seeing if I get back ALL of my exe (and other "monitored" files)

>>>>> that were (somewhat erroneously) removed by System Restore (and I

>>>>> mean all the ones that shouldn't have been!)

>>

>> [snip]

>>

>>>> And why haven't you tried undoing the restore point? This way you

>>>> could see for yourself if the monitored files come back or not. And

>>>> if you're extra anxious, you could always image the drive first.

>>>

>>> My point was, even doing it the way I have been (by restoring to a

>>> previous setpoint), I *know* what the outcome is. There is NO

>>> ambiguity there, so I don't need to run more tests on that.

>>

>> I don't understand, Bill. The whole point of this part of the thread

>> is that these monitored files really *aren't* gone forever because

>> all one needs to do is undo the System Restore. You're the one who

>> said you lost some of these files and you're the one who said you

>> haven't tried undoing System Restore yet (see above). You should.

>

> I don't understand why you don't understand what I just explained.

> Sometimes it is desireable to go back to a previous set point (and

> not just do an undo operation), and in such a case, the problem

> arises. That is, the files are gone.

 

So undo the System Restore and move the file to a safe place like My

Documents. Then try your System Restore again. These files that you say

are "gone" are never *really* gone! (And if you did regular backups

anyway, then there would be no worries.)

> But I see what you're saying here. But it sure seems to be an extra

> unnecesary step (or rather, should be). One should be able to just

> go back to a previous setpoint, and still have their orignally saved

> (and innoculous) files.

 

It's only an extra step if the monitored files we're talking about

aren't in the proper place. Now that you know this, it shouldn't be a

big deal.

 

Personally, I keep all my installation files in C:\Installers. Works for

me.

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

Daave wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> Daave wrote:

>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>> Daave wrote:

>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>>>> One thing I haven't tried yet is "undoing" the restore point - and

>>>>>> seeing if I get back ALL of my exe (and other "monitored" files)

>>>>>> that were (somewhat erroneously) removed by System Restore (and I

>>>>>> mean all the ones that shouldn't have been!)

>>>

>>> [snip]

>>>

>>>>> And why haven't you tried undoing the restore point? This way you

>>>>> could see for yourself if the monitored files come back or not. And

>>>>> if you're extra anxious, you could always image the drive first.

>>>>

>>>> My point was, even doing it the way I have been (by restoring to a

>>>> previous setpoint), I *know* what the outcome is. There is NO

>>>> ambiguity there, so I don't need to run more tests on that.

>>>

>>> I don't understand, Bill. The whole point of this part of the thread

>>> is that these monitored files really *aren't* gone forever because

>>> all one needs to do is undo the System Restore. You're the one who

>>> said you lost some of these files and you're the one who said you

>>> haven't tried undoing System Restore yet (see above). You should.

>>

>> I don't understand why you don't understand what I just explained.

>> Sometimes it is desireable to go back to a previous set point (and

>> not just do an undo operation), and in such a case, the problem

>> arises. That is, the files are gone.

>

> So undo the System Restore and move the file to a safe place like My

> Documents. Then try your System Restore again.

 

Nah, that Texas two-step routine is too much (unnecessary) work. There

are better solutions - like keeping the saved files in a safe place.

> These files that you say are "gone" are never *really* gone!

 

Unless you can't undo the restore operation, which HAS happened to me

once...

> (And if you did regular backups anyway, then there would be no worries.)

 

True.

And trust me, there really are no worries here, cause at the end of the day,

I haven't so far permanently lost a file yet, due to my backups and backup

routines. :-)

>> But I see what you're saying here. But it sure seems to be an extra

>> unnecesary step (or rather, should be). One should be able to just

>> go back to a previous setpoint, and still have their orignally saved

>> (and innoculous) files.

>

> It's only an extra step if the monitored files we're talking about

> aren't in the proper place. Now that you know this, it shouldn't be a

> big deal.

 

"Now that I know this"? Well, it's what I've been doing, albeit

reluctantly. :-)

 

Well - not doing the Undo bit, so much as being careful as to where I store

ANY files I've downloaded to prevent such problems. But it is a bit

inconvenient.

> Personally, I keep all my installation files in C:\Installers. Works for

> me.

 

Not as conveniently for me, but then again, I've been forced to

"accommodate" the idiosyncrasies of System Restore. :-)

[Guest Daave]

Re: Windows xp system restore

 

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

news:eGgrKNOfIHA.3724@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Daave wrote:

>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>> Daave wrote:

>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>>> Daave wrote:

>>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>>>>> One thing I haven't tried yet is "undoing" the restore point -

>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>> seeing if I get back ALL of my exe (and other "monitored" files)

>>>>>>> that were (somewhat erroneously) removed by System Restore (and

>>>>>>> I

>>>>>>> mean all the ones that shouldn't have been!)

>>>>

>>>> [snip]

>> These files that you say are "gone" are never *really* gone!

>

> Unless you can't undo the restore operation, which HAS happened to me

> once...

 

*Now* I understand!

 

From your first paragraph, I thought you meant you *never* tried undoing

System Restore. But apparently, you have tried it, and at least once,

for some reason it didn't work. I would still think that if you ever

found yourself in the same situation again (and I doubt you ever would

since you now know not to keep these files on your desktop), then you

would be able to methodically figure out what is preventing you from

doing the Undo, fix it, and then perform the Undo. But since you didn't

go into detail about your problem with the Undo, I can't say for sure.

>> It's only an extra step if the monitored files we're talking about

>> aren't in the proper place. Now that you know this, it shouldn't be a

>> big deal.

>

> "Now that I know this"? Well, it's what I've been doing, albeit

> reluctantly. :-)

 

What I meant is that at one point in time you didn't know this, but now

you do.

> Well - not doing the Undo bit, so much as being careful as to where I

> store ANY files I've downloaded to prevent such problems. But it is

> a bit inconvenient.

>

>> Personally, I keep all my installation files in C:\Installers. Works

>> for me.

>

> Not as conveniently for me, but then again, I've been forced to

> "accommodate" the idiosyncrasies of System Restore. :-)

 

Heh, you remind me of Lord Turkey Cough. :-)