Re: Backup software--like GHOST

[Guest PCR]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

| PCR wrote:

|> Bill in Co. wrote:

|>> PCR wrote:

|>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

|>>>> PCR wrote:

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

|>>>>>> I'm using NTFS for WinXP (for my system partition), and that's

|>>>>>> the one I'm talking about. (I also have some FAT32

|>>>>>> partitions on the drive for other stuff, however).

|>>>>>

|>>>>> And what about the FAT32 partition? Does that behave the same as

|>>>>> in Win98 with that Mod date?

|>>>>

|>>>> Yes. The folder's "Date Modified" date does NOT change.

|>>>

|>>> Ah! That's it, then! They were right! Very good.

|>>>

|>>>>> If so... congratulations to Etal & Chauvin for

|>>>>> figuring it... though your only cure will be to shape-shift your

|>>>>> NTFS into a FAT32..

|>>>>

|>>>> Ummm. Not a good idea (for Windows XP).

|>>>> I'll have to learn to live with it. :-)

|>>>

|>>> Yea. OK. It's been good, really, to hear your complaints about

|>>> XP-- very instructive.

|>>

|>> Well, on the whole though, I'm pretty satisfied with WinXP. I

|>> just have a few, relatively minor issues with it, that's all.

|>> (frankly, most of them aren't earth shaking).

|>

|> Well, the ones you mentioned, anyway, seemed more like pet peeves--

|> except perhaps the file search requestor which wasn't finding all

|> files. However, looks like that was mostly resolved too with a

|> shortcut.

|

| Or a good alternative third party utility like Agent Ransack or File

| Locator Pro (which is even better, and is big brother to Agent

| Ransack). It's useful to have this program (even on the Win98SE

| machine).

 

Thanks for the tip. I may take a look. So far, I am content with Windows

Find & DOS DIR. I know each has certain few limitations. As far as

anything so well hid that those two won't work-- it hasn't hurt me yet,

I don't think. For full system backups, I use BING that copies on a

track level-- nothing can escape that!

 

|>> What I really DO appreciate about Win XP is its *robustness* (much

|>> more so than Win98SE - in part due to using NTFS) - AND its

|>> capability of running some programs that I couldn't run on 98SE.

|>>

|>> I think I've already said I haven't got a blue screen yet, and

|>> that's with my normal messin around (which usually brought me some,

|>> in 98SE

|>

|> Alright-- but Terhune did say you hadn't tried hard enough yet to

|> crash it!

|

| Apparently not! :-)

 

I guess you are being careful, as you always have been.

 

|> Also, I see a new XP thread here where Livingston has warned against

|> XP SP3!

|

| That's never going in over here.

|

|> (I know you don't go for those critical updates-- just as you

|> hardly ever did in Win98.)

|

| Yup, you got that right. (been around the block too many times on

| that one).

 

I had a few horrible crashes taking in one/two like DirectX9, but

ultimately got all of the critical updates & many "recommended" ones too

into here. Once they were in &/or the sometimes quick replacements to

some were in-- all seems to be going well. I don't regret it now.

 

It's a bit humorous that WinXP is going through these critical updates

too & even full SP's. Will no OS ever be safe &/or fully debugged!?

 

|> A truly unrecoverable crash in my Win98 is covered by my full system

|> backup, (which I've resorted to some few times already, but nothing

|> any too recent. It was more frequent early on, when I didn't how to

|> fix anything otherwise.)

|>

|>> :-)

|

| Yup. I routinely do a full system backup to my external USB HD

| enclosure, and it takes me about 15-20 minutes to backup the existing

| 20 GB or so of system files, programs, and user data. (I have a 40

| GB partition for the C: drive on Win XP - I think that's an ideal

| size for XP).

 

That's the best thing! I always had that capability, first with Compaq's

QuickRestore & now with BING.

 

|>> And the built-in, NTFS, transaction-log-based, file recovery

|>> methodology is nice, too (so if something goes wrong while writing

|>> some files on the disk, it's often possible to recover from that).

|>

|> Is that like SFC? What does the process involve?

|

| There is a so-called "transaction log" written out (as I understand

| it) for every file operation in NTFS, so that if anything goes wrong

| or is incomplete in the disk writes, WinXP (using NTFS) can recover

| from it, unlike in Win98SE and FAT32. For example, if something

| isn't successfully and completely written out to the hard disk, a

| flag is set indicating such, so that it can be, next time (or

| something to that effect). Which makes it much more robust! (not

| saying it's 100% foolproof, nothing probably is)

 

Sounds like that has to do with the integrity of the hard drive &

whether something went wrong in the middle of a write. It doesn't sound

like it has to do with file versions like SFC does. It probably has more

to do with what ScanDisk is supposed to do-- or eliminating the need for

ScanDisk. Has your "transaction log" mentioned any errors yet? Do you

still have to do a Defrag? Do you have anything that does do the work of

SFC to monitor updates-- IF you ever decide to take one?

 

|>> And of course, there are no limitations anymore with the good ole,

|>> 64K, resource heap problem in Win9x. Now THAT is nice. :-)

|>

|> OK. That problem doesn't show up for me, though, in normal, everyday

|> use of Win98. I think it is involved with the ole "copy of tons of

|> files or tons of folders full of folders & files" thing after

|> installing IE6-- but I only ever did that for testing purposes!

|

| No, those were two entirely different and unrelated issues.

|

| The resource heap limitation happened if either you had too many apps

| running at one time, or had a program that was errant in its handling

| of the GDI, System, or User resource heaps (and some did, but they

| were the exception, fortunately, and usually got fixed in later

| versions, unless the developer moved on and stopped supporting it -

| that happened on occasion).

 

Yea. That sounds about right. I certainly don't like to have 10 programs

open at once. HOWEVER-- for me, when I test that copy problem, I seem

always to get a requestor warning I've run out of resources & to close

some programs. Sometimes the warning is hidden behind another window. I

do believe the massive copy is fairly quickly done -- & done well -- &

it is Explorer that is struggling to update its display. You could wait

forever for that!

 

| The copying or deleting of a large number of files problem in Win98SE

| (with IE6+) was linked to the browseui and browselc DLL files changes

| (from IE5.5 to IE 6+), so I simply retained the IE 5.5 versions of

| those two DLLs, which allowed Windows Explorer to *work as it

| should*, and NOT get hung up! (I think another "fix" was with

| another DLL, instead, as an alternative method, but this one always

| worked for me, so I left it that way.

 

I remember it as you do. And, yea, I recall testing the IE 5.5

BrowseUI.dll & BrowseLC.dll. I believe you were right about them, yea.

But I kept the IE6 versions because I could copy the big stuff I

normally do-- just not the big, big stuff during a test like all of

Program Files. Also, even that much could be done in DOS with no problem

whatever.

 

|>> And of course the nice built in USB (and USB2) support, which was

|>> "just a bit lacking" in Win98SE.

|>

|> I have 2 or 3 USB connectors, but have never plugged anything into

|> them.

|

| There is SO much out there (peripherals) that is now USB based!

| Even the printers! (Try to find a printer (or even computer) with a

| parallel port, anymore!)

 

Hmm. Well, my Compaq IJ300 still has its parallel wire. It just has no

ink in its cartridge, is all.

 

| Well, I have to admit, the USB cable to my new printer is MUCH nicer

| now, than that old bulky parallel port cable connecting the old

| printer to the parallel port. But if you ever get a new printer

| (likely USB based), there is a way to use it with Win98SE, IF they

| supply the right drivers - otherwise you're screwed.

 

Hmm. OK, got ya. Something to ponder.

 

|>> I think after XP dies (if and when it does for me), it's maybe time

|>> to move to something else, maybe something like Linux. :-)

|>> I've about had it with MS bloatware. I think XP may be my last

|>> ride with MS for the operating system :-)

|>

|> I probably will say the same, if I ever do get to XP myself.

|

| If you're even considering Win XP, time is running out. Like the

| end of this month? (unless MS extends it). (Vista is not

| allowed on my premises. I have a sign out saying "Access Denied",

| for it. :-)

 

I agree fully!

 

|>>>>> .. or learn to live with it! Put your head inside the box

|>>>>> for a triple dose of the irradiation-- & you may forget the

|>>>>> problem entirely! :-).

|>>>>>

|>>>>>> PCR wrote:

|>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

|>>>>>>>> Anyway, my sieve of a brain DOES recall running into what Bill

|>>>>>>>> is talking about, but I can't recall the circumstances. That

|>>>>>>>> simple. It struck me as something certain types of workers

|>>>>>>>> might like, but danged if I can recall the logic behind that

|>>>>>>>> thought.

|>>>>>>>

|>>>>>>> Etal brought up a good point... NTFS vrs. FAT32. It remains to

|>>>>>>> be seen whether you & Colorado are using the same file system

|>>>>>>> when you have the same observation on the Mod Date. (You know

|>>>>>>> I am tounge-in-cheek when I rib you on XP-irradiation & 24-hour

|>>>>>>> weariness & stuff.)

|>>>>>>>

|>>>>>>>> --

|>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

|>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

|>>>>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com

|>>>>>>>>

|>>>>>>>> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message

|>>>>>>>> news:%23ADAvZTwIHA.548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

|>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

|>>>>>>>>>> In re me, the answer is, "No." You think I didn't

|>>>>>>>>>> quadruple-check?

|>>>>>>>>>

|>>>>>>>>> It just seems odd, is all. And I do know you've been

|>>>>>>>>> extremely busy lately with a 24-hour fix effort for CdLSRN.

|>>>>>>>>> Good work on that, though.

|>>>>>>>>>

|>>>>>>>>>> --

|>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

|>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

|>>>>>>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com

|>>>>>>>>>>

|>>>>>>>>>> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message

|>>>>>>>>>> news:eqUvx0SwIHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

|>>>>>>>>>>> Rick Chauvin wrote:

|>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, and same courteous sentiments to you.

|>>>>>>>>>>>>

|>>>>>>>>>>>> I always skim read the forums here (as well as the other

|>>>>>>>>>>>> groups I frequented) I don't have the time luxury to post

|>>>>>>>>>>>> as much as I use to anymore though, but am always around.

|>>>>>>>>>>>

|>>>>>>>>>>> Good to know you are around. I've had to triple the

|>>>>>>>>>>> thickness of my tinfoil hat in this WinXP thread-- but

|>>>>>>>>>>> still got a few new holes in my head! Before I leave it,

|>>>>>>>>>>> can you settle the issue whether the Modification Date of

|>>>>>>>>>>> an XP folder should change (Bill of Co. with XP Home

|>>>>>>>>>>> Edition) when a file is added/removed/changed in that

|>>>>>>>>>>> folder or remain the same (Terhune with Professional

|>>>>>>>>>>> Edition)? Can Terhune have been looking at Creation Date,

|>>>>>>>>>>> which needs to be added by a tweak, acc. to Brian A.?

|>>>>>>>>>>>

|>>>>>>>>>>>> Rick

|>>>>>>>>>>>

|>>>>>>>>>>> --

|>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks or Good Luck,

|>>>>>>>>>>> There may be humor in this post, and,

|>>>>>>>>>>> Naturally, you will not sue,

|>>>>>>>>>>> Should things get worse after this,

|>>>>>>>>>>> PCR

|>>>>>>>>>>> pcrrcp@netzero.net

|>>>>>>>>>

|>>>>>>>>> --

|>>>>>>>>> Thanks or Good Luck,

|>>>>>>>>> There may be humor in this post, and,

|>>>>>>>>> Naturally, you will not sue,

|>>>>>>>>> Should things get worse after this,

|>>>>>>>>> PCR

|>>>>>>>>> pcrrcp@netzero.net

|>>>>>>>

|>>>>>>> --

|>>>>>>> Thanks or Good Luck,

|>>>>>>> There may be humor in this post, and,

|>>>>>>> Naturally, you will not sue,

|>>>>>>> Should things get worse after this,

|>>>>>>> PCR

|>>>>>>> pcrrcp@netzero.net

|>>>>>

|>>>>> --

|>>>>> Thanks or Good Luck,

|>>>>> There may be humor in this post, and,

|>>>>> Naturally, you will not sue,

|>>>>> Should things get worse after this,

|>>>>> PCR

|>>>>> pcrrcp@netzero.net

|>>>

|>>> --

|>>> Thanks or Good Luck,

|>>> There may be humor in this post, and,

|>>> Naturally, you will not sue,

|>>> Should things get worse after this,

|>>> PCR

|>>> pcrrcp@netzero.net

|>

|> --

|> Thanks or Good Luck,

|> There may be humor in this post, and,

|> Naturally, you will not sue,

|> Should things get worse after this,

|> PCR

|> pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

--

Thanks or Good Luck,

There may be humor in this post, and,

Naturally, you will not sue,

Should things get worse after this,

PCR

pcrrcp@netzero.net

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

PCR wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> PCR wrote:

>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>> PCR wrote:

>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>>>> PCR wrote:

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

>>>>>>>> I'm using NTFS for WinXP (for my system partition), and that's

>>>>>>>> the one I'm talking about. (I also have some FAT32

>>>>>>>> partitions on the drive for other stuff, however).

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> And what about the FAT32 partition? Does that behave the same as

>>>>>>> in Win98 with that Mod date?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Yes. The folder's "Date Modified" date does NOT change.

>>>>>

>>>>> Ah! That's it, then! They were right! Very good.

>>>>>

>>>>>>> If so... congratulations to Etal & Chauvin for

>>>>>>> figuring it... though your only cure will be to shape-shift your

>>>>>>> NTFS into a FAT32..

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Ummm. Not a good idea (for Windows XP).

>>>>>> I'll have to learn to live with it. :-)

>>>>>

>>>>> Yea. OK. It's been good, really, to hear your complaints about

>>>>> XP-- very instructive.

>>>>

>>>> Well, on the whole though, I'm pretty satisfied with WinXP. I

>>>> just have a few, relatively minor issues with it, that's all.

>>>> (frankly, most of them aren't earth shaking).

>>>

>>> Well, the ones you mentioned, anyway, seemed more like pet peeves--

>>> except perhaps the file search requestor which wasn't finding all

>>> files. However, looks like that was mostly resolved too with a

>>> shortcut.

>>

>> Or a good alternative third party utility like Agent Ransack or File

>> Locator Pro (which is even better, and is big brother to Agent

>> Ransack). It's useful to have this program (even on the Win98SE

>> machine).

>

> Thanks for the tip. I may take a look. So far, I am content with Windows

> Find & DOS DIR. I know each has certain few limitations. As far as

> anything so well hid that those two won't work-- it hasn't hurt me yet,

> I don't think. For full system backups, I use BING that copies on a

> track level-- nothing can escape that!

 

The nice thing about using Acronis True Image (TI) in Win XP to make a

backup image is that you don't have to boot up on a floppy (or a CD) to run

it, like you do with BING. Plus, of course, it's a bit friendlier, since

you're in a windows environment for most of it. (the older versions of TI

can work in 98SE, but not the newer ones)

>>>> What I really DO appreciate about Win XP is its *robustness* (much

>>>> more so than Win98SE - in part due to using NTFS) - AND its

>>>> capability of running some programs that I couldn't run on 98SE.

>>>>

>>>> I think I've already said I haven't got a blue screen yet, and

>>>> that's with my normal messin around (which usually brought me some,

>>>> in 98SE

>>>

>>> Alright-- but Terhune did say you hadn't tried hard enough yet to

>>> crash it!

>>

>> Apparently not! :-)

>

> I guess you are being careful, as you always have been.

 

I do?? Hmmm. (Not so sure, lol). (I've been known to walk a bit on

the "razor's edge" in windows and in the registry with some registry mods,

etc. :-)

>>> Also, I see a new XP thread here where Livingston has warned against

>>> XP SP3!

>>

>> That's never going in over here.

>>

>>> (I know you don't go for those critical updates-- just as you

>>> hardly ever did in Win98.)

>>

>> Yup, you got that right. (been around the block too many times on

>> that one).

>

> I had a few horrible crashes taking in one/two like DirectX9, but

> ultimately got all of the critical updates & many "recommended" ones too

> into here. Once they were in &/or the sometimes quick replacements to

> some were in-- all seems to be going well. I don't regret it now.

>

> It's a bit humorous that WinXP is going through these critical updates

> too & even full SP's. Will no OS ever be safe &/or fully debugged!?

 

Nope. True security ONLY "comes from within" - meaning, the operator

usage. :-)

You can't always protect people from themselves and their own screwups, no

matter how hard you try.

>>> A truly unrecoverable crash in my Win98 is covered by my full system

>>> backup, (which I've resorted to some few times already, but nothing

>>> any too recent. It was more frequent early on, when I didn't how to

>>> fix anything otherwise.)

>>>

>>>> :-)

>>

>> Yup. I routinely do a full system backup to my external USB HD

>> enclosure, and it takes me about 15-20 minutes to backup the existing

>> 20 GB or so of system files, programs, and user data. (I have a 40

>> GB partition for the C: drive on Win XP - I think that's an ideal

>> size for XP).

>

> That's the best thing! I always had that capability, first with Compaq's

> QuickRestore & now with BING.

>

>>>> And the built-in, NTFS, transaction-log-based, file recovery

>>>> methodology is nice, too (so if something goes wrong while writing

>>>> some files on the disk, it's often possible to recover from that).

>>>

>>> Is that like SFC? What does the process involve?

 

No, WinXP also has SFC to check the system files, so this in addition to

that.

 

And XP also has some WFP (windows file protection) running in the background

to constantly monitor any attempts to change any system files (without

permission).

>> There is a so-called "transaction log" written out (as I understand

>> it) for every file operation in NTFS, so that if anything goes wrong

>> or is incomplete in the disk writes, WinXP (using NTFS) can recover

>> from it, unlike in Win98SE and FAT32. For example, if something

>> isn't successfully and completely written out to the hard disk, a

>> flag is set indicating such, so that it can be, next time (or

>> something to that effect). Which makes it much more robust! (not

>> saying it's 100% foolproof, nothing probably is)

>

> Sounds like that has to do with the integrity of the hard drive &

> whether something went wrong in the middle of a write. It doesn't sound

> like it has to do with file versions like SFC does.

 

No, as I mentioned above, SFC is different, and just checks the system files

for the proper versions (and can be used to put them back, as needbe, since

the correct ones are stored in a backup "dllcache" on the disk)

> It probably has more

> to do with what ScanDisk is supposed to do-- or eliminating the need for

> ScanDisk. Has your "transaction log" mentioned any errors yet? Do you

 

I haven't looked at such a log, per se. When I used the term "transaction

log", I meant that the system "logs" or keeps track of what's going on down

there behind the scenes. (Whether or not we can actually see a log

detailing all of these file events, I'm not sure, but we do have an "Event

Viewer", which shows a fair amount of such related stuff (and perhaps that

too).

> still have to do a Defrag? Do you have anything that does do the work of

> SFC to monitor updates-- IF you ever decide to take one?

 

Yes, there is a Windows Defragger. And as I said, there is also good ole,

SFC (System File Checker).

 

And - Windows Updates do get recorded (and can even be seen in Add/Remove

programs, IF you select the "show updates" checkbox).

>>>> And of course, there are no limitations anymore with the good ole,

>>>> 64K, resource heap problem in Win9x. Now THAT is nice. :-)

>>>

>>> OK. That problem doesn't show up for me, though, in normal, everyday

>>> use of Win98. I think it is involved with the ole "copy of tons of

>>> files or tons of folders full of folders & files" thing after

>>> installing IE6-- but I only ever did that for testing purposes!

>>

>> No, those were two entirely different and unrelated issues.

>>

>> The resource heap limitation happened if either you had too many apps

>> running at one time, or had a program that was errant in its handling

>> of the GDI, System, or User resource heaps (and some did, but they

>> were the exception, fortunately, and usually got fixed in later

>> versions, unless the developer moved on and stopped supporting it -

>> that happened on occasion).

>

> Yea. That sounds about right. I certainly don't like to have 10 programs

> open at once. HOWEVER-- for me, when I test that copy problem, I seem

> always to get a requestor warning I've run out of resources & too close

> some programs. Sometimes the warning is hidden behind another window. I

> do believe the massive copy is fairly quickly done -- & done well -- &

> it is Explorer that is struggling to update its display. You could wait

> forever for that!

>

>> The copying or deleting of a large number of files problem in Win98SE

>> (with IE6+) was linked to the browseui and browselc DLL files changes

>> (from IE5.5 to IE 6+), so I simply retained the IE 5.5 versions of

>> those two DLLs, which allowed Windows Explorer to *work as it

>> should*, and NOT get hung up! (I think another "fix" was with

>> another DLL, instead, as an alternative method, but this one always

>> worked for me, so I left it that way.

>

> I remember it as you do. And, yea, I recall testing the IE 5.5

> BrowseUI.dll & BrowseLC.dll. I believe you were right about them, yea.

> But I kept the IE6 versions because I could copy the big stuff I

> normally do-- just not the big, big stuff during a test like all of

> Program Files. Also, even that much could be done in DOS with no problem

> whatever.

 

But it's often easier in Explorer, plus you see all the long filenames

(which you can't in real DOS mode, but you can in the windows shell version,

of course).

>>>> And of course the nice built in USB (and USB2) support, which was

>>>> "just a bit lacking" in Win98SE.

>>>

>>> I have 2 or 3 USB connectors, but have never plugged anything into

>>> them.

>>

>> There is SO much out there (peripherals) that is now USB based!

>> Even the printers! (Try to find a printer (or even computer) with a

>> parallel port, anymore!)

>

> Hmm. Well, my Compaq IJ300 still has its parallel wire. It just has no

> ink in its cartridge, is all.

 

I only use a black-and-white laser printer, and thus I never have to replace

those blasted cartridges all the time. I can go through up to 3000

sheets! with nothing ever needing to be replaced or changed. And I like

that! The only thing I don't get is color, of course (but I don't need

it). :-) (If I need photos developed (which is rare), I can take them

to a photo developing place)

>> Well, I have to admit, the USB cable to my new printer is MUCH nicer

>> now, than that old bulky parallel port cable connecting the old

>> printer to the parallel port. But if you ever get a new printer

>> (likely USB based), there is a way to use it with Win98SE, IF they

>> supply the right drivers - otherwise you're screwed.

>

> Hmm. OK, got ya. Something to ponder.

>

>>>> I think after XP dies (if and when it does for me), it's maybe time

>>>> to move to something else, maybe something like Linux. :-)

>>>> I've about had it with MS bloatware. I think XP may be my last

>>>> ride with MS for the operating system :-)

>>>

>>> I probably will say the same, if I ever do get to XP myself.

>>

>> If you're even considering Win XP, time is running out. Like the

>> end of this month? (unless MS extends it). (Vista is not

>> allowed on my premises. I have a sign out saying "Access Denied",

>> for it. :-)

>

> I agree fully!

>

>>>>>>> .. or learn to live with it! Put your head inside the box

>>>>>>> for a triple dose of the irradiation-- & you may forget the

>>>>>>> problem entirely! :-).

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, my sieve of a brain DOES recall running into what Bill

>>>>>>>>>> is talking about, but I can't recall the circumstances. That

>>>>>>>>>> simple. It struck me as something certain types of workers

>>>>>>>>>> might like, but danged if I can recall the logic behind that

>>>>>>>>>> thought.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Etal brought up a good point... NTFS vrs. FAT32. It remains to

>>>>>>>>> be seen whether you & Colorado are using the same file system

>>>>>>>>> when you have the same observation on the Mod Date. (You know

>>>>>>>>> I am tounge-in-cheek when I rib you on XP-irradiation & 24-hour

>>>>>>>>> weariness & stuff.)

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>> news:%23ADAvZTwIHA.548@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>> In re me, the answer is, "No." You think I didn't

>>>>>>>>>>>> quadruple-check?

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> It just seems odd, is all. And I do know you've been

>>>>>>>>>>> extremely busy lately with a 24-hour fix effort for CdLSRN.

>>>>>>>>>>> Good work on that, though.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>>>>>> Gary S. Terhune

>>>>>>>>>>>> MS-MVP Shell/User

>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.grystmill.com

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>>>> news:eqUvx0SwIHA.1236@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rick Chauvin wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, and same courteous sentiments to you.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I always skim read the forums here (as well as the other

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> groups I frequented) I don't have the time luxury to post

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as much as I use to anymore though, but am always around.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good to know you are around. I've had to triple the

>>>>>>>>>>>>> thickness of my tinfoil hat in this WinXP thread-- but

>>>>>>>>>>>>> still got a few new holes in my head! Before I leave it,

>>>>>>>>>>>>> can you settle the issue whether the Modification Date of

>>>>>>>>>>>>> an XP folder should change (Bill of Co. with XP Home

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Edition) when a file is added/removed/changed in that

>>>>>>>>>>>>> folder or remain the same (Terhune with Professional

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Edition)? Can Terhune have been looking at Creation Date,

>>>>>>>>>>>>> which needs to be added by a tweak, acc. to Brian A.?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rick

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks or Good Luck,

>>>>>>>>>>>>> There may be humor in this post, and,

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Naturally, you will not sue,

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should things get worse after this,

>>>>>>>>>>>>> PCR

>>>>>>>>>>>>> pcrrcp@netzero.net

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks or Good Luck,

>>>>>>>>>>> There may be humor in this post, and,

>>>>>>>>>>> Naturally, you will not sue,

>>>>>>>>>>> Should things get worse after this,

>>>>>>>>>>> PCR

>>>>>>>>>>> pcrrcp@netzero.net

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>>>> Thanks or Good Luck,

>>>>>>>>> There may be humor in this post, and,

>>>>>>>>> Naturally, you will not sue,

>>>>>>>>> Should things get worse after this,

>>>>>>>>> PCR

>>>>>>>>> pcrrcp@netzero.net

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>> Thanks or Good Luck,

>>>>>>> There may be humor in this post, and,

>>>>>>> Naturally, you will not sue,

>>>>>>> Should things get worse after this,

>>>>>>> PCR

>>>>>>> pcrrcp@netzero.net

>>>>>

>>>>> --

>>>>> Thanks or Good Luck,

>>>>> There may be humor in this post, and,

>>>>> Naturally, you will not sue,

>>>>> Should things get worse after this,

>>>>> PCR

>>>>> pcrrcp@netzero.net

>>>

>>> --

>>> Thanks or Good Luck,

>>> There may be humor in this post, and,

>>> Naturally, you will not sue,

>>> Should things get worse after this,

>>> PCR

>>> pcrrcp@netzero.net

>

> --

> Thanks or Good Luck,

> There may be humor in this post, and,

> Naturally, you will not sue,

> Should things get worse after this,

> PCR

> pcrrcp@netzero.net

[Guest PCR]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

| PCR wrote:

|> Bill in Co. wrote:

|>> PCR wrote:

|>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

|>>>> PCR wrote:

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

|>>>>>> PCR wrote:

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

|>>>>>>>> I'm using NTFS for WinXP (for my system partition), and that's

|>>>>>>>> the one I'm talking about. (I also have some FAT32

|>>>>>>>> partitions on the drive for other stuff, however).

|>>>>>>>

|>>>>>>> And what about the FAT32 partition? Does that behave the same

|>>>>>>> as in Win98 with that Mod date?

|>>>>>>

|>>>>>> Yes. The folder's "Date Modified" date does NOT change.

|>>>>>

|>>>>> Ah! That's it, then! They were right! Very good.

|>>>>>

|>>>>>>> If so... congratulations to Etal & Chauvin for

|>>>>>>> figuring it... though your only cure will be to shape-shift

|>>>>>>> your NTFS into a FAT32..

|>>>>>>

|>>>>>> Ummm. Not a good idea (for Windows XP).

|>>>>>> I'll have to learn to live with it. :-)

|>>>>>

|>>>>> Yea. OK. It's been good, really, to hear your complaints about

|>>>>> XP-- very instructive.

|>>>>

|>>>> Well, on the whole though, I'm pretty satisfied with WinXP. I

|>>>> just have a few, relatively minor issues with it, that's all.

|>>>> (frankly, most of them aren't earth shaking).

|>>>

|>>> Well, the ones you mentioned, anyway, seemed more like pet peeves--

|>>> except perhaps the file search requestor which wasn't finding all

|>>> files. However, looks like that was mostly resolved too with a

|>>> shortcut.

|>>

|>> Or a good alternative third party utility like Agent Ransack or File

|>> Locator Pro (which is even better, and is big brother to Agent

|>> Ransack). It's useful to have this program (even on the Win98SE

|>> machine).

|>

|> Thanks for the tip. I may take a look. So far, I am content with

|> Windows Find & DOS DIR. I know each has certain few limitations. As

|> far as anything so well hid that those two won't work-- it hasn't

|> hurt me yet, I don't think. For full system backups, I use BING that

|> copies on a track level-- nothing can escape that!

|

| The nice thing about using Acronis True Image (TI) in Win XP to make a

| backup image is that you don't have to boot up on a floppy (or a CD)

| to run it, like you do with BING. Plus, of course, it's a bit

| friendlier, since you're in a windows environment for most of it.

| (the older versions of TI can work in 98SE, but not the newer ones)

 

Alright, very good. BING I think might also have that capability to

click a shortcut in Windows to start a backup, even a backup of multiple

partitions. However, you'd have to actually install BING to its own

little partition on the hard drive to use that. I am content to use the

floppy.

 

|>>>> What I really DO appreciate about Win XP is its *robustness* (much

|>>>> more so than Win98SE - in part due to using NTFS) - AND its

|>>>> capability of running some programs that I couldn't run on 98SE.

|>>>>

|>>>> I think I've already said I haven't got a blue screen yet, and

|>>>> that's with my normal messin around (which usually brought me

|>>>> some, in 98SE

|>>>

|>>> Alright-- but Terhune did say you hadn't tried hard enough yet to

|>>> crash it!

|>>

|>> Apparently not! :-)

|>

|> I guess you are being careful, as you always have been.

|

| I do?? Hmmm. (Not so sure, lol). (I've been known to walk a

| bit on the "razor's edge" in windows and in the registry with some

| registry mods, etc. :-)

 

I was trying to be complimentary as best I could. :-).

 

|>>> Also, I see a new XP thread here where Livingston has warned

|>>> against XP SP3!

|>>

|>> That's never going in over here.

|>>

|>>> (I know you don't go for those critical updates-- just as you

|>>> hardly ever did in Win98.)

|>>

|>> Yup, you got that right. (been around the block too many times on

|>> that one).

|>

|> I had a few horrible crashes taking in one/two like DirectX9, but

|> ultimately got all of the critical updates & many "recommended" ones

|> too into here. Once they were in &/or the sometimes quick

|> replacements to some were in-- all seems to be going well. I don't

|> regret it now.

|>

|> It's a bit humorous that WinXP is going through these critical

|> updates too & even full SP's. Will no OS ever be safe &/or fully

|> debugged!?

|

| Nope. True security ONLY "comes from within" - meaning, the operator

| usage. :-)

| You can't always protect people from themselves and their own

| screwups, no matter how hard you try.

 

I guess. But I've got a 92 KB IUHist.xml, & the only reason it has

stopped growing is because MS has become lazy with Win98 criticals! It's

pretty sloppy in that file too with duplicates, failures (although later

attempts completed) & mis-sorted entries!

 

|>>> A truly unrecoverable crash in my Win98 is covered by my full

|>>> system backup, (which I've resorted to some few times already, but

|>>> nothing any too recent. It was more frequent early on, when I

|>>> didn't how to fix anything otherwise.)

|>>>

|>>>> :-)

|>>

|>> Yup. I routinely do a full system backup to my external USB HD

|>> enclosure, and it takes me about 15-20 minutes to backup the

|>> existing 20 GB or so of system files, programs, and user data.

|>> (I have a 40 GB partition for the C: drive on Win XP - I think

|>> that's an ideal size for XP).

|>

|> That's the best thing! I always had that capability, first with

|> Compaq's QuickRestore & now with BING.

|>

|>>>> And the built-in, NTFS, transaction-log-based, file recovery

|>>>> methodology is nice, too (so if something goes wrong while writing

|>>>> some files on the disk, it's often possible to recover from that).

|>>>

|>>> Is that like SFC? What does the process involve?

|

| No, WinXP also has SFC to check the system files, so this in addition

| to that.

|

| And XP also has some WFP (windows file protection) running in the

| background to constantly monitor any attempts to change any system

| files (without permission).

 

That's interesting. But I guess you still need a virus detector. Even if

you are asked, you still might not know who is doing the asking!

 

|>> There is a so-called "transaction log" written out (as I understand

|>> it) for every file operation in NTFS, so that if anything goes wrong

|>> or is incomplete in the disk writes, WinXP (using NTFS) can recover

|>> from it, unlike in Win98SE and FAT32. For example, if something

|>> isn't successfully and completely written out to the hard disk, a

|>> flag is set indicating such, so that it can be, next time (or

|>> something to that effect). Which makes it much more robust! (not

|>> saying it's 100% foolproof, nothing probably is)

|>

|> Sounds like that has to do with the integrity of the hard drive &

|> whether something went wrong in the middle of a write. It doesn't

|> sound like it has to do with file versions like SFC does.

|

| No, as I mentioned above, SFC is different, and just checks the

| system files for the proper versions (and can be used to put them

| back, as needbe, since the correct ones are stored in a backup

| "dllcache" on the disk)

 

Does XP update its dllcache? If a file is updated twice, but you need to

revert to the first update-- will XP's SFC offer it or only offer the

original file? It's tough to get 98's SFC to do that trick, you know--

normally it goes to the installation .cab's for its files, (but it will

take whatever is loose in C:\Windows\Option\Cabs first, instead of going

into the .cab's.)

 

|> It probably has more

|> to do with what ScanDisk is supposed to do-- or eliminating the need

|> for ScanDisk. Has your "transaction log" mentioned any errors yet?

|> Do you

|

| I haven't looked at such a log, per se. When I used the term

| "transaction log", I meant that the system "logs" or keeps track of

| what's going on down there behind the scenes. (Whether or not we

| can actually see a log detailing all of these file events, I'm not

| sure, but we do have an "Event Viewer", which shows a fair amount of

| such related stuff (and perhaps that too).

 

Can you post a piece of the Event Viewer, especially a summary at the

bottom? I want to determine whether anything humanly meaningful can be

seen in it. Is there anything in its menus that can be set to sound an

alarm?

 

|> still have to do a Defrag? Do you have anything that does do the

|> work of SFC to monitor updates-- IF you ever decide to take one?

|

| Yes, there is a Windows Defragger. And as I said, there is also

| good ole, SFC (System File Checker).

 

How large is your hard drive? How long does it take to Defrag? Does it

look the same & show you those cluster boxes moving?

 

| And - Windows Updates do get recorded (and can even be seen in

| Add/Remove programs, IF you select the "show updates" checkbox).

 

Another extra checkbox for you-- ha, ha, ha!

 

|>>>> And of course, there are no limitations anymore with the good ole,

|>>>> 64K, resource heap problem in Win9x. Now THAT is nice. :-)

|>>>

|>>> OK. That problem doesn't show up for me, though, in normal,

|>>> everyday use of Win98. I think it is involved with the ole "copy

|>>> of tons of files or tons of folders full of folders & files" thing

|>>> after installing IE6-- but I only ever did that for testing

|>>> purposes!

|>>

|>> No, those were two entirely different and unrelated issues.

|>>

|>> The resource heap limitation happened if either you had too many

|>> apps running at one time, or had a program that was errant in its

|>> handling of the GDI, System, or User resource heaps (and some did,

|>> but they were the exception, fortunately, and usually got fixed in

|>> later versions, unless the developer moved on and stopped

|>> supporting it - that happened on occasion).

|>

|> Yea. That sounds about right. I certainly don't like to have 10

|> programs open at once. HOWEVER-- for me, when I test that copy

|> problem, I seem always to get a requestor warning I've run out of

|> resources & too close some programs. Sometimes the warning is hidden

|> behind another window. I do believe the massive copy is fairly

|> quickly done -- & done well -- & it is Explorer that is struggling

|> to update its display. You could wait forever for that!

|>

|>> The copying or deleting of a large number of files problem in

|>> Win98SE (with IE6+) was linked to the browseui and browselc DLL

|>> files changes (from IE5.5 to IE 6+), so I simply retained the IE

|>> 5.5 versions of those two DLLs, which allowed Windows Explorer to

|>> *work as it should*, and NOT get hung up! (I think another "fix"

|>> was with another DLL, instead, as an alternative method, but this

|>> one always worked for me, so I left it that way.

|>

|> I remember it as you do. And, yea, I recall testing the IE 5.5

|> BrowseUI.dll & BrowseLC.dll. I believe you were right about them,

|> yea. But I kept the IE6 versions because I could copy the big stuff I

|> normally do-- just not the big, big stuff during a test like all of

|> Program Files. Also, even that much could be done in DOS with no

|> problem whatever.

|

| But it's often easier in Explorer, plus you see all the long filenames

| (which you can't in real DOS mode, but you can in the windows shell

| version, of course).

 

Absolutely you must use the Windows DOS Shell for that or lose the LFNs!

 

|>>>> And of course the nice built in USB (and USB2) support, which was

|>>>> "just a bit lacking" in Win98SE.

|>>>

|>>> I have 2 or 3 USB connectors, but have never plugged anything into

|>>> them.

|>>

|>> There is SO much out there (peripherals) that is now USB based!

|>> Even the printers! (Try to find a printer (or even computer) with

|>> a parallel port, anymore!)

|>

|> Hmm. Well, my Compaq IJ300 still has its parallel wire. It just has

|> no ink in its cartridge, is all.

|

| I only use a black-and-white laser printer, and thus I never have to

| replace those blasted cartridges all the time. I can go through up

| to 3000 sheets! with nothing ever needing to be replaced or changed.

| And I like that! The only thing I don't get is color, of course

| (but I don't need it). :-) (If I need photos developed (which

| is rare), I can take them to a photo developing place)

 

Yea. The printer itself was only $100.00-- little did I know cartridges

would run out quick & cost... is it $50.00 apiece? That or $30.00-- but

either is horrible!

 

|>> Well, I have to admit, the USB cable to my new printer is MUCH nicer

|>> now, than that old bulky parallel port cable connecting the old

|>> printer to the parallel port. But if you ever get a new printer

|>> (likely USB based), there is a way to use it with Win98SE, IF they

|>> supply the right drivers - otherwise you're screwed.

|>

|> Hmm. OK, got ya. Something to ponder.

|>

|>>>> I think after XP dies (if and when it does for me), it's maybe

|>>>> time to move to something else, maybe something like Linux. :-)

|>>>> I've about had it with MS bloatware. I think XP may be my last

|>>>> ride with MS for the operating system :-)

|>>>

|>>> I probably will say the same, if I ever do get to XP myself.

|>>

|>> If you're even considering Win XP, time is running out. Like the

|>> end of this month? (unless MS extends it). (Vista is not

|>> allowed on my premises. I have a sign out saying "Access Denied",

|>> for it. :-)

|>

|> I agree fully!

|>

|>>>>>>> .. or learn to live with it! Put your head inside the box

|>>>>>>> for a triple dose of the irradiation-- & you may forget the

|>>>>>>> problem entirely! :-).

|>>>>>>>

 

....snip

--

Thanks or Good Luck,

There may be humor in this post, and,

Naturally, you will not sue,

Should things get worse after this,

PCR

pcrrcp@netzero.net

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

PCR wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> PCR wrote:

>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>> PCR wrote:

>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>>>> PCR wrote:

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

>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:

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

>>>>>>>>>> I'm using NTFS for WinXP (for my system partition), and that's

>>>>>>>>>> the one I'm talking about. (I also have some FAT32

>>>>>>>>>> partitions on the drive for other stuff, however).

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> And what about the FAT32 partition? Does that behave the same

>>>>>>>>> as in Win98 with that Mod date?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Yes. The folder's "Date Modified" date does NOT change.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Ah! That's it, then! They were right! Very good.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> If so... congratulations to Etal & Chauvin for

>>>>>>>>> figuring it... though your only cure will be to shape-shift

>>>>>>>>> your NTFS into a FAT32..

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Ummm. Not a good idea (for Windows XP).

>>>>>>>> I'll have to learn to live with it. :-)

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Yea. OK. It's been good, really, to hear your complaints about

>>>>>>> XP-- very instructive.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Well, on the whole though, I'm pretty satisfied with WinXP. I

>>>>>> just have a few, relatively minor issues with it, that's all.

>>>>>> (frankly, most of them aren't earth shaking).

>>>>>

>>>>> Well, the ones you mentioned, anyway, seemed more like pet peeves--

>>>>> except perhaps the file search requestor which wasn't finding all

>>>>> files. However, looks like that was mostly resolved too with a

>>>>> shortcut.

>>>>

>>>> Or a good alternative third party utility like Agent Ransack or File

>>>> Locator Pro (which is even better, and is big brother to Agent

>>>> Ransack). It's useful to have this program (even on the Win98SE

>>>> machine).

>>>

>>> Thanks for the tip. I may take a look. So far, I am content with

>>> Windows Find & DOS DIR. I know each has certain few limitations. As

>>> far as anything so well hid that those two won't work-- it hasn't

>>> hurt me yet, I don't think. For full system backups, I use BING that

>>> copies on a track level-- nothing can escape that!

>>

>> The nice thing about using Acronis True Image (TI) in Win XP to make a

>> backup image is that you don't have to boot up on a floppy (or a CD)

>> to run it, like you do with BING. Plus, of course, it's a bit

>> friendlier, since you're in a windows environment for most of it.

>> (the older versions of TI can work in 98SE, but not the newer ones)

>

> Alright, very good. BING I think might also have that capability to

> click a shortcut in Windows to start a backup, even a backup of multiple

> partitions. However, you'd have to actually install BING to its own

> little partition on the hard drive to use that. I am content to use the

> floppy.

 

Well, and actually True Image is fully running in Windows too (with lots of

options and selections being able to be clearly shown as a result). It

makes the BING screen look primitive. :-)

 

Of course, if you ever decide to restore an image backup of the system back

to the source drive, TI only runs in windows to a point, and then it reboots

and does the rest outside of windows (which it has to), just like BING.

>>>>>> What I really DO appreciate about Win XP is its *robustness* (much

>>>>>> more so than Win98SE - in part due to using NTFS) - AND its

>>>>>> capability of running some programs that I couldn't run on 98SE.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I think I've already said I haven't got a blue screen yet, and

>>>>>> that's with my normal messin around (which usually brought me

>>>>>> some, in 98SE

>>>>>

>>>>> Alright-- but Terhune did say you hadn't tried hard enough yet to

>>>>> crash it!

>>>>

>>>> Apparently not! :-)

>>>

>>> I guess you are being careful, as you always have been.

>>

>> I do?? Hmmm. (Not so sure, lol). (I've been known to walk a

>> bit on the "razor's edge" in windows and in the registry with some

>> registry mods, etc. :-)

>

> I was trying to be complimentary as best I could. :-).

 

LOL. That's ok, you don't have to worry about that.

>>>>> Also, I see a new XP thread here where Livingston has warned

>>>>> against XP SP3!

>>>>

>>>> That's never going in over here.

>>>>

>>>>> (I know you don't go for those critical updates-- just as you

>>>>> hardly ever did in Win98.)

>>>>

>>>> Yup, you got that right. (been around the block too many times on

>>>> that one).

>>>

>>> I had a few horrible crashes taking in one/two like DirectX9, but

>>> ultimately got all of the critical updates & many "recommended" ones

>>> too into here. Once they were in &/or the sometimes quick

>>> replacements to some were in-- all seems to be going well. I don't

>>> regret it now.

>>>

>>> It's a bit humorous that WinXP is going through these critical

>>> updates too & even full SP's. Will no OS ever be safe &/or fully

>>> debugged!?

>>

>> Nope. True security ONLY "comes from within" - meaning, the operator

>> usage. :-)

>> You can't always protect people from themselves and their own

>> screwups, no matter how hard you try.

>

> I guess. But I've got a 92 KB IUHist.xml, & the only reason it has

> stopped growing is because MS has become lazy with Win98 criticals!

 

I'd be surprised if there are ANY more at this point in time. But then

again, I never really missed them. :-)

> It's pretty sloppy in that file too with duplicates, failures (although

> later

> attempts completed) & mis-sorted entries!

>

>>>>> A truly unrecoverable crash in my Win98 is covered by my full

>>>>> system backup, (which I've resorted to some few times already, but

>>>>> nothing any too recent. It was more frequent early on, when I

>>>>> didn't how to fix anything otherwise.)

>>>>>

>>>>>> :-)

>>>>

>>>> Yup. I routinely do a full system backup to my external USB HD

>>>> enclosure, and it takes me about 15-20 minutes to backup the

>>>> existing 20 GB or so of system files, programs, and user data.

>>>> (I have a 40 GB partition for the C: drive on Win XP - I think

>>>> that's an ideal size for XP).

>>>

>>> That's the best thing! I always had that capability, first with

>>> Compaq's QuickRestore & now with BING.

>>>

>>>>>> And the built-in, NTFS, transaction-log-based, file recovery

>>>>>> methodology is nice, too (so if something goes wrong while writing

>>>>>> some files on the disk, it's often possible to recover from that).

>>>>>

>>>>> Is that like SFC? What does the process involve?

>>

>> No, WinXP also has SFC to check the system files, so this in addition

>> to that.

>>

>> And XP also has some WFP (windows file protection) running in the

>> background to constantly monitor any attempts to change any system

>> files (without permission).

>

> That's interesting. But I guess you still need a virus detector. Even if

> you are asked, you still might not know who is doing the asking!

 

I have an older version of AVG Free, namely AVG 7.0. And I stopped

updating it some time ago. :-)

>>>> There is a so-called "transaction log" written out (as I understand

>>>> it) for every file operation in NTFS, so that if anything goes wrong

>>>> or is incomplete in the disk writes, WinXP (using NTFS) can recover

>>>> from it, unlike in Win98SE and FAT32. For example, if something

>>>> isn't successfully and completely written out to the hard disk, a

>>>> flag is set indicating such, so that it can be, next time (or

>>>> something to that effect). Which makes it much more robust! (not

>>>> saying it's 100% foolproof, nothing probably is)

>>>

>>> Sounds like that has to do with the integrity of the hard drive &

>>> whether something went wrong in the middle of a write. It doesn't

>>> sound like it has to do with file versions like SFC does.

>>

>> No, as I mentioned above, SFC is different, and just checks the

>> system files for the proper versions (and can be used to put them

>> back, as needbe, since the correct ones are stored in a backup

>> "dllcache" on the disk)

>

> Does XP update its dllcache? If a file is updated twice, but you need to

> revert to the first update-- will XP's SFC offer it or only offer the

> original file? It's tough to get 98's SFC to do that trick, you know--

> normally it goes to the installation .cab's for its files, (but it will

> take whatever is loose in C:\Windows\Option\Cabs first, instead of going

> into the .cab's.)

 

XP keeps "properly recorded" copies of most of the system DLLs in the

dllcache subfolder. By "properly recorded", I mean these cached system

files don't change, UNLESS you install an official IE update, which then

updates it (at least as I recall - there may be some other exceptions or

contingencies).

>>> It probably has more

>>> to do with what ScanDisk is supposed to do-- or eliminating the need

>>> for ScanDisk. Has your "transaction log" mentioned any errors yet?

>>> Do you

>>

>> I haven't looked at such a log, per se. When I used the term

>> "transaction log", I meant that the system "logs" or keeps track of

>> what's going on down there behind the scenes. (Whether or not we

>> can actually see a log detailing all of these file events, I'm not

>> sure, but we do have an "Event Viewer", which shows a fair amount of

>> such related stuff (and perhaps that too).

>

> Can you post a piece of the Event Viewer, especially a summary at the

> bottom? I want to determine whether anything humanly meaningful can be

> seen in it.

 

Well, I'll tell you, it ain't easy looking at it (or posting it). It's a

bit "cumbersome" and tedious to go through it all (you have to use the arrow

keys to scroll through them)! So, I don't know how I can easily do that.

It is a bit more complex than just looking at a simple SFC log in Win98SE

(and THAT part I really MISS).

 

What it lists is all the so-called system "Events" that occur (basically the

system events going on in time, with their "categorizations" and so-called

"Event Codes", (like such an such a "service" just opened or closed, or

started or stopped, or entered the running state, or whatever). (For the

most part, I haven't found it all that useful for me just yet).

> Is there anything in its menus that can be set to sound an alarm?

 

Maybe - don't know.

>>> still have to do a Defrag? Do you have anything that does do the

>>> work of SFC to monitor updates-- IF you ever decide to take one?

>>

>> Yes, there is a Windows Defragger. And as I said, there is also

>> good ole, SFC (System File Checker).

>

> How large is your hard drive? How long does it take to Defrag? Does it

> look the same & show you those cluster boxes moving?

 

I have a 250 GB drive (it came from Dell that way as the smallest size at

the time).

 

It has a 40 GB NTFS partition for XP and my programs and data (except for my

music and video files, which are each on some other 40 GB, FAT 32

partitions). Of that 40 GB, about half is in use now, and the rest is

still free. If someone were going to install XP, I'd say they should use

a 40 GB partition for it (and the programs and data). 20 GB would be a

bit marginal - not leaving much room to install a whole bunch of stuff. I

mean, you could do it, but I wouldn't. I've got quite a bit on here and

I'm using about 20 GB now.

 

I used FAT 32 for those partitions, since they came over from my Win98SE

machine, and it was just easier to leave them that way (I copied those

partitions from the Win98SE computer to the new XP computer).

 

So I still have tons of disk space left.

>> And - Windows Updates do get recorded (and can even be seen in

>> Add/Remove programs, IF you select the "show updates" checkbox).

>

> Another extra checkbox for you-- ha, ha, ha!

 

Yeah, I know. :-)

>>>>>> And of course, there are no limitations anymore with the good ole,

>>>>>> 64K, resource heap problem in Win9x. Now THAT is nice. :-)

>>>>>

>>>>> OK. That problem doesn't show up for me, though, in normal,

>>>>> everyday use of Win98. I think it is involved with the ole "copy

>>>>> of tons of files or tons of folders full of folders & files" thing

>>>>> after installing IE6-- but I only ever did that for testing

>>>>> purposes!

>>>>

>>>> No, those were two entirely different and unrelated issues.

>>>>

>>>> The resource heap limitation happened if either you had too many

>>>> apps running at one time, or had a program that was errant in its

>>>> handling of the GDI, System, or User resource heaps (and some did,

>>>> but they were the exception, fortunately, and usually got fixed in

>>>> later versions, unless the developer moved on and stopped

>>>> supporting it - that happened on occasion).

>>>

>>> Yea. That sounds about right. I certainly don't like to have 10

>>> programs open at once. HOWEVER-- for me, when I test that copy

>>> problem, I seem always to get a requestor warning I've run out of

>>> resources & too close some programs. Sometimes the warning is hidden

>>> behind another window. I do believe the massive copy is fairly

>>> quickly done -- & done well -- & it is Explorer that is struggling

>>> to update its display. You could wait forever for that!

>>>

>>>> The copying or deleting of a large number of files problem in

>>>> Win98SE (with IE6+) was linked to the browseui and browselc DLL

>>>> files changes (from IE5.5 to IE 6+), so I simply retained the IE

>>>> 5.5 versions of those two DLLs, which allowed Windows Explorer to

>>>> *work as it should*, and NOT get hung up! (I think another "fix"

>>>> was with another DLL, instead, as an alternative method, but this

>>>> one always worked for me, so I left it that way.

>>>

>>> I remember it as you do. And, yea, I recall testing the IE 5.5

>>> BrowseUI.dll & BrowseLC.dll. I believe you were right about them,

>>> yea. But I kept the IE6 versions because I could copy the big stuff I

>>> normally do-- just not the big, big stuff during a test like all of

>>> Program Files. Also, even that much could be done in DOS with no

>>> problem whatever.

>>

>> But it's often easier in Explorer, plus you see all the long filenames

>> (which you can't in real DOS mode, but you can in the windows dos shell,

>> of course).

>

> Absolutely you must use the Windows DOS Shell for that or lose the LFNs!

 

Right.

>>>>>> And of course the nice built in USB (and USB2) support, which was

>>>>>> "just a bit lacking" in Win98SE.

>>>>>

>>>>> I have 2 or 3 USB connectors, but have never plugged anything into

>>>>> them.

>>>>

>>>> There is SO much out there (peripherals) that is now USB based!

>>>> Even the printers! (Try to find a printer (or even computer) with

>>>> a parallel port, anymore!)

>>>

>>> Hmm. Well, my Compaq IJ300 still has its parallel wire. It just has

>>> no ink in its cartridge, is all.

>>

>> I only use a black-and-white laser printer, and thus I never have to

>> replace those blasted cartridges all the time. I can go through up

>> to 3000 sheets! with nothing ever needing to be replaced or changed.

>> And I like that! The only thing I don't get is color, of course

>> (but I don't need it). :-) (If I need photos developed (which

>> is rare), I can take them to a photo developing place)

>

> Yea. The printer itself was only $100.00

 

Same here.

> -- little did I know cartridges

> would run out quick & cost... is it $50.00 apiece? That or $30.00-- but

> either is horrible!

 

Yup!

>>>> Well, I have to admit, the USB cable to my new printer is MUCH nicer

>>>> now, than that old bulky parallel port cable connecting the old

>>>> printer to the parallel port. But if you ever get a new printer

>>>> (likely USB based), there is a way to use it with Win98SE, IF they

>>>> supply the right drivers - otherwise you're screwed.

>>>

>>> Hmm. OK, got ya. Something to ponder.

>>>

>>>>>> I think after XP dies (if and when it does for me), it's maybe

>>>>>> time to move to something else, maybe something like Linux. :-)

>>>>>> I've about had it with MS bloatware. I think XP may be my last

>>>>>> ride with MS for the operating system :-)

>>>>>

>>>>> I probably will say the same, if I ever do get to XP myself.

>>>>

>>>> If you're even considering Win XP, time is running out. Like the

>>>> end of this month? (unless MS extends it). (Vista is not

>>>> allowed on my premises. I have a sign out saying "Access Denied",

>>>> for it. :-)

>>>

>>> I agree fully!

>>>

>>>>>>>>> .. or learn to live with it! Put your head inside the box

>>>>>>>>> for a triple dose of the irradiation-- & you may forget the

>>>>>>>>> problem entirely! :-).

>>>>>>>>>

>

> ...snip

> --

> Thanks or Good Luck,

> There may be humor in this post, and,

> Naturally, you will not sue,

> Should things get worse after this,

> PCR

> pcrrcp@netzero.net

[Guest PCR]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Feel free to do some snipping! If you don't I will next time!

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

| PCR wrote:

|> Bill in Co. wrote:

|>> PCR wrote:

|>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

|>>>> PCR wrote:

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

|>>>>>> PCR wrote:

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

|>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:

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

|>>>>>>>>>> I'm using NTFS for WinXP (for my system partition), and

|>>>>>>>>>> that's the one I'm talking about. (I also have some

|>>>>>>>>>> FAT32 partitions on the drive for other stuff, however).

|>>>>>>>>>

|>>>>>>>>> And what about the FAT32 partition? Does that behave the same

|>>>>>>>>> as in Win98 with that Mod date?

|>>>>>>>>

|>>>>>>>> Yes. The folder's "Date Modified" date does NOT change.

|>>>>>>>

|>>>>>>> Ah! That's it, then! They were right! Very good.

|>>>>>>>

|>>>>>>>>> If so... congratulations to Etal & Chauvin for

|>>>>>>>>> figuring it... though your only cure will be to shape-shift

|>>>>>>>>> your NTFS into a FAT32..

|>>>>>>>>

|>>>>>>>> Ummm. Not a good idea (for Windows XP).

|>>>>>>>> I'll have to learn to live with it. :-)

|>>>>>>>

|>>>>>>> Yea. OK. It's been good, really, to hear your complaints

|>>>>>>> about XP-- very instructive.

|>>>>>>

|>>>>>> Well, on the whole though, I'm pretty satisfied with WinXP. I

|>>>>>> just have a few, relatively minor issues with it, that's all.

|>>>>>> (frankly, most of them aren't earth shaking).

|>>>>>

|>>>>> Well, the ones you mentioned, anyway, seemed more like pet

|>>>>> peeves-- except perhaps the file search requestor which wasn't

|>>>>> finding all files. However, looks like that was mostly resolved

|>>>>> too with a shortcut.

|>>>>

|>>>> Or a good alternative third party utility like Agent Ransack or

|>>>> File Locator Pro (which is even better, and is big brother to

|>>>> Agent Ransack). It's useful to have this program (even on the

|>>>> Win98SE machine).

|>>>

|>>> Thanks for the tip. I may take a look. So far, I am content with

|>>> Windows Find & DOS DIR. I know each has certain few limitations. As

|>>> far as anything so well hid that those two won't work-- it hasn't

|>>> hurt me yet, I don't think. For full system backups, I use BING

|>>> that copies on a track level-- nothing can escape that!

|>>

|>> The nice thing about using Acronis True Image (TI) in Win XP to

|>> make a backup image is that you don't have to boot up on a floppy

|>> (or a CD)

|>> to run it, like you do with BING. Plus, of course, it's a bit

|>> friendlier, since you're in a windows environment for most of it.

|>> (the older versions of TI can work in 98SE, but not the newer ones)

|>

|> Alright, very good. BING I think might also have that capability to

|> click a shortcut in Windows to start a backup, even a backup of

|> multiple partitions. However, you'd have to actually install BING to

|> its own little partition on the hard drive to use that. I am content

|> to use the floppy.

|

| Well, and actually True Image is fully running in Windows too (with

| lots of options and selections being able to be clearly shown as a

| result). It makes the BING screen look primitive. :-)

 

Alright. But I hope you don't mean True Image will resize & move

partitions on the fly just before doing its backup. With BING you have

to do those things separately-- which I think is far more safe! And all

of it can be done from a little floppy!

 

| Of course, if you ever decide to restore an image backup of the

| system back to the source drive, TI only runs in windows to a point,

| and then it reboots and does the rest outside of windows (which it

| has to), just like BING.

 

Yea. BING can run from a floppy, from its own little partition (an

EMBRM), or from the partition that has the OS (if it is a FAT32).

However, I think in any case you are right that even BING must do its

big stuff out of Windows.

 

|>>>>>> What I really DO appreciate about Win XP is its *robustness*

|>>>>>> (much more so than Win98SE - in part due to using NTFS) - AND

|>>>>>> its capability of running some programs that I couldn't run on

|>>>>>> 98SE.

|>>>>>>

|>>>>>> I think I've already said I haven't got a blue screen yet, and

|>>>>>> that's with my normal messin around (which usually brought me

|>>>>>> some, in 98SE

|>>>>>

|>>>>> Alright-- but Terhune did say you hadn't tried hard enough yet to

|>>>>> crash it!

|>>>>

|>>>> Apparently not! :-)

|>>>

|>>> I guess you are being careful, as you always have been.

|>>

|>> I do?? Hmmm. (Not so sure, lol). (I've been known to walk a

|>> bit on the "razor's edge" in windows and in the registry with some

|>> registry mods, etc. :-)

|>

|> I was trying to be complimentary as best I could. :-).

|

| LOL. That's ok, you don't have to worry about that.

 

Alright. But I'm still thinking hard for a compliment for you! I won't

give up, Colorado!

 

|>>>>> Also, I see a new XP thread here where Livingston has warned

|>>>>> against XP SP3!

|>>>>

|>>>> That's never going in over here.

|>>>>

|>>>>> (I know you don't go for those critical updates-- just as you

|>>>>> hardly ever did in Win98.)

|>>>>

|>>>> Yup, you got that right. (been around the block too many times

|>>>> on that one).

|>>>

|>>> I had a few horrible crashes taking in one/two like DirectX9, but

|>>> ultimately got all of the critical updates & many "recommended"

|>>> ones too into here. Once they were in &/or the sometimes quick

|>>> replacements to some were in-- all seems to be going well. I don't

|>>> regret it now.

|>>>

|>>> It's a bit humorous that WinXP is going through these critical

|>>> updates too & even full SP's. Will no OS ever be safe &/or fully

|>>> debugged!?

|>>

|>> Nope. True security ONLY "comes from within" - meaning, the

|>> operator usage. :-)

|>> You can't always protect people from themselves and their own

|>> screwups, no matter how hard you try.

|>

|> I guess. But I've got a 92 KB IUHist.xml, & the only reason it has

|> stopped growing is because MS has become lazy with Win98 criticals!

|

| I'd be surprised if there are ANY more at this point in time. But

| then again, I never really missed them. :-)

 

I know. There aren't any new ones, but you know the old ones are still

there. But you have to go look with the Win98 machine to see the ones

for Win98, you know.

 

|> It's pretty sloppy in that file too with duplicates, failures

|> (although later

|> attempts completed) & mis-sorted entries!

|>

|>>>>> A truly unrecoverable crash in my Win98 is covered by my full

|>>>>> system backup, (which I've resorted to some few times already,

|>>>>> but nothing any too recent. It was more frequent early on, when I

|>>>>> didn't how to fix anything otherwise.)

|>>>>>

|>>>>>> :-)

|>>>>

|>>>> Yup. I routinely do a full system backup to my external USB HD

|>>>> enclosure, and it takes me about 15-20 minutes to backup the

|>>>> existing 20 GB or so of system files, programs, and user data.

|>>>> (I have a 40 GB partition for the C: drive on Win XP - I think

|>>>> that's an ideal size for XP).

|>>>

|>>> That's the best thing! I always had that capability, first with

|>>> Compaq's QuickRestore & now with BING.

|>>>

|>>>>>> And the built-in, NTFS, transaction-log-based, file recovery

|>>>>>> methodology is nice, too (so if something goes wrong while

|>>>>>> writing some files on the disk, it's often possible to recover

|>>>>>> from that).

|>>>>>

|>>>>> Is that like SFC? What does the process involve?

|>>

|>> No, WinXP also has SFC to check the system files, so this in

|>> addition to that.

|>>

|>> And XP also has some WFP (windows file protection) running in the

|>> background to constantly monitor any attempts to change any system

|>> files (without permission).

|>

|> That's interesting. But I guess you still need a virus detector.

|> Even if you are asked, you still might not know who is doing the

|> asking!

|

| I have an older version of AVG Free, namely AVG 7.0. And I stopped

| updating it some time ago. :-)

 

That's risky, isn't it!? XP/Vista has drawn all the fire of the

virus-writers away from Win98!

 

|>>>> There is a so-called "transaction log" written out (as I

|>>>> understand it) for every file operation in NTFS, so that if

|>>>> anything goes wrong or is incomplete in the disk writes, WinXP

|>>>> (using NTFS) can recover from it, unlike in Win98SE and FAT32.

|>>>> For example, if something isn't successfully and completely

|>>>> written out to the hard disk, a flag is set indicating such, so

|>>>> that it can be, next time (or something to that effect). Which

|>>>> makes it much more robust! (not saying it's 100% foolproof,

|>>>> nothing probably is)

|>>>

|>>> Sounds like that has to do with the integrity of the hard drive &

|>>> whether something went wrong in the middle of a write. It doesn't

|>>> sound like it has to do with file versions like SFC does.

|>>

|>> No, as I mentioned above, SFC is different, and just checks the

|>> system files for the proper versions (and can be used to put them

|>> back, as needbe, since the correct ones are stored in a backup

|>> "dllcache" on the disk)

|>

|> Does XP update its dllcache? If a file is updated twice, but you

|> need to revert to the first update-- will XP's SFC offer it or only

|> offer the original file? It's tough to get 98's SFC to do that

|> trick, you know-- normally it goes to the installation .cab's for

|> its files, (but it will take whatever is loose in

|> C:\Windows\Option\Cabs first, instead of going into the .cab's.)

|

| XP keeps "properly recorded" copies of most of the system DLLs in the

| dllcache subfolder. By "properly recorded", I mean these cached

| system files don't change, UNLESS you install an official IE update,

| which then updates it (at least as I recall - there may be some other

| exceptions or contingencies).

 

It sounds like they might have it covered, then, if they keep that cache

updated. It will revert to the previous updated file, instead of the

original, if you run SFC after a second update goes bad. That's tough to

do with Win98's SFC.

 

It sounds pretty good for preventing a virus infection too, I guess, if

it only let's official updates mess with the cache. But that only

involves system files? I suppose you can install non-system programs

that still could be a virus, whether they go into the cache or not.

 

|>>> It probably has more

|>>> to do with what ScanDisk is supposed to do-- or eliminating the

|>>> need for ScanDisk. Has your "transaction log" mentioned any errors

|>>> yet? Do you

|>>

|>> I haven't looked at such a log, per se. When I used the term

|>> "transaction log", I meant that the system "logs" or keeps track of

|>> what's going on down there behind the scenes. (Whether or not we

|>> can actually see a log detailing all of these file events, I'm not

|>> sure, but we do have an "Event Viewer", which shows a fair amount of

|>> such related stuff (and perhaps that too).

|>

|> Can you post a piece of the Event Viewer, especially a summary at the

|> bottom? I want to determine whether anything humanly meaningful can

|> be seen in it.

|

| Well, I'll tell you, it ain't easy looking at it (or posting it).

| It's a bit "cumbersome" and tedious to go through it all (you have to

| use the arrow keys to scroll through them)! So, I don't know how I

| can easily do that. It is a bit more complex than just looking at a

| simple SFC log in Win98SE (and THAT part I really MISS).

 

Yuck! Arrow keys! I hope all the .logs in XP aren't that tough to deal

with! And this one sounds important! Sheesh! They should have made it

possible to copy/paste from it-- so users could could post bits of it

for examination & discussion! Yuck!

 

| What it lists is all the so-called system "Events" that occur

| (basically the system events going on in time, with their

| "categorizations" and so-called "Event Codes", (like such an such a

| "service" just opened or closed, or started or stopped, or entered

| the running state, or whatever). (For the most part, I haven't

| found it all that useful for me just yet).

 

Well, it would have been nice for them to make the mouse & copy/paste wo

rk for it nonetheless! What good is a listing that you have to memorize

to talk about!

 

|> Is there anything in its menus that can be set to sound an alarm?

|

| Maybe - don't know.

 

I was thinking it might be monitoring the integrity of the hard drive,

but now I see it is something else. It's monitoring the doings of the

OS, sounds like. But keep looking for an alarm & report back if you find

one! There's got to be some use for the thing!

 

|>>> still have to do a Defrag? Do you have anything that does do the

|>>> work of SFC to monitor updates-- IF you ever decide to take one?

|>>

|>> Yes, there is a Windows Defragger. And as I said, there is also

|>> good ole, SFC (System File Checker).

|>

|> How large is your hard drive? How long does it take to Defrag? Does

|> it look the same & show you those cluster boxes moving?

|

| I have a 250 GB drive (it came from Dell that way as the smallest

| size at the time).

 

Yow. I have a 40 & a 20-- & I had to add that 40!

 

| It has a 40 GB NTFS partition for XP and my programs and data (except

| for my music and video files, which are each on some other 40 GB, FAT

| 32 partitions). Of that 40 GB, about half is in use now, and the

| rest is still free. If someone were going to install XP, I'd say

| they should use a 40 GB partition for it (and the programs and data).

| 20 GB would be a bit marginal - not leaving much room to install a

| whole bunch of stuff. I mean, you could do it, but I wouldn't.

| I've got quite a bit on here and I'm using about 20 GB now.

 

You created these partitions? Sounds like good advice. Finally, on this

98, I did a lot of that myself. I does make backups a bit more work to

do, but I don't regret it.

 

| I used FAT 32 for those partitions, since they came over from my

| Win98SE machine, and it was just easier to leave them that way (I

| copied those partitions from the Win98SE computer to the new XP

| computer).

|

| So I still have tons of disk space left.

 

You had tons to start with. Can you post something like this, from

MSInfo32 & FDISK /Status...?...

 

Windows-managed swap file on drive C (6659MB free)

Available space on drive C: 6659MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

Available space on drive D: 6683MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

Available space on drive E: 7286MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

Available space on drive F: 7492MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

Available space on drive G: 7766MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

Available space on drive H: 7792MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

Available space on drive I: 5967MB of 6174MB (FAT32)

 

Fixed Disk Drive Status

Disk Drv Mbytes Free Usage

1 19092 100%

C: 7996

E: 7996

2 38169 100%

D: 7996

F: 7996

G: 7996

H: 7996

I: 6187

 

|>> And - Windows Updates do get recorded (and can even be seen in

|>> Add/Remove programs, IF you select the "show updates" checkbox).

|>

|> Another extra checkbox for you-- ha, ha, ha!

|

| Yeah, I know. :-)

|

|>>>>>> And of course, there are no limitations anymore with the good

|>>>>>> ole, 64K, resource heap problem in Win9x. Now THAT is nice.

|>>>>>> :-)

|>>>>>

|>>>>> OK. That problem doesn't show up for me, though, in normal,

|>>>>> everyday use of Win98. I think it is involved with the ole "copy

|>>>>> of tons of files or tons of folders full of folders & files"

|>>>>> thing after installing IE6-- but I only ever did that for testing

|>>>>> purposes!

|>>>>

|>>>> No, those were two entirely different and unrelated issues.

|>>>>

|>>>> The resource heap limitation happened if either you had too many

|>>>> apps running at one time, or had a program that was errant in its

|>>>> handling of the GDI, System, or User resource heaps (and some did,

|>>>> but they were the exception, fortunately, and usually got fixed in

|>>>> later versions, unless the developer moved on and stopped

|>>>> supporting it - that happened on occasion).

|>>>

|>>> Yea. That sounds about right. I certainly don't like to have 10

|>>> programs open at once. HOWEVER-- for me, when I test that copy

|>>> problem, I seem always to get a requestor warning I've run out of

|>>> resources & too close some programs. Sometimes the warning is

|>>> hidden behind another window. I do believe the massive copy is

|>>> fairly quickly done -- & done well -- & it is Explorer that is

|>>> struggling to update its display. You could wait forever for that!

|>>>

|>>>> The copying or deleting of a large number of files problem in

|>>>> Win98SE (with IE6+) was linked to the browseui and browselc DLL

|>>>> files changes (from IE5.5 to IE 6+), so I simply retained the IE

|>>>> 5.5 versions of those two DLLs, which allowed Windows Explorer to

|>>>> *work as it should*, and NOT get hung up! (I think another

|>>>> "fix" was with another DLL, instead, as an alternative method,

|>>>> but this one always worked for me, so I left it that way.

|>>>

|>>> I remember it as you do. And, yea, I recall testing the IE 5.5

|>>> BrowseUI.dll & BrowseLC.dll. I believe you were right about them,

|>>> yea. But I kept the IE6 versions because I could copy the big

|>>> stuff I normally do-- just not the big, big stuff during a test

|>>> like all of Program Files. Also, even that much could be done in

|>>> DOS with no problem whatever.

|>>

|>> But it's often easier in Explorer, plus you see all the long

|>> filenames (which you can't in real DOS mode, but you can in the

|>> windows dos shell, of course).

|>

|> Absolutely you must use the Windows DOS Shell for that or lose the

|> LFNs!

|

| Right.

|

|>>>>>> And of course the nice built in USB (and USB2) support, which

|>>>>>> was "just a bit lacking" in Win98SE.

|>>>>>

|>>>>> I have 2 or 3 USB connectors, but have never plugged anything

|>>>>> into them.

|>>>>

|>>>> There is SO much out there (peripherals) that is now USB based!

|>>>> Even the printers! (Try to find a printer (or even computer)

|>>>> with a parallel port, anymore!)

|>>>

|>>> Hmm. Well, my Compaq IJ300 still has its parallel wire. It just has

|>>> no ink in its cartridge, is all.

|>>

|>> I only use a black-and-white laser printer, and thus I never have to

|>> replace those blasted cartridges all the time. I can go through

|>> up to 3000 sheets! with nothing ever needing to be replaced or

|>> changed. And I like that! The only thing I don't get is color,

|>> of course (but I don't need it). :-) (If I need photos

|>> developed (which

|>> is rare), I can take them to a photo developing place)

|>

|> Yea. The printer itself was only $100.00

|

| Same here.

|

|> -- little did I know cartridges

|> would run out quick & cost... is it $50.00 apiece? That or $30.00--

|> but either is horrible!

|

| Yup!

|

|>>>> Well, I have to admit, the USB cable to my new printer is MUCH

|>>>> nicer now, than that old bulky parallel port cable connecting the

|>>>> old printer to the parallel port. But if you ever get a new

|>>>> printer (likely USB based), there is a way to use it with

|>>>> Win98SE, IF they supply the right drivers - otherwise you're

|>>>> screwed.

|>>>

|>>> Hmm. OK, got ya. Something to ponder.

|>>>

|>>>>>> I think after XP dies (if and when it does for me), it's maybe

|>>>>>> time to move to something else, maybe something like Linux.

|>>>>>> :-) I've about had it with MS bloatware. I think XP may be

|>>>>>> my last ride with MS for the operating system :-)

|>>>>>

|>>>>> I probably will say the same, if I ever do get to XP myself.

|>>>>

|>>>> If you're even considering Win XP, time is running out. Like the

|>>>> end of this month? (unless MS extends it). (Vista is not

|>>>> allowed on my premises. I have a sign out saying "Access Denied",

|>>>> for it. :-)

|>>>

|>>> I agree fully!

|>>>

|>>>>>>>>> .. or learn to live with it! Put your head inside the box

|>>>>>>>>> for a triple dose of the irradiation-- & you may forget the

|>>>>>>>>> problem entirely! :-).

|>>>>>>>>>

|>

|> ...snip

|> --

|> Thanks or Good Luck,

|> There may be humor in this post, and,

|> Naturally, you will not sue,

|> Should things get worse after this,

|> PCR

|> pcrrcp@netzero.net

 

--

Thanks or Good Luck,

There may be humor in this post, and,

Naturally, you will not sue,

Should things get worse after this,

PCR

pcrrcp@netzero.net

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

You can do it (but I'll do a minor snip at the end). Sounds good. :-)

More below..

 

PCR wrote:

> Feel free to do some snipping! If you don't I will next time!

>

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> PCR wrote:

>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>> PCR wrote:

>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>>>> PCR wrote:

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

>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:

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

>>>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:

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

>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm using NTFS for WinXP (for my system partition), and

>>>>>>>>>>>> that's the one I'm talking about. (I also have some

>>>>>>>>>>>> FAT32 partitions on the drive for other stuff, however).

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> And what about the FAT32 partition? Does that behave the same

>>>>>>>>>>> as in Win98 with that Mod date?

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Yes. The folder's "Date Modified" date does NOT change.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Ah! That's it, then! They were right! Very good.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> If so... congratulations to Etal & Chauvin for

>>>>>>>>>>> figuring it... though your only cure will be to shape-shift

>>>>>>>>>>> your NTFS into a FAT32..

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Ummm. Not a good idea (for Windows XP).

>>>>>>>>>> I'll have to learn to live with it. :-)

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Yea. OK. It's been good, really, to hear your complaints

>>>>>>>>> about XP-- very instructive.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Well, on the whole though, I'm pretty satisfied with WinXP. I

>>>>>>>> just have a few, relatively minor issues with it, that's all.

>>>>>>>> (frankly, most of them aren't earth shaking).

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Well, the ones you mentioned, anyway, seemed more like pet

>>>>>>> peeves-- except perhaps the file search requestor which wasn't

>>>>>>> finding all files. However, looks like that was mostly resolved

>>>>>>> too with a shortcut.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Or a good alternative third party utility like Agent Ransack or

>>>>>> File Locator Pro (which is even better, and is big brother to

>>>>>> Agent Ransack). It's useful to have this program (even on the

>>>>>> Win98SE machine).

>>>>>

>>>>> Thanks for the tip. I may take a look. So far, I am content with

>>>>> Windows Find & DOS DIR. I know each has certain few limitations. As

>>>>> far as anything so well hid that those two won't work-- it hasn't

>>>>> hurt me yet, I don't think. For full system backups, I use BING

>>>>> that copies on a track level-- nothing can escape that!

>>>>

>>>> The nice thing about using Acronis True Image (TI) in Win XP to

>>>> make a backup image is that you don't have to boot up on a floppy

>>>> (or a CD)

>>>> to run it, like you do with BING. Plus, of course, it's a bit

>>>> friendlier, since you're in a windows environment for most of it.

>>>> (the older versions of TI can work in 98SE, but not the newer ones)

>>>

>>> Alright, very good. BING I think might also have that capability to

>>> click a shortcut in Windows to start a backup, even a backup of

>>> multiple partitions. However, you'd have to actually install BING to

>>> its own little partition on the hard drive to use that. I am content

>>> to use the floppy.

>>

>> Well, and actually True Image is fully running in Windows too (with

>> lots of options and selections being able to be clearly shown as a

>> result). It makes the BING screen look primitive. :-)

>

> Alright. But I hope you don't mean True Image will resize & move

> partitions on the fly just before doing its backup.

 

No. (AFAIK). You just can make your selections (and there's a nice

configurable and often scrollable list of them), and THEN finally say, Go Do

It!

> With BING you have

> to do those things separately-- which I think is far more safe! And all

> of it can be done from a little floppy!

>

>> Of course, if you ever decide to restore an image backup of the

>> system back to the source drive, TI only runs in windows to a point,

>> and then it reboots and does the rest outside of windows (which it

>> has to), just like BING.

>

> Yea. BING can run from a floppy, from its own little partition (an

> EMBRM), or from the partition that has the OS (if it is a FAT32).

> However, I think in any case you are right that even BING must do its

> big stuff out of Windows.

 

BTW, with this new computer I'm finding that I'm using a Flash USB Drive in

place of a Floppy for almost everything, now.

 

See, when you boot up, you can choose to boot to the USB Flash Drive, if you

want, by pressing a function key (briefly shown on the screen as it boots

up).

 

And a USB Flash Drive is SO much nicer than a floppy; it's infinitely

faster, for one thing, and there are no moving parts (or disk errors, as the

floppy gets old).

I have three of them (each are 1 GB, and they are cheap these days)

>>>>>>>> What I really DO appreciate about Win XP is its *robustness*

>>>>>>>> (much more so than Win98SE - in part due to using NTFS) - AND

>>>>>>>> its capability of running some programs that I couldn't run on

>>>>>>>> 98SE.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> I think I've already said I haven't got a blue screen yet, and

>>>>>>>> that's with my normal messin around (which usually brought me

>>>>>>>> some, in 98SE

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Alright-- but Terhune did say you hadn't tried hard enough yet to

>>>>>>> crash it!

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Apparently not! :-)

>>>>>

>>>>> I guess you are being careful, as you always have been.

>>>>

>>>> I do?? Hmmm. (Not so sure, lol). (I've been known to walk a

>>>> bit on the "razor's edge" in windows and in the registry with some

>>>> registry mods, etc. :-)

>>>

>>> I was trying to be complimentary as best I could. :-).

>>

>> LOL. That's ok, you don't have to worry about that.

>

> Alright. But I'm still thinking hard for a compliment for you! I won't

> give up, Colorado!

 

LOL. Yeah, I know, I'm a bit ornery, or so I've been told. Or "surly".

:-)

>>>>>>> Also, I see a new XP thread here where Livingston has warned

>>>>>>> against XP SP3!

>>>>>>

>>>>>> That's never going in over here.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> (I know you don't go for those critical updates-- just as you

>>>>>>> hardly ever did in Win98.)

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Yup, you got that right. (been around the block too many times

>>>>>> on that one).

>>>>>

>>>>> I had a few horrible crashes taking in one/two like DirectX9, but

>>>>> ultimately got all of the critical updates & many "recommended"

>>>>> ones too into here. Once they were in &/or the sometimes quick

>>>>> replacements to some were in-- all seems to be going well. I don't

>>>>> regret it now.

>>>>>

>>>>> It's a bit humorous that WinXP is going through these critical

>>>>> updates too & even full SP's. Will no OS ever be safe &/or fully

>>>>> debugged!?

>>>>

>>>> Nope. True security ONLY "comes from within" - meaning, the

>>>> operator usage. :-)

>>>> You can't always protect people from themselves and their own

>>>> screwups, no matter how hard you try.

>>>

>>> I guess. But I've got a 92 KB IUHist.xml, & the only reason it has

>>> stopped growing is because MS has become lazy with Win98 criticals!

>>

>> I'd be surprised if there are ANY more at this point in time. But

>> then again, I never really missed them. :-)

>

> I know. There aren't any new ones, but you know the old ones are still

> there. But you have to go look with the Win98 machine to see the ones

> for Win98, you know.

 

I ain't lookin! Thanks, but no thanks, don't need them, don't want them

(even on my okl W98 computer) (well, except for a couple of older ones that

I once downloaded).

>>> It's pretty sloppy in that file too with duplicates, failures

>>> (although later attempts completed) & mis-sorted entries!

>>>

>>>>>>> A truly unrecoverable crash in my Win98 is covered by my full

>>>>>>> system backup, (which I've resorted to some few times already,

>>>>>>> but nothing any too recent. It was more frequent early on, when I

>>>>>>> didn't how to fix anything otherwise.)

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> :-)

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Yup. I routinely do a full system backup to my external USB HD

>>>>>> enclosure, and it takes me about 15-20 minutes to backup the

>>>>>> existing 20 GB or so of system files, programs, and user data.

>>>>>> (I have a 40 GB partition for the C: drive on Win XP - I think

>>>>>> that's an ideal size for XP).

>>>>>

>>>>> That's the best thing! I always had that capability, first with

>>>>> Compaq's QuickRestore & now with BING.

>>>>>

>>>>>>>> And the built-in, NTFS, transaction-log-based, file recovery

>>>>>>>> methodology is nice, too (so if something goes wrong while

>>>>>>>> writing some files on the disk, it's often possible to recover

>>>>>>>> from that).

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Is that like SFC? What does the process involve?

>>>>

>>>> No, WinXP also has SFC to check the system files, so this in

>>>> addition to that.

>>>>

>>>> And XP also has some WFP (windows file protection) running in the

>>>> background to constantly monitor any attempts to change any system

>>>> files (without permission).

>>>

>>> That's interesting. But I guess you still need a virus detector.

>>> Even if you are asked, you still might not know who is doing the

>>> asking!

>>

>> I have an older version of AVG Free, namely AVG 7.0. And I stopped

>> updating it some time ago. :-)

>

> That's risky, isn't it!? XP/Vista has drawn all the fire of the

> virus-writers away from Win98!

 

I trust myself and my surfing practices, so I don't think it's too risky, as

I don't go to bad sites (normally) or all that many suspicious sites,

anyway.

AND I'm on dialup, so I'm ONLY connected online when *I* choose to connect

online.

>>>>>> There is a so-called "transaction log" written out (as I

>>>>>> understand it) for every file operation in NTFS, so that if

>>>>>> anything goes wrong or is incomplete in the disk writes, WinXP

>>>>>> (using NTFS) can recover from it, unlike in Win98SE and FAT32.

>>>>>> For example, if something isn't successfully and completely

>>>>>> written out to the hard disk, a flag is set indicating such, so

>>>>>> that it can be, next time (or something to that effect). Which

>>>>>> makes it much more robust! (not saying it's 100% foolproof,

>>>>>> nothing probably is)

>>>>>

>>>>> Sounds like that has to do with the integrity of the hard drive &

>>>>> whether something went wrong in the middle of a write. It doesn't

>>>>> sound like it has to do with file versions like SFC does.

>>>>

>>>> No, as I mentioned above, SFC is different, and just checks the

>>>> system files for the proper versions (and can be used to put them

>>>> back, as needbe, since the correct ones are stored in a backup

>>>> "dllcache" on the disk)

>>>

>>> Does XP update its dllcache? If a file is updated twice, but you

>>> need to revert to the first update-- will XP's SFC offer it or only

>>> offer the original file? It's tough to get 98's SFC to do that

>>> trick, you know-- normally it goes to the installation .cab's for

>>> its files, (but it will take whatever is loose in

>>> C:\Windows\Option\Cabs first, instead of going into the .cab's.)

>>

>> XP keeps "properly recorded" copies of most of the system DLLs in the

>> dllcache subfolder. By "properly recorded", I mean these cached

>> system files don't change, UNLESS you install an official IE update,

>> which then updates it (at least as I recall - there may be some other

>> exceptions or contingencies).

>

> It sounds like they might have it covered, then, if they keep that cache

> updated. It will revert to the previous updated file, instead of the

> original, if you run SFC after a second update goes bad.

 

Presumably. I haven't had that happen yet.

> That's tough to do with Win98's SFC.

>

> It sounds pretty good for preventing a virus infection too, I guess, if

> it only let's official updates mess with the cache. But that only

> involves system files?

 

I think so (and perhaps also those updated from some "authorized" program

installs).

It contains system DLL's, EXE's, AX's, SYS', OCX's, NLS's files.

I see about *3,000* files in there! Isn't that enough? :-)

> I suppose you can install non-system programs

> that still could be a virus, whether they go into the cache or not.

>

>>>>> It probably has more

>>>>> to do with what ScanDisk is supposed to do-- or eliminating the

>>>>> need for ScanDisk. Has your "transaction log" mentioned any errors

>>>>> yet? Do you

>>>>

>>>> I haven't looked at such a log, per se. When I used the term

>>>> "transaction log", I meant that the system "logs" or keeps track of

>>>> what's going on down there behind the scenes. (Whether or not we

>>>> can actually see a log detailing all of these file events, I'm not

>>>> sure, but we do have an "Event Viewer", which shows a fair amount of

>>>> such related stuff (and perhaps that too).

>>>

>>> Can you post a piece of the Event Viewer, especially a summary at the

>>> bottom? I want to determine whether anything humanly meaningful can

>>> be seen in it.

>>

>> Well, I'll tell you, it ain't easy looking at it (or posting it).

>> It's a bit "cumbersome" and tedious to go through it all (you have to

>> use the arrow keys to scroll through them)! So, I don't know how I

>> can easily do that. It is a bit more complex than just looking at a

>> simple SFC log in Win98SE (and THAT part I really MISS).

>

> Yuck! Arrow keys! I hope all the .logs in XP aren't that tough to deal

> with! And this one sounds important! Sheesh! They should have made it

> possible to copy/paste from it-- so users could could post bits of it

> for examination & discussion! Yuck!

 

I'm not saying it's impossible, but it may be a bit challenging. If you

really want to know, I'm sure there are some examples showing some of it

somewhere on the net.

>> What it lists is all the so-called system "Events" that occur

>> (basically the system events going on in time, with their

>> "categorizations" and so-called "Event Codes", (like such an such a

>> "service" just opened or closed, or started or stopped, or entered

>> the running state, or whatever). (For the most part, I haven't

>> found it all that useful for me just yet).

>

> Well, it would have been nice for them to make the mouse & copy/paste wo

> rk for it nonetheless!

 

I could do them one by one, but that's a pain. :-)

> What good is a listing that you have to memorize to talk about!

>

>>> Is there anything in its menus that can be set to sound an alarm?

>>

>> Maybe - don't know.

>

> I was thinking it might be monitoring the integrity of the hard drive,

> but now I see it is something else. It's monitoring the doings of the

> OS, sounds like. But keep looking for an alarm & report back if you find

> one! There's got to be some use for the thing!

>

>>>>> still have to do a Defrag? Do you have anything that does do the

>>>>> work of SFC to monitor updates-- IF you ever decide to take one?

>>>>

>>>> Yes, there is a Windows Defragger. And as I said, there is also

>>>> good ole, SFC (System File Checker).

>>>

>>> How large is your hard drive? How long does it take to Defrag? Does

>>> it look the same & show you those cluster boxes moving?

>>

>> I have a 250 GB drive (it came from Dell that way as the smallest

>> size at the time).

>

> Yow. I have a 40 & a 20-- & I had to add that 40!

 

WOW. Well yeah, I guess you could outgrow 20 GB if that's all you had.

 

But then again, I was quite comfortable with a 20 GB C: partition for my

Win98SE drive (for system, programs, and most user data), since Win98SE

itself is so small. (I'm guessing that just Win98SE itself was somewhere

around 200 MB(?) or so, so that left plenty of room! WinXP Home is more

like 5 GB (give or take).

But JUST having 20 GB would have been way too confining!

>> It has a 40 GB NTFS partition for XP and my programs and data (except

>> for my music and video files, which are each on some other 40 GB, FAT32

>> partitions). Of that 40 GB, about half is in use now, and the

>> rest is still free. If someone were going to install XP, I'd say

>> they should use a 40 GB partition for it (and the programs and data).

>> 20 GB would be a bit marginal - not leaving much room to install a

>> whole bunch of stuff. I mean, you could do it, but I wouldn't.

>> I've got quite a bit on here and I'm using about 20 GB now.

>

> You created these partitions?

 

I did.

> Sounds like good advice. Finally, on this

> 98, I did a lot of that myself. I does make backups a bit more work to

> do, but I don't regret it.

>

>> I used FAT 32 for those partitions, since they came over from my

>> Win98SE machine, and it was just easier to leave them that way (I

>> copied those partitions from the Win98SE computer to the new XP

>> computer).

>>

>> So I still have tons of disk space left.

>

> You had tons to start with. Can you post something like this, from

> MSInfo32 & FDISK /Status...?...

 

I probably could, but I'm kinda tired now, and too lazy. Suffice it to

say I have this arrangement:

 

C: 40 GB, NTFS (my system, programs, and data drive, currently half used)

D: 20 GB, FAT32, miscellaneous archived stuff, kind of a hodgepodge at this

pt

E: 40 GB, FAT32, for music files and audio work (restoring old mp3s, etc)

F: 40 GB, FAT32, for video files (like working on DVDs, etc)

> Windows-managed swap file on drive C (6659MB free)

> Available space on drive C: 6659MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

> Available space on drive D: 6683MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

> Available space on drive E: 7286MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

> Available space on drive F: 7492MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

> Available space on drive G: 7766MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

> Available space on drive H: 7792MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

> Available space on drive I: 5967MB of 6174MB (FAT32)

 

You sure have a LOT of partitions (mostly on your second HD! Geeesh!

I only have ONE large HD in this computer at this point.

 

(But two smaller ones in the older Win98SE Dell - and no, I didn't worry

excessively about the "ideal cluster size" for those FAT 32 partitions in

there :-)

[Guest PCR]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

| You can do it (but I'll do a minor snip at the end). Sounds good.

| :-) More below..

 

OK. Soon, I'm sure this thread segment will run out of room too, though.

We'll have to post higher in the segment then &/or run out of

conversation.

 

| PCR wrote:

|> Feel free to do some snipping! If you don't I will next time!

|>

|> Bill in Co. wrote:

|>> PCR wrote:

|>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

|>>>> PCR wrote:

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

|>>>>>> PCR wrote:

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

|>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:

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

|>>>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:

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

 

....snip

|>>> Alright, very good. BING I think might also have that capability to

|>>> click a shortcut in Windows to start a backup, even a backup of

|>>> multiple partitions. However, you'd have to actually install BING

|>>> to its own little partition on the hard drive to use that. I am

|>>> content to use the floppy.

|>>

|>> Well, and actually True Image is fully running in Windows too (with

|>> lots of options and selections being able to be clearly shown as a

|>> result). It makes the BING screen look primitive. :-)

|>

|> Alright. But I hope you don't mean True Image will resize & move

|> partitions on the fly just before doing its backup.

|

| No. (AFAIK). You just can make your selections (and there's a nice

| configurable and often scrollable list of them), and THEN finally

| say, Go Do It!

 

OK. That beats BING for GUI-ishness. I am content with BING's floppy.

And I think it's best to keep such a powerful thing away from the OS,

anyhow!

 

....snip

| BTW, with this new computer I'm finding that I'm using a Flash USB

| Drive in place of a Floppy for almost everything, now.

|

| See, when you boot up, you can choose to boot to the USB Flash Drive,

| if you want, by pressing a function key (briefly shown on the screen

| as it boots up).

|

| And a USB Flash Drive is SO much nicer than a floppy; it's infinitely

| faster, for one thing, and there are no moving parts (or disk errors,

| as the floppy gets old).

| I have three of them (each are 1 GB, and they are cheap these days)

 

I saw a friend plug one into his Win98SE. It was impressive. Win98

couldn't boot from it without 3rd-party assistance. I might get one. But

I have so many partitions now, I'm not sure I really need a removable

one. But it was impressive, yea!

 

....snip

|>>>>> I guess you are being careful, as you always have been.

|>>>>

|>>>> I do?? Hmmm. (Not so sure, lol). (I've been known to walk a

|>>>> bit on the "razor's edge" in windows and in the registry with some

|>>>> registry mods, etc. :-)

|>>>

|>>> I was trying to be complimentary as best I could. :-).

|>>

|>> LOL. That's ok, you don't have to worry about that.

|>

|> Alright. But I'm still thinking hard for a compliment for you! I

|> won't give up, Colorado!

|

| LOL. Yeah, I know, I'm a bit ornery, or so I've been told. Or

| "surly". :-)

 

You were a lot worse in days of old, IIRC. And you never were as ornery

as Terhune or even MEB can be or many of the others like Candlin used to

be or Harper or Martell or even Brian A. & PA Bear can be! I think it

was Bear who one day upset (Bicycle) Rob enough to quit this NG! You're

just middling ornery these days, Colorado-- that's a big improvement!

 

....snip

|>>> I guess. But I've got a 92 KB IUHist.xml, & the only reason it has

|>>> stopped growing is because MS has become lazy with Win98 criticals!

|>>

|>> I'd be surprised if there are ANY more at this point in time. But

|>> then again, I never really missed them. :-)

|>

|> I know. There aren't any new ones, but you know the old ones are

|> still there. But you have to go look with the Win98 machine to see

|> the ones for Win98, you know.

|

| I ain't lookin! Thanks, but no thanks, don't need them, don't want

| them (even on my okl W98 computer) (well, except for a couple of

| older ones that I once downloaded).

 

Alright-- alright! Your position is so well known that even the

orneriest of MVPs hardly bother berating you on it much anymore. Well,

Bear caught you doing that OE auto-compacting, though-- recently!

 

....snip

|>> I have an older version of AVG Free, namely AVG 7.0. And I

|>> stopped updating it some time ago. :-)

|>

|> That's risky, isn't it!? XP/Vista has drawn all the fire of the

|> virus-writers away from Win98!

|

| I trust myself and my surfing practices, so I don't think it's too

| risky, as I don't go to bad sites (normally) or all that many

| suspicious sites, anyway.

| AND I'm on dialup, so I'm ONLY connected online when *I* choose to

| connect online.

 

Me too. Still, the longer I stay online, the more likely Kerio will

flash a warning that some site wants to connect to some open port. Of

course, I deny it!

 

....snip

|>> XP keeps "properly recorded" copies of most of the system DLLs in

|>> the dllcache subfolder. By "properly recorded", I mean these

|>> cached system files don't change, UNLESS you install an official IE

|>> update, which then updates it (at least as I recall - there may be

|>> some other exceptions or contingencies).

|>

|> It sounds like they might have it covered, then, if they keep that

|> cache updated. It will revert to the previous updated file, instead

|> of the original, if you run SFC after a second update goes bad.

|

| Presumably. I haven't had that happen yet.

 

Alright. It would be something of an improvement, if that is done w/o a

bunch of extra work.

 

|> That's tough to do with Win98's SFC.

|>

|> It sounds pretty good for preventing a virus infection too, I guess,

|> if it only let's official updates mess with the cache. But that only

|> involves system files?

|

| I think so (and perhaps also those updated from some "authorized"

| program installs).

| It contains system DLL's, EXE's, AX's, SYS', OCX's, NLS's files.

| I see about *3,000* files in there! Isn't that enough? :-)

 

I guess. Sounds like enough to me. Still, Win98's SFC (you know) goes

into the .cab's-- that's every original system file!

 

....snip

|>>> Can you post a piece of the Event Viewer, especially a summary at

|>>> the bottom? I want to determine whether anything humanly

|>>> meaningful can be seen in it.

|>>

|>> Well, I'll tell you, it ain't easy looking at it (or posting it).

|>> It's a bit "cumbersome" and tedious to go through it all (you have

|>> to use the arrow keys to scroll through them)! So, I don't know

|>> how I can easily do that. It is a bit more complex than just

|>> looking at a simple SFC log in Win98SE (and THAT part I really

|>> MISS).

|>

|> Yuck! Arrow keys! I hope all the .logs in XP aren't that tough to

|> deal with! And this one sounds important! Sheesh! They should have

|> made it possible to copy/paste from it-- so users could could post

|> bits of it for examination & discussion! Yuck!

|

| I'm not saying it's impossible, but it may be a bit challenging. If

| you really want to know, I'm sure there are some examples showing

| some of it somewhere on the net.

 

I'm just mildly interested, & I think I've heard enough about that

thing.

 

|>> What it lists is all the so-called system "Events" that occur

|>> (basically the system events going on in time, with their

|>> "categorizations" and so-called "Event Codes", (like such an such a

|>> "service" just opened or closed, or started or stopped, or entered

|>> the running state, or whatever). (For the most part, I haven't

|>> found it all that useful for me just yet).

|>

|> Well, it would have been nice for them to make the mouse &

|> copy/paste wo rk for it nonetheless!

|

| I could do them one by one, but that's a pain. :-)

 

No, I think I get the picture. It's saying what the system calls were.

Check again whether it has something useful like an alarm, is all. No

one will make sense of the listing.

 

|> What good is a listing that you have to memorize to talk about!

|>

|>>> Is there anything in its menus that can be set to sound an alarm?

|>>

|>> Maybe - don't know.

|>

|> I was thinking it might be monitoring the integrity of the hard

|> drive, but now I see it is something else. It's monitoring the

|> doings of the OS, sounds like. But keep looking for an alarm &

|> report back if you find one! There's got to be some use for the

|> thing!

 

....snip

|>> I have a 250 GB drive (it came from Dell that way as the smallest

|>> size at the time).

|>

|> Yow. I have a 40 & a 20-- & I had to add that 40!

|

| WOW. Well yeah, I guess you could outgrow 20 GB if that's all you

| had.

 

Not me...!...

 

Available space on drive C: 6659MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

....The original OS minus the following

Available space on drive E: 7286MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

....My Documents, My Downloads, the Win98SE .cabs, & WU.

Available space on drive G: 7763MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

....OE Store & TIFs.

 

That is everything I've got, which now is split onto 3 near-empty

partitions. All my other partitions are back-ups more/less, D: being a

BING clone of C:. The others I just drag/drop using Explorer to

partitions on the other HDD.

 

| But then again, I was quite comfortable with a 20 GB C: partition for

| my Win98SE drive (for system, programs, and most user data), since

| Win98SE itself is so small. (I'm guessing that just Win98SE itself

| was somewhere around 200 MB(?) or so, so that left plenty of room!

| WinXP Home is more like 5 GB (give or take).

| But JUST having 20 GB would have been way too confining!

 

It's become a monster! It must be 10x harder to understand & control XP!

 

|>> It has a 40 GB NTFS partition for XP and my programs and data

|>> (except for my music and video files, which are each on some other

|>> 40 GB, FAT32 partitions). Of that 40 GB, about half is in use

|>> now, and the

|>> rest is still free. If someone were going to install XP, I'd say

|>> they should use a 40 GB partition for it (and the programs and

|>> data). 20 GB would be a bit marginal - not leaving much room to

|>> install a whole bunch of stuff. I mean, you could do it, but I

|>> wouldn't.

|>> I've got quite a bit on here and I'm using about 20 GB now.

|>

|> You created these partitions?

|

| I did.

|

|> Sounds like good advice. Finally, on this

|> 98, I did a lot of that myself. I does make backups a bit more work

|> to do, but I don't regret it.

|>

|>> I used FAT 32 for those partitions, since they came over from my

|>> Win98SE machine, and it was just easier to leave them that way (I

|>> copied those partitions from the Win98SE computer to the new XP

|>> computer).

|>>

|>> So I still have tons of disk space left.

|>

|> You had tons to start with. Can you post something like this, from

|> MSInfo32 & FDISK /Status...?...

|

| I probably could, but I'm kinda tired now, and too lazy. Suffice

| it to say I have this arrangement:

|

| C: 40 GB, NTFS (my system, programs, and data drive, currently half

| used) D: 20 GB, FAT32, miscellaneous archived stuff, kind of a

| hodgepodge at this pt

| E: 40 GB, FAT32, for music files and audio work (restoring old mp3s,

| etc) F: 40 GB, FAT32, for video files (like working on DVDs, etc)

|

|> Windows-managed swap file on drive C (6659MB free)

|> Available space on drive C: 6659MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

|> Available space on drive D: 6683MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

|> Available space on drive E: 7286MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

|> Available space on drive F: 7492MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

|> Available space on drive G: 7766MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

|> Available space on drive H: 7792MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

|> Available space on drive I: 5967MB of 6174MB (FAT32)

|

| You sure have a LOT of partitions (mostly on your second HD!

| Geeesh!

| I only have ONE large HD in this computer at this point.

|

| (But two smaller ones in the older Win98SE Dell - and no, I didn't

| worry excessively about the "ideal cluster size" for those FAT 32

| partitions in there :-)

 

That's why I have so many. I wanted the 4K cluster size in each one.

 

 

--

Thanks or Good Luck,

There may be humor in this post, and,

Naturally, you will not sue,

Should things get worse after this,

PCR

pcrrcp@netzero.net

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

PCR wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> You can do it (but I'll do a minor snip at the end). Sounds good.

>> :-) More below..

>

> OK. Soon, I'm sure this thread segment will run out of room too, though.

> We'll have to post higher in the segment then &/or run out of

> conversation.

 

Go ahead and feel free to snip away..

>> PCR wrote:

>>> Feel free to do some snipping! If you don't I will next time!

>>>

>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>> PCR wrote:

>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>>>> PCR wrote:

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

>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:

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

>>>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:

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

>>>>>>>>>>>> PCR wrote:

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

>

> ...snip

>>>>> Alright, very good. BING I think might also have that capability to

>>>>> click a shortcut in Windows to start a backup, even a backup of

>>>>> multiple partitions. However, you'd have to actually install BING

>>>>> to its own little partition on the hard drive to use that. I am

>>>>> content to use the floppy.

>>>>

>>>> Well, and actually True Image is fully running in Windows too (with

>>>> lots of options and selections being able to be clearly shown as a

>>>> result). It makes the BING screen look primitive. :-)

>>>

>>> Alright. But I hope you don't mean True Image will resize & move

>>> partitions on the fly just before doing its backup.

>>

>> No. (AFAIK). You just can make your selections (and there's a nice

>> configurable and often scrollable list of them), and THEN finally

>> say, Go Do It!

>

> OK. That beats BING for GUI-ishness. I am content with BING's floppy.

> And I think it's best to keep such a powerful thing away from the OS,

> anyhow!

>

> ...snip

>> BTW, with this new computer I'm finding that I'm using a Flash USB

>> Drive in place of a Floppy for almost everything, now.

>>

>> See, when you boot up, you can choose to boot to the USB Flash Drive,

>> if you want, by pressing a function key (briefly shown on the screen

>> as it boots up).

>>

>> And a USB Flash Drive is SO much nicer than a floppy; it's infinitely

>> faster, for one thing, and there are no moving parts (or disk errors,

>> as the floppy gets old).

>> I have three of them (each are 1 GB, and they are cheap these days)

>

> I saw a friend plug one into his Win98SE. It was impressive. Win98

> couldn't boot from it without 3rd-party assistance. I might get one. But

> I have so many partitions now, I'm not sure I really need a removable

> one. But it was impressive, yea!

 

It really is nice using these flash drives. It's lovely.

> ...snip

>>>>>>> I guess you are being careful, as you always have been.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I do?? Hmmm. (Not so sure, lol). (I've been known to walk a

>>>>>> bit on the "razor's edge" in windows and in the registry with some

>>>>>> registry mods, etc. :-)

>>>>>

>>>>> I was trying to be complimentary as best I could. :-).

>>>>

>>>> LOL. That's ok, you don't have to worry about that.

>>>

>>> Alright. But I'm still thinking hard for a compliment for you! I

>>> won't give up, Colorado!

>>

>> LOL. Yeah, I know, I'm a bit ornery, or so I've been told. Or

>> "surly". :-)

>

> You were a lot worse in days of old, IIRC.

 

Really? That's hard to imagine for me now. :-)

> And you never were as ornery

> as Terhune or even MEB can be or many of the others like Candlin used to

> be or Harper or Martell or even Brian A. & PA Bear can be! I think it

> was Bear who one day upset (Bicycle) Rob enough to quit this NG!

 

That was some time ago. Yeah, he just disappeared. Or something happened

to him.

> You're just middling ornery these days, Colorado-- that's a big

> improvement!

>

> ...snip

>>>>> I guess. But I've got a 92 KB IUHist.xml, & the only reason it has

>>>>> stopped growing is because MS has become lazy with Win98 criticals!

>>>>

>>>> I'd be surprised if there are ANY more at this point in time. But

>>>> then again, I never really missed them. :-)

>>>

>>> I know. There aren't any new ones, but you know the old ones are

>>> still there. But you have to go look with the Win98 machine to see

>>> the ones for Win98, you know.

>>

>> I ain't lookin! Thanks, but no thanks, don't need them, don't want

>> them (even on my okl W98 computer) (well, except for a couple of

>> older ones that I once downloaded).

>

> Alright-- alright! Your position is so well known that even the

> orneriest of MVPs hardly bother berating you on it much anymore.

 

They better not!

> Well, Bear caught you doing that OE auto-compacting, though-- recently!

 

No, I manually do it - there (for all intents and purposes) is no

auto-compacting in XP (with SP2), (except as I mentioned, with that every

100 accesses or whatever it is, thing).

> ...snip

>>>> I have an older version of AVG Free, namely AVG 7.0. And I

>>>> stopped updating it some time ago. :-)

>>>

>>> That's risky, isn't it!? XP/Vista has drawn all the fire of the

>>> virus-writers away from Win98!

>>

>> I trust myself and my surfing practices, so I don't think it's too

>> risky, as I don't go to bad sites (normally) or all that many

>> suspicious sites, anyway.

>> AND I'm on dialup, so I'm ONLY connected online when *I* choose to

>> connect online.

>

> Me too. Still, the longer I stay online, the more likely Kerio will

> flash a warning that some site wants to connect to some open port. Of

> course, I deny it!

 

I haven't seen anything like that, but then again, I don't have anything

installed or running that would be telling me, anyways! It would probably

be too upsetting to worry about all the accesses coming in.

 

I think I tried one out a long time ago, and found it confusing in seeing

the log entries going on and on all the time, and knowing which ones to

allow or block, but I might be misremembering this.

> ...snip

>>>> XP keeps "properly recorded" copies of most of the system DLLs in

>>>> the dllcache subfolder. By "properly recorded", I mean these

>>>> cached system files don't change, UNLESS you install an official IE

>>>> update, which then updates it (at least as I recall - there may be

>>>> some other exceptions or contingencies).

>>>

>>> It sounds like they might have it covered, then, if they keep that

>>> cache updated. It will revert to the previous updated file, instead

>>> of the original, if you run SFC after a second update goes bad.

>>

>> Presumably. I haven't had that happen yet.

>

> Alright. It would be something of an improvement, if that is done w/o a

> bunch of extra work.

>

>>> That's tough to do with Win98's SFC.

>>>

>>> It sounds pretty good for preventing a virus infection too, I guess,

>>> if it only let's official updates mess with the cache. But that only

>>> involves system files?

>>

>> I think so (and perhaps also those updated from some "authorized"

>> program installs).

>> It contains system DLL's, EXE's, AX's, SYS', OCX's, NLS's files.

>> I see about *3,000* files in there! Isn't that enough? :-)

>

> I guess. Sounds like enough to me. Still, Win98's SFC (you know) goes

> into the .cab's-- that's every original system file!

 

And don't forget that XP also has System Restore. I have used that on

occasion.

 

And I've also used ERUNT, on occasion.

ERUNT is used like scanreg and scanreg /restore, to save or restore just the

registry), whereas "System Restore" saves and restores a whole lot more

(including the files it monitors).

> ...snip

>>>>> Can you post a piece of the Event Viewer, especially a summary at

>>>>> the bottom? I want to determine whether anything humanly

>>>>> meaningful can be seen in it.

>>>>

>>>> Well, I'll tell you, it ain't easy looking at it (or posting it).

>>>> It's a bit "cumbersome" and tedious to go through it all (you have

>>>> to use the arrow keys to scroll through them)! So, I don't know

>>>> how I can easily do that. It is a bit more complex than just

>>>> looking at a simple SFC log in Win98SE (and THAT part I really

>>>> MISS).

>>>

>>> Yuck! Arrow keys! I hope all the .logs in XP aren't that tough to

>>> deal with! And this one sounds important! Sheesh! They should have

>>> made it possible to copy/paste from it-- so users could could post

>>> bits of it for examination & discussion! Yuck!

>>

>> I'm not saying it's impossible, but it may be a bit challenging. If

>> you really want to know, I'm sure there are some examples showing

>> some of it somewhere on the net.

>

> I'm just mildly interested, & I think I've heard enough about that thing.

 

Or it might be shown somewhere in one of Microsoft's WinXP pages, for that

matter.

>>>> What it lists is all the so-called system "Events" that occur

>>>> (basically the system events going on in time, with their

>>>> "categorizations" and so-called "Event Codes", (like such an such a

>>>> "service" just opened or closed, or started or stopped, or entered

>>>> the running state, or whatever). (For the most part, I haven't

>>>> found it all that useful for me just yet).

>>>

>>> Well, it would have been nice for them to make the mouse &

>>> copy/paste wo rk for it nonetheless!

>>

>> I could do them one by one, but that's a pain. :-)

>

> No, I think I get the picture. It's saying what the system calls were.

> Check again whether it has something useful like an alarm, is all. No

> one will make sense of the listing.

>

>>> What good is a listing that you have to memorize to talk about!

>>>

>>>>> Is there anything in its menus that can be set to sound an alarm?

>>>>

>>>> Maybe - don't know.

>>>

>>> I was thinking it might be monitoring the integrity of the hard

>>> drive, but now I see it is something else. It's monitoring the

>>> doings of the OS, sounds like. But keep looking for an alarm &

>>> report back if you find one! There's got to be some use for the

>>> thing!

>

> ...snip

>>>> I have a 250 GB drive (it came from Dell that way as the smallest

>>>> size at the time).

>>>

>>> Yow. I have a 40 & a 20-- & I had to add that 40!

>>

>> WOW. Well yeah, I guess you could outgrow 20 GB if that's all you

>> had.

>

> Not me...!...

>

> Available space on drive C: 6659MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

> ...The original OS minus the following

> Available space on drive E: 7286MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

> ...My Documents, My Downloads, the Win98SE .cabs, & WU.

> Available space on drive G: 7763MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

> ...OE Store & TIFs.

>

> That is everything I've got, which now is split onto 3 near-empty

> partitions. All my other partitions are back-ups more/less, D: being a

> BING clone of C:. The others I just drag/drop using Explorer to

> partitions on the other HDD.

 

Well, but you don't have a ton of music and video files there either, I

expect, like I do.

 

If it weren't for that (and those are in separate partitions), I could

probably get by with about 20 GB or so for the Win98SE computer, and about

40 GB or so for the Windows XP computer for almost everything (system,

programs, and user data).

>> But then again, I was quite comfortable with a 20 GB C: partition for

>> my Win98SE drive (for system, programs, and most user data), since

>> Win98SE itself is so small. (I'm guessing that just Win98SE itself

>> was somewhere around 200 MB(?) or so, so that left plenty of room!

>> WinXP Home is more like 5 GB (give or take).

>> But JUST having 20 GB would have been way too confining!

>

> It's become a monster! It must be 10x harder to understand & control XP!

 

It's a bit harder, and you do have less control over some things (i.e., most

is done for you by the operating system), but it's nothing like VISTA

(egads!), from what I've heard. VISTA is the True Behometh. The KING

of albatrosses.

>>>> It has a 40 GB NTFS partition for XP and my programs and data

>>>> (except for my music and video files, which are each on some other

>>>> 40 GB, FAT32 partitions). Of that 40 GB, about half is in use

>>>> now, and the

>>>> rest is still free. If someone were going to install XP, I'd say

>>>> they should use a 40 GB partition for it (and the programs and

>>>> data). 20 GB would be a bit marginal - not leaving much room to

>>>> install a whole bunch of stuff. I mean, you could do it, but I

>>>> wouldn't.

>>>> I've got quite a bit on here and I'm using about 20 GB now.

>>>

>>> You created these partitions?

>>

>> I did.

>>

>>> Sounds like good advice. Finally, on this

>>> 98, I did a lot of that myself. I does make backups a bit more work

>>> to do, but I don't regret it.

>>>

>>>> I used FAT 32 for those partitions, since they came over from my

>>>> Win98SE machine, and it was just easier to leave them that way (I

>>>> copied those partitions from the Win98SE computer to the new XP

>>>> computer).

>>>>

>>>> So I still have tons of disk space left.

>>>

>>> You had tons to start with. Can you post something like this, from

>>> MSInfo32 & FDISK /Status...?...

>>

>> I probably could, but I'm kinda tired now, and too lazy. Suffice

>> it to say I have this arrangement:

>>

>> C: 40 GB, NTFS (my system, programs, and data drive, currently half

>> used) D: 20 GB, FAT32, miscellaneous archived stuff, kind of a

>> hodgepodge at this pt

>> E: 40 GB, FAT32, for music files and audio work (restoring old mp3s,

>> etc) F: 40 GB, FAT32, for video files (like working on DVDs, etc)

>>

>>> Windows-managed swap file on drive C (6659MB free)

>>> Available space on drive C: 6659MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

>>> Available space on drive D: 6683MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

>>> Available space on drive E: 7286MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

>>> Available space on drive F: 7492MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

>>> Available space on drive G: 7766MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

>>> Available space on drive H: 7792MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

>>> Available space on drive I: 5967MB of 6174MB (FAT32)

>>

>> You sure have a LOT of partitions (mostly on your second HD!

>> Geeesh!

>> I only have ONE large HD in this computer at this point.

>>

>> (But two smaller ones in the older Win98SE Dell - and no, I didn't

>> worry excessively about the "ideal cluster size" for those FAT 32

>> partitions in there :-)

>

> That's why I have so many. I wanted the 4K cluster size in each one.

 

Well, I think that's a bit overkill, but each to his own. For me, "Less Is

More" (meaning, I prefer FEWER partitions). Having C:, D:, E:, and F: is

ENOUGH. :-)

[Guest PCR]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

| PCR wrote:

|> Bill in Co. wrote:

 

....snip

|>> I trust myself and my surfing practices, so I don't think it's too

|>> risky, as I don't go to bad sites (normally) or all that many

|>> suspicious sites, anyway.

|>> AND I'm on dialup, so I'm ONLY connected online when *I* choose to

|>> connect online.

|>

|> Me too. Still, the longer I stay online, the more likely Kerio will

|> flash a warning that some site wants to connect to some open port. Of

|> course, I deny it!

|

| I haven't seen anything like that, but then again, I don't have

| anything installed or running that would be telling me, anyways!

| It would probably be too upsetting to worry about all the accesses

| coming in.

|

| I think I tried one out a long time ago, and found it confusing in

| seeing the log entries going on and on all the time, and knowing

| which ones to allow or block, but I might be misremembering this.

 

No. That sounds about right. Some day I'll have one final try to get

Kerio set to my satisfaction. But I guess it's doing fairly well as is!

 

....snip

| And don't forget that XP also has System Restore. I have used that

| on occasion.

 

That restores a whole partition? Then, isn't your True Image a bit

redundant?

 

| And I've also used ERUNT, on occasion.

| ERUNT is used like scanreg and scanreg /restore, to save or restore

| just the registry), whereas "System Restore" saves and restores a

| whole lot more (including the files it monitors).

 

But not the whole partition?

 

....snip

|> ...snip

|>>>> I have a 250 GB drive (it came from Dell that way as the smallest

|>>>> size at the time).

|>>>

|>>> Yow. I have a 40 & a 20-- & I had to add that 40!

|>>

|>> WOW. Well yeah, I guess you could outgrow 20 GB if that's all

|>> you had.

|>

|> Not me...!...

|>

|> Available space on drive C: 6659MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

|> ...The original OS minus the following

|> Available space on drive E: 7286MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

|> ...My Documents, My Downloads, the Win98SE .cabs, & WU.

|> Available space on drive G: 7763MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

|> ...OE Store & TIFs.

|>

|> That is everything I've got, which now is split onto 3 near-empty

|> partitions. All my other partitions are back-ups more/less, D: being

|> a BING clone of C:. The others I just drag/drop using Explorer to

|> partitions on the other HDD.

|

| Well, but you don't have a ton of music and video files there either,

| I expect, like I do.

 

Correct.

 

| If it weren't for that (and those are in separate partitions), I could

| probably get by with about 20 GB or so for the Win98SE computer, and

| about 40 GB or so for the Windows XP computer for almost everything

| (system, programs, and user data).

|

|>> But then again, I was quite comfortable with a 20 GB C: partition

|>> for my Win98SE drive (for system, programs, and most user data),

|>> since Win98SE itself is so small. (I'm guessing that just Win98SE

|>> itself was somewhere around 200 MB(?) or so, so that left plenty of

|>> room! WinXP Home is more like 5 GB (give or take).

|>> But JUST having 20 GB would have been way too confining!

|>

|> It's become a monster! It must be 10x harder to understand & control

|> XP!

|

| It's a bit harder, and you do have less control over some things

| (i.e., most is done for you by the operating system), but it's

| nothing like VISTA (egads!), from what I've heard. VISTA is the

| True Behometh. The KING of albatrosses.

 

Alright.

 

....snip

|>> You sure have a LOT of partitions (mostly on your second HD!

|>> Geeesh!

|>> I only have ONE large HD in this computer at this point.

|>>

|>> (But two smaller ones in the older Win98SE Dell - and no, I didn't

|>> worry excessively about the "ideal cluster size" for those FAT 32

|>> partitions in there :-)

|>

|> That's why I have so many. I wanted the 4K cluster size in each one.

|

| Well, I think that's a bit overkill, but each to his own. For me,

| "Less Is More" (meaning, I prefer FEWER partitions). Having C:, D:,

| E:, and F: is ENOUGH. :-)

 

You could be right about that. Still, in Win98 it is best to have the 4K

clusters. I don't regret that. And everything I've got can easily fit

into just one of my 8 GB partitions. I really don't need any to be

larger!

 

 

--

Thanks or Good Luck,

There may be humor in this post, and,

Naturally, you will not sue,

Should things get worse after this,

PCR

pcrrcp@netzero.net

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

PCR wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> PCR wrote:

>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>

> ...snip

>>>> I trust myself and my surfing practices, so I don't think it's too

>>>> risky, as I don't go to bad sites (normally) or all that many

>>>> suspicious sites, anyway.

>>>> AND I'm on dialup, so I'm ONLY connected online when *I* choose to

>>>> connect online.

>>>

>>> Me too. Still, the longer I stay online, the more likely Kerio will

>>> flash a warning that some site wants to connect to some open port. Of

>>> course, I deny it!

>>

>> I haven't seen anything like that, but then again, I don't have

>> anything installed or running that would be telling me, anyways!

>> It would probably be too upsetting to worry about all the accesses

>> coming in.

>>

>> I think I tried one out a long time ago, and found it confusing in

>> seeing the log entries going on and on all the time, and knowing

>> which ones to allow or block, but I might be misremembering this.

>

> No. That sounds about right.

 

OK then. I think I'll leave well enough alone, and NOT install it. I

don't need that additional aggravation. :-)

> Some day I'll have one final try to get

> Kerio set to my satisfaction. But I guess it's doing fairly well as is!

>

> ...snip

>> And don't forget that XP also has System Restore. I have used that

>> on occasion.

>

> That restores a whole partition?

 

No. It's like "scanreg /restore", but it also can restore some other files

that were changed (files it monitors that it considers are significant, like

exe files that changed, etc, since the last restore point)

> Then, isn't your True Image a bit redundant?

 

No - totally different. (Sorry if I misled you here by mixing this all up

in my reply).

>> And I've also used ERUNT, on occasion.

>> ERUNT is used like scanreg and scanreg /restore, to save or restore

>> just the registry), whereas "System Restore" saves and restores a

>> whole lot more (including the files it monitors).

>

> But not the whole partition?

 

No (see above). System Restore is like a superset of "scanreg /restore",

additionally monitoring a select group of file types in certain locations,

that's all.

 

System Restore is NOT a partition restoration - it works only at the file

level, like scanreg /restore. But is more enhanced, in that it monitors

other changes in files since the previous restore point, and can put them

back, if needbe. So it's more than a registry restore, which is useful,

sometimes.

 

You know that "scanreg /restore" is good in what it can do, but it can't

undo everything, and so System Restore is a bit closer to that ideal.

 

But the best (most assured) way is to restore a backup image, if something

really goes astray (but sometimes that is a bit overkill, too).

 

I'll be out for a few days, but I wanted to at least get this response in.

:-)

 

<snip>

[Guest PCR]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

| PCR wrote:

|> Bill in Co. wrote:

|>> PCR wrote:

|>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

|>

|> ...snip

|>>>> I trust myself and my surfing practices, so I don't think it's too

|>>>> risky, as I don't go to bad sites (normally) or all that many

|>>>> suspicious sites, anyway.

|>>>> AND I'm on dialup, so I'm ONLY connected online when *I* choose to

|>>>> connect online.

|>>>

|>>> Me too. Still, the longer I stay online, the more likely Kerio will

|>>> flash a warning that some site wants to connect to some open port.

|>>> Of course, I deny it!

|>>

|>> I haven't seen anything like that, but then again, I don't have

|>> anything installed or running that would be telling me, anyways!

|>> It would probably be too upsetting to worry about all the accesses

|>> coming in.

|>>

|>> I think I tried one out a long time ago, and found it confusing in

|>> seeing the log entries going on and on all the time, and knowing

|>> which ones to allow or block, but I might be misremembering this.

|>

|> No. That sounds about right.

|

| OK then. I think I'll leave well enough alone, and NOT install it.

| I don't need that additional aggravation. :-)

 

Well, I like Kerio Personal Firewall a lot-- enough to swear I will make

a final attempt some day to get its rules perfect &/or to fully

understand them. Until then, I remain fairly pleased with the hodgepodge

of rules I've imported & customized from the experts.

 

|> Some day I'll have one final try to get

|> Kerio set to my satisfaction. But I guess it's doing fairly well as

|> is!

|>

|> ...snip

|>> And don't forget that XP also has System Restore. I have used that

|>> on occasion.

|>

|> That restores a whole partition?

|

| No. It's like "scanreg /restore", but it also can restore some

| other files that were changed (files it monitors that it considers

| are significant, like exe files that changed, etc, since the last

| restore point)

 

I see. You may know Win98 can add files too using ScanReg.ini, & they

would end up with the Registry, System.ini & Wini,ini in those ScanReg

..cabs...

 

; Additional system files to backup into cab as follows:

; Filenames are separated by ','

; dir code can be:

; 10 : windir (ex. c:\windows)

; 11 : system dir (ex. c:\windows\system)

; 30 : boot dir (ex. c:\)

; 31 : boot host dir (ex. c:\)

;

;Files=[dir code,]file1,file2,file3

;Files=[dir code,]file1,file2,file3

 

I've never done it, though-- haven't ever decided which to choose!

Somewhere, I've got cquirke's suggestions. Which do XP save

automatically? A lot or just a few? I suppose it is done on a daily

basis at each boot like in Win98. That is why it is a good practice to

reboot after making major changes even if not told.

 

|> Then, isn't your True Image a bit redundant?

|

| No - totally different. (Sorry if I misled you here by mixing this

| all up in my reply).

 

OK. System restore has a big sound to it.

 

|>> And I've also used ERUNT, on occasion.

|>> ERUNT is used like scanreg and scanreg /restore, to save or restore

|>> just the registry), whereas "System Restore" saves and restores a

|>> whole lot more (including the files it monitors).

|>

|> But not the whole partition?

|

| No (see above). System Restore is like a superset of "scanreg

| /restore", additionally monitoring a select group of file types in

| certain locations, that's all.

|

| System Restore is NOT a partition restoration - it works only at the

| file level, like scanreg /restore. But is more enhanced, in that

| it monitors other changes in files since the previous restore point,

| and can put them back, if needbe. So it's more than a registry

| restore, which is useful, sometimes.

|

| You know that "scanreg /restore" is good in what it can do, but it

| can't undo everything, and so System Restore is a bit closer to that

| ideal.

 

I understand now. But see the questions above.

 

| But the best (most assured) way is to restore a backup image, if

| something really goes astray (but sometimes that is a bit overkill,

| too).

 

Yea. But I think our BING clones are better than any Image which is

tougher to deal with.

 

| I'll be out for a few days, but I wanted to at least get this

| response in. :-)

 

OK. I'll be here.

 

 

--

Thanks or Good Luck,

There may be humor in this post, and,

Naturally, you will not sue,

Should things get worse after this,

PCR

pcrrcp@netzero.net

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

I'll get to this one too, and maybe one more, time will tell. :-)

More below..

 

PCR wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> PCR wrote:

>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>> PCR wrote:

>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>

>>> ...snip

>>>>>> I trust myself and my surfing practices, so I don't think it's too

>>>>>> risky, as I don't go to bad sites (normally) or all that many

>>>>>> suspicious sites, anyway.

>>>>>> AND I'm on dialup, so I'm ONLY connected online when *I* choose to

>>>>>> connect online.

>>>>>

>>>>> Me too. Still, the longer I stay online, the more likely Kerio will

>>>>> flash a warning that some site wants to connect to some open port.

>>>>> Of course, I deny it!

>>>>

>>>> I haven't seen anything like that, but then again, I don't have

>>>> anything installed or running that would be telling me, anyways!

>>>> It would probably be too upsetting to worry about all the accesses

>>>> coming in.

>>>>

>>>> I think I tried one out a long time ago, and found it confusing in

>>>> seeing the log entries going on and on all the time, and knowing

>>>> which ones to allow or block, but I might be misremembering this.

>>>

>>> No. That sounds about right.

>>

>> OK then. I think I'll leave well enough alone, and NOT install it.

>> I don't need that additional aggravation. :-)

>

> Well, I like Kerio Personal Firewall a lot-- enough to swear I will make

> a final attempt some day to get its rules perfect &/or to fully

> understand them. Until then, I remain fairly pleased with the hodgepodge

> of rules I've imported & customized from the experts.

 

I'm gonna pass on this whole idea.. :-)

>>> Some day I'll have one final try to get

>>> Kerio set to my satisfaction. But I guess it's doing fairly well as is!

>>>

>>> ...snip

>>>> And don't forget that XP also has System Restore. I have used that

>>>> on occasion.

>>>

>>> That restores a whole partition?

>>

>> No. It's like "scanreg /restore", but it also can restore some

>> other files that were changed (files it monitors that it considers

>> are significant, like exe files that changed, etc, since the last

>> restore point)

>

> I see. You may know Win98 can add files too using ScanReg.ini, & they

 

Yup. But see below..

> would end up with the Registry, System.ini & Wini,ini in those ScanReg

> .cabs...

>

> ; Additional system files to backup into cab as follows:

> ; Filenames are separated by ','

> ; dir code can be:

> ; 10 : windir (ex. c:\windows)

> ; 11 : system dir (ex. c:\windows\system)

> ; 30 : boot dir (ex. c:\)

> ; 31 : boot host dir (ex. c:\)

> ;

> ;Files=[dir code,]file1,file2,file3

> ;Files=[dir code,]file1,file2,file3

 

Yes. But even this is limited, compared to what System Restore can do.

For one thing, you'd have to spell everything out, which you don't have to

do with System Restore! More below..

> I've never done it, though-- haven't ever decided which to choose!

> Somewhere, I've got cquirke's suggestions. Which do XP save

> automatically? A lot or just a few?

 

A LOT. An awful lot. All the ones it thinks might be problematic, and

should be monitored. (Which are most of the ones you might expect, plus

some. :-)

There is an article somewhere on the MS web site somewhere covering "System

Restore", and what files and directories it monitors, and backups, etc, etc.

> I suppose it is done on a daily basis at each boot like in Win98.

 

More or less it's daily, or after 24 hours of use (can't recall), if you

don't choose to make a Restore Point manually yourself within that time

frame.

 

And there's a fixed amount of space on the HD reserved for it. (If you

exceed that, the oldest ones are automatically deleted to make room. You

can set the space as large or small as you want).

> That is why it is a good practice to

> reboot after making major changes even if not told.

 

Indeed. For that, and other reasons.

>>> Then, isn't your True Image a bit redundant?

>>

>> No - totally different. (Sorry if I misled you here by mixing this

>> all up in my reply).

>

> OK. System restore has a big sound to it.

 

Yes, and (also) just to give you some idea, the System Restore saved

checkpoints are often around 60 MB or so in size (which is perhaps 10 times

that of a typical scanreg cab file). But then again, it's saving a LOT

more (than just the registry). And is kinda like a saved snapshot of the

system, in time.

 

So it's useful if you need to roll back to a previous time (and is more

effective that way than scanreg /restore, since it is much more complete -

it monitors files added since the last checkpoint, etc, and can put back the

previous ones, if there were any changes. (Of course, it doesn't monitor

things like, say, a text file, or what have you, as those aren't needed for

any system restorations).

>>>> And I've also used ERUNT, on occasion.

>>>> ERUNT is used like scanreg and scanreg /restore, to save or restore

>>>> just the registry), whereas "System Restore" saves and restores a

>>>> whole lot more (including the files it monitors).

>>>

>>> But not the whole partition?

>>

>> No (see above). System Restore is like a superset of "scanreg

>> /restore", additionally monitoring a select group of file types in

>> certain locations, that's all.

>>

>> System Restore is NOT a partition restoration - it works only at the

>> file level, like scanreg /restore. But is more enhanced, in that

>> it monitors other changes in files since the previous restore point,

>> and can put them back, if needbe. So it's more than a registry

>> restore, which is useful, sometimes.

>>

>> You know that "scanreg /restore" is good in what it can do, but it

>> can't undo everything, and so System Restore is a bit closer to that

>> ideal.

>

> I understand now. But see the questions above.

 

Answered now.

>> But the best (most assured) way is to restore a backup image, if

>> something really goes astray (but sometimes that is a bit overkill,

>> too).

>

> Yea. But I think our BING clones are better than any Image which is

> tougher to deal with.

 

I'll take either one. Or rather, I'd like to have the option of using

either one. :-)

>> I'll be out for a few days, but I wanted to at least get this

>> response in. :-)

>

> OK. I'll be here.

 

OK.

[Guest PCR]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

| I'll get to this one too, and maybe one more, time will tell. :-)

| More below..

 

OK.

 

....snip

|>> OK then. I think I'll leave well enough alone, and NOT install it.

|>> I don't need that additional aggravation. :-)

|>

|> Well, I like Kerio Personal Firewall a lot-- enough to swear I will

|> make a final attempt some day to get its rules perfect &/or to fully

|> understand them. Until then, I remain fairly pleased with the

|> hodgepodge of rules I've imported & customized from the experts.

|

| I'm gonna pass on this whole idea.. :-)

 

Very well. I'm not quite ready to revisit it, anyhow-- it is mentally

taxing!

 

....snip

|>>>> And don't forget that XP also has System Restore. I have used

|>>>> that on occasion.

|>>>

|>>> That restores a whole partition?

|>>

|>> No. It's like "scanreg /restore", but it also can restore some

|>> other files that were changed (files it monitors that it considers

|>> are significant, like exe files that changed, etc, since the last

|>> restore point)

|>

|> I see. You may know Win98 can add files too using ScanReg.ini, & they

|

| Yup. But see below..

|

|> would end up with the Registry, System.ini & Wini,ini in those

|> ScanReg .cabs...

|>

|> ; Additional system files to backup into cab as follows:

|> ; Filenames are separated by ','

|> ; dir code can be:

|> ; 10 : windir (ex. c:\windows)

|> ; 11 : system dir (ex. c:\windows\system)

|> ; 30 : boot dir (ex. c:\)

|> ; 31 : boot host dir (ex. c:\)

|> ;

|> ;Files=[dir code,]file1,file2,file3

|> ;Files=[dir code,]file1,file2,file3

|

| Yes. But even this is limited, compared to what System Restore can

| do. For one thing, you'd have to spell everything out, which you

| don't have to do with System Restore! More below..

|

|> I've never done it, though-- haven't ever decided which to choose!

|> Somewhere, I've got cquirke's suggestions. Which do XP save

|> automatically? A lot or just a few?

|

| A LOT. An awful lot. All the ones it thinks might be problematic,

| and should be monitored. (Which are most of the ones you might

| expect, plus some. :-)

| There is an article somewhere on the MS web site somewhere covering

| "System Restore", and what files and directories it monitors, and

| backups, etc, etc.

 

Alright. That sounds like too much.

 

|> I suppose it is done on a daily basis at each boot like in Win98.

|

| More or less it's daily, or after 24 hours of use (can't recall), if

| you don't choose to make a Restore Point manually yourself within

| that time frame.

|

| And there's a fixed amount of space on the HD reserved for it. (If

| you exceed that, the oldest ones are automatically deleted to make

| room. You can set the space as large or small as you want).

 

Oh. Interesting. Sounds like you might not need to reboot for this,

unlike Win98's registry backups, if it's done on a timer basis. Well,

you could probably set that up in Win98 too by putting ScanReg into Task

Scheduler. But I like shutting down on a nightly basis, anyhow.

 

|> That is why it is a good practice to

|> reboot after making major changes even if not told.

|

| Indeed. For that, and other reasons.

 

Yea. Other reasons too.

 

|>>> Then, isn't your True Image a bit redundant?

|>>

|>> No - totally different. (Sorry if I misled you here by mixing this

|>> all up in my reply).

|>

|> OK. System restore has a big sound to it.

|

| Yes, and (also) just to give you some idea, the System Restore saved

| checkpoints are often around 60 MB or so in size (which is perhaps 10

| times that of a typical scanreg cab file). But then again, it's

| saving a LOT more (than just the registry). And is kinda like a

| saved snapshot of the system, in time.

 

That's a damn lot! I hope the hard drives can take it! If so, it seems

like a good idea, I guess. But all 6 of my .cabs together are less than

1/6 of that...!...

 

C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP>dir rb???.cab /od

Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p rbbad.cab

RB003 CAB 1,601,406 05-31-08 6:45p rb003.cab

RB004 CAB 1,601,383 06-01-08 3:44p rb004.cab

RB005 CAB 1,601,587 06-02-08 6:50p rb005.cab

RB000 CAB 1,600,604 06-03-08 7:07p rb000.cab

RB001 CAB 1,601,242 06-04-08 8:01p rb001.cab

6 file(s) 9,581,886 bytes

 

| So it's useful if you need to roll back to a previous time (and is

| more effective that way than scanreg /restore, since it is much more

| complete - it monitors files added since the last checkpoint, etc,

| and can put back the previous ones, if there were any changes. (Of

| course, it doesn't monitor things like, say, a text file, or what

| have you, as those aren't needed for any system restorations).

 

It does sound to be more thorough than a ScanReg /Restore. You say you

did it & you did ERUNT too on occasion? What were the occasions? How do

you choose between the two?

 

|>>>> And I've also used ERUNT, on occasion.

|>>>> ERUNT is used like scanreg and scanreg /restore, to save or

|>>>> restore just the registry), whereas "System Restore" saves and

|>>>> restores a whole lot more (including the files it monitors).

 

....snip

|>> But the best (most assured) way is to restore a backup image, if

|>> something really goes astray (but sometimes that is a bit overkill,

|>> too).

|>

|> Yea. But I think our BING clones are better than any Image which is

|> tougher to deal with.

|

| I'll take either one. Or rather, I'd like to have the option of

| using either one. :-)

 

Alright. I can see this is still needed despite you have System Restore.

 

 

--

Thanks or Good Luck,

There may be humor in this post, and,

Naturally, you will not sue,

Should things get worse after this,

PCR

pcrrcp@netzero.net

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

PCR wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> I'll get to this one too, and maybe one more, time will tell. :-)

>> More below..

>

> OK.

>

> ...snip

>>>> OK then. I think I'll leave well enough alone, and NOT install it.

>>>> I don't need that additional aggravation. :-)

>>>

>>> Well, I like Kerio Personal Firewall a lot-- enough to swear I will

>>> make a final attempt some day to get its rules perfect &/or to fully

>>> understand them. Until then, I remain fairly pleased with the

>>> hodgepodge of rules I've imported & customized from the experts.

>>

>> I'm gonna pass on this whole idea.. :-)

>

> Very well. I'm not quite ready to revisit it, anyhow-- it is mentally

> taxing!

>

> ...snip

>>>>>> And don't forget that XP also has System Restore. I have used

>>>>>> that on occasion.

>>>>>

>>>>> That restores a whole partition?

>>>>

>>>> No. It's like "scanreg /restore", but it also can restore some

>>>> other files that were changed (files it monitors that it considers

>>>> are significant, like exe files that changed, etc, since the last

>>>> restore point)

>>>

>>> I see. You may know Win98 can add files too using ScanReg.ini, & they

>>

>> Yup. But see below..

>>

>>> would end up with the Registry, System.ini & Wini,ini in those

>>> ScanReg .cabs...

>>>

>>> ; Additional system files to backup into cab as follows:

>>> ; Filenames are separated by ','

>>> ; dir code can be:

>>> ; 10 : windir (ex. c:\windows)

>>> ; 11 : system dir (ex. c:\windows\system)

>>> ; 30 : boot dir (ex. c:\)

>>> ; 31 : boot host dir (ex. c:\)

>>> ;

>>> ;Files=[dir code,]file1,file2,file3

>>> ;Files=[dir code,]file1,file2,file3

>>

>> Yes. But even this is limited, compared to what System Restore can

>> do. For one thing, you'd have to spell everything out, which you

>> don't have to do with System Restore! More below..

>>

>>> I've never done it, though-- haven't ever decided which to choose!

>>> Somewhere, I've got cquirke's suggestions. Which do XP save

>>> automatically? A lot or just a few?

>>

>> A LOT. An awful lot. All the ones it thinks might be problematic,

>> and should be monitored. (Which are most of the ones you might

>> expect, plus some. :-)

>> There is an article somewhere on the MS web site somewhere covering

>> "System Restore", and what files and directories it monitors, and

>> backups, etc, etc.

>

> Alright. That sounds like too much.

 

Nah. (But in the bloatware albatross named VISTA, it sure may be. :-)

>>> I suppose it is done on a daily basis at each boot like in Win98.

>>

>> More or less it's daily, or after 24 hours of use (can't recall), if

>> you don't choose to make a Restore Point manually yourself within

>> that time frame.

>>

>> And there's a fixed amount of space on the HD reserved for it. (If

>> you exceed that, the oldest ones are automatically deleted to make

>> room. You can set the space as large or small as you want).

>

> Oh. Interesting. Sounds like you might not need to reboot for this,

> unlike Win98's registry backups, if it's done on a timer basis. Well,

> you could probably set that up in Win98 too by putting ScanReg into Task

> Scheduler. But I like shutting down on a nightly basis, anyhow.

 

No need to reboot. (When you run System Restore to create a restore point,

I mean). Obviously if you want to roll back to a restore point, it will

end up rebooting.

>>> That is why it is a good practice to

>>> reboot after making major changes even if not told.

>>

>> Indeed. For that, and other reasons.

>

> Yea. Other reasons too.

>

>>>>> Then, isn't your True Image a bit redundant?

>>>>

>>>> No - totally different. (Sorry if I misled you here by mixing this

>>>> all up in my reply).

>>>

>>> OK. System restore has a big sound to it.

>>

>> Yes, and (also) just to give you some idea, the System Restore saved

>> checkpoints are often around 60 MB or so in size (which is perhaps 10

>> times that of a typical scanreg cab file). But then again, it's

>> saving a LOT more (than just the registry). And is kinda like a

>> saved snapshot of the system, in time.

>

> That's a damn lot! I hope the hard drives can take it! If so, it seems

> like a good idea, I guess. But all 6 of my .cabs together are less than

> 1/6 of that...!...

>

> C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP>dir rb???.cab /od

> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p rbbad.cab

> RB003 CAB 1,601,406 05-31-08 6:45p rb003.cab

> RB004 CAB 1,601,383 06-01-08 3:44p rb004.cab

> RB005 CAB 1,601,587 06-02-08 6:50p rb005.cab

> RB000 CAB 1,600,604 06-03-08 7:07p rb000.cab

> RB001 CAB 1,601,242 06-04-08 8:01p rb001.cab

> 6 file(s) 9,581,886 bytes

 

Interesting. Well, my CABs were closer to 4 MB, which is about a tenth

the size of the restore points in XP. (but of course, they are more

limited in what they can correct in 98SE, since less is in there)

>> So it's useful if you need to roll back to a previous time (and is

>> more effective that way than scanreg /restore, since it is much more

>> complete - it monitors files added since the last checkpoint, etc,

>> and can put back the previous ones, if there were any changes. (Of

>> course, it doesn't monitor things like, say, a text file, or what

>> have you, as those aren't needed for any system restorations).

>

> It does sound to be more thorough than a ScanReg /Restore.

 

MUCH more so. No comparsion. Scanreg /restore ONLY restores the

registry, and nothing more. That is considerably more limited (albeit

useful, on some occasions - more on that below).

> You say you

> did it & you did ERUNT too on occasion? What were the occasions? How do

> you choose between the two?

 

The right tool for the right job. Maybe a somewhat oversimplified

explanation would be as follows:

 

If I knew the changes were pretty minimal, ERUNT would be sufficient, and it

is quickest. ERUNT is directly analogous to using scanreg and scanreg

/restore. It ONLY saves and restores the registry (normally, without

additional customizations)

 

If the changes were relatively large, I'd (normally) use System Restore.

(one (slightly annoying) thing about System Restore is it monitors lots of

files or file types that it thinks could have been problematic, so you need

to be sure to save some recently downloaded EXE, DLL, etc files (or

whatever, in that vein), in the properly designated place, typically under

Documents and Settings, which is NOT monitored - but other than that, it's

no big deal).

 

If the changes were *really extensive*, I wouldn't rely on either, and I'd

restore a Backup from the backup drive. (A clear cut case of this would

be with something like Office or a Service Pack - say going back to a prior

version, or whatever; in that case, the only safe and assured way to get the

system back (guaranteed) AS IT WAS, would be to do a backup drive

restoration)

>>>>>> And I've also used ERUNT, on occasion.

>>>>>> ERUNT is used like scanreg and scanreg /restore, to save or

>>>>>> restore just the registry), whereas "System Restore" saves and

>>>>>> restores a whole lot more (including the files it monitors).

>

> ...snip

>>>> But the best (most assured) way is to restore a backup image, if

>>>> something really goes astray (but sometimes that is a bit overkill,

>>>> too).

>>>

>>> Yea. But I think our BING clones are better than any Image which is

>>> tougher to deal with.

>>

>> I'll take either one. Or rather, I'd like to have the option of

>> using either one. :-)

>

> Alright. I can see this is still needed despite you have System Restore.

 

Well again, it's nice to have a SET of tools, and to use the best tool for

the most appropriate occasion.

[Guest PCR]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

| PCR wrote:

|> Bill in Co. wrote:

 

....snip

|>>> I've never done it, though-- haven't ever decided which to choose!

|>>> Somewhere, I've got cquirke's suggestions. Which do XP save

|>>> automatically? A lot or just a few?

|>>

|>> A LOT. An awful lot. All the ones it thinks might be

|>> problematic, and should be monitored. (Which are most of the

|>> ones you might expect, plus some. :-)

|>> There is an article somewhere on the MS web site somewhere covering

|>> "System Restore", and what files and directories it monitors, and

|>> backups, etc, etc.

|>

|> Alright. That sounds like too much.

|

| Nah. (But in the bloatware albatross named VISTA, it sure may be.

| :-)

 

OK. :-). I believe you about Vista!

 

|>>> I suppose it is done on a daily basis at each boot like in Win98.

|>>

|>> More or less it's daily, or after 24 hours of use (can't recall), if

|>> you don't choose to make a Restore Point manually yourself within

|>> that time frame.

|>>

|>> And there's a fixed amount of space on the HD reserved for it. (If

|>> you exceed that, the oldest ones are automatically deleted to make

|>> room. You can set the space as large or small as you want).

|>

|> Oh. Interesting. Sounds like you might not need to reboot for this,

|> unlike Win98's registry backups, if it's done on a timer basis. Well,

|> you could probably set that up in Win98 too by putting ScanReg into

|> Task Scheduler. But I like shutting down on a nightly basis, anyhow.

|

| No need to reboot. (When you run System Restore to create a restore

| point, I mean). Obviously if you want to roll back to a restore

| point, it will end up rebooting.

 

Uhuh. Very good.

 

|>>> That is why it is a good practice to

|>>> reboot after making major changes even if not told.

|>>

|>> Indeed. For that, and other reasons.

|>

|> Yea. Other reasons too.

|>

|>>>>> Then, isn't your True Image a bit redundant?

|>>>>

|>>>> No - totally different. (Sorry if I misled you here by mixing

|>>>> this all up in my reply).

|>>>

|>>> OK. System restore has a big sound to it.

|>>

|>> Yes, and (also) just to give you some idea, the System Restore saved

|>> checkpoints are often around 60 MB or so in size (which is perhaps

|>> 10 times that of a typical scanreg cab file). But then again, it's

|>> saving a LOT more (than just the registry). And is kinda like a

|>> saved snapshot of the system, in time.

|>

|> That's a damn lot! I hope the hard drives can take it! If so, it

|> seems like a good idea, I guess. But all 6 of my .cabs together are

|> less than 1/6 of that...!...

|>

|> C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP>dir rb???.cab /od

|> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

|> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p rbbad.cab

|> RB003 CAB 1,601,406 05-31-08 6:45p rb003.cab

|> RB004 CAB 1,601,383 06-01-08 3:44p rb004.cab

|> RB005 CAB 1,601,587 06-02-08 6:50p rb005.cab

|> RB000 CAB 1,600,604 06-03-08 7:07p rb000.cab

|> RB001 CAB 1,601,242 06-04-08 8:01p rb001.cab

|> 6 file(s) 9,581,886 bytes

|

| Interesting. Well, my CABs were closer to 4 MB, which is about a

| tenth the size of the restore points in XP. (but of course, they

| are more limited in what they can correct in 98SE, since less is in

| there)

 

You may have had huge apps installed like maybe Office. I only have MS

Works. Also, playing with User Profiles can bloat a registry, if you've

ever done that.

 

|>> So it's useful if you need to roll back to a previous time (and is

|>> more effective that way than scanreg /restore, since it is much more

|>> complete - it monitors files added since the last checkpoint, etc,

|>> and can put back the previous ones, if there were any changes. (Of

|>> course, it doesn't monitor things like, say, a text file, or what

|>> have you, as those aren't needed for any system restorations).

|>

|> It does sound to be more thorough than a ScanReg /Restore.

|

| MUCH more so. No comparsion. Scanreg /restore ONLY restores the

| registry, and nothing more. That is considerably more limited

| (albeit useful, on some occasions - more on that below).

 

Yep. On the minus side, I'm sure it gives the hard drive a much more

rigorous usage each day.

 

|> You say you

|> did it & you did ERUNT too on occasion? What were the occasions? How

|> do you choose between the two?

|

| The right tool for the right job. Maybe a somewhat oversimplified

| explanation would be as follows:

|

| If I knew the changes were pretty minimal, ERUNT would be sufficient,

| and it is quickest. ERUNT is directly analogous to using scanreg

| and scanreg /restore. It ONLY saves and restores the registry

| (normally, without additional customizations)

 

That sounds about right. Can you do an ERUNT & easily undo it? That's a

tad tricky to do with ScanReg. In fact, I'd have to experiment AGAIN to

be sure what to do for that! After my 1st round of experimentation a

while ago, I came to believe ScanReg /Restore will put the current

Registry into... RB(next avail number).reg. SO... you'd have to remember

what that was, if you wanted it back!

 

| If the changes were relatively large, I'd (normally) use System

| Restore. (one (slightly annoying) thing about System Restore is it

| monitors lots of files or file types that it thinks could have been

| problematic, so you need to be sure to save some recently downloaded

| EXE, DLL, etc files (or whatever, in that vein), in the properly

| designated place, typically under Documents and Settings, which is

| NOT monitored - but other than that, it's no big deal).

 

What is this about? You have to keep an eye on what it does? Does it

produce a report? It is difficult to undo?

 

| If the changes were *really extensive*, I wouldn't rely on either,

| and I'd restore a Backup from the backup drive. (A clear cut case

| of this would be with something like Office or a Service Pack - say

| going back to a prior version, or whatever; in that case, the only

| safe and assured way to get the system back (guaranteed) AS IT WAS,

| would be to do a backup drive restoration)

 

Very good.

 

|>>>>>> And I've also used ERUNT, on occasion.

|>>>>>> ERUNT is used like scanreg and scanreg /restore, to save or

|>>>>>> restore just the registry), whereas "System Restore" saves

|>>>>>> and restores a whole lot more (including the files it monitors).

|>

|> ...snip

|>>>> But the best (most assured) way is to restore a backup image, if

|>>>> something really goes astray (but sometimes that is a bit

|>>>> overkill, too).

|>>>

|>>> Yea. But I think our BING clones are better than any Image which is

|>>> tougher to deal with.

|>>

|>> I'll take either one. Or rather, I'd like to have the option of

|>> using either one. :-)

|>

|> Alright. I can see this is still needed despite you have System

|> Restore.

|

| Well again, it's nice to have a SET of tools, and to use the best

| tool for the most appropriate occasion.

 

Uhuh.

 

 

--

Thanks or Good Luck,

There may be humor in this post, and,

Naturally, you will not sue,

Should things get worse after this,

PCR

pcrrcp@netzero.net

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

PCR wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> PCR wrote:

>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>

> ...snip

>>>>> I've never done it, though-- haven't ever decided which to choose!

>>>>> Somewhere, I've got cquirke's suggestions. Which do XP save

>>>>> automatically? A lot or just a few?

>>>>

>>>> A LOT. An awful lot. All the ones it thinks might be

>>>> problematic, and should be monitored. (Which are most of the

>>>> ones you might expect, plus some. :-)

>>>> There is an article somewhere on the MS web site somewhere covering

>>>> "System Restore", and what files and directories it monitors, and

>>>> backups, etc, etc.

>>>

>>> Alright. That sounds like too much.

>>

>> Nah. (But in the bloatware albatross named VISTA, it sure may be.

>> :-)

>

> OK. :-). I believe you about Vista!

>

>>>>> I suppose it is done on a daily basis at each boot like in Win98.

>>>>

>>>> More or less it's daily, or after 24 hours of use (can't recall), if

>>>> you don't choose to make a Restore Point manually yourself within

>>>> that time frame.

>>>>

>>>> And there's a fixed amount of space on the HD reserved for it. (If

>>>> you exceed that, the oldest ones are automatically deleted to make

>>>> room. You can set the space as large or small as you want).

>>>

>>> Oh. Interesting. Sounds like you might not need to reboot for this,

>>> unlike Win98's registry backups, if it's done on a timer basis. Well,

>>> you could probably set that up in Win98 too by putting ScanReg into

>>> Task Scheduler. But I like shutting down on a nightly basis, anyhow.

>>

>> No need to reboot. (When you run System Restore to create a restore

>> point, I mean). Obviously if you want to roll back to a restore

>> point, it will end up rebooting.

>

> Uhuh. Very good.

>

>>>>> That is why it is a good practice to

>>>>> reboot after making major changes even if not told.

>>>>

>>>> Indeed. For that, and other reasons.

>>>

>>> Yea. Other reasons too.

>>>

>>>>>>> Then, isn't your True Image a bit redundant?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> No - totally different. (Sorry if I misled you here by mixing

>>>>>> this all up in my reply).

>>>>>

>>>>> OK. System restore has a big sound to it.

>>>>

>>>> Yes, and (also) just to give you some idea, the System Restore saved

>>>> checkpoints are often around 60 MB or so in size (which is perhaps

>>>> 10 times that of a typical scanreg cab file). But then again, it's

>>>> saving a LOT more (than just the registry). And is kinda like a

>>>> saved snapshot of the system, in time.

>>>

>>> That's a damn lot! I hope the hard drives can take it! If so, it

>>> seems like a good idea, I guess. But all 6 of my .cabs together are

>>> less than 1/6 of that...!...

>>>

>>> C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP>dir rb???.cab /od

>>> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

>>> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p rbbad.cab

>>> RB003 CAB 1,601,406 05-31-08 6:45p rb003.cab

>>> RB004 CAB 1,601,383 06-01-08 3:44p rb004.cab

>>> RB005 CAB 1,601,587 06-02-08 6:50p rb005.cab

>>> RB000 CAB 1,600,604 06-03-08 7:07p rb000.cab

>>> RB001 CAB 1,601,242 06-04-08 8:01p rb001.cab

>>> 6 file(s) 9,581,886 bytes

>>

>> Interesting. Well, my CABs were closer to 4 MB, which is about a

>> tenth the size of the restore points in XP. (but of course, they

>> are more limited in what they can correct in 98SE, since less is in

>> there)

>

> You may have had huge apps installed like maybe Office. I only have MS

> Works. Also, playing with User Profiles can bloat a registry, if you've

> ever done that.

 

Yup. I have lots of apps installed, including Office.

 

My Total File Count (including Windows, Program Files, etc) on the C:

partition is about 100,000 files for the WinXP computer, and 60,000 files

for the Win98SE computer (NOTE: This is NOT counting the TIF - I subtracted

that out). What's yours? (You'll may need some other app to get a

Total File Count).

>>>> So it's useful if you need to roll back to a previous time (and is

>>>> more effective that way than scanreg /restore, since it is much more

>>>> complete - it monitors files added since the last checkpoint, etc,

>>>> and can put back the previous ones, if there were any changes. (Of

>>>> course, it doesn't monitor things like, say, a text file, or what

>>>> have you, as those aren't needed for any system restorations).

>>>

>>> It does sound to be more thorough than a ScanReg /Restore.

>>

>> MUCH more so. No comparsion. Scanreg /restore ONLY restores the

>> registry, and nothing more. That is considerably more limited

>> (albeit useful, on some occasions - more on that below).

>

> Yep. On the minus side, I'm sure it gives the hard drive a much more

> rigorous usage each day.

 

Well, I kinda doubt it. Much less so then running Defrag, I bet.

>>> You say you

>>> did it & you did ERUNT too on occasion? What were the occasions? How

>>> do you choose between the two?

>>

>> The right tool for the right job. Maybe a somewhat oversimplified

>> explanation would be as follows:

>>

>> If I knew the changes were pretty minimal, ERUNT would be sufficient,

>> and it is quickest. ERUNT is directly analogous to using scanreg

>> and scanreg /restore. It ONLY saves and restores the registry

>> (normally, without additional customizations)

>

> That sounds about right. Can you do an ERUNT & easily undo it?

 

I simply restore the previous one - no biggie. However, System Restore

has an Undo, if (for some weird reason) you don't like its restore.

> That's a

> tad tricky to do with ScanReg. In fact, I'd have to experiment AGAIN to

> be sure what to do for that! After my 1st round of experimentation a

> while ago, I came to believe ScanReg /Restore will put the current

> Registry into... RB(next avail number).reg. SO... you'd have to remember

> what that was, if you wanted it back!

 

Yup. There are normally 5 numbered backups, and you can choose which one

to restore, assuming you know which one you want. Well, often it's one a

day if you turn off your computer each day, so it's a daily thing.

Hopefully you have SOME idea of which date you want to roll back to.

>> If the changes were relatively large, I'd (normally) use System

>> Restore. (one (slightly annoying) thing about System Restore is it

>> monitors lots of files or file types that it thinks could have been

>> problematic, so you need to be sure to save some recently downloaded

>> EXE, DLL, etc files (or whatever, in that vein), in the properly

>> designated place, typically under Documents and Settings, which is

>> NOT monitored - but other than that, it's no big deal).

>

> What is this about? You have to keep an eye on what it does?

 

Only to the extent of saving file types that are flagged as the potentially

problematic types (like EXEs) in the properly designated place, and not just

any old place you choose on the hard drive. This, since System Restore in

all its "intelligence", might think it could have contributed to your

problem (i.e., of needing to be "undone", just like a virus or bad EXE could

do).

> Does it produce a report? It is difficult to undo?

 

Not exactly. But System Restore has an Undo if you want to undo it.

Report? Well, it says it successfully completed, (or couldn't, for some

weird reason, like there was way too much to reverse or recover, in which

case it leaves it untouched).

 

And it gives the date and time, right there on a calendar, which is nice.

:-)

>> If the changes were *really extensive*, I wouldn't rely on either,

>> and I'd restore a Backup from the backup drive. (A clear cut case

>> of this would be with something like Office or a Service Pack - say

>> going back to a prior version, or whatever; in that case, the only

>> safe and assured way to get the system back (guaranteed) AS IT WAS,

>> would be to do a backup drive restoration)

>

> Very good.

>

>>>>>>>> And I've also used ERUNT, on occasion.

>>>>>>>> ERUNT is used like scanreg and scanreg /restore, to save or

>>>>>>>> restore just the registry), whereas "System Restore" saves

>>>>>>>> and restores a whole lot more (including the files it monitors).

>>>

>>> ...snip

>>>>>> But the best (most assured) way is to restore a backup image, if

>>>>>> something really goes astray (but sometimes that is a bit

>>>>>> overkill, too).

>>>>>

>>>>> Yea. But I think our BING clones are better than any Image which is

>>>>> tougher to deal with.

>>>>

>>>> I'll take either one. Or rather, I'd like to have the option of

>>>> using either one. :-)

>>>

>>> Alright. I can see this is still needed despite you have System

>>> Restore.

>>

>> Well again, it's nice to have a SET of tools, and to use the best

>> tool for the most appropriate occasion.

>

> Uhuh.

 

Yup! :-)

[Guest PCR]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

| PCR wrote:

|> Bill in Co. wrote:

 

....snip

|>>>> Yes, and (also) just to give you some idea, the System Restore

|>>>> saved checkpoints are often around 60 MB or so in size (which is

|>>>> perhaps 10 times that of a typical scanreg cab file). But then

|>>>> again, it's saving a LOT more (than just the registry). And is

|>>>> kinda like a saved snapshot of the system, in time.

|>>>

|>>> That's a damn lot! I hope the hard drives can take it! If so, it

|>>> seems like a good idea, I guess. But all 6 of my .cabs together are

|>>> less than 1/6 of that...!...

|>>>

|>>> C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP>dir rb???.cab /od

|>>> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

|>>> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p rbbad.cab

|>>> RB003 CAB 1,601,406 05-31-08 6:45p rb003.cab

|>>> RB004 CAB 1,601,383 06-01-08 3:44p rb004.cab

|>>> RB005 CAB 1,601,587 06-02-08 6:50p rb005.cab

|>>> RB000 CAB 1,600,604 06-03-08 7:07p rb000.cab

|>>> RB001 CAB 1,601,242 06-04-08 8:01p rb001.cab

|>>> 6 file(s) 9,581,886 bytes

|>>

|>> Interesting. Well, my CABs were closer to 4 MB, which is about a

|>> tenth the size of the restore points in XP. (but of course, they

|>> are more limited in what they can correct in 98SE, since less is in

|>> there)

|>

|> You may have had huge apps installed like maybe Office. I only have

|> MS Works. Also, playing with User Profiles can bloat a registry, if

|> you've ever done that.

|

| Yup. I have lots of apps installed, including Office.

|

| My Total File Count (including Windows, Program Files, etc) on the C:

| partition is about 100,000 files for the WinXP computer, and 60,000

| files for the Win98SE computer (NOTE: This is NOT counting the TIF -

| I subtracted that out). What's yours? (You'll may need some

| other app to get a Total File Count).

 

By opening Explorer to a drive, Edit menu selecting all, & R-Clk for

Properties, I get...

 

C:... 10,654 files, 785 folders, 1,359,436,530 bytes

(The original Compaq install minus the following...)

E:... 2,187 files, 193 folders, 723,288,706 bytes

(My Documents, My Downloads, the Win98SE .cabs, &

WU (Windows Update) downloads.)

G:... 1,658 files, 20 folders, 220,327,572 bytes

(OE Store & TIFs.)

 

So... you have a lot, lot more for your Registry to swallow!

 

|>>>> So it's useful if you need to roll back to a previous time (and is

|>>>> more effective that way than scanreg /restore, since it is much

|>>>> more complete - it monitors files added since the last

|>>>> checkpoint, etc, and can put back the previous ones, if there

|>>>> were any changes. (Of course, it doesn't monitor things like,

|>>>> say, a text file, or what have you, as those aren't needed for

|>>>> any system restorations).

|>>>

|>>> It does sound to be more thorough than a ScanReg /Restore.

|>>

|>> MUCH more so. No comparsion. Scanreg /restore ONLY restores the

|>> registry, and nothing more. That is considerably more limited

|>> (albeit useful, on some occasions - more on that below).

|>

|> Yep. On the minus side, I'm sure it gives the hard drive a much more

|> rigorous usage each day.

|

| Well, I kinda doubt it. Much less so then running Defrag, I bet.

 

Well... what is the size of your Registry & that .dll cache? Have you

even found where they are yet?

 

|>>> You say you

|>>> did it & you did ERUNT too on occasion? What were the occasions?

|>>> How do you choose between the two?

|>>

|>> The right tool for the right job. Maybe a somewhat oversimplified

|>> explanation would be as follows:

|>>

|>> If I knew the changes were pretty minimal, ERUNT would be

|>> sufficient, and it is quickest. ERUNT is directly analogous to

|>> using scanreg and scanreg /restore. It ONLY saves and restores the

|>> registry (normally, without additional customizations)

|>

|> That sounds about right. Can you do an ERUNT & easily undo it?

|

| I simply restore the previous one - no biggie. However, System

| Restore has an Undo, if (for some weird reason) you don't like its

| restore.

 

That's a big plus, I guess.

 

|> That's a

|> tad tricky to do with ScanReg. In fact, I'd have to experiment AGAIN

|> to be sure what to do for that! After my 1st round of

|> experimentation a while ago, I came to believe ScanReg /Restore will

|> put the current Registry into... RB(next avail number).reg. SO...

..........I meant: .cab!

|> you'd have to remember what that was, if you wanted it back!

|

| Yup. There are normally 5 numbered backups, and you can choose

| which one to restore, assuming you know which one you want. Well,

| often it's one a day if you turn off your computer each day, so it's

| a daily thing. Hopefully you have SOME idea of which date you want to

| roll back to.

 

Right. BUT... I'm speaking about the Registry that is current JUST

BEFORE you do a ScanReg /Restore. Obviously, normally you don't want it

back. However, if you do... I (currently) believe it is found in the

RB(next avail number).cab-- that is the next available number JUST

BEFORE doing the /Restore. That's what I believe Win98 does, pending

further investigation. It doesn't really make sense it SHOULD do that,

because it deletes the oldest .cab since only 5 are kept (you know).

That's why I need to experiment once more just to be sure of it! It

could be why some have said to backup all 5 RB..cabs just before

beginning those /Restore! But they never said why!

 

RBbad.cab is filled when by a ScanReg /FIX or when Windows does an

auto-Restore at boot for whatever reason. RBbad.cab is untouched by

/Restore.

 

|>> If the changes were relatively large, I'd (normally) use System

|>> Restore. (one (slightly annoying) thing about System Restore is it

|>> monitors lots of files or file types that it thinks could have been

|>> problematic, so you need to be sure to save some recently downloaded

|>> EXE, DLL, etc files (or whatever, in that vein), in the properly

|>> designated place, typically under Documents and Settings, which is

|>> NOT monitored - but other than that, it's no big deal).

|>

|> What is this about? You have to keep an eye on what it does?

|

| Only to the extent of saving file types that are flagged as the

| potentially problematic types (like EXEs) in the properly designated

| place, and not just any old place you choose on the hard drive.

| This, since System Restore in all its "intelligence", might think it

| could have contributed to your problem (i.e., of needing to be

| "undone", just like a virus or bad EXE could do).

 

So... you are saying... you want to prevent System Restore from undoing

some install you know wasn't the problem? You do that by putting its

..exe's in a safe place? That seems to be a bigger bug-a-boo than you are

admitting! I'd hate to have to take special measures like that! Can't

you do a System Save after your install when you know it worked well?

Then wouldn't a System Restore incorporate that install & not destroy

it?

 

|> Does it produce a report? It is difficult to undo?

|

| Not exactly. But System Restore has an Undo if you want to undo it.

| Report? Well, it says it successfully completed, (or couldn't, for

| some weird reason, like there was way too much to reverse or recover,

| in which case it leaves it untouched).

 

I'm not very pleased with System Restore! It's beginning to sound

mysterious & unreliable! Undo is nice, but, if you don't know what it's

done in the first place-- how do you know it's undone it all? I think

you need something like InCtrl5 to track what has been done & undone!

 

| And it gives the date and time, right there on a calendar, which is

| nice. :-)

 

Wow-ee-- a date & time! I'd rather have a real report!

 

....snip

| Yup! :-)

 

:-).

 

--

Thanks or Good Luck,

There may be humor in this post, and,

Naturally, you will not sue,

Should things get worse after this,

PCR

pcrrcp@netzero.net

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

PCR wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> PCR wrote:

>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>

> ...snip

>>>>>> Yes, and (also) just to give you some idea, the System Restore

>>>>>> saved checkpoints are often around 60 MB or so in size (which is

>>>>>> perhaps 10 times that of a typical scanreg cab file). But then

>>>>>> again, it's saving a LOT more (than just the registry). And is

>>>>>> kinda like a saved snapshot of the system, in time.

>>>>>

>>>>> That's a damn lot! I hope the hard drives can take it! If so, it

>>>>> seems like a good idea, I guess. But all 6 of my .cabs together are

>>>>> less than 1/6 of that...!...

>>>>>

>>>>> C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP>dir rb???.cab /od

>>>>> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

>>>>> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p rbbad.cab

>>>>> RB003 CAB 1,601,406 05-31-08 6:45p rb003.cab

>>>>> RB004 CAB 1,601,383 06-01-08 3:44p rb004.cab

>>>>> RB005 CAB 1,601,587 06-02-08 6:50p rb005.cab

>>>>> RB000 CAB 1,600,604 06-03-08 7:07p rb000.cab

>>>>> RB001 CAB 1,601,242 06-04-08 8:01p rb001.cab

>>>>> 6 file(s) 9,581,886 bytes

>>>>

>>>> Interesting. Well, my CABs were closer to 4 MB, which is about a

>>>> tenth the size of the restore points in XP. (but of course, they

>>>> are more limited in what they can correct in 98SE, since less is in

>>>> there)

>>>

>>> You may have had huge apps installed like maybe Office. I only have

>>> MS Works. Also, playing with User Profiles can bloat a registry, if

>>> you've ever done that.

>>

>> Yup. I have lots of apps installed, including Office.

>>

>> My Total File Count (including Windows, Program Files, etc) on the C:

>> partition is about 100,000 files for the WinXP computer, and 60,000

>> files for the Win98SE computer (NOTE: This is NOT counting the TIF -

>> I subtracted that out). What's yours? (You'll may need some

>> other app to get a Total File Count).

>

> By opening Explorer to a drive, Edit menu selecting all, & R-Clk for

> Properties, I get...

>

> C:... 10,654 files, 785 folders, 1,359,436,530 bytes

> (The original Compaq install minus the following...)

> E:... 2,187 files, 193 folders, 723,288,706 bytes

> (My Documents, My Downloads, the Win98SE .cabs, &

> WU (Windows Update) downloads.)

> G:... 1,658 files, 20 folders, 220,327,572 bytes

> (OE Store & TIFs.)

>

> So... you have a lot, lot more for your Registry to swallow!

 

Indeed! A lot more.

>>>>>> So it's useful if you need to roll back to a previous time (and is

>>>>>> more effective that way than scanreg /restore, since it is much

>>>>>> more complete - it monitors files added since the last

>>>>>> checkpoint, etc, and can put back the previous ones, if there

>>>>>> were any changes. (Of course, it doesn't monitor things like,

>>>>>> say, a text file, or what have you, as those aren't needed for

>>>>>> any system restorations).

>>>>>

>>>>> It does sound to be more thorough than a ScanReg /Restore.

>>>>

>>>> MUCH more so. No comparsion. Scanreg /restore ONLY restores the

>>>> registry, and nothing more. That is considerably more limited

>>>> (albeit useful, on some occasions - more on that below).

>>>

>>> Yep. On the minus side, I'm sure it gives the hard drive a much more

>>> rigorous usage each day.

>>

>> Well, I kinda doubt it. Much less so then running Defrag, I bet.

>

> Well... what is the size of your Registry & that .dll cache? Have you

> even found where they are yet?

 

Well, the ERUNT bckups (i.e. registry) are about 50 MB each, (vs 4-5 MB on

my Win98SE computer).

 

The dllcache folder just contains a bunch of DLL, SYS, OCX, INI, etc,

files, and is about 500 MB total (with about 3000 files in there).

>>>>> You say you

>>>>> did it & you did ERUNT too on occasion? What were the occasions?

>>>>> How do you choose between the two?

>>>>

>>>> The right tool for the right job. Maybe a somewhat oversimplified

>>>> explanation would be as follows:

>>>>

>>>> If I knew the changes were pretty minimal, ERUNT would be

>>>> sufficient, and it is quickest. ERUNT is directly analogous to

>>>> using scanreg and scanreg /restore. It ONLY saves and restores the

>>>> registry (normally, without additional customizations)

>>>

>>> That sounds about right. Can you do an ERUNT & easily undo it?

>>

>> I simply restore the previous one - no biggie. However, System

>> Restore has an Undo, if (for some weird reason) you don't like its

>> restore.

>

> That's a big plus, I guess.

>

>>> That's a

>>> tad tricky to do with ScanReg. In fact, I'd have to experiment AGAIN

>>> to be sure what to do for that! After my 1st round of

>>> experimentation a while ago, I came to believe ScanReg /Restore will

>>> put the current Registry into... RB(next avail number).reg. SO...

>>> .........I meant: .cab! you'd have to remember what that was, if you

>>> wanted it back!

>>

>> Yup. There are normally 5 numbered backups, and you can choose

>> which one to restore, assuming you know which one you want. Well,

>> often it's one a day if you turn off your computer each day, so it's

>> a daily thing. Hopefully you have SOME idea of which date you want to

>> roll back to.

>

> Right. BUT... I'm speaking about the Registry that is current JUST

> BEFORE you do a ScanReg /Restore. Obviously, normally you don't want it

> back. However, if you do... I (currently) believe it is found in the

> RB(next avail number).cab-- that is the next available number JUST

> BEFORE doing the /Restore.

 

It is?? I don't think so. I thought we HAD to run scanreg to create

one (or let it happen automatically every day). Where the *current

registry* really is, is in the "system.dat" and "user.dat" files, but not

the cab files (until you run scanreg to create one)

> That's what I believe Win98 does, pending further investigation.

 

Huh? No, I don't think so. I think you HAVE to run scanreg to create

one (or let it do it automatically each day).

> It doesn't really make sense it SHOULD do that,

 

I don't think it does, either.

> because it deletes the oldest .cab since only 5 are kept (you know).

 

Right.

> That's why I need to experiment once more just to be sure of it! It

> could be why some have said to backup all 5 RB..cabs just before

> beginning those /Restore! But they never said why!

 

I've rarely seen the need to backup all 5 RB backups.

 

However, on some experimental occasions, I have copied all of them into

another folder (under SysBackup, called "Extra"), IF I felt I was going to

be experimenting a lot with the computer over a few days, and might want to

fall back on one of them, and not lose them due to overwrites. (Then

later I delete those)

> RBbad.cab is filled when by a ScanReg /FIX or when Windows does an

> auto-Restore at boot for whatever reason. RBbad.cab is untouched by

> /Restore.

>

>>>> If the changes were relatively large, I'd (normally) use System

>>>> Restore. (one (slightly annoying) thing about System Restore is it

>>>> monitors lots of files or file types that it thinks could have been

>>>> problematic, so you need to be sure to save some recently downloaded

>>>> EXE, DLL, etc files (or whatever, in that vein), in the properly

>>>> designated place, typically under Documents and Settings, which is

>>>> NOT monitored - but other than that, it's no big deal).

>>>

>>> What is this about? You have to keep an eye on what it does?

>>

>> Only to the extent of saving file types that are flagged as the

>> potentially problematic types (like EXEs) in the properly designated

>> place, and not just any old place you choose on the hard drive.

>> This, since System Restore in all its "intelligence", might think it

>> could have contributed to your problem (i.e., of needing to be

>> "undone", just like a virus or bad EXE could do).

>

> So... you are saying... you want to prevent System Restore from undoing

> some install you know wasn't the problem? You do that by putting its

> .exe's in a safe place?

 

No, only EXEs, (for example), that I have recently downloaded or added to my

system since the last System Restore IF they are not saved in the properly

designated place. NOT all the ones that are already on the computer!!!

 

Otherwise, System Restore can think they may have been part of the problem

we're trying to correct, so it anticipates that, and removes them (IF you

didn't pay heed and save them in the proper (and "unmonitored") place, like

under Documents and Files).

> That seems to be a bigger bug-a-boo than you are admitting!

 

Not really. See above.

> I'd hate to have to take special measures like that!

 

It's not THAT big a deal, it's just a minor inconvenience. :-)

 

Yes, I'd prefer that I could download and leave any files of any type

anywhere on the disk that I wanted. But then how would System Restore KNOW

FOR CERTAIN that they weren't problematic, when you asked for a rollback?

Obviously, if you are asking for a rollback, SOMETHING contributed to the

problem, and it doesn't have an I.Q. of 180, you know. :-)

> Can't you do a System Save after your install when you know it worked

> well?

 

Sure. If you run System Restore to create a System Restore point, that

takes care of it! (forgot to mention that!). And I usually do that

after I've installed something and am happy with it. Actually, System

Restore is pretty smart, in that it will automatically create a restore

point when you install a program, just to play it safe. So if you don't

like what happened to your system after installing it, you can uninstall it

and rollback to the prior restore point. That takes care of the registry

AND many other files too that were since added by the errant program (unlike

scanreg /restore, which does NOTHING about that).

> Then wouldn't a System Restore incorporate that install & not destroy it?

>

>>> Does it produce a report? It is difficult to undo?

>>

>> Not exactly. But System Restore has an Undo if you want to undo it.

>> Report? Well, it says it successfully completed, (or couldn't, for

>> some weird reason, like there was way too much to reverse or recover,

>> in which case it leaves it untouched).

>

> I'm not very pleased with System Restore! It's beginning to sound

> mysterious & unreliable!

 

Not really. Sorry I haven't explained it well, and may be scaring you.

But reread what I wrote above.

> Undo is nice, but, if you don't know what it's done in the first place

 

I kinda know. :-)

 

-- how do you know it's undone it all? I think

> you need something like InCtrl5 to track what has been done & undone!

 

IF you feel the need to know exactly what has been written to the disk and

registry, and has been done and undone, you're micromanaging it. Heck,

you (we) don't even know all that by running "scanreg" and "scanreg

/restore" in Win98SE, do we? (rhetorical). We just have (or should have)

some idea.

>> And it gives the date and time, right there on a calendar, which is

>> nice. :-)

>

> Wow-ee-- a date & time! I'd rather have a real report!

>

> ...snip

>> Yup! :-)

>

> :-).

>

> --

> Thanks or Good Luck,

> There may be humor in this post, and,

> Naturally, you will not sue,

> Should things get worse after this,

> PCR

> pcrrcp@netzero.net

[Guest PCR]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

| PCR wrote:

|> Bill in Co. wrote:

|>> PCR wrote:

|>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

 

....snip

|>> My Total File Count (including Windows, Program Files, etc) on the

|>> C: partition is about 100,000 files for the WinXP computer, and

|>> 60,000 files for the Win98SE computer (NOTE: This is NOT counting

|>> the TIF - I subtracted that out). What's yours? (You'll may

|>> need some other app to get a Total File Count).

|>

|> By opening Explorer to a drive, Edit menu selecting all, & R-Clk for

|> Properties, I get...

|>

|> C:... 10,654 files, 785 folders, 1,359,436,530 bytes

|> (The original Compaq install minus the following...)

|> E:... 2,187 files, 193 folders, 723,288,706 bytes

|> (My Documents, My Downloads, the Win98SE .cabs, &

|> WU (Windows Update) downloads.)

|> G:... 1,658 files, 20 folders, 220,327,572 bytes

|> (OE Store & TIFs.)

|>

|> So... you have a lot, lot more for your Registry to swallow!

|

| Indeed! A lot more.

 

Yea. You must have took some big ones. Also, I know you collect things,

like music files maybe. This Compaq didn't quite come empty, though. It

has MS Works, MS Money, MS Encarta, ArcSoft PhotoPrinter, Built-In

Technician, CeQuadrat, etc. But I've hardly run any of that.

 

|>>>>>> So it's useful if you need to roll back to a previous time (and

|>>>>>> is more effective that way than scanreg /restore, since it is

|>>>>>> much more complete - it monitors files added since the last

|>>>>>> checkpoint, etc, and can put back the previous ones, if there

|>>>>>> were any changes. (Of course, it doesn't monitor things like,

|>>>>>> say, a text file, or what have you, as those aren't needed for

|>>>>>> any system restorations).

|>>>>>

|>>>>> It does sound to be more thorough than a ScanReg /Restore.

|>>>>

|>>>> MUCH more so. No comparsion. Scanreg /restore ONLY restores

|>>>> the registry, and nothing more. That is considerably more

|>>>> limited (albeit useful, on some occasions - more on that below).

|>>>

|>>> Yep. On the minus side, I'm sure it gives the hard drive a much

|>>> more rigorous usage each day.

|>>

|>> Well, I kinda doubt it. Much less so then running Defrag, I bet.

|>

|> Well... what is the size of your Registry & that .dll cache? Have you

|> even found where they are yet?

|

| Well, the ERUNT bckups (i.e. registry) are about 50 MB each, (vs 4-5

| MB on my Win98SE computer).

|

| The dllcache folder just contains a bunch of DLL, SYS, OCX, INI, etc,

| files, and is about 500 MB total (with about 3000 files in there).

 

That's a damn lot! And all of that is done automatically each day? I

presume a System Save incorporates an ERUNT. Yow!

 

....snip

|>>> That's a

|>>> tad tricky to do with ScanReg. In fact, I'd have to experiment

|>>> AGAIN to be sure what to do for that! After my 1st round of

|>>> experimentation a while ago, I came to believe ScanReg /Restore

|>>> will put the current Registry into... RB(next avail number).reg.

|>>> SO... .........I meant: .cab! you'd have to remember what that

|>>> was, if you wanted it back!

|>>

|>> Yup. There are normally 5 numbered backups, and you can choose

|>> which one to restore, assuming you know which one you want. Well,

|>> often it's one a day if you turn off your computer each day, so it's

|>> a daily thing. Hopefully you have SOME idea of which date you want

|>> to roll back to.

|>

|> Right. BUT... I'm speaking about the Registry that is current JUST

|> BEFORE you do a ScanReg /Restore. Obviously, normally you don't want

|> it back. However, if you do... I (currently) believe it is found in

|> the RB(next avail number).cab-- that is the next available number

|> JUST BEFORE doing the /Restore.

|

| It is?? I don't think so. I thought we HAD to run scanreg to

| create one (or let it happen automatically every day). Where the

| *current registry* really is, is in the "system.dat" and "user.dat"

| files, but not the cab files (until you run scanreg to create one)

 

In experimentation, I thought I DID notice that a ScanReg /Restore

deposits the current Registry (System.dat, User.dat, Win.ini &

System.ini) into RB(next avail number).cab, just before restoring the

chosen one. HOWEVER, it makes so little sense (it would have to push out

the oldest saved one)... that I guess I must go experiment again just to

be sure. So, if you had the following & you /Restore RB001.cab, you lose

RB005.cab. It is pushed out to make room for RB006.cab, which is the one

replaced.

 

RB001.cab

RB002.cab

RB003.cab

RB004.cab

RB005.cab

 

|> That's what I believe Win98 does, pending further investigation.

|

| Huh? No, I don't think so. I think you HAVE to run scanreg to

| create one (or let it do it automatically each day).

 

Those are the normal ways. But don't forget, both ScanReg /FIX & the

auto-ScanReg at boot when Windows detects a problem will create that

RBbad.cab.

 

Fine-- I'll try to get it done by tomorrow! (Probably, I'll have egg on

my face-- but it's too late now to back down.)

 

|> It doesn't really make sense it SHOULD do that,

|

| I don't think it does, either.

|

|> because it deletes the oldest .cab since only 5 are kept (you know).

|

| Right.

|

|> That's why I need to experiment once more just to be sure of it! It

|> could be why some have said to backup all 5 RB..cabs just before

|> beginning those /Restore! But they never said why!

|

| I've rarely seen the need to backup all 5 RB backups.

 

Me neither. But, if you've got 5, you should have access to 5-- & not

destroy the oldest at each /Restore. I'm beginning to think I have to be

wrong about that, but will report by tomorrow.

 

| However, on some experimental occasions, I have copied all of them

| into another folder (under SysBackup, called "Extra"), IF I felt I

| was going to be experimenting a lot with the computer over a few

| days, and might want to fall back on one of them, and not lose them

| due to overwrites. (Then later I delete those)

 

Yep. I've got C:\REGBCKUP for that.

 

|> RBbad.cab is filled when by a ScanReg /FIX or when Windows does an

|> auto-Restore at boot for whatever reason. RBbad.cab is untouched by

|> /Restore.

|>

|>>>> If the changes were relatively large, I'd (normally) use System

|>>>> Restore. (one (slightly annoying) thing about System Restore is it

|>>>> monitors lots of files or file types that it thinks could have

|>>>> been problematic, so you need to be sure to save some recently

|>>>> downloaded EXE, DLL, etc files (or whatever, in that vein), in

|>>>> the properly designated place, typically under Documents and

|>>>> Settings, which is NOT monitored - but other than that, it's no

|>>>> big deal).

|>>>

|>>> What is this about? You have to keep an eye on what it does?

|>>

|>> Only to the extent of saving file types that are flagged as the

|>> potentially problematic types (like EXEs) in the properly designated

|>> place, and not just any old place you choose on the hard drive.

|>> This, since System Restore in all its "intelligence", might think it

|>> could have contributed to your problem (i.e., of needing to be

|>> "undone", just like a virus or bad EXE could do).

|>

|> So... you are saying... you want to prevent System Restore from

|> undoing some install you know wasn't the problem? You do that by

|> putting its .exe's in a safe place?

|

| No, only EXEs, (for example), that I have recently downloaded or

| added to my system since the last System Restore IF they are not

| saved in the properly designated place. NOT all the ones that are

| already on the computer!!!

|

| Otherwise, System Restore can think they may have been part of the

| problem we're trying to correct, so it anticipates that, and removes

| them (IF you didn't pay heed and save them in the proper (and

| "unmonitored") place, like under Documents and Files).

|

|> That seems to be a bigger bug-a-boo than you are admitting!

|

| Not really. See above.

|

|> I'd hate to have to take special measures like that!

|

| It's not THAT big a deal, it's just a minor inconvenience. :-)

|

| Yes, I'd prefer that I could download and leave any files of any type

| anywhere on the disk that I wanted. But then how would System

| Restore KNOW FOR CERTAIN that they weren't problematic, when you

| asked for a rollback? Obviously, if you are asking for a rollback,

| SOMETHING contributed to the problem, and it doesn't have an I.Q. of

| 180, you know. :-)

 

Yea, but... doesn't the install want to have its EXEs, etc. where it put

them? How do you even know where all files went & how many there were?

Are you meaning to put them back again after the System Restore? Sheesh!

 

|> Can't you do a System Save after your install when you know it worked

|> well?

|

| Sure. If you run System Restore to create a System Restore point,

| that takes care of it! (forgot to mention that!). And I usually

| do that after I've installed something and am happy with it.

| Actually, System Restore is pretty smart, in that it will

| automatically create a restore point when you install a program, just

| to play it safe. So if you don't like what happened to your system

| after installing it, you can uninstall it and rollback to the prior

| restore point. That takes care of the registry AND many other

| files too that were since added by the errant program (unlike scanreg

| /restore, which does NOTHING about that).

 

OK. So... OK, that sounds about normal, then. After you've done an

install (& all seems well) -- if system folders were involved (& I guess

they would be) -- you need to do a System Save. Fine. Is it clear when

XP does that automatically so that you don't do it twice? 3000 files &

50 MB Registries is lot!

 

|> Then wouldn't a System Restore incorporate that install & not

|> destroy it?

|>

|>>> Does it produce a report? It is difficult to undo?

|>>

|>> Not exactly. But System Restore has an Undo if you want to undo

|>> it. Report? Well, it says it successfully completed, (or couldn't,

|>> for some weird reason, like there was way too much to reverse or

|>> recover, in which case it leaves it untouched).

|>

|> I'm not very pleased with System Restore! It's beginning to sound

|> mysterious & unreliable!

|

| Not really. Sorry I haven't explained it well, and may be scaring

| you. But reread what I wrote above.

 

It's a bit less scary. I would want to be current on my System Saves--

instead of tracking & moving files back & forth!

 

|> Undo is nice, but, if you don't know what it's done in the first

|> place

|

| I kinda know. :-)

 

Yea. :-).

 

| -- how do you know it's undone it all? I think

|> you need something like InCtrl5 to track what has been done & undone!

|

| IF you feel the need to know exactly what has been written to the

| disk and registry, and has been done and undone, you're micromanaging

| it. Heck, you (we) don't even know all that by running "scanreg"

| and "scanreg /restore" in Win98SE, do we? (rhetorical). We just

| have (or should have) some idea.

 

InCtrl5 is a big help for that. However, it is daunting to look at truly

big installs. (Yea, you're right.)

 

 

....snip

--

Thanks or Good Luck,

There may be humor in this post, and,

Naturally, you will not sue,

Should things get worse after this,

PCR

pcrrcp@netzero.net

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

PCR wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> PCR wrote:

>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>> PCR wrote:

>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>

> ...snip

>>>> My Total File Count (including Windows, Program Files, etc) on the

>>>> C: partition is about 100,000 files for the WinXP computer, and

>>>> 60,000 files for the Win98SE computer (NOTE: This is NOT counting

>>>> the TIF - I subtracted that out). What's yours? (You'll may

>>>> need some other app to get a Total File Count).

>>>

>>> By opening Explorer to a drive, Edit menu selecting all, & R-Clk for

>>> Properties, I get...

>>>

>>> C:... 10,654 files, 785 folders, 1,359,436,530 bytes

>>> (The original Compaq install minus the following...)

>>> E:... 2,187 files, 193 folders, 723,288,706 bytes

>>> (My Documents, My Downloads, the Win98SE .cabs, &

>>> WU (Windows Update) downloads.)

>>> G:... 1,658 files, 20 folders, 220,327,572 bytes

>>> (OE Store & TIFs.)

>>>

>>> So... you have a lot, lot more for your Registry to swallow!

>>

>> Indeed! A lot more.

>

> Yea. You must have took some big ones. Also, I know you collect things,

> like music files maybe.

 

And several programs that work on audio (and some video) files, like wav

editors and audio restoration programs, etc.

> This Compaq didn't quite come empty, though. It

> has MS Works, MS Money, MS Encarta, ArcSoft PhotoPrinter, Built-In

> Technician, CeQuadrat, etc. But I've hardly run any of that.

 

Most of those are small.

I still have - and use - MS Works 4.5, in addition to Word (using the right

tool for the right job :-). But MS Works really went downhill after

that, and I refuse to use or install ANY of the succeeding ones! If I

want or need more, I use MS Word (in Office 2000).

>>>>>>>> So it's useful if you need to roll back to a previous time (and

>>>>>>>> is more effective that way than scanreg /restore, since it is

>>>>>>>> much more complete - it monitors files added since the last

>>>>>>>> checkpoint, etc, and can put back the previous ones, if there

>>>>>>>> were any changes. (Of course, it doesn't monitor things like,

>>>>>>>> say, a text file, or what have you, as those aren't needed for

>>>>>>>> any system restorations).

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> It does sound to be more thorough than a ScanReg /Restore.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> MUCH more so. No comparsion. Scanreg /restore ONLY restores

>>>>>> the registry, and nothing more. That is considerably more

>>>>>> limited (albeit useful, on some occasions - more on that below).

>>>>>

>>>>> Yep. On the minus side, I'm sure it gives the hard drive a much

>>>>> more rigorous usage each day.

>>>>

>>>> Well, I kinda doubt it. Much less so then running Defrag, I bet.

>>>

>>> Well... what is the size of your Registry & that .dll cache? Have you

>>> even found where they are yet?

>>

>> Well, the ERUNT bckups (i.e. registry) are about 50 MB each, (vs 4-5

>> MB on my Win98SE computer).

>>

>> The dllcache folder just contains a bunch of DLL, SYS, OCX, INI, etc,

>> files, and is about 500 MB total (with about 3000 files in there).

>

> That's a damn lot! And all of that is done automatically each day?

 

No. (not the dllcache subfolder contents, for example, unless part of it

changed, in which case only the changed files would be).

 

As I said, the System Restore backup (i.e. restore points) are about 60 MB

in size.

> I presume a System Save incorporates an ERUNT. Yow!

 

"System Save"??? You mean in creating the System Restore checkpoint?

Well yeah, it includes backing up the registry (but not ERUNT, which is a

separate freeware package one can download, if one wants to only

backup/restore just the registry, and no other files)

> ...snip

>>>>> That's a

>>>>> tad tricky to do with ScanReg. In fact, I'd have to experiment

>>>>> AGAIN to be sure what to do for that! After my 1st round of

>>>>> experimentation a while ago, I came to believe ScanReg /Restore

>>>>> will put the current Registry into... RB(next avail number).reg.

>>>>> SO... .........I meant: .cab! you'd have to remember what that

>>>>> was, if you wanted it back!

>>>>

>>>> Yup. There are normally 5 numbered backups, and you can choose

>>>> which one to restore, assuming you know which one you want. Well,

>>>> often it's one a day if you turn off your computer each day, so it's

>>>> a daily thing. Hopefully you have SOME idea of which date you want

>>>> to roll back to.

>>>

>>> Right. BUT... I'm speaking about the Registry that is current JUST

>>> BEFORE you do a ScanReg /Restore. Obviously, normally you don't want

>>> it back. However, if you do... I (currently) believe it is found in

>>> the RB(next avail number).cab-- that is the next available number

>>> JUST BEFORE doing the /Restore.

>>

>> It is?? I don't think so. I thought we HAD to run scanreg to

>> create one (or let it happen automatically every day). Where the

>> *current registry* really is, is in the "system.dat" and "user.dat"

>> files, but not the cab files (until you run scanreg to create one)

>

> In experimentation, I thought I DID notice that a ScanReg /Restore

> deposits the current Registry (System.dat, User.dat, Win.ini &

> System.ini) into RB(next avail number).cab, just before restoring the

> chosen one.

 

I think it may save a temporarily one as it creates a new one, but what good

is that to us, since it's subsequentally erased?

> HOWEVER, it makes so little sense (it would have to push out

> the oldest saved one)... that I guess I must go experiment again just to

> be sure. So, if you had the following & you /Restore RB001.cab, you lose

> RB005.cab. It is pushed out to make room for RB006.cab, which is the one

> replaced.

>

> RB001.cab

> RB002.cab

> RB003.cab

> RB004.cab

> RB005.cab

>

>>> That's what I believe Win98 does, pending further investigation.

>>

>> Huh? No, I don't think so. I think you HAVE to run scanreg to

>> create one (or let it do it automatically each day).

>

> Those are the normal ways. But don't forget, both ScanReg /FIX & the

> auto-ScanReg at boot when Windows detects a problem will create that

> RBbad.cab.

 

True.

> Fine-- I'll try to get it done by tomorrow! (Probably, I'll have egg on

> my face-- but it's too late now to back down.)

>

>>> It doesn't really make sense it SHOULD do that,

>>

>> I don't think it does, either.

>>

>>> because it deletes the oldest .cab since only 5 are kept (you know).

>>

>> Right.

>>

>>> That's why I need to experiment once more just to be sure of it! It

>>> could be why some have said to backup all 5 RB..cabs just before

>>> beginning those /Restore! But they never said why!

>>

>> I've rarely seen the need to backup all 5 RB backups.

>

> Me neither. But, if you've got 5, you should have access to 5-- & not

> destroy the oldest at each /Restore. I'm beginning to think I have to be

> wrong about that, but will report by tomorrow.

>

>> However, on some experimental occasions, I have copied all of them

>> into another folder (under SysBackup, called "Extra"), IF I felt I

>> was going to be experimenting a lot with the computer over a few

>> days, and might want to fall back on one of them, and not lose them

>> due to overwrites. (Then later I delete those)

>

> Yep. I've got C:\REGBCKUP for that.

>

>>> RBbad.cab is filled when by a ScanReg /FIX or when Windows does an

>>> auto-Restore at boot for whatever reason. RBbad.cab is untouched by

>>> /Restore.

>>>

>>>>>> If the changes were relatively large, I'd (normally) use System

>>>>>> Restore. (one (slightly annoying) thing about System Restore is it

>>>>>> monitors lots of files or file types that it thinks could have

>>>>>> been problematic, so you need to be sure to save some recently

>>>>>> downloaded EXE, DLL, etc files (or whatever, in that vein), in

>>>>>> the properly designated place, typically under Documents and

>>>>>> Settings, which is NOT monitored - but other than that, it's no

>>>>>> big deal).

>>>>>

>>>>> What is this about? You have to keep an eye on what it does?

>>>>

>>>> Only to the extent of saving file types that are flagged as the

>>>> potentially problematic types (like EXEs) in the properly designated

>>>> place, and not just any old place you choose on the hard drive.

>>>> This, since System Restore in all its "intelligence", might think it

>>>> could have contributed to your problem (i.e., of needing to be

>>>> "undone", just like a virus or bad EXE could do).

>>>

>>> So... you are saying... you want to prevent System Restore from

>>> undoing some install you know wasn't the problem? You do that by

>>> putting its .exe's in a safe place?

>>

>> No, only EXEs, (for example), that I have recently downloaded or

>> added to my system since the last System Restore IF they are not

>> saved in the properly designated place. NOT all the ones that are

>> already on the computer!!!

>>

>> Otherwise, System Restore can think they may have been part of the

>> problem we're trying to correct, so it anticipates that, and removes

>> them (IF you didn't pay heed and save them in the proper (and

>> "unmonitored") place, like under Documents and Files).

>>

>>> That seems to be a bigger bug-a-boo than you are admitting!

>>

>> Not really. See above.

>>

>>> I'd hate to have to take special measures like that!

>>

>> It's not THAT big a deal, it's just a minor inconvenience. :-)

>>

>> Yes, I'd prefer that I could download and leave any files of any type

>> anywhere on the disk that I wanted. But then how would System

>> Restore KNOW FOR CERTAIN that they weren't problematic, when you

>> asked for a rollback? Obviously, if you are asking for a rollback,

>> SOMETHING contributed to the problem, and it doesn't have an I.Q. of

>> 180, you know. :-)

>

> Yea, but... doesn't the install want to have its EXEs, etc. where it put

> them?

 

Sure. I don't get what you're driving at though. May be clarified

below..

> How do you even know where all files went & how many there were?

 

System Restore keeps track (if, for example, you use Undo, or restore to a

previous checkpoint)

> Are you meaning to put them back again after the System Restore? Sheesh!

 

IF you didn't follow the guidelines. (then shame on you! :-)

>>> Can't you do a System Save after your install when you know it worked

>>> well?

>>

>> Sure. If you run System Restore to create a System Restore point,

>> that takes care of it! (forgot to mention that!). And I usually

>> do that after I've installed something and am happy with it.

>> Actually, System Restore is pretty smart, in that it will

>> automatically create a restore point when you install a program, just

>> to play it safe. So if you don't like what happened to your system

>> after installing it, you can uninstall it and rollback to the prior

>> restore point. That takes care of the registry AND many other

>> files too that were since added by the errant program (unlike scanreg

>> /restore, which does NOTHING about that).

>

> OK. So... OK, that sounds about normal, then. After you've done an

> install (& all seems well) -- if system folders were involved (& I guess

> they would be) -- you need to do a System Save. Fine. Is it clear when

> XP does that automatically so that you don't do it twice? 3000 files &

> 50 MB Registries is lot!

 

3000 files? (No, as I mentioned above about the dllcache - see above)

>>> Then wouldn't a System Restore incorporate that install & not

>>> destroy it?

>>>

>>>>> Does it produce a report? It is difficult to undo?

>>>>

>>>> Not exactly. But System Restore has an Undo if you want to undo

>>>> it. Report? Well, it says it successfully completed, (or couldn't,

>>>> for some weird reason, like there was way too much to reverse or

>>>> recover, in which case it leaves it untouched).

>>>

>>> I'm not very pleased with System Restore! It's beginning to sound

>>> mysterious & unreliable!

>>

>> Not really. Sorry I haven't explained it well, and may be scaring

>> you. But reread what I wrote above.

>

> It's a bit less scary. I would want to be current on my System Saves--

> instead of tracking & moving files back & forth!

>

>>> Undo is nice, but, if you don't know what it's done in the first

>>> place

>>

>> I kinda know. :-)

>

> Yea. :-).

>

>> -- how do you know it's undone it all? I think

>>> you need something like InCtrl5 to track what has been done & undone!

>>

>> IF you feel the need to know exactly what has been written to the

>> disk and registry, and has been done and undone, you're micromanaging

>> it. Heck, you (we) don't even know all that by running "scanreg"

>> and "scanreg /restore" in Win98SE, do we? (rhetorical). We just

>> have (or should have) some idea.

>

> InCtrl5 is a big help for that. However, it is daunting to look at truly

> big installs. (Yea, you're right.)

>

>

> ...snip

> --

> Thanks or Good Luck,

> There may be humor in this post, and,

> Naturally, you will not sue,

> Should things get worse after this,

> PCR

> pcrrcp@netzero.net

[Guest PCR]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Well, we've hit the limit in this thread segment. So, I've moved the

post up.

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

| PCR wrote:

|> Bill in Co. wrote:

 

....snip

|> Yea. You must have took some big ones. Also, I know you collect

|> things, like music files maybe.

|

| And several programs that work on audio (and some video) files, like

| wav editors and audio restoration programs, etc.

 

OK. Right. That's how I remember it from other threads.

 

|> This Compaq didn't quite come empty, though. It

|> has MS Works, MS Money, MS Encarta, ArcSoft PhotoPrinter, Built-In

|> Technician, CeQuadrat, etc. But I've hardly run any of that.

|

| Most of those are small.

| I still have - and use - MS Works 4.5, in addition to Word (using

| the right tool for the right job :-). But MS Works really went

| downhill after that, and I refuse to use or install ANY of the

| succeeding ones! If I want or need more, I use MS Word (in Office

| 2000).

 

I really use only the spreadsheet & only for my taxes. Encarta requires

its CD to work, & I guess most of its stuff is on there. So, yea, I've

got little.

 

|>>>>>>>> So it's useful if you need to roll back to a previous time

|>>>>>>>> (and is more effective that way than scanreg /restore, since

|>>>>>>>> it is much more complete - it monitors files added since the

|>>>>>>>> last checkpoint, etc, and can put back the previous ones, if

|>>>>>>>> there were any changes. (Of course, it doesn't monitor

|>>>>>>>> things like, say, a text file, or what have you, as those

|>>>>>>>> aren't needed for any system restorations).

|>>>>>>>

|>>>>>>> It does sound to be more thorough than a ScanReg /Restore.

|>>>>>>

|>>>>>> MUCH more so. No comparsion. Scanreg /restore ONLY restores

|>>>>>> the registry, and nothing more. That is considerably more

|>>>>>> limited (albeit useful, on some occasions - more on that below).

|>>>>>

|>>>>> Yep. On the minus side, I'm sure it gives the hard drive a much

|>>>>> more rigorous usage each day.

|>>>>

|>>>> Well, I kinda doubt it. Much less so then running Defrag, I

|>>>> bet.

|>>>

|>>> Well... what is the size of your Registry & that .dll cache? Have

|>>> you even found where they are yet?

|>>

|>> Well, the ERUNT bckups (i.e. registry) are about 50 MB each, (vs 4-5

|>> MB on my Win98SE computer).

|>>

|>> The dllcache folder just contains a bunch of DLL, SYS, OCX, INI,

|>> etc, files, and is about 500 MB total (with about 3000 files in

|>> there).

|>

|> That's a damn lot! And all of that is done automatically each day?

|

| No. (not the dllcache subfolder contents, for example, unless part

| of it changed, in which case only the changed files would be).

 

Oops. That's right, as I think you said before. Sure, that's fine, then,

if it only does a kind of incremental.

 

| As I said, the System Restore backup (i.e. restore points) are about

| 60 MB in size.

 

I guess that isn't as large as it sounds. OK, fine.

 

|> I presume a System Save incorporates an ERUNT. Yow!

|

| "System Save"??? You mean in creating the System Restore

| checkpoint? Well yeah, it includes backing up the registry (but not

| ERUNT, which is a separate freeware package one can download, if one

| wants to only backup/restore just the registry, and no other files)

 

Yea, that's what I meant. So... whether it is saving or restoring, it's

still called System Restore. OK, fine, then.

 

|> ...snip

|>>>>> That's a

|>>>>> tad tricky to do with ScanReg. In fact, I'd have to experiment

|>>>>> AGAIN to be sure what to do for that! After my 1st round of

|>>>>> experimentation a while ago, I came to believe ScanReg /Restore

|>>>>> will put the current Registry into... RB(next avail number).reg.

|>>>>> SO... .........I meant: .cab! you'd have to remember what that

|>>>>> was, if you wanted it back!

|>>>>

|>>>> Yup. There are normally 5 numbered backups, and you can choose

|>>>> which one to restore, assuming you know which one you want.

|>>>> Well, often it's one a day if you turn off your computer each

|>>>> day, so it's a daily thing. Hopefully you have SOME idea of which

|>>>> date you want to roll back to.

|>>>

|>>> Right. BUT... I'm speaking about the Registry that is current JUST

|>>> BEFORE you do a ScanReg /Restore. Obviously, normally you don't

|>>> want it back. However, if you do... I (currently) believe it is

|>>> found in the RB(next avail number).cab-- that is the next

|>>> available number JUST BEFORE doing the /Restore.

|>>

|>> It is?? I don't think so. I thought we HAD to run scanreg to

|>> create one (or let it happen automatically every day). Where the

|>> *current registry* really is, is in the "system.dat" and "user.dat"

|>> files, but not the cab files (until you run scanreg to create one)

|>

|> In experimentation, I thought I DID notice that a ScanReg /Restore

|> deposits the current Registry (System.dat, User.dat, Win.ini &

|> System.ini) into RB(next avail number).cab, just before restoring the

|> chosen one.

|

| I think it may save a temporarily one as it creates a new one, but

| what good is that to us, since it's subsequentally erased?

 

Well, I repeated the experiment. I was right, wacky as it may be. Each

ScanReg /Restore wipes out the oldest one! It even says something like

"backing up system files" just before it says something like "restoring

system files"!

 

I started with only 4 backups (not including RBbad.cab, which isn't

offered as a candidate to restore)...

 

Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p

RB003 CAB 1,602,136 06-08-08 2:23p

RB004 CAB 1,602,164 06-09-08 8:01p

RB000 CAB 1,602,660 06-11-08 9:07p

RB001 CAB 1,602,684 06-12-08 9:01p << 1

 

After the /Restore of RB001, there were five. Note the date on RBbad

never changes. The new RB002.cab is bloated. It contains all the files

(System.dat, User.dat, System.ini, & Win.ini) in uncompressed form of

the Registry that was just replaced...

 

Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p

RB003 CAB 1,602,136 06-08-08 2:23p

RB004 CAB 1,602,164 06-09-08 8:01p

RB000 CAB 1,602,660 06-11-08 9:07p << 2

RB001 CAB 1,602,684 06-12-08 9:01p

RB002 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:21a

 

From that, I restored RB000. Now, I have lost RB003-- because it was the

oldest & had to be pushed out to make room for RB005. Yucky...!...

 

Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p

RB004 CAB 1,602,164 06-09-08 8:01p << 3

RB000 CAB 1,602,660 06-11-08 9:07p

RB001 CAB 1,602,684 06-12-08 9:01p

RB002 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:21a

RB005 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:28a

 

Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p

RB000 CAB 1,602,660 06-11-08 9:07p

RB001 CAB 1,602,684 06-12-08 9:01p

RB002 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:21a << 4

RB005 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:28a

RB003 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:36a

 

Finally, I chose to /Restore a bloated one. It worked, or so the message

said. But back in Windows (each time before, I was booting to DOS), it

looks like restoring a bloated one does NOT play with the cabbed

Registries. They stayed the same. (I can't recall whether it said

"backing up system files" that last time.)

 

Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p rbbad.cab

RB000 CAB 1,602,660 06-11-08 9:07p rb000.cab

RB001 CAB 1,602,684 06-12-08 9:01p rb001.cab

RB002 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:21a RB002.CAB

RB005 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:28a RB005.CAB

RB003 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:36a RB003.CAB

 

I can't recommend restoring a bloated one, though. Upon getting back

online & opening OE to this NG-- it wants to download all 14,000+ posts

again! Can it be a coincidence! I went back into DOS & restored my own

saved Registry of yesterday-- but looks like the damage is done. I'm up

to 2079 of 14,314 coming back in! Sheesh! I can't perfectly swear

restoring a bloated one does that-- but I'll certainly never do it

again!

 

....snip

|>> It's not THAT big a deal, it's just a minor inconvenience. :-)

|>>

|>> Yes, I'd prefer that I could download and leave any files of any

|>> type anywhere on the disk that I wanted. But then how would System

|>> Restore KNOW FOR CERTAIN that they weren't problematic, when you

|>> asked for a rollback? Obviously, if you are asking for a rollback,

|>> SOMETHING contributed to the problem, and it doesn't have an I.Q. of

|>> 180, you know. :-)

|>

|> Yea, but... doesn't the install want to have its EXEs, etc. where it

|> put them?

|

| Sure. I don't get what you're driving at though. May be clarified

| below..

|

|> How do you even know where all files went & how many there were?

|

| System Restore keeps track (if, for example, you use Undo, or restore

| to a previous checkpoint)

 

No, I meant how do you know which ones to protect by moving them out of

System Restore's way. But, I guess you are talking about simple installs

that have maybe just one .exe & no Registry entries. For big installs, I

presume you just make the checkpoint. OK.

 

|> Are you meaning to put them back again after the System Restore?

|> Sheesh!

|

| IF you didn't follow the guidelines. (then shame on you! :-)

 

I'll probably follow the guidelines in your position. I don't want my

..exe's wiped, either!

 

|>>> Can't you do a System Save after your install when you know it

|>>> worked well?

|>>

|>> Sure. If you run System Restore to create a System Restore point,

|>> that takes care of it! (forgot to mention that!). And I usually

|>> do that after I've installed something and am happy with it.

|>> Actually, System Restore is pretty smart, in that it will

|>> automatically create a restore point when you install a program,

|>> just to play it safe. So if you don't like what happened to your

|>> system after installing it, you can uninstall it and rollback to

|>> the prior restore point. That takes care of the registry AND

|>> many other files too that were since added by the errant program

|>> (unlike scanreg /restore, which does NOTHING about that).

|>

|> OK. So... OK, that sounds about normal, then. After you've done an

|> install (& all seems well) -- if system folders were involved (& I

|> guess they would be) -- you need to do a System Save. Fine. Is it

|> clear when XP does that automatically so that you don't do it twice?

|> 3000 files & 50 MB Registries is lot!

|

| 3000 files? (No, as I mentioned above about the dllcache - see

| above)

 

Right-- that part isn't so bad, then. But does System Save do this

automatically or not? Do you know when it is doing it, so that you don't

do your own unnecessarily?

 

 

....snip

--

Thanks or Good Luck,

There may be humor in this post, and,

Naturally, you will not sue,

Should things get worse after this,

PCR

pcrrcp@netzero.net

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

PCR wrote:

> Well, we've hit the limit in this thread segment. So, I've moved the

> post up.

 

?? What does that mean ("moved the post up")? Up where?

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> PCR wrote:

>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>

> ...snip

>>> Yea. You must have took some big ones. Also, I know you collect

>>> things, like music files maybe.

>>

>> And several programs that work on audio (and some video) files, like

>> wav editors and audio restoration programs, etc.

>

> OK. Right. That's how I remember it from other threads.

>

>>> This Compaq didn't quite come empty, though. It

>>> has MS Works, MS Money, MS Encarta, ArcSoft PhotoPrinter, Built-In

>>> Technician, CeQuadrat, etc. But I've hardly run any of that.

>>

>> Most of those are small.

>> I still have - and use - MS Works 4.5, in addition to Word (using

>> the right tool for the right job :-). But MS Works really went

>> downhill after that, and I refuse to use or install ANY of the

>> succeeding ones! If I want or need more, I use MS Word (in Office

>> 2000).

>

> I really use only the spreadsheet & only for my taxes. Encarta requires

> its CD to work, & I guess most of its stuff is on there. So, yea, I've

> got little.

>

>>>>>>>>>> So it's useful if you need to roll back to a previous time

>>>>>>>>>> (and is more effective that way than scanreg /restore, since

>>>>>>>>>> it is much more complete - it monitors files added since the

>>>>>>>>>> last checkpoint, etc, and can put back the previous ones, if

>>>>>>>>>> there were any changes. (Of course, it doesn't monitor

>>>>>>>>>> things like, say, a text file, or what have you, as those

>>>>>>>>>> aren't needed for any system restorations).

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> It does sound to be more thorough than a ScanReg /Restore.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> MUCH more so. No comparsion. Scanreg /restore ONLY restores

>>>>>>>> the registry, and nothing more. That is considerably more

>>>>>>>> limited (albeit useful, on some occasions - more on that below).

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Yep. On the minus side, I'm sure it gives the hard drive a much

>>>>>>> more rigorous usage each day.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Well, I kinda doubt it. Much less so then running Defrag, I

>>>>>> bet.

>>>>>

>>>>> Well... what is the size of your Registry & that .dll cache? Have

>>>>> you even found where they are yet?

>>>>

>>>> Well, the ERUNT bckups (i.e. registry) are about 50 MB each, (vs 4-5

>>>> MB on my Win98SE computer).

>>>>

>>>> The dllcache folder just contains a bunch of DLL, SYS, OCX, INI,

>>>> etc, files, and is about 500 MB total (with about 3000 files in

>>>> there).

>>>

>>> That's a damn lot! And all of that is done automatically each day?

>>

>> No. (not the dllcache subfolder contents, for example, unless part

>> of it changed, in which case only the changed files would be).

>

> Oops. That's right, as I think you said before. Sure, that's fine, then,

> if it only does a kind of incremental.

>

>> As I said, the System Restore backup (i.e. restore points) are about

>> 60 MB in size.

>

> I guess that isn't as large as it sounds. OK, fine.

 

Not too bad considering ALL of what it can retain, should you decide to

restore to a previous setpoint. IOW, not JUST the registry, but a lot of

the other files, too. Again, more on that below.

>>> I presume a System Save incorporates an ERUNT. Yow!

>>

>> "System Save"??? You mean in creating the System Restore

>> checkpoint? Well yeah, it includes backing up the registry (but not

>> ERUNT, which is a separate freeware package one can download, if one

>> wants to only backup/restore just the registry, and no other files)

>

> Yea, that's what I meant. So... whether it is saving or restoring, it's

> still called System Restore. OK, fine, then.

 

Yeah. OK, I see why the term can be a bit misleading. :-)

I guess it's best to say Creating a System Restore checkpoint. Kinda long,

though.

>>> ...snip

>>>>>>> That's a

>>>>>>> tad tricky to do with ScanReg. In fact, I'd have to experiment

>>>>>>> AGAIN to be sure what to do for that! After my 1st round of

>>>>>>> experimentation a while ago, I came to believe ScanReg /Restore

>>>>>>> will put the current Registry into... RB(next avail number).reg.

>>>>>>> SO... .........I meant: .cab! you'd have to remember what that

>>>>>>> was, if you wanted it back!

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Yup. There are normally 5 numbered backups, and you can choose

>>>>>> which one to restore, assuming you know which one you want.

>>>>>> Well, often it's one a day if you turn off your computer each

>>>>>> day, so it's a daily thing. Hopefully you have SOME idea of which

>>>>>> date you want to roll back to.

>>>>>

>>>>> Right. BUT... I'm speaking about the Registry that is current JUST

>>>>> BEFORE you do a ScanReg /Restore. Obviously, normally you don't

>>>>> want it back. However, if you do... I (currently) believe it is

>>>>> found in the RB(next avail number).cab-- that is the next

>>>>> available number JUST BEFORE doing the /Restore.

>>>>

>>>> It is?? I don't think so. I thought we HAD to run scanreg to

>>>> create one (or let it happen automatically every day). Where the

>>>> *current registry* really is, is in the "system.dat" and "user.dat"

>>>> files, but not the cab files (until you run scanreg to create one)

>>>

>>> In experimentation, I thought I DID notice that a ScanReg /Restore

>>> deposits the current Registry (System.dat, User.dat, Win.ini &

>>> System.ini) into RB(next avail number).cab, just before restoring the

>>> chosen one.

>>

>> I think it may save a temporarily one as it creates a new one, but

>> what good is that to us, since it's subsequentally erased?

>

> Well, I repeated the experiment. I was right, wacky as it may be. Each

> ScanReg /Restore wipes out the oldest one!

 

Of course. But we already knew that, didn't we? There are always only 5

(max), so something HAS to go if you run scanreg and save it. Each and

every time. Because there are always only 5 maximum CABS (unless you

change the associated ini file, and not counting the RBBAD ones, of course)

> It even says something like

> "backing up system files" just before it says something like "restoring

> system files"!

>

> I started with only 4 backups (not including RBbad.cab, which isn't

> offered as a candidate to restore)...

 

Looking at the list below, a RB002 should be created now..

> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p

> RB003 CAB 1,602,136 06-08-08 2:23p

> RB004 CAB 1,602,164 06-09-08 8:01p

> RB000 CAB 1,602,660 06-11-08 9:07p

> RB001 CAB 1,602,684 06-12-08 9:01p << 1

>

> After the /Restore of RB001, there were five.

 

Right.

> Note the date on RBbad

> never changes. The new RB002.cab is bloated. It contains all the files

> (System.dat, User.dat, System.ini, & Win.ini) in uncompressed form of

> the Registry that was just replaced...

 

Right.

> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p

> RB003 CAB 1,602,136 06-08-08 2:23p

> RB004 CAB 1,602,164 06-09-08 8:01p

> RB000 CAB 1,602,660 06-11-08 9:07p << 2

> RB001 CAB 1,602,684 06-12-08 9:01p

> RB002 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:21a

>

> From that, I restored RB000. Now, I have lost RB003-- because it was the

> oldest & had to be pushed out to make room for RB005. Yucky...!...

 

Exactly. You only get 5 TOTAL (skipping BAD). :-)

(but you can get around this potential problem by copying them to another

location and bringing them back, if needbe)

> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p

> RB004 CAB 1,602,164 06-09-08 8:01p << 3

> RB000 CAB 1,602,660 06-11-08 9:07p

> RB001 CAB 1,602,684 06-12-08 9:01p

> RB002 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:21a

> RB005 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:28a

>

> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p

> RB000 CAB 1,602,660 06-11-08 9:07p

> RB001 CAB 1,602,684 06-12-08 9:01p

> RB002 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:21a << 4

> RB005 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:28a

> RB003 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:36a

>

> Finally, I chose to /Restore a bloated one. It worked, or so the message

> said.

 

You can restore either a compressed one or an uncompressed one, it doesn't

really matter. I've done both. More on that below..

> But back in Windows (each time before, I was booting to DOS), it

> looks like restoring a bloated one does NOT play with the cabbed

> Registries. They stayed the same. (I can't recall whether it said

> "backing up system files" that last time.)

>

> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p rbbad.cab

> RB000 CAB 1,602,660 06-11-08 9:07p rb000.cab

> RB001 CAB 1,602,684 06-12-08 9:01p rb001.cab

> RB002 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:21a RB002.CAB

> RB005 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:28a RB005.CAB

> RB003 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:36a RB003.CAB

>

> I can't recommend restoring a bloated one, though. Upon getting back

> online & opening OE to this NG-- it wants to download all 14,000+ posts

> again! Can it be a coincidence!

 

Yup, I sure think so! Restoring the registry should NOT have done that!

Something else is at play here, because I have done it before and it works

fine.

> I went back into DOS & restored my own

> saved Registry of yesterday-- but looks like the damage is done. I'm up

> to 2079 of 14,314 coming back in! Sheesh! I can't perfectly swear

> restoring a bloated one does that-- but I'll certainly never do it

> again!

 

Nope. I have restored a bloated one and it has worked fine. So that is

NOT it. Something else went astray here. (assuming you haven't been

messing with the associated ini file, and restoring some other files you

shouldn't have that caused this!)

 

As Spock would say, "Insufficient Data". And, "that is most illogical,

McCoy".

> ...snip

>>>> It's not THAT big a deal, it's just a minor inconvenience. :-)

>>>>

>>>> Yes, I'd prefer that I could download and leave any files of any

>>>> type anywhere on the disk that I wanted. But then how would System

>>>> Restore KNOW FOR CERTAIN that they weren't problematic, when you

>>>> asked for a rollback? Obviously, if you are asking for a rollback,

>>>> SOMETHING contributed to the problem, and it doesn't have an I.Q. of

>>>> 180, you know. :-)

>>>

>>> Yea, but... doesn't the install want to have its EXEs, etc. where it

>>> put them?

>>

>> Sure. I don't get what you're driving at though. May be clarified

>> below..

>>

>>> How do you even know where all files went & how many there were?

>>

>> System Restore keeps track (if, for example, you use Undo, or restore

>> to a previous checkpoint)

>

> No, I meant how do you know which ones to protect by moving them out of

> System Restore's way.

 

Well, I generally get around this whole thing by creating a new Restore

point so that they won't be removed should I roll back to that point (OR

succeeding points). Problem solved! (IF, however, I rolled back to a

much early point, maybe not so good. :-)

 

Please note: I do NOT save ALL my exe files (and that ilk) that I

downloaded or added in the designated Documents and Files folder, in case I

mislead you. Instead, I just create a fresh new System Restore point,

which leaves them there should I decide to roll back to this point (or any

succeeding ones).

> But, I guess you are talking about simple installs

> that have maybe just one .exe & no Registry entries. For big installs, I

> presume you just make the checkpoint. OK.

 

Anyways, if (or when) you're gonna be using System Restore, it's most

prudent to either save those special types of files (EXEs, etc) in the

properly designated (unmonitored) places, OR (more commonly for me), just

simply create a new Restore point when you're done, so that if you decide to

roll back to that point (or a succeeding one), you'll still have those

files, and they won't (potentially) be removed.

>>> Are you meaning to put them back again after the System Restore?

>>> Sheesh!

>>

>> IF you didn't follow the guidelines. (then shame on you! :-)

>

> I'll probably follow the guidelines in your position. I don't want my

> .exe's wiped, either!

 

Well, but see what I wrote above in more detail, as I think I might have

misled you a bit. Sorry.

>>>>> Can't you do a System Save after your install when you know it

>>>>> worked well?

>>>>

>>>> Sure. If you run System Restore to create a System Restore point,

>>>> that takes care of it! (forgot to mention that!). And I usually

>>>> do that after I've installed something and am happy with it.

>>>> Actually, System Restore is pretty smart, in that it will

>>>> automatically create a restore point when you install a program,

>>>> just to play it safe. So if you don't like what happened to your

>>>> system after installing it, you can uninstall it and rollback to

>>>> the prior restore point. That takes care of the registry AND

>>>> many other files too that were since added by the errant program

>>>> (unlike scanreg /restore, which does NOTHING about that).

>>>

>>> OK. So... OK, that sounds about normal, then. After you've done an

>>> install (& all seems well) -- if system folders were involved (& I

>>> guess they would be) -- you need to do a System Save. Fine. Is it

>>> clear when XP does that automatically so that you don't do it twice?

>>> 3000 files & 50 MB Registries is lot!

>>

>> 3000 files? (No, as I mentioned above about the dllcache - see

>> above)

>

> Right-- that part isn't so bad, then. But does System Save do this

> automatically or not?

 

Do what automatically? System Restore generally saves all it needs, to be

able to put the system back in time to the designated point.

> Do you know when it is doing it, so that you don't do your own

> unnecessarily?

 

Not sure what you mean here. When you run System Restore, it's like

taking a snapshot of the system. So that if necessary, you can rollback

to that point in time (much more completely than by running scanreg /restore

or ERUNT, since it ALSO restores the pertinent system and program files,

too.

[Guest PCR]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

| PCR wrote:

|> Well, we've hit the limit in this thread segment. So, I've moved the

|> post up.

|

| ?? What does that mean ("moved the post up")? Up where?

 

I cannot reply to your post of 6/13/08. The thread is too deep. So, I've

moved it up to 6/12/08 1:38 AM-- just as I had to move the last one up!

 

....snip

|>> As I said, the System Restore backup (i.e. restore points) are about

|>> 60 MB in size.

|>

|> I guess that isn't as large as it sounds. OK, fine.

|

| Not too bad considering ALL of what it can retain, should you decide

| to restore to a previous setpoint. IOW, not JUST the registry, but

| a lot of the other files, too. Again, more on that below.

 

Yea. That was always the bug-a-boo about ScanReg /Restore-- it wouldn't

get files. BUT... I'm thinking this System Restore of yours has maybe

the same problem -- though much, much less -- if its only concerned with

certain folders. If some install doesn't use those particular folders --

or only puts part of its stuff there -- then a System Restore gets

closer to the ineffectiveness of a ScanReg /Restore. You still end up

with a bit of a mess. Of course, that is when you may go for your

Acronis True Image.

 

|>>> I presume a System Save incorporates an ERUNT. Yow!

|>>

|>> "System Save"??? You mean in creating the System Restore

|>> checkpoint? Well yeah, it includes backing up the registry (but not

|>> ERUNT, which is a separate freeware package one can download, if one

|>> wants to only backup/restore just the registry, and no other files)

|>

|> Yea, that's what I meant. So... whether it is saving or restoring,

|> it's still called System Restore. OK, fine, then.

|

| Yeah. OK, I see why the term can be a bit misleading. :-)

| I guess it's best to say Creating a System Restore checkpoint.

| Kinda long, though.

 

Right. But "checkpoint" will be sufficient.

 

....snip

|>>> In experimentation, I thought I DID notice that a ScanReg /Restore

|>>> deposits the current Registry (System.dat, User.dat, Win.ini &

|>>> System.ini) into RB(next avail number).cab, just before restoring

|>>> the chosen one.

|>>

|>> I think it may save a temporarily one as it creates a new one, but

|>> what good is that to us, since it's subsequentally erased?

|>

|> Well, I repeated the experiment. I was right, wacky as it may be.

|> Each ScanReg /Restore wipes out the oldest one!

|

| Of course. But we already knew that, didn't we? There are always

| only 5 (max), so something HAS to go if you run scanreg and save it.

| Each and every time. Because there are always only 5 maximum CABS

| (unless you change the associated ini file, and not counting the

| RBBAD ones, of course)

 

THAT we knew-- yea. BUT why should it happen when you do a ScanReg

/Restore??? You start with 5 normally that can be restored. But, each

time you restore one-- another is lost! That is, I guess, unless you

start with the oldest & work your way up. But you'd want to start with

the newest!

 

|> It even says something like

|> "backing up system files" just before it says something like

|> "restoring system files"!

|>

|> I started with only 4 backups (not including RBbad.cab, which isn't

|> offered as a candidate to restore)...

|

| Looking at the list below, a RB002 should be created now..

 

Right-- but RB003 gets pushed out to oblivion! What if it turns out you

needed to go that far back? You can't anymore, unless you've made

copies. Even then, you have to start moving the copies back into the

Sysbckup\ folder to use them-- & deleting the excess over five too!

 

I wonder whether ERUNT is as sloppy-- but don't wreck anything trying to

find out!

 

|> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

|> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p

|> RB003 CAB 1,602,136 06-08-08 2:23p

|> RB004 CAB 1,602,164 06-09-08 8:01p

|> RB000 CAB 1,602,660 06-11-08 9:07p

|> RB001 CAB 1,602,684 06-12-08 9:01p << 1

|>

|> After the /Restore of RB001, there were five.

|

| Right.

 

You expect ScanReg to do that-- but ScanReg /Restore! Why!

 

|> Note the date on RBbad

|> never changes. The new RB002.cab is bloated. It contains all the

|> files (System.dat, User.dat, System.ini, & Win.ini) in uncompressed

|> form of the Registry that was just replaced...

|

| Right.

 

Yea.

 

|> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

|> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p

|> RB003 CAB 1,602,136 06-08-08 2:23p

|> RB004 CAB 1,602,164 06-09-08 8:01p

|> RB000 CAB 1,602,660 06-11-08 9:07p << 2

|> RB001 CAB 1,602,684 06-12-08 9:01p

|> RB002 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:21a

|>

|> From that, I restored RB000. Now, I have lost RB003-- because it was

|> the oldest & had to be pushed out to make room for RB005.

|> Yucky...!...

|

| Exactly. You only get 5 TOTAL (skipping BAD). :-)

| (but you can get around this potential problem by copying them to

| another location and bringing them back, if needbe)

 

Yep. But that is work. You have to ensure only 5 (not including RBbad)

are in Sysbckup too.

 

|> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

|> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p

|> RB004 CAB 1,602,164 06-09-08 8:01p << 3

|> RB000 CAB 1,602,660 06-11-08 9:07p

|> RB001 CAB 1,602,684 06-12-08 9:01p

|> RB002 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:21a

|> RB005 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:28a

|

|> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

|> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p

|> RB000 CAB 1,602,660 06-11-08 9:07p

|> RB001 CAB 1,602,684 06-12-08 9:01p

|> RB002 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:21a << 4

|> RB005 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:28a

|> RB003 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:36a

|>

|> Finally, I chose to /Restore a bloated one. It worked, or so the

|> message said.

|

| You can restore either a compressed one or an uncompressed one, it

| doesn't really matter. I've done both. More on that below..

 

Yep. I never tried an uncompressed before, though. As I said, that

doesn't behave like a compressed one in terms of messing with the other

backups-- they were unchanged that time! None were pushed out!

 

|> But back in Windows (each time before, I was booting to DOS), it

|> looks like restoring a bloated one does NOT play with the cabbed

|> Registries. They stayed the same. (I can't recall whether it said

|> "backing up system files" that last time.)

|>

|> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

|> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p rbbad.cab

|> RB000 CAB 1,602,660 06-11-08 9:07p rb000.cab

|> RB001 CAB 1,602,684 06-12-08 9:01p rb001.cab

|> RB002 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:21a RB002.CAB

|> RB005 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:28a RB005.CAB

|> RB003 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:36a RB003.CAB

|>

|> I can't recommend restoring a bloated one, though. Upon getting back

|> online & opening OE to this NG-- it wants to download all 14,000+

|> posts again! Can it be a coincidence!

|

| Yup, I sure think so! Restoring the registry should NOT have done

| that! Something else is at play here, because I have done it before

| and it works fine.

 

You are right, Colorado. It wasn't this NG at all that was getting

re-downloaded. It was one of my Terabyte NGs-- & there was a reason for

that. I had recently reset it accidentally after accidentally deleting

it!

 

|> I went back into DOS & restored my own

|> saved Registry of yesterday-- but looks like the damage is done. I'm

|> up to 2079 of 14,314 coming back in! Sheesh! I can't perfectly swear

|> restoring a bloated one does that-- but I'll certainly never do it

|> again!

|

| Nope. I have restored a bloated one and it has worked fine. So

| that is NOT it. Something else went astray here. (assuming you

| haven't been messing with the associated ini file, and restoring some

| other files you shouldn't have that caused this!)

 

You are right. It was something else. Sorry I mean-mouthed a bloated

RB..cab! But they STILL are a killer of normal backup RB..cabs! Don't

wreck your system trying to discover whether ERUNT does that too!

 

| As Spock would say, "Insufficient Data". And, "that is most

| illogical, McCoy".

 

Uhuh. Indeed.

 

|> ...snip

|>>>> It's not THAT big a deal, it's just a minor inconvenience. :-)

|>>>>

|>>>> Yes, I'd prefer that I could download and leave any files of any

|>>>> type anywhere on the disk that I wanted. But then how would

|>>>> System Restore KNOW FOR CERTAIN that they weren't problematic,

|>>>> when you asked for a rollback? Obviously, if you are asking for a

|>>>> rollback, SOMETHING contributed to the problem, and it doesn't

|>>>> have an I.Q. of 180, you know. :-)

|>>>

|>>> Yea, but... doesn't the install want to have its EXEs, etc. where

|>>> it put them?

|>>

|>> Sure. I don't get what you're driving at though. May be

|>> clarified below..

 

I'll go see.

 

|>>> How do you even know where all files went & how many there were?

|>>

|>> System Restore keeps track (if, for example, you use Undo, or

|>> restore to a previous checkpoint)

|>

|> No, I meant how do you know which ones to protect by moving them out

|> of System Restore's way.

|

| Well, I generally get around this whole thing by creating a new

| Restore point so that they won't be removed should I roll back to

| that point (OR succeeding points). Problem solved! (IF,

| however, I rolled back to a much early point, maybe not so good. :-)

 

That's best, I think, at least when many files are concerned. Yea, it's

the same old problem, though, involved in choosing which Registry to

restore. Not that I've been there much, but, really, in a crisis, you'd

be happy just to get one that worked, though.

 

| Please note: I do NOT save ALL my exe files (and that ilk) that I

| downloaded or added in the designated Documents and Files folder, in

| case I mislead you. Instead, I just create a fresh new System

| Restore point, which leaves them there should I decide to roll back

| to this point (or any succeeding ones).

 

Alright. But what is this Documents & Files folder? I know you said

System Restore won't touch it. Is that like Program Files, where stuff

is installed? But often an install will put part of its stuff elsewhere

too, like into C:\Windows\System. But I can see System Restore probably

undoes every bit of an install that got into the Registry & into system

locations. It then is up to you to delete any folders & files in

Documents & Files. That's pretty good.

 

|> But, I guess you are talking about simple installs

|> that have maybe just one .exe & no Registry entries. For big

|> installs, I presume you just make the checkpoint. OK.

|

| Anyways, if (or when) you're gonna be using System Restore, it's most

| prudent to either save those special types of files (EXEs, etc) in the

| properly designated (unmonitored) places, OR (more commonly for me),

| just simply create a new Restore point when you're done, so that if

| you decide to roll back to that point (or a succeeding one), you'll

| still have those files, and they won't (potentially) be removed.

 

Yea. Sounds like what I'd do.

 

|>>> Are you meaning to put them back again after the System Restore?

|>>> Sheesh!

|>>

|>> IF you didn't follow the guidelines. (then shame on you! :-)

|>

|> I'll probably follow the guidelines in your position. I don't want my

|> .exe's wiped, either!

|

| Well, but see what I wrote above in more detail, as I think I might

| have misled you a bit. Sorry.

 

Alright. I don't have to know this stuff yet, anyhow.

 

....snip

|> Right-- that part isn't so bad, then. But does System Save do this

|> automatically or not?

|

| Do what automatically? System Restore generally saves all it

| needs, to be able to put the system back in time to the designated

| point.

|

|> Do you know when it is doing it, so that you don't do your own

|> unnecessarily?

|

| Not sure what you mean here. When you run System Restore, it's like

| taking a snapshot of the system. So that if necessary, you can

| rollback to that point in time (much more completely than by running

| scanreg /restore or ERUNT, since it ALSO restores the pertinent

| system and program files, too.

 

I was thinking those Checkpoints were sometimes done automatically, like

a ScanReg is run every boot. OK, I see you have to do it yourself.

 

 

--

Thanks or Good Luck,

There may be humor in this post, and,

Naturally, you will not sue,

Should things get worse after this,

PCR

pcrrcp@netzero.net

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

PCR wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> PCR wrote:

>>> Well, we've hit the limit in this thread segment. So, I've moved the

>>> post up.

>>

>> ?? What does that mean ("moved the post up")? Up where?

>

> I cannot reply to your post of 6/13/08. The thread is too deep. So, I've

> moved it up to 6/12/08 1:38 AM-- just as I had to move the last one up!

 

But I don't get it (why you "can't" reply to any specific post). The only

time I've ever had a problem replying to a post is when it apparently had

some "improper format" (I can't recall the details, but I got some error

message complaining about such and such, and never could successfully reply

to it. (This only happened very rarely, but yet consistently, with just a

handful of posts over all the time I've been online).

> ...snip

>>>> As I said, the System Restore backup (i.e. restore points) are about

>>>> 60 MB in size.

>>>

>>> I guess that isn't as large as it sounds. OK, fine.

>>

>> Not too bad considering ALL of what it can retain, should you decide

>> to restore to a previous setpoint. IOW, not JUST the registry, but

>> a lot of the other files, too. Again, more on that below.

>

> Yea. That was always the bug-a-boo about ScanReg /Restore-- it wouldn't

> get files.

 

That's right.

> BUT... I'm thinking this System Restore of yours has maybe

> the same problem -- though much, much less -- if its only concerned with

> certain folders.

 

Actually, it seems to monitor ALL folders EXCEPT the personal ones like "My

Documents", which lies within the top folder "Documents and Settings".

> If some install doesn't use those particular folders --

> or only puts part of its stuff there -- then a System Restore gets

> closer to the ineffectiveness of a ScanReg /Restore. You still end up

> with a bit of a mess. Of course, that is when you may go for your

> Acronis True Image.

 

Not exactly, per what I wrote above. But yes, using a backup is the

(only) guaranteed way to restore the computer to the previous state.

>>>>> I presume a System Save incorporates an ERUNT. Yow!

>>>>

>>>> "System Save"??? You mean in creating the System Restore

>>>> checkpoint? Well yeah, it includes backing up the registry (but not

>>>> ERUNT, which is a separate freeware package one can download, if one

>>>> wants to only backup/restore just the registry, and no other files)

>>>

>>> Yea, that's what I meant. So... whether it is saving or restoring,

>>> it's still called System Restore. OK, fine, then.

>>

>> Yeah. OK, I see why the term can be a bit misleading. :-)

>> I guess it's best to say Creating a System Restore checkpoint.

>> Kinda long, though.

>

> Right. But "checkpoint" will be sufficient.

>

> ...snip

>>>>> In experimentation, I thought I DID notice that a ScanReg /Restore

>>>>> deposits the current Registry (System.dat, User.dat, Win.ini &

>>>>> System.ini) into RB(next avail number).cab, just before restoring

>>>>> the chosen one.

>>>>

>>>> I think it may save a temporarily one as it creates a new one, but

>>>> what good is that to us, since it's subsequentally erased?

>>>

>>> Well, I repeated the experiment. I was right, wacky as it may be.

>>> Each ScanReg /Restore wipes out the oldest one!

>>

>> Of course. But we already knew that, didn't we? There are always

>> only 5 (max), so something HAS to go if you run scanreg and save it.

>> Each and every time. Because there are always only 5 maximum CABS

>> (unless you change the associated ini file, and not counting the

>> RBBAD ones, of course)

>

> THAT we knew-- yea. BUT why should it happen when you do a ScanReg

> /Restore??? You start with 5 normally that can be restored. But, each

> time you restore one-- another is lost!

 

When you do a scanreg /restore, it has to delete an existing one to make

room for a new one (including what you just did to the registry AND the

immediate prior registry state to running scanreg /restore), to keep only 5.

> That is, I guess, unless you

> start with the oldest & work your way up. But you'd want to start with

> the newest!

>

>>> It even says something like

>>> "backing up system files" just before it says something like

>>> "restoring system files"!

>>>

>>> I started with only 4 backups (not including RBbad.cab, which isn't

>>> offered as a candidate to restore)...

>>

>> Looking at the list below, a RB002 should be created now..

>

> Right-- but RB003 gets pushed out to oblivion! What if it turns out you

> needed to go that far back? You can't anymore, unless you've made

> copies.

 

Exactly. But of course you did, right? If you didn't, shame on you!

:-)

> Even then, you have to start moving the copies back into the

> Sysbckup\ folder to use them-- & deleting the excess over five too!

 

Not such a big deal though. I got used to it.

> I wonder whether ERUNT is as sloppy-- but don't wreck anything trying to

> find out!

 

With ERUNT you can choose how many you want retained in its automatic daily

backups (or you can choose not to have any). BUT you have to use Windows

Explorer to access them to restore (ERUNT assumes you are a bit computer

savvy).

>>> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

>>> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p

>>> RB003 CAB 1,602,136 06-08-08 2:23p

>>> RB004 CAB 1,602,164 06-09-08 8:01p

>>> RB000 CAB 1,602,660 06-11-08 9:07p

>>> RB001 CAB 1,602,684 06-12-08 9:01p << 1

>>>

>>> After the /Restore of RB001, there were five.

>>

>> Right.

>

> You expect ScanReg to do that-- but ScanReg /Restore! Why!

 

As I explained above (I think).

>>> Note the date on RBbad

>>> never changes. The new RB002.cab is bloated. It contains all the

>>> files (System.dat, User.dat, System.ini, & Win.ini) in uncompressed

>>> form of the Registry that was just replaced...

>>

>> Right.

>

> Yea.

>

>>> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

>>> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p

>>> RB003 CAB 1,602,136 06-08-08 2:23p

>>> RB004 CAB 1,602,164 06-09-08 8:01p

>>> RB000 CAB 1,602,660 06-11-08 9:07p << 2

>>> RB001 CAB 1,602,684 06-12-08 9:01p

>>> RB002 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:21a

>>>

>>> From that, I restored RB000. Now, I have lost RB003-- because it was

>>> the oldest & had to be pushed out to make room for RB005.

>>> Yucky...!...

>>

>> Exactly. You only get 5 TOTAL (skipping BAD). :-)

>> (but you can get around this potential problem by copying them to

>> another location and bringing them back, if needbe)

>

> Yep. But that is work.

 

I'm used to it. (Or was used to it. :-)

I spend a lot of time in Windows Explorer. :-)

> You have to ensure only 5 (not including RBbad)

> are in Sysbckup too.

>

>>> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

>>> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p

>>> RB004 CAB 1,602,164 06-09-08 8:01p << 3

>>> RB000 CAB 1,602,660 06-11-08 9:07p

>>> RB001 CAB 1,602,684 06-12-08 9:01p

>>> RB002 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:21a

>>> RB005 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:28a

>>

>>> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

>>> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p

>>> RB000 CAB 1,602,660 06-11-08 9:07p

>>> RB001 CAB 1,602,684 06-12-08 9:01p

>>> RB002 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:21a << 4

>>> RB005 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:28a

>>> RB003 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:36a

>>>

>>> Finally, I chose to /Restore a bloated one. It worked, or so the

>>> message said.

>>

>> You can restore either a compressed one or an uncompressed one, it

>> doesn't really matter. I've done both. More on that below..

>

> Yep. I never tried an uncompressed before, though. As I said, that

> doesn't behave like a compressed one in terms of messing with the other

> backups-- they were unchanged that time! None were pushed out!

>

>>> But back in Windows (each time before, I was booting to DOS), it

>>> looks like restoring a bloated one does NOT play with the cabbed

>>> Registries. They stayed the same. (I can't recall whether it said

>>> "backing up system files" that last time.)

>>>

>>> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

>>> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p rbbad.cab

>>> RB000 CAB 1,602,660 06-11-08 9:07p rb000.cab

>>> RB001 CAB 1,602,684 06-12-08 9:01p rb001.cab

>>> RB002 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:21a RB002.CAB

>>> RB005 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:28a RB005.CAB

>>> RB003 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:36a RB003.CAB

>>>

>>> I can't recommend restoring a bloated one, though. Upon getting back

>>> online & opening OE to this NG-- it wants to download all 14,000+

>>> posts again! Can it be a coincidence!

>>

>> Yup, I sure think so! Restoring the registry should NOT have done

>> that! Something else is at play here, because I have done it before

>> and it works fine.

>

> You are right, Colorado. It wasn't this NG at all that was getting

> re-downloaded. It was one of my Terabyte NGs-- & there was a reason for

> that. I had recently reset it accidentally after accidentally deleting it!

>

>>> I went back into DOS & restored my own

>>> saved Registry of yesterday-- but looks like the damage is done. I'm

>>> up to 2079 of 14,314 coming back in! Sheesh! I can't perfectly swear

>>> restoring a bloated one does that-- but I'll certainly never do it

>>> again!

>>

>> Nope. I have restored a bloated one and it has worked fine. So

>> that is NOT it. Something else went astray here. (assuming you

>> haven't been messing with the associated ini file, and restoring some

>> other files you shouldn't have that caused this!)

>

> You are right. It was something else. Sorry I mean-mouthed a bloated

> RB..cab! But they STILL are a killer of normal backup RB..cabs! Don't

> wreck your system trying to discover whether ERUNT does that too!

 

Well, I explained some differernces about ERUNT above. It's left more up to

you.

>> As Spock would say, "Insufficient Data". And, "that is most

>> illogical, McCoy".

>

> Uhuh. Indeed.

>

>>> ...snip

>>>>>> It's not THAT big a deal, it's just a minor inconvenience. :-)

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Yes, I'd prefer that I could download and leave any files of any

>>>>>> type anywhere on the disk that I wanted. But then how would

>>>>>> System Restore KNOW FOR CERTAIN that they weren't problematic,

>>>>>> when you asked for a rollback? Obviously, if you are asking for a

>>>>>> rollback, SOMETHING contributed to the problem, and it doesn't

>>>>>> have an I.Q. of 180, you know. :-)

>>>>>

>>>>> Yea, but... doesn't the install want to have its EXEs, etc. where

>>>>> it put them?

>>>>

>>>> Sure. I don't get what you're driving at though. May be

>>>> clarified below..

>

> I'll go see.

>

>>>>> How do you even know where all files went & how many there were?

>>>>

>>>> System Restore keeps track (if, for example, you use Undo, or

>>>> restore to a previous checkpoint)

>>>

>>> No, I meant how do you know which ones to protect by moving them out

>>> of System Restore's way.

>>

>> Well, I generally get around this whole thing by creating a new

>> Restore point so that they won't be removed should I roll back to

>> that point (OR succeeding points). Problem solved! (IF,

>> however, I rolled back to a much early point, maybe not so good. :-)

>

> That's best, I think, at least when many files are concerned. Yea, it's

> the same old problem, though, involved in choosing which Registry to

> restore. Not that I've been there much, but, really, in a crisis, you'd

> be happy just to get one that worked, though.

>

>> Please note: I do NOT save ALL my exe files (and that ilk) that I

>> downloaded or added in the designated Documents and Files folder, in

>> case I mislead you. Instead, I just create a fresh new System

>> Restore point, which leaves them there should I decide to roll back

>> to this point (or any succeeding ones).

>

> Alright. But what is this Documents & Files folder? I know you said

> System Restore won't touch it. Is that like Program Files, where stuff

> is installed? But often an install will put part of its stuff elsewhere

> too, like into C:\Windows\System. But I can see System Restore probably

> undoes every bit of an install that got into the Registry & into system

> locations. It then is up to you to delete any folders & files in

> Documents & Files. That's pretty good.

 

I was mistaken, it's called Documents and Settings. It includes the

personal subfolders My Documents and a few other goodies.

 

A correction to what I had written earlier: you're supposed to keep your

personal stuff in "My Documents", not "Documents and Settings" (but that is

the top folder enclosing it, along with some other subfolders).

>>> But, I guess you are talking about simple installs

>>> that have maybe just one .exe & no Registry entries. For big

>>> installs, I presume you just make the checkpoint. OK.

>>

>> Anyways, if (or when) you're gonna be using System Restore, it's most

>> prudent to either save those special types of files (EXEs, etc) in the

>> properly designated (unmonitored) places, OR (more commonly for me),

>> just simply create a new Restore point when you're done, so that if

>> you decide to roll back to that point (or a succeeding one), you'll

>> still have those files, and they won't (potentially) be removed.

>

> Yea. Sounds like what I'd do.

>

>>>>> Are you meaning to put them back again after the System Restore?

>>>>> Sheesh!

>>>>

>>>> IF you didn't follow the guidelines. (then shame on you! :-)

>>>

>>> I'll probably follow the guidelines in your position. I don't want my

>>> .exe's wiped, either!

>>

>> Well, but see what I wrote above in more detail, as I think I might

>> have misled you a bit. Sorry.

>

> Alright. I don't have to know this stuff yet, anyhow.

>

> ...snip

>>> Right-- that part isn't so bad, then. But does System Save do this

>>> automatically or not?

>>

>> Do what automatically? System Restore generally saves all it

>> needs, to be able to put the system back in time to the designated

>> point.

>>

>>> Do you know when it is doing it, so that you don't do your own

>>> unnecessarily?

>>

>> Not sure what you mean here. When you run System Restore, it's like

>> taking a snapshot of the system. So that if necessary, you can

>> rollback to that point in time (much more completely than by running

>> scanreg /restore or ERUNT, since it ALSO restores the pertinent

>> system and program files, too.

>

> I was thinking those Checkpoints were sometimes done automatically, like

> a ScanReg is run every boot. OK, I see you have to do it yourself.

 

Not quite. IF you haven't created a system checkpoint, one WILL be

created routinely, every so often (like after every 24 hours of use). (But

it's different in one respect from scanreg, in that it doesn't necessarily

do it each calendar day after rebooting).

[Guest PCR]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

| PCR wrote:

|> Bill in Co. wrote:

|>> PCR wrote:

|>>> Well, we've hit the limit in this thread segment. So, I've moved

|>>> the post up.

|>>

|>> ?? What does that mean ("moved the post up")? Up where?

|>

|> I cannot reply to your post of 6/13/08. The thread is too deep. So,

|> I've moved it up to 6/12/08 1:38 AM-- just as I had to move the last

|> one up!

|

| But I don't get it (why you "can't" reply to any specific post).

| The only time I've ever had a problem replying to a post is when it

| apparently had some "improper format" (I can't recall the details,

| but I got some error message complaining about such and such, and

| never could successfully reply to it. (This only happened very

| rarely, but yet consistently, with just a handful of posts over all

| the time I've been online).

 

That's it. I'm not going to count it, but at a certain point in any

thread portion a limit is reached where the next post attempt will give

that error & will not post. You are not getting it now because I moved

my response to your last 3/so posts up in the string, as this one is

moved up. It's a limitation in OE possibly designed to keep a thread

from getting too gabby. PA Bear probably lobbied for it after coming out

of an hibernation one spring & seeing 100-post long thread segments! I

don't know whether IE7 suffers the same limitation.

 

|> ...snip

|>>>> As I said, the System Restore backup (i.e. restore points) are

|>>>> about 60 MB in size.

|>>>

|>>> I guess that isn't as large as it sounds. OK, fine.

|>>

|>> Not too bad considering ALL of what it can retain, should you decide

|>> to restore to a previous setpoint. IOW, not JUST the registry, but

|>> a lot of the other files, too. Again, more on that below.

|>

|> Yea. That was always the bug-a-boo about ScanReg /Restore-- it

|> wouldn't get files.

|

| That's right.

|

|> BUT... I'm thinking this System Restore of yours has maybe

|> the same problem -- though much, much less -- if its only concerned

|> with certain folders.

|

| Actually, it seems to monitor ALL folders EXCEPT the personal ones

| like "My Documents", which lies within the top folder "Documents and

| Settings".

 

My Documents is unlikely to contain executables. I guess that is why it

was left out. Now, you have begun to hide executables there to keep

System Restore's mitts off them, if they were installed after your last

Checkpoint. I think we have agreed it is best to keep Checkpoints

up-to-date instead. After all, other than that 50 MB Registry of XP, a

Checkpoint is kind of an incremental-- & WON'T go re-writing all 3000

files in its dll-cache!

 

|> If some install doesn't use those particular folders --

|> or only puts part of its stuff there -- then a System Restore gets

|> closer to the ineffectiveness of a ScanReg /Restore. You still end up

|> with a bit of a mess. Of course, that is when you may go for your

|> Acronis True Image.

|

| Not exactly, per what I wrote above. But yes, using a backup is the

| (only) guaranteed way to restore the computer to the previous state.

 

That should be kept up-to-date too, yea.

 

....snip

|>>>>> In experimentation, I thought I DID notice that a ScanReg

|>>>>> /Restore deposits the current Registry (System.dat, User.dat,

|>>>>> Win.ini & System.ini) into RB(next avail number).cab, just

|>>>>> before restoring the chosen one.

|>>>>

|>>>> I think it may save a temporarily one as it creates a new one, but

|>>>> what good is that to us, since it's subsequentally erased?

|>>>

|>>> Well, I repeated the experiment. I was right, wacky as it may be.

|>>> Each ScanReg /Restore wipes out the oldest one!

|>>

|>> Of course. But we already knew that, didn't we? There are always

|>> only 5 (max), so something HAS to go if you run scanreg and save it.

|>> Each and every time. Because there are always only 5 maximum CABS

|>> (unless you change the associated ini file, and not counting the

|>> RBBAD ones, of course)

|>

|> THAT we knew-- yea. BUT why should it happen when you do a ScanReg

|> /Restore??? You start with 5 normally that can be restored. But, each

|> time you restore one-- another is lost!

|

| When you do a scanreg /restore, it has to delete an existing one to

| make room for a new one (including what you just did to the registry

| AND the immediate prior registry state to running scanreg /restore),

| to keep only 5.

 

They could have done a much better job with that. Sheesh! It's pretty

damn spooky & tricky that at least TWO of the 5 backups are obliterated

before use, unless you take special measures to prevent it, like maybe

increase the number that are kept or definitely make a copy of them

before starting. But each of those solutions requires work! I'm trying

to figure what happens when you start with the oldest instead of the

newest-- how many are obliterated before they can be used? But who wants

to start with the oldest anyhow!?

 

|> That is, I guess, unless you

|> start with the oldest & work your way up. But you'd want to start

|> with the newest!

|>

|>>> It even says something like

|>>> "backing up system files" just before it says something like

|>>> "restoring system files"!

|>>>

|>>> I started with only 4 backups (not including RBbad.cab, which isn't

|>>> offered as a candidate to restore)...

|>>

|>> Looking at the list below, a RB002 should be created now..

|>

|> Right-- but RB003 gets pushed out to oblivion! What if it turns out

|> you needed to go that far back? You can't anymore, unless you've made

|> copies.

|

| Exactly. But of course you did, right? If you didn't, shame on

| you! :-)

 

Sure, sure-- I did! But that is extra work & trouble-- & nowhere in

Windows's Help screens is any caution about it! It's been posted here in

this NG that one should make those copies before beginning-- but no one

ever said why, except for me! And even I couldn't believe it until this

second round of tests!

 

|> Even then, you have to start moving the copies back into the

|> Sysbckup\ folder to use them-- & deleting the excess over five too!

|

| Not such a big deal though. I got used to it.

 

Aren't you the acquiescent one all of a sudden-- after complaining about

having to look at folder creation dates now instead of just modified

ones!

 

|> I wonder whether ERUNT is as sloppy-- but don't wreck anything

|> trying to find out!

|

| With ERUNT you can choose how many you want retained in its automatic

| daily backups (or you can choose not to have any). BUT you have to

| use Windows Explorer to access them to restore (ERUNT assumes you are

| a bit computer savvy).

 

Oh, that's right, you have no DOS Mode. So, it has to be done manually

in Explorer & none of them can get wiped out? There is no such thing as

an "ERUNT /Restore"? Hmm. What if you can't boot to Windows? Isn't there

some kind of repair console run from CD or something? How do you even do

a System Restore, IF you can't boot to Windows?

 

....snip

|>>> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

|>>> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p

|>>> RB004 CAB 1,602,164 06-09-08 8:01p << 3

|>>> RB000 CAB 1,602,660 06-11-08 9:07p

|>>> RB001 CAB 1,602,684 06-12-08 9:01p

|>>> RB002 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:21a

|>>> RB005 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:28a

 

This one was interesting. I failed to comment on it before. RB004 was

the oldest at this point. After restoring it, nothing was deleted but

itself. But who wants to work oldest to newest!

 

|>>> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

|>>> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p

|>>> RB000 CAB 1,602,660 06-11-08 9:07p

|>>> RB001 CAB 1,602,684 06-12-08 9:01p

|>>> RB002 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:21a << 4

|>>> RB005 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:28a

|>>> RB003 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:36a

|>>>

|>>> Finally, I chose to /Restore a bloated one. It worked, or so the

|>>> message said.

|>>

|>> You can restore either a compressed one or an uncompressed one, it

|>> doesn't really matter. I've done both. More on that below..

|>

|> Yep. I never tried an uncompressed before, though. As I said, that

|> doesn't behave like a compressed one in terms of messing with the

|> other backups-- they were unchanged that time! None were pushed out!

|>

 

....snip

|> Alright. But what is this Documents & Files folder? I know you said

|> System Restore won't touch it. Is that like Program Files, where

|> stuff

|> is installed? But often an install will put part of its stuff

|> elsewhere too, like into C:\Windows\System. But I can see System

|> Restore probably undoes every bit of an install that got into the

|> Registry & into system locations. It then is up to you to delete any

|> folders & files in Documents & Files. That's pretty good.

|

| I was mistaken, it's called Documents and Settings. It includes the

| personal subfolders My Documents and a few other goodies.

 

OK.

 

| A correction to what I had written earlier: you're supposed to keep

| your personal stuff in "My Documents", not "Documents and Settings"

| (but that is the top folder enclosing it, along with some other

| subfolders).

 

OK.

 

....snip

|> I was thinking those Checkpoints were sometimes done automatically,

|> like a ScanReg is run every boot. OK, I see you have to do it

|> yourself.

|

| Not quite. IF you haven't created a system checkpoint, one WILL be

| created routinely, every so often (like after every 24 hours of use).

| (But it's different in one respect from scanreg, in that it doesn't

| necessarily do it each calendar day after rebooting).

 

I see. So, after doing an install of something big, you have 24 hours to

decide you like it before it is taken into a checkpoint automatically.

After that, you'd have to go to an older checkpoint to undo it. OK.

 

 

--

Thanks or Good Luck,

There may be humor in this post, and,

Naturally, you will not sue,

Should things get worse after this,

PCR

pcrrcp@netzero.net