Re: Backup software--like GHOST

[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:

>>>>> 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.

 

He probably was also the one who lobbied for removing (for all intents and

purposes) that auto-compacting OPTION in OE, too for WinXP with SP2. :-)

 

But I was under the impression it was NOT due to the length, but something

malformed in the header or whatever, or something like that - at least

that's what the error message said (I can't recall now).

>>> ...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.

 

Right.

> 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.

 

Yup. Or just use ERUNT. But ERUNT (like scanreg /restore) is as limited

as using "scanreg /restore", but it still can do the job in many cases, and

is all you often need, in many cases.

> 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!

 

Right.

>>> 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!?

 

If you want the option of having the oldest, you'd BEST save them elsewhere.

:-)

>>> 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!

 

But then again, how many people really get down into it, like we do? I bet

most users don't even know about scanreg and scanreg /restore, so putting

all that detail in the help file would confuse them!!

>>> 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!

 

Indeed, grasshopper. :-)

>>> 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?

 

Manual ones are kept in a separate folder from the automatic ones (which are

normally limited to a preset number of your choice). So no, they aren't

wiped out (except for the automatic ones, at a max limit of your chosing).

The manual ones stay there forever, and are always accessible in Explorer

(as are the automatic ones).

> There is no such thing as an "ERUNT /Restore"?

 

No. You just click on one of the files in the ERUNT backup (ERDNT.EXE).

It's in every ERUNT backup folder, and is quite small. Easy as pie.

> Hmm. What if you can't boot to Windows? Isn't there

> some kind of repair console run from CD or something?

 

IF you had to, yes. Or there are a few other (DOS-like) special utility

programs out there, that allow access to NT without windows running.

 

Actually, one time I had some problem (that I sorta was responsible for)

booting into normal windows mode (maybe messin with MSConfig or something),

and so I booted into Safe Mode and went to the folder containing the ERUNT

backups, and clicked on it in there, and then easily got back into standard

windows. I forgot what I did to mess it up in the first place, however -

it was some time ago. :-)

> How do you even do a System Restore, IF you can't boot to Windows?

 

See above.

> ...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.

 

When you install something big (or even a normal program), a new restore

point is *automatically created* - in case you should want to reverse or

undo what the new program installation did to your system. Which is a nice

feature of System Restore. :-)

[Guest Rick Chauvin]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

 

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

news:%236LIH1czIHA.4168@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl

 

[....]

> When you install something big (or even a normal program), a new restore

> point is *automatically created* - in case you should want to reverse or

> undo what the new program installation did to your system. Which is a

> nice feature of System Restore. :-)

 

I don't like to use System Restore at all for a number of reasons -

actually first thing upon installation I did was to shut the dang thing off

(among a hundred other things). I strictly use Imaging instead which imho

is by far better.

 

Anyway, you guys are still keeping this thread alive? ! ..what in heavens

are you both talking about - there's no way I can read through these

threads to figure it out - but I think yous must be just coffee visiting

here every day is all.

 

Rick

 

 

ps... heck the threads are so deep it won't even let me post my message and

I had to skip up to get it to take

[Guest Bill in Co.]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Interesting. I couldn't reply directly to Rick's message without getting

this error message: ill-formed message id in field 'References' (which

shows a lengthy line of a hodgepodge of characters (but maybe it

always does?)

 

It was an EXTREMELY LONG LINE, and then, somewhat suspiciously, had the

last caret symbol ">" spaced over somehow.

 

So I had to copy and paste what I had typed out here into a new container

(replying to a previous post of mine, but where I removed all the old text).

WTF??

 

More below - finally!

 

Rick Chauvin wrote:

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

>

> [....]

>

>> When you install something big (or even a normal program), a new restore

>> point is *automatically created* - in case you should want to reverse or

>> undo what the new program installation did to your system. Which is a

>> nice feature of System Restore. :-)

>

> I don't like to use System Restore at all for a number of reasons -

> actually first thing upon installation I did was to shut the dang thing

> off

> (among a hundred other things). I strictly use Imaging instead which imho

> is by far better.

 

And it is, of course. But it's easier and much quicker to use System

Restore (or even ERUNT) for less intrusive changes (even more so for ERUNT).

 

I see it as having, and conveniently using the right tool for the right job;

why use a sledge hammer to pound a nail? :-)

> Anyway, you guys are still keeping this thread alive? ! ..what in heavens

> are you both talking about - there's no way I can read through these

> threads to figure it out - but I think yous must be just coffee visiting

> here every day is all.

>

> Rick

 

Hey Rick, it's just some of us old timer's, old school values of patience

and perseverance.... :-)

 

(I know, I know, it seems that all went out with FDR, but, some of us are

still trying to keep it alive). :-)

[Guest PCR]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

I've had to move my reply up-- you didn't go high enough!

 

Rick Chauvin wrote:

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

| news:%236LIH1czIHA.4168@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl

|

| [....]

|

|> When you install something big (or even a normal program), a new

|> restore point is *automatically created* - in case you should want

|> to reverse or undo what the new program installation did to your

|> system. Which is a nice feature of System Restore. :-)

|

| I don't like to use System Restore at all for a number of reasons -

| actually first thing upon installation I did was to shut the dang

| thing off (among a hundred other things). I strictly use Imaging

| instead which imho is by far better.

 

You don't trust it to do the job? From Colorado's descriptions, it

doesn't provide much of a report. I probably wouldn't want to use it,

either, if I had to guess what it was doing! I'm sure it will restore a

saved Registry. It uses a "dll-cache" somehow to handle files on a kind

of incremental basis saving only changed ones-- but I'm not sure

precisely which ones or what it does with them! I can think it will

restore a deleted file-- but will it delete an extra one? Does it only

handle executables?

 

It could be as Colorado says that one might get a feel for which to use

after a while-- ERUNT, System Restore, &/or a 3rd party Image. I see he

has replied to you also. I hope you can find it!

 

| Anyway, you guys are still keeping this thread alive? ! ..what in

| heavens are you both talking about - there's no way I can read

| through these threads to figure it out - but I think yous must be

| just coffee visiting here every day is all.

 

I thought PA Bear would be first to complain!

 

| Rick

|

|

| ps... heck the threads are so deep it won't even let me post my

| message and I had to skip up to get it to take

 

Right. I've been doing that too for quite a while now. You can reply to

this, & I will move mine up.

 

 

--

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

 

This one had to be moved up too. We might begin to consider wrapping up.

More below.

 

Bill in Co. wrote:

| PCR wrote:

|> 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.

|

| He probably was also the one who lobbied for removing (for all

| intents and purposes) that auto-compacting OPTION in OE, too for

| WinXP with SP2. :-)

 

Uhuh, that's right. :-).

 

| But I was under the impression it was NOT due to the length, but

| something malformed in the header or whatever, or something like that

| - at least that's what the error message said (I can't recall now).

 

I see you recalled precisely what it was before me-- yea, that

"references" field. But obviously that grows with each post to the same

thread segment-- so, number also matters! Here is the message I got for

this one before moving it up...

 

Outlook Express could not post your message. Subject 'Re: Backup

software--like GHOST', Account: 'msnews.microsoft.com', Server:

'127.0.0.1', Protocol: NNTP, Server Response: '441 (629) Article

Rejected -- Ill-formed message id

'<#6LIH1czIHA.4168@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl' in field 'References:'', Port:

119, Secure(SSL): No, Server Error: 441, Error Number: 0x800CCCA9

 

|>>> ...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.

|

| Right.

|

|> 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.

|

| Yup. Or just use ERUNT. But ERUNT (like scanreg /restore) is as

| limited as using "scanreg /restore", but it still can do the job in

| many cases, and is all you often need, in many cases.

 

I would probably want to decide as you do which to use-- ERUNT, System

Restore, or an Image. If I thought I couldn't make the decision,

probably I'd do as Chauvin has said & go for the Image. To help with the

decision, I'd track the install that caused the problem with InCtrl5 or

something more powerful. I think you are on top of it.

 

|> 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!

|

| Right.

 

Yea. But I see, despite that, you have said it is more trouble to run

than ERUNT. I'm anxious to see a discussion between you & Chauvin on

that-- both of you are users!

 

....snip

|>> 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!?

|

| If you want the option of having the oldest, you'd BEST save them

| elsewhere. :-)

 

Absolutely, it is best under all circumstances to copy them all before

beginning a round of ScanReg /Restore. However, I lean toward the belief

that... if one starts with the oldest & works up to the newest, then one

does get to try them all if necessary, probably. The oldest one gets

used that way before it is obliterated!

 

|>>> 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!

|

| But then again, how many people really get down into it, like we do?

| I bet most users don't even know about scanreg and scanreg /restore,

| so putting all that detail in the help file would confuse them!!

 

You are right. BUT, the information should be there in Help for those

who do want to see it. Even better-- they should have written the thing

NOT to eat the RB..cab's in the first place during a /Restore! It's

WORSE than cannibalism-- the thing is eating itself!

 

|>>> 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!

|

| Indeed, grasshopper. :-)

 

:-).

 

|>>> 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?

|

| Manual ones are kept in a separate folder from the automatic ones

| (which are normally limited to a preset number of your choice).

| So no, they aren't wiped out (except for the automatic ones, at a max

| limit of your chosing). The manual ones stay there forever, and are

| always accessible in Explorer (as are the automatic ones).

 

That's an improvement.

 

|> There is no such thing as an "ERUNT /Restore"?

|

| No. You just click on one of the files in the ERUNT backup

| (ERDNT.EXE). It's in every ERUNT backup folder, and is quite small.

| Easy as pie.

 

You click on one of the backup registries or on ERUNT.EXE? The registry

that is current just before that click goes nowhere but into oblivion?

After the click & restore-- you actually went back into the folder of

the backups & saw all the dates were the same? (But, really, no need to

actually try it just to satisfy my idle curiosity.)

 

|> Hmm. What if you can't boot to Windows? Isn't there

|> some kind of repair console run from CD or something?

|

| IF you had to, yes. Or there are a few other (DOS-like) special

| utility programs out there, that allow access to NT without windows

| running.

|

| Actually, one time I had some problem (that I sorta was responsible

| for) booting into normal windows mode (maybe messin with MSConfig or

| something), and so I booted into Safe Mode and went to the folder

| containing the ERUNT backups, and clicked on it in there, and then

| easily got back into standard windows. I forgot what I did to mess

| it up in the first place, however - it was some time ago. :-)

 

Hmm. Very good. Hmmmm... THAT very nearly qualifies as your first crash

of XP, though! I don't care if there was no blue screen! Terhune said it

would happen if you tried hard enough! :-).

 

....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.

|

| When you install something big (or even a normal program), a new

| restore point is *automatically created* - in case you should want to

| reverse or undo what the new program installation did to your system.

| Which is a nice feature of System Restore. :-)

 

It sounds nice, pending Chauvin states his reasons he doesn't like it. I

personally would like to see System Restore put out a better .log file

than you have described it does.

 

 

--

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 Rick Chauvin]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

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

news:%230QIKPpzIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl

> I've had to move my reply up-- you didn't go high enough!

 

it's a crazy thread isn't it

> Rick Chauvin wrote:

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

>| news:%236LIH1czIHA.4168@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl

>|

>| [....]

>|

>|> When you install something big (or even a normal program), a new

>|> restore point is *automatically created* - in case you should want

>|> to reverse or undo what the new program installation did to your

>|> system. Which is a nice feature of System Restore. :-)

>|

>| I don't like to use System Restore at all for a number of reasons -

>| actually first thing upon installation I did was to shut the dang

>| thing off (among a hundred other things). I strictly use Imaging

>| instead which imho is by far better.

>

> You don't trust it to do the job? From Colorado's descriptions, it

 

It's not that I don't trust it for what benefits it has over not having

anything at all and therefore applaud what it does do.

There are dozens of reasons why in my personal preference I don't use it..

I don't want to get into all the reasons here; and granted I am not most

people and rarely follow the crowd. Using it of course is great for the

majority and is a million x's better than having nothing at all.

 

I have it disabled, period. For me I much prefer and use True Image instead

(or any professional imager) for my computers ultimate backup protection on

every level.

 

If alternately I'm going to test setups or softwares or explore detailed

circumstances I will use a separate computers expendable partition setups

(or even my main one) and have at it, when I'm done testing whatever it is

I'm dong I just reimage that OS's partition back to square one ready for

the next round; I wouldn't fool with XP's basic restore techniques for my

work. On my main computers I require separate 100% foolproof

non-incremental backup images along with duplicate HD's, and store those

backups elsewhere.

> doesn't provide much of a report. I probably wouldn't want to use it,

> either, if I had to guess what it was doing! I'm sure it will restore a

> saved Registry. It uses a "dll-cache" somehow to handle files on a kind

> of incremental basis saving only changed ones-- but I'm not sure

> precisely which ones or what it does with them! I can think it will

> restore a deleted file-- but will it delete an extra one? Does it only

> handle executables?

 

I really don't want to get into all that here. I've always lovingly

prodded you though to hands on install stuff and test it for you own

experience. Anyway there are hundreds of sites that cover XP's

system restore abilities and limits.

> It could be as Colorado says that one might get a feel for which to use

> after a while-- ERUNT, System Restore, &/or a 3rd party Image. I see he

> has replied to you also. I hope you can find it!

 

Yes I can see every post, however I haven't read all of them not intended

for me - but this thread is out of a normal hand by now. You guys should

get a cb or ham radio to talk <smile>

>| Anyway, you guys are still keeping this thread alive? ! ..what in

>| heavens are you both talking about - there's no way I can read

>| through these threads to figure it out - but I think yous must be

>| just coffee visiting here every day is all.

>

> I thought PA Bear would be first to complain!

>

>| Rick

>|

>|

>| ps... heck the threads are so deep it won't even let me post my

>| message and I had to skip up to get it to take

>

> Right. I've been doing that too for quite a while now. You can reply to

> this, & I will move mine up.

 

I did, but hopefully not to this thread again since it's so

discombobulated.

 

you take good care now, see ya,

 

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

[Guest PCR]

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

 

Rick Chauvin wrote:

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

| news:%230QIKPpzIHA.4912@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl

|> I've had to move my reply up-- you didn't go high enough!

|

| it's a crazy thread isn't it

 

Yea, discombobulated. No one wanted it to happen, though! More below.

 

|> Rick Chauvin wrote:

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

|>| news:%236LIH1czIHA.4168@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl

|>|

|>| [....]

|>|

|>|> When you install something big (or even a normal program), a new

|>|> restore point is *automatically created* - in case you should want

|>|> to reverse or undo what the new program installation did to your

|>|> system. Which is a nice feature of System Restore. :-)

|>|

|>| I don't like to use System Restore at all for a number of reasons -

|>| actually first thing upon installation I did was to shut the dang

|>| thing off (among a hundred other things). I strictly use Imaging

|>| instead which imho is by far better.

|>

|> You don't trust it to do the job? From Colorado's descriptions, it

|

| It's not that I don't trust it for what benefits it has over not

| having anything at all and therefore applaud what it does do.

| There are dozens of reasons why in my personal preference I don't use

| it.. I don't want to get into all the reasons here; and granted I am

| not most people and rarely follow the crowd. Using it of course is

| great for the majority and is a million x's better than having

| nothing at all.

 

You are very politic in your criticisms, Chauvin-- & it isn't too late

for you to enter the presidential race!

 

| I have it disabled, period. For me I much prefer and use True Image

| instead (or any professional imager) for my computers ultimate backup

| protection on every level.

 

You, me & Colorado all agree a True Image Image or a BING Image or Clone

is best for ultimate protection. It gets a little tougher to do when

multiple partitions have been created & the OS partially split between

the two/three of them like I finally did. But I only clone the main

C:partition, & just copy the other two using Explorer. I try to keep

just data stuff on those two (but that includes my Win98SE .cabs, which

SFC will go for) & to 100% avoid an install of an app to one of them--

to minimize Registry ties!

 

But for small/medium sized installs that I wanted to reverse, I think I

would have to consider System Restore (& even ERUNT)-- IF I could fairly

well guess what it is doing. Too, too bad it didn't come with a good

..log to record its doings! Well, I guess I'd run my InCtrl5 (I know you

have something better) to see what an install does & what System Restore

would reverse. But it's a pity XP STILL will require that extra work!

 

I'm pretty sure you fully agree with all of this, & there is no need to

reply.

 

| If alternately I'm going to test setups or softwares or explore

| detailed circumstances I will use a separate computers expendable

| partition setups (or even my main one) and have at it, when I'm done

| testing whatever it is I'm dong I just reimage that OS's partition

| back to square one ready for the next round; I wouldn't fool with

| XP's basic restore techniques for my work. On my main computers I

| require separate 100% foolproof non-incremental backup images along

| with duplicate HD's, and store those backups elsewhere.

 

I think you know what you are doing, Chauvin-- & you always did!

 

|> doesn't provide much of a report. I probably wouldn't want to use it,

|> either, if I had to guess what it was doing! I'm sure it will

|> restore a saved Registry. It uses a "dll-cache" somehow to handle

|> files on a kind of incremental basis saving only changed ones-- but

|> I'm not sure precisely which ones or what it does with them! I can

|> think it will restore a deleted file-- but will it delete an extra

|> one? Does it only handle executables?

|

| I really don't want to get into all that here. I've always lovingly

| prodded you though to hands on install stuff and test it for you own

| experience. Anyway there are hundreds of sites that cover XP's

| system restore abilities and limits.

 

I may need to go look, now that my interest has been aroused-- JUST to

solidify my preconceptions!

 

|> It could be as Colorado says that one might get a feel for which to

|> use after a while-- ERUNT, System Restore, &/or a 3rd party Image. I

|> see he has replied to you also. I hope you can find it!

|

| Yes I can see every post, however I haven't read all of them not

| intended for me - but this thread is out of a normal hand by now. You

| guys should get a cb or ham radio to talk <smile>

 

I'm expecting soon enough we must run out of conversation!

 

|>| Anyway, you guys are still keeping this thread alive? ! ..what in

|>| heavens are you both talking about - there's no way I can read

|>| through these threads to figure it out - but I think yous must be

|>| just coffee visiting here every day is all.

|>

|> I thought PA Bear would be first to complain!

|>

|>| Rick

|>|

|>|

|>| ps... heck the threads are so deep it won't even let me post my

|>| message and I had to skip up to get it to take

|>

|> Right. I've been doing that too for quite a while now. You can reply

|> to this, & I will move mine up.

|

| I did, but hopefully not to this thread again since it's so

| discombobulated.

 

I understand. Alright. No need to reply. My interest in XP is only mild

at this point.

 

| you take good care now, see ya,

 

You too, Rick.

 

| 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