Re: Backup software--like GHOST

June 15, 2008

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

PCR wrote:

> 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?

System type files, not only EXEs.

> 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!

I like having it as one tool in my toolbag, along with ERUNT. And, of

course, the completely reliable (but more time consuming) backup approach

using True Image.

I had to cut and paste THIS one too (into one of my other posts) - I

couldn't respond directly to your post, PCR (which emanated from Rick, I

guess).

June 15, 2008

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Bill in Co. wrote:

| PCR wrote:

|> 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?

|

| System type files, not only EXEs.

Alright, that's right, you said before. Well, I wish there was some kind

of intelligible .log of what that does, though. Suppose an install adds

a file to a system folder, will System Restore remove it? Or does it

just replace files that were removed or modified? I guess, if someone

puts a text file into a system folder, SR wouldn't care at all.

|> 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!

|

| I like having it as one tool in my toolbag, along with ERUNT. And,

| of course, the completely reliable (but more time consuming) backup

| approach using True Image.

|

| I had to cut and paste THIS one too (into one of my other posts) - I

| couldn't respond directly to your post, PCR (which emanated from

| Rick, I guess).

Yep. We've reached that point in several thread segments, I think.

--

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

June 15, 2008

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Let me catch you while this is still readable,,,

Did you get your modified IUHIST? Was that more what you were looking for?

--

MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

--

_________

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

news:%23nDNYoqzIHA.2384@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

| Bill in Co. wrote:

| | PCR wrote:

| |> 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?

| |

| | System type files, not only EXEs.

|

| Alright, that's right, you said before. Well, I wish there was some kind

| of intelligible .log of what that does, though. Suppose an install adds

| a file to a system folder, will System Restore remove it? Or does it

| just replace files that were removed or modified? I guess, if someone

| puts a text file into a system folder, SR wouldn't care at all.

|

| |> 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!

| |

| | I like having it as one tool in my toolbag, along with ERUNT. And,

| | of course, the completely reliable (but more time consuming) backup

| | approach using True Image.

| |

| | I had to cut and paste THIS one too (into one of my other posts) - I

| | couldn't respond directly to your post, PCR (which emanated from

| | Rick, I guess).

|

| Yep. We've reached that point in several thread segments, I think.

|

| --

| 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

|

June 15, 2008

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

MEB wrote:

| Let me catch you while this is still readable,,,

|

| Did you get your modified IUHIST? Was that more what you were

| looking for?

Yes, I did. Didn't my response get to you? Thanks. It's going to take

about six years for me to analyze it, though-- I said! My original

version has functioning +/- signs, but your modified text version is

easier to browse. Thanks again.

| --

| MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| --

| _________

|

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

| news:%23nDNYoqzIHA.2384@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

|| Bill in Co. wrote:

|| | PCR wrote:

|| |> 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?

|| |

|| | System type files, not only EXEs.

||

|| Alright, that's right, you said before. Well, I wish there was some

|| kind of intelligible .log of what that does, though. Suppose an

|| install adds a file to a system folder, will System Restore remove

|| it? Or does it just replace files that were removed or modified? I

|| guess, if someone puts a text file into a system folder, SR wouldn't

|| care at all.

||

|| |> 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!

|| |

|| | I like having it as one tool in my toolbag, along with ERUNT.

|| | And, of course, the completely reliable (but more time consuming)

|| | backup approach using True Image.

|| |

|| | I had to cut and paste THIS one too (into one of my other posts) -

|| | I couldn't respond directly to your post, PCR (which emanated from

|| | Rick, I guess).

||

|| Yep. We've reached that point in several thread segments, I think.

||

|| --

|| 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

June 15, 2008

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

YW, just wondered if you did,, guess I need to check that account and see if

Live broke it again...

--

MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

--

_________

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

news:eKlnAzqzIHA.5892@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

| MEB wrote:

| | Let me catch you while this is still readable,,,

| |

| | Did you get your modified IUHIST? Was that more what you were

| | looking for?

|

| Yes, I did. Didn't my response get to you? Thanks. It's going to take

| about six years for me to analyze it, though-- I said! My original

| version has functioning +/- signs, but your modified text version is

| easier to browse. Thanks again.

|

| | --

| | MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| | --

| | _________

| |

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

| | news:%23nDNYoqzIHA.2384@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

| || Bill in Co. wrote:

| || | PCR wrote:

| || |> 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?

| || |

| || | System type files, not only EXEs.

| ||

| || Alright, that's right, you said before. Well, I wish there was some

| || kind of intelligible .log of what that does, though. Suppose an

| || install adds a file to a system folder, will System Restore remove

| || it? Or does it just replace files that were removed or modified? I

| || guess, if someone puts a text file into a system folder, SR wouldn't

| || care at all.

| ||

| || |> 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!

| || |

| || | I like having it as one tool in my toolbag, along with ERUNT.

| || | And, of course, the completely reliable (but more time consuming)

| || | backup approach using True Image.

| || |

| || | I had to cut and paste THIS one too (into one of my other posts) -

| || | I couldn't respond directly to your post, PCR (which emanated from

| || | Rick, I guess).

| ||

| || Yep. We've reached that point in several thread segments, I think.

| ||

| || --

| || 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

|

June 15, 2008

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

PCR wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> PCR wrote:

>>> 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?

>>

>> System type files, not only EXEs.

>

> Alright, that's right, you said before. Well, I wish there was some kind

> of intelligible .log of what that does, though. Suppose an install adds

> a file to a system folder, will System Restore remove it?

Yup, I believe so (unless it were something like a doc or txt file, for

example).

After all, it may (potentially) have caused a problem (or so System Restore

assumes), and thus when you restore the previous setpoint (assuming you do),

SR logically removes it, and other such ones that were added that had the

potential to have caused a problem (otherwise you wouldn't have chosen to

roll back to the previous restore setpoint).

> Or does it just replace files that were removed or modified?

OR added, that had the potential to have messed up your system (and you want

System Restore to recover from that as best it can), so that means removing

those potentially problematic files and file types that were added by the

installation of the program.

> I guess, if someone puts a text file into a system folder, SR wouldn't

> care at all.

No, it wouldn't care about that. Only the monitored file types (it's

documented on one of the MS knowledge base pages if you look for it under

"System Restore"). It doesn't care a thing about TXT, DOC, WAV, MP3, or

LOG files (for example).

>>> 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!

>>

>> I like having it as one tool in my toolbag, along with ERUNT. And,

>> of course, the completely reliable (but more time consuming) backup

>> approach using True Image.

>>

>> I had to cut and paste THIS one too (into one of my other posts) - I

>> couldn't respond directly to your post, PCR (which emanated from

>> Rick, I guess).

>

> Yep. We've reached that point in several thread segments, I think.

I hope this one posts ok too. We could always break precedent and create a

new, on topic, thread. Maybe you should start that!

June 15, 2008

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

MEB wrote:

| YW, just wondered if you did,, guess I need to check that account and

| see if Live broke it again...

OK. Careful you are not murdered by Terhune or anyone before I get a

chance to analyze it.

| --

| MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

| --

| _________

|

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

| news:eKlnAzqzIHA.5892@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

|| MEB wrote:

|| | Let me catch you while this is still readable,,,

|| |

|| | Did you get your modified IUHIST? Was that more what you were

|| | looking for?

||

|| Yes, I did. Didn't my response get to you? Thanks. It's going to take

|| about six years for me to analyze it, though-- I said! My original

|| version has functioning +/- signs, but your modified text version is

|| easier to browse. Thanks again.

||

|| | --

|| | MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com

|| | --

|| | _________

|| |

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

|| | news:%23nDNYoqzIHA.2384@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

|| || Bill in Co. wrote:

|| || | PCR wrote:

|| || |> 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?

|| || |

|| || | System type files, not only EXEs.

|| ||

|| || Alright, that's right, you said before. Well, I wish there was

|| || some kind of intelligible .log of what that does, though. Suppose

|| || an install adds a file to a system folder, will System Restore

|| || remove it? Or does it just replace files that were removed or

|| || modified? I guess, if someone puts a text file into a system

|| || folder, SR wouldn't care at all.

|| ||

|| || |> 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!

|| || |

|| || | I like having it as one tool in my toolbag, along with ERUNT.

|| || | And, of course, the completely reliable (but more time

|| || | consuming) backup approach using True Image.

|| || |

|| || | I had to cut and paste THIS one too (into one of my other

|| || | posts) - I couldn't respond directly to your post, PCR (which

|| || | emanated from Rick, I guess).

|| ||

|| || Yep. We've reached that point in several thread segments, I think.

|| ||

|| || --

|| || 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

June 15, 2008

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Bill in Co. wrote:

| PCR wrote:

|> Bill in Co. wrote:

|>> PCR wrote:

|>>> 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?

|>>

|>> System type files, not only EXEs.

|>

|> Alright, that's right, you said before. Well, I wish there was some

|> kind of intelligible .log of what that does, though. Suppose an

|> install adds a file to a system folder, will System Restore remove

|> it?

|

| Yup, I believe so (unless it were something like a doc or txt file,

| for example).

| After all, it may (potentially) have caused a problem (or so System

| Restore assumes), and thus when you restore the previous setpoint

| (assuming you do), SR logically removes it, and other such ones that

| were added that had the potential to have caused a problem (otherwise

| you wouldn't have chosen to roll back to the previous restore

| setpoint).

Right. And, yea, that is good/thorough of System Restore to remove added

files as well.

|> Or does it just replace files that were removed or modified?

|

| OR added, that had the potential to have messed up your system (and

| you want System Restore to recover from that as best it can), so that

| means removing those potentially problematic files and file types

| that were added by the installation of the program.

Yea. That is good.

|> I guess, if someone puts a text file into a system folder, SR

|> wouldn't care at all.

|

| No, it wouldn't care about that. Only the monitored file types (it's

| documented on one of the MS knowledge base pages if you look for it

| under "System Restore"). It doesn't care a thing about TXT, DOC,

| WAV, MP3, or LOG files (for example).

I guess that is acceptable. Probably, most installs won't put those

things in a system folder, anyhow. But I personally wouldn't want stray

ones to get in there & get left behind. So... hopefully doing an

install's own un-install routine will get rid of it first-- IF the

system is well enough to allow it: This is a System Restore, after all.

I'm sure you agree fully.

|>>> 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!

|>>

|>> I like having it as one tool in my toolbag, along with ERUNT. And,

|>> of course, the completely reliable (but more time consuming) backup

|>> approach using True Image.

|>>

|>> I had to cut and paste THIS one too (into one of my other posts) - I

|>> couldn't respond directly to your post, PCR (which emanated from

|>> Rick, I guess).

|>

|> Yep. We've reached that point in several thread segments, I think.

|

| I hope this one posts ok too. We could always break precedent and

| create a new, on topic, thread. Maybe you should start that!

I think I know enough now about System Restore, &/or I will Google for

what you say. I'm not switching yet to XP, after all. Thanks for all of

this info, Bill. We should wrap up the conversation on this topic.

--

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

June 15, 2008

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

PCR wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> PCR wrote:

>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>> PCR wrote:

>>>>> 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.

Well, and it's the only 100% guaranteed approach, although sometimes using

it is like using a sledge hammer to pound a nail, when just a hammer would

do (assuming you know when to use each, which only comes from experience,

although I have presented some general guidelines already)

>>>>> 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?

>>>>

>>>> System type files, not only EXEs.

>>>

>>> Alright, that's right, you said before. Well, I wish there was some

>>> kind of intelligible .log of what that does, though. Suppose an

>>> install adds a file to a system folder, will System Restore remove it?

>>

>> Yup, I believe so (unless it were something like a doc or txt file,

>> for example).

>> After all, it may (potentially) have caused a problem (or so System

>> Restore assumes), and thus when you restore the previous setpoint

>> (assuming you do), SR logically removes it, and other such ones that

>> were added that had the potential to have caused a problem (otherwise

>> you wouldn't have chosen to roll back to the previous restore

>> setpoint).

>

> Right. And, yea, that is good/thorough of System Restore to remove added

> files as well.

>

>>> Or does it just replace files that were removed or modified?

>>

>> OR added, that had the potential to have messed up your system (and

>> you want System Restore to recover from that as best it can), so that

>> means removing those potentially problematic files and file types

>> that were added by the installation of the program.

>

> Yea. That is good.

>

>>> I guess, if someone puts a text file into a system folder, SR

>>> wouldn't care at all.

>>

>> No, it wouldn't care about that. Only the monitored file types (it's

>> documented on one of the MS knowledge base pages if you look for it

>> under "System Restore"). It doesn't care a thing about TXT, DOC,

>> WAV, MP3, or LOG files (for example).

>

> I guess that is acceptable. Probably, most installs won't put those

> things in a system folder, anyhow.

No, they sometimes do put stuff in there (and always in Program Files, and

sometinmes a few other places), generally speaking. And ALL of those are

monitored by System Restore.

> But I personally wouldn't want stray

> ones to get in there & get left behind. So... hopefully doing an

> install's own un-install routine will get rid of it first-- IF the

> system is well enough to allow it: This is a System Restore, after all.

> I'm sure you agree fully.

>

>>>>> 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!

>>>>

>>>> I like having it as one tool in my toolbag, along with ERUNT. And,

>>>> of course, the completely reliable (but more time consuming) backup

>>>> approach using True Image.

>>>>

>>>> I had to cut and paste THIS one too (into one of my other posts) - I

>>>> couldn't respond directly to your post, PCR (which emanated from

>>>> Rick, I guess).

>>>

>>> Yep. We've reached that point in several thread segments, I think.

>>

>> I hope this one posts ok too. We could always break precedent and

>> create a new, on topic, thread. Maybe you should start that!

>

> I think I know enough now about System Restore, &/or I will Google for

> what you say.

You should. If you don't want to use it, you can disable it, too. But I

wouldn't recommend that. It really doesn't take up all that much disk

space (which you can define) for the peace of mind it offers, assuming you

use it prudently.

IOW, ALWAYS having to restore using a backup drive - is a bit of a PIA, and

IS time consuming. Sure, it's 100% assured, but I'd rather recover from

some relatively minor screwups in 2 minutes (by using System Restore or

ERUNT) than one hour (or so) total time.

> I'm not switching yet to XP, after all.

Don't let all I've said scare you off. If that's the case, I'm sorry I

ever responded.

But you may be sorry down the pike. :-) There will undoubtedly come a

time (heck right now I can't even get my Tax Program for Win98 - grrrr), and

once that time comes, it will be too late. Why? Because.....

And as of today, you have only 15 days left to still be able to get Win XP

Home. :-)

And after that, VISTA is it - period, end of story. (Shudder......)

Or Linux.

June 16, 2008

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:

|>>>>> 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.

|

| Well, and it's the only 100% guaranteed approach, although sometimes

| using it is like using a sledge hammer to pound a nail, when just a

| hammer would do (assuming you know when to use each, which only comes

| from experience, although I have presented some general guidelines

| already)

OK. I, myself, was satisfied with that answer several posts ago. For

small/middle-sized things, Chauvin very likely uses his tracker to do

the reversal, if the program's own uninstall routine didn't get it all &

if his tracker has been updated to work on XP.

....snip

|>>> I guess, if someone puts a text file into a system folder, SR

|>>> wouldn't care at all.

|>>

|>> No, it wouldn't care about that. Only the monitored file types

|>> (it's documented on one of the MS knowledge base pages if you look

|>> for it under "System Restore"). It doesn't care a thing about

|>> TXT, DOC, WAV, MP3, or LOG files (for example).

|>

|> I guess that is acceptable. Probably, most installs won't put those

|> things in a system folder, anyhow.

|

| No, they sometimes do put stuff in there (and always in Program

| Files, and sometinmes a few other places), generally speaking. And

| ALL of those are monitored by System Restore.

I see. If Program Files is involved... that's a pity, then, that it

won't go for non-executables... because there must be plenty in there! I

suppose System Restore never intended to do a full uninstall, though--

but only a deactivate. That's sloppy, but should be effective enough to

get one booting again. Then, you must clean up as best you can

afterwards. I wouldn't want to be in that situation!

|> But I personally wouldn't want stray

|> ones to get in there & get left behind. So... hopefully doing an

|> install's own un-install routine will get rid of it first-- IF the

|> system is well enough to allow it: This is a System Restore, after

|> all. I'm sure you agree fully.

....snip

|> I think I know enough now about System Restore, &/or I will Google

|> for what you say.

|

| You should. If you don't want to use it, you can disable it, too.

| But I wouldn't recommend that. It really doesn't take up all that

| much disk space (which you can define) for the peace of mind it

| offers, assuming you use it prudently.

Even if it is sloppy, likely it will get one booting again to do the

cleanup of non-executables. That may not be too big a chore in most

cases. SO... likely I would do as you & keep it running-- IF it didn't

seem to be overbearing on resources & the speed of the machine & the use

of the hard drive. I must reserve a final decision until I get my own

XP-machine-- IF ever.

Thanks for your input. That's really all I need for now. You may reply

once more on this topic-- but me 'n Chauvin are done!

| IOW, ALWAYS having to restore using a backup drive - is a bit of a

| PIA, and IS time consuming. Sure, it's 100% assured, but I'd

| rather recover from some relatively minor screwups in 2 minutes (by

| using System Restore or ERUNT) than one hour (or so) total time.

I tend to agree.

|> I'm not switching yet to XP, after all.

|

| Don't let all I've said scare you off. If that's the case, I'm

| sorry I ever responded.

No, no-- don't worry! When I MUST switch, I will-- that remains true!

| But you may be sorry down the pike. :-) There will undoubtedly

| come a time (heck right now I can't even get my Tax Program for Win98

| - grrrr), and once that time comes, it will be too late. Why?

| Because.....

|

| And as of today, you have only 15 days left to still be able to get

| Win XP Home. :-)

| And after that, VISTA is it - period, end of story. (Shudder......)

|

| Or Linux.

Understood-- for a new machine only, though.

--

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

June 17, 2008

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:

>>>>>>> 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.

>>

>> Well, and it's the only 100% guaranteed approach, although sometimes

>> using it is like using a sledge hammer to pound a nail, when just a

>> hammer would do (assuming you know when to use each, which only comes

>> from experience, although I have presented some general guidelines

>> already)

>

> OK. I, myself, was satisfied with that answer several posts ago. For

> small/middle-sized things, Chauvin very likely uses his tracker to do

> the reversal, if the program's own uninstall routine didn't get it all &

> if his tracker has been updated to work on XP.

Actually, looking back over time, and in retrospect, I'm finding that more

often than not, I usually end up using the other two, MOST of the time. I

mean, either ERUNT (for the minor stuff), or restoring an image from a

Backup Drive (in my USB enclosure), for the heavier stuff.

So I don't really use System Restore all that often, in large part for the

reasons Rick already mentioned. (but only on some select occasions)

I do, however, and fairly often, use ERUNT (which is directly analogous to

"scanreg" and "scanreg /restore"), for the relatively minor stuff (if I

don't like something after making some tweaks or customizations which are

too tedious to undo, or installs of some minimal programs)

> ...snip

>>>>> I guess, if someone puts a text file into a system folder, SR

>>>>> wouldn't care at all.

>>>>

>>>> No, it wouldn't care about that. Only the monitored file types

>>>> (it's documented on one of the MS knowledge base pages if you look

>>>> for it under "System Restore"). It doesn't care a thing about

>>>> TXT, DOC, WAV, MP3, or LOG files (for example).

>>>

>>> I guess that is acceptable. Probably, most installs won't put those

>>> things in a system folder, anyhow.

>>

>> No, they sometimes do put stuff in there (and always in Program

>> Files, and sometinmes a few other places), generally speaking. And

>> ALL of those are monitored by System Restore.

>

> I see. If Program Files is involved... that's a pity, then, that it

> won't go for non-executables... because there must be plenty in there!

Well, I didn't check that - there is a possibility (and perhaps probability)

it cleanly removes all the files in the Program Files folder too. Cause

after all, they're not supposed to be needed, either. What did your

search at the MS site say (about the article on System Restore)? It

details a lot of it.

> I suppose System Restore never intended to do a full uninstall, though--

> but only a deactivate.

System Restore was NOT intended to replace Uninstalling a program! That's

what you're supposed to do first! However, if you can't succeed in doing

so, or things aren't quite right after uninstalling it, you can often fall

back to the previous System Restore checkpoint to clean that mess up.

(Hopefully that explains its purpose a bit better).

Of course, the best thing (which is always guaranteed to work) is to restore

a backup image, if necessary. But that takes an hour - instead of 3

minutes. :-)

> That's sloppy, but should be effective enough to

> get one booting again. Then, you must clean up as best you can

> afterwards. I wouldn't want to be in that situation!

Huh?

>>> But I personally wouldn't want stray

>>> ones to get in there & get left behind. So... hopefully doing an

>>> install's own un-install routine will get rid of it first-- IF the

>>> system is well enough to allow it: This is a System Restore, after

>>> all. I'm sure you agree fully.

>

> ...snip

>>> I think I know enough now about System Restore, &/or I will Google

>>> for what you say.

>>

>> You should. If you don't want to use it, you can disable it, too.

>> But I wouldn't recommend that. It really doesn't take up all that

>> much disk space (which you can define) for the peace of mind it

>> offers, assuming you use it prudently.

>

> Even if it is sloppy, likely it will get one booting again to do the

> cleanup of non-executables. That may not be too big a chore in most

> cases. SO... likely I would do as you & keep it running-- IF it didn't

> seem to be overbearing on resources & the speed of the machine & the use

> of the hard drive. I must reserve a final decision until I get my own

> XP-machine-- IF ever.

>

> Thanks for your input. That's really all I need for now. You may reply

> once more on this topic-- but me 'n Chauvin are done!

>

>> IOW, ALWAYS having to restore using a backup drive - is a bit of a

>> PIA, and IS time consuming. Sure, it's 100% assured, but I'd

>> rather recover from some relatively minor screwups in 2 minutes (by

>> using System Restore or ERUNT) than one hour (or so) total time.

>

> I tend to agree.

>

>>> I'm not switching yet to XP, after all.

>>

>> Don't let all I've said scare you off. If that's the case, I'm

>> sorry I ever responded.

>

> No, no-- don't worry! When I MUST switch, I will-- that remains true!

>

>> But you may be sorry down the pike. :-) There will undoubtedly

>> come a time (heck right now I can't even get my Tax Program for Win98

>> - grrrr), and once that time comes, it will be too late. Why?

>> Because.....

>>

>> And as of today, you have only 15 days left to still be able to get

>> Win XP Home. :-)

>> And after that, VISTA is it - period, end of story. (Shudder......)

>>

>> Or Linux.

>

> Understood-- for a new machine only, though.

You want to buy a used computer, when you can get a fresh new one from Dell

for under $1000? And even under $800? (I think that's what mine cost; I

didn't go for the high end graphics junk (etc) needed for high end "games")

June 17, 2008

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Bill in Co. wrote:

| PCR wrote:

|> Bill in Co. wrote:

....snip

|>> Well, and it's the only 100% guaranteed approach, although sometimes

|>> using it is like using a sledge hammer to pound a nail, when just a

|>> hammer would do (assuming you know when to use each, which only

|>> comes from experience, although I have presented some general

|>> guidelines already)

|>

|> OK. I, myself, was satisfied with that answer several posts ago. For

|> small/middle-sized things, Chauvin very likely uses his tracker to do

|> the reversal, if the program's own uninstall routine didn't get it

|> all & if his tracker has been updated to work on XP.

|

| Actually, looking back over time, and in retrospect, I'm finding that

| more often than not, I usually end up using the other two, MOST of

| the time. I mean, either ERUNT (for the minor stuff), or restoring

| an image from a Backup Drive (in my USB enclosure), for the heavier

| stuff.

|

| So I don't really use System Restore all that often, in large part

| for the reasons Rick already mentioned. (but only on some select

| occasions)

|

| I do, however, and fairly often, use ERUNT (which is directly

| analogous to "scanreg" and "scanreg /restore"), for the relatively

| minor stuff (if I don't like something after making some tweaks or

| customizations which are too tedious to undo, or installs of some

| minimal programs)

(1) Can you post your backup registries, something like I have

often done by copying it from a Windows DOS screen?

(2) Did you actually go look at them after doing your equivalent

of a /Restore to see whether any shenanigan went on--

such as one of them got wiped out & was replaced with

the registry that was current just before the /Restore?

|> ...snip

|>>>>> I guess, if someone puts a text file into a system folder, SR

|>>>>> wouldn't care at all.

|>>>>

|>>>> No, it wouldn't care about that. Only the monitored file types

|>>>> (it's documented on one of the MS knowledge base pages if you look

|>>>> for it under "System Restore"). It doesn't care a thing about

|>>>> TXT, DOC, WAV, MP3, or LOG files (for example).

|>>>

|>>> I guess that is acceptable. Probably, most installs won't put those

|>>> things in a system folder, anyhow.

|>>

|>> No, they sometimes do put stuff in there (and always in Program

|>> Files, and sometinmes a few other places), generally speaking.

|>> And ALL of those are monitored by System Restore.

|>

|> I see. If Program Files is involved... that's a pity, then, that it

|> won't go for non-executables... because there must be plenty in

|> there!

|

| Well, I didn't check that - there is a possibility (and perhaps

| probability) it cleanly removes all the files in the Program Files

| folder too. Cause after all, they're not supposed to be needed,

| either. What did your search at the MS site say (about the article

| on System Restore)? It details a lot of it.

Is it one of these 200...?...

http://support.microsoft.com/search/default.aspx?mode=a&query=System+Restore&catalog=LCID%3D1033&1033comm=1&spid=1173

If so-- which one? (But I'm not really intending to become the expert on

it. I just wanted a few questions answered!)

|> I suppose System Restore never intended to do a full uninstall,

|> though-- but only a deactivate.

|

| System Restore was NOT intended to replace Uninstalling a program!

| That's what you're supposed to do first! However, if you can't

| succeed in doing so, or things aren't quite right after uninstalling

| it, you can often fall back to the previous System Restore checkpoint

| to clean that mess up. (Hopefully that explains its purpose a bit

| better).

|

| Of course, the best thing (which is always guaranteed to work) is to

| restore a backup image, if necessary. But that takes an hour -

| instead of 3 minutes. :-)

I'll bet it does with a 250 GB hard drive as you've got. I understand.

|> That's sloppy, but should be effective enough to

|> get one booting again. Then, you must clean up as best you can

|> afterwards. I wouldn't want to be in that situation!

|

| Huh?

I wouldn't want to be in the situation of having to guess what System

Restore has left behind, although you begin to suggest less/less may be.

|>>> But I personally wouldn't want stray

|>>> ones to get in there & get left behind. So... hopefully doing an

|>>> install's own un-install routine will get rid of it first-- IF the

|>>> system is well enough to allow it: This is a System Restore, after

|>>> all. I'm sure you agree fully.

|>

|> ...snip

|>>> I think I know enough now about System Restore, &/or I will Google

|>>> for what you say.

|>>

|>> You should. If you don't want to use it, you can disable it, too.

|>> But I wouldn't recommend that. It really doesn't take up all that

|>> much disk space (which you can define) for the peace of mind it

|>> offers, assuming you use it prudently.

|>

|> Even if it is sloppy, likely it will get one booting again to do the

|> cleanup of non-executables. That may not be too big a chore in most

|> cases. SO... likely I would do as you & keep it running-- IF it

|> didn't seem to be overbearing on resources & the speed of the

|> machine & the use of the hard drive. I must reserve a final decision

|> until I get my own XP-machine-- IF ever.

|>

|> Thanks for your input. That's really all I need for now. You may

|> reply once more on this topic-- but me 'n Chauvin are done!

|>

|>> IOW, ALWAYS having to restore using a backup drive - is a bit of a

|>> PIA, and IS time consuming. Sure, it's 100% assured, but I'd

|>> rather recover from some relatively minor screwups in 2 minutes (by

|>> using System Restore or ERUNT) than one hour (or so) total time.

|>

|> I tend to agree.

|>

|>>> I'm not switching yet to XP, after all.

|>>

|>> Don't let all I've said scare you off. If that's the case, I'm

|>> sorry I ever responded.

|>

|> No, no-- don't worry! When I MUST switch, I will-- that remains true!

|>

|>> But you may be sorry down the pike. :-) There will undoubtedly

|>> come a time (heck right now I can't even get my Tax Program for

|>> Win98 - grrrr), and once that time comes, it will be too late.

|>> Why? Because.....

|>>

|>> And as of today, you have only 15 days left to still be able to get

|>> Win XP Home. :-)

|>> And after that, VISTA is it - period, end of story.

|>> (Shudder......)

|>>

|>> Or Linux.

|>

|> Understood-- for a new machine only, though.

|

| You want to buy a used computer, when you can get a fresh new one

| from Dell for under $1000? And even under $800? (I think that's

| what mine cost; I didn't go for the high end graphics junk (etc)

| needed for high end "games")

I wouldn't go for the high end graphics & games either. But I'll never

make that Dell deadline. I've been Googling for new eyeglasses now for 3

months at least-- & there still is no end in sight!

--

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

June 17, 2008

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

PCR wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> PCR wrote:

>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>

> ...snip

>>>> Well, and it's the only 100% guaranteed approach, although sometimes

>>>> using it is like using a sledge hammer to pound a nail, when just a

>>>> hammer would do (assuming you know when to use each, which only

>>>> comes from experience, although I have presented some general

>>>> guidelines already)

>>>

>>> OK. I, myself, was satisfied with that answer several posts ago. For

>>> small/middle-sized things, Chauvin very likely uses his tracker to do

>>> the reversal, if the program's own uninstall routine didn't get it

>>> all & if his tracker has been updated to work on XP.

>>

>> Actually, looking back over time, and in retrospect, I'm finding that

>> more often than not, I usually end up using the other two, MOST of

>> the time. I mean, either ERUNT (for the minor stuff), or restoring

>> an image from a Backup Drive (in my USB enclosure), for the heavier

>> stuff.

>>

>> So I don't really use System Restore all that often, in large part

>> for the reasons Rick already mentioned. (but only on some select

>> occasions)

>>

>> I do, however, and fairly often, use ERUNT (which is directly

>> analogous to "scanreg" and "scanreg /restore"), for the relatively

>> minor stuff (if I don't like something after making some tweaks or

>> customizations which are too tedious to undo, or installs of some

>> minimal programs)

>

> (1) Can you post your backup registries, something like I have

> often done by copying it from a Windows DOS screen?

Copying it from a DOS screen? OK, I went to one of my recent ERUNT

registry backups, and here is what it shows:

Volume in drive C is Local Disk

Volume Serial Number is 8469-17CF

Directory of C:\WINDOWS\ERDNT\6-16-2008

06/17/2008 01:27 AM <DIR> . (contains a small .dat file)

06/17/2008 01:27 AM <DIR> .. (contains a small .dat file)

06/16/2008 11:31 PM <DIR> Users (directory container for above)

06/16/2008 11:31 PM 266,240 DEFAULT

06/16/2008 11:31 PM 673 ERDNT.CON

10/20/2005 01:02 PM 163,328 ERDNT.EXE (that's the one you click

on to restore the ERUNT backup)

06/16/2008 11:31 PM 763 ERDNT.INF

09/25/2002 04:11 AM 2,815 ERDNTDOS.LOC

09/25/2002 04:09 AM 3,275 ERDNTWIN.LOC

06/16/2008 11:31 PM 20,480 SAM

06/16/2008 11:30 PM 49,152 SECURITY

06/16/2008 11:31 PM 29,929,472 SOFTWARE

06/16/2008 11:31 PM 5,672,960 SYSTEM

10 File(s) 36,109,158 bytes

3 Dir(s) 19,896,729,600 bytes free (left in my 40 GB

partition)

That's what you get when you backup the registry (I expect some

documentation on ERUNT explains each of those, which you can find on the net

if interested).

System Restore is a bit more complicated. (I'll refer you to those

articles below. :-)

> (2) Did you actually go look at them after doing your equivalent

> of a /Restore to see whether any shenanigan went on--

> such as one of them got wiped out & was replaced with

> the registry that was current just before the /Restore?

If I manually run ERUNT, it creates a backup in a dated folder (using the

current date). However, if I then run it again, it updates the files. So

yeah, IF you wanted to save the previous registry (for the same day), you'd

need to rename it. And when you run ERUNT, you are presented with a box for

the filename, nominally filled in with the current date. Sometimes I've

wanted perhaps two different versions for the same day so I've named them

with an "a" and "b" suffix (added to the end of the filename)

The automatic ones (for each day of the week, and I've limited it to 5) are

stored in another set of date folders under the AutoBackup folder. And

again, they are each kept in separate subfolders by date.

>>> ...snip

>>>>>>> I guess, if someone puts a text file into a system folder, SR

>>>>>>> wouldn't care at all.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> No, it wouldn't care about that. Only the monitored file types

>>>>>> (it's documented on one of the MS knowledge base pages if you look

>>>>>> for it under "System Restore"). It doesn't care a thing about

>>>>>> TXT, DOC, WAV, MP3, or LOG files (for example).

>>>>>

>>>>> I guess that is acceptable. Probably, most installs won't put those

>>>>> things in a system folder, anyhow.

>>>>

>>>> No, they sometimes do put stuff in there (and always in Program

>>>> Files, and sometinmes a few other places), generally speaking.

>>>> And ALL of those are monitored by System Restore.

>>>

>>> I see. If Program Files is involved... that's a pity, then, that it

>>> won't go for non-executables... because there must be plenty in

>>> there!

>>

>> Well, I didn't check that - there is a possibility (and perhaps

>> probability) it cleanly removes all the files in the Program Files

>> folder too. Cause after all, they're not supposed to be needed,

>> either. What did your search at the MS site say (about the article

>> on System Restore)? It details a lot of it.

>

> Is it one of these 200...?...

>

> http://support.microsoft.com/search/default.aspx?mode=a&query=System+Restore&catalog=LCID%3D1033&1033comm=1&spid=1173

>

> If so-- which one? (But I'm not really intending to become the expert on

> it. I just wanted a few questions answered!)

Here are some for starters:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/learnmore/systemrestore.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/getstarted/ballew_03may19.mspx

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb490854(TechNet.10).aspx

This one below is quite detailed:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997627.aspx

>>> I suppose System Restore never intended to do a full uninstall,

>>> though-- but only a deactivate.

>>

>> System Restore was NOT intended to replace Uninstalling a program!

>> That's what you're supposed to do first! However, if you can't

>> succeed in doing so, or things aren't quite right after uninstalling

>> it, you can often fall back to the previous System Restore checkpoint

>> to clean that mess up. (Hopefully that explains its purpose a bit

>> better).

>>

>> Of course, the best thing (which is always guaranteed to work) is to

>> restore a backup image, if necessary. But that takes an hour -

>> instead of 3 minutes. :-)

>

> I'll bet it does with a 250 GB hard drive as you've got. I understand.

No, it's only for the partition I'm restoring (C:). The TOTAL time for

running the complete restore operation (which FIRST verifies the saved image

file, which also takes some time too), is about an hour for my 40 GB

partition (but of which only half is in use), and this is using the external

USB enclosure backup drive.

>>> That's sloppy, but should be effective enough to

>>> get one booting again. Then, you must clean up as best you can

>>> afterwards. I wouldn't want to be in that situation!

>>

>> Huh?

>

> I wouldn't want to be in the situation of having to guess what System

> Restore has left behind, although you begin to suggest less/less may be.

>

>>>>> But I personally wouldn't want stray

>>>>> ones to get in there & get left behind. So... hopefully doing an

>>>>> install's own un-install routine will get rid of it first-- IF the

>>>>> system is well enough to allow it: This is a System Restore, after

>>>>> all. I'm sure you agree fully.

>>>

>>> ...snip

>>>>> I think I know enough now about System Restore, &/or I will Google

>>>>> for what you say.

>>>>

>>>> You should. If you don't want to use it, you can disable it, too.

>>>> But I wouldn't recommend that. It really doesn't take up all that

>>>> much disk space (which you can define) for the peace of mind it

>>>> offers, assuming you use it prudently.

>>>

>>> Even if it is sloppy, likely it will get one booting again to do the

>>> cleanup of non-executables. That may not be too big a chore in most

>>> cases. SO... likely I would do as you & keep it running-- IF it

>>> didn't seem to be overbearing on resources & the speed of the

>>> machine & the use of the hard drive. I must reserve a final decision

>>> until I get my own XP-machine-- IF ever.

>>>

>>> Thanks for your input. That's really all I need for now. You may

>>> reply once more on this topic-- but me 'n Chauvin are done!

>>>

>>>> IOW, ALWAYS having to restore using a backup drive - is a bit of a

>>>> PIA, and IS time consuming. Sure, it's 100% assured, but I'd

>>>> rather recover from some relatively minor screwups in 2 minutes (by

>>>> using System Restore or ERUNT) than one hour (or so) total time.

>>>

>>> I tend to agree.

>>>

>>>>> I'm not switching yet to XP, after all.

>>>>

>>>> Don't let all I've said scare you off. If that's the case, I'm

>>>> sorry I ever responded.

>>>

>>> No, no-- don't worry! When I MUST switch, I will-- that remains true!

>>>

>>>> But you may be sorry down the pike. :-) There will undoubtedly

>>>> come a time (heck right now I can't even get my Tax Program for

>>>> Win98 - grrrr), and once that time comes, it will be too late.

>>>> Why? Because.....

>>>>

>>>> And as of today, you have only 15 days left to still be able to get

>>>> Win XP Home. :-)

>>>> And after that, VISTA is it - period, end of story.

>>>> (Shudder......)

>>>>

>>>> Or Linux.

>>>

>>> Understood-- for a new machine only, though.

>>

>> You want to buy a used computer, when you can get a fresh new one

>> from Dell for under $1000? And even under $800? (I think that's

>> what mine cost; I didn't go for the high end graphics junk (etc)

>> needed for high end "games")

>

> I wouldn't go for the high end graphics & games either. But I'll never

> make that Dell deadline. I've been Googling for new eyeglasses now for 3

> months at least-- & there still is no end in sight!

Aha! :-)

June 17, 2008

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Bill in Co. wrote:

| PCR wrote:

|> Bill in Co. wrote:

....snip

|>> Actually, looking back over time, and in retrospect, I'm finding

|>> that more often than not, I usually end up using the other two,

|>> MOST of the time. I mean, either ERUNT (for the minor stuff), or

|>> restoring an image from a Backup Drive (in my USB enclosure), for

|>> the heavier stuff.

|>>

|>> So I don't really use System Restore all that often, in large part

|>> for the reasons Rick already mentioned. (but only on some select

|>> occasions)

|>>

|>> I do, however, and fairly often, use ERUNT (which is directly

|>> analogous to "scanreg" and "scanreg /restore"), for the relatively

|>> minor stuff (if I don't like something after making some tweaks or

|>> customizations which are too tedious to undo, or installs of some

|>> minimal programs)

|>

|> (1) Can you post your backup registries, something like I have

|> often done by copying it from a Windows DOS screen?

|

| Copying it from a DOS screen? OK, I went to one of my recent

| ERUNT registry backups, and here is what it shows:

|

| Volume in drive C is Local Disk

| Volume Serial Number is 8469-17CF

|

| Directory of C:\WINDOWS\ERDNT\6-16-2008

|

| 06/17/2008 01:27 AM <DIR> . (contains a small .dat

| file) 06/17/2008 01:27 AM <DIR> .. (contains a small

| .dat file) 06/16/2008 11:31 PM <DIR> Users (directory

| container for above)

|

| 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 266,240 DEFAULT

| 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 673 ERDNT.CON

| 10/20/2005 01:02 PM 163,328 ERDNT.EXE (that's the one you

| click on to restore the ERUNT backup)

| 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 763 ERDNT.INF

| 09/25/2002 04:11 AM 2,815 ERDNTDOS.LOC

| 09/25/2002 04:09 AM 3,275 ERDNTWIN.LOC

| 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 20,480 SAM

| 06/16/2008 11:30 PM 49,152 SECURITY

| 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 29,929,472 SOFTWARE

| 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 5,672,960 SYSTEM

| 10 File(s) 36,109,158 bytes

| 3 Dir(s) 19,896,729,600 bytes free (left in my 40 GB

| partition)

|

| That's what you get when you backup the registry (I expect some

| documentation on ERUNT explains each of those, which you can find on

| the net if interested).

Yow! That's really a lot! So, you get a whole folder full of gigantic

stuff for just one ERUNT-- eee-yow!

| System Restore is a bit more complicated. (I'll refer you to those

| articles below. :-)

|

|> (2) Did you actually go look at them after doing your equivalent

|> of a /Restore to see whether any shenanigan went on--

|> such as one of them got wiped out & was replaced with

|> the registry that was current just before the /Restore?

|

| If I manually run ERUNT, it creates a backup in a dated folder (using

| the current date). However, if I then run it again, it updates the

| files. So yeah, IF you wanted to save the previous registry (for

| the same day), you'd need to rename it. And when you run ERUNT, you

| are presented with a box for the filename, nominally filled in with

| the current date. Sometimes I've wanted perhaps two different

| versions for the same day so I've named them with an "a" and "b"

| suffix (added to the end of the filename)

That's interesting, that it will update the files, if one exists for the

same day. Therefore, I presume none need be deleted. Win98 would delete

one for that.

| The automatic ones (for each day of the week, and I've limited it to

| 5) are stored in another set of date folders under the AutoBackup

| folder. And again, they are each kept in separate subfolders by

| date.

Whew-- so many folders in folders for this! I guess I'll have to look up

the answer to my other question...

What happens to the current Registry when you click ERDNT.exe? Does it

go into oblivion or is it stored somewhere? If stored, does it wipe out

the oldest automatic one for its storage space? Then, you too must do

manipulations to protect them, if you think you may need them.

DEFINITELY, don't go wiping out your system just to get me an answer!

Maybe Terhune will see this & wreck his instead!

NOTE that big article you found about System Restore...

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997627.aspx

Microsoft Windows XP System Restore

....does say "The restore operation itself will create a restore point

for undo purposes." But it doesn't say whether the oldest is deleted for

that! Can it be they have carried forward the same boo-boo from Win98

into WinXP! SO... careful with your Restore Points too!

I have good reason to believe in Win98 -- if you start restoring

Registries oldest to latest -- you may get to try them all. But who

wants to start with the oldest! So, as you know, it's best to copy them

all first & move them in/out-- but that's extra work!

....snip

|>> Well, I didn't check that - there is a possibility (and perhaps

|>> probability) it cleanly removes all the files in the Program Files

|>> folder too. Cause after all, they're not supposed to be needed,

|>> either. What did your search at the MS site say (about the

|>> article on System Restore)? It details a lot of it.

|>

|> Is it one of these 200...?...

|>

http://support.microsoft.com/search/default.aspx?mode=a&query=System+Restore&catalog=LCID%3D1033&1033comm=1&spid=1173

|>

|> If so-- which one? (But I'm not really intending to become the

|> expert on it. I just wanted a few questions answered!)

|

| Here are some for starters:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/learnmore/systemrestore.mspx

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/getstarted/ballew_03may19.mspx

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb490854(TechNet.10).aspx

|

| This one below is quite detailed:

| http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997627.aspx

Very interesting. It certainly is ambitious! There is a big enough list

of situations for which it is not recommended that I become suspicious

of its efficacy. There are warnings for programmers to write their apps

in a certain way to conform with System Restore's doings. It seems to

have to do so much, MS designed it run when the system is otherwise not

busy-- that's scary! Also, there is that question of just what file

types it will/will not monitor, although that is configurable. It TOO

may unwittingly wipe out its oldest Restore Point during a restore

operation! I begin to lean against it!

|>>> I suppose System Restore never intended to do a full uninstall,

|>>> though-- but only a deactivate.

|>>

|>> System Restore was NOT intended to replace Uninstalling a program!

|>> That's what you're supposed to do first! However, if you can't

|>> succeed in doing so, or things aren't quite right after uninstalling

|>> it, you can often fall back to the previous System Restore

|>> checkpoint to clean that mess up. (Hopefully that explains its

|>> purpose a bit better).

|>>

|>> Of course, the best thing (which is always guaranteed to work) is to

|>> restore a backup image, if necessary. But that takes an hour -

|>> instead of 3 minutes. :-)

|>

|> I'll bet it does with a 250 GB hard drive as you've got. I

|> understand.

|

| No, it's only for the partition I'm restoring (C:). The TOTAL time

| for running the complete restore operation (which FIRST verifies the

| saved image file, which also takes some time too), is about an hour

| for my 40 GB partition (but of which only half is in use), and this

| is using the external USB enclosure backup drive.

It takes me about 15 mins. to restore my Win98 from a BING clone-- but I

have the option to deal with only used space, which isn't much...!...

Available space on drive C: 6654MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

....snip

|>> You want to buy a used computer, when you can get a fresh new one

|>> from Dell for under $1000? And even under $800? (I think that's

|>> what mine cost; I didn't go for the high end graphics junk (etc)

|>> needed for high end "games")

|>

|> I wouldn't go for the high end graphics & games either. But I'll

|> never make that Dell deadline. I've been Googling for new eyeglasses

|> now for 3 months at least-- & there still is no end in sight!

|

| Aha! :-)

:-).

--

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

June 17, 2008

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

PCR wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> PCR wrote:

>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>

> ...snip

>>>> Actually, looking back over time, and in retrospect, I'm finding

>>>> that more often than not, I usually end up using the other two,

>>>> MOST of the time. I mean, either ERUNT (for the minor stuff), or

>>>> restoring an image from a Backup Drive (in my USB enclosure), for

>>>> the heavier stuff.

>>>>

>>>> So I don't really use System Restore all that often, in large part

>>>> for the reasons Rick already mentioned. (but only on some select

>>>> occasions)

>>>>

>>>> I do, however, and fairly often, use ERUNT (which is directly

>>>> analogous to "scanreg" and "scanreg /restore"), for the relatively

>>>> minor stuff (if I don't like something after making some tweaks or

>>>> customizations which are too tedious to undo, or installs of some

>>>> minimal programs)

>>>

>>> (1) Can you post your backup registries, something like I have

>>> often done by copying it from a Windows DOS screen?

>>

>> Copying it from a DOS screen? OK, I went to one of my recent

>> ERUNT registry backups, and here is what it shows:

>>

>> Volume in drive C is Local Disk

>> Volume Serial Number is 8469-17CF

>>

>> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\ERDNT\6-16-2008

>>

>> 06/17/2008 01:27 AM <DIR> . (contains a small .dat

>> file) 06/17/2008 01:27 AM <DIR> .. (contains a small

>> .dat file) 06/16/2008 11:31 PM <DIR> Users (directory

>> container for above)

>>

>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 266,240 DEFAULT

>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 673 ERDNT.CON

>> 10/20/2005 01:02 PM 163,328 ERDNT.EXE (that's the one you

>> click on to restore the ERUNT backup)

>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 763 ERDNT.INF

>> 09/25/2002 04:11 AM 2,815 ERDNTDOS.LOC

>> 09/25/2002 04:09 AM 3,275 ERDNTWIN.LOC

>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 20,480 SAM

>> 06/16/2008 11:30 PM 49,152 SECURITY

>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 29,929,472 SOFTWARE

>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 5,672,960 SYSTEM

>> 10 File(s) 36,109,158 bytes

>> 3 Dir(s) 19,896,729,600 bytes free (left in my 40 GB

>> partition)

>>

>> That's what you get when you backup the registry (I expect some

>> documentation on ERUNT explains each of those, which you can find on

>> the net if interested).

>

> Yow! That's really a lot! So, you get a whole folder full of gigantic

> stuff for just one ERUNT-- eee-yow!

Not exactly gigantic - it's actually about 60 MB in total (vs 4 - 6 MB for

scanreg).

But of course it's a bigger, and more capable, and MUCH MORE robust (and

protected against mishaps!) operating system, so that's not entirely

unexpected.

>> System Restore is a bit more complicated. (I'll refer you to those

>> articles below. :-)

>>

>>> (2) Did you actually go look at them after doing your equivalent

>>> of a /Restore to see whether any shenanigan went on--

>>> such as one of them got wiped out & was replaced with

>>> the registry that was current just before the /Restore?

>>

>> If I manually run ERUNT, it creates a backup in a dated folder (using

>> the current date). However, if I then run it again, it updates the

>> files. So yeah, IF you wanted to save the previous registry (for

>> the same day), you'd need to rename it. And when you run ERUNT, you

>> are presented with a box for the filename, nominally filled in with

>> the current date. Sometimes I've wanted perhaps two different

>> versions for the same day so I've named them with an "a" and "b"

>> suffix (added to the end of the filename)

>

> That's interesting, that it will update the files, if one exists for the

> same day. Therefore, I presume none need be deleted. Win98 would delete

> one for that.

>

>> The automatic ones (for each day of the week, and I've limited it to

>> 5) are stored in another set of date folders under the AutoBackup

>> folder. And again, they are each kept in separate subfolders by date.

>

> Whew-- so many folders in folders for this! I guess I'll have to look up

> the answer to my other question...

>

> What happens to the current Registry when you click ERDNT.exe? Does it

> go into oblivion or is it stored somewhere? If stored, does it wipe out

> the oldest automatic one for its storage space? Then, you too must do

> manipulations to protect them, if you think you may need them.

Well, as I said before, if I rerun ERUNT on the same day, it updates that

folder's contents with the newer files. If you want to keep the earlier

version, you should just rename it slightly (or the new one) when rerunning

ERUNT. (Whereas in SCANREG, it *blindly* overwrites the oldest cab, each

and every time you run it; so is that better? I don't think so!)

> DEFINITELY, don't go wiping out your system just to get me an answer!

> Maybe Terhune will see this & wreck his instead!

>

> NOTE that big article you found about System Restore...

> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997627.aspx

> Microsoft Windows XP System Restore

>

> ...does say "The restore operation itself will create a restore point

> for undo purposes." But it doesn't say whether the oldest is deleted for

> that! Can it be they have carried forward the same boo-boo from Win98

> into WinXP! SO... careful with your Restore Points too!

With System Restore the oldest one gets deleted if needed to make room

(within the designated space reserved for System Restore).

> I have good reason to believe in Win98 -- if you start restoring

> Registries oldest to latest -- you may get to try them all.

Not ALL of them, unless you've saved one or two, since as soon as you

restore one, one of them (the oldest remaining one) will be blindly erased

to keep the limit at 5!!

> But who

> wants to start with the oldest! So, as you know, it's best to copy them

> all first & move them in/out-- but that's extra work!

But you can do this too with ERUNT. No big difference there.

> ...snip

>>>> Well, I didn't check that - there is a possibility (and perhaps

>>>> probability) it cleanly removes all the files in the Program Files

>>>> folder too. Cause after all, they're not supposed to be needed,

>>>> either. What did your search at the MS site say (about the

>>>> article on System Restore)? It details a lot of it.

>>>

>>> Is it one of these 200...?...

>>>

> http://support.microsoft.com/search/default.aspx?mode=a&query=System+Restore&catalog=LCID%3D1033&1033comm=1&spid=1173

>>>

>>> If so-- which one? (But I'm not really intending to become the

>>> expert on it. I just wanted a few questions answered!)

>>

>> Here are some for starters:

>

> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/

learnmore/systemrestore.mspx

> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/getstarted/

ballew_03may19.mspx

> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb490854(TechNet.10).aspx

>> This one below is quite detailed:

>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997627.aspx

>

> Very interesting. It certainly is ambitious! There is a big enough list

> of situations for which it is not recommended that I become suspicious

> of its efficacy. There are warnings for programmers to write their apps

> in a certain way to conform with System Restore's doings. It seems to

> have to do so much, MS designed it run when the system is otherwise not

> busy-- that's scary! Also, there is that question of just what file

> types it will/will not monitor, although that is configurable. It TOO

> may unwittingly wipe out its oldest Restore Point during a restore

> operation! I begin to lean against it!

And if you've exceeded the space allotted, which is customizable. So yes,

it's not foolproof. One must be aware. :-)

>>>>> I suppose System Restore never intended to do a full uninstall,

>>>>> though-- but only a deactivate.

>>>>

>>>> System Restore was NOT intended to replace Uninstalling a program!

>>>> That's what you're supposed to do first! However, if you can't

>>>> succeed in doing so, or things aren't quite right after uninstalling

>>>> it, you can often fall back to the previous System Restore

>>>> checkpoint to clean that mess up. (Hopefully that explains its

>>>> purpose a bit better).

>>>>

>>>> Of course, the best thing (which is always guaranteed to work) is to

>>>> restore a backup image, if necessary. But that takes an hour -

>>>> instead of 3 minutes. :-)

>>>

>>> I'll bet it does with a 250 GB hard drive as you've got. I

>>> understand.

>>

>> No, it's only for the partition I'm restoring (C:). The TOTAL time

>> for running the complete restore operation (which FIRST verifies the

>> saved image file, which also takes some time too), is about an hour

>> for my 40 GB partition (but of which only half is in use), and this

>> is using the external USB enclosure backup drive.

>

> It takes me about 15 mins. to restore my Win98 from a BING clone-- but I

> have the option to deal with only used space, which isn't much...!...

But you don't have it verified before you do that. So if the backup were

corrupt, you're screwed. And - I'm processing 20 GB of data (half of the

40GB is in use).

> Available space on drive C: 6654MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

>

> ...snip

>>>> You want to buy a used computer, when you can get a fresh new one

>>>> from Dell for under $1000? And even under $800? (I think that's

>>>> what mine cost; I didn't go for the high end graphics junk (etc)

>>>> needed for high end "games")

>>>

>>> I wouldn't go for the high end graphics & games either. But I'll

>>> never make that Dell deadline. I've been Googling for new eyeglasses

>>> now for 3 months at least-- & there still is no end in sight!

>>

>> Aha! :-)

>

> :-).

June 18, 2008

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

|>>>> Actually, looking back over time, and in retrospect, I'm finding

|>>>> that more often than not, I usually end up using the other two,

|>>>> MOST of the time. I mean, either ERUNT (for the minor stuff), or

|>>>> restoring an image from a Backup Drive (in my USB enclosure), for

|>>>> the heavier stuff.

|>>>>

|>>>> So I don't really use System Restore all that often, in large part

|>>>> for the reasons Rick already mentioned. (but only on some select

|>>>> occasions)

|>>>>

|>>>> I do, however, and fairly often, use ERUNT (which is directly

|>>>> analogous to "scanreg" and "scanreg /restore"), for the relatively

|>>>> minor stuff (if I don't like something after making some tweaks or

|>>>> customizations which are too tedious to undo, or installs of some

|>>>> minimal programs)

|>>>

|>>> (1) Can you post your backup registries, something like I have

|>>> often done by copying it from a Windows DOS screen?

|>>

|>> Copying it from a DOS screen? OK, I went to one of my recent

|>> ERUNT registry backups, and here is what it shows:

|>>

|>> Volume in drive C is Local Disk

|>> Volume Serial Number is 8469-17CF

|>>

|>> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\ERDNT\6-16-2008

|>>

|>> 06/17/2008 01:27 AM <DIR> . (contains a small .dat

|>> file) 06/17/2008 01:27 AM <DIR> .. (contains a small

|>> .dat file) 06/16/2008 11:31 PM <DIR> Users (directory

|>> container for above)

|>>

|>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 266,240 DEFAULT

|>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 673 ERDNT.CON

|>> 10/20/2005 01:02 PM 163,328 ERDNT.EXE (that's the one

|>> you click on to restore the ERUNT backup)

|>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 763 ERDNT.INF

|>> 09/25/2002 04:11 AM 2,815 ERDNTDOS.LOC

|>> 09/25/2002 04:09 AM 3,275 ERDNTWIN.LOC

|>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 20,480 SAM

|>> 06/16/2008 11:30 PM 49,152 SECURITY

|>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 29,929,472 SOFTWARE

|>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 5,672,960 SYSTEM

|>> 10 File(s) 36,109,158 bytes

|>> 3 Dir(s) 19,896,729,600 bytes free (left in my 40

|>> GB partition)

|>>

|>> That's what you get when you backup the registry (I expect some

|>> documentation on ERUNT explains each of those, which you can find on

|>> the net if interested).

|>

|> Yow! That's really a lot! So, you get a whole folder full of gigantic

|> stuff for just one ERUNT-- eee-yow!

|

| Not exactly gigantic - it's actually about 60 MB in total (vs 4 - 6

| MB for scanreg).

|

| But of course it's a bigger, and more capable, and MUCH MORE robust

| (and protected against mishaps!) operating system, so that's not

| entirely unexpected.

Alright, alright -- I'm just saying -- in comparison to my Win98

RB..cab's -- that looks large & may impact on hard drive longevity. (My

own original Win98 20 GB Quantum Fireball crashed after a year, anyhow--

but I think it was something else!) Of course, no one in the world has

read & memorized even a tiny Win98 Registry, either. As far as

understanding them, probably it is the same no matter the size-- only a

select few Registry keys in either OS will ever be visited by a normal

guru for observation & repair, anyhow.

|>> System Restore is a bit more complicated. (I'll refer you to those

|>> articles below. :-)

|>>

|>>> (2) Did you actually go look at them after doing your equivalent

|>>> of a /Restore to see whether any shenanigan went on--

|>>> such as one of them got wiped out & was replaced with

|>>> the registry that was current just before the /Restore?

|>>

|>> If I manually run ERUNT, it creates a backup in a dated folder

|>> (using the current date). However, if I then run it again, it

|>> updates the files. So yeah, IF you wanted to save the previous

|>> registry (for

|>> the same day), you'd need to rename it. And when you run ERUNT, you

|>> are presented with a box for the filename, nominally filled in with

|>> the current date. Sometimes I've wanted perhaps two different

|>> versions for the same day so I've named them with an "a" and "b"

|>> suffix (added to the end of the filename)

|>

|> That's interesting, that it will update the files, if one exists for

|> the same day. Therefore, I presume none need be deleted. Win98 would

|> delete one for that.

|>

|>> The automatic ones (for each day of the week, and I've limited it to

|>> 5) are stored in another set of date folders under the AutoBackup

|>> folder. And again, they are each kept in separate subfolders by

|>> date.

|>

|> Whew-- so many folders in folders for this! I guess I'll have to

|> look up the answer to my other question...

|>

|> What happens to the current Registry when you click ERDNT.exe? Does

|> it go into oblivion or is it stored somewhere? If stored, does it

|> wipe out the oldest automatic one for its storage space? Then, you

|> too must do manipulations to protect them, if you think you may need

|> them.

|

| Well, as I said before, if I rerun ERUNT on the same day, it updates

| that folder's contents with the newer files. If you want to keep

| the earlier version, you should just rename it slightly (or the new

| one) when rerunning ERUNT. (Whereas in SCANREG, it *blindly*

| overwrites the oldest cab, each and every time you run it; so is

| that better? I don't think so!)

Nope. But I'm still just wondering whether ERUNT suffers that same

peccadillo, that it would wipe one out EVEN doing a restore (not just a

save). I've found this...

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

ERUNT - The Emergency Recovery Utility NT

....but I think what you've got might have advanced since then. It does

point out another failing of System Restore-- if the Registry is in bad

enough shape, you won't be able to boot even to Safe Mode to use it.

That's why he wrote ERUNT! Looks like ERUNT is more configurable than

ScanReg & possibly can be set to avoid that peccadillo or running it one

way instead of another avoids it.

Anyhow, I don't need to know any more, until I've gone XP myself, not

really.

|> DEFINITELY, don't go wiping out your system just to get me an answer!

|> Maybe Terhune will see this & wreck his instead!

|>

|> NOTE that big article you found about System Restore...

|> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997627.aspx

|> Microsoft Windows XP System Restore

|>

|> ...does say "The restore operation itself will create a restore point

|> for undo purposes." But it doesn't say whether the oldest is deleted

|> for that! Can it be they have carried forward the same boo-boo from

|> Win98 into WinXP! SO... careful with your Restore Points too!

|

| With System Restore the oldest one gets deleted if needed to make room

| (within the designated space reserved for System Restore).

So! That was pretty silly of them to carry that into XP! One can't even

copy ones Restore Points to protect them before doing the restore, can

one? They are in some kind of secret place-- maybe in their own

partition! I know you've got your True Image in case the Restore Points

run out. But does everyone?

|> I have good reason to believe in Win98 -- if you start restoring

|> Registries oldest to latest -- you may get to try them all.

|

| Not ALL of them, unless you've saved one or two, since as soon as you

| restore one, one of them (the oldest remaining one) will be blindly

| erased to keep the limit at 5!!

In this one, I restore the oldest (RB004). The current one (System.dat,

User.dat, System.ini, Win.ini) got put into RB003, & RB004 went into

oblivion. But all the rest survived! But who wants to go oldest to

youngest?

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 <<oldest

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

RB005 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:28a

RB003 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:36a

|> But who

|> wants to start with the oldest! So, as you know, it's best to copy

|> them all first & move them in/out-- but that's extra work!

|

| But you can do this too with ERUNT. No big difference there.

ERUNT seems to have a way or two around the problem. For one thing, you

can increase the backups kept beyond 5-- & NOT have to move them around

for use. Also, there may be a way to set it not to do that delete of the

oldest Registry in the first place during a restore (but I'm not quite

sure & it may also cause none EVER to be deleted unless you do it

manually). Finally, run from a floppy or CD or flash drive, it very

likely will not delete any, either-- going by that URL I posted.

|> ...snip

|>>>> Well, I didn't check that - there is a possibility (and perhaps

|>>>> probability) it cleanly removes all the files in the Program Files

|>>>> folder too. Cause after all, they're not supposed to be needed,

|>>>> either. What did your search at the MS site say (about the

|>>>> article on System Restore)? It details a lot of it.

|>>>

|>>> Is it one of these 200...?...

|>>>

|>

http://support.microsoft.com/search/default.aspx?mode=a&query=System+Restore&catalog=LCID%3D1033&1033comm=1&spid=1173

|>>>

|>>> If so-- which one? (But I'm not really intending to become the

|>>> expert on it. I just wanted a few questions answered!)

|>>

|>> Here are some for starters:

|>

|> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/

|> learnmore/systemrestore.mspx

|

|> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/getstarted/

|> ballew_03may19.mspx

|

|> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb490854(TechNet.10).aspx

|

|>> This one below is quite detailed:

|>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997627.aspx

|>

|> Very interesting. It certainly is ambitious! There is a big enough

|> list of situations for which it is not recommended that I become

|> suspicious of its efficacy. There are warnings for programmers to

|> write their apps in a certain way to conform with System Restore's

|> doings. It seems to have to do so much, MS designed it run when the

|> system is otherwise not busy-- that's scary! Also, there is that

|> question of just what file types it will/will not monitor, although

|> that is configurable. It TOO may unwittingly wipe out its oldest

|> Restore Point during a restore operation! I begin to lean against it!

|

| And if you've exceeded the space allotted, which is customizable. So

| yes, it's not foolproof. One must be aware. :-)

Yep. But I guess nothing is foolproof. It is good we have our full

system backups.

|>>>>> I suppose System Restore never intended to do a full uninstall,

|>>>>> though-- but only a deactivate.

|>>>>

|>>>> System Restore was NOT intended to replace Uninstalling a program!

|>>>> That's what you're supposed to do first! However, if you can't

|>>>> succeed in doing so, or things aren't quite right after

|>>>> uninstalling it, you can often fall back to the previous System

|>>>> Restore checkpoint to clean that mess up. (Hopefully that

|>>>> explains its purpose a bit better).

|>>>>

|>>>> Of course, the best thing (which is always guaranteed to work) is

|>>>> to restore a backup image, if necessary. But that takes an hour

|>>>> - instead of 3 minutes. :-)

|>>>

|>>> I'll bet it does with a 250 GB hard drive as you've got. I

|>>> understand.

|>>

|>> No, it's only for the partition I'm restoring (C:). The TOTAL time

|>> for running the complete restore operation (which FIRST verifies the

|>> saved image file, which also takes some time too), is about an hour

|>> for my 40 GB partition (but of which only half is in use), and this

|>> is using the external USB enclosure backup drive.

|>

|> It takes me about 15 mins. to restore my Win98 from a BING clone--

|> but I have the option to deal with only used space, which isn't

|> much...!...

|

| But you don't have it verified before you do that. So if the backup

| were corrupt, you're screwed. And - I'm processing 20 GB of data

| (half of the 40GB is in use).

I'd have to go look up the details. There is some kind of integrity

check I'm sure done as BING makes its Clone. There is a byte-to-byte

comparison too-- but may apply only when making an Image or to a

separate Terabyte product altogether (not BING). However, on every

occasion that I've made & restored a Clone-- all went perfectly fine!

|> Available space on drive C: 6654MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

|>

|> ...snip

|>>>> You want to buy a used computer, when you can get a fresh new one

|>>>> from Dell for under $1000? And even under $800? (I think that's

|>>>> what mine cost; I didn't go for the high end graphics junk (etc)

|>>>> needed for high end "games")

|>>>

|>>> I wouldn't go for the high end graphics & games either. But I'll

|>>> never make that Dell deadline. I've been Googling for new

|>>> eyeglasses now for 3 months at least-- & there still is no end in

|>>> sight!

|>>

|>> Aha! :-)

|>

|> :-).

--

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

June 18, 2008

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

>>>>>> Actually, looking back over time, and in retrospect, I'm finding

>>>>>> that more often than not, I usually end up using the other two,

>>>>>> MOST of the time. I mean, either ERUNT (for the minor stuff), or

>>>>>> restoring an image from a Backup Drive (in my USB enclosure), for

>>>>>> the heavier stuff.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> So I don't really use System Restore all that often, in large part

>>>>>> for the reasons Rick already mentioned. (but only on some select

>>>>>> occasions)

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I do, however, and fairly often, use ERUNT (which is directly

>>>>>> analogous to "scanreg" and "scanreg /restore"), for the relatively

>>>>>> minor stuff (if I don't like something after making some tweaks or

>>>>>> customizations which are too tedious to undo, or installs of some

>>>>>> minimal programs)

>>>>>

>>>>> (1) Can you post your backup registries, something like I have

>>>>> often done by copying it from a Windows DOS screen?

>>>>

>>>> Copying it from a DOS screen? OK, I went to one of my recent

>>>> ERUNT registry backups, and here is what it shows:

>>>>

>>>> Volume in drive C is Local Disk

>>>> Volume Serial Number is 8469-17CF

>>>>

>>>> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\ERDNT\6-16-2008

>>>>

>>>> 06/17/2008 01:27 AM <DIR> . (contains a small .dat

>>>> file) 06/17/2008 01:27 AM <DIR> .. (contains a small

>>>> .dat file) 06/16/2008 11:31 PM <DIR> Users (directory

>>>> container for above)

>>>>

>>>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 266,240 DEFAULT

>>>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 673 ERDNT.CON

>>>> 10/20/2005 01:02 PM 163,328 ERDNT.EXE (that's the one

>>>> you click on to restore the ERUNT backup)

>>>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 763 ERDNT.INF

>>>> 09/25/2002 04:11 AM 2,815 ERDNTDOS.LOC

>>>> 09/25/2002 04:09 AM 3,275 ERDNTWIN.LOC

>>>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 20,480 SAM

>>>> 06/16/2008 11:30 PM 49,152 SECURITY

>>>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 29,929,472 SOFTWARE

>>>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 5,672,960 SYSTEM

>>>> 10 File(s) 36,109,158 bytes

>>>> 3 Dir(s) 19,896,729,600 bytes free (left in my 40

>>>> GB partition)

>>>>

>>>> That's what you get when you backup the registry (I expect some

>>>> documentation on ERUNT explains each of those, which you can find on

>>>> the net if interested).

>>>

>>> Yow! That's really a lot! So, you get a whole folder full of gigantic

>>> stuff for just one ERUNT-- eee-yow!

>>

>> Not exactly gigantic - it's actually about 60 MB in total (vs 4 - 6

>> MB for scanreg).

>>

>> But of course it's a bigger, and more capable, and MUCH MORE robust

>> (and protected against mishaps!) operating system, so that's not

>> entirely unexpected.

>

> Alright, alright -- I'm just saying -- in comparison to my Win98

> RB..cab's -- that looks large & may impact on hard drive longevity. (My

> own original Win98 20 GB Quantum Fireball crashed after a year, anyhow--

> but I think it was something else!) Of course, no one in the world has

> read & memorized even a tiny Win98 Registry, either. As far as

> understanding them, probably it is the same no matter the size-- only a

> select few Registry keys in either OS will ever be visited by a normal

> guru for observation & repair, anyhow.

Exactly. And it all (generally) gets more challenging and complex with

each succeeding operating system version, but then again, the need for such

is (quite often) reduced, since it is so much more robust. (I STILL

haven't got a Blue Screen, even after 6 months of intensive use and screwing

around)

>>>> System Restore is a bit more complicated. (I'll refer you to those

>>>> articles below. :-)

>>>>

>>>>> (2) Did you actually go look at them after doing your equivalent

>>>>> of a /Restore to see whether any shenanigan went on--

>>>>> such as one of them got wiped out & was replaced with

>>>>> the registry that was current just before the /Restore?

>>>>

>>>> If I manually run ERUNT, it creates a backup in a dated folder

>>>> (using the current date). However, if I then run it again, it

>>>> updates the files. So yeah, IF you wanted to save the previous

>>>> registry (for

>>>> the same day), you'd need to rename it. And when you run ERUNT, you

>>>> are presented with a box for the filename, nominally filled in with

>>>> the current date. Sometimes I've wanted perhaps two different

>>>> versions for the same day so I've named them with an "a" and "b"

>>>> suffix (added to the end of the filename)

>>>

>>> That's interesting, that it will update the files, if one exists for

>>> the same day. Therefore, I presume none need be deleted. Win98 would

>>> delete one for that.

>>>

>>>> The automatic ones (for each day of the week, and I've limited it to

>>>> 5) are stored in another set of date folders under the AutoBackup

>>>> folder. And again, they are each kept in separate subfolders by

>>>> date.

>>>

>>> Whew-- so many folders in folders for this! I guess I'll have to

>>> look up the answer to my other question...

>>>

>>> What happens to the current Registry when you click ERDNT.exe? Does

>>> it go into oblivion or is it stored somewhere? If stored, does it

>>> wipe out the oldest automatic one for its storage space? Then, you

>>> too must do manipulations to protect them, if you think you may need

>>> them.

>>

>> Well, as I said before, if I rerun ERUNT on the same day, it updates

>> that folder's contents with the newer files. If you want to keep

>> the earlier version, you should just rename it slightly (or the new

>> one) when rerunning ERUNT. (Whereas in SCANREG, it *blindly*

>> overwrites the oldest cab, each and every time you run it; so is

>> that better? I don't think so!)

>

> Nope. But I'm still just wondering whether ERUNT suffers that same

> peccadillo, that it would wipe one out EVEN doing a restore (not just a

> save). I've found this...

>

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

> ERUNT - The Emergency Recovery Utility NT

>

> ...but I think what you've got might have advanced since then.

Oh, I sure.

> It does

> point out another failing of System Restore-- if the Registry is in bad

> enough shape, you won't be able to boot even to Safe Mode to use it.

That could possibly happen, yes. (of course - it is a computer, after

all!) System Restore is not a magic Elf. :-)

> That's why he wrote ERUNT! Looks like ERUNT is more configurable than

> ScanReg & possibly can be set to avoid that peccadillo or running it one

> way instead of another avoids it.

Yup. Quite flexible, too.

> Anyhow, I don't need to know any more, until I've gone XP myself, not

> really.

I think ERUNT is great. Of course, a full system backup is best, but

sometimes that's overkill. (and, occasionally, I'll still use System

Restore)

>>> DEFINITELY, don't go wiping out your system just to get me an answer!

>>> Maybe Terhune will see this & wreck his instead!

>>>

>>> NOTE that big article you found about System Restore...

>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997627.aspx

>>> Microsoft Windows XP System Restore

>>>

>>> ...does say "The restore operation itself will create a restore point

>>> for undo purposes." But it doesn't say whether the oldest is deleted

>>> for that! Can it be they have carried forward the same boo-boo from

>>> Win98 into WinXP! SO... careful with your Restore Points too!

>>

>> With System Restore the oldest one gets deleted if needed to make room

>> (within the designated space reserved for System Restore).

>

> So! That was pretty silly of them to carry that into XP! One can't even

> copy ones Restore Points to protect them before doing the restore, can

> one?

I haven't ever had the need or desire to do that, but generally speaking,

the answer to that is NO. But I mean, who on earth needs to go back to a

Restore Point a month or two ago? Way too much has changed by then.

> They are in some kind of secret place-- maybe in their own partition!

They are in a separate folder. They are in the (normally hidden) "System

Volume Information folder", which is generally "hands-off"!

> I know you've got your True Image in case the Restore Points

> run out. But does everyone?

I haven't EVER had the need (or want) to go back to the earliest Restore

Points a month or two ago.

Most would also have available some backup program or routine. (Or none at

all, and they just live "foolishly" (probably the same ones who did that

back in Win9x and Win3.1).

>>> I have good reason to believe in Win98 -- if you start restoring

>>> Registries oldest to latest -- you may get to try them all.

>>

>> Not ALL of them, unless you've saved one or two, since as soon as you

>> restore one, one of them (the oldest remaining one) will be blindly

>> erased to keep the limit at 5!!

>

> In this one, I restore the oldest (RB004). The current one (System.dat,

> User.dat, System.ini, Win.ini) got put into RB003, & RB004 went into

> oblivion. But all the rest survived! But who wants to go oldest to

> youngest?

>

> 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 <<oldest

> 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

> RB005 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:28a

> RB003 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:36a

>

>>> But who

>>> wants to start with the oldest! So, as you know, it's best to copy

>>> them all first & move them in/out-- but that's extra work!

>>

>> But you can do this too with ERUNT. No big difference there.

>

> ERUNT seems to have a way or two around the problem. For one thing, you

> can increase the backups kept beyond 5-- & NOT have to move them around

> for use.

I can save as many ERUNT backups (manually) as I want. The daily ERUNT

autobackup ones, however, are limited by your choice - as to how many.

> Also, there may be a way to set it not to do that delete of the

> oldest Registry in the first place during a restore (but I'm not quite

> sure & it may also cause none EVER to be deleted unless you do it

> manually).

Haven't had the need to play around with that, since I have the other ones

from my manual ERUNT backups, anyways (which are not affected by this; they

are only written OR erased if YOU do so). For the ERUNT autobackup ones,

it might overwrite the same day ERUNT files if you restore it, or it may

just leave it alone (I think it does that). After all, the real, actual

(and truly current) registry data files themselves are in the \windows

folders, just like in Win98SE

> Finally, run from a floppy or CD or flash drive, it very

> likely will not delete any, either-- going by that URL I posted.

>

>>> ...snip

>>>>>> Well, I didn't check that - there is a possibility (and perhaps

>>>>>> probability) it cleanly removes all the files in the Program Files

>>>>>> folder too. Cause after all, they're not supposed to be needed,

>>>>>> either. What did your search at the MS site say (about the

>>>>>> article on System Restore)? It details a lot of it.

>>>>>

>>>>> Is it one of these 200...?...

>>>>>

>>>

> http://support.microsoft.com/search/default.aspx?mode=a&query=System+Restore&catalog=LCID%3D1033&1033comm=1&spid=1173

>>>>>

>>>>> If so-- which one? (But I'm not really intending to become the

>>>>> expert on it. I just wanted a few questions answered!)

>>>>

>>>> Here are some for starters:

>>>

>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/

>>> learnmore/systemrestore.mspx

>>

>>> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/helpandsupport/getstarted/

>>> ballew_03may19.mspx

>>

>>> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb490854(TechNet.10).aspx

>>

>>>> This one below is quite detailed:

>>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997627.aspx

>>>

>>> Very interesting. It certainly is ambitious! There is a big enough

>>> list of situations for which it is not recommended that I become

>>> suspicious of its efficacy. There are warnings for programmers to

>>> write their apps in a certain way to conform with System Restore's

>>> doings. It seems to have to do so much, MS designed it run when the

>>> system is otherwise not busy-- that's scary! Also, there is that

>>> question of just what file types it will/will not monitor, although

>>> that is configurable. It TOO may unwittingly wipe out its oldest

>>> Restore Point during a restore operation! I begin to lean against it!

>>

>> And if you've exceeded the space allotted, which is customizable. So

>> yes, it's not foolproof. One must be aware. :-)

>

> Yep. But I guess nothing is foolproof. It is good we have our full

> system backups.

THAT is the only way for 100% (or close) certainty. :-)

>>>>>>> I suppose System Restore never intended to do a full uninstall,

>>>>>>> though-- but only a deactivate.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> System Restore was NOT intended to replace Uninstalling a program!

>>>>>> That's what you're supposed to do first! However, if you can't

>>>>>> succeed in doing so, or things aren't quite right after

>>>>>> uninstalling it, you can often fall back to the previous System

>>>>>> Restore checkpoint to clean that mess up. (Hopefully that

>>>>>> explains its purpose a bit better).

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Of course, the best thing (which is always guaranteed to work) is

>>>>>> to restore a backup image, if necessary. But that takes an hour

>>>>>> - instead of 3 minutes. :-)

>>>>>

>>>>> I'll bet it does with a 250 GB hard drive as you've got. I

>>>>> understand.

>>>>

>>>> No, it's only for the partition I'm restoring (C:). The TOTAL time

>>>> for running the complete restore operation (which FIRST verifies the

>>>> saved image file, which also takes some time too), is about an hour

>>>> for my 40 GB partition (but of which only half is in use), and this

>>>> is using the external USB enclosure backup drive.

>>>

>>> It takes me about 15 mins. to restore my Win98 from a BING clone--

>>> but I have the option to deal with only used space, which isn't

>>> much...!...

>>

>> But you don't have it verified before you do that. So if the backup

>> were corrupt, you're screwed. And - I'm processing 20 GB of data

>> (half of the 40GB is in use).

>

> I'd have to go look up the details. There is some kind of integrity

> check I'm sure done as BING makes its Clone. There is a byte-to-byte

> comparison too-- but may apply only when making an Image or to a

> separate Terabyte product altogether (not BING). However, on every

> occasion that I've made & restored a Clone-- all went perfectly fine!

Same here. (Except for one BING bugaboo over here, where I made the

mistake of ALWAYS checking that Maintenance Mode option "Limit Primaries",

which created some problems with one of my systems:

But I was told by the author of the program that always doing that was NOT

necessary, and that it is normally taken care of by BING sensing it on its

own (but my checking it created some problems on one of my systems, but ever

since following his advice, there haven't been any problems with *either*

system using BING with my USB HD enclosure backups.

>>> Available space on drive C: 6654MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

>>>

>>> ...snip

>>>>>> You want to buy a used computer, when you can get a fresh new one

>>>>>> from Dell for under $1000? And even under $800? (I think that's

>>>>>> what mine cost; I didn't go for the high end graphics junk (etc)

>>>>>> needed for high end "games")

>>>>>

>>>>> I wouldn't go for the high end graphics & games either. But I'll

>>>>> never make that Dell deadline. I've been Googling for new

>>>>> eyeglasses now for 3 months at least-- & there still is no end in

>>>>> sight!

>>>>

>>>> Aha! :-)

>>>

>>> :-).

>

> --

> 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

June 18, 2008

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Bill in Co. wrote:

| PCR wrote:

|> Bill in Co. wrote:

....snip

|>>>> Copying it from a DOS screen? OK, I went to one of my recent

|>>>> ERUNT registry backups, and here is what it shows:

|>>>>

|>>>> Volume in drive C is Local Disk

|>>>> Volume Serial Number is 8469-17CF

|>>>>

|>>>> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\ERDNT\6-16-2008

|>>>>

|>>>> 06/17/2008 01:27 AM <DIR> . (contains a small

|>>>> .dat file) 06/17/2008 01:27 AM <DIR> .. (contains

|>>>> a small .dat file) 06/16/2008 11:31 PM <DIR> Users

|>>>> (directory container for above)

|>>>>

|>>>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 266,240 DEFAULT

|>>>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 673 ERDNT.CON

|>>>> 10/20/2005 01:02 PM 163,328 ERDNT.EXE (that's the one

|>>>> you click on to restore the ERUNT backup)

|>>>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 763 ERDNT.INF

|>>>> 09/25/2002 04:11 AM 2,815 ERDNTDOS.LOC

|>>>> 09/25/2002 04:09 AM 3,275 ERDNTWIN.LOC

|>>>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 20,480 SAM

|>>>> 06/16/2008 11:30 PM 49,152 SECURITY

|>>>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 29,929,472 SOFTWARE

|>>>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 5,672,960 SYSTEM

|>>>> 10 File(s) 36,109,158 bytes

|>>>> 3 Dir(s) 19,896,729,600 bytes free (left in my 40

|>>>> GB partition)

|>>>>

|>>>> That's what you get when you backup the registry (I expect some

|>>>> documentation on ERUNT explains each of those, which you can find

|>>>> on the net if interested).

|>>>

|>>> Yow! That's really a lot! So, you get a whole folder full of

|>>> gigantic stuff for just one ERUNT-- eee-yow!

|>>

|>> Not exactly gigantic - it's actually about 60 MB in total (vs 4 - 6

|>> MB for scanreg).

|>>

|>> But of course it's a bigger, and more capable, and MUCH MORE robust

|>> (and protected against mishaps!) operating system, so that's not

|>> entirely unexpected.

|>

|> Alright, alright -- I'm just saying -- in comparison to my Win98

|> RB..cab's -- that looks large & may impact on hard drive longevity.

|> (My own original Win98 20 GB Quantum Fireball crashed after a year,

|> anyhow-- but I think it was something else!) Of course, no one in

|> the world has read & memorized even a tiny Win98 Registry, either.

|> As far as understanding them, probably it is the same no matter the

|> size-- only a select few Registry keys in either OS will ever be

|> visited by a normal guru for observation & repair, anyhow.

|

| Exactly. And it all (generally) gets more challenging and complex

| with each succeeding operating system version, but then again, the

| need for such is (quite often) reduced, since it is so much more

| robust. (I STILL haven't got a Blue Screen, even after 6 months of

| intensive use and screwing around)

Of course, you can have a crash without getting a blue screen. I think

you have admitted to at least one, & Terhune said you weren't trying

hard enough. But you are in a better position than I to know which OS is

more robust. You & Terhune!

....snip

|>>> What happens to the current Registry when you click ERDNT.exe? Does

|>>> it go into oblivion or is it stored somewhere? If stored, does it

|>>> wipe out the oldest automatic one for its storage space? Then, you

|>>> too must do manipulations to protect them, if you think you may

|>>> need them.

|>>

|>> Well, as I said before, if I rerun ERUNT on the same day, it updates

|>> that folder's contents with the newer files. If you want to keep

|>> the earlier version, you should just rename it slightly (or the new

|>> one) when rerunning ERUNT. (Whereas in SCANREG, it *blindly*

|>> overwrites the oldest cab, each and every time you run it; so is

|>> that better? I don't think so!)

|>

|> Nope. But I'm still just wondering whether ERUNT suffers that same

|> peccadillo, that it would wipe one out EVEN doing a restore (not

|> just a save). I've found this...

|>

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

|> ERUNT - The Emergency Recovery Utility NT

|>

|> ...but I think what you've got might have advanced since then.

|

| Oh, I sure.

Yea. That sure didn't look anything like an actual MS article. I suppose

MS bought ERUNT off that guy, if it comes pre-installed now with XP. See

how rich a guru can get?

|> It does

|> point out another failing of System Restore-- if the Registry is in

|> bad enough shape, you won't be able to boot even to Safe Mode to use

|> it.

|

| That could possibly happen, yes. (of course - it is a computer,

| after all!) System Restore is not a magic Elf. :-)

Yep. We are both smart to have our 3rd-party backup-apps!

|> That's why he wrote ERUNT! Looks like ERUNT is more configurable than

|> ScanReg & possibly can be set to avoid that peccadillo or running it

|> one way instead of another avoids it.

|

| Yup. Quite flexible, too.

Very good. Have you gone to see what it would be like to run it from a

floppy, CD-ROM or flash drive? Don't necessarily run it, though.

|> Anyhow, I don't need to know any more, until I've gone XP myself, not

|> really.

|

| I think ERUNT is great. Of course, a full system backup is best,

| but sometimes that's overkill. (and, occasionally, I'll still use

| System Restore)

You are doing well. I haven't made a final decision yet on whether I'd

turn System Restore off. If so, I'm sure I'd run it manually now/then

anyhow after a huge install, maybe-- just before making a full system

backup.

|>>> DEFINITELY, don't go wiping out your system just to get me an

|>>> answer! Maybe Terhune will see this & wreck his instead!

|>>>

|>>> NOTE that big article you found about System Restore...

|>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997627.aspx

|>>> Microsoft Windows XP System Restore

|>>>

|>>> ...does say "The restore operation itself will create a restore

|>>> point for undo purposes." But it doesn't say whether the oldest is

|>>> deleted for that! Can it be they have carried forward the same

|>>> boo-boo from Win98 into WinXP! SO... careful with your Restore

|>>> Points too!

|>>

|>> With System Restore the oldest one gets deleted if needed to make

|>> room (within the designated space reserved for System Restore).

|>

|> So! That was pretty silly of them to carry that into XP! One can't

|> even copy ones Restore Points to protect them before doing the

|> restore, can one?

|

| I haven't ever had the need or desire to do that, but generally

| speaking, the answer to that is NO. But I mean, who on earth needs

| to go back to a Restore Point a month or two ago? Way too much has

| changed by then.

Probably you are right. If the restore points failed or ran out, the

best course is to go for the full system backup. But I'm thinking of

those who may post to some XP NG for help who haven't made a backup. If

someone starts telling them to go for those restore points-- how many

really will be usable? Depends whether they start bottom up in date or

top down, looks like -- just as with ScanReg -- because the oldest one

gets destroyed during the restore process. That is true-- unless some XP

guru greater than us cares to object!

|> They are in some kind of secret place-- maybe in their own partition!

|

| They are in a separate folder. They are in the (normally hidden)

| "System Volume Information folder", which is generally "hands-off"!

Alright. Just to solidify our conclusion, look carefully at their dates

the next time you do a System Restore-- before & after. Did you lose the

oldest, as that article suggests but doesn't quite say outright...?...

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997627.aspx

|> I know you've got your True Image in case the Restore Points

|> run out. But does everyone?

|

| I haven't EVER had the need (or want) to go back to the earliest

| Restore Points a month or two ago.

|

| Most would also have available some backup program or routine. (Or

| none at all, and they just live "foolishly" (probably the same ones

| who did that back in Win9x and Win3.1).

It's still something to keep in mind, that, if it looks like you have

5-- you may get to try only 3!

|>>> I have good reason to believe in Win98 -- if you start restoring

|>>> Registries oldest to latest -- you may get to try them all.

|>>

|>> Not ALL of them, unless you've saved one or two, since as soon as

|>> you restore one, one of them (the oldest remaining one) will be

|>> blindly erased to keep the limit at 5!!

|>

|> In this one, I restore the oldest (RB004). The current one

|> (System.dat, User.dat, System.ini, Win.ini) got put into RB003, &

|> RB004 went into oblivion. But all the rest survived! But who wants

|> to go oldest to youngest?

|>

|> 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 <<oldest

|> 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

|> RB005 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:28a

|> RB003 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:36a

|>

|>>> But who

|>>> wants to start with the oldest! So, as you know, it's best to copy

|>>> them all first & move them in/out-- but that's extra work!

|>>

|>> But you can do this too with ERUNT. No big difference there.

|>

|> ERUNT seems to have a way or two around the problem. For one thing,

|> you can increase the backups kept beyond 5-- & NOT have to move them

|> around for use.

|

| I can save as many ERUNT backups (manually) as I want. The daily

| ERUNT autobackup ones, however, are limited by your choice - as to

| how many.

I'm going to increase the number of my Registry backups to 7 &

experiment again. I know the extra 2 won't be offered by ScanReg

/Restore-- but will they increase the number of usable ones when

restoring youngest to oldest in date?

|> Also, there may be a way to set it not to do that delete of the

|> oldest Registry in the first place during a restore (but I'm not

|> quite sure & it may also cause none EVER to be deleted unless you do

|> it manually).

|

| Haven't had the need to play around with that, since I have the other

| ones from my manual ERUNT backups, anyways (which are not affected by

| this; they are only written OR erased if YOU do so). For the ERUNT

| autobackup ones, it might overwrite the same day ERUNT files if you

| restore it, or it may just leave it alone (I think it does that).

| After all, the real, actual (and truly current) registry data files

| themselves are in the \windows folders, just like in Win98SE

Yea, it doesn't seem to be as big an issue with ERUNT. How is it you

started to save your own Registry backups instead of relying on the

automatic ones?

....snip

|>>>>>> Of course, the best thing (which is always guaranteed to work)

|>>>>>> is to restore a backup image, if necessary. But that takes an

|>>>>>> hour - instead of 3 minutes. :-)

|>>>>>

|>>>>> I'll bet it does with a 250 GB hard drive as you've got. I

|>>>>> understand.

|>>>>

|>>>> No, it's only for the partition I'm restoring (C:). The TOTAL

|>>>> time for running the complete restore operation (which FIRST

|>>>> verifies the saved image file, which also takes some time too),

|>>>> is about an hour for my 40 GB partition (but of which only half

|>>>> is in use), and this is using the external USB enclosure backup

|>>>> drive.

|>>>

|>>> It takes me about 15 mins. to restore my Win98 from a BING clone--

|>>> but I have the option to deal with only used space, which isn't

|>>> much...!...

|>>> Available space on drive C: 6654MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

|>>

|>> But you don't have it verified before you do that. So if the

|>> backup were corrupt, you're screwed. And - I'm processing 20 GB

|>> of data (half of the 40GB is in use).

|>

|> I'd have to go look up the details. There is some kind of integrity

|> check I'm sure done as BING makes its Clone. There is a byte-to-byte

|> comparison too-- but may apply only when making an Image or to a

|> separate Terabyte product altogether (not BING). However, on every

|> occasion that I've made & restored a Clone-- all went perfectly fine!

|

| Same here. (Except for one BING bugaboo over here, where I made the

| mistake of ALWAYS checking that Maintenance Mode option "Limit

| Primaries", which created some problems with one of my systems:

|

| But I was told by the author of the program that always doing that

| was NOT necessary, and that it is normally taken care of by BING

| sensing it on its own (but my checking it created some problems on

| one of my systems, but ever since following his advice, there haven't

| been any problems with *either* system using BING with my USB HD

| enclosure backups.

Hmm. I don't recall that checkbox is involved. Looking at the docs, I

see it might be involved, if you were making an Image (which I've never

done) instead of a Clone...

"• In the Copy Image dialog box under Options, if you already

have four primary partitions (and if Limit Primaries is enabled)

then you’ll need to move the partition by selecting the Delete

Source check box."

But that doesn't say it needs to be checked every time. It's referring

this in Settings...

"Under General, select the Limit Primaries check box to limit your

system to the normal maximum of four primary partitions. In this mode

you can continue to use other partitioning programs such as FDISK. If

you clear the Limit Primaries check box, you can have more than four

primary partitions. In this mode you should not use any partitioning

software except for BootIt NG. This check box is grayed out and

unavailable if any of your existing hard drives has more than four

primary partitions. This option has a profound affect on how BootIt NG

operates."

I must have gone & looked at that once. Either it was already checked or

I checked it at that time. I must have looked again after that, saw it

was already checked & never looked again. I think, because my Work with

Partitions" shows "Create EMBR" instead of "Undo EMBR"-- Limit Primaries

has always remained checked for me. To use more than 4 primary

partitions on a single HDD, you must have an EMBR.

....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

June 19, 2008

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

PCR wrote:

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> PCR wrote:

>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>

> ...snip

>>>>>> Copying it from a DOS screen? OK, I went to one of my recent

>>>>>> ERUNT registry backups, and here is what it shows:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Volume in drive C is Local Disk

>>>>>> Volume Serial Number is 8469-17CF

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\ERDNT\6-16-2008

>>>>>>

>>>>>> 06/17/2008 01:27 AM <DIR> . (contains a small

>>>>>> .dat file) 06/17/2008 01:27 AM <DIR> .. (contains

>>>>>> a small .dat file) 06/16/2008 11:31 PM <DIR> Users

>>>>>> (directory container for above)

>>>>>>

>>>>>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 266,240 DEFAULT

>>>>>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 673 ERDNT.CON

>>>>>> 10/20/2005 01:02 PM 163,328 ERDNT.EXE (that's the one

>>>>>> you click on to restore the ERUNT backup)

>>>>>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 763 ERDNT.INF

>>>>>> 09/25/2002 04:11 AM 2,815 ERDNTDOS.LOC

>>>>>> 09/25/2002 04:09 AM 3,275 ERDNTWIN.LOC

>>>>>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 20,480 SAM

>>>>>> 06/16/2008 11:30 PM 49,152 SECURITY

>>>>>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 29,929,472 SOFTWARE

>>>>>> 06/16/2008 11:31 PM 5,672,960 SYSTEM

>>>>>> 10 File(s) 36,109,158 bytes

>>>>>> 3 Dir(s) 19,896,729,600 bytes free (left in my 40

>>>>>> GB partition)

>>>>>>

>>>>>> That's what you get when you backup the registry (I expect some

>>>>>> documentation on ERUNT explains each of those, which you can find

>>>>>> on the net if interested).

>>>>>

>>>>> Yow! That's really a lot! So, you get a whole folder full of

>>>>> gigantic stuff for just one ERUNT-- eee-yow!

>>>>

>>>> Not exactly gigantic - it's actually about 60 MB in total (vs 4 - 6

>>>> MB for scanreg).

>>>>

>>>> But of course it's a bigger, and more capable, and MUCH MORE robust

>>>> (and protected against mishaps!) operating system, so that's not

>>>> entirely unexpected.

>>>

>>> Alright, alright -- I'm just saying -- in comparison to my Win98

>>> RB..cab's -- that looks large & may impact on hard drive longevity.

>>> (My own original Win98 20 GB Quantum Fireball crashed after a year,

>>> anyhow-- but I think it was something else!) Of course, no one in

>>> the world has read & memorized even a tiny Win98 Registry, either.

>>> As far as understanding them, probably it is the same no matter the

>>> size-- only a select few Registry keys in either OS will ever be

>>> visited by a normal guru for observation & repair, anyhow.

>>

>> Exactly. And it all (generally) gets more challenging and complex

>> with each succeeding operating system version, but then again, the

>> need for such is (quite often) reduced, since it is so much more

>> robust. (I STILL haven't got a Blue Screen, even after 6 months of

>> intensive use and screwing around)

>

> Of course, you can have a crash without getting a blue screen. I think

> you have admitted to at least one, & Terhune said you weren't trying

> hard enough. But you are in a better position than I to know which OS is

> more robust. You & Terhune!

I haven't had a crash, but I have had a "lockup" or two. (where I needed

to turn off the power, and then back on)

> ...snip

>>>>> What happens to the current Registry when you click ERDNT.exe? Does

>>>>> it go into oblivion or is it stored somewhere? If stored, does it

>>>>> wipe out the oldest automatic one for its storage space? Then, you

>>>>> too must do manipulations to protect them, if you think you may

>>>>> need them.

>>>>

>>>> Well, as I said before, if I rerun ERUNT on the same day, it updates

>>>> that folder's contents with the newer files. If you want to keep

>>>> the earlier version, you should just rename it slightly (or the new

>>>> one) when rerunning ERUNT. (Whereas in SCANREG, it *blindly*

>>>> overwrites the oldest cab, each and every time you run it; so is

>>>> that better? I don't think so!)

>>>

>>> Nope. But I'm still just wondering whether ERUNT suffers that same

>>> peccadillo, that it would wipe one out EVEN doing a restore (not

>>> just a save). I've found this...

>>>

Just an update here - I checked one thing out here: when I use ERUNT to

restore a backup, it does NOT delete or touch the previous ones AT ALLl.

It leaves them ALL alone. Yea!!

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

>>> ERUNT - The Emergency Recovery Utility NT

>>>

>>> ...but I think what you've got might have advanced since then.

>>

>> Oh, I sure.

>

> Yea. That sure didn't look anything like an actual MS article. I suppose

> MS bought ERUNT off that guy, if it comes pre-installed now with XP. See

> how rich a guru can get?

Huh? ERUNT and System Restore are completely different. If you want

ERUNT, YOU have to download it and install it yourself. No big deal,

though. It does NOT "come" with XP (or any OS).

>>> It does

>>> point out another failing of System Restore-- if the Registry is in

>>> bad enough shape, you won't be able to boot even to Safe Mode to use it.

>>

>> That could possibly happen, yes. (of course - it is a computer,

>> after all!) System Restore is not a magic Elf. :-)

>

> Yep. We are both smart to have our 3rd-party backup-apps!

You bet. :-)

>>> That's why he wrote ERUNT! Looks like ERUNT is more configurable than

>>> ScanReg & possibly can be set to avoid that peccadillo or running it

>>> one way instead of another avoids it.

>>

>> Yup. Quite flexible, too.

>

> Very good. Have you gone to see what it would be like to run it from a

> floppy, CD-ROM or flash drive? Don't necessarily run it, though.

Well, to run it, you need to access it in the Windows\ERDNT folder.

That's where it (and the backups) are stored. There might be a way to

transfer all its contents over, by why bother? I guess if you couldn't

boot into windows (which hasn't happened yet), that might be nice.

Haven't read up on that, though. But if I couldn't boot up on windows, I

could use one of my third party DOS-like goodies to boot and get access to

the ERUNT files on the HD (in an explorer like interface), and execute it

there.

Like the recovery or NTFS disk access programs I've mentioned before:

Like the WinXP Recovery Console, or Bart's PE Builder, or NTFS4DOS, etc.

(you can read about all those if you want).

>>> Anyhow, I don't need to know any more, until I've gone XP myself, not

>>> really.

>>

>> I think ERUNT is great. Of course, a full system backup is best,

>> but sometimes that's overkill. (and, occasionally, I'll still use

>> System Restore)

>

> You are doing well. I haven't made a final decision yet on whether I'd

> turn System Restore off. If so, I'm sure I'd run it manually now/then

> anyhow after a huge install, maybe-- just before making a full system

> backup.

I like keeping my options open with all three choices. :-)

>>>>> DEFINITELY, don't go wiping out your system just to get me an

>>>>> answer! Maybe Terhune will see this & wreck his instead!

>>>>>

>>>>> NOTE that big article you found about System Restore...

>>>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997627.aspx

>>>>> Microsoft Windows XP System Restore

>>>>>

>>>>> ...does say "The restore operation itself will create a restore

>>>>> point for undo purposes." But it doesn't say whether the oldest is

>>>>> deleted for that! Can it be they have carried forward the same

>>>>> boo-boo from Win98 into WinXP! SO... careful with your Restore

>>>>> Points too!

>>>>

>>>> With System Restore the oldest one gets deleted if needed to make

>>>> room (within the designated space reserved for System Restore).

>>>

>>> So! That was pretty silly of them to carry that into XP! One can't

>>> even copy ones Restore Points to protect them before doing the

>>> restore, can one?

>>

>> I haven't ever had the need or desire to do that, but generally

>> speaking, the answer to that is NO. But I mean, who on earth needs

>> to go back to a Restore Point a month or two ago? Way too much has

>> changed by then.

>

> Probably you are right. If the restore points failed or ran out, the

> best course is to go for the full system backup.

Yup. And if the restore points are that old, too.

> But I'm thinking of

> those who may post to some XP NG for help who haven't made a backup. If

> someone starts telling them to go for those restore points-- how many

> really will be usable?

Usually most, if not ALL, *IF* the changes have been moderate and

reasonable, and the system has been kept in good shape up to now.

I say moderate, because for something like installing a Service Pack, or a

new version of IE, or Microsoft Office, and then wanting later to reverse

that, well THAT might be pushing your luck a bit. I'd go for the backup

restore in that case.

> Depends whether they start bottom up in date or

> top down, looks like -- just as with ScanReg -- because the oldest one

> gets destroyed during the restore process. That is true-- unless some XP

> guru greater than us cares to object!

The oldest one(s) do get deleted if you exceed the allocated limit. I've

already seen that.

>>> They are in some kind of secret place-- maybe in their own partition!

>>

>> They are in a separate folder. They are in the (normally hidden)

>> "System Volume Information folder", which is generally "hands-off"!

>

> Alright. Just to solidify our conclusion, look carefully at their dates

> the next time you do a System Restore-- before & after. Did you lose the

> oldest, as that article suggests but doesn't quite say outright...?...

> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997627.aspx

I have seen the oldest one(s) get removed - IF the specified allowed disk

space limit was exceeded. So, YES.

>>> I know you've got your True Image in case the Restore Points

>>> run out. But does everyone?

>>

>> I haven't EVER had the need (or want) to go back to the earliest

>> Restore Points a month or two ago.

>>

>> Most would also have available some backup program or routine. (Or

>> none at all, and they just live "foolishly" (probably the same ones

>> who did that back in Win9x and Win3.1).

>

> It's still something to keep in mind, that, if it looks like you have

> 5-- you may get to try only 3!

YOU may. I usually have a bit more than 5 backups (with my manual ERUNT

backups). :-) But I usually go in later and delete them. The

autobackups are limited to 5 days worth, however, and do NOT get erased

after a restore, as I mentioned earlier in this post.

>>>>> I have good reason to believe in Win98 -- if you start restoring

>>>>> Registries oldest to latest -- you may get to try them all.

>>>>

>>>> Not ALL of them, unless you've saved one or two, since as soon as

>>>> you restore one, one of them (the oldest remaining one) will be

>>>> blindly erased to keep the limit at 5!!

>>>

>>> In this one, I restore the oldest (RB004). The current one

>>> (System.dat, User.dat, System.ini, Win.ini) got put into RB003, &

>>> RB004 went into oblivion. But all the rest survived! But who wants

>>> to go oldest to youngest?

>>>

>>> 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 <<oldest

>>> 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

>>> RB005 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:28a

>>> RB003 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:36a

>>>

>>>>> But who

>>>>> wants to start with the oldest! So, as you know, it's best to copy

>>>>> them all first & move them in/out-- but that's extra work!

>>>>

>>>> But you can do this too with ERUNT. No big difference there.

>>>

>>> ERUNT seems to have a way or two around the problem. For one thing,

>>> you can increase the backups kept beyond 5-- & NOT have to move them

>>> around for use.

>>

>> I can save as many ERUNT backups (manually) as I want. The daily

>> ERUNT autobackup ones, however, are limited by your choice - as to

>> how many.

>

> I'm going to increase the number of my Registry backups to 7 &

> experiment again. I know the extra 2 won't be offered by ScanReg

> /Restore-- but will they increase the number of usable ones when

> restoring youngest to oldest in date?

Don't know. I still expect the oldest ones to get deleted when you do a

restore, but this time you'll have 7, but since you can only see 5 in

scanreg /restore, what's the point? It's a real PIA! Better to just use a

backup folder for some extra ones when that need arises.

>>> Also, there may be a way to set it not to do that delete of the

>>> oldest Registry in the first place during a restore (but I'm not

>>> quite sure & it may also cause none EVER to be deleted unless you do

>>> it manually).

>>

>> Haven't had the need to play around with that, since I have the other

>> ones from my manual ERUNT backups, anyways (which are not affected by

>> this; they are only written OR erased if YOU do so). For the ERUNT

>> autobackup ones, it might overwrite the same day ERUNT files if you

>> restore it, or it may just leave it alone (I think it does that).

>> After all, the real, actual (and truly current) registry data files

>> themselves are in the \windows folders, just like in Win98SE

>

> Yea, it doesn't seem to be as big an issue with ERUNT. How is it you

> started to save your own Registry backups instead of relying on the

> automatic ones?

Well, on those days when I make some "significant changes" during the same

day, and I want to save those recent changes (since I'm not sure if I'll

want to fall back to them later. And I may even want to experiment with

some more changes later on during the same day, so it never hurts to be

fully prepared.

> ...snip

>>>>>>>> Of course, the best thing (which is always guaranteed to work)

>>>>>>>> is to restore a backup image, if necessary. But that takes an

>>>>>>>> hour - instead of 3 minutes. :-)

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I'll bet it does with a 250 GB hard drive as you've got. I

>>>>>>> understand.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> No, it's only for the partition I'm restoring (C:). The TOTAL

>>>>>> time for running the complete restore operation (which FIRST

>>>>>> verifies the saved image file, which also takes some time too),

>>>>>> is about an hour for my 40 GB partition (but of which only half

>>>>>> is in use), and this is using the external USB enclosure backup

>>>>>> drive.

>>>>>

>>>>> It takes me about 15 mins. to restore my Win98 from a BING clone--

>>>>> but I have the option to deal with only used space, which isn't

>>>>> much...!...

>>>>> Available space on drive C: 6654MB of 7979MB (FAT32)

>>>>

>>>> But you don't have it verified before you do that. So if the

>>>> backup were corrupt, you're screwed. And - I'm processing 20 GB

>>>> of data (half of the 40GB is in use).

>>>

>>> I'd have to go look up the details. There is some kind of integrity

>>> check I'm sure done as BING makes its Clone. There is a byte-to-byte

>>> comparison too-- but may apply only when making an Image or to a

>>> separate Terabyte product altogether (not BING). However, on every

>>> occasion that I've made & restored a Clone-- all went perfectly fine!

>>

>> Same here. (Except for one BING bugaboo over here, where I made the

>> mistake of ALWAYS checking that Maintenance Mode option "Limit

>> Primaries", which created some problems with one of my systems:

>>

>> But I was told by the author of the program that always doing that

>> was NOT necessary, and that it is normally taken care of by BING

>> sensing it on its own (but my checking it created some problems on

>> one of my systems, but ever since following his advice, there haven't

>> been any problems with *either* system using BING with my USB HD

>> enclosure backups.

>

> Hmm. I don't recall that checkbox is involved. Looking at the docs, I

> see it might be involved, if you were making an Image (which I've never

> done) instead of a Clone...

In Maintenance Mode (first selecting Cancel after booting on the BING boot

disk), I only do "Partition Work" (a delete or a copy operation). More

below..

> ". In the Copy Image dialog box under Options, if you already

> have four primary partitions (and if Limit Primaries is enabled)

> then you'll need to move the partition by selecting the Delete

> Source check box."

>

> But that doesn't say it needs to be checked every time. It's referring

> this in Settings...

Limit Primaries does not need to be checked each time, at least for me. :-)

Again, when I boot up on the BING Boot Disk, and select "Cancel" to enter

"Maintenance Mode", and then click the Settings Box, I see that Limit

Primaries checkbox option, but it is unchecked, and that apparently works

out as the default anyway, if your system was already set up that way.

When I use BING in Maintenance Mode I always am simply deleting or copying a

partition (deleting first, to make room for the following copy operation).

So it's just a partition copy operation, not "disk cloning" or "disk

imaging", as I see it. Strictly a PARTITION COPY operation.

> "Under General, select the Limit Primaries check box to limit your

> system to the normal maximum of four primary partitions. In this mode

> you can continue to use other partitioning programs such as FDISK. If

> you clear the Limit Primaries check box, you can have more than four

> primary partitions. In this mode you should not use any partitioning

> software except for BootIt NG. This check box is grayed out and

> unavailable if any of your existing hard drives has more than four

> primary partitions. This option has a profound affect on how BootIt NG

> operates."

Right - that's what it says. (which led me to believe I always had to

check that box (but I was wrong), since I always wanted *compatability* with

the other programs, and I can live with the 4 maximum Primarys limit)

> I must have gone & looked at that once. Either it was already checked or

> I checked it at that time. I must have looked again after that, saw it

> was already checked & never looked again. I think, because my Work with

> Partitions" shows "Create EMBR" instead of "Undo EMBR"-- Limit Primaries

> has always remained checked for me. To use more than 4 primary

> partitions on a single HDD, you must have an EMBR.

I *never* use (nor do I want to) an EMBR (for the reasons I mentioned)!

> ...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

June 20, 2008

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

|>>> Alright, alright -- I'm just saying -- in comparison to my Win98

|>>> RB..cab's -- that looks large & may impact on hard drive longevity.

|>>> (My own original Win98 20 GB Quantum Fireball crashed after a year,

|>>> anyhow-- but I think it was something else!) Of course, no one in

|>>> the world has read & memorized even a tiny Win98 Registry, either.

|>>> As far as understanding them, probably it is the same no matter the

|>>> size-- only a select few Registry keys in either OS will ever be

|>>> visited by a normal guru for observation & repair, anyhow.

|>>

|>> Exactly. And it all (generally) gets more challenging and

|>> complex with each succeeding operating system version, but then

|>> again, the need for such is (quite often) reduced, since it is so

|>> much more robust. (I STILL haven't got a Blue Screen, even after

|>> 6 months of intensive use and screwing around)

|>

|> Of course, you can have a crash without getting a blue screen. I

|> think you have admitted to at least one, & Terhune said you weren't

|> trying hard enough. But you are in a better position than I to know

|> which OS is more robust. You & Terhune!

|

| I haven't had a crash, but I have had a "lockup" or two. (where I

| needed to turn off the power, and then back on)

Do you get any messages during boot after that-- such as that ScanDisk

(or an equivalent) must run?

|> ...snip

|>>>>> What happens to the current Registry when you click ERDNT.exe?

|>>>>> Does it go into oblivion or is it stored somewhere? If stored,

|>>>>> does it wipe out the oldest automatic one for its storage space?

|>>>>> Then, you too must do manipulations to protect them, if you

|>>>>> think you may need them.

|>>>>

|>>>> Well, as I said before, if I rerun ERUNT on the same day, it

|>>>> updates that folder's contents with the newer files. If you

|>>>> want to keep the earlier version, you should just rename it

|>>>> slightly (or the new one) when rerunning ERUNT. (Whereas in

|>>>> SCANREG, it *blindly* overwrites the oldest cab, each and every

|>>>> time you run it; so is that better? I don't think so!)

|>>>

|>>> Nope. But I'm still just wondering whether ERUNT suffers that same

|>>> peccadillo, that it would wipe one out EVEN doing a restore (not

|>>> just a save). I've found this...

|>>>

|

| Just an update here - I checked one thing out here: when I use ERUNT

| to restore a backup, it does NOT delete or touch the previous ones AT

| ALLl.

| It leaves them ALL alone. Yea!!

That makes more sense than what ScanReg /Restore does! A lot more!

Congratulations to that ERUNT writer Lars Hederer! Thanks for checking

on that, Colorado. But, in...

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

ERUNT - The Emergency Recovery Utility NT

....I'm see the possibility that it created a .bak file(s) of the current

Registry just before doing a restore...

........Quote...................

ERDNT technical information

---------------------------

ERDNT knows two restoration modes.

....snip...

Note: In restoration mode "NT" backups of the current registry files

are automatically created, so that option is grayed out.

....snip...

The backups of the current registry files are placed in the same

location as the original and are given the extension ".bak".

........EOQ......................

So, do you see any .bak files in your Registry folders? That might hold

the Registry that was current just before you did the ERUNT restore-- IF

I read that right & if MS hasn't changed it since Hederer did that good

work. (That might be a little like RBbad.cab in Win98, but Win98 doesn't

use it when doing /Restore).

Also... I recall you said that ERUNT would update its latest backup, if

you ran it twice on the same day instead of deleting the oldest. Is it

possible that happened during the restore too? Was the size(s) any

different? But I guess that STILL would be preferable to what Win98

does!

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

|>>> ERUNT - The Emergency Recovery Utility NT

|>>>

|>>> ...but I think what you've got might have advanced since then.

|>>

|>> Oh, I sure.

|>

|> Yea. That sure didn't look anything like an actual MS article. I

|> suppose MS bought ERUNT off that guy, if it comes pre-installed now

|> with XP. See how rich a guru can get?

|

| Huh? ERUNT and System Restore are completely different. If you

| want ERUNT, YOU have to download it and install it yourself. No

| big deal, though. It does NOT "come" with XP (or any OS).

Ohhhh-- I was assuming it came with XP! It was smart of you take that

download-- sounds very useful! Those cheap-o MS bigwigs should buy it

for a million dollars!

|>>> It does

|>>> point out another failing of System Restore-- if the Registry is in

|>>> bad enough shape, you won't be able to boot even to Safe Mode to

|>>> use it.

|>>

|>> That could possibly happen, yes. (of course - it is a computer,

|>> after all!) System Restore is not a magic Elf. :-)

|>

|> Yep. We are both smart to have our 3rd-party backup-apps!

|

| You bet. :-)

:-).

|>>> That's why he wrote ERUNT! Looks like ERUNT is more configurable

|>>> than ScanReg & possibly can be set to avoid that peccadillo or

|>>> running it one way instead of another avoids it.

|>>

|>> Yup. Quite flexible, too.

|>

|> Very good. Have you gone to see what it would be like to run it from

|> a floppy, CD-ROM or flash drive? Don't necessarily run it, though.

|

| Well, to run it, you need to access it in the Windows\ERDNT folder.

| That's where it (and the backups) are stored. There might be a

| way to transfer all its contents over, by why bother? I guess if

| you couldn't boot into windows (which hasn't happened yet), that

| might be nice.

| Haven't read up on that, though. But if I couldn't boot up on

| windows, I could use one of my third party DOS-like goodies to boot

| and get access to the ERUNT files on the HD (in an explorer like

| interface), and execute it there.

There's a section in Hederer's docs that says you are on the right

track. You may have to do something to an .ini, though -- IF the XP

drive is a different letter -- before you run ERUNT, is all. That is

"file copy" mode.

| Like the recovery or NTFS disk access programs I've mentioned before:

| Like the WinXP Recovery Console, or Bart's PE Builder, or NTFS4DOS,

| etc. (you can read about all those if you want).

YOU must go read it-- I'm not XP yet!

|>>> Anyhow, I don't need to know any more, until I've gone XP myself,

|>>> not really.

|>>

....snip

|>>>>> DEFINITELY, don't go wiping out your system just to get me an

|>>>>> answer! Maybe Terhune will see this & wreck his instead!

|>>>>>

|>>>>> NOTE that big article you found about System Restore...

|>>>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997627.aspx

|>>>>> Microsoft Windows XP System Restore

|>>>>>

|>>>>> ...does say "The restore operation itself will create a restore

|>>>>> point for undo purposes." But it doesn't say whether the oldest

|>>>>> is deleted for that! Can it be they have carried forward the same

|>>>>> boo-boo from Win98 into WinXP! SO... careful with your Restore

|>>>>> Points too!

|>>>>

|>>>> With System Restore the oldest one gets deleted if needed to make

|>>>> room (within the designated space reserved for System Restore).

|>>>

|>>> So! That was pretty silly of them to carry that into XP! One can't

|>>> even copy ones Restore Points to protect them before doing the

|>>> restore, can one?

|>>

|>> I haven't ever had the need or desire to do that, but generally

|>> speaking, the answer to that is NO. But I mean, who on earth needs

|>> to go back to a Restore Point a month or two ago? Way too much

|>> has changed by then.

|>

|> Probably you are right. If the restore points failed or ran out, the

|> best course is to go for the full system backup.

|

| Yup. And if the restore points are that old, too.

|

|> But I'm thinking of

|> those who may post to some XP NG for help who haven't made a backup.

|> If someone starts telling them to go for those restore points-- how

|> many really will be usable?

|

| Usually most, if not ALL, *IF* the changes have been moderate and

| reasonable, and the system has been kept in good shape up to now.

|

| I say moderate, because for something like installing a Service Pack,

| or a new version of IE, or Microsoft Office, and then wanting later

| to reverse that, well THAT might be pushing your luck a bit. I'd go

| for the backup restore in that case.

I think you have that right.

|> Depends whether they start bottom up in date or

|> top down, looks like -- just as with ScanReg -- because the oldest

|> one gets destroyed during the restore process. That is true-- unless

|> some XP guru greater than us cares to object!

|

| The oldest one(s) do get deleted if you exceed the allocated limit.

| I've already seen that.

OK. Hederer did better!

|>>> They are in some kind of secret place-- maybe in their own

|>>> partition!

|>>

|>> They are in a separate folder. They are in the (normally hidden)

|>> "System Volume Information folder", which is generally "hands-off"!

|>

|> Alright. Just to solidify our conclusion, look carefully at their

|> dates the next time you do a System Restore-- before & after. Did

|> you lose the oldest, as that article suggests but doesn't quite say

|> outright...?... http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997627.aspx

|

| I have seen the oldest one(s) get removed - IF the specified allowed

| disk space limit was exceeded. So, YES.

OK, thanks. So, depending on how much space is set for it, there could

be more or less than 5 Restore Points-- but the same silly principle

applies! Whatever you've got-- it's LESS than you think!

|>>> I know you've got your True Image in case the Restore Points

|>>> run out. But does everyone?

|>>

|>> I haven't EVER had the need (or want) to go back to the earliest

|>> Restore Points a month or two ago.

|>>

|>> Most would also have available some backup program or routine. (Or

|>> none at all, and they just live "foolishly" (probably the same ones

|>> who did that back in Win9x and Win3.1).

|>

|> It's still something to keep in mind, that, if it looks like you have

|> 5-- you may get to try only 3!

|

| YOU may. I usually have a bit more than 5 backups (with my manual

| ERUNT backups). :-) But I usually go in later and delete them.

| The autobackups are limited to 5 days worth, however, and do NOT get

| erased after a restore, as I mentioned earlier in this post.

No, we're talking about Restore Points here. ERUNT does well.

|>>>>> I have good reason to believe in Win98 -- if you start restoring

|>>>>> Registries oldest to latest -- you may get to try them all.

|>>>>

|>>>> Not ALL of them, unless you've saved one or two, since as soon as

|>>>> you restore one, one of them (the oldest remaining one) will be

|>>>> blindly erased to keep the limit at 5!!

|>>>

|>>> In this one, I restore the oldest (RB004). The current one

|>>> (System.dat, User.dat, System.ini, Win.ini) got put into RB003, &

|>>> RB004 went into oblivion. But all the rest survived! But who wants

|>>> to go oldest to youngest?

|>>>

|>>> 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 <<oldest

|>>> 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

|>>> RB005 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:28a

|>>> RB003 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:36a

|>>>

|>>>>> But who

|>>>>> wants to start with the oldest! So, as you know, it's best to

|>>>>> copy them all first & move them in/out-- but that's extra work!

|>>>>

|>>>> But you can do this too with ERUNT. No big difference there.

|>>>

|>>> ERUNT seems to have a way or two around the problem. For one thing,

|>>> you can increase the backups kept beyond 5-- & NOT have to move

|>>> them around for use.

|>>

|>> I can save as many ERUNT backups (manually) as I want. The daily

|>> ERUNT autobackup ones, however, are limited by your choice - as to

|>> how many.

|>

|> I'm going to increase the number of my Registry backups to 7 &

|> experiment again. I know the extra 2 won't be offered by ScanReg

|> /Restore-- but will they increase the number of usable ones when

|> restoring youngest to oldest in date?

|

| Don't know. I still expect the oldest ones to get deleted when you

| do a restore, but this time you'll have 7, but since you can only see

| 5 in scanreg /restore, what's the point? It's a real PIA! Better

| to just use a backup folder for some extra ones when that need arises.

You are right about the backup folder. Nevertheless, I've now got 6 (not

including RBbad.cab)...

C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP>dir rb*.cab /od

Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p rbbad.cab

RB005 CAB 1,602,739 06-14-08 6:50p rb005.cab

RB003 CAB 1,602,739 06-15-08 2:06p rb003.cab

RB004 CAB 1,602,711 06-16-08 6:24p rb004.cab

RB000 CAB 1,602,771 06-17-08 4:05p rb000.cab

RB001 CAB 1,602,738 06-18-08 5:58p rb001.cab

RB002 CAB 1,602,761 06-19-08 6:03p rb002.cab

By tomorrow, I'll have 7-- & I'll go do that test! Could be, although

the oldest won't show up in the /Restore operation, it might still be

the one that gets pushed out by it. It's just for academic reasons that

I want to know.

....snip

|> Yea, it doesn't seem to be as big an issue with ERUNT. How is it you

|> started to save your own Registry backups instead of relying on the

|> automatic ones?

|

| Well, on those days when I make some "significant changes" during the

| same day, and I want to save those recent changes (since I'm not sure

| if I'll want to fall back to them later. And I may even want to

| experiment with some more changes later on during the same day, so it

| never hurts to be fully prepared.

OK. Very good. I've cut out the BING portion of this marathon diatribe &

posted it separately.

....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

June 20, 2008

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

This is the BING portion...

Bill in Co. wrote:

| PCR wrote:

|> Bill in Co. wrote:

|>> PCR wrote:

|>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

....snip

|>>> I'd have to go look up the details. There is some kind of integrity

|>>> check I'm sure done as BING makes its Clone. There is a

|>>> byte-to-byte comparison too-- but may apply only when making an

|>>> Image or to a separate Terabyte product altogether (not BING).

|>>> However, on every occasion that I've made & restored a Clone-- all

|>>> went perfectly fine!

|>>

|>> Same here. (Except for one BING bugaboo over here, where I made

|>> the mistake of ALWAYS checking that Maintenance Mode option "Limit

|>> Primaries", which created some problems with one of my systems:

|>>

|>> But I was told by the author of the program that always doing that

|>> was NOT necessary, and that it is normally taken care of by BING

|>> sensing it on its own (but my checking it created some problems on

|>> one of my systems, but ever since following his advice, there

|>> haven't been any problems with *either* system using BING with my

|>> USB HD enclosure backups.

|>

|> Hmm. I don't recall that checkbox is involved. Looking at the docs, I

|> see it might be involved, if you were making an Image (which I've

|> never done) instead of a Clone...

|

| In Maintenance Mode (first selecting Cancel after booting on the BING

| boot disk), I only do "Partition Work" (a delete or a copy

| operation). More below..

|

|> ". In the Copy Image dialog box under Options, if you already

|> have four primary partitions (and if Limit Primaries is enabled)

|> then you'll need to move the partition by selecting the Delete

|> Source check box."

|>

|> But that doesn't say it needs to be checked every time. It's

|> referring this in Settings...

|

| Limit Primaries does not need to be checked each time, at least for

| me. :-) Again, when I boot up on the BING Boot Disk, and select

| "Cancel" to enter "Maintenance Mode", and then click the Settings

| Box, I see that Limit Primaries checkbox option, but it is unchecked,

| and that apparently works out as the default anyway, if your system

| was already set up that way.

|

| When I use BING in Maintenance Mode I always am simply deleting or

| copying a partition (deleting first, to make room for the following

| copy operation).

|

| So it's just a partition copy operation, not "disk cloning" or "disk

| imaging", as I see it. Strictly a PARTITION COPY operation.

That's right. And that's what I do. But I haven't gone to look at the

Settings screen in a long time. I'll have to go look again. It may

depend on BING version as to whether Limit Primaries is checked or not.

I'm presuming mine IS checked! For making a Clone as we do, it actually

may not matter whether it is checked or not-- unless you exceed 4

Primaries.

|> "Under General, select the Limit Primaries check box to limit your

|> system to the normal maximum of four primary partitions. In this mode

|> you can continue to use other partitioning programs such as FDISK. If

|> you clear the Limit Primaries check box, you can have more than four

|> primary partitions. In this mode you should not use any partitioning

|> software except for BootIt NG. This check box is grayed out and

|> unavailable if any of your existing hard drives has more than four

|> primary partitions. This option has a profound affect on how BootIt

|> NG operates."

|

| Right - that's what it says. (which led me to believe I always had

| to check that box (but I was wrong), since I always wanted

| *compatability* with the other programs, and I can live with the 4

| maximum Primarys limit)

Yea, that was my decision too, to keep the Primaries to 4.

|> I must have gone & looked at that once. Either it was already

|> checked or I checked it at that time. I must have looked again after

|> that, saw it was already checked & never looked again. I think,

|> because my Work with Partitions" shows "Create EMBR" instead of

|> "Undo EMBR"-- Limit Primaries has always remained checked for me. To

|> use more than 4 primary partitions on a single HDD, you must have an

|> EMBR.

|

| I *never* use (nor do I want to) an EMBR (for the reasons I

| mentioned)!

Just having the EMBR is no problem. The space it uses on the HDD is

unused by Windows. Even FDISK shouldn't mind. (It may be used by a drive

overlay like EZ-BIOS, though, making that incompatible with BING-- if

you activate the EMBR.) It's after you actually create a 5th Primary

partition on one HDD with BING, that you shouldn't use any partitioning

tool but BING. Other tools won't know the 5th partition exists & may

wipe it out. That's my understanding of it.

--

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

June 20, 2008

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

PCR wrote:

> This is the BING portion...

>

> Bill in Co. wrote:

>> PCR wrote:

>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

>>>> PCR wrote:

>>>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

> ...snip

>>>>> I'd have to go look up the details. There is some kind of integrity

>>>>> check I'm sure done as BING makes its Clone. There is a

>>>>> byte-to-byte comparison too-- but may apply only when making an

>>>>> Image or to a separate Terabyte product altogether (not BING).

>>>>> However, on every occasion that I've made & restored a Clone-- all

>>>>> went perfectly fine!

>>>>

>>>> Same here. (Except for one BING bugaboo over here, where I made

>>>> the mistake of ALWAYS checking that Maintenance Mode option "Limit

>>>> Primaries", which created some problems with one of my systems:

>>>>

>>>> But I was told by the author of the program that always doing that

>>>> was NOT necessary, and that it is normally taken care of by BING

>>>> sensing it on its own (but my checking it created some problems on

>>>> one of my systems, but ever since following his advice, there

>>>> haven't been any problems with *either* system using BING with my

>>>> USB HD enclosure backups.

>>>

>>> Hmm. I don't recall that checkbox is involved. Looking at the docs, I

>>> see it might be involved, if you were making an Image (which I've

>>> never done) instead of a Clone...

>>

>> In Maintenance Mode (first selecting Cancel after booting on the BING

>> boot disk), I only do "Partition Work" (a delete or a copy

>> operation). More below..

>>

>>> ". In the Copy Image dialog box under Options, if you already

>>> have four primary partitions (and if Limit Primaries is enabled)

>>> then you'll need to move the partition by selecting the Delete

>>> Source check box."

>>>

>>> But that doesn't say it needs to be checked every time. It's

>>> referring this in Settings...

>>

>> Limit Primaries does not need to be checked each time, at least for

>> me. :-) Again, when I boot up on the BING Boot Disk, and select

>> "Cancel" to enter "Maintenance Mode", and then click the Settings

>> Box, I see that Limit Primaries checkbox option, but it is unchecked,

>> and that apparently works out as the default anyway, if your system

>> was already set up that way.

>>

>> When I use BING in Maintenance Mode I always am simply deleting or

>> copying a partition (deleting first, to make room for the following

>> copy operation).

>>

>> So it's just a partition copy operation, not "disk cloning" or "disk

>> imaging", as I see it. Strictly a PARTITION COPY operation.

>

> That's right. And that's what I do. But I haven't gone to look at the

> Settings screen in a long time. I'll have to go look again. It may

> depend on BING version as to whether Limit Primaries is checked or not.

> I'm presuming mine IS checked! For making a Clone as we do, it actually

> may not matter whether it is checked or not-- unless you exceed 4

> Primaries.

I'm not making a "Clone" (as I see the usage of that term). I'm only

making a *partition copy*. "Cloning" generally (at least to me) refers to

a whole drive; that is, making a perfect copy of a drive, which I am not

doing)

>>> "Under General, select the Limit Primaries check box to limit your

>>> system to the normal maximum of four primary partitions. In this mode

>>> you can continue to use other partitioning programs such as FDISK. If

>>> you clear the Limit Primaries check box, you can have more than four

>>> primary partitions. In this mode you should not use any partitioning

>>> software except for BootIt NG. This check box is grayed out and

>>> unavailable if any of your existing hard drives has more than four

>>> primary partitions. This option has a profound affect on how BootIt

>>> NG operates."

>>

>> Right - that's what it says. (which led me to believe I always had

>> to check that box (but I was wrong), since I always wanted

>> *compatability* with the other programs, and I can live with the 4

>> maximum Primarys limit)

>

> Yea, that was my decision too, to keep the Primaries to 4.

>

>>> I must have gone & looked at that once. Either it was already

>>> checked or I checked it at that time. I must have looked again after

>>> that, saw it was already checked & never looked again. I think,

>>> because my Work with Partitions" shows "Create EMBR" instead of

>>> "Undo EMBR"-- Limit Primaries has always remained checked for me. To

>>> use more than 4 primary partitions on a single HDD, you must have an

>>> EMBR.

>>

>> I *never* use (nor do I want to) an EMBR (for the reasons I

>> mentioned)!

>

> Just having the EMBR is no problem. The space it uses on the HDD is

> unused by Windows.

I just have no use for it, and like to keep things pretty basic. And I

never use disk compression stuff, or the overlay stuff like EZ-BIOS,

either - I'd really rather not! Of course, I don't have to, either, as my

computers are both from the 21st century. :-).

> Even FDISK shouldn't mind. (It may be used by a drive

> overlay like EZ-BIOS, though, making that incompatible with BING-- if

> you activate the EMBR.) It's after you actually create a 5th Primary

> partition on one HDD with BING, that you shouldn't use any partitioning

> tool but BING. Other tools won't know the 5th partition exists & may

> wipe it out. That's my understanding of it.

>

> --

> 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

June 20, 2008

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

>>>>> Alright, alright -- I'm just saying -- in comparison to my Win98

>>>>> RB..cab's -- that looks large & may impact on hard drive longevity.

>>>>> (My own original Win98 20 GB Quantum Fireball crashed after a year,

>>>>> anyhow-- but I think it was something else!) Of course, no one in

>>>>> the world has read & memorized even a tiny Win98 Registry, either.

>>>>> As far as understanding them, probably it is the same no matter the

>>>>> size-- only a select few Registry keys in either OS will ever be

>>>>> visited by a normal guru for observation & repair, anyhow.

>>>>

>>>> Exactly. And it all (generally) gets more challenging and

>>>> complex with each succeeding operating system version, but then

>>>> again, the need for such is (quite often) reduced, since it is so

>>>> much more robust. (I STILL haven't got a Blue Screen, even after

>>>> 6 months of intensive use and screwing around)

>>>

>>> Of course, you can have a crash without getting a blue screen. I

>>> think you have admitted to at least one, & Terhune said you weren't

>>> trying hard enough. But you are in a better position than I to know

>>> which OS is more robust. You & Terhune!

>>

>> I haven't had a crash, but I have had a "lockup" or two. (where I

>> needed to turn off the power, and then back on)

>

> Do you get any messages during boot after that-- such as that ScanDisk

> (or an equivalent) must run?

The "message" I got was just the desktop staring at me, and no action

whatsover. :-)

>>> ...snip

>>>>>>> What happens to the current Registry when you click ERDNT.exe?

>>>>>>> Does it go into oblivion or is it stored somewhere? If stored,

>>>>>>> does it wipe out the oldest automatic one for its storage space?

>>>>>>> Then, you too must do manipulations to protect them, if you

>>>>>>> think you may need them.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Well, as I said before, if I rerun ERUNT on the same day, it

>>>>>> updates that folder's contents with the newer files. If you

>>>>>> want to keep the earlier version, you should just rename it

>>>>>> slightly (or the new one) when rerunning ERUNT. (Whereas in

>>>>>> SCANREG, it *blindly* overwrites the oldest cab, each and every

>>>>>> time you run it; so is that better? I don't think so!)

>>>>>

>>>>> Nope. But I'm still just wondering whether ERUNT suffers that same

>>>>> peccadillo, that it would wipe one out EVEN doing a restore (not

>>>>> just a save). I've found this...

>>>>>

>>

>> Just an update here - I checked one thing out here: when I use ERUNT

>> to restore a backup, it does NOT delete or touch the previous ones AT

>> ALLl. It leaves them ALL alone. Yea!!

>

> That makes more sense than what ScanReg /Restore does! A lot more!

> Congratulations to that ERUNT writer Lars Hederer! Thanks for checking

> on that, Colorado. But, in...

>

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

> ERUNT - The Emergency Recovery Utility NT

>

> ...I'm see the possibility that it created a .bak file(s) of the current

> Registry just before doing a restore...

>

> .......Quote...................

> ERDNT technical information

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

> ERDNT knows two restoration modes.

> ...snip...

> Note: In restoration mode "NT" backups of the current registry files

> are automatically created, so that option is grayed out.

> ...snip...

> The backups of the current registry files are placed in the same

> location as the original and are given the extension ".bak".

> .......EOQ......................

That might be. But of what use is that? There are *several* registry

data files; it's not as simple as in Win98SE, with just TWO files,

"user.dat" and "system.dat", and one CAB backup!

So messin around with these or their backups (and keeping them all straight)

would be a bit dangerous - and actually - completely unnecessary (due to the

other methods we've already covered!).

> So, do you see any .bak files in your Registry folders?

I have seen some .bak files there, as I vaguely recall. But again, they

are of no practical use to me, per above explanation.

> That might hold

> the Registry that was current just before you did the ERUNT restore-- IF

> I read that right & if MS hasn't changed it since Hederer did that good

> work. (That might be a little like RBbad.cab in Win98, but Win98 doesn't

> use it when doing /Restore).

It might be like that. But who really cares? :-)

> Also... I recall you said that ERUNT would update its latest backup, if

> you ran it twice on the same day instead of deleting the oldest.

That is correct. It overwrites the existing ones (and there are several)

with updated ones.

> Is it possible that happened during the restore too? Was the size(s) any

> different?

They were NOT touched during restore. I checked the timestamps, etc.

> But I guess that STILL would be preferable to what Win98 does!

Yup.

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

>>>>> ERUNT - The Emergency Recovery Utility NT

>>>>>

>>>>> ...but I think what you've got might have advanced since then.

>>>>

>>>> Oh, I sure.

>>>

>>> Yea. That sure didn't look anything like an actual MS article. I

>>> suppose MS bought ERUNT off that guy, if it comes pre-installed now

>>> with XP. See how rich a guru can get?

>>

>> Huh? ERUNT and System Restore are completely different. If you

>> want ERUNT, YOU have to download it and install it yourself. No

>> big deal, though. It does NOT "come" with XP (or any OS).

>

> Ohhhh-- I was assuming it came with XP! It was smart of you take that

> download-- sounds very useful! Those cheap-o MS bigwigs should buy it

> for a million dollars!

>

>>>>> It does

>>>>> point out another failing of System Restore-- if the Registry is in

>>>>> bad enough shape, you won't be able to boot even to Safe Mode to

>>>>> use it.

>>>>

>>>> That could possibly happen, yes. (of course - it is a computer,

>>>> after all!) System Restore is not a magic Elf. :-)

>>>

>>> Yep. We are both smart to have our 3rd-party backup-apps!

>>

>> You bet. :-)

>

> :-).

>

>>>>> That's why he wrote ERUNT! Looks like ERUNT is more configurable

>>>>> than ScanReg & possibly can be set to avoid that peccadillo or

>>>>> running it one way instead of another avoids it.

>>>>

>>>> Yup. Quite flexible, too.

>>>

>>> Very good. Have you gone to see what it would be like to run it from

>>> a floppy, CD-ROM or flash drive? Don't necessarily run it, though.

>>

>> Well, to run it, you need to access it in the Windows\ERDNT folder.

>> That's where it (and the backups) are stored. There might be a

>> way to transfer all its contents over, by why bother? I guess if

>> you couldn't boot into windows (which hasn't happened yet), that

>> might be nice.

>>

>> Haven't read up on that, though. But if I couldn't boot up on

>> windows, I could use one of my third party DOS-like goodies to boot

>> and get access to the ERUNT files on the HD (in an explorer like

>> interface), and execute it there.

>

> There's a section in Hederer's docs that says you are on the right

> track. You may have to do something to an .ini, though -- IF the XP

> drive is a different letter -- before you run ERUNT, is all. That is

> "file copy" mode.

Probably good to know.

>> Like the recovery or NTFS disk access programs I've mentioned before:

>> Like the WinXP Recovery Console, or Bart's PE Builder, or NTFS4DOS,

>> etc. (you can read about all those if you want).

>

> YOU must go read it-- I'm not XP yet!

LOL.

In 10 more days, it (theoretically) won't be sold anymore, either.

Well maybe not, as the shops might have a grace period to clear out their

inventory - I don't know.

>>>>> Anyhow, I don't need to know any more, until I've gone XP myself,

>>>>> not really.

>>>>

>

> ...snip

>>>>>>> DEFINITELY, don't go wiping out your system just to get me an

>>>>>>> answer! Maybe Terhune will see this & wreck his instead!

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> NOTE that big article you found about System Restore...

>>>>>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997627.aspx

>>>>>>> Microsoft Windows XP System Restore

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> ...does say "The restore operation itself will create a restore

>>>>>>> point for undo purposes." But it doesn't say whether the oldest

>>>>>>> is deleted for that! Can it be they have carried forward the same

>>>>>>> boo-boo from Win98 into WinXP! SO... careful with your Restore

>>>>>>> Points too!

>>>>>>

>>>>>> With System Restore the oldest one gets deleted if needed to make

>>>>>> room (within the designated space reserved for System Restore).

>>>>>

>>>>> So! That was pretty silly of them to carry that into XP! One can't

>>>>> even copy ones Restore Points to protect them before doing the

>>>>> restore, can one?

>>>>

>>>> I haven't ever had the need or desire to do that, but generally

>>>> speaking, the answer to that is NO. But I mean, who on earth needs

>>>> to go back to a Restore Point a month or two ago? Way too much

>>>> has changed by then.

>>>

>>> Probably you are right. If the restore points failed or ran out, the

>>> best course is to go for the full system backup.

>>

>> Yup. And if the restore points are that old, too.

>>

>>> But I'm thinking of

>>> those who may post to some XP NG for help who haven't made a backup.

>>> If someone starts telling them to go for those restore points-- how

>>> many really will be usable?

>>

>> Usually most, if not ALL, *IF* the changes have been moderate and

>> reasonable, and the system has been kept in good shape up to now.

>>

>> I say moderate, because for something like installing a Service Pack,

>> or a new version of IE, or Microsoft Office, and then wanting later

>> to reverse that, well THAT might be pushing your luck a bit. I'd go

>> for the backup restore in that case.

>

> I think you have that right.

However, that being said....

Just recently, I tried System Restore out again, after installing a fairly

large audio restoration demo program (just to try it out), and it worked

perfectly (to remove the program, and any vestiges of the program, when

done, which you CANNOT due with "scanreg /restore").

But I usually uninstall it first. :-)

However, either way, System Restore works pretty well most of time.

But because it was such a large program (it had a 50 MB installer exe file),

and just to be *perfectly* safe, I went ahead and restored my prior backup

image. :-)

>>> Depends whether they start bottom up in date or

>>> top down, looks like -- just as with ScanReg -- because the oldest

>>> one gets destroyed during the restore process. That is true-- unless

>>> some XP guru greater than us cares to object!

>>

>> The oldest one(s) do get deleted if you exceed the allocated limit.

>> I've already seen that.

>

> OK. Hederer did better!

But keep in mind, when you set the limit for the System Restore point's disk

space, YOU set the limit, so obviously something's got to go when it fills

up, and that should be the OLDEST stuff - which it indeed is.

And this stuff encompasses MUCH more than the ERUNT backup (which can ONLY

restore the system registry). And NOT any programs or program files, etc.

>>>>> They are in some kind of secret place-- maybe in their own partition!

>>>>

>>>> They are in a separate folder. They are in the (normally hidden)

>>>> "System Volume Information folder", which is generally "hands-off"!

>>>

>>> Alright. Just to solidify our conclusion, look carefully at their

>>> dates the next time you do a System Restore-- before & after. Did

>>> you lose the oldest, as that article suggests but doesn't quite say

>>> outright...?... http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997627.aspx

>>

>> I have seen the oldest one(s) get removed - IF the specified allowed

>> disk space limit was exceeded. So, YES.

>

> OK, thanks. So, depending on how much space is set for it, there could

> be more or less than 5 Restore Points-- but the same silly principle

> applies! Whatever you've got-- it's LESS than you think!

There are *considerably more* then 5 restore points using System Restore!

It's more like 20, or so!

It's not a fixed number of restore points. Its limited by size and disk

space, and the different restore points are somewhat different in size,

depending on how much you have done between sessions.

>>>>> I know you've got your True Image in case the Restore Points

>>>>> run out. But does everyone?

>>>>

>>>> I haven't EVER had the need (or want) to go back to the earliest

>>>> Restore Points a month or two ago.

>>>>

>>>> Most would also have available some backup program or routine. (Or

>>>> none at all, and they just live "foolishly" (probably the same ones

>>>> who did that back in Win9x and Win3.1).

>>>

>>> It's still something to keep in mind, that, if it looks like you have

>>> 5-- you may get to try only 3!

>>

>> YOU may. I usually have a bit more than 5 backups (with my manual

>> ERUNT backups). :-) But I usually go in later and delete them.

>> The autobackups are limited to 5 days worth, however, and do NOT get

>> erased after a restore, as I mentioned earlier in this post.

>

> No, we're talking about Restore Points here. ERUNT does well.

Well, as I said above, I typically have around 20 or so System Restore

points to choose from, depending. And NOT 5!! But I've rarely IF EVER

found the need to go back that far. (Presumably I'd know what's going on a

lot sooner than that).

>>>>>>> I have good reason to believe in Win98 -- if you start restoring

>>>>>>> Registries oldest to latest -- you may get to try them all.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Not ALL of them, unless you've saved one or two, since as soon as

>>>>>> you restore one, one of them (the oldest remaining one) will be

>>>>>> blindly erased to keep the limit at 5!!

>>>>>

>>>>> In this one, I restore the oldest (RB004). The current one

>>>>> (System.dat, User.dat, System.ini, Win.ini) got put into RB003, &

>>>>> RB004 went into oblivion. But all the rest survived! But who wants

>>>>> to go oldest to youngest?

>>>>>

>>>>> 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 <<oldest

>>>>> 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

>>>>> RB005 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:28a

>>>>> RB003 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:36a

>>>>>

>>>>>>> But who

>>>>>>> wants to start with the oldest! So, as you know, it's best to

>>>>>>> copy them all first & move them in/out-- but that's extra work!

>>>>>>

>>>>>> But you can do this too with ERUNT. No big difference there.

>>>>>

>>>>> ERUNT seems to have a way or two around the problem. For one thing,

>>>>> you can increase the backups kept beyond 5-- & NOT have to move

>>>>> them around for use.

>>>>

>>>> I can save as many ERUNT backups (manually) as I want. The daily

>>>> ERUNT autobackup ones, however, are limited by your choice - as to

>>>> how many.

>>>

>>> I'm going to increase the number of my Registry backups to 7 &

>>> experiment again. I know the extra 2 won't be offered by ScanReg

>>> /Restore-- but will they increase the number of usable ones when

>>> restoring youngest to oldest in date?

>>

>> Don't know. I still expect the oldest ones to get deleted when you

>> do a restore, but this time you'll have 7, but since you can only see

>> 5 in scanreg /restore, what's the point? It's a real PIA! Better

>> to just use a backup folder for some extra ones when that need arises.

>

> You are right about the backup folder. Nevertheless, I've now got 6 (not

> including RBbad.cab)...

>

> C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP>dir rb*.cab /od

> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p rbbad.cab

> RB005 CAB 1,602,739 06-14-08 6:50p rb005.cab

> RB003 CAB 1,602,739 06-15-08 2:06p rb003.cab

> RB004 CAB 1,602,711 06-16-08 6:24p rb004.cab

> RB000 CAB 1,602,771 06-17-08 4:05p rb000.cab

> RB001 CAB 1,602,738 06-18-08 5:58p rb001.cab

> RB002 CAB 1,602,761 06-19-08 6:03p rb002.cab

>

> By tomorrow, I'll have 7-- & I'll go do that test! Could be, although

> the oldest won't show up in the /Restore operation,

I expect that to be the case.

> it might still be

> the one that gets pushed out by it. It's just for academic reasons that

> I want to know.

>

> ...snip

>>> Yea, it doesn't seem to be as big an issue with ERUNT. How is it you

>>> started to save your own Registry backups instead of relying on the

>>> automatic ones?

>>

>> Well, on those days when I make some "significant changes" during the

>> same day, and I want to save those recent changes (since I'm not sure

>> if I'll want to fall back to them later. And I may even want to

>> experiment with some more changes later on during the same day, so it

>> never hurts to be fully prepared.

>

> OK. Very good. I've cut out the BING portion of this marathon diatribe &

> posted it separately.

OK. And I responded to that one a bit earlier (it was shorter :-)

June 20, 2008

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Well, I think we should wrap up soon. I'm sure there are many who are

annoyed by now over the length of this thread! Don't put any questions

in your response to this. This is it...!...

Bill in Co. wrote:

| PCR wrote:

|> Bill in Co. wrote:

|>> PCR wrote:

|>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

|>>>> PCR wrote:

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

....snip

|>>> Of course, you can have a crash without getting a blue screen. I

|>>> think you have admitted to at least one, & Terhune said you weren't

|>>> trying hard enough. But you are in a better position than I to know

|>>> which OS is more robust. You & Terhune!

|>>

|>> I haven't had a crash, but I have had a "lockup" or two. (where I

|>> needed to turn off the power, and then back on)

|>

|> Do you get any messages during boot after that-- such as that

|> ScanDisk (or an equivalent) must run?

|

| The "message" I got was just the desktop staring at me, and no action

| whatsover. :-)

Alright. Naturally, I've seen those in Win98 too. Once/twice, I actually

waited long enough & the thing recovered!

....snip

|>>>>>> Well, as I said before, if I rerun ERUNT on the same day, it

|>>>>>> updates that folder's contents with the newer files. If you

|>>>>>> want to keep the earlier version, you should just rename it

|>>>>>> slightly (or the new one) when rerunning ERUNT. (Whereas in

|>>>>>> SCANREG, it *blindly* overwrites the oldest cab, each and every

|>>>>>> time you run it; so is that better? I don't think so!)

|>>>>>

|>>>>> Nope. But I'm still just wondering whether ERUNT suffers that

|>>>>> same peccadillo, that it would wipe one out EVEN doing a restore

|>>>>> (not just a save). I've found this...

|>>>>>

|>>

|>> Just an update here - I checked one thing out here: when I use

|>> ERUNT to restore a backup, it does NOT delete or touch the previous

|>> ones AT ALLl. It leaves them ALL alone. Yea!!

|>

|> That makes more sense than what ScanReg /Restore does! A lot more!

|> Congratulations to that ERUNT writer Lars Hederer! Thanks for

|> checking on that, Colorado. But, in...

|>

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

|> ERUNT - The Emergency Recovery Utility NT

|>

|> ...I'm see the possibility that it created a .bak file(s) of the

|> current Registry just before doing a restore...

|>

|> .......Quote...................

|> ERDNT technical information

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

|> ERDNT knows two restoration modes.

|> ...snip...

|> Note: In restoration mode "NT" backups of the current registry files

|> are automatically created, so that option is grayed out.

|> ...snip...

|> The backups of the current registry files are placed in the same

|> location as the original and are given the extension ".bak".

|> .......EOQ......................

|

| That might be. But of what use is that? There are *several*

| registry data files; it's not as simple as in Win98SE, with just TWO

| files, "user.dat" and "system.dat", and one CAB backup!

|

| So messin around with these or their backups (and keeping them all

| straight) would be a bit dangerous - and actually - completely

| unnecessary (due to the other methods we've already covered!).

I believe you are absolutely correct. Yea, let ERUNT deal with those

..bak files, & XP users must use the other methods. Just for academic

reasons, one should know what they are, though, in case they do show up.

Despite what I quoted up there, I'm not really sure whether it is the NT

Mode of ERUNT or the "file copy" mode that even creates them.

|> So, do you see any .bak files in your Registry folders?

|

| I have seen some .bak files there, as I vaguely recall. But again,

| they are of no practical use to me, per above explanation.

OK. Probably, it is NT Mode of restore that does it, then: You have said

you never tried the other.

|> That might hold

|> the Registry that was current just before you did the ERUNT

|> restore-- IF I read that right & if MS hasn't changed it since

|> Hederer did that good work. (That might be a little like RBbad.cab

|> in Win98, but Win98 doesn't use it when doing /Restore).

|

| It might be like that. But who really cares? :-)

:-). Once one has decided ERUNT knows what it is doing & that it doesn't

need micro-managing like ScanReg does-- it is only for academic reasons

to know.

|> Also... I recall you said that ERUNT would update its latest backup,

|> if you ran it twice on the same day instead of deleting the oldest.

|

| That is correct. It overwrites the existing ones (and there are

| several) with updated ones.

|

|> Is it possible that happened during the restore too? Was the size(s)

|> any different?

|

| They were NOT touched during restore. I checked the timestamps,

| etc.

Very good. Likely it is going into the .bak, then.

|> But I guess that STILL would be preferable to what Win98 does!

|

| Yup.

Yep. That Hederer was a smart one!

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

|>>>>> ERUNT - The Emergency Recovery Utility NT

|>>>>>

|>>>>> ...but I think what you've got might have advanced since then.

|>>>>

|>>>> Oh, I sure.

|>>>

|>>> Yea. That sure didn't look anything like an actual MS article. I

|>>> suppose MS bought ERUNT off that guy, if it comes pre-installed now

|>>> with XP. See how rich a guru can get?

|>>

|>> Huh? ERUNT and System Restore are completely different. If you

|>> want ERUNT, YOU have to download it and install it yourself. No

|>> big deal, though. It does NOT "come" with XP (or any OS).

|>

|> Ohhhh-- I was assuming it came with XP! It was smart of you take that

|> download-- sounds very useful! Those cheap-o MS bigwigs should buy it

|> for a million dollars!

|>

|>>>>> It does

|>>>>> point out another failing of System Restore-- if the Registry is

|>>>>> in bad enough shape, you won't be able to boot even to Safe Mode

|>>>>> to

|>>>>> use it.

|>>>>

|>>>> That could possibly happen, yes. (of course - it is a computer,

|>>>> after all!) System Restore is not a magic Elf. :-)

|>>>

|>>> Yep. We are both smart to have our 3rd-party backup-apps!

|>>

|>> You bet. :-)

|>

|> :-).

|>

|>>>>> That's why he wrote ERUNT! Looks like ERUNT is more configurable

|>>>>> than ScanReg & possibly can be set to avoid that peccadillo or

|>>>>> running it one way instead of another avoids it.

|>>>>

|>>>> Yup. Quite flexible, too.

|>>>

|>>> Very good. Have you gone to see what it would be like to run it

|>>> from a floppy, CD-ROM or flash drive? Don't necessarily run it,

|>>> though.

|>>

|>> Well, to run it, you need to access it in the Windows\ERDNT folder.

|>> That's where it (and the backups) are stored. There might be a

|>> way to transfer all its contents over, by why bother? I guess if

|>> you couldn't boot into windows (which hasn't happened yet), that

|>> might be nice.

|>>

|>> Haven't read up on that, though. But if I couldn't boot up on

|>> windows, I could use one of my third party DOS-like goodies to boot

|>> and get access to the ERUNT files on the HD (in an explorer like

|>> interface), and execute it there.

|>

|> There's a section in Hederer's docs that says you are on the right

|> track. You may have to do something to an .ini, though -- IF the XP

|> drive is a different letter -- before you run ERUNT, is all. That is

|> "file copy" mode.

|

| Probably good to know.

Yea. Hopefully, one never needs to run it in file copy mode, though. If

he's really good, a message will pop up during the run of ERUNT that

mentions it-- instead of it only being in the docs. That's how I would

have written it when I was a computer programmer!

|>> Like the recovery or NTFS disk access programs I've mentioned

|>> before: Like the WinXP Recovery Console, or Bart's PE Builder, or

|>> NTFS4DOS, etc. (you can read about all those if you want).

|>

|> YOU must go read it-- I'm not XP yet!

|

| LOL.

:-).

| In 10 more days, it (theoretically) won't be sold anymore, either.

| Well maybe not, as the shops might have a grace period to clear out

| their inventory - I don't know.

Maybe. Or maybe someone will snap up all the excess & offer it on the

NET. Also, there is EBAY & such, we know.

....snip

|>>>>>>> DEFINITELY, don't go wiping out your system just to get me an

|>>>>>>> answer! Maybe Terhune will see this & wreck his instead!

|>>>>>>>

|>>>>>>> NOTE that big article you found about System Restore...

|>>>>>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997627.aspx

|>>>>>>> Microsoft Windows XP System Restore

|>>>>>>>

|>>>>>>> ...does say "The restore operation itself will create a restore

|>>>>>>> point for undo purposes." But it doesn't say whether the oldest

|>>>>>>> is deleted for that! Can it be they have carried forward the

|>>>>>>> same boo-boo from Win98 into WinXP! SO... careful with your

|>>>>>>> Restore Points too!

|>>>>>>

|>>>>>> With System Restore the oldest one gets deleted if needed to

|>>>>>> make room (within the designated space reserved for System

|>>>>>> Restore).

|>>>>>

|>>>>> So! That was pretty silly of them to carry that into XP! One

|>>>>> can't even copy ones Restore Points to protect them before doing

|>>>>> the restore, can one?

|>>>>

|>>>> I haven't ever had the need or desire to do that, but generally

|>>>> speaking, the answer to that is NO. But I mean, who on earth

|>>>> needs to go back to a Restore Point a month or two ago? Way

|>>>> too much has changed by then.

|>>>

|>>> Probably you are right. If the restore points failed or ran out,

|>>> the best course is to go for the full system backup.

|>>

|>> Yup. And if the restore points are that old, too.

|>>

|>>> But I'm thinking of

|>>> those who may post to some XP NG for help who haven't made a

|>>> backup. If someone starts telling them to go for those restore

|>>> points-- how many really will be usable?

|>>

|>> Usually most, if not ALL, *IF* the changes have been moderate and

|>> reasonable, and the system has been kept in good shape up to now.

|>>

|>> I say moderate, because for something like installing a Service

|>> Pack, or a new version of IE, or Microsoft Office, and then wanting

|>> later to reverse that, well THAT might be pushing your luck a bit.

|>> I'd go for the backup restore in that case.

|>

|> I think you have that right.

|

| However, that being said....

| Just recently, I tried System Restore out again, after installing a

| fairly large audio restoration demo program (just to try it out), and

| it worked perfectly (to remove the program, and any vestiges of the

| program, when done, which you CANNOT due with "scanreg /restore").

|

| But I usually uninstall it first. :-)

| However, either way, System Restore works pretty well most of time.

| But because it was such a large program (it had a 50 MB installer exe

| file), and just to be *perfectly* safe, I went ahead and restored my

| prior backup image. :-)

That's impressive that System Restore seemed able to handle a really big

one. You were wise still to go for the image afterwards, just in case.

If XP isn't too complex for a tracker -- like PCMag's InCtrl5 -- to

handle, you could use something like that too to decide whether to go

for the image. BUT the bigger the package even in Win98-- the tougher it

is to look at an InCtrl5 report!

|>>> Depends whether they start bottom up in date or

|>>> top down, looks like -- just as with ScanReg -- because the oldest

|>>> one gets destroyed during the restore process. That is true--

|>>> unless some XP guru greater than us cares to object!

|>>

|>> The oldest one(s) do get deleted if you exceed the allocated limit.

|>> I've already seen that.

|>

|> OK. Hederer did better!

|

| But keep in mind, when you set the limit for the System Restore

| point's disk space, YOU set the limit, so obviously something's got

| to go when it fills up, and that should be the OLDEST stuff - which

| it indeed is.

|

| And this stuff encompasses MUCH more than the ERUNT backup (which can

| ONLY restore the system registry). And NOT any programs or program

| files, etc.

All MS had to do was to leave the restore points alone during the

process of restoring one (instead of removing the oldest if space has

run out) & maybe put the current data into a .bak restore point

instead-- like Hederer seems to have done. As is, one has to be aware

the oldest won't be usable, if one starts top down & hopes to get to

them. Of course, it may be rare one needs to go that far back.

|>>>>> They are in some kind of secret place-- maybe in their own

|>>>>> partition!

|>>>>

|>>>> They are in a separate folder. They are in the (normally

|>>>> hidden) "System Volume Information folder", which is generally

|>>>> "hands-off"!

|>>>

|>>> Alright. Just to solidify our conclusion, look carefully at their

|>>> dates the next time you do a System Restore-- before & after. Did

|>>> you lose the oldest, as that article suggests but doesn't quite say

|>>> outright...?...

|>>> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms997627.aspx

|>>

|>> I have seen the oldest one(s) get removed - IF the specified allowed

|>> disk space limit was exceeded. So, YES.

|>

|> OK, thanks. So, depending on how much space is set for it, there

|> could be more or less than 5 Restore Points-- but the same silly

|> principle applies! Whatever you've got-- it's LESS than you think!

|

| There are *considerably more* then 5 restore points using System

| Restore! It's more like 20, or so!

Yow! That seems to be enough, really! I guess this problem of the oldest

getting wiped durin the process of a restore really is moot!

| It's not a fixed number of restore points. Its limited by size and

| disk space, and the different restore points are somewhat different

| in size, depending on how much you have done between sessions.

That makes me wonder whether each one is a full restore point or some

kind of incremental. But, if it offers you the full 20 during the

process of doing a restore-- I guess they must effectively be full

restore points. OK, then.

|>>>>> I know you've got your True Image in case the Restore Points

|>>>>> run out. But does everyone?

|>>>>

|>>>> I haven't EVER had the need (or want) to go back to the earliest

|>>>> Restore Points a month or two ago.

|>>>>

|>>>> Most would also have available some backup program or routine.

|>>>> (Or none at all, and they just live "foolishly" (probably the

|>>>> same ones who did that back in Win9x and Win3.1).

|>>>

|>>> It's still something to keep in mind, that, if it looks like you

|>>> have 5-- you may get to try only 3!

|>>

|>> YOU may. I usually have a bit more than 5 backups (with my manual

|>> ERUNT backups). :-) But I usually go in later and delete them.

|>> The autobackups are limited to 5 days worth, however, and do NOT get

|>> erased after a restore, as I mentioned earlier in this post.

|>

|> No, we're talking about Restore Points here. ERUNT does well.

|

| Well, as I said above, I typically have around 20 or so System Restore

| points to choose from, depending. And NOT 5!! But I've rarely IF

| EVER found the need to go back that far. (Presumably I'd know

| what's going on a lot sooner than that).

OK. It's a moot point, then-- you've got enough not to worry about the

oldest all all!

|>>>>>>> I have good reason to believe in Win98 -- if you start

|>>>>>>> restoring Registries oldest to latest -- you may get to try

|>>>>>>> them all.

|>>>>>>

|>>>>>> Not ALL of them, unless you've saved one or two, since as soon

|>>>>>> as you restore one, one of them (the oldest remaining one) will

|>>>>>> be blindly erased to keep the limit at 5!!

|>>>>>

|>>>>> In this one, I restore the oldest (RB004). The current one

|>>>>> (System.dat, User.dat, System.ini, Win.ini) got put into RB003, &

|>>>>> RB004 went into oblivion. But all the rest survived! But who

|>>>>> wants to go oldest to youngest?

|>>>>>

|>>>>> 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 <<oldest

|>>>>> 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

|>>>>> RB005 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:28a

|>>>>> RB003 CAB 6,209,878 06-13-08 12:36a

|>>>>>

|>>>>>>> But who

|>>>>>>> wants to start with the oldest! So, as you know, it's best to

|>>>>>>> copy them all first & move them in/out-- but that's extra work!

|>>>>>>

|>>>>>> But you can do this too with ERUNT. No big difference there.

|>>>>>

|>>>>> ERUNT seems to have a way or two around the problem. For one

|>>>>> thing, you can increase the backups kept beyond 5-- & NOT have

|>>>>> to move

|>>>>> them around for use.

|>>>>

|>>>> I can save as many ERUNT backups (manually) as I want. The daily

|>>>> ERUNT autobackup ones, however, are limited by your choice - as to

|>>>> how many.

|>>>

|>>> I'm going to increase the number of my Registry backups to 7 &

|>>> experiment again. I know the extra 2 won't be offered by ScanReg

|>>> /Restore-- but will they increase the number of usable ones when

|>>> restoring youngest to oldest in date?

|>>

|>> Don't know. I still expect the oldest ones to get deleted when you

|>> do a restore, but this time you'll have 7, but since you can only

|>> see 5 in scanreg /restore, what's the point? It's a real PIA!

|>> Better to just use a backup folder for some extra ones when that

|>> need arises.

|>

|> You are right about the backup folder. Nevertheless, I've now got 6

|> (not including RBbad.cab)...

|>

|> C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP>dir rb*.cab /od

|> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

|> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p rbbad.cab

|> RB005 CAB 1,602,739 06-14-08 6:50p rb005.cab

|> RB003 CAB 1,602,739 06-15-08 2:06p rb003.cab

|> RB004 CAB 1,602,711 06-16-08 6:24p rb004.cab

|> RB000 CAB 1,602,771 06-17-08 4:05p rb000.cab

|> RB001 CAB 1,602,738 06-18-08 5:58p rb001.cab

|> RB002 CAB 1,602,761 06-19-08 6:03p rb002.cab

|>

|> By tomorrow, I'll have 7-- & I'll go do that test! Could be, although

|> the oldest won't show up in the /Restore operation,

|

| I expect that to be the case.

ODDLY-- it was the NEWEST that didn't show up! I didn't wait for 7, but

tried it after I had 6 (not counting RBbad.cab). The following is the

result...

RB002 was NOT offered by ScanReg /Restore among the 5 it offers, until I

deleted the excess (not shown). That's bad! Why would the NEWEST backup

NOT be offered! So, I restored RB001...

Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p

RB005 CAB 1,602,739 06-14-08 6:50p

RB003 CAB 1,602,739 06-15-08 2:06p

RB004 CAB 1,602,711 06-16-08 6:24p

RB000 CAB 1,602,771 06-17-08 4:05p

RB001 CAB 1,602,738 06-18-08 5:58p << 1

RB002 CAB 1,602,761 06-19-08 6:03p

After restoring RB0001, RB006 was added to hold what was current just

before the restore. Now, I had 7: That's the limit I set in ScanReg.ini.

So, the next restore will wipe one. ODDLY, RB006 (now the newest of them

all) was offered by /Restore-- but RB002 STILL was not offered! I chose

to restore RB000...

Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p

RB005 CAB 1,602,739 06-14-08 6:50p

RB003 CAB 1,602,739 06-15-08 2:06p

RB004 CAB 1,602,711 06-16-08 6:24p

RB000 CAB 1,602,771 06-17-08 4:05p << 2

RB001 CAB 1,602,738 06-18-08 5:58p

RB002 CAB 1,602,761 06-19-08 6:03p

RB006 CAB 6,209,878 06-20-08 4:59p

After that, RB005 was wiped for being the oldest. The next /Restore

still did not offer RB002-- but went ahead & offered both RB006 & 7 &

the 3 oldest.

Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP

RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p

RB003 CAB 1,602,739 06-15-08 2:06p

RB004 CAB 1,602,711 06-16-08 6:24p

RB000 CAB 1,602,771 06-17-08 4:05p

RB001 CAB 1,602,738 06-18-08 5:58p

RB002 CAB 1,602,761 06-19-08 6:03p

RB006 CAB 6,209,878 06-20-08 4:59p

RB007 CAB 6,209,878 06-20-08 5:16p

To recover, I then deleted both RB003 & 4 in DOS. (Everything was done

in DOS-- I never rebooted to Windows but only to DOS.) FINALLY, RB002

was offered! I took it & rebooted to Windows!

|> it might still be

|> the one that gets pushed out by it. It's just for academic reasons

|> that I want to know.

|>

|> ...snip

|>>> Yea, it doesn't seem to be as big an issue with ERUNT. How is it

|>>> you started to save your own Registry backups instead of relying

|>>> on the automatic ones?

|>>

|>> Well, on those days when I make some "significant changes" during

|>> the same day, and I want to save those recent changes (since I'm

|>> not sure if I'll want to fall back to them later. And I may even

|>> want to experiment with some more changes later on during the same

|>> day, so it never hurts to be fully prepared.

|>

|> OK. Very good. I've cut out the BING portion of this marathon

|> diatribe & posted it separately.

|

| OK. And I responded to that one a bit earlier (it was shorter :-)

I see it. OK, bye. :-).

--

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

June 20, 2008

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

This thread is too big. Don't put any questions in your response to this

one, if any...!...

Bill in Co. wrote:

| PCR wrote:

|> This is the BING portion...

|>

|> Bill in Co. wrote:

|>> PCR wrote:

|>>> Bill in Co. wrote:

|>>>> PCR wrote:

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

|> ...snip

|>>>>> I'd have to go look up the details. There is some kind of

|>>>>> integrity check I'm sure done as BING makes its Clone. There is a

|>>>>> byte-to-byte comparison too-- but may apply only when making an

|>>>>> Image or to a separate Terabyte product altogether (not BING).

|>>>>> However, on every occasion that I've made & restored a Clone--

|>>>>> all went perfectly fine!

|>>>>

|>>>> Same here. (Except for one BING bugaboo over here, where I made

|>>>> the mistake of ALWAYS checking that Maintenance Mode option "Limit

|>>>> Primaries", which created some problems with one of my systems:

|>>>>

|>>>> But I was told by the author of the program that always doing that

|>>>> was NOT necessary, and that it is normally taken care of by BING

|>>>> sensing it on its own (but my checking it created some problems on

|>>>> one of my systems, but ever since following his advice, there

|>>>> haven't been any problems with *either* system using BING with my

|>>>> USB HD enclosure backups.

|>>>

|>>> Hmm. I don't recall that checkbox is involved. Looking at the

|>>> docs, I see it might be involved, if you were making an Image

|>>> (which I've never done) instead of a Clone...

|>>

|>> In Maintenance Mode (first selecting Cancel after booting on the

|>> BING boot disk), I only do "Partition Work" (a delete or a copy

|>> operation). More below..

|>>

|>>> ". In the Copy Image dialog box under Options, if you already

|>>> have four primary partitions (and if Limit Primaries is enabled)

|>>> then you'll need to move the partition by selecting the Delete

|>>> Source check box."

|>>>

|>>> But that doesn't say it needs to be checked every time. It's

|>>> referring this in Settings...

|>>

|>> Limit Primaries does not need to be checked each time, at least for

|>> me. :-) Again, when I boot up on the BING Boot Disk, and select

|>> "Cancel" to enter "Maintenance Mode", and then click the Settings

|>> Box, I see that Limit Primaries checkbox option, but it is

|>> unchecked, and that apparently works out as the default anyway, if

|>> your system was already set up that way.

|>>

|>> When I use BING in Maintenance Mode I always am simply deleting or

|>> copying a partition (deleting first, to make room for the following

|>> copy operation).

|>>

|>> So it's just a partition copy operation, not "disk cloning" or "disk

|>> imaging", as I see it. Strictly a PARTITION COPY operation.

|>

|> That's right. And that's what I do. But I haven't gone to look at the

|> Settings screen in a long time. I'll have to go look again. It may

|> depend on BING version as to whether Limit Primaries is checked or

|> not. I'm presuming mine IS checked! For making a Clone as we do, it

|> actually may not matter whether it is checked or not-- unless you

|> exceed 4 Primaries.

|

| I'm not making a "Clone" (as I see the usage of that term). I'm only

| making a *partition copy*. "Cloning" generally (at least to me)

| refers to a whole drive; that is, making a perfect copy of a drive,

| which I am not doing)

I've meant to say the partition is cloned.

|>>> "Under General, select the Limit Primaries check box to limit your

|>>> system to the normal maximum of four primary partitions. In this

|>>> mode you can continue to use other partitioning programs such as

|>>> FDISK. If you clear the Limit Primaries check box, you can have

|>>> more than four primary partitions. In this mode you should not use

|>>> any partitioning software except for BootIt NG. This check box is

|>>> grayed out and unavailable if any of your existing hard drives has

|>>> more than four primary partitions. This option has a profound

|>>> affect on how BootIt NG operates."

|>>

|>> Right - that's what it says. (which led me to believe I always had

|>> to check that box (but I was wrong), since I always wanted

|>> *compatability* with the other programs, and I can live with the 4

|>> maximum Primarys limit)

|>

|> Yea, that was my decision too, to keep the Primaries to 4.

|>

|>>> I must have gone & looked at that once. Either it was already

|>>> checked or I checked it at that time. I must have looked again

|>>> after that, saw it was already checked & never looked again. I

|>>> think, because my Work with Partitions" shows "Create EMBR"

|>>> instead of "Undo EMBR"-- Limit Primaries has always remained

|>>> checked for me. To use more than 4 primary partitions on a single

|>>> HDD, you must have an EMBR.

|>>

|>> I *never* use (nor do I want to) an EMBR (for the reasons I

|>> mentioned)!

|>

|> Just having the EMBR is no problem. The space it uses on the HDD is

|> unused by Windows.

|

| I just have no use for it, and like to keep things pretty basic.

| And I never use disk compression stuff, or the overlay stuff like

| EZ-BIOS,

| either - I'd really rather not! Of course, I don't have to, either,

| as my computers are both from the 21st century. :-).

I've made the same decisions as you on all that. By the way, Ive gone to

look, & -- just as for you -- Limit Primaries is UNchecked for me too in

my BING v.1.73 Settings screen. I'm glad to hear David said it doesn't

matter! Thanks for that.

On both my HDD, I have a "Create EMBR" button, instead of an "Undo EMBR"

button. So, I was wrong to think it would be the reverse, if Limit

Primaries was unchecked.

OK, then. No response is necessary. And if you do respond-- DON'T put a

question in it!

|> Even FDISK shouldn't mind. (It may be used by a drive

|> overlay like EZ-BIOS, though, making that incompatible with BING-- if

|> you activate the EMBR.) It's after you actually create a 5th Primary

|> partition on one HDD with BING, that you shouldn't use any

|> partitioning tool but BING. Other tools won't know the 5th partition

|> exists & may wipe it out. That's my understanding of it.

|>

|> --

|> 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

Sign In

Re: Backup software--like GHOST

Recommended Posts

Guest Bill in Co.

Popular Days

Popular Days

Guest PCR

Guest MEB

Guest PCR

Guest MEB

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest PCR

Guest PCR

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest PCR

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest PCR

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest PCR

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest PCR

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest PCR

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest PCR

Guest PCR

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest Bill in Co.

Guest PCR

Guest PCR

Similar Content

Backup.

RDP monitor software

What is Intel Arc software & drivers?

Is there a way to see what backups windows has?

Windows Server 2019 Azure Backup failed

Browse

Activity

Site Info