- Thread starter
- #41
B
Bill in Co.
PCR wrote:
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>
> ...snip
>>>>> I've never done it, though-- haven't ever decided which to choose!
>>>>> Somewhere, I've got cquirke's suggestions. Which do XP save
>>>>> automatically? A lot or just a few?
>>>>
>>>> A LOT. An awful lot. All the ones it thinks might be
>>>> problematic, and should be monitored. (Which are most of the
>>>> ones you might expect, plus some.
>>>> There is an article somewhere on the MS web site somewhere covering
>>>> "System Restore", and what files and directories it monitors, and
>>>> backups, etc, etc.
>>>
>>> Alright. That sounds like too much.
>>
>> Nah. (But in the bloatware albatross named VISTA, it sure may be.
>>
>
> OK.. I believe you about Vista!
>
>>>>> I suppose it is done on a daily basis at each boot like in Win98.
>>>>
>>>> More or less it's daily, or after 24 hours of use (can't recall), if
>>>> you don't choose to make a Restore Point manually yourself within
>>>> that time frame.
>>>>
>>>> And there's a fixed amount of space on the HD reserved for it. (If
>>>> you exceed that, the oldest ones are automatically deleted to make
>>>> room. You can set the space as large or small as you want).
>>>
>>> Oh. Interesting. Sounds like you might not need to reboot for this,
>>> unlike Win98's registry backups, if it's done on a timer basis. Well,
>>> you could probably set that up in Win98 too by putting ScanReg into
>>> Task Scheduler. But I like shutting down on a nightly basis, anyhow.
>>
>> No need to reboot. (When you run System Restore to create a restore
>> point, I mean). Obviously if you want to roll back to a restore
>> point, it will end up rebooting.
>
> Uhuh. Very good.
>
>>>>> That is why it is a good practice to
>>>>> reboot after making major changes even if not told.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. For that, and other reasons.
>>>
>>> Yea. Other reasons too.
>>>
>>>>>>> Then, isn't your True Image a bit redundant?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No - totally different. (Sorry if I misled you here by mixing
>>>>>> this all up in my reply).
>>>>>
>>>>> OK. System restore has a big sound to it.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and (also) just to give you some idea, the System Restore saved
>>>> checkpoints are often around 60 MB or so in size (which is perhaps
>>>> 10 times that of a typical scanreg cab file). But then again, it's
>>>> saving a LOT more (than just the registry). And is kinda like a
>>>> saved snapshot of the system, in time.
>>>
>>> That's a damn lot! I hope the hard drives can take it! If so, it
>>> seems like a good idea, I guess. But all 6 of my .cabs together are
>>> less than 1/6 of that...!...
>>>
>>> C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP>dir rb???.cab /od
>>> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP
>>> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p rbbad.cab
>>> RB003 CAB 1,601,406 05-31-08 6:45p rb003.cab
>>> RB004 CAB 1,601,383 06-01-08 3:44p rb004.cab
>>> RB005 CAB 1,601,587 06-02-08 6:50p rb005.cab
>>> RB000 CAB 1,600,604 06-03-08 7:07p rb000.cab
>>> RB001 CAB 1,601,242 06-04-08 8:01p rb001.cab
>>> 6 file(s) 9,581,886 bytes
>>
>> Interesting. Well, my CABs were closer to 4 MB, which is about a
>> tenth the size of the restore points in XP. (but of course, they
>> are more limited in what they can correct in 98SE, since less is in
>> there)
>
> You may have had huge apps installed like maybe Office. I only have MS
> Works. Also, playing with User Profiles can bloat a registry, if you've
> ever done that.
Yup. I have lots of apps installed, including Office.
My Total File Count (including Windows, Program Files, etc) on the C:
partition is about 100,000 files for the WinXP computer, and 60,000 files
for the Win98SE computer (NOTE: This is NOT counting the TIF - I subtracted
that out). What's yours? (You'll may need some other app to get a
Total File Count).
>>>> So it's useful if you need to roll back to a previous time (and is
>>>> more effective that way than scanreg /restore, since it is much more
>>>> complete - it monitors files added since the last checkpoint, etc,
>>>> and can put back the previous ones, if there were any changes. (Of
>>>> course, it doesn't monitor things like, say, a text file, or what
>>>> have you, as those aren't needed for any system restorations).
>>>
>>> It does sound to be more thorough than a ScanReg /Restore.
>>
>> MUCH more so. No comparsion. Scanreg /restore ONLY restores the
>> registry, and nothing more. That is considerably more limited
>> (albeit useful, on some occasions - more on that below).
>
> Yep. On the minus side, I'm sure it gives the hard drive a much more
> rigorous usage each day.
Well, I kinda doubt it. Much less so then running Defrag, I bet.
>>> You say you
>>> did it & you did ERUNT too on occasion? What were the occasions? How
>>> do you choose between the two?
>>
>> The right tool for the right job. Maybe a somewhat oversimplified
>> explanation would be as follows:
>>
>> If I knew the changes were pretty minimal, ERUNT would be sufficient,
>> and it is quickest. ERUNT is directly analogous to using scanreg
>> and scanreg /restore. It ONLY saves and restores the registry
>> (normally, without additional customizations)
>
> That sounds about right. Can you do an ERUNT & easily undo it?
I simply restore the previous one - no biggie. However, System Restore
has an Undo, if (for some weird reason) you don't like its restore.
> That's a
> tad tricky to do with ScanReg. In fact, I'd have to experiment AGAIN to
> be sure what to do for that! After my 1st round of experimentation a
> while ago, I came to believe ScanReg /Restore will put the current
> Registry into... RB(next avail number).reg. SO... you'd have to remember
> what that was, if you wanted it back!
Yup. There are normally 5 numbered backups, and you can choose which one
to restore, assuming you know which one you want. Well, often it's one a
day if you turn off your computer each day, so it's a daily thing.
Hopefully you have SOME idea of which date you want to roll back to.
>> If the changes were relatively large, I'd (normally) use System
>> Restore. (one (slightly annoying) thing about System Restore is it
>> monitors lots of files or file types that it thinks could have been
>> problematic, so you need to be sure to save some recently downloaded
>> EXE, DLL, etc files (or whatever, in that vein), in the properly
>> designated place, typically under Documents and Settings, which is
>> NOT monitored - but other than that, it's no big deal).
>
> What is this about? You have to keep an eye on what it does?
Only to the extent of saving file types that are flagged as the potentially
problematic types (like EXEs) in the properly designated place, and not just
any old place you choose on the hard drive. This, since System Restore in
all its "intelligence", might think it could have contributed to your
problem (i.e., of needing to be "undone", just like a virus or bad EXE could
do).
> Does it produce a report? It is difficult to undo?
Not exactly. But System Restore has an Undo if you want to undo it.
Report? Well, it says it successfully completed, (or couldn't, for some
weird reason, like there was way too much to reverse or recover, in which
case it leaves it untouched).
And it gives the date and time, right there on a calendar, which is nice.
>> If the changes were *really extensive*, I wouldn't rely on either,
>> and I'd restore a Backup from the backup drive. (A clear cut case
>> of this would be with something like Office or a Service Pack - say
>> going back to a prior version, or whatever in that case, the only
>> safe and assured way to get the system back (guaranteed) AS IT WAS,
>> would be to do a backup drive restoration)
>
> Very good.
>
>>>>>>>> And I've also used ERUNT, on occasion.
>>>>>>>> ERUNT is used like scanreg and scanreg /restore, to save or
>>>>>>>> restore just the registry), whereas "System Restore" saves
>>>>>>>> and restores a whole lot more (including the files it monitors).
>>>
>>> ...snip
>>>>>> But the best (most assured) way is to restore a backup image, if
>>>>>> something really goes astray (but sometimes that is a bit
>>>>>> overkill, too).
>>>>>
>>>>> Yea. But I think our BING clones are better than any Image which is
>>>>> tougher to deal with.
>>>>
>>>> I'll take either one. Or rather, I'd like to have the option of
>>>> using either one.
>>>
>>> Alright. I can see this is still needed despite you have System
>>> Restore.
>>
>> Well again, it's nice to have a SET of tools, and to use the best
>> tool for the most appropriate occasion.
>
> Uhuh.
Yup!
> Bill in Co. wrote:
>> PCR wrote:
>>> Bill in Co. wrote:
>
> ...snip
>>>>> I've never done it, though-- haven't ever decided which to choose!
>>>>> Somewhere, I've got cquirke's suggestions. Which do XP save
>>>>> automatically? A lot or just a few?
>>>>
>>>> A LOT. An awful lot. All the ones it thinks might be
>>>> problematic, and should be monitored. (Which are most of the
>>>> ones you might expect, plus some.
>>>> There is an article somewhere on the MS web site somewhere covering
>>>> "System Restore", and what files and directories it monitors, and
>>>> backups, etc, etc.
>>>
>>> Alright. That sounds like too much.
>>
>> Nah. (But in the bloatware albatross named VISTA, it sure may be.
>>
>
> OK.
. I believe you about Vista!>
>>>>> I suppose it is done on a daily basis at each boot like in Win98.
>>>>
>>>> More or less it's daily, or after 24 hours of use (can't recall), if
>>>> you don't choose to make a Restore Point manually yourself within
>>>> that time frame.
>>>>
>>>> And there's a fixed amount of space on the HD reserved for it. (If
>>>> you exceed that, the oldest ones are automatically deleted to make
>>>> room. You can set the space as large or small as you want).
>>>
>>> Oh. Interesting. Sounds like you might not need to reboot for this,
>>> unlike Win98's registry backups, if it's done on a timer basis. Well,
>>> you could probably set that up in Win98 too by putting ScanReg into
>>> Task Scheduler. But I like shutting down on a nightly basis, anyhow.
>>
>> No need to reboot. (When you run System Restore to create a restore
>> point, I mean). Obviously if you want to roll back to a restore
>> point, it will end up rebooting.
>
> Uhuh. Very good.
>
>>>>> That is why it is a good practice to
>>>>> reboot after making major changes even if not told.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. For that, and other reasons.
>>>
>>> Yea. Other reasons too.
>>>
>>>>>>> Then, isn't your True Image a bit redundant?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No - totally different. (Sorry if I misled you here by mixing
>>>>>> this all up in my reply).
>>>>>
>>>>> OK. System restore has a big sound to it.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, and (also) just to give you some idea, the System Restore saved
>>>> checkpoints are often around 60 MB or so in size (which is perhaps
>>>> 10 times that of a typical scanreg cab file). But then again, it's
>>>> saving a LOT more (than just the registry). And is kinda like a
>>>> saved snapshot of the system, in time.
>>>
>>> That's a damn lot! I hope the hard drives can take it! If so, it
>>> seems like a good idea, I guess. But all 6 of my .cabs together are
>>> less than 1/6 of that...!...
>>>
>>> C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP>dir rb???.cab /od
>>> Directory of C:\WINDOWS\SYSBCKUP
>>> RBBAD CAB 1,575,664 09-19-07 5:56p rbbad.cab
>>> RB003 CAB 1,601,406 05-31-08 6:45p rb003.cab
>>> RB004 CAB 1,601,383 06-01-08 3:44p rb004.cab
>>> RB005 CAB 1,601,587 06-02-08 6:50p rb005.cab
>>> RB000 CAB 1,600,604 06-03-08 7:07p rb000.cab
>>> RB001 CAB 1,601,242 06-04-08 8:01p rb001.cab
>>> 6 file(s) 9,581,886 bytes
>>
>> Interesting. Well, my CABs were closer to 4 MB, which is about a
>> tenth the size of the restore points in XP. (but of course, they
>> are more limited in what they can correct in 98SE, since less is in
>> there)
>
> You may have had huge apps installed like maybe Office. I only have MS
> Works. Also, playing with User Profiles can bloat a registry, if you've
> ever done that.
Yup. I have lots of apps installed, including Office.
My Total File Count (including Windows, Program Files, etc) on the C:
partition is about 100,000 files for the WinXP computer, and 60,000 files
for the Win98SE computer (NOTE: This is NOT counting the TIF - I subtracted
that out). What's yours? (You'll may need some other app to get a
Total File Count).
>>>> So it's useful if you need to roll back to a previous time (and is
>>>> more effective that way than scanreg /restore, since it is much more
>>>> complete - it monitors files added since the last checkpoint, etc,
>>>> and can put back the previous ones, if there were any changes. (Of
>>>> course, it doesn't monitor things like, say, a text file, or what
>>>> have you, as those aren't needed for any system restorations).
>>>
>>> It does sound to be more thorough than a ScanReg /Restore.
>>
>> MUCH more so. No comparsion. Scanreg /restore ONLY restores the
>> registry, and nothing more. That is considerably more limited
>> (albeit useful, on some occasions - more on that below).
>
> Yep. On the minus side, I'm sure it gives the hard drive a much more
> rigorous usage each day.
Well, I kinda doubt it. Much less so then running Defrag, I bet.
>>> You say you
>>> did it & you did ERUNT too on occasion? What were the occasions? How
>>> do you choose between the two?
>>
>> The right tool for the right job. Maybe a somewhat oversimplified
>> explanation would be as follows:
>>
>> If I knew the changes were pretty minimal, ERUNT would be sufficient,
>> and it is quickest. ERUNT is directly analogous to using scanreg
>> and scanreg /restore. It ONLY saves and restores the registry
>> (normally, without additional customizations)
>
> That sounds about right. Can you do an ERUNT & easily undo it?
I simply restore the previous one - no biggie. However, System Restore
has an Undo, if (for some weird reason) you don't like its restore.
> That's a
> tad tricky to do with ScanReg. In fact, I'd have to experiment AGAIN to
> be sure what to do for that! After my 1st round of experimentation a
> while ago, I came to believe ScanReg /Restore will put the current
> Registry into... RB(next avail number).reg. SO... you'd have to remember
> what that was, if you wanted it back!
Yup. There are normally 5 numbered backups, and you can choose which one
to restore, assuming you know which one you want. Well, often it's one a
day if you turn off your computer each day, so it's a daily thing.
Hopefully you have SOME idea of which date you want to roll back to.
>> If the changes were relatively large, I'd (normally) use System
>> Restore. (one (slightly annoying) thing about System Restore is it
>> monitors lots of files or file types that it thinks could have been
>> problematic, so you need to be sure to save some recently downloaded
>> EXE, DLL, etc files (or whatever, in that vein), in the properly
>> designated place, typically under Documents and Settings, which is
>> NOT monitored - but other than that, it's no big deal).
>
> What is this about? You have to keep an eye on what it does?
Only to the extent of saving file types that are flagged as the potentially
problematic types (like EXEs) in the properly designated place, and not just
any old place you choose on the hard drive. This, since System Restore in
all its "intelligence", might think it could have contributed to your
problem (i.e., of needing to be "undone", just like a virus or bad EXE could
do).
> Does it produce a report? It is difficult to undo?
Not exactly. But System Restore has an Undo if you want to undo it.
Report? Well, it says it successfully completed, (or couldn't, for some
weird reason, like there was way too much to reverse or recover, in which
case it leaves it untouched).
And it gives the date and time, right there on a calendar, which is nice.
>> If the changes were *really extensive*, I wouldn't rely on either,
>> and I'd restore a Backup from the backup drive. (A clear cut case
>> of this would be with something like Office or a Service Pack - say
>> going back to a prior version, or whatever in that case, the only
>> safe and assured way to get the system back (guaranteed) AS IT WAS,
>> would be to do a backup drive restoration)
>
> Very good.
>
>>>>>>>> And I've also used ERUNT, on occasion.
>>>>>>>> ERUNT is used like scanreg and scanreg /restore, to save or
>>>>>>>> restore just the registry), whereas "System Restore" saves
>>>>>>>> and restores a whole lot more (including the files it monitors).
>>>
>>> ...snip
>>>>>> But the best (most assured) way is to restore a backup image, if
>>>>>> something really goes astray (but sometimes that is a bit
>>>>>> overkill, too).
>>>>>
>>>>> Yea. But I think our BING clones are better than any Image which is
>>>>> tougher to deal with.
>>>>
>>>> I'll take either one. Or rather, I'd like to have the option of
>>>> using either one.
>>>
>>> Alright. I can see this is still needed despite you have System
>>> Restore.
>>
>> Well again, it's nice to have a SET of tools, and to use the best
>> tool for the most appropriate occasion.
>
> Uhuh.
Yup!