B
Bill in Co.
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).
> 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).