Re: Backup software--like GHOST

[PCR]

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

 

[Bill in Co.]

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

 

[Bill in Co.]

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

 

[PCR]

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

 

[PCR]

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

 

[pebble]

I shall respond just to make the thread stretch that bit further hahahahaha
Checkout my quit meter!!
Bambam not smoking tobacco for 1 Year, 3 Months, 2 Weeks, 3 Days, 14 hours,
21 minutes and 3 seconds (475 days). I have saved $5,593.03 by not smoking
14,267 cigarettes. My Quit Date: 4/03/2007 12:00 AM

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:Oghom1y0IHA.3920@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> 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
>
>

 

[Bill in Co.]

Good for you, Pebble!! (And I quit cigarettes too some ago too).

pebble wrote:
> I shall respond just to make the thread stretch that bit further
> hahahahaha
> Checkout my quit meter!!
> Bambam not smoking tobacco for 1 Year, 3 Months, 2 Weeks, 3 Days, 14
> hours,
> 21 minutes and 3 seconds (475 days). I have saved $5,593.03 by not smoking
> 14,267 cigarettes. My Quit Date: 4/03/2007 12:00 AM
>
> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:Oghom1y0IHA.3920@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> 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

 

[Bill in Co.]

PCR wrote:
> 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!

Well, whose issue is that? (rhetorical)

> Don't put any questions in your response to this. This is it...!...

No questions below, but a few comments.

> 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.

I forgot to mention something that you may not be aware of regarding System
Restore:

When you run System Restore to create a restore point, it prompts you for a
short comment line to help identify it. Then it creates it, and logs it in
its database (by date and time, with your brief comment, to help recognize
it later).

Then, when you use System Restore to restore a restore point, a calendar
pops up (which you can scroll through), and where you can see all the
various (dated) restore points. And then you can select the date and
time of the particular backup you want. (and you also see the brief
description, by the comment you made when you saved that backup). And
that's it. You don't use Windows Explorer to go in an click on a a restore
point like you do with ERUNT.


> 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!

System Restore (and/or a full image backup) are more than adequate, and
trying to sort out ALL the details is (usually) over-taxing. Just like
with a registry tracker (easier in Win98SE, when things were a bit simpler).

>>>>> 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.

But why should they bother doing that? The oldest ones are rarely of any
practical use. And with typically 20, or even 30, restore points, who
cares?

> 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.

Exactly.

>>>>>>> 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!

Yes it is.

>> 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'm not completely sure. Also, you are not able to go in and delete
specific restore points as you want.

I think it's a bit of a mix. That is, if you could go in and delete some,
you might NOT be able to roll back completely successfully to the prior
ones. So it seems to me to be a bit of a mixed bag (of maybe incremental
snapshots, and/or a complete registry, as the situation warrants, but I
haven't figured it out yet!)

>>>>>>> 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!

More than enough! As I said, typically 20 or even 30.

I snipped some here as it was getting pretty long.

 

[PCR]

pebble wrote:
| I shall respond just to make the thread stretch that bit further
| hahahahaha Checkout my quit meter!!
| Bambam not smoking tobacco for 1 Year, 3 Months, 2 Weeks, 3 Days, 14
| hours, 21 minutes and 3 seconds (475 days). I have saved $5,593.03 by
| not smoking 14,267 cigarettes. My Quit Date: 4/03/2007 12:00 AM

You did really well, pebble! As you know, the last two/three times I
quit-- I quickly began picking butts up off the street! During that
period, I had a similar savings to yours. Now, I'm spending money again!
:-(.

But seriously you did well! Too bad this thread is too long already, or
I would ask how you did it & whether you could hypnotize me.

Colorado: I read your reply. Thanks again for all that information.
I've learned a lot. I've got a good idea now what to expect from System
Restore & ERUNT & if/when to use them.

| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:Oghom1y0IHA.3920@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
|> 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

--
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

 

[Bill in Co.]

PCR wrote:
> pebble wrote:
>> I shall respond just to make the thread stretch that bit further
>> hahahahaha Checkout my quit meter!!
>> Bambam not smoking tobacco for 1 Year, 3 Months, 2 Weeks, 3 Days, 14
>> hours, 21 minutes and 3 seconds (475 days). I have saved $5,593.03 by
>> not smoking 14,267 cigarettes. My Quit Date: 4/03/2007 12:00 AM
>
> You did really well, pebble! As you know, the last two/three times I
> quit-- I quickly began picking butts up off the street! During that
> period, I had a similar savings to yours. Now, I'm spending money again!
> :-(.
>
> But seriously you did well! Too bad this thread is too long already, or
> I would ask how you did it & whether you could hypnotize me.

Sheer will power!! And preferably being sick when you do it, to make it a
bit easier.
Oh yeah, and all the MONEY savings, especially given what cigarettes cost
today.

> Colorado: I read your reply. Thanks again for all that information.
> I've learned a lot. I've got a good idea now what to expect from System
> Restore & ERUNT & if/when to use them.

Well alrighty, then!
And you've got 9 days left, before WinXP comes off the shelves and OEMs!
(And heck, if you quit smoking, you could pay off that new XP computer in
just a few weeks!) Now which would you rather have? Ciggies, or a new
computer?

 

[PCR]

Bill in Co. wrote:
| PCR wrote:
|> pebble wrote:
|>> I shall respond just to make the thread stretch that bit further
|>> hahahahaha Checkout my quit meter!!
|>> Bambam not smoking tobacco for 1 Year, 3 Months, 2 Weeks, 3 Days, 14
|>> hours, 21 minutes and 3 seconds (475 days). I have saved $5,593.03
|>> by not smoking 14,267 cigarettes. My Quit Date: 4/03/2007 12:00 AM
|>
|> You did really well, pebble! As you know, the last two/three times I
|> quit-- I quickly began picking butts up off the street! During that
|> period, I had a similar savings to yours. Now, I'm spending money
|> again! :-(.
|>
|> But seriously you did well! Too bad this thread is too long already,
|> or I would ask how you did it & whether you could hypnotize me.
|
| Sheer will power!! And preferably being sick when you do it, to
| make it a bit easier.
| Oh yeah, and all the MONEY savings, especially given what cigarettes
| cost today.

You did well too-- very well! I've lost 80 pounds & 100 pounds, after
putting it back on. After that, I put 15 back on. But I've never been
able to quit cigarettes even while sick!

|> Colorado: I read your reply. Thanks again for all that information.
|> I've learned a lot. I've got a good idea now what to expect from
|> System Restore & ERUNT & if/when to use them.
|
| Well alrighty, then!
| And you've got 9 days left, before WinXP comes off the shelves and
| OEMs! (And heck, if you quit smoking, you could pay off that new XP
| computer in just a few weeks!) Now which would you rather have?
| Ciggies, or a new computer?

.


--
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

 

[pebble]

Hi guys,
Yep, it's a bloody hard addiction to beat, that's for sure. If you're not
ready to give up, then you won't. I didn't want to be told by some quack
that I should give up because of some dire medical reason. I'd had enough
of smoking, was only really enjoying about 2 of the 30 odd I smoked anyway.
Want to be around for the grandkids for a long, long time yet!
I don't feel as bullet proof as I used to when I was younger. My partner is
still smoking - yuk. I've turned into one of THOSE reformed smokers, but I
don't nag. B-)
Patches and will power (or won't power.)
And stop scavving butts off the street PCR!!
Bambam (Pebble) not smoking tobacco for 1 Year, 3 Months, 2 Weeks, 4 Days,
18 hours, 4 minutes and 28 seconds (476 days). I have saved $5,606.61 by not
smoking 14,302 cigarettes. My Quit Date: 4/03/2007 12:00 AM

"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:%23cbm9DA1IHA.4164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Bill in Co. wrote:
> | PCR wrote:
> |> pebble wrote:
> |>> I shall respond just to make the thread stretch that bit further
> |>> hahahahaha Checkout my quit meter!!
> |>> Bambam not smoking tobacco for 1 Year, 3 Months, 2 Weeks, 3 Days, 14
> |>> hours, 21 minutes and 3 seconds (475 days). I have saved $5,593.03
> |>> by not smoking 14,267 cigarettes. My Quit Date: 4/03/2007 12:00 AM
> |>
> |> You did really well, pebble! As you know, the last two/three times I
> |> quit-- I quickly began picking butts up off the street! During that
> |> period, I had a similar savings to yours. Now, I'm spending money
> |> again! :-(.
> |>
> |> But seriously you did well! Too bad this thread is too long already,
> |> or I would ask how you did it & whether you could hypnotize me.
> |
> | Sheer will power!! And preferably being sick when you do it, to
> | make it a bit easier.
> | Oh yeah, and all the MONEY savings, especially given what cigarettes
> | cost today.
>
> You did well too-- very well! I've lost 80 pounds & 100 pounds, after
> putting it back on. After that, I put 15 back on. But I've never been
> able to quit cigarettes even while sick!
>
> |> Colorado: I read your reply. Thanks again for all that information.
> |> I've learned a lot. I've got a good idea now what to expect from
> |> System Restore & ERUNT & if/when to use them.
> |
> | Well alrighty, then!
> | And you've got 9 days left, before WinXP comes off the shelves and
> | OEMs! (And heck, if you quit smoking, you could pay off that new XP
> | computer in just a few weeks!) Now which would you rather have?
> | Ciggies, or a new computer?
>
> .
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>

 

[PCR]

pebble wrote:
| Hi guys,
| Yep, it's a bloody hard addiction to beat, that's for sure. If
| you're not ready to give up, then you won't. I didn't want to be
| told by some quack that I should give up because of some dire medical
| reason. I'd had enough of smoking, was only really enjoying about 2
| of the 30 odd I smoked anyway. Want to be around for the grandkids
| for a long, long time yet!
| I don't feel as bullet proof as I used to when I was younger. My
| partner is still smoking - yuk. I've turned into one of THOSE
| reformed smokers, but I don't nag. B-)
| Patches and will power (or won't power.)
| And stop scavving butts off the street PCR!!
| Bambam (Pebble) not smoking tobacco for 1 Year, 3 Months, 2 Weeks, 4
| Days, 18 hours, 4 minutes and 28 seconds (476 days). I have saved
| $5,606.61 by not smoking 14,302 cigarettes. My Quit Date: 4/03/2007
| 12:00 AM

No, no-- I gave up scavving butts off the street! It was too
embarrassing! Only Terhune could do that for any great length time! You
were really good to give it up altogether for your health & grandkids's
sake. Impressive! Other than a bit of huffy-puffiness going uphill, all
my ailments are not related to cigarettes. I've even stopped coughing
over the harsh Bugler/Tops/Zig-Zag canned tobacco by switching to Prince
Albert/Half & Half. Those are actually for pipes but work in cigarette
tubes good enough & with half the stink! Thanks for your concern! You &
Colorado!

| "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in message
| news:%23cbm9DA1IHA.4164@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
|> Bill in Co. wrote:
|> | PCR wrote:
|> |> pebble wrote:
|> |>> I shall respond just to make the thread stretch that bit further
|> |>> hahahahaha Checkout my quit meter!!
|> |>> Bambam not smoking tobacco for 1 Year, 3 Months, 2 Weeks, 3
|> |>> Days, 14 hours, 21 minutes and 3 seconds (475 days). I have
|> |>> saved $5,593.03 by not smoking 14,267 cigarettes. My Quit Date:
|> |>> 4/03/2007 12:00 AM
|> |>
|> |> You did really well, pebble! As you know, the last two/three
|> |> times I quit-- I quickly began picking butts up off the street!
|> |> During that period, I had a similar savings to yours. Now, I'm
|> |> spending money again! :-(.
|> |>
|> |> But seriously you did well! Too bad this thread is too long
|> |> already, or I would ask how you did it & whether you could
|> |> hypnotize me.
|> |
|> | Sheer will power!! And preferably being sick when you do it, to
|> | make it a bit easier.
|> | Oh yeah, and all the MONEY savings, especially given what
|> | cigarettes cost today.
|>
|> You did well too-- very well! I've lost 80 pounds & 100 pounds, after
|> putting it back on. After that, I put 15 back on. But I've never been
|> able to quit cigarettes even while sick!
|>
|> |> Colorado: I read your reply. Thanks again for all that
|> |> information. I've learned a lot. I've got a good idea now what to
|> |> expect from System Restore & ERUNT & if/when to use them.
|> |
|> | Well alrighty, then!
|> | And you've got 9 days left, before WinXP comes off the shelves and
|> | OEMs! (And heck, if you quit smoking, you could pay off that new XP
|> | computer in just a few weeks!) Now which would you rather have?
|> | Ciggies, or a new computer?
|>
|> .
|>
|>
|> --
|> 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