Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Use XP Restore or my backup data?

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
March 19, 2005 8:38:13 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

If I do image backups and daily incrementals using Ghost, Is there a
reason I should keep the XP System restore feature on? I do a baseline once
a month and then daily incrementals with Ghost 9.

Turns out, if I have the XP Restore on, then Ghost wont do incrementals,
only the large baseline backups and thats uses up a lot of space when
backing every day. I have 44gb on my drive..

My thought is that doing it by Ghost means I restore everything, even apps
from the date chosen, whereas XP Restore only restores system data...drivers
and such. So the only problem may be a longer restore from my backup drive
vesus using the XP Restore.

What do you think?

More about : restore backup data

Anonymous
March 20, 2005 12:25:32 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

Hi,

There's probably no need to do both.

You may consider reducing the amount of space system restore uses to
around 500mb's and do less backup. Restoring using SR is probably much
quicker the Ghost.

How to Adjust the amount of disk space System Restore uses
http://home.earthlink.net/~mvp_bert/html/body_diskspace...

--
Regards,
Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
http://dts-l.org/


jtsnow wrote:
> If I do image backups and daily incrementals using Ghost,
> Is there a reason I should keep the XP System restore
> feature on? I do a baseline once a month and then daily
> incrementals with Ghost 9.
> Turns out, if I have the XP Restore on, then Ghost wont
> do incrementals, only the large baseline backups and
> thats uses up a lot of space when backing every day. I
> have 44gb on my drive..
> My thought is that doing it by Ghost means I restore
> everything, even apps from the date chosen, whereas XP
> Restore only restores system data...drivers and such. So
> the only problem may be a longer restore from my backup
> drive vesus using the XP Restore.
> What do you think?
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 9:27:39 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

"Bert Kinney" <bert@NSmvps.org> wrote in message
news:uTfpVQPLFHA.3832@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
>
> There's probably no need to do both.
>
> You may consider reducing the amount of space system restore uses to
> around 500mb's and do less backup. Restoring using SR is probably much
> quicker the Ghost.
>
> How to Adjust the amount of disk space System Restore uses
> http://home.earthlink.net/~mvp_bert/html/body_diskspace...
>
> --
> Regards,
> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
> http://dts-l.org/
>
>
> jtsnow wrote:
>> If I do image backups and daily incrementals using Ghost,
>> Is there a reason I should keep the XP System restore
>> feature on? I do a baseline once a month and then daily
>> incrementals with Ghost 9.
>> Turns out, if I have the XP Restore on, then Ghost wont
>> do incrementals, only the large baseline backups and
>> thats uses up a lot of space when backing every day. I
>> have 44gb on my drive..
>> My thought is that doing it by Ghost means I restore
>> everything, even apps from the date chosen, whereas XP
>> Restore only restores system data...drivers and such. So
>> the only problem may be a longer restore from my backup
>> drive vesus using the XP Restore.
>> What do you think?
>
The problem with System Restore is while it is good in theory, practice
shows it to be totally unreliable. Further you do not know you have a
problem with SR until you come to Restore the registry and then it is too
late. SR is convenient, when it works, but you should always have an
alternative. Ghost seems to me, to be somewhat overkill to safeguard the
Registry but ERUNT will provide the security required.
Related resources
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 9:27:40 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

I want to safeguard everything, including the registry.

What files does one restore to restore the registry?

"Edward W. Thompson" <thomeduk1@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:ufBVrXRLFHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>
> "Bert Kinney" <bert@NSmvps.org> wrote in message
> news:uTfpVQPLFHA.3832@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>> Hi,
>>
>> There's probably no need to do both.
>>
>> You may consider reducing the amount of space system restore uses to
>> around 500mb's and do less backup. Restoring using SR is probably much
>> quicker the Ghost.
>>
>> How to Adjust the amount of disk space System Restore uses
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~mvp_bert/html/body_diskspace...
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
>> http://dts-l.org/
>>
>>
>> jtsnow wrote:
>>> If I do image backups and daily incrementals using Ghost,
>>> Is there a reason I should keep the XP System restore
>>> feature on? I do a baseline once a month and then daily
>>> incrementals with Ghost 9.
>>> Turns out, if I have the XP Restore on, then Ghost wont
>>> do incrementals, only the large baseline backups and
>>> thats uses up a lot of space when backing every day. I
>>> have 44gb on my drive..
>>> My thought is that doing it by Ghost means I restore
>>> everything, even apps from the date chosen, whereas XP
>>> Restore only restores system data...drivers and such. So
>>> the only problem may be a longer restore from my backup
>>> drive vesus using the XP Restore.
>>> What do you think?
>>
> The problem with System Restore is while it is good in theory, practice
> shows it to be totally unreliable. Further you do not know you have a
> problem with SR until you come to Restore the registry and then it is too
> late. SR is convenient, when it works, but you should always have an
> alternative. Ghost seems to me, to be somewhat overkill to safeguard the
> Registry but ERUNT will provide the security required.
>
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 12:34:56 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

Hi Edward,

"Practice shows it to be totally unreliable"! This is not my
experience. Most System Restore failures (that is with out any
warning) are do to malware/virus infection. There are also some
applications the can case problems with SR such as, RealPlayer,
Norton, and some virus software. Saying that, these are the very
issues that are responsible for the majority of problems in Windows
today. To avoid these problems one must take steps to keep there
system free of virus/malware infection. Here are some steps to take to
help keep the system clean.

Virus and Spyware removal and prevention
http://home.earthlink.net/~mvp_bert/html/spyware.html


--
Regards,
Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
http://dts-l.org/


Edward W. Thompson wrote:
> "Bert Kinney" wrote
>> Hi,
>>
>> There's probably no need to do both.
>>
>> You may consider reducing the amount of space system
>> restore uses to around 500mb's and do less backup.
>> Restoring using SR is probably much quicker the Ghost.
>>
>> How to Adjust the amount of disk space System Restore
>> uses
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~mvp_bert/html/body_diskspace...
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
>> http://dts-l.org/
>>
>>
>> jtsnow wrote:
>>> If I do image backups and daily incrementals using
>>> Ghost, Is there a reason I should keep the XP System
>>> restore feature on? I do a baseline once a month and
>>> then daily incrementals with Ghost 9.
>>> Turns out, if I have the XP Restore on, then Ghost wont
>>> do incrementals, only the large baseline backups and
>>> thats uses up a lot of space when backing every day. I
>>> have 44gb on my drive..
>>> My thought is that doing it by Ghost means I restore
>>> everything, even apps from the date chosen, whereas XP
>>> Restore only restores system data...drivers and such. So the only
>>> problem may be a longer restore from my
>>> backup drive vesus using the XP Restore.
>>> What do you think?
>>
> The problem with System Restore is while it is good in
> theory, practice shows it to be totally unreliable. Further you do
> not know you have a problem with SR until
> you come to Restore the registry and then it is too late.
> SR is convenient, when it works, but you should always
> have an alternative. Ghost seems to me, to be somewhat
> overkill to safeguard the Registry but ERUNT will provide
> the security required.
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 2:56:02 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

"jtsnow" wrote:
>
> If I do image backups and daily incrementals
> using Ghost, Is there a reason I should keep
> the XP System restore feature on? I do a
> baseline once a month and then daily
> incrementals with Ghost 9.


I use both Ghost and Restore. System Restore is nearly ideal for those
less major problems and mistakes, almost like super undo feature for
Windows. Ghost is nearly ideal for those serious disasters System Restore
just cannot handle. As such, I think they compliment each other very nicely.
Besides, two avenues of recovery are always better than one. I certainly
feel better knowing there is more than one possible solution at hand when
things go wrong.

Stewart
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 2:56:03 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

I second that!!! :- )

--
Regards,
Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
http://dts-l.org/


Dwight Stewart wrote:
> "jtsnow" wrote:
>>
>> If I do image backups and daily incrementals
>> using Ghost, Is there a reason I should keep
>> the XP System restore feature on? I do a
>> baseline once a month and then daily
>> incrementals with Ghost 9.
>
>
> I use both Ghost and Restore. System Restore is nearly
> ideal for those less major problems and mistakes, almost
> like super undo feature for Windows. Ghost is nearly
> ideal for those serious disasters System Restore just
> cannot handle. As such, I think they compliment each
> other very nicely. Besides, two avenues of recovery are
> always better than one. I certainly feel better knowing
> there is more than one possible solution at hand when
> things go wrong.
> Stewart
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 3:33:07 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

See section: "Registry hive" "Supporting files" in this article:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/256986

ERUNT (as mentioned by Edward W.) backs up the entire registry. System
Restore does it as well, but it's not reliable if you want to restore the
snapshot after a long period of time..

--
Ramesh, Microsoft MVP
Windows XP Shell/User
http://windowsxp.mvps.org


"jtsnow" <jtsnow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:wY8%d.35563$Az.20947@lakeread02...
>I want to safeguard everything, including the registry.
>
> What files does one restore to restore the registry?
>
> "Edward W. Thompson" <thomeduk1@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:ufBVrXRLFHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Bert Kinney" <bert@NSmvps.org> wrote in message
>> news:uTfpVQPLFHA.3832@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> There's probably no need to do both.
>>>
>>> You may consider reducing the amount of space system restore uses to
>>> around 500mb's and do less backup. Restoring using SR is probably much
>>> quicker the Ghost.
>>>
>>> How to Adjust the amount of disk space System Restore uses
>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~mvp_bert/html/body_diskspace...
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>
>>>
>>> jtsnow wrote:
>>>> If I do image backups and daily incrementals using Ghost,
>>>> Is there a reason I should keep the XP System restore
>>>> feature on? I do a baseline once a month and then daily
>>>> incrementals with Ghost 9.
>>>> Turns out, if I have the XP Restore on, then Ghost wont
>>>> do incrementals, only the large baseline backups and
>>>> thats uses up a lot of space when backing every day. I
>>>> have 44gb on my drive..
>>>> My thought is that doing it by Ghost means I restore
>>>> everything, even apps from the date chosen, whereas XP
>>>> Restore only restores system data...drivers and such. So
>>>> the only problem may be a longer restore from my backup
>>>> drive vesus using the XP Restore.
>>>> What do you think?
>>>
>> The problem with System Restore is while it is good in theory, practice
>> shows it to be totally unreliable. Further you do not know you have a
>> problem with SR until you come to Restore the registry and then it is too
>> late. SR is convenient, when it works, but you should always have an
>> alternative. Ghost seems to me, to be somewhat overkill to safeguard the
>> Registry but ERUNT will provide the security required.
>>
>
>
Anonymous
March 20, 2005 3:33:35 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

ERUNT:
http://www.larshederer.homepage.t-online.de/erunt/
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,57949,00.asp

--
Ramesh, Microsoft MVP
Windows XP Shell/User
http://windowsxp.mvps.org


"jtsnow" <jtsnow@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:wY8%d.35563$Az.20947@lakeread02...
>I want to safeguard everything, including the registry.
>
> What files does one restore to restore the registry?
>
> "Edward W. Thompson" <thomeduk1@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:ufBVrXRLFHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>
>> "Bert Kinney" <bert@NSmvps.org> wrote in message
>> news:uTfpVQPLFHA.3832@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> There's probably no need to do both.
>>>
>>> You may consider reducing the amount of space system restore uses to
>>> around 500mb's and do less backup. Restoring using SR is probably much
>>> quicker the Ghost.
>>>
>>> How to Adjust the amount of disk space System Restore uses
>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~mvp_bert/html/body_diskspace...
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>
>>>
>>> jtsnow wrote:
>>>> If I do image backups and daily incrementals using Ghost,
>>>> Is there a reason I should keep the XP System restore
>>>> feature on? I do a baseline once a month and then daily
>>>> incrementals with Ghost 9.
>>>> Turns out, if I have the XP Restore on, then Ghost wont
>>>> do incrementals, only the large baseline backups and
>>>> thats uses up a lot of space when backing every day. I
>>>> have 44gb on my drive..
>>>> My thought is that doing it by Ghost means I restore
>>>> everything, even apps from the date chosen, whereas XP
>>>> Restore only restores system data...drivers and such. So
>>>> the only problem may be a longer restore from my backup
>>>> drive vesus using the XP Restore.
>>>> What do you think?
>>>
>> The problem with System Restore is while it is good in theory, practice
>> shows it to be totally unreliable. Further you do not know you have a
>> problem with SR until you come to Restore the registry and then it is too
>> late. SR is convenient, when it works, but you should always have an
>> alternative. Ghost seems to me, to be somewhat overkill to safeguard the
>> Registry but ERUNT will provide the security required.
>>
>
>
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 10:07:21 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

Clearly our experiences are different and I think my experience is supported
by the number of posts relating to SR problems. I would strongly recommend
that no one should rely upon SR to assist them in their hour of need and to
use an alternative, I suggest ERUNT.

Perhaps some SR problems, but by no means all, are related to viruses and
malware. My system is free of viruses and malware, at least free of all
known viruses and malware. I know my problem with SR is not due to a recent
virus or malware as it has been with me for several months and updates of
the various scanning engines I use (both online and installed) will have
caught the problem by now. My biggest complaint against SR is that a
failure is only detected when one comes to carryout a Restore which is
somewhat disturbing if SR does not then function as designed.

You are I (Bert Kinney) had an extended exchange concerning my particular
problem with SR. The problem still persists, that is when an automatic
restore point is made the 'system' deletes all other Restore Points and the
Event Viewer shows a message to the effect there is insufficient space even
although over 10GB of space is available. I can make manually any number of
Restore Points but directly an 'automatic' point is made (i.e. a Restore
Point initiated by the system) all other Restore Points are deleted. This
problem persists. From MS documentation the only explanation seems to be
that one of the files that are included in the 'restore package' is corrupt
but which one is impossible to say as my System works perfectly other than
for this problem.

I suspect the only solution to solve the SR problem is to reinstall the
system. I have followed all suggestions to repair SR posted by yourself and
others but without result.



"Bert Kinney" <bert@NSmvps.org> wrote in message
news:o %239M7nVLFHA.3844@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
> Hi Edward,
>
> "Practice shows it to be totally unreliable"! This is not my experience.
> Most System Restore failures (that is with out any warning) are do to
> malware/virus infection. There are also some applications the can case
> problems with SR such as, RealPlayer, Norton, and some virus software.
> Saying that, these are the very issues that are responsible for the
> majority of problems in Windows today. To avoid these problems one must
> take steps to keep there system free of virus/malware infection. Here are
> some steps to take to help keep the system clean.
>
> Virus and Spyware removal and prevention
> http://home.earthlink.net/~mvp_bert/html/spyware.html
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
> http://dts-l.org/
>
>
> Edward W. Thompson wrote:
>> "Bert Kinney" wrote
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> There's probably no need to do both.
>>>
>>> You may consider reducing the amount of space system
>>> restore uses to around 500mb's and do less backup.
>>> Restoring using SR is probably much quicker the Ghost.
>>>
>>> How to Adjust the amount of disk space System Restore
>>> uses
>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~mvp_bert/html/body_diskspace...
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>
>>>
>>> jtsnow wrote:
>>>> If I do image backups and daily incrementals using
>>>> Ghost, Is there a reason I should keep the XP System
>>>> restore feature on? I do a baseline once a month and
>>>> then daily incrementals with Ghost 9.
>>>> Turns out, if I have the XP Restore on, then Ghost wont
>>>> do incrementals, only the large baseline backups and
>>>> thats uses up a lot of space when backing every day. I
>>>> have 44gb on my drive..
>>>> My thought is that doing it by Ghost means I restore
>>>> everything, even apps from the date chosen, whereas XP
>>>> Restore only restores system data...drivers and such. So the only
>>>> problem may be a longer restore from my
>>>> backup drive vesus using the XP Restore.
>>>> What do you think?
>>>
>> The problem with System Restore is while it is good in
>> theory, practice shows it to be totally unreliable. Further you do not
>> know you have a problem with SR until
>> you come to Restore the registry and then it is too late.
>> SR is convenient, when it works, but you should always
>> have an alternative. Ghost seems to me, to be somewhat
>> overkill to safeguard the Registry but ERUNT will provide
>> the security required.
>
>
Anonymous
March 21, 2005 11:11:56 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

Edward W. Thompson wrote:
> Clearly our experiences are different and I think my
> experience is supported by the number of posts relating
> to SR problems. I would strongly recommend that no one
> should rely upon SR to assist them in their hour of need
> and to use an alternative, I suggest ERUNT.
> Perhaps some SR problems, but by no means all, are
> related to viruses and malware.

I said most, not all.

> My system is free of
> viruses and malware, at least free of all known viruses
> and malware. I know my problem with SR is not due to a
> recent virus or malware as it has been with me for
> several months and updates of the various scanning
> engines I use (both online and installed) will have
> caught the problem by now. My biggest complaint against
> SR is that a failure is only detected when one comes to
> carryout a Restore which is somewhat disturbing if SR
> does not then function as designed.
> You are I (Bert Kinney) had an extended exchange
> concerning my particular problem with SR. The problem
> still persists, that is when an automatic restore point
> is made the 'system' deletes all other Restore Points and
> the Event Viewer shows a message to the effect there is
> insufficient space even although over 10GB of space is available.

I emailed you detailed suggestion on cleaning up the programs that are
loading at startup on your system. I never heard back from you either
in the newsgroup or via email, so I took it the case was closed.
Looking back at the large amount of apps loading at startup, I suspect
one of these is interfering with the System Restore filter causing the
restore points to be deleted. If you did not receive the email I would
be glad to send it again. And once the culprit is found, you will be
able to depend more on SR, and we could use that information to help
others.

> I can make manually any number of Restore
> Points but directly an 'automatic' point is made (i.e. a
> Restore Point initiated by the system) all other Restore
> Points are deleted. This problem persists. From MS
> documentation the only explanation seems to be that one
> of the files that are included in the 'restore package'
> is corrupt but which one is impossible to say as my
> System works perfectly other than for this problem.
> I suspect the only solution to solve the SR problem is to
> reinstall the system. I have followed all suggestions to
> repair SR posted by yourself and others but without
> result.
>
>
> "Bert Kinney" wrote
>> Hi Edward,
>>
>> "Practice shows it to be totally unreliable"! This is
>> not my experience. Most System Restore failures (that is
>> with out any warning) are do to malware/virus infection.
>> There are also some applications the can case problems
>> with SR such as, RealPlayer, Norton, and some virus
>> software. Saying that, these are the very issues that
>> are responsible for the majority of problems in Windows
>> today. To avoid these problems one must take steps to
>> keep there system free of virus/malware infection. Here
>> are some steps to take to help keep the system clean. Virus and
>> Spyware removal and prevention
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~mvp_bert/html/spyware.html
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
>> http://dts-l.org/
>>
>>
>> Edward W. Thompson wrote:
>>> "Bert Kinney" wrote
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> There's probably no need to do both.
>>>>
>>>> You may consider reducing the amount of space system
>>>> restore uses to around 500mb's and do less backup.
>>>> Restoring using SR is probably much quicker the Ghost.
>>>>
>>>> How to Adjust the amount of disk space System Restore
>>>> uses
>>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~mvp_bert/html/body_diskspace...
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> jtsnow wrote:
>>>>> If I do image backups and daily incrementals using
>>>>> Ghost, Is there a reason I should keep the XP System
>>>>> restore feature on? I do a baseline once a month and
>>>>> then daily incrementals with Ghost 9.
>>>>> Turns out, if I have the XP Restore on, then Ghost wont do
>>>>> incrementals, only the large baseline backups and
>>>>> thats uses up a lot of space when backing every day. I have
>>>>> 44gb on my drive..
>>>>> My thought is that doing it by Ghost means I restore
>>>>> everything, even apps from the date chosen, whereas XP
>>>>> Restore only restores system data...drivers and such.
>>>>> So the only problem may be a longer restore from my
>>>>> backup drive vesus using the XP Restore.
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>> The problem with System Restore is while it is good in
>>> theory, practice shows it to be totally unreliable.
>>> Further you do not know you have a problem with SR until
>>> you come to Restore the registry and then it is too late. SR is
>>> convenient, when it works, but you should always
>>> have an alternative. Ghost seems to me, to be somewhat
>>> overkill to safeguard the Registry but ERUNT will provide the
>>> security required.


--
Regards,
Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
http://dts-l.org/
Anonymous
March 22, 2005 9:19:00 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (More info?)

Hi Bert:

Yes, I did follow your suggestions but without success. I did not reply as
the thread was becoming very long and quite honestly I didn't think we were
getting anywhere, no disrespect intended here. I know how to fix it, or at
least I think so, and that is a WINXP 'reinstall'. I am obviously reluctant
to do this for a couple of reasons, firstly other than the SR problem the
machine and all installed programs are operating faultlessly. Scondly the
registry is backed up each day using ERUNT so I don't feel I am at risk.
Nevertheless, a fault clearly exists and I would like to understand what
the problem is. Reinstallation is a little like using a sledge hammer to
crack a nut.

If you or others have any ideas what else I could look into I would
certainly appreciate your advice but I do not want to clutter up this NG
needlessly.


"Bert Kinney" <bert@NSmvps.org> wrote in message
news:efV0hwnLFHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
>
> Edward W. Thompson wrote:
>> Clearly our experiences are different and I think my
>> experience is supported by the number of posts relating
>> to SR problems. I would strongly recommend that no one
>> should rely upon SR to assist them in their hour of need
>> and to use an alternative, I suggest ERUNT.
>> Perhaps some SR problems, but by no means all, are
>> related to viruses and malware.
>
> I said most, not all.
>
>> My system is free of
>> viruses and malware, at least free of all known viruses
>> and malware. I know my problem with SR is not due to a
>> recent virus or malware as it has been with me for
>> several months and updates of the various scanning
>> engines I use (both online and installed) will have
>> caught the problem by now. My biggest complaint against
>> SR is that a failure is only detected when one comes to
>> carryout a Restore which is somewhat disturbing if SR
>> does not then function as designed.
>> You are I (Bert Kinney) had an extended exchange
>> concerning my particular problem with SR. The problem
>> still persists, that is when an automatic restore point
>> is made the 'system' deletes all other Restore Points and
>> the Event Viewer shows a message to the effect there is
>> insufficient space even although over 10GB of space is available.
>
> I emailed you detailed suggestion on cleaning up the programs that are
> loading at startup on your system. I never heard back from you either in
> the newsgroup or via email, so I took it the case was closed. Looking back
> at the large amount of apps loading at startup, I suspect one of these is
> interfering with the System Restore filter causing the restore points to
> be deleted. If you did not receive the email I would be glad to send it
> again. And once the culprit is found, you will be able to depend more on
> SR, and we could use that information to help others.
>
>> I can make manually any number of Restore
>> Points but directly an 'automatic' point is made (i.e. a
>> Restore Point initiated by the system) all other Restore
>> Points are deleted. This problem persists. From MS
>> documentation the only explanation seems to be that one
>> of the files that are included in the 'restore package'
>> is corrupt but which one is impossible to say as my
>> System works perfectly other than for this problem.
>> I suspect the only solution to solve the SR problem is to
>> reinstall the system. I have followed all suggestions to
>> repair SR posted by yourself and others but without
>> result.
>>
>>
>> "Bert Kinney" wrote
>>> Hi Edward,
>>>
>>> "Practice shows it to be totally unreliable"! This is
>>> not my experience. Most System Restore failures (that is
>>> with out any warning) are do to malware/virus infection.
>>> There are also some applications the can case problems
>>> with SR such as, RealPlayer, Norton, and some virus
>>> software. Saying that, these are the very issues that
>>> are responsible for the majority of problems in Windows
>>> today. To avoid these problems one must take steps to
>>> keep there system free of virus/malware infection. Here
>>> are some steps to take to help keep the system clean. Virus and Spyware
>>> removal and prevention
>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~mvp_bert/html/spyware.html
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>
>>>
>>> Edward W. Thompson wrote:
>>>> "Bert Kinney" wrote
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> There's probably no need to do both.
>>>>>
>>>>> You may consider reducing the amount of space system
>>>>> restore uses to around 500mb's and do less backup.
>>>>> Restoring using SR is probably much quicker the Ghost.
>>>>>
>>>>> How to Adjust the amount of disk space System Restore
>>>>> uses
>>>>> http://home.earthlink.net/~mvp_bert/html/body_diskspace...
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> jtsnow wrote:
>>>>>> If I do image backups and daily incrementals using
>>>>>> Ghost, Is there a reason I should keep the XP System
>>>>>> restore feature on? I do a baseline once a month and
>>>>>> then daily incrementals with Ghost 9.
>>>>>> Turns out, if I have the XP Restore on, then Ghost wont do
>>>>>> incrementals, only the large baseline backups and
>>>>>> thats uses up a lot of space when backing every day. I have 44gb on
>>>>>> my drive..
>>>>>> My thought is that doing it by Ghost means I restore
>>>>>> everything, even apps from the date chosen, whereas XP
>>>>>> Restore only restores system data...drivers and such.
>>>>>> So the only problem may be a longer restore from my
>>>>>> backup drive vesus using the XP Restore.
>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>> The problem with System Restore is while it is good in
>>>> theory, practice shows it to be totally unreliable.
>>>> Further you do not know you have a problem with SR until
>>>> you come to Restore the registry and then it is too late. SR is
>>>> convenient, when it works, but you should always
>>>> have an alternative. Ghost seems to me, to be somewhat
>>>> overkill to safeguard the Registry but ERUNT will provide the security
>>>> required.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
> http://dts-l.org/
>
>
!