Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.help_and_support (
More info?)
All I suggest is that when Erunt is recommended, in place of System
Restore, it be made clear what it's function is, and nothing more. It
is not fair to mislead the reader into thinking it is a replacement of
System Restore.
--
Regards,
Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
http://dts-l.org/
Edward W. Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Jun 2005 10:10:15 -0400, "Bert Kinney"
> <bert@NSmvps.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Edward W. Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> "Bert Kinney" wrote
>>>> This is incorrect. ERUNT does not create a restore
>>>> point in the way System Restore does. It only backs up
>>>> the registry. Nothing else. Big difference. --
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
>>>> http://dts-l.org/
>>>>
>>>> Edward W. Thompson wrote:
>>>>> If you are lucky, you can repair/restore System
>>>>> Restore (SR) but it really isn't worth it as SR is
>>>>> simply
>>>>> unreliable. As seems to be the natural law, it
>>>>> doesn't 'work' when you most need it. Fortunately
>>>>> there is an alternative that appears to be rock
>>>>> solid, namely
>>>>> ERUNT. ERUNT will create a restore point is
>>>>> configurable and is freeware. ERUNT can be downloaded
>>>>> from here www.larshederer.homepage.t-online.de/erunt/
>>>>
>>> Aren't you nit-picking Bert.
>>
>> No, I am simply pointing out inaccurate information so
>> that reader
>> will not think Erunt is a substitute for System Restore.
>>
>>> Effectively ERUNT will
>>> provide a file or files from which the Registry can be
>>> restored if required. In what way is this functionaly
>>> different from SR?
>>
>> I am surprised at this question considering the amount
>> of information
>> you have been supplied with concerning System Restore.
>> Here's the
>> difference.
>>
>> System Restore:
>> What's Restored
>> Registry (note: some current values will
>> persist) Profiles (local only-roaming user
>> profiles not impacted by
>> restore)
>> COM+ DB
>> WFP.dll cache
>> WMI DB
>> IIS Metabase
>> Files with extensions listed in the Monitored
>> File
>> Extensions list
>> Here is a list of files and folders System Restore
>> monitors.
http://bertk.mvps.org/html/filesfolders.html
>> What's Not Restored
>> DRM settings
>> SAM hives (does not restore passwords)
>> WPA settings (Windows authentication
>> information is not
>> restored)
>> Contents of the My Documents folder(s)
>> Specific directories/files listed in the
>> Monitored File
>> Extensions list
>> Any file with an extension not listed in the
>> Monitored File Extensions list
>> Items listed in both Filesnottobackup and
>> KeysnottoRestore
>> (hklm->system->controlset001->control->backuprestore->filesnottobackup
>> and keysnottorestore)
>> User-created data stored in the user profile
>> Contents of redirected folders
>>
>> Erunt:
>> Backs up and restores the registry, nothing else.
>>
>>> I certainly have restored the
>>> Registry from ERUNT as well as SR (in the past that is
>>> when it worked) and the end product was the same.
>>> Where's the 'big difference'?
>>
>> Obviously the problem you were experiencing at the time
>> laid in the
>> registry! Not one of the files or folder System Restore
>> monitors.
>>
>>> If the 'big difference' is in the case of ERUNT each
>>> 'registry backup' is standalone, it would seem to me to
>>> be a very big plus and is superior in all respects to
>>> SR.
>>> From a functional point of view both are the same. I
>>> venture to suggest that most users are concerned with
>>> function not process.
>>
>> As you can see above they are NOT the same.
>>
>> Erunt is an excellent application for what it does. I
>> personally
>> recommend it. But please don't make it out to be
>> something it is not.
>>
>> I am aware of the issues you are having with System
>> Restore on your
>> system. I share in your frustration. It's not perfect,
>> and it is the
>> target of virus and malware hacker.
>>
>> For the majority of users System Restore works as
>> designed.
>
> Thanks for the explanation but I think that the reason
> for SR is to provide a means to restore the Registry as I
> suspect that in the vast majority of cases that is what
> is required when problems occur. If what I think is
> valid then ERUNT does exactly that without the
> uncertainty of SR. That uncertainty is principally
> brought about by all SR points being interdependent
> whereas each ERUNT event is standalone.
>
> While SR may function without problems for the majority
> of users there is no way of knowing the percentage of
> users that have and are experiencing SR problems. From
> the NGs it does appear that problems with SR are not
> uncommon but whether the NGs are a snapshot of all users
> I couldn't guess.
>
> Returning to the subject, SR is unreliable and an
> alternative is required. At present the only viable
> alternative I know is ERUNT. The additional features that
> appear to be offered by SR appear to me to be of less
> significance when compared to the need to be able to
> restore the Registry.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram