Can't set restore point

[Guest]

I am running Vista RC1 build 5728 and I am unable to set a restore point. I
enabled the administrator account and could not set one there either. The
error message is:

The restore point could not be created for the following reason:

Windows cannot create a shadow copy due to internal error in other system
components. For more information view the event log. (0x81000109)

Please try again.

I am using a Vaio FE770G core 2 duo and I upgraded from XP MCE to Vista.

Does anyone have any ideas here? Thanks.

 

[BChat]

I just set a Restore Point on my machine - I have the UAC turned off - don't
know if that has any effect or not.
I did an upgrade from 5600 to 5278


I am running Vista RC1 build 5728 and I am unable to set a restore point. I
enabled the administrator account and could not set one there either. The
error message is:

The restore point could not be created for the following reason:

Windows cannot create a shadow copy due to internal error in other system
components. For more information view the event log. (0x81000109)

Please try again.

I am using a Vaio FE770G core 2 duo and I upgraded from XP MCE to Vista.

Does anyone have any ideas here? Thanks.

 

[Colin Barnhorst]

It sounds like you need to repair or reinstall Windows.

 

[Chad Harris]

MSFT hasn't produced and won't ship an adequate repair mechanism for Windows
Vista Colin. Nothing in the arsenal of Win RE is reliable including Startup
Repair and not as near reliable as a repair install in Win XP which suggests
a lot of people m ight be better staying with XP, and they are planning to
do just that in droves in the enterprise arena. There will be much
formatting with tail between legs in the coming years.

CH

 

[Jill Zoeller [MSFT]]

Can you send me the relevant event log entries? Please use my email address
minus "online." We'd like to look into this further.

Jill

 

[Guest]

Thanks for the suggestion. I tried that but unfortunately it had no effect.

 

[Chad Harris]

How would the average user know what the relevant event log entries might
be, relevant to System Restore Jill? Why are the relevant event log entries
are ectopic and metastasized to the far corners of the Window XP or Vista
Operating System including many in temporary files? Why isn't there an
Event Log web site anywhere on MSFT's sites nor have I found a comprehensive
list in any MSDN blog or Technet blog including your two. Do you mean Event
Viewer which is probably used or whose existence is known by less than 2%
of Windows Users on the entire planet?

Why also is it that many of these obscurely located and non-intuitively
named event logs that you know are foreign to the average user and in my
experience many "IT Pros" including developers are written in encrypted
languages and formats including hex that may be useful at the Redmond campus
for specially trained people with special tools but are hardly of any use
for the average or even advanced user of Windows.

Why doesn't MFST index all the event logs, for Windows and Office at least,
aside from Event Viewer's ; put a directory in one central location native
to Windows Vista, and also make a prominent site on MSFT's site.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these names don't look like user friendly
names, nor does the encrypted language or the far flung locations throughout
Windows look lend themselves to conveying useful information for most users
as examples:

Setup Log for Vista: \$win_nt$.~bt\panther\setupact.log

Other logs chosen at random:

Windows\Inf\setupapi.*.log
setupapi.dev.log
setupact.log in $WINDOWS.~BT/sources/panther
X:\$Windows.~BT\sources\Panther\cbs_skuassembly.log

Additionally, I don't see Soccer Moms and Nascar Dads or the average moms
and dads in Seattle Washington who aren't on one of your teams getting much
out of log entries like this one:

DIAGER CWfpER::AddBucketingParameters:Adding bucketing param=winmain_idx03
Info DIAGER CWfpER::AddBucketingParameters:Adding bucketing
param=5270
Info DIAGER CWfpER::AddBucketingParameters:Adding bucketing
param=0
Info DIAGER CWfpER::AddBucketingParameters:Adding bucketing
param=1
Info DIAGER CWfpER::AddBucketingParameters:Adding bucketing
param=2
Info DIAGER CWfpER::AddBucketingParameters:Adding bucketing
param=0
Info DIAGER CWfpER::AddBucketingParameters:Adding bucketing
param=Ultimate
Info DIAGER CWfpER::AddBucketingParameters:Adding bucketing
param=2600


After 26 years, where are reasonably named, reasonably easily located logs
in the Windows Operating System written in any clear way to communicate any
useful information for your customers?

Also Jill, why doesn't MSFT publish the Vista Beta chats that you are kind
enough to put on *your blogs on one central Vista site in order to improve
the learning curves of the customers that your company has projected on a
slide from Microsoft that I have on my desk that says "The Windows Vista
Opportunity":

"Industry Forecasts > 475million PCs in first 24 months
Upgradable installed Base of ~ 200 million PCs

Given those predictions, MSFT anticipates a large number of people using
Vista and migrating quickly. If that's the case, why isn't MSFT doing more
to improve their learning curve. Certainly there is no downside to MSFT
posting every single Vista Live Meeting transcript and every single Vista
Chat on their site to enhance rather than to foreclose on learning
opportunities.

It would also be great if you'd investigate with Desmond Lee's team why Win
RE's Startup Repair that MSFT seems to be proferring as the major "on the
fly recovery mechanism" analagous to a repair install in Windows XP only
works a percent of the time instead of nearly 100% like a repair install in
XP when Startup Repair is supposed to be more powerful and have more
efficacy.

Many of us wonder why Fabrikant was mentioned so much early on as another
mechanism to protect Windows, but has obviously ended up on the cutting room
floor and no one I ask from MFST seems to know anything about it.\
http://www.faronics.com/html/deepfreeze.asp.

This is a Fabrikant related site. Fabrikant was listed on Win RE slides
from MSFT a few months ago and it seems to have *Vanished *Without a Trace.


CH

 

[Guest]

I have a Sony Vaio laptop running Build 5728, and ran into the same problem,
with the same error message. Through trial and error, in my case, I
discovered that it was the Texas Instruments PCI7420 Integrated FlashMedia
Controller (in Device Manager, under the category "Memory technology
driver"), which is a driver, among its other functions, responsible for
creating a volume in Computer as a "Device with Removable Storage" with an
assigned letter. I disabled the driver using Device Manager, and that solved
the problem of restore points not being created. This is the only driver
that Windows or Windows Update didn't supply at installation, so I was using
a driver from my OEM XP install on another partition, which seemed to be fine
as far as Device Manager was concerned (no exclamation points, Unkown Device,
etc.), and seemed to work with Build 5600.

Previous to discovering this, to try to solve the problem, I re-installed
Vista 5728 using the clean-install choice, after originally having done an
upgrade-install to 5600, but this didn't solve the problem. Finally, reading
the event logs lead me to the conclusion that, shortly afer installing this
driver, VSS (Volume Shadow Copy Service) started reporting errors.

Anyway, I'd try disabling any non-USB storage device you might have. I
should note that by disabling this driver, however, that now, when starting
the computer from a Hibernate shutdown, the Found New Hardware Wizard tries
to install a generic PCMCIA adaptor (which isn't the driver I disabled, by
the way), or the screen freezes at login, one of the two. So it's a
catch-22: with the driver disabled System Restore works, but Hibernate
doesn't work. Re-enabling the driver allows Hibernation to work. (Regular
Restarting or booting from Shutdown is working fine, either way).

Hope this helps,
Dean

 

[Jill Zoeller [MSFT]]

Dean, this sounds like the exact path we're pursuing. I've forwarded your
message on to system restore team. I'll let you know if they have follow-up
questions.

Thanks for posting!

 

[Chad Harris]

JIll--

Since there is a perception out there that Win RE is one convenient location
where MSFT recovery tools reside, have you all (Desmond Lee's team) tested
in volume that it's main mechanism "Startup Repair" has a high failure rate,
and while Backup that you've showcased on your blog by linking to Videos
from TechED and other places including the Beta chat on it is much
appreciated, in the real world a high percentage of people will continue to
resist using backup mechanisms, as nice a job as Vista teams and the One
Care Live team have done with Backup this time around. As you know the NT
Backup driven MS Backup derived from Veritas in Windows XP did a rather poor
job and did not backup well to media. It's been made very user friendly now
and that's a huge plus, but many people still unfortunately will not backup
because some people seem to see burning DVDs as the bogey man if you take
all Windows users.

That's even a more compelling reason for more components of Win RE to work.
One of those components was Fabrikant or Deep Freeze technology and know one
I talk to at MSFT who is not at Redmond has a clue as to why you all axed it
or even what it was. Can you find out? Do you know? It was written about
a lot on the ezines a year before the Beta started.

Also there have been some great posts on this group Jill as to how to confer
protection for the volume shadow copy restore points on a dual boot when one
switches to another boot by using Bit Locker. MSFT seems not to have picked
up on this tip at all.

For example --these posts:

Re: system restore--Bitlocker confer's protection for VSS restore
Sunday, July 16, 2006 11:08 PM

"Turning off Bitlocker" without choosing the decrypt option only
turns off the authentication process- encryption is still on and
all new files are encrypted also. Your restore points will not
be deleted so long as Vista stays encrypted- regardless if
Bitlocker's authentication is turned off.

Haven't encountered any problems with encryption on. You
don't notice (I haven't) anything being different. Of course,
you won't be able to see Vista from XP. It will show a drive
letter and if you click on that drive letter it will tell you that it
is an unformatted volume. Leave it alone. ;-)

I apologize, I should have told you this earlier- make sure you
print/write out the password or save it someplace other than Vista.
Some folks have reported that BitLocker is not reading the encrypt
key from some USB thumb drives. An MVP in the vista.security group
has said this will be improved by RC1. I have not experienced that
problem. If BitLocker can not read your USB drive and you don't
have your password- you are screwed. Pardon my language.
Recently, I have turned off the authentication at boot-up.

It's funny, I stopped using System Restore in XP a long time ago.
Found it to be unreliable and that it slowed down a computer. But
I wanted to really test it out this time and give it a chance. I've used
it twice and all went well. It is my understanding that SR in Vista is
much improved over XP. Of course, since I dual boot, the only way to
test SR is to protect my restore points. I just happened to stumble onto
the fact that BitLocker kept those restore points from being deleted.
There were some at Microsoft who said it wouldn't matter if BitLocker
was on and the drive was encrypted, the restore points would still be
deleted. Well, I knew what I saw. After, many tests- BitLocker does
protect the restore points- can't delete what you can't see. Which
makes perfect sense. I don't know why some said it shouldn't be
that way. I even asked specifically before I used Bitlocker if encryption
would protect those restore points, I was told no. Trust me, it works.

Let me/us know how it turns out.

Take care,

Michael

____________

Chad;
Also Jill--

Microsoft Vista team writers/community PMs like yourself also have have yet
to post any substantive or any other
information on System Restore or Win RE on Technet or MSDN with about 25
days to go before you RTM Vista, bring in the tents, the bands, the kegs and
the parties celebrating it.

Your blog "The Filling Cabinet" (one of two of yours) did post a chat and a
little information from Dan Stevenson on Volume Shadow and System Restore.
It's a very good source of info and people should check it out:

Jill's Blog

On VSS and System Restore

http://209.34.241.68/filecab/archive/2006/09/01/452845.aspx


Jill's Blog "The Filing Cabinet"
http://209.34.241.68/filecab/default.aspx

Jill's "Ck Your Disks"

Addressing privacy and security concerns about Shadow Copies in Windows
Vista
I asked one of our program managers, Dan Stevenson, to address the questions
we've received about security and privacy and the Shadow Copy feature (aka
Previous Versions) in Windows Vista. Below Dan describes how shadow copies
work and provides ways to help increase the security and privacy of deleted
files. For a brief overview of this functionality, see the Windows Vista
website's section on Backup.

-----------------------

If you turn on volume shadow copies on your volume (which is the default for
Windows Vista), Windows will track changes made to that volume at the block
level.

A shadow copy is a previous version of a file, which is "reconstituted" by
applying in reverse all the accumulated block-level changes to that file.

If you delete a file on the "live" volume, then those "changes" (deleting
the blocks) are tracked by Windows, and you can later restore the shadow
copy of the file. Earlier shadow copies may also still be available; volume
shadow copies are maintained on a space-available basis, with the oldest
being deleted to create room for newer ones. In Windows Vista, a maximum of
15% of the disk is set aside for maintaining shadow copies.

There are two ways to encrypt your data in Windows Vista: using Encrypting
File System (EFS) and using Bitlocker Drive Encryption. Both of these
features are limited to the Premium or Business editions of Windows Vista.

EFS protects your files from access by other users. If you encrypt a file
using EFS, then any subsequent shadow copies of the file will also be
encrypted. Note that since encryption generally involves changing every
block in the file, you won't get the same space-saving benefits from
changing just a small part of a file which you would get with a
non-encrypted file.

If the entire volume is encrypted using BitLocker, then everything,
including the shadow copies, is encrypted. This volume-level encryption
protects files from unauthorized external access, such as from a Linux boot
disk.

--Dan Stevenson




Thanks very much for taking the time to help sort these out. As you know
MSFT rarely if ever participates on the public Vista sites. Daryl Gorter
has posted briefly about 3 times in the past 15 months. If MSFT is
acknowledging the interaction of Bit Locker and System Restore and VSS in
Vista, I'm not sure where they are doing that. I haven't found it.


CH

 

[Jill Zoeller [MSFT]]

The term "Fabrikam" refers to a fictitious company name owned by Microsoft,
often used in documentation or presentations to represent a company
scenario. Here's one example of the use of this name:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/...cb-22e2-45f8-b306-f980c285047e&displaylang=en
You might've also heard of Contoso, which is another fictitious company
(popular in the Reskit docs). We invent these company names so that we can
use them legally within our web sites, documentation, etc.

I found a reference to "Deep Freeze" in a KB article at
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;276212. It appears
to be a third-party software package. The KB links to their website, which
redirects to http://www.faronics.com/index.asp.

As for the Bitlocker/restore point issue, this is very interesting news.
I've asked the System Restore team to take a look at these reports to verify
this as a workaround. When I have news on this I will post it on our blog.

As for documentation on System Restore, please keep in mind that Windows
Vista is a huge operating system and it's not always possible to have 100%
of features thoroughly documented prior to RTM, let alone prior to launch.
Often the best docs are developed after the product ships so that we've had
plenty of experience to draw from once a product is "in the wild." We will
do our best to answer questions and blog about popular topics until the full
set of documentation is ready.



--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Want to learn more about Windows Server file and storage technologies? Visit
our team blog at http://blogs.technet.com/filecab/default.aspx.

 

[MICHAEL]

Jill,

I reported the Bitlocker "protection" of System Restore points
numerous times via three different means.

I am the one- at least in this forum- who discovered this.
Yes, it does work. Bitlocker encryption keeps Vista's restore
points from being deleted- XP can not "see" Vista while encrypted-
XP will not delete what it can not see. You can also protect
Vista's restore points my using a third party boot manager
that hides Vista's partition.

As of build 5728, this is still the case. My Vista volume
is encrypted by Bitlocker, and my restore points have
not been deleted- even after numerous boots back to XP.

I am surprised this is the first you have heard about this-
astonished, actually.


-Michael

 

[Mark D. VandenBerg]

Jill;

I am the one who has been advocating "hiding" the Vista system drive from
the XP system drive in order to prevent Vista SR points and Shadow copies
from being deleted by XP (along with a few other reasons). Much thanks to
Chad for finding my original post on the subject. Many thanks to MICHAEL
for the great discourse he and I had on the subject in early June (I
think?). Most of the credit should go to Colin Barnhorst for taking the
time to fully explain the reason this happens and why it will be very
difficult, if not impossible, to correct.

If you do a search of these newsgroups for "volsnap.sys" you will find many
posts by MICHAEL, Colin, Chad and myself discussing this subject.

Mark

 

[Guest]

Hi Michael,

I'm sorry that your findings did not make it back to the product team. I
can't offer you an explanation for this, but I will be sure to monitor this
newsgroup more closely in the future. We also closely monitor the Vista beta
newsgroups, which have more granular newsgroup names and less traffic--it's
hard to miss posts in the system_recovery newsgroup, for example. If you have
access to these, be sure to pop in.

Like I mentioned before, I passed along your email to the system restore
team, but they are understandably swamped now. Hopefully there will be a lull
between Vista RTM and its general availability, and we'll have time to
document these types of issues then.

I appreciate your efforts in getting the word out on this newsgroup!

Jill

 

[Guest]

I should also add that there is a reference to Fabrikam in some slides on
System Restore that you might have seen in the past. This was meant to
illustrate that OEMs can add their own recovery options for equipment they
manufacture. So, for example, if could be Dell or HP or Sony. There is no
such thing as a "Fabrikam Recovery Utility." Imagine this as "Dell Recovery
Utility" or something similar.

Also, I prefer to be contacted here in the newsgroups instead of via email.

 

[Chad Harris]

Jill--

What about the fact that Startup Repair that besides backup appears to be
the point guard for fixing no boot Vista (when System Restore or F8 Win
Advanced Options won't do the job--trying to get at System Restore VSSs a
few different ways and the Hail Mary reg snapshot Last Known Good) does not
work a significant percentage of the time. Is there any work being done on
that to improve its Vegas odds of success?

We know that the Beta groups are "more granular." On the street we would
say in our unsophisticated way, that there are a helluva lot more of
them--about 60-65--but I know that in MSFTspeak granularity and leverage are
prime time words as I compile my Redmond dictionary.

It is unfortunate since pratically a large number of people will be dual
booting when a new OS releases, because they are not ready to give up what
they've invested on Windows XP yet, and many of us who have spent a lot of
time over the last 14 months looking at Vista, have noted features that
won't see the light of day in Vista thay should have been retained as an
option from XP because we feel they were simply better.

It is amusing that the Beta groups are closely monitored by MSFT and this
isn't, because much of what I've read on from the less than 3% of 30,000
TBTs who actually post on those groups is certainly not higher quality in
observation or analysis of Vista than what is written here by the unwashed
public.

I have seen a lot more "mommy mommy please give us another build--the other
one is a week old" every few days on Cafe than here. Maybe there are more I
can't install Vista and I can't burn Vista on here understandably but the
TBTs had July-August to post precisely the same thing in huge volume.

I wonder if you are aware that whomever --Paul Donnelly or others have
slammed the door shut on the public having any meaningful access to bugs on
Connect? That's granularity that won't be sampled by the unwashed public.

Had MSFT been serious about public feedback they would have made it really
possible for them to access the Beta Chats, the Live Meetings on Vista, etc.
They would have *maximized the learning opportunity for all* potential users
of Vista, not *shut the door on it.* They would not have shut out the
public from bug information on Connect which is a quintissential definition
of the term disingenous while expending much effort with the Corey Snow/Nick
White type of hype/cheerleading that Redmond Vista teams are really hungry
for public feedback.

People wanted to see Vista get a lot bettter than unfortunately we now know
it is going to be. Ed Bott isn't writing Vista Inside Out by accident from
MSFT Press and he has called the release date and what is being released
"horrendous" at the worst.

I don't know how in the world time between RTM which is October 25, 2006
appropriately Halloween because I think "Trick or Treat" should be all over
that box and DVD of RTM Vista considering the major components that are
shipping broken and not fixed that I can list and demonstrate for you. I
figure that close to October 25 if not before you all bring out the tents,
the kegs, and the bands to celebrate. Enterprise shipping is happening
November 1, 2006 according to most people I know who work IT in enterprises

By lull in between October 25 RTM/Halloween Vista and the January 30, 2007
launch I guess you mean someone could write an MSKB or an article. They
should explore the relationship between Bit Locker and Protected Restore
Points--that'd be Dan Stevenson, Eduardo Laureano and their collegues. It
should have gone beyond an MSKB as a workaround and certainly should be
incorporated into the still unfinished Vista Help from your help server, and
it should be incorporated into Vista itself.

The sad fact is that the OS is carved in cement right now, and 5728 or the
TAP build 5734 are for all practical purposes RTM, even though one more
interim will be dropped to TBTs.

Numerous MVPs have protested the freight train that is leaving the Redmond
station and have posted on their sites. I liken it to a 5 month gestation
premature infant that won't get neonatal intensive care.

I have linked many of them in previous posts here.

CH

 

[Jill Zoeller [MSFT]]

Just to close this down, Gregg's problem was caused by a bug in the Secure
Digital flash reader driver. This should be fixed in the next publicly
released build.