@#$%! Toolbars

[Mike M]

You clearly still don't understand otherwise you wouldn't have posted as
you have. Using system restore it is possible to restore to a clean
uninfected state by restoring to a checkpoint created before infection.
By flushing the restore folder prior to any attempt to cleanse a system
such an option is lost.

 

[JAD]

Mike......S^^U already its your opinion and if you had experienced
multiple point infection or the virus itself disabling system restore
you would understand........I know ALL about it and to rely on it
solely would mean you CLEARLY don't understand me.

You clearly still don't understand otherwise you wouldn't have posted as
you have. Using system restore it is possible to restore to a clean
uninfected state by restoring to a checkpoint created before infection.
By flushing the restore folder prior to any attempt to cleanse a system
such an option is lost.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP [2001-2005]
(e-mail address removed)

thanks but it was not necessary


restoring to an infected state, for me, serves no purpose. I have
never had the displeasure of having a system screwed up because of
virus removal since I was on the 12 step 'Rid myself of norton"
therapy years ago. AFA spyware and such, it rarely infects my machines
and has never been a big problem. when it does, hijackthis is the
ultimate in removal. (and should be used by some one who understands
the difference between 'BACK up' and system restore. ;^)

 

[Mike M]

I'm sorry but from your continued posts it is clear to me at least that
you don't seem to have a clue about the uses of system restore and what it
can and cannot do. Until you actually do learn about system restore I
would strongly advise you to keep your incorrect and faulty logic to
yourself.

 

[JAD]

last word

I'm sorry but from your continued posts it is clear to me at least that
you don't seem to have a clue about the uses of system restore and what it
can and cannot do. Until you actually do learn about system restore I
would strongly advise you to keep your incorrect and faulty logic to
yourself.

 

[Glenn]

I have a problem with him continuing to want to go back to an "infected
state".

System restore has saved my bacon many times but I naturally go back far
enough to be ahead of the infection.

Incidentally, MS-MVP, I have the cd sent by micro$soft for sp2 lying in its
sheath beside my machine because I still hear too many horror stories. I'm
a coward.

Glenn

You clearly still don't understand otherwise you wouldn't have posted as
you have. Using system restore it is possible to restore to a clean
uninfected state by restoring to a checkpoint created before infection.
By flushing the restore folder prior to any attempt to cleanse a system
such an option is lost.
--
Mike Maltby MS-MVP [2001-2005]
(e-mail address removed)

thanks but it was not necessary


restoring to an infected state, for me, serves no purpose. I have
never had the displeasure of having a system screwed up because of
virus removal since I was on the 12 step 'Rid myself of norton"
therapy years ago. AFA spyware and such, it rarely infects my machines
and has never been a big problem. when it does, hijackthis is the
ultimate in removal. (and should be used by some one who understands
the difference between 'BACK up' and system restore. ;^)

 

[Heather]

Quote......
"restoring to an infected state, for me, serves no purpose"
Unquote....

You STILL don't get it!!! And this is MY *last word* on the subject.

I have no patience with self-styled 'experts' who refuse to try and
understand. So go back to your other groups and continue to disseminate
faulty information.

HF

 

[JAD]

if you want to rely on system restore go ahead. you are worried about
it when you have to clean your system, this would mean you have no
'BACK UP'. Self styled indeed, system restore works and can get you
out of a jam, no doubt, but you are referring to the ideal situation.
This is rarely the case. Tell me, how does your AV work after a system
restore? Have you tried to reinstall it on a restored/infected
machine? There is absolutely nothing wrong with this information. And
we are talking ME here, not XP. System restore, that's all you get, is
the system restored, not your software.and since most antivirus
software rely on definitions dates, when you go back you have a 50/50
chance of having a stable system and a running anti virus. You think
that you are SAFE because you went back to before the infection, again
knowing when you were infected is another luxury not everybody has.
You have never seen the whole restore/ CPY folder contaminated?
Leaving you nothing, I suppose you have the settings for size to max.
ANOTHER luxury not everybody has, nor would they want. System restore
is the LAST RESORT. You should be reaching for your backup. Backup is
a luxury/? then your data is not important anyway...format and
re-install......

 

[Shane]

System Restore is valuable because backups are rarely made on a daily basis.
Reasonably often on disinfecting the system, some component is found not to
work anymore. If System Restore is still available it may provide the
opportunity to restore to before infection but since the last backup
(assuming one has been made).

There is nothing whatsoever to be gained from disabling System Restore
before scanning/disinfection beyond not getting warnings about infected
files in C:\_Restore. If a user waits until after scanning/disinfection they
can verify that everything else works, then flush the Restore archive.

If something no longer works and System Restore would rectify that
situation, by using it they are almost certainly in no worse a position than
before and can consider another approach forewarned that straight cleaning
will cause the problem they just restored to recover from. Possibly they
would need to re-update their definitions in order to redetect the infection
but, just as with the possibility of unknowingly - ie through ignorance -
restoring an infected file, this can be obviated by the person advising the
disabling of System Restore *before* disinfection, instead advising of these
two potential pitfalls, along with the potential benefit, of disabling
System Restore *after* disinfection and verification of the correct
operation of the computer.

System Restore never spontaneously restores to an earlier checkpoint. Nor do
there appear to be any malwares that in any way manipulate System Restore -
and other than as an exercise there is no point to creating such as, once
you'd done so, you could do so much more that System Restore would be
irrelevent.

The advice repeated ad-nauseum to disable SR before disinfection is as clear
an example of mass hysteria as most of us are likely to see. As advice to
others - and when posted to these groups it should be considered as advice
to all (unless stated to be a purely personal opinion and/or preference) -
it is either based upon ignorance or it depends upon the unspoken belief
that the recipients are incapable of understanding alternative advice, ie
are incapable of learning. Equally there are people who consider all
Americans as ignorant and childlike, but anyone with an open mind can see
that that is unjust. It belongs in the same category of elitist intellectual
laziness as that which has women as inferior to men, blacks as inferior to
whites. Some will have it that anyone at all who gets infected by malware is
incapable of learning.


Shane

 

[Mike M]

Sadly by your posting you continue to display your total ignorance to the
world as to the operation of system restore. You simply don't have a
clue.

 

[Dick Hazeleger]

And everyone who gives such advice is wrong and clearly doesn't
understand what and how system restore works. Disable SR and clear
the archive once the problem is resolved but not before as this
removes the lifeline of being able to restore a trashed system to a
good state using a system checkpoint created before infection.

An infected archive will never cause a problem unless a user
voluntarily chooses to restore to a checkpoint created after
infection and before the system was cleaned. Even that might be
acceptable if the user manages to create an unusable system whilst
trying to clean their system. -- Mike Maltby MS-MVP
(e-mail address removed)

Ehh, Mike...

How many really bad infected ME/XP systems did you have to "repair"? I
have to, quite regularly, and when a system really is up into the very
core of the system infected, your "lifeline" could be a "lifeline with
a block of concrete at the other end".

Didn't you have the experience that on such systems the spyware was
back after reboot? No? Hmm, then you must have been working on
different ME/XP systems than I. Bottom line: If a system is screwed up
badly (Virus, trojan, Spyware) then your system restore's (archives,
whatever you call them) are so too...

In a reaction to a reply to your above quoted post you write:

But if not yourself a user may well want to restore to an uninfected
checkpoint created prior to any infection. By flushing the restore
archive as a first action one removes such action from ones armoury
of tools.

You forgot to mention "an alert and aware user"; most people don't know
where they got an infection from and when... how in the world could
they go back to an uninfected restore point? First question to people
with problems: "Did you install any software lately?" Second one:
"While surfing was there a pop up demanding to download something, and
did you click the "Yes" button?"... 95% of the people don't know an
answer to these questions because:

a. They are not the only user of the system (kids too for instance)
b. They don't have a clue...

A simple example that everyone will undrstand, and perhaps even
recognize: System is infected with a virus, virus is hidden in a
"system" flagged file. File is saved by the OS in system restore; scan
reveals this, but the file cannot be deleted by the AV-program; cure:
Throw away the system restore files (by disabling the feature), after
cleaning the system re-enable it again (and in XP I would manually make
a restore point clearly labeled as "Clean restore point".

Same goes for a system infected with for instance "CoolWeb"; I have
seen it return into the system from restore poitns... only after the
above actions was taken, the system once again was cleaned and a new
fresh restore point ws made, the infection was gone permanently!

Given the other posts you posted in this thread don't expect you to
agree with me, however being over 15 years in the trade of computer
support and (still) very involved in helping people to get rid of
spyware and the alike I thought it would be a good idea to let people
see another opinion with examples based upon practical experience!

Regards
Dick

 

[Mike M]

I have repaired many truly fouled Win Me systems thank you very much. As
to your post it appears that you have problems in understanding what
system restore can and cannot do to help the average user rather than
someone who knows what they might be doing such as perhaps yourself. Your
post contains so many inaccuracies and misconceptions that I have to ask
whether you know anything about the use of system restore. So many that
it is obviously pointless in continuing as you seemingly would prefer to
continue in ignorance than learn anything from such an exchange.

Regards,

 

[JAD]

mike,,, quite simply YOUR the one who has no clue....................you can
point the finger anywhere you want. YOUR post is from a book, my post is
from experience dating back BEFORE windows exsisted, so please, Your
ignorance is only exceeded by your desire to express it.

 

[Gabriele Neukam]

On that special day, Shane, ([email protected]) said...

System Restore is valuable because backups are rarely made on a daily basis.
Reasonably often on disinfecting the system, some component is found not to
work anymore. If System Restore is still available it may provide the
opportunity to restore to before infection but since the last backup
(assuming one has been made).

If you want to give us the idea that system restore is the ultimate
solution to a screwed up computer, you are misunderstanding something.
It cannot be a do-it-all wonder. It can replace some files with older
versions, and replace messed up registries, and that's it.

I myself deactivated my system restore in Windows ME in late 2000, and
guess what. My machine never was screwed up, didn't get infected by any
worm although there were dozens if not hundreds in the mail box, and
hasn't yet been trojanized or hijacked.

Why? I don't run Outlook Express for fetching mail, but T-Online eMail,
which is an extremely "dumb" mail program, and cannot be coaxed to "run"
"wavefiles" because of a malformed attachment declaration. And I surf
with opera or Mozilla, but never with an Internet Explorer.

So my system is free of any given malware, and this WITHOUT system
restore. Someone who cannot keep his computer clean because of too basic
knowledge about how to operate it, will probably also be unable to tell
apart which restore point might be safe, and which not. And if the
malware has planted itself into the _RESTORE folder, it might restore
itself into activity, exactly what you DON'T want to happen.

System restore might work ok in exactly one case - you install a new
driver or a botched Norton, and after restart, your machine gives a lot
of errors. Restoring *immediately* after the screw up, can fix this.

But even then, you have to be able to at least start *into* Windows. If
all you get is a blue screen and a "Windows will now shut down", your
wonderful system restore is moot. Because it can only be run from
*inside* Windows.

Acronis True Image, PowerQuest Drive Image and Norton Ghost on the other
hand, can be run from *outside* Windows. This is what JAD was referring
to, when he spoke of a BACK UP.

Got it?


Gabriele Neukam

(e-mail address removed)

 

[Mike M]

I speak from experience of working with Win Me and system restore whereas
you are clearly speaking from your nether regions.

 

[JAD]

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<yawn ho hum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I speak from experience of working with Win Me and system restore whereas
you are clearly speaking from your nether regions.

 

[Noel Paton]

Gabriele
May I suggest that you learn a little about the OS which you claim to know
so well - and its capabilities, before proclaiming to the world your
ineptitude.

Mike has NEVER claimed that System Restore is a 'cure-all' - far from it,
he's pointed out its failings to MS (with the result that the System Restore
in XP is at least a little more user-friendly), and constantly reminds
people in these newsgroups that SR is NOT a backup utility, but merely a
'get me out of a hole' assist.

If you have any reason to think otherwise, then I suggest that you re-read
his posts - starting with the ones he made in the Beta newsgroups 5 years
ago!

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read on how to post messages to NG's

 

[Gabriele Neukam]

On that special day, Noel Paton, ([email protected])
said...

May I suggest that you learn a little about the OS which you claim to know
so well - and its capabilities, before proclaiming to the world your
ineptitude.

So you are full of knowledge about Windows ME; more than me, who at
times cleans the registry by hand and has made the .pif file attribute
visible in order to avoid nasty worms which hide behind a double file
ending like "document.doc.pif"? You have been using MS-Dos before the
version 4.01? Well, *then* you are experienced.

If you have any reason to think otherwise, then I suggest that you re-read
his posts - starting with the ones he made in the Beta newsgroups 5 years
ago!

(Full quote of my posting snipped)

Alright. And would you, please desist from top posting and full quoting?
Both are against the most common rules of the Usenet.


Gabriele Neukam

(e-mail address removed)

 

[JAD]

I'm interested in a couple of things....this 'hole' what exactly is
it? That a back up would not fix?
If you have backed up why would you worry about SR? or use it, or let
it suck up a pretty good chunk of HD space?
If you are not using a back up, why are you worrying about your data
AFTER a catastrophe? then scramble for SR? Your data was not important
anyway, erase or format and reinstall.

None of what your saying or mike makes a lick of sense, the only sense
it makes is the 'FALSE sense of security' and you need not backup.
Nor in the process of restoring, it ever mentions the difference
between the two.

Don't drop XP into it......entirely a different apple cart, MANY
other system repair features.

I bumped into Bill on the street, even though he signed my
certificate, he didn't recognize me. Much like the autographed picture
of Mike on your wall, he knows not ,of him.

Little League MVP Coach 2000- 2004


:Other unimpressive Brag Lines snipped:

 

[Noel Paton]

Inline


--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read on how to post messages to NG's

On that special day, Noel Paton, ([email protected])
said...



So you are full of knowledge about Windows ME; more than me, who at
times cleans the registry by hand and has made the .pif file attribute
visible in order to avoid nasty worms which hide behind a double file
ending like "document.doc.pif"? You have been using MS-Dos before the
version 4.01? Well, *then* you are experienced.

Let me put it this way - I programmed in PC-DOS

Programming experience is irrelevant - it's xperience with the OS in
question, and its capabilities in real-life that matter - and fo rthat you
will have a VERY long way to go, to beat Mike (I admit that I''d probably
fall by the wayside, as I have a 'real' job to do most of the time)

(Full quote of my posting snipped)

Alright. And would you, please desist from top posting and full quoting?
Both are against the most common rules of the Usenet.

I hate to disillusion you - but the primary NG to which this thread is
posted is NOT part of Usenet - never has been, and never will be! It's part
of Microsoft's PRIVATE newsserver group, which they allow Usenet servers to
replicate -
In the MS newsgroups, it's common practice to allow any form of posting
without comment, so long as the poster is courteous - may I suggest that you
learn the whys-and-wherefores of the primary server YOU are posting to?
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=fh;[ln];newswhelp


In short - you have (again) shown exactly how little you know!

 

[Noel Paton]

You still don't get it, do you? System Restore is not, never has been, and
never will be a replacement for a proper backup - and was never designed as
such.
What it DOES do, is enable the vast majority of users - who never make
backups - to get back to a point where their system is at least working
sufficiently well to copy their data off to another place, while they wonder
about where to take their PC to get fixed, or even manage to fix it
themselves.

SR is an invaluable tool - even for those who DO make backups - because it
allows the user to roll-back through certain errors induced either by bad
luck, bad programming, or bad user interaction, and get the system running
again.

Backups DON'T do that - unless you are talking about imaging, in which case
you quite possibly have enough knowledge to be able to fix the system
without recourse to System Restore anyhow.

Even the guys who wrote Win XP use System Restore on a regular basis -
because it's the most efficient way of handling a large number of problems.

The fact that you choose to disable it is merely your problem, not that of
others

--
Noel Paton (MS-MVP 2002-2005, Windows)

Nil Carborundum Illegitemi
http://www.btinternet.com/~winnoel/millsrpch.htm
http://tinyurl.com/6oztj

Please read on how to post messages to NG's