System Restore

[Guest]

Hello all,I am unable to restore my system to any point.
Details...

Details
Product: Windows Operating System
Event ID: 111
Source: SRService
Version: 5.2
Symbolic Name: EVMSG_RESTORE_FAILED
Message: A restoration to "%1" restore point failed. No changes have been
made to the system.

My system restore has worked before.
Thanks in advance for any help

 

[Gerry Cornell]

http://snipurl.com/lakw

http://bertk.mvps.org/html/srfail.html

--

Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Rick \Nutcase\ Rogers]

Hi,

Once System Restore goes bad, the only thing you can do is stop it and
restart it. Start/run services.msc, locate the SR service and doubleclick
it. Click the stop button, then set the startup type dropdown to disabled.
Click apply/ok, then reboot.

Then, check the "System Volume Information folder" on each drive (you may
need to set folder options/view tab to see hidden and system folders for
this) and delete any contents. Reverse the steps to restart it.

Be forewarned that doing this removes all existing restore points, but it
doesn't really matter as they weren't working anyways.

If this does not help, follow these steps to reinstall System Restore:

Go to the Control Panel/Folder Options/View tab, set it to "Show hidden
files and folders" and "Show the contents of system folders", then uncheck
"Hide protected operating system files [recommended]". Also uncheck "Hide
extensions for known file types".

Then, open Windows Explorer from Start/All Programs and go to the
C:\Windows\Inf folder. Locate the sr.inf file, right-click it and choose
install.

You may need to either insert your WinXP CD or know where your I386 folder
is located on the hard drive. You may also need to know where the
\ServicePackFiles folder is (usually under the Windows directory).

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

 

[Stan Brown]

Wed, 4 Jan 2006 19:11:55 -0500 from Rick "Nutcase" Rogers

Once System Restore goes bad, the only thing you can do is stop it and
restart it.

Be forewarned that doing this removes all existing restore points, but it
doesn't really matter as they weren't working anyways.

Absolutely true.

"An ounce of prevention is worth .454 kg of cure." It's good to test
System Restore periodically, using Bert Kinney's technique
<http://bertk.mvps.org/html/tips.html#HowToTest>. Then in future
you're not likely to have System Restore fail you unexpectedly, just
when you need it.

 

[Edward W. Thompson]

Wed, 4 Jan 2006 19:11:55 -0500 from Rick "Nutcase" Rogers


Absolutely true.

"An ounce of prevention is worth .454 kg of cure." It's good to test
System Restore periodically, using Bert Kinney's technique
<http://bertk.mvps.org/html/tips.html#HowToTest>. Then in future
you're not likely to have System Restore fail you unexpectedly, just
when you need it.

snip

Testing System Restore does not provide any security whatsoever that System
Restore will be 'available' when needed. System Restore is esentially an
unreliable utility regardless of Bert Kinney's good intentions. If you need
a 'backup' of the Registry you should use ERUNT that creates standalone
'backups'

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

snip

Testing System Restore does not provide any security whatsoever that
System Restore will be 'available' when needed.

That's an overstatement. It certainly doesn't provide a guarantee that it
will be available, but it *does" substantially increase the likelihood.

System Restore is
esentially an unreliable utility regardless of Bert Kinney's good
intentions.

It's true that System Restore is unfortunately not as reliable as it should
be. However that doesn't make it useless by a long shot. *Most* of the time,
it works just fine. It's never let me down when I've needed it and I've used
it on several occasions on several machines, both here and elsewhere.

If you need a 'backup' of the Registry you should use
ERUNT that creates standalone 'backups'

ERUNT is a very good program, and I too recommend it. I use it myself. But
it's not a complete replacement for System Restore, since what System
Restore does is more than just Registry backup.

 

[Bert Kinney]

Hi Ken,

Edward understands exactly how System Restore works! But he prefers to
mislead the readers and bash the utility rather than share his knowledge
and actually help solve problems. This is a shame.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Hi Ken,

Edward understands exactly how System Restore works! But he prefers to
mislead the readers and bash the utility rather than share his
knowledge and actually help solve problems. This is a shame.

It would seem so. Nevertheless, his erroneous message needed to be
corrected, lest someone believe it.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

 

[Stan Brown]

Fri, 6 Jan 2006 07:49:43 -0000 from Edward W. Thompson <thomeduk1
@btopenworld.com>:

Testing System Restore does not provide any security whatsoever that System
Restore will be 'available' when needed. System Restore is esentially an
unreliable utility regardless of Bert Kinney's good intentions. If you need
a 'backup' of the Registry you should use ERUNT that creates standalone
'backups'

If you mean that it doesn't provide absolute certainty, of course
you're right. But it provides a lot more confidence if I tested
System Restore last week and it was working fine, than if I've never
tested it in year of owning my own computer.

I won't say a word against ERUNT, but it's not meant to replace
System Restore. It doesn't restore the Start Menu or the desktop, for
instance.

 

[Gerry Cornell]

Stan

Users with external removable drives seem to be among those most at
risk from a failing System Restore as are those who fail to maintain /
protect their systems from viruses and malware

--

Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Bert Kinney]

Very true Gerry

 

[Edward W. Thompson]

It would seem so. Nevertheless, his erroneous message needed to be
corrected, lest someone believe it.

Exactly what is misleading about my recent statements that:

1. System Restore is unreliable. Surely the repeated calls for help to
repair SR in this and other NGs supports this statement.
2. Testing SR does not guarantee its availablity when needed.

Failure of SR appears to be unpredictable and so far I have not seen anyone
account for the failure of the utility. As we all know if SR does fail all
Restore points are lost not just the most recent. It is for this reason
that I have taken strong objection to the program. I certainly agree that
if it works on demand then it is a 'life saver' and the intent of the
program is clearly laudable.

With respect to the 'additions' that SR may provide over ERUNT, those
'additions' pale into insignificance compared to its principal function of
providing a backup to the Registry. The possible shortfall of ERUNT wrt to
SR is taken care of by SFC.

Whereas some may disagree with my position, I am not misleading anyone and I
hope I am providing sound advice, that is do not trust System Restore, use
ERUNT either as an alternative and save HDD space (not a significant
advantage to most) or in addition to SR.

Finally, if SR provides the security necessary, why does Mr Blake also use
ERUNT?

 

[Gerry Cornell]

Edward

Users with external removable drives seem to be among those most at
risk from a failing System Restore as are those who fail to maintain /
protect their systems from viruses and malware

--

Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Whereas some may disagree with my position, I am not misleading
anyone and I hope I am providing sound advice, that is do not trust
System Restore, use ERUNT either as an alternative and save HDD space
(not a significant advantage to most) or in addition to SR.

As I said, I disagree with you that it's a good alternative, because SR does
things ERUNT doesn't. SR is *not* just a registry backup program, as ERUNT
is..

However, I have no quarrel with using ERUNT "in addition to SR." In fact I
recommend the same thing.

Finally, if SR provides the security necessary,

I didn't say it did. In fact I said "System Restore is unfortunately not as
reliable as it should be." What I said was that that doesn't make it
useless.

why does Mr Blake
also use ERUNT?

Because "System Restore is unfortunately not as reliable as it should be."

 

[Guest]

Just wanted to say thank you, your instructions were great and it worked! I
always freak when something zaps my computer, and I wonder how protected am I
really. Anyway thanks for the info and thanks for the expertise!!!

Hi,

Once System Restore goes bad, the only thing you can do is stop it and
restart it. Start/run services.msc, locate the SR service and doubleclick
it. Click the stop button, then set the startup type dropdown to disabled.
Click apply/ok, then reboot.

Then, check the "System Volume Information folder" on each drive (you may
need to set folder options/view tab to see hidden and system folders for
this) and delete any contents. Reverse the steps to restart it.

Be forewarned that doing this removes all existing restore points, but it
doesn't really matter as they weren't working anyways.

If this does not help, follow these steps to reinstall System Restore:

Go to the Control Panel/Folder Options/View tab, set it to "Show hidden
files and folders" and "Show the contents of system folders", then uncheck
"Hide protected operating system files [recommended]". Also uncheck "Hide
extensions for known file types".

Then, open Windows Explorer from Start/All Programs and go to the
C:\Windows\Inf folder. Locate the sr.inf file, right-click it and choose
install.

You may need to either insert your WinXP CD or know where your I386 folder
is located on the hard drive. You may also need to know where the
\ServicePackFiles folder is (usually under the Windows directory).

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP

Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone

Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

Hello all,I am unable to restore my system to any point.
Details...

Details
Product: Windows Operating System
Event ID: 111
Source: SRService
Version: 5.2
Symbolic Name: EVMSG_RESTORE_FAILED
Message: A restoration to "%1" restore point failed. No changes have been
made to the system.

My system restore has worked before.
Thanks in advance for any help

 

[Edward W. Thompson]

As I said, I disagree with you that it's a good alternative, because SR
does things ERUNT doesn't. SR is *not* just a registry backup program, as
ERUNT is..

However, I have no quarrel with using ERUNT "in addition to SR." In fact I
recommend the same thing.




I didn't say it did. In fact I said "System Restore is unfortunately not
as reliable as it should be." What I said was that that doesn't make it
useless.




Because "System Restore is unfortunately not as reliable as it should be."

I guess the point where we disagree is over whether or not SR is 'useless'.
I am not totally sure I actually said that but I will not debate that. If
when you come to need to use SR and it doesn't function I think it fair to
say it is useless, that is it has no use. As many of the posts in this and
other NGs demonstrate this circumstance has occured to many ergo, many have
found SR useless at the time it was required. Further, as SR purpose is
only to provide a means to restore corrupted files on demand, if there is no
guarantee it will do this when required it does not fulfill its function and
the term 'useless' seems to be appropriate.

You appear to agree that SR is not reliable and if that is the case then an
alternative is clearly required. It appears we agree that a suitable
alternative is ERUNT albeit it may not fill all the functions of SR. I
venture to suggest it does provide all the primary functions of SR and those
that it does not are relatively insignificant and can be addressed with
other tools that are available to the user.

What are we left with? Nothing other than your unfounded statement that I
was misleading others. How absurd. What would I gain from that? Quite the
reverse I would suggest that those that so strongly support SR are
misleading others into thinking it provides security when it does not.
While activating SR may be a reasonable thing to do (I don't as I have no
confidence in it), it is also a requirement to have an alternative means to
restore the Registry in the event SR does not function when required.

Finally, I hope others may find this exchange helpful in so much that they
may recognise that their systems are not as well protected as they think if
they are relying solely on SR to recover from a Registry problem. I hope it
will prompt them into taking appropriate action, that is to install ERUNT or
an equivalent.

 

[Gerry Cornell]

Edward

System tools often fail because users do not use them properly!

Users are fallible as you demonstrated here:
"Further, as SR purpose is only to provide a means to restore
corrupted files on demand"

We all are.

System Restore would be improved if the default was not to monitor
all drives / partitions and only to monitor the drive / partition where the
windows operating system was located.

--

Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Stan Brown]

Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:48:02 -0000 from Edward W. Thompson <thomeduk1
@btopenworld.com>:

You appear to agree that SR is not reliable and if that is the case then an
alternative is clearly required.

"Reliable" is not binary like "alive"; there are degrees of
reliability.

The point is that by periodic checking System Restore can be raised
to an acceptable level of reliability (acceptable for most of us),
ESPECIALLY given that it's the first line of defense and not the only
line of defense. Obviously everyone should be doing full-disk backups
as well; System Restore is deliberately limited to restoring a few
specific components.

It appears we agree that a suitable alternative is ERUNT

Only in the sense that a speedboat is a suitable alternative to an
automobile. They're both means of transportation, but they don't do
the same thing.

I don't see how you can honestly make such a statement, if you've
read the replies to your earlier comments. As has been pointed out
multiple times, ERUNT is fine for what it does, but it doesn't do the
same job.

 

[Stan Brown]

Sun, 8 Jan 2006 09:37:46 -0000 from Gerry Cornell

System Restore would be improved if the default was not to monitor
all drives / partitions and only to monitor the drive / partition where the
windows operating system was located.

Indeed. By default it even monitors removable drives, which is
particularly silly.

I was able to turn off monitoring for my in-computer partitions, but
I can't delete the "System Volume Information" folder from my
removable drive even after turning off its monitoring.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Sun, 8 Jan 2006 08:48:02 -0000 from Edward W. Thompson <thomeduk1
@btopenworld.com>:

"Reliable" is not binary like "alive"; there are degrees of
reliability.

Exactly! That's the point I've been trying to make all along, but you've
probably said it better than I did.

Yes, it could be more reliable than it is. No, that doesn't make it
completely unreliable.

The point is that by periodic checking System Restore can be raised
to an acceptable level of reliability (acceptable for most of us),
ESPECIALLY given that it's the first line of defense and not the only
line of defense. Obviously everyone should be doing full-disk backups
as well; System Restore is deliberately limited to restoring a few
specific components.


Only in the sense that a speedboat is a suitable alternative to an
automobile. They're both means of transportation, but they don't do
the same thing.

I don't see how you can honestly make such a statement, if you've
read the replies to your earlier comments. As has been pointed out
multiple times, ERUNT is fine for what it does, but it doesn't do the
same job.

Which is exactly why I run both.