System Restore

[Bert Kinney]

Dang! I was hoping you'd have an easy explanation.

About all I can think of is that maybe it has to be connected during
the boot process. I'll give that a try, next time I remember.

Let me know what you find.

 

[Stan Brown]

Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:54:03 -0500 from Stan Brown

Dang! I was hoping you'd have an easy explanation.

About all I can think of is that maybe it has to be connected during
the boot process. I'll give that a try, next time I remember.

That _did_ make a difference. I connected the removable drive and
booted, then logged in as admin. System Restore Settings showed
removable drive Y as "monitored". I changed that to "Turned Off", and
the subdirectory under "Y:\System Volume Information" disappeared
(though the SVI folder itself stayed, as expected).

I distinctly remember turning off monitoring on drive Y before. Now
we have to decide whether the setting is non-sticky (Windows bug) or
my memory is faulty. Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen!

Even if the setting is non-sticky, it apparently does no harm if the
drive isn't actually connected during a restore.

 

[Bert Kinney]

That _did_ make a difference. I connected the removable drive and
booted, then logged in as admin. System Restore Settings showed
removable drive Y as "monitored". I changed that to "Turned Off", and
the subdirectory under "Y:\System Volume Information" disappeared
(though the SVI folder itself stayed, as expected).

I distinctly remember turning off monitoring on drive Y before. Now
we have to decide whether the setting is non-sticky (Windows bug) or
my memory is faulty. Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen!

Well, it seems setting a permanent drive letter to ward off monitoring
by SR is a crap shoot.

Even if the setting is non-sticky, it apparently does no harm if the
drive isn't actually connected during a restore.

This good news. ; - )

 

[Edward W. Thompson]

Edward

You said System Restore is useless.

"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."

This statement causes everything you subsequently say to be taken in the
context of Edward thinks System Restore is useless.

"I do not follow how what I posted suggests any obstacle with respect to
developing new programs. "

If a programme is under development ( it remains under development until
it
is perfected ) then issuing a programme that is not perfect will be
branded
by Edward as useless. The question then becomes how can a programme
be perfected if people like Edward brand it as useless. You are creating
the
obstacle. You give no credit for what System Restore has achieved for many
users of Windows XP.

"SR, the subject of this thread, is hardly a new program. It is
suprising to
me that MS has not taken steps to remedy its short-comings by now."

We agree on this point. However, you will find numerous examples where
the same point can be made throughout the software industry. Equally there
are other issues Microsoft need to address. Microsoft have their
priorities
and System Restore deficiencies has clearly not been one of them. Until
programme changes are made then users need to workaround these
deficiencies. The resource which Bert Kinney has created is a relatively
recent addition and he is very receptive to positive contributions which
can
benefit all users of Windows XP.

--

Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England

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

The thread is about SR that has a sole function of providing a means to
recover from corruption of files vital to the function of the OS. We are
not discussing other programs, do try to keep to the point.

Rising to the bait, any program or for that matter any device, software or
hardware, that does not perform its primary function (please note primary
function) is useless for its stated purpose.

SR is intended to backup files vital to the operation of the OS and to
restore those files in the event of corruption or loss. For the program to
be efficient it is required to be available on demand, if it isn't available
on demand it does not satisfy its mandate. In this thread we are not
discussing minor bugs that often occur in programs that prevent particular
features from performing, we are talking about major failures that prevents
the software from operating in any respect.

The particular problem with SR is it is intended to provide a means for the
use to recover from a circumstance that seriously impairs the efficient
operation of the OS. In short it is intended as a 'safety' system. Any
'safety system' needs to be asesssed quite differently to other systems. SR
does not satisfy the stringent requirements for this class of system as its
failure mode is not progressive or 'forgiving' but catastrophic that is it
either works or it doesn't, there is no half way. As a safety system it is
useless. This does not mean it should not be used but the USER needs to
implement other strategies to protect the OS in the event of a corruption of
essential files and not rely upon SR. This concept appears to be novel to
many but is valid nevertheless.