Windows restore does not work at all

[John]

I fix a restore point but when I try to restore from it I always get a
message '... cannot be restored to' ... followed by the restore point name.

John

 

[Stefan Patric]

I fix a restore point but when I try to restore from it I always get a
message '... cannot be restored to' ... followed by the restore point
name.

John

Turn off any anti-virus/malware programs, particularly if it's Norton's,
a known problem, before trying restore.


Stef

 

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

What anti-virus application or security suite is installed and is your
subscription current? What anti-spyware applications (other than Defender)?
What third-party firewall (if any)? Were any of these applications running
in the background when you installed ___?

Has a(another) Norton or McAfee application ever been installed on the
computer (e.g., a free-trial version that came preinstalled when you bought
it)?

 

[HeyBub]

I fix a restore point but when I try to restore from it I always get a
message '... cannot be restored to' ... followed by the restore point
name.

John

Delete all restore points. Then start over. Sometimes a bad restore point
file can bother all the rest.

 

[Bert Hyman]

In

I fix a restore point but when I try to restore from it I always get a
message '... cannot be restored to' ... followed by the restore point
name.

Have you tried to run the restore in safe mode?

 

[Bill in Co.]

Turn off system restore and forget about it.

Bad idea. It's a decent tool, and can come in handy, when used
judiciously, and costs you nothing.

Even if it worked well (and I see complaints CONSTANTLY),

Well, in point of fact, it works well in certain situations (especially if
you know what you're expecting, and not overdoing it).

it does not restore EVERYTHING. Microsoft (who know better than

The only thing that does is an image or clone backup. But sometimes you
don't want everything to be restored, hence the need for ERUNT, for example.

 

[John Hacker]

Bad idea. It's a decent tool, and can come in handy, when used
judiciously, and costs you nothing.

When did you last use judiciously this facility. the cost of having it on
is the extra DISK space it occupies and anti-rus programs needs extra time
to scan that folder.

I have switched it off completely and have I have not missed it yet.

..

 

[Bill in Co.]

When did you last use judiciously this facility. the cost of having it on
is the extra DISK space it occupies and anti-rus programs needs extra time
to scan that folder.

I have switched it off completely and have I have not missed it yet.

It was a couple of weeks ago when I was doing some tests.

More often, I fall back to my system image backup or use ERUNT, however, but
there have been some occasions when it has come in handy.

I like having all 3 tools in my tool belt (ERUNT, System Restore, and image
backup), and have used each as appropriate on various occasions.

And for MOST people, System Restore is their only fallback, since few have a
good backup system in place (image or clone), so for them, it can be a real
savior. So advising them to disable it is really bad advice.

The amount of disk space System Restore uses is not all that excessive
(typically about 60 MB per restore point), and setting aside just 1 or 2 GB
for a couple of weeks of restore points is prudent, I think, unless you
solely want to rely on image or clone backups (but for some software testing
purposes also, I have found System Restore and ERUNT really handy and quick,
to have at my fingertips).

 

[Twayne]

In

Turn off system restore and forget about it.

Even if it worked well (and I see complaints CONSTANTLY), it
does not restore EVERYTHING. Microsoft (who know better than
ANYONE, of course) has decided what is important to you and what
isn't. That's why apps like Acronis True Image were created.
Depending on what your drive make is, you MAY be able to get a
free version of Acronis from you drive manuf's website.

<sigh> if you bothered to READ, the XP System Restore does exactly what it
says it will do: It restores system files. It's useful, handy and a quick
way to get going again when something glitches, especially like a failed
install, malware, corruption, etc.. It is not for data backup and doesn't
claim to be. It's handy to have and even magnitudes faster than restoring
from an image or whatever other method you might use.
Especially if one doesn't have a backup that can backup the OS using
Shadow Copy etc., it shouldn't be turned off.
Almost all problems encountered with losing restore points from system
restore are the result of malware or user error or inattention to problems
that are spreading on the PC. And we all know those things can screw a lot
more than restore points.
In a way, MS DID decide what's good for you: They DID give you a fast way
to recover your registry settings, which is really all system restore points
consist of. There is only one reason to turn it off that I'm aware of, and
that would be if you were to run Norton's GoBack; the restore points become
moot at that point.

HTH,

Twayne

 

[thanatoid]

In thanatoid <[email protected]> typed:


<sigh> if you bothered to READ

Why should I read /anything/ about useless garbage?

the XP System Restore does
exactly what it says it will do: It restores system files.
It's useful, handy and a quick way to get going again when
something glitches, especially like a failed install,
malware, corruption, etc.. It is not for data backup and
doesn't claim to be.

How many people do you know who actually keep all their data on
other partitions? When C: goes to hell, and you restore the
"system files", from what I have read on the net you can lose
lots of data and often the machine won't even boot.

Of course, that's the user's fault in the first place, but one
of the big depts. in Redmond must be called "Making the Users
Dumb and Dumber Dept."

It's handy to have and even magnitudes
faster than restoring from an image or whatever other
method you might use.

You can get there fast or you can get there alive.

Especially if one doesn't have a backup that can backup
the OS using Shadow Copy etc., it shouldn't be turned off.

I SAID get Acronis or something like it. If you are unwilling to
change anything on your MS-made system (I personally know poor
clueless creatures who will NOT install a tiny utility let alone
an actual program (except MS Office of course) because they
think MS DO know what's best for them and everybody in the
world), sure, use Sys Restore.

Almost all problems encountered with losing restore
points from system
restore are the result of malware or user error or
inattention to problems that are spreading on the PC.

[What's with the indents?]

You think? Don't forget about stupidity. Which is where getting
malware also comes in, I suppose. If people thought a little no
one would get malware and if people who know nothing didn't mess
with th registry, Sys Restore would be unnecessary,. As it is,
it gives a false illusion of security.

And
we all know those things can screw a lot more than restore
points.

See misc. statements above.

In a way, MS DID decide what's good for you: They DID
give you a fast way
to recover your registry settings, which is really all
system restore points consist of.

That's pretty useless IMHO.

There is only one reason
to turn it off that I'm aware of, and that would be if you
were to run Norton's GoBack; the restore points become moot
at that point.

Well, if there's anything dumber than using MS "security" and
"backup" tools, it's using the current versions of Norton, which
were good 10-15 years ago, maybe. Symantec, like all other
companies living by scavenging "money and advertising are *less*
important than our software's quality and functionality"
companies'' ware (Corel comes to mind, while MS leaves the mind)
are extremely good at totally ****ing up the product.

HTH

Not really, but your effort is appreciated.