XP restore function

  • Thread starter Thread starter bobster
  • Start date Start date
B

bobster

I have been reading up on ERUNT as a substitute for the XP "restore"
function. It sounds like it is a more complete and reliable function than
"restore".

Opinions?
 
bobster said:
I have been reading up on ERUNT as a substitute for the XP "restore"
function. It sounds like it is a more complete and reliable
function than "restore".
Click to expand...

Do you mean "System Restore"?

ERUNT backs up your Registry.
Windows XP System Restore does that and more.

What is it you are actually attempting to do?
 
I have been reading up on ERUNT as a substitute for the XP "restore"
function. It sounds like it is a more complete and reliable function than
"restore".
Click to expand...


No, it's not a substitute. They do not do the same things. ERUNT *is*
very good, and I recommend using it. But that doesn't mean that if you
use it, you should discontinue using System Restore.
 
Yes Stanley, I meant "System Restore"

What am I attempting to do? Well, I want to be able to reliably recover
from externally caused or self-inflicted screw-ups to my computer. I have
done this many times with XP "system Restore", and previously in 98SE with
the scanreg /restore.

My interest was in knowing if ERUNT offered a more competent/reliable source
of accomplishing this than "System Restore". In retrospect, I should have
Googled "ERUNT" Vs "System Restore" as was suggested by PA Bear. I
subsequently have done that and got the answers I was seeking, i.e. both
work, with ERUNT being potentially more reliable.


bobster said:
I have been reading up on ERUNT as a substitute for the XP "restore"
function. It sounds like it is a more complete and reliable
function than "restore".
Click to expand...

Do you mean "System Restore"?

ERUNT backs up your Registry.
Windows XP System Restore does that and more.

What is it you are actually attempting to do?
 
bobster said:
I have been reading up on ERUNT as a substitute for the XP "restore"
function. It sounds like it is a more complete and reliable
function than "restore".
Click to expand...

Shenan said:
Do you mean "System Restore"?

ERUNT backs up your Registry.
Windows XP System Restore does that and more.

What is it you are actually attempting to do?
Click to expand...

<responses inline>
Yes Stanley, I meant "System Restore"
Click to expand...

Why do people respond to me using my last name as if it was my first? You'd
figure the signature would make that clear.
What am I attempting to do? Well, I want to be able to reliably
recover from externally caused or self-inflicted screw-ups to my
computer. I have done this many times with XP "system Restore",
and previously in 98SE with the scanreg /restore.
Click to expand...

Look into proper backups, third party imaging applications, etc. They'll
give you much better options of restoring your system to the true 'before
screw-up state' than System Restore or ERUNT. (Don't get me wrong - ERUNT
is fantastic and System Restore is great when it works properly.)
My interest was in knowing if ERUNT offered a more
competent/reliable source of accomplishing this than "System
Restore". In retrospect, I should have Googled "ERUNT" Vs "System
Restore" as was suggested by PA Bear. I subsequently have done
that and got the answers I was seeking, i.e. both work, with ERUNT
being potentially more reliable.
Click to expand...

More reliable for REGISTRY backups... Likely. More reliable for what you
state you are trying to do (recover from your own screw-ups to your
computer) - not really. Better to look into something a little more
complete. Again - partition and drive imaging might be what you need.
 
Ken,
From my readings it sounds like ERUNT is a good tool to use if one wants to
make temporary changes to the registry and then return to the previous
registry configuration, but that "System Restore" is a better tool for
recovery from system/files screw-ups. Sounds like using both would be wise
assuming they do not interfere with each other.


I have been reading up on ERUNT as a substitute for the XP "restore"
function. It sounds like it is a more complete and reliable function than
"restore".
Click to expand...


No, it's not a substitute. They do not do the same things. ERUNT *is*
very good, and I recommend using it. But that doesn't mean that if you
use it, you should discontinue using System Restore.
 
Shenan Stanley

Sorry about the surname/given name confusion. I'm a bit lesdyxic, myself,
and just finished watching a funny video in which John Cleese introduced
Robin Williams as William Robins ;-). Thanks again for the comments and
suggestions


bobster said:
I have been reading up on ERUNT as a substitute for the XP "restore"
function. It sounds like it is a more complete and reliable
function than "restore".
Click to expand...

Shenan said:
Do you mean "System Restore"?

ERUNT backs up your Registry.
Windows XP System Restore does that and more.

What is it you are actually attempting to do?
Click to expand...

<responses inline>
Yes Stanley, I meant "System Restore"
Click to expand...

Why do people respond to me using my last name as if it was my first? You'd
figure the signature would make that clear.
What am I attempting to do? Well, I want to be able to reliably
recover from externally caused or self-inflicted screw-ups to my
computer. I have done this many times with XP "system Restore",
and previously in 98SE with the scanreg /restore.
Click to expand...

Look into proper backups, third party imaging applications, etc. They'll
give you much better options of restoring your system to the true 'before
screw-up state' than System Restore or ERUNT. (Don't get me wrong - ERUNT
is fantastic and System Restore is great when it works properly.)
My interest was in knowing if ERUNT offered a more
competent/reliable source of accomplishing this than "System
Restore". In retrospect, I should have Googled "ERUNT" Vs "System
Restore" as was suggested by PA Bear. I subsequently have done
that and got the answers I was seeking, i.e. both work, with ERUNT
being potentially more reliable.
Click to expand...

More reliable for REGISTRY backups... Likely. More reliable for what you
state you are trying to do (recover from your own screw-ups to your
computer) - not really. Better to look into something a little more
complete. Again - partition and drive imaging might be what you need.
 
Ken,
From my readings it sounds like ERUNT is a good tool to use if one wants to
make temporary changes to the registry and then return to the previous
registry configuration,
Click to expand...


Although you can do that, it's also a good tool for going back to a
previous version of the registry in the event of a problem.

but that "System Restore" is a better tool for
recovery from system/files screw-ups.
Click to expand...


Yes, because it does more than backup the registry.

Sounds like using both would be wise
Click to expand...


Yes, that's what I do.

assuming they do not interfere with each other.
Click to expand...


No they don't. Not at all.
 
Although you can do that, it's also a good tool for going back to a
previous version of the registry in the event of a problem.




Yes, because it does more than backup the registry.




Yes, that's what I do.




No they don't. Not at all.
Click to expand...

I had a question in regards to this, Ken, since I use both on occasion, too:

If one uses ERUNT to restore a backup, I am assuming that System Restore
keeps full track of everything ERUNT does in its restoring, right?

IOW, even though the system registry files are restored to an earlier
version by ERUNT, System Restore is fully cognizant of all those changes
(and would be able to undo those changes too, later, if needbe). I ask
this question because afterall using ERUNT forces a system reboot, and I'm
just hoping System Restore is keeping full track of all its modifications,
too.
 
I had a question in regards to this, Ken, since I use both on occasion, too:

If one uses ERUNT to restore a backup, I am assuming that System Restore
keeps full track of everything ERUNT does in its restoring, right?
Click to expand...


I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, but as far as I know,
no, it doesn't do that.

IOW, even though the system registry files are restored to an earlier
version by ERUNT, System Restore is fully cognizant of all those changes
(and would be able to undo those changes too, later, if needbe).
Click to expand...


Well, it's not cognizant of what ERUNT did, but what it does is
restore to the version it's backed up. If you restore to a backup made
before ERUNT did something, then whatever ERUNT did will be lost.

If that's what you meant, then yes, I agree.
 
I'm not sure I understand what you're asking, but as far as I know,
no, it doesn't do that.




Well, it's not cognizant of what ERUNT did, but what it does is
restore to the version it's backed up. If you restore to a backup made
before ERUNT did something, then whatever ERUNT did will be lost.

If that's what you meant, then yes, I agree.
Click to expand...

But the way System Restore works (as I understand it) is that it needs to
keep track of ALL the system *CHANGES* made, and if you used an ERUNT
backup, ERUNT will of course put back some older system files, and System
Restore may not know of those "changes" later so that it can *reverse the
changes* ERUNT made. The key point here being that System Restore depends
on an accurate log of ALL system *changes*, and NOT just current snapshots
of the system. Let me further explain:

IOW, I'm operating under the assumption that System Restore does NOT simply
keep an independent snapshot of the system, but instead keeps one based on
all the *changes* that have been made, and relies on that being completely
accurate (i.e., that all CHANGES have been recorded, item by item). Not
that it is somehow able to look at the current system and figure out what
has changed since the last restore point (by doing a comparison right there
on the spot).

Maybe I'm overly confused. :-)
 
But the way System Restore works (as I understand it) is that it needs to
keep track of ALL the system *CHANGES* made, and if you used an ERUNT
backup, ERUNT will of course put back some older system files, and System
Restore may not know of those "changes" later so that it can *reverse the
changes* ERUNT made. The key point here being that System Restore depends
on an accurate log of ALL system *changes*, and NOT just current snapshots
of the system. Let me further explain:

IOW, I'm operating under the assumption that System Restore does NOT simply
keep an independent snapshot of the system, but instead keeps one based on
all the *changes* that have been made, and relies on that being completely
accurate (i.e., that all CHANGES have been recorded, item by item). Not
that it is somehow able to look at the current system and figure out what
has changed since the last restore point (by doing a comparison right there
on the spot).

Maybe I'm overly confused. :-)
Click to expand...


Well, I don't pretend to be an expert on System Restore, but your
understanding of how it works is different from mine.
 
Bill in Co. said:
But the way System Restore works (as I understand it) is that it needs to
keep track of ALL the system *CHANGES* made, and if you used an ERUNT
backup, ERUNT will of course put back some older system files, and System
Restore may not know of those "changes" later so that it can *reverse the
changes* ERUNT made. The key point here being that System Restore depends
on an accurate log of ALL system *changes*, and NOT just current snapshots
of the system.
Click to expand...

System Restore doesn't keep track of - OR use - logs. It makes
snapshots of the system at the time that restore points are made.
Let me further explain:

IOW, I'm operating under the assumption that System Restore does NOT simply
keep an independent snapshot of the system, but instead keeps one based on
all the *changes* that have been made, and relies on that being completely
accurate (i.e., that all CHANGES have been recorded, item by item). Not
that it is somehow able to look at the current system and figure out what
has changed since the last restore point (by doing a comparison right there
on the spot).
Click to expand...

Richie Hardwick
 
Well, I don't pretend to be an expert on System Restore, but your
understanding of how it works is different from mine.
Click to expand...

Well, if you look at the "System Volume Information" folder, you'll see lots
of date and time dated file entries added throughout the day, for each
System Volume Information RPxxx folder (like a bunch of ini, cfg, dll, exe,
inf, and other files, etc). So System Restore is logging these incremental
changes as you use your computer throughout the day. But maybe you seeing
something I missed in understanding this. I don't have it down pat by any
means, that's for sure. :-)

At one point in time (when I first started with XP) I was under the
impression that they were all standalone system restore points (which
sounded great), but I believe that is incorrect.
 
Richie said:
System Restore doesn't keep track of - OR use - logs. It makes
snapshots of the system at the time that restore points are made.


Richie Hardwick
Click to expand...

OK, maybe my use of the term "logs" is a bit incorrect here. I mean
logging the incremental file changes in the "System Volume Information"
folders (RPxxx) throughout the day.

In those System Volume Information folders you will find a whole bunch of
ini, exe, dll, inf, etc, files (and indeed, some "change.log" files), being
stored throughout the day. So System Restore IS keeping track of the
*changes*, as per my just recent response back to Ken.
 
Bill in Co. said:
OK, maybe my use of the term "logs" is a bit incorrect here. I mean
logging the incremental file changes in the "System Volume Information"
folders (RPxxx) throughout the day.

In those System Volume Information folders you will find a whole bunch of
ini, exe, dll, inf, etc, files (and indeed, some "change.log" files), being
stored throughout the day. So System Restore IS keeping track of the
*changes*, as per my just recent response back to Ken.
Click to expand...

Whether or not it is collecting that info - and that is NOT clear to
me - the ONLY fall back in case of a problem is a restore point
previous to the appearance of the problem. SO... it's
snapshot-to-snapshot, not snapshot-to-incremental.

For someone who like simplicity, you surely do have an uncanny ability
to complicate matters.

Richie Hardwick
 
Richie said:
Whether or not it is collecting that info - and that is NOT clear to
me -
Click to expand...

It's easy to tell, Richie. Go look at the System Volume Information folder
contents for yourself. (That's what I did and discovered there, firsthand,
via Windows Explorer, of course, once you can access it).
the ONLY fall back in case of a problem is a restore point
previous to the appearance of the problem. SO... it's
snapshot-to-snapshot, not snapshot-to-incremental.

For someone who like simplicity, you surely do have an uncanny ability
to complicate matters.
Click to expand...

Because I'm trying to resolve a somewhat complicated system problem now.
(I'm having some (seemingly) "out of the blue" svchost crashes while I'm
online, that's why. And using System Restore (to a point preceding all
this) didn't resolve it), so I'm trying to understand it and its limitations
a bit better (also in conjunction with ERUNT, which I've also been using).

The worst part about this is that whatever is causing this occasional crash
is tied into svchost. (at least I get that much out of the Dr. Watson file).
I mean, like lots of "help" that is, seeing is how svchost runs so many
services! :-)
 
Bill in Co. said:
It's easy to tell, Richie. Go look at the System Volume Information folder
contents for yourself. (That's what I did and discovered there, firsthand,
via Windows Explorer, of course, once you can access it).


Because I'm trying to resolve a somewhat complicated system problem now.
(I'm having some (seemingly) "out of the blue" svchost crashes while I'm
online, that's why. And using System Restore (to a point preceding all
this) didn't resolve it), so I'm trying to understand it and its limitations
a bit better (also in conjunction with ERUNT, which I've also been using).

The worst part about this is that whatever is causing this occasional crash
is tied into svchost. (at least I get that much out of the Dr. Watson file).
I mean, like lots of "help" that is, seeing is how svchost runs so many
services! :-)
Click to expand...

How do you know it's tied to svchost.exe? And by "when I'm online" do
you mean when you're accessing the Internet?

Richie Hardwick
 
Richie said:
How do you know it's tied to svchost.exe?
Click to expand...

Because I examined the drwatson log file, and found it in there. To quote
it:
Application exception occurred:
App: C:\WINDOWS\System32\svchost.exe (pid=1060)
When: 12/17/2008 @ 20:02:43.562
Exception number: c0000005 (access violation)
And by "when I'm online" do you mean when you're accessing the Internet?
Click to expand...

I'm on dialup, so yes, that's what I meant. I haven't had the problem yet
when I'm offline, but I'm often online, so it may not be 100% conclusive,
but I'd bet a beer on it. :-)

I forgot to mention that I even restored a previous complete C: partition
image backup (prior to having this problem), and THAT didn't resolve it!!
So I'm pretty much concluding this bug is due to some other issues (and not
my windows and programs installations).

But I'm also using AdMuncher, AdShield, CallWave, CacheSentryPro, for
example), and figure there may be something going on in there.
 
Back
Top