XP system restore - cannot restore, so now what?

"Bill in Co." wrote in message

> kineton1 wrote:
>> wrote in message
>>
>> I very rarely use the system restore feature, but of course it's a
>> godsend when I do.
>>
>> (snipped)
>>
>> If you have downloaded a program and then you wish to do a restore to a
>> point before you installed that program, someone told me that you must
>> uninstall the program before activating the restore procedure. Else you
>> will
>> get a "Cannot restore" message.
>> How true this is I cannot be sure .....
>> Paul
>
> I don't think that is true (or at least not always true) (but someone can
> correct me if I'm wrong). I say that, because I think I have done that
> successfully.
>
> IOW, if you have installed a program, and for some reason it created
> problems, and you forgot (or were unable to) uninstall it, I think you CAN
> use System Restore to roll back. It's not the preferred way of doing
> things, however.
If you installed a program, and did not uninstall it, then did a system
restore, the registry lines that support that program are gone.
You will still have the program files and folder, and may have some files in
the "system" folder, but the program will not run.
You have to then remove the files and folders manually.

wrote in message

> I very rarely use the system restore feature, but of course it's a
> godsend when I do.
>
> Last night, I inadvertantly cleaned up some desktop icons I didn't
> wish to, so I figured I'd just do a restore to that morning's restore
> point to put my desktop back the way it was.
>
> So the standard stuff happened, then upon restart, I got the message
> saying "Cannot restore. No changes have been made to your system"
>
> The only "cure" I'm aware of for this is to disable system restore,
> then re-enable it. Which is fine, but what if I really really really
> needed a restoration?
>
> Again, in this case, it's not a life or death thing; I was restoring
> for a cosmetic fix.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. What causes system restores to not work? In my case, I can be very
> sure it's not viruses or malware. I'm a safe computing person, and
> the system is regularly cleanly scanned for such threats. The only
> time I've ever seen this happen before was when I had a bad physical
> sector on the disk of an older computer.
>
> 2. Is there a way to use the system restore data I have to somehow
> "restore" my system, independent of the system restore utility?
>
> 3. Other than doing an occasional pointless "set a restore point, then
> immediately restore to that point," is there any way to ensure that my
> system restore capabilities are intact? Why doesn't XP warn that
> something is wrong with this capability?
>
> 4. Any trick other than the disable system restore, then re-enable it,
> that I can try to reinstitute system restore functionality?

Make sure any AV software is disabled before attempting system restore, if
you have Norton it's advisable to also remove the tick from 'turn on
protection for the Norton products.'

HTH,
Edna.

I didn't phrase the answer very clearly. What I meant was if he purged all
points and then either the daily timer or change detector created a "Single"
point then that would have a higher reliability than points that extend over
several days. Regardless a 1-day roll back is always going to have a higher
chance of success than if you try and take the machine back to a earlier
date because of the chained points dependency.

Sometimes I have the concept, but don't explain it very well.

"Bill in Co." wrote in message

> But at what point does System Restore NOT have to depend on previous
> restore points?
>
> It sounds like you're saying here that if he now creates a new one, it
> doesn't rely on the previous ones. But yet in other cases, it's
> incremental.
>
>
> R. McCarty wrote:
>> The way you describe it, the most recent Restore point would have
>> the highest reliability since it alone is required to roll-back the
>> system
>> state. To me the reliability decreases with each point ( or day ) back
>> in time you try to restore to.
>>
>> System Restore is more of a remedy for the "Oh Damn" type of
>> change where something is done and the change is immediately seen
>> as unwanted. I've seen SR move a system back by months, but it's
>> not something you'd want to depend on. System Imaging is a much
>> better approach to restoring a system to a previous setup.
>>
>> wrote in message
>>
>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 07:46:45 -0400, "R. McCarty"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It works much like an incremental backup. If you want to Restore
>>>> to Monday and it is Friday - all the interim points must be valid.
>>>> Once the chain is broken, no restores past the unusable point will
>>>> be possible.
>>>
>>> I'd not known this.
>>>
>>> If I *create* a restore point (versus the restore points XP
>>> automatically creates), will that created restore point be full (and
>>> thus usable pretty much no matter what), or will that also be
>>> incremental?
>
>

OK, so let's see if I understand this better now:

If, and *only if*, one purges all the previous restore points (as in turning
it off and then back on again), and then one creates a new restore point,
that is the ONLY time it will be a complete restore point which does not
depend on any previous ones.

(although actually that's not exactly true, because as soon as one turns
System Restore off and then back on again, a restore point will be created
right then - but you know what I mean)

OR, to put it another way: if someone has two or more restore points on
their system, they ARE always dependent on each other like a chain link
(right down to the earliest restore point), and if any of them were somehow
deleted, System Restore would be rendered useless.

I think that's the way it is, but I'm not positive.

R. McCarty wrote:
> I didn't phrase the answer very clearly. What I meant was if he purged all
> points and then either the daily timer or change detector created a
> "Single"
> point then that would have a higher reliability than points that extend
> over
> several days. Regardless a 1-day roll back is always going to have a
> higher
> chance of success than if you try and take the machine back to a earlier
> date because of the chained points dependency.
>
> Sometimes I have the concept, but don't explain it very well.
>
> "Bill in Co." wrote in message
>
>> But at what point does System Restore NOT have to depend on previous
>> restore points?
>>
>> It sounds like you're saying here that if he now creates a new one, it
>> doesn't rely on the previous ones. But yet in other cases, it's
>> incremental.
>>
>>
>> R. McCarty wrote:
>>> The way you describe it, the most recent Restore point would have
>>> the highest reliability since it alone is required to roll-back the
>>> system
>>> state. To me the reliability decreases with each point ( or day ) back
>>> in time you try to restore to.
>>>
>>> System Restore is more of a remedy for the "Oh Damn" type of
>>> change where something is done and the change is immediately seen
>>> as unwanted. I've seen SR move a system back by months, but it's
>>> not something you'd want to depend on. System Imaging is a much
>>> better approach to restoring a system to a previous setup.
>>>
>>> wrote in message
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 07:46:45 -0400, "R. McCarty"
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It works much like an incremental backup. If you want to Restore
>>>>> to Monday and it is Friday - all the interim points must be valid.
>>>>> Once the chain is broken, no restores past the unusable point will
>>>>> be possible.
>>>>
>>>> I'd not known this.
>>>>
>>>> If I *create* a restore point (versus the restore points XP
>>>> automatically creates), will that created restore point be full (and
>>>> thus usable pretty much no matter what), or will that also be
>>>> incremental?

Are you saying if I do a disk cleanup and elect to delete all restore points
except the latest that the latest restore point is rendered useless after
disk cleanup finishes???
"Bill in Co." wrote in message

> OK, so let's see if I understand this better now:
>
> If, and *only if*, one purges all the previous restore points (as in
> turning it off and then back on again), and then one creates a new restore
> point, that is the ONLY time it will be a complete restore point which
> does not depend on any previous ones.
>
> (although actually that's not exactly true, because as soon as one turns
> System Restore off and then back on again, a restore point will be created
> right then - but you know what I mean)
>
> OR, to put it another way: if someone has two or more restore points on
> their system, they ARE always dependent on each other like a chain link
> (right down to the earliest restore point), and if any of them were
> somehow deleted, System Restore would be rendered useless.
>
> I think that's the way it is, but I'm not positive.
>
> R. McCarty wrote:
>> I didn't phrase the answer very clearly. What I meant was if he purged
>> all
>> points and then either the daily timer or change detector created a
>> "Single"
>> point then that would have a higher reliability than points that extend
>> over
>> several days. Regardless a 1-day roll back is always going to have a
>> higher
>> chance of success than if you try and take the machine back to a earlier
>> date because of the chained points dependency.
>>
>> Sometimes I have the concept, but don't explain it very well.
>>
>> "Bill in Co." wrote in message
>>
>>> But at what point does System Restore NOT have to depend on previous
>>> restore points?
>>>
>>> It sounds like you're saying here that if he now creates a new one, it
>>> doesn't rely on the previous ones. But yet in other cases, it's
>>> incremental.
>>>
>>>
>>> R. McCarty wrote:
>>>> The way you describe it, the most recent Restore point would have
>>>> the highest reliability since it alone is required to roll-back the
>>>> system
>>>> state. To me the reliability decreases with each point ( or day ) back
>>>> in time you try to restore to.
>>>>
>>>> System Restore is more of a remedy for the "Oh Damn" type of
>>>> change where something is done and the change is immediately seen
>>>> as unwanted. I've seen SR move a system back by months, but it's
>>>> not something you'd want to depend on. System Imaging is a much
>>>> better approach to restoring a system to a previous setup.
>>>>
>>>> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 07:46:45 -0400, "R. McCarty"
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It works much like an incremental backup. If you want to Restore
>>>>>> to Monday and it is Friday - all the interim points must be valid.
>>>>>> Once the chain is broken, no restores past the unusable point will
>>>>>> be possible.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd not known this.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I *create* a restore point (versus the restore points XP
>>>>> automatically creates), will that created restore point be full (and
>>>>> thus usable pretty much no matter what), or will that also be
>>>>> incremental?
>
>

That would be my understanding.
(UNLESS you say turned System Restore off, and then back on again, which
starts afresh - but that is very different from what you're saying).

If you actually look at some of the restore files in the System Volume
Folder (in each RPnnn subdirectory), you will notice a bunch of ini (and
some other) files in addition to the registry files (like the SAM stuff,
etc, which are in the snapshot subfolder).

And the net folder content varies considerably in both size and number of
files, between the different RPnnn restore point subfolders.

Unknown wrote:
> Are you saying if I do a disk cleanup and elect to delete all restore
> points
> except the latest that the latest restore point is rendered useless after
> disk cleanup finishes???
>
> "Bill in Co." wrote in message
>
>> OK, so let's see if I understand this better now:
>>
>> If, and *only if*, one purges all the previous restore points (as in
>> turning it off and then back on again), and then one creates a new
>> restore
>> point, that is the ONLY time it will be a complete restore point which
>> does not depend on any previous ones.
>>
>> (although actually that's not exactly true, because as soon as one turns
>> System Restore off and then back on again, a restore point will be
>> created
>> right then - but you know what I mean)
>>
>> OR, to put it another way: if someone has two or more restore points on
>> their system, they ARE always dependent on each other like a chain link
>> (right down to the earliest restore point), and if any of them were
>> somehow deleted, System Restore would be rendered useless.
>>
>> I think that's the way it is, but I'm not positive.
>>
>> R. McCarty wrote:
>>> I didn't phrase the answer very clearly. What I meant was if he purged
>>> all
>>> points and then either the daily timer or change detector created a
>>> "Single"
>>> point then that would have a higher reliability than points that extend
>>> over
>>> several days. Regardless a 1-day roll back is always going to have a
>>> higher
>>> chance of success than if you try and take the machine back to a earlier
>>> date because of the chained points dependency.
>>>
>>> Sometimes I have the concept, but don't explain it very well.
>>>
>>> "Bill in Co." wrote in message
>>>
>>>> But at what point does System Restore NOT have to depend on previous
>>>> restore points?
>>>>
>>>> It sounds like you're saying here that if he now creates a new one, it
>>>> doesn't rely on the previous ones. But yet in other cases, it's
>>>> incremental.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> R. McCarty wrote:
>>>>> The way you describe it, the most recent Restore point would have
>>>>> the highest reliability since it alone is required to roll-back the
>>>>> system
>>>>> state. To me the reliability decreases with each point ( or day ) back
>>>>> in time you try to restore to.
>>>>>
>>>>> System Restore is more of a remedy for the "Oh Damn" type of
>>>>> change where something is done and the change is immediately seen
>>>>> as unwanted. I've seen SR move a system back by months, but it's
>>>>> not something you'd want to depend on. System Imaging is a much
>>>>> better approach to restoring a system to a previous setup.
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 07:46:45 -0400, "R. McCarty"
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It works much like an incremental backup. If you want to Restore
>>>>>>> to Monday and it is Friday - all the interim points must be valid.
>>>>>>> Once the chain is broken, no restores past the unusable point will
>>>>>>> be possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd not known this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I *create* a restore point (versus the restore points XP
>>>>>> automatically creates), will that created restore point be full (and
>>>>>> thus usable pretty much no matter what), or will that also be
>>>>>> incremental?