Registry Checker??

All very interesting and informative!! And thanks to all who replied.

But, nobody has said anything about file size system restore is reserving. Is there a reasonable file size? I mean does no one think that 16 gigabytes is excessive on 150gigbytes of drives? I think the default is 12%

 

PeteC

I can't get the link you posted to work. I get he message that page can't be displayed.

BB

 

Thank you.

It works now.

BB

 

Just a thought ... Microsoft's official position is that, absent app installations, system updates, etc. (which create their own restore checkpoints), System Restore creates a restore checkpoint every day that the computer is running, but 'taint so ... my computer sometimes goes for days without a checkpoint being created.

Best idea (for me, anyway) is, if you're going to do something that you have ANY doubts about, create your own checkpoint before doing it.

 

Mine has not made Restore Point for several days either.

Excellent idea. And I do the same.

I also made my own Reg Backups just before doing anything in 98SE.

I do not, never have and never will fully trust MS OS.

BillyBob

 

Rather than relying on the system restore, you might want to strongly consider spending $20 or so for a copy of Roxio's Goback. It will very simply give you everything back just the way it was. All files and settings on any drive you have protected.

I have it and rely on it. Completely turned off the M$ system restore feature. Now if I do something that trashes my system, I just reboot and when it gets to the "do you want to restore" piece, press the space bar.

I've used it maybe a half-dozen times since I got it (on 2K-pro originally I think) and the results have been perfect every time including a couple with XP-pro.

 

Thanks to all who posted. I have Go Back and had been using it before a bad crash, but the machine was so far down that Go Back couldn't author a recovery. However, after I got up and running, Go Back was able to restore two of the three drives. I was really thankful for that.

In the meantime, full backups in addition to Go Back seem to be the way to go. I have Drive Image 7 now and I will be backing up to DVD-RW, now doing it once a week. Takes 4 RW discs, and lots of time, but, after the last catastrophic crash about 6 weeks ago, I'm still working on getting back to where I was. I was fortunate in being able to recover personal stuff, lots of family pictures and video, .docs and etcetera. I can see the posibility of losing it all without a good backup system, executed faithfully.

This is really a great board, the best, and I'm happy I chipped in to keep it going. Anybody who uses this board should chip in now.

 

Martin,

I slipstreamed on a reproduced recovery disk several months ago. Arie provided very good instruction that can be followed without a problem.
________________________________________
If R/S is functioning properly, it automatically sets a restore point every time one boots (once daily). Prior to installing a patch, updates, etc. it will establish a point; reviewing the calendar will show the dates of installations and there should be a point just prior. The feature only back's up system files. Clearing all points doesn't make much sense to me. Prior point-system files do not change subsequently and everything should be status quo. However, a prior date may have a delayed worm or virus embedded only to show up later. I haven't had time to read everything on this thread, but that may be the rationale.
To quote:
"I find MS to very consistant about missing, incomplete or mis-leading info. Or that XP will not allow us to make mistakes. HAHAHA !!.

This BBS is a MUCH BETTER place to get much more ACCURATE info. "

Do you have any specific examples of that assertion?? However, that is an irrelvant comment as I am referring to third-party publications. Reference books provide an insight into the workings and the interfacing of the hardware and software components. So to co-mingle would be analogous to something before the fact vs. after the fact. Understanding vs. solution. Apples vs. oranges. All reference books I have read (except for a small troubleshooting section for elementary problems) don't provide solutions only insights. You are on your own at that point, and a discussion has merit. But it is better to have a perspective before discussing the problem. IMO.

"Missing" (same as incomplete), yes, I found that to be true. Reviewing several reference books in a book store yesterday, I found very little info regarding WFP. "Misleading" I can't specifically comment on one's interruptations but in a general sense it is subjective between the reader's knowledge, abilities and the publication. "Computer for Dummies" and up is the usual venue.

 

"I find MS to very consistant about missing, incomplete or mis-leading info. Or that XP will not allow us to make mistakes. HAHAHA !!.
Do you have any specific examples of that assertion??

For starters MS says that XP makes a Restore point every day.

Nothing could be further from the truth. My XP machine has yet to make one all by itself. Unless I shut RP down and restart it. Although it does make one when I install software.

I do not worry about that anyway. I always make my own when and if needed.

Back in Win98SE MS said that Windows backed up the Registry after every restart.

That is also a long way from being true.

MS also said the Scanregw at startup backs up only two files. That is also not true. It backs up four ( 4 ) files.

It also said that System.ini and Win.ini are not needed in 98. That is also not true.

I can't say too much about this being a problem with XP as I go to MS for help very little. If at all.

This BBS is a MUCH BETTER place to get much more ACCURATE info. "

That my Friend is a FACT that you can bank on. Because it comes from USERS with experience in how things DO WORK. Not how they are supposed to work.

The how it is supposed to work is supplied by MS. But how it does work comes from users.

I know 98 and XP users that ( believing MS ) stand firm on the fact that everything that XP wants to load at boot up is needed. That is also not true. And those same users are B****ing because XP slows them down at times so that it can do what it wants. Or they have to sit and wait for an Auto update to complete.

I suggest to one of them to come here for help. His reply was " I need to go somewhere where people know what they are talking about. " My answer to that is not printable.

I have read (except for a small troubleshooting section for elementary problems) don't provide solutions only insights.

I agree to that. But are far as solutions go the one for me may be entirely different that the one for you. And that may be because we have different Basic machines which contain different Hardware and/or Software.

And as far as mistakes go XP is no different than 98SE. If a program is installed imporperlt in XP it won't work any better than in SE.

If somebody ( such as me ) tries to install the wrong Video Drivers XP is no different than SE. It will either not allow me to restart or it will present me with all kinds of nasty messages that tell me that BillyBob pulled a NO-NO

As I mentioned in another post. I have not gained enough differences to really justify the $199 cost. XP is not behaving a bit better or doing any more than Win98SE did.

And as far as speed goes I could care LESS. All I want is for ( any version ) of Windows to boot up and do what I ask of it and give me no **** about doing it. If it takes a little more time to do this then so be it.

According to Bootvis XP boots in 29 seconds. But it still takes at least another 30 seconds to get everything fully loaded. With SE, in that amount of time I could be booted up and online here writing this reply.

BillyBob

 

I can only relate from my experience with the PC and their apps. Completely self-taught from reference material and hands on exposure. However, having some formal education in electronics/physics, etc and work with 3rd generation computers helped me jump a generation or two. But, I would guess most people require some formal training (books) whenever and before they become a first time user.

Should do vs. how do?! How does one learn how things work before understanding how they are supposed to work. Then one has to understand the attributes of the different components and compensate for variables in a configuration. You are putting your horse before your buggy.

MS states everything is needed (overstates) at startup
I haven't heard anyone express that idea, nor has MS advised such a configuration.

Mistakes installed with XP is no different than in 98SE. I believe there is a file overwrite protection in XP that should prevent a wrong file replacing the right file. That is one difference that comes to mind.

Installing wrong device drivers in XP is no different than SE. Who would suggest a difference? Goes against common sense. XP does have a facility to go back to the former driver if by error the wrong one was installed. That software would not be a system file but part of third-party installed component so S/R may not help. Uninstall and then do a S/R may give some relief.

Troubleshooting section of a reference book is H/W and S/W specific That is not true. One has to learn the different attributes of various configurations and this should enable one to distinquish the difference. Suggestions given involve several options and one has to use judgment.

Experience vs. education. I will give the edge to experience. But in my opinion some ed is needed before experience. BTW Arie's link referenced a MS article. The knowledge gained was read from a reference. So your comments somewhat ramble and are circuitously inaccurate ipso facto.

 

You have your PC and I have mine.

It is very clear that they may well not be handled at all the same.

Each Individuall has their own way of doing things.

It also appears that we also interpit or understand things differently.

But who cares as long as the PC does what we want it too ? Which it appears that yours do. And so do mine.

Maybe MS does not says it in so many words but USERS that I do know personaly think that way. You and I know better. I just can not convince said users otherwise.

And most of all you are totally missing my point and.or presonal felling. And that being.

" I do not find Windows XP Pro to be a darn bit better than Windows 98SE. " If I was to loose it today the only thing I would cry about is the ( as far as I am concerned ) WASTED $199.

The one thing that might be better ( if I used it ) and that is the ( as far as I can see but I have not looked too hard ) better Multi user support.

Got a bad storm coming. Lights flickering. Gotta shut down.

BB

 

There is no argument here. I'll tell you that my experience has been that my computer is the most unreliable piece of equipment I have ever owned. And, my lack of knowledge and impaitence is in some part responsible for that unreliability.

But, I refuse total responsibility. For example, I have had in the past 30 days a total system crash, caused by software conflict, motherboard failure, cause unknown, and just last night I had an 80 gig hdd failure. (it is less than 90 days old)

So, I have been forced to spend time, effort and money just to stay in place and not lose ground by backing up, backing up, backing up.

It seems to me that what I'm doing with this machine to avoid loss is like having a spare car in the garage because the one I normally drive fails me on a regular basis.

 

OUCH !! That has caused me a few problems a time or two.

After I learned to do ONE THING at a time and make sure it works before going on to the the next my problems have pretty much disapeared.

Speaking of 2nd cars.

As of 10:00 PM last evening my 2nd car was traded in for another one.

It was a HD with 98SE on it.

After one power plug and one ribbon cable change

It is now a HD with XP Pro on it.

And I am now getting booted up and online line in approx 2/3 the time.

But one thing that I will be asking for help on when I get XP in use again. And that is WHY I get so many hang ups/hesitations when online ? Even on this BBS. I do not get them here in 98 SE.

Both SE and XP are using the same (brand and version of Firewall and AV software.

But overall I consider XP Pro to be a complete waste of my money, my time and my disk space for something that does no more than for me than 98SE.

BillyBob

 

I agree with Martin's view that most busy people want and demand a user friendly system and that is the goal and trend of the computer industry.

BBob,
I will illustrate an example for what S/B vs. how it is...
We both know that thermodynamics cool the PC by convection with a fan and a heatsink to draw heat away from the processor by radiation.

Assume we don't know anything about cooling inside the chassis other than the processor should not get hot. But our experience with our PC shows it has been functioning very well with the processer warm to slightly hot. You conclude, if I understand, you would say you have learned by experience that processors must run hot and the vendors are lying .

How it should work: Intel runs a large batch of processors and does destructive tests of a random sample. It is determined the batch has a heat tolerance of 50*C to 80*C (my guess) and tolerances of each chip is evenly distributed and can be plotted as a bell curve. There will be a few chips sold at the low end and a few at the high end. The mean is 65*C and most chips fall into that category. Because there are chips sold that have only a tolerance 50*C, Intel will give the entire batch a heat rating of 50*C.

Obvioulsy our machine's processor is on the high end for heat tolerance, but in my opinion the temp should be brought down to what it should be as designated by the vendor. There is no lying to the consumer when told there is problem running a computer with a hot processor although our experience indicates a slightly hot functions properly, the vendors admonition to keep the temp within the designated range will at least extend the life of the product.

Several years ago on the former BBS we had a similar discussion. You made the statement you would bet there are wide variances in functionality among a manufacturer's output. As stated at that time I had for a few years, years ago, assembled, configured and did the final testing of mini computer systems according to the constomer's specs. The system would then go to quality control to verify system met the parameters and tolerances as specified. There was an assurance there was no wide variances of components and production. You was a pup then and still wet behind the ears.

 

If the trend is toward a more user friendly Computer then the GOAL is NOT being accomplished. At least to me it is not.

And as you well know that statement comes from ACTUAL usage of both.

To me XP is as user Friendly as mad dog.

Windows 98SE is BY FAR more user Friendly than Windows XP.

But at the same time the deffinition ( or interpatation ) of user friendly varys GREATLY

As to the CPU explaination etc. your time writing your last reply was wasted. I already know all of that.

But something you apparently failed to remember.

According to BIOS readings.

1--The CPU temp was fluctuating BADLY.
2--The -12 volt supply was doing the same and at the same rate.
3--The actuall CPU Temp or reading of same ) was incorrect somewhere.

And then
4--The CPU and heaksink were not even WARM to the touch. So Actuall temp should not have been a concern as the CPU was certainly not overheated. ( unless it was at sometime previously )

And I have since discovered near the MB PS plug and near one other jumper signs of heavyduty overheating/shorting out . ( heavy dis-colororation ).

So I take all of this to mean either a mis-jumpered MB or wrong PS for the MS.

And seing those discolorations I do not believe that MB is even worth messing with.

I believe we all agree that certain Motherboards require a certain PS. Something to do with PS4 maybe ?

Now if the techs that worked on the system had seen the fluctuating CPU temp and -12 volt supply I beleive they would have tried a different PS. Maybe. I do not know.

Until the PS died I was thinking of checking out RAM. ie. removing one stick, changing slots etc. But that is out of the question now.

I do not believe I ever said a CPU should run HOT. YES there is a limit.

But after bieng on for several hours I believe it should be at least WARM to the touch.

And while speaking of CPU temp. The CPU/Heatsink on this PC and considerably COOLER when running Win98 compared to XP pro.

With XP I had to run with the side cover off. With SE I do not. But the weather conditions here right now do NOT help at all. I am by far better off with the side(s) off.

Well, I promised somebody that I would take them to Red Lobster for lunch so I gotta go.

Later
BillyBob

 

But at the same time the deffinition ( or interpatation ) of user friendly varys GREATLY (a 98SE comparison).
That is ridiculous. Again you make something personal by comparing 98SE to other operating systems. History of the computer evolution defines its trend and a competitve market provides the initiative.

As to the CPU explaination etc. your time writing your last reply was wasted. I already know all of that..

I didn't say nor should there be an inference. My example was a hypothesis (meaning introducing the concept of not having knowledge...not something you already know)! to make a point. I provided an example, but I'm not obligated you understand! Again, the point was your personal experience does not always expose what should be inspite of a functioning system. You may want to take that to the bank.

Another point, to have a fundamental understanding of the theory and its application will give one a perspective to reach a logical conclusion to a problem. Just to have exposure what fixes a problem is nothing more than an exercise of memory. One needs a fundamental knowledge to the big picture to have perspective to solve the problem that creates a unique problem.
Obviously, it is clear by your repetitive responses what you know; it is what you don't know that is the issue. And I include myself, but I rely on other resources as it becomes available. I'll take that to the bank.