All My Restore Points Are Useless

[Big Steel]

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:38:30 -0400, Big Steel wrote:


Ah - very enlightening response. In other words, you have no clue.

Idiot, you are the one talking bullshit that no one cares about. It
is what it is and if you don't like it -- tough. You can take Linux
and chew it.

 

[Bob I]

Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to why it's necessary to have all
these 'restore points' anyway. I'm not familiar with anything like that
for Linux, but then Linux systems seldom blow themselves out of the water
- this IS the 21st century.

Yep, 21st century and Linux STILL doesn't have enough users to warrant
a roll back scheme for unintended changes.

 

[ray]

Yep, 21st century and Linux STILL doesn't have enough users to warrant
a roll back scheme for unintended changes.

Guess you're right. I've been using it for 10 years and don't recall the
last time I experienced one.

 

[Big Steel]

On 03/18/2011 08:53 PM, ray wrote:

You and the idiot ray don't count for anything.

 

[Stan Brown]

I have heard that SP1 kills them.

Yes, but it deletes them. It doesn't leave non-functional restore
points around. Or so I've heard; I have yet to install SP1 myself.

 

[Stan Brown]

Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to why it's necessary to have
all these 'restore points' anyway. I'm not familiar with anything
like that for Linux, but then Linux systems seldom blow themselves
out of the water - this IS the 21st century.

System Restore is a way to undo a program installation or other
system change that causes problems. The program's own uninstaller
may not reverse the changes made to Windows shared libraries or your
start menu (though it should).

How many restore points are useful is an open question. I have never
had occasion to use any but the most recent -- but when I have, it's
been much less disruptive than the alternative of restoring my disk
from backup.

 

[Stan Brown]

Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to why it's necessary to have all
these 'restore points' anyway. I'm not familiar with anything like that
for Linux, but then Linux systems seldom blow themselves out of the water
- this IS the 21st century.

We heard you the first time.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Yes, but it deletes them. It doesn't leave non-functional restore
points around. Or so I've heard; I have yet to install SP1 myself.

You are describing what I experienced, and others have said the same.

 

[ray]

System Restore is a way to undo a program installation or other system
change that causes problems. The program's own uninstaller may not
reverse the changes made to Windows shared libraries or your start menu
(though it should).

How many restore points are useful is an open question. I have never
had occasion to use any but the most recent -- but when I have, it's
been much less disruptive than the alternative of restoring my disk from
backup.

Thanks for the explanation. It just seems odd to me that MS would realize
the need to have a facility for putting the OS back together again.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

Thanks for the explanation. It just seems odd to me that MS would realize
the need to have a facility for putting the OS back together again.

Well, then, use your imagination.

Here's an idea to start with: a bad software installation from a third
party can mess up a system.

 

[ray]

We heard you the first time.

Sorry about that - the mouse sometimes multiple clicks when I press the
button once - haven't gotten around to replacing it.

 

[ray]

Well, then, use your imagination.

Here's an idea to start with: a bad software installation from a third
party can mess up a system.

That requires more imagination that I evidently have. I've been involved
in the computer industry for over 30 years and been using Linux the last
ten - I don't recall seeing an issue like that.

 

[Gene E. Bloch]

That requires more imagination that I evidently have. I've been involved
in the computer industry for over 30 years and been using Linux the last
ten - I don't recall seeing an issue like that.

I guess you don't play around as much as I do

But the list doesn't stop there.

 

[Brian Gregory [UK]]

Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to why it's necessary to have all
these 'restore points' anyway. I'm not familiar with anything like that
for Linux, but then Linux systems seldom blow themselves out of the water
- this IS the 21st century.

Just in case.

And some people do a lot more experimentation with their system than others.

 

[Brian Gregory [UK]]

That requires more imagination that I evidently have. I've been involved
in the computer industry for over 30 years and been using Linux the last
ten - I don't recall seeing an issue like that.

You've clearly never been involved in testing alpha or beta versions of
drivers.

 

[ray]

You've clearly never been involved in testing alpha or beta versions of
drivers.

Correct. For 30 years the work I did was in a production environment.

 

[ray]

Just in case.

And some people do a lot more experimentation with their system than
others.

Acknowledged. I do quite a bit myself. But I've never been able to blow a
Linux system into an unstable state.

 

[chrisv]

Acknowledged. I do quite a bit myself. But I've never been able to blow a
Linux system into an unstable state.

I thought the thread was about a production environment, not a play thing.

 

[chrisv]

Acknowledged. I do quite a bit myself. But I've never been able to blow a
Linux system into an unstable state.

I thought the thread was about a production environment, not a play thing.

 

[Stan Brown]

Thanks for the explanation. It just seems odd to me that MS would realize
the need to have a facility for putting the OS back together again.

As soon as I posted my answer, I realized I'd been trolled. Shame on
me!