How do you restore an older version of the registry in XP?

boatman312 wrote in :

If you have a second drive, that's a good excuse to image your boot
drive periodically (when it's stable). That's why I keep the OS and
programs on a separate drive from the data files.


Absolutely... I even separate the OS and programs partitions, but the really
important bit is to image a good stable tested system. Half the reason for
people failing to grasp the power of this method, is probably not having
anything deeply trustworthy to restore...

Copying files was a cool exercise, I found, but if I am in the **** and need
to carry on workign with a borked system, it really helps to have a good
Ghost image, and to know that I can do Ctrl+Al+Del, boot to DOS, write Ghost
and press enter, and walk away to calm down, and come back within three
minutes to see a new install with ALL customisations and settings waiting
quietly for me, as if nothing had ever gone wrong. The only problem with this
method apart from the obvious need to adapt your secure image with any
significant new updates you come to trust, is that the security is so
extremely good that it's easy to get complacent, and forget to keep stuff up
to date, but I do that mostly by saving REG files to run at boot, and when I
have a few I know I want to keep, I restore the old image, merge those in
DOS, and remake the image. Such a small move, but it effectively installs
multiple newly trusted programs at once. By the time I do this, I usually
know if any program is worth it or not. And because I keep its reg and file
details, I'm never at the mercy of dodgy installers and uninstallers if I
want to get rid of it either. I find that most programs use the same basic
methods, so it never gets any harder, once we know how to look for stuff they
put in the system. (And this goes a LONG way to beating the usual malware
risks too, just by being familiar with what should be there...)

In message ,
writes:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 08:23:57 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Bill in Co
writes:
[]
Using ERUNT is closest to using "scanreg /restore" in Win9x, as it simply
restores the registry and its associated files.

System Restore does that and a bunch more, but often ERUNT is all you need.

Actually, ERUNT is pretty close to ERU in '9x - that's where its name
came from! ERU/ERD (emergency recovery utility/diskette [yes it
originally thought it could fit the result on a floppy, though that was
only just about true for a virgin '95 installation]) was something that
came with Windows 95 - well, it was on the CD, under misc/other (or
other/misc, I can never remember). It wasn't installed by default, and
in fact was very little mentioned. Basically, it backed up about a dozen
files, including the two that formed the registry, into a directory you
specified, along with a (runnable under DOS) small executable which, by
using an index file it also put there, would do the restoring when
required. It rescued me under '9x (it runs fine under '98, '98SE, and
I'm told Me) more than once. It's not mentioned in '98 - in fact I think
it's not even on the CD - I always thought because '98 featured the
first of the rolling backups (limited to something like five?) that
eventually became system restore under XP, and similar later, and they
didn't want to admit anything more robust might be needed. But I don't
have any proof of that.

In addition, SR only goes back a short time, ERUNT saves last until you
delete them.
[]
You just answered one of my questions. I was wondering what a person
would do who cant boot to Windows to run this ERUNT. Booting from dos
is simple (I always have a floppy drive available too). Of course if
the HD is formatted to NTFS, I guess I'd be screwed. This is one
reason I do not want a drive with NTFS. Unfortunately I'm stuck with
one with NTFS at the moment, but that will be changed when I can
figure out how without losing the installation of XP.

The thought I have, would be to put the NTFS drive as a secondary
(slave) drive on my Win2000 computer, boot to 2000, and run ERUNT.

I fear that would save the configuration of your Win2000 computer. ERUNT
saves the configuration (registry, mainly - not sure if it saves
anything else) of the currently-running system, along with a little
executable that when run copies the files back where they're needed.

Dont know if that would work or not, but I know Win2000 can read NTFS,
even though I have it on a Fat32 drive, and 2000 is pretty easy to
install and use. (I like it much better than XP, even though I still
like Win98 the most). It's getting to the point we all need at least
XP for a lot of stuff, even thought I keep trying to force Win2000 to
compensate.

IKWYM. And I'm finding XP is now where '98 was - works, lots of people
use it, Microsoft want to kill it, and lots of people know how to beat
it into submission. I fear '98 is where '95 and 3 was/were - just too
much software, and in particular hardware, won't run with it.

That ERUNT sounds simple enough when you explain it, but when I tried
to read their online manual, it quickly started to sound like Greek
(or a damn linux manual).

In which case don't read the manual, just run it (I can't remember if
you have to install it first). It will ask you where you want to store
the backup it creates, and which bits of the registry you want to
backup; I change the default location to d:\backups\ERU\20111104 (or I
would today - using the date, and [hangup from when I wanted to be sure
I could find it in DOS so I keep to 8.3 filemanes, adding .xyz - e. g.
20111104.001 - if I do more than one in a day, which is rare. Putting
the date backwards, i. e. yyyymmdd, makes them sort better] I select all
the bits of the registry it offers).

Thanks

Y'r wlcm.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"We're Americans - with a capital `A'! And do you know what that means? Do you?
It means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the
world." - Bill Murray

In message ,
writes:
[]
Here is another question.

Lets assume I have an installation of XP that will not boot.
All my important data is on that drive. (and it's NTFS)

Can a person plug that drive into another working XP (or Win2000, or
Vista) computer which can read NTFS, and retrieve the data (copy it to
the working drive). I'm not talking about fixing the OS, just copying
the data to save it. (Of course I know that the jumper on that drive
would have to be set to SLAVE).

(I have done this with Win9x drives, but never with any NT based
system).


A friend of mine had a Vista system, which got more and more flaky; we
eventually discovered its hard disc was failing. Fortunately he had a
couple of DVDs he'd made soon after getting the system (it told him to),
so when we bought a new HD, he was able to restore it to as-new
condition. We then laboriously read the data back from the failing
drive, so it is possible; we did it (the system was a laptop, so no
extra drive slot) by using an external drive case (available at any good
and some bad PC stores) that plugged into the USB socket. You can also
get a poor man's version which doesn't have the case, just a lead with a
USB plug on one end and a big plug (that must obviously contain some
electronics) at the other which plugs into the drive in question; most
such leads have a two-sided plug at the drive end, so they will mate
with either 3.5" (desktop) or 2.5" (netbook) drives. These days the big
plug usually has a socket for connecting a SATA lead too, which most
drives are moving to. I bought my such lead (dating from before SATA) -
which came with quite a respectable power supply, since most at least
3.5" drives will need that too - for five pounds at a computer fair.
This is the sort of thing:
http://www.ebuyer.com/130517-plexus-...aptor-plex-037
(I'm sure available in your part of the world if that isn't UK).

Anyway, we could read the failing drive (when it was in a working mood,
but that was the actual hardware failing, not the OS or file system) on
either his newly-restored Vista machine or my XP netbook, so it looks
like the answer to your question is yes. I _imagine_ the same answer
would apply to the situation you're describing of plugging directly into
another PC as a slave drive. (I find the lead above more convenient.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"We're Americans - with a capital `A'! And do you know what that means? Do you?
It means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the
world." - Bill Murray

On Fri, 04 Nov 2011 06:33:00 -0400, Nil
wrote:

On 04 Nov 2011, wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

You just answered one of my questions. I was wondering what a
person would do who cant boot to Windows to run this ERUNT.

ERUNT can be run from the Recovery Console, too.

I've never used a recovery console, so I find it hard to picture what
is there. My installed XP on my laptop did not include a Cd. I only
use the laptop when I'm on the road, for WIFI, so it's not too likely
to get corrupted. The only software I ever installed was Firefox and
Adobe Flash. If it ever fails, I'd either have to buy the Cds, or
maybe I'd just install Win2000 on it (but they clain XP is needed to
use the WIFI card).....

Booting from dos is simple (I always have a floppy drive available
too). Of course if the HD is formatted to NTFS, I guess I'd be
screwed. This is one reason I do not want a drive with NTFS.

The benefits of NTFS outweigh the liabilities, IMO.

I'll take your word for it, but I really dont see any benefit. To me
it's more trouble than it's worth, since I cant do a simple boot to
dos to fix stuff. From what I've been told, the benefits of NTFS are
to have files greater than 4gig in size. I have never had any file
even close to that big, and dont see where I ever will. I dont
download full length movies and stuff. WIFI is faster than my dialup
connection at home, but I still find were it takes 10 minutes or more
to download a 200 meg file. So a 4 gig file just wont happen.....
I was also told that FAT wastes a little more drive space than NTFS,
but is that small space savings worth having a system that I cant get
into if there is a OS failure? To me, it's not. I'd rather just
spend a few extra bucks for a larger HD.

The thought I have, would be to put the NTFS drive as a secondary
(slave) drive on my Win2000 computer, boot to 2000, and run ERUNT.
Dont know if that would work or not,

No, I don't believe that would work. The registry files would be
restored to the wrong location.

Ok, I sort of figured that.....

That ERUNT sounds simple enough when you explain it, but when I
tried to read their online manual, it quickly started to sound
like Greek (or a damn linux manual).

Try it again. It's pretty simple.

I'll probably just download it and play around with it on a spare
computer. Manuals are often more complicated than the software, or
for that matter a lot of other stuff too. Ever try putting a bicycle
together by reading the instructions??? Its pretty obvious where the
wheels and chain go....

-----

Here is another question.

Lets assume I have an installation of XP that will not boot.
All my important data is on that drive. (and it's NTFS)

Can a person plug that drive into another working XP (or Win2000, or
Vista) computer which can read NTFS, and retrieve the data (copy it to
the working drive). I'm not talking about fixing the OS, just copying
the data to save it. (Of course I know that the jumper on that drive
would have to be set to SLAVE).

(I have done this with Win9x drives, but never with any NT based
system).

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
:

In message ,
writes:
[]
Here is another question.

Lets assume I have an installation of XP that will not boot.
All my important data is on that drive. (and it's NTFS)

Can a person plug that drive into another working XP (or Win2000, or
Vista) computer which can read NTFS, and retrieve the data (copy it to
the working drive). I'm not talking about fixing the OS, just copying
the data to save it. (Of course I know that the jumper on that drive
would have to be set to SLAVE).

(I have done this with Win9x drives, but never with any NT based
system).


A friend of mine had a Vista system, which got more and more flaky; we
eventually discovered its hard disc was failing. Fortunately he had a
couple of DVDs he'd made soon after getting the system (it told him to),
so when we bought a new HD, he was able to restore it to as-new
condition. We then laboriously read the data back from the failing
drive, so it is possible; we did it (the system was a laptop, so no
extra drive slot) by using an external drive case (available at any good
and some bad PC stores) that plugged into the USB socket. You can also
get a poor man's version which doesn't have the case, just a lead with a
USB plug on one end and a big plug (that must obviously contain some
electronics) at the other which plugs into the drive in question; most
such leads have a two-sided plug at the drive end, so they will mate
with either 3.5" (desktop) or 2.5" (netbook) drives. These days the big
plug usually has a socket for connecting a SATA lead too, which most
drives are moving to. I bought my such lead (dating from before SATA) -
which came with quite a respectable power supply, since most at least
3.5" drives will need that too - for five pounds at a computer fair.
This is the sort of thing:
http://www.ebuyer.com/130517-plexus-...sfer-adapter-w
ith-power-adaptor-plex-037 (I'm sure available in your part of the world
if that isn't UK).

Anyway, we could read the failing drive (when it was in a working mood,
but that was the actual hardware failing, not the OS or file system) on
either his newly-restored Vista machine or my XP netbook, so it looks
like the answer to your question is yes. I _imagine_ the same answer
would apply to the situation you're describing of plugging directly into
another PC as a slave drive. (I find the lead above more convenient.)

Assuming the drive isn't failing, another partition on it, or even on another
disk (in which case even primary failure can be handled internally), can be
an alternative boot drive. Scorpius (from ExtIPL) is the neatest way, but
boot managers seem to be everywhere... I have an emergency network DOS
partition at the inner part of the primary disk in each machine here, just 30
MB in size. I very rarely need it because Ghost and other habits make the
kind of emergency I made it for so rare that it ended up being an exercise in
building a rescue partition and not a lot more even though it works ok. (Uses
Datalight's sockets for net, gets DHCP or uses static IP, runs FTP server,
etc).

One thing easily added to any DOS boot like that one is NTFS support, and
longname support. I can't remember exactly what I used to do it, but I did it
once just to know if I could, and it was definitely possible to write long-
named files to NTFS from a DOS session. I think the NTFS support might have
been a SysInternals thing (Mark Russinovich), and I think maybe called
NTFS4DOS. Possible DOSLFN for the longnames. Between all the things I mention
in this post, you can do a hell of a lot with a 30 MB partition.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message ,
writes:
On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 08:23:57 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Bill in Co
writes:
[]
Using ERUNT is closest to using "scanreg /restore" in Win9x, as it
simply
restores the registry and its associated files.

System Restore does that and a bunch more, but often ERUNT is all you
need.

Actually, ERUNT is pretty close to ERU in '9x - that's where its name
came from! ERU/ERD (emergency recovery utility/diskette [yes it
originally thought it could fit the result on a floppy, though that was
only just about true for a virgin '95 installation]) was something that
came with Windows 95 - well, it was on the CD, under misc/other (or
other/misc, I can never remember). It wasn't installed by default, and
in fact was very little mentioned. Basically, it backed up about a dozen
files, including the two that formed the registry, into a directory you
specified, along with a (runnable under DOS) small executable which, by
using an index file it also put there, would do the restoring when
required. It rescued me under '9x (it runs fine under '98, '98SE, and
I'm told Me) more than once. It's not mentioned in '98 - in fact I think
it's not even on the CD - I always thought because '98 featured the
first of the rolling backups (limited to something like five?) that
eventually became system restore under XP, and similar later, and they
didn't want to admit anything more robust might be needed. But I don't
have any proof of that.

In addition, SR only goes back a short time, ERUNT saves last until you
delete them.
[]
You just answered one of my questions. I was wondering what a person
would do who cant boot to Windows to run this ERUNT. Booting from dos
is simple (I always have a floppy drive available too). Of course if
the HD is formatted to NTFS, I guess I'd be screwed. This is one
reason I do not want a drive with NTFS. Unfortunately I'm stuck with
one with NTFS at the moment, but that will be changed when I can
figure out how without losing the installation of XP.

The thought I have, would be to put the NTFS drive as a secondary
(slave) drive on my Win2000 computer, boot to 2000, and run ERUNT.

I fear that would save the configuration of your Win2000 computer. ERUNT
saves the configuration (registry, mainly - not sure if it saves
anything else) of the currently-running system, along with a little
executable that when run copies the files back where they're needed.

Dont know if that would work or not, but I know Win2000 can read NTFS,
even though I have it on a Fat32 drive, and 2000 is pretty easy to
install and use. (I like it much better than XP, even though I still
like Win98 the most). It's getting to the point we all need at least
XP for a lot of stuff, even thought I keep trying to force Win2000 to
compensate.

IKWYM. And I'm finding XP is now where '98 was - works, lots of people
use it, Microsoft want to kill it, and lots of people know how to beat
it into submission. I fear '98 is where '95 and 3 was/were - just too
much software, and in particular hardware, won't run with it.

That, and the more routine blue screens and or lockups when you start doing
anything with it. And WinXP seems significantly more stable, at least over
here. But you do pay a price for that, in terms of DOS capabilities, and a
bit more bloated OS. :-)

That ERUNT sounds simple enough when you explain it, but when I tried
to read their online manual, it quickly started to sound like Greek
(or a damn linux manual).

In which case don't read the manual, just run it (I can't remember if
you have to install it first). It will ask you where you want to store
the backup it creates, and which bits of the registry you want to
backup; I change the default location to d:\backups\ERU\20111104 (or I
would today - using the date, and [hangup from when I wanted to be sure
I could find it in DOS so I keep to 8.3 filemanes, adding .xyz - e. g.
20111104.001 - if I do more than one in a day, which is rare. Putting
the date backwards, i. e. yyyymmdd, makes them sort better] I select all
the bits of the registry it offers).

Thanks

Y'r wlcm.

My ERUNT is set to automatically create 5 daily registry backups (similar to
Win98), but I can't recall now if it was set up that way by default, or I
configured its ini file.

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
:

I fear '98 is where '95 and 3 was/were - just too
much software, and in particular hardware, won't run with it.


As a lot of high end hardware, like studio sound interfaces that used to cost
a grand Sterling, perform almost as well as the best new stuff, and are
beyond the wildest dreams of George Martin when he mixed the Beatles, and are
built to last, have openly released driver code in many cases, and can be
frequently found on eBay for about FIFTY QUID, this particular issue doesn't
bother me at all. Not only are these awesome older devices sorely
underestimated and rejected, a lot of tham won't run on WXP. This is clearly
not their fault, and if it makes peopel reject them for a pittance, it just
makes me that much happier.

People in S.E.D and other electronics discussion groups and forums are saying
there has NEVER been a better time to buy used test gear either. Stuff that
used to cost 50 grand going at prices a novice can afford. Stuff built so
well that it will work longer than most people will live if cared for.

As to software, W98 had a great run, I bet more software was written for that
than any other OS before or since. The idea that there isn't enough software
that runs on W98 is odd, code doesn't die. I think the question is whether we
choose to reject it or not.

Got to love that this thread is going out to WXP-land too, no?

On 11/4/2011 4:34 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message ,

A friend of mine had a Vista system, which got more and more flaky; we
eventually discovered its hard disc was failing. Fortunately he had a
couple of DVDs he'd made soon after getting the system (it told him to),
so when we bought a new HD, he was able to restore it to as-new
condition. We then laboriously read the data back from the failing
drive, so it is possible; we did it (the system was a laptop, so no
extra drive slot) by using an external drive case (available at any good
and some bad PC stores) that plugged into the USB socket. You can also
get a poor man's version which doesn't have the case, just a lead with a
USB plug on one end and a big plug (that must obviously contain some
electronics) at the other which plugs into the drive in question; most
such leads have a two-sided plug at the drive end, so they will mate
with either 3.5" (desktop) or 2.5" (netbook) drives. These days the big
plug usually has a socket for connecting a SATA lead too, which most
drives are moving to. I bought my such lead (dating from before SATA) -
which came with quite a respectable power supply, since most at least
3.5" drives will need that too - for five pounds at a computer fair.
This is the sort of thing:
http://www.ebuyer.com/130517-plexus-...aptor-plex-037

If things haven't progressed too far, sometimes it helps to put the
failing drive in the freezer, then quickly attach it to the USB adapter
for reading while it's still cold. Worked for me a couple of
(desperate) times.

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
:

I fear '98 is where '95 and 3 was/were - just too
much software, and in particular hardware, won't run with it.


As a lot of high end hardware, like studio sound interfaces that used to
cost
a grand Sterling, perform almost as well as the best new stuff, and are
beyond the wildest dreams of George Martin when he mixed the Beatles, and
are built to last, have openly released driver code in many cases, and can
be
frequently found on eBay for about FIFTY QUID, this particular issue
doesn't
bother me at all. Not only are these awesome older devices sorely
underestimated and rejected, a lot of tham won't run on WXP. This is
clearly
not their fault, and if it makes peopel reject them for a pittance, it
just
makes me that much happier.

People in S.E.D and other electronics discussion groups and forums are
saying
there has NEVER been a better time to buy used test gear either. Stuff
that
used to cost 50 grand going at prices a novice can afford. Stuff built so
well that it will work longer than most people will live if cared for.

As to software, W98 had a great run, I bet more software was written for
that
than any other OS before or since. The idea that there isn't enough
software
that runs on W98 is odd, code doesn't die. I think the question is whether
we
choose to reject it or not.

I don't think there is enough really good audio and video editing software
out there for W98. Heck, even something as old as Adobe Audition 1.5
(which replaced CoolEditPro, but added FSE (frequency space editing) - a
must for restorers - won't even install on W98. And with SoundForge,
you're stuck at version 6.

And as far as video editing goes, is there anything good and reliable (and
fully capable) that will run on W98? (VirtualDub does not qualify :-)

Got to love that this thread is going out to WXP-land too, no?

Indeed. :-)

In message , Bob CP
writes:
[]
If things haven't progressed too far, sometimes it helps to put the
failing drive in the freezer, then quickly attach it to the USB adapter
for reading while it's still cold. Worked for me a couple of
(desperate) times.

Yes, I've heard of that one. There's a document called something like
100 ways to rescue a failing hard drive out there, and it seems to be
thoughtfully written - certainly includes the freezer one.

(I've just thought - given suitable physical arrangement of freezer
compartment and laptop, it might be possible to actually use it _in_ the
freezer, with the cable going through the door seal [and the drive and
USB adapter inside a bag]. Probably the heat it generates itself while
operating would still raise the temp., but if the fault is something
that cooling helps, might give you longer. But I think you'd need to be
pretty desperate!)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"We're Americans - with a capital `A'! And do you know what that means? Do you?
It means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the
world." - Bill Murray