Is this possibly because 4.2.1 isn't compatible with WinME?

"Bruce Chastain" wrote in message
news:39c6d4ed@hronntp01....
> Hi,
>
> I running BE 4.2.1 and just upgraded to Windows Me and am now getting
> several "file in use" errors associated with new Me features. Here's the
> log:
>
> Backup Job Started - 9/16/2000 12:06:22AM
> Active registry has been backed up.
> Error: C:\WINDOWS\wiaservc.log - busy or in use by another application,
it
> will be skipped.
> Error: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\CatRoot\SYSMAST.cbd - busy or in use by another
> application, it will be skipped.
> Error: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\CatRoot\SYSMAST.cbk - busy or in use by another
> application, it will be skipped.
> Error:
>
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\CatRoot\{F750E6C3-38EE-11D1-85E5-00C04FC295EE}\CATMAST.cbd
> - busy or in use by another application, it will be skipped.
> Error:
>
C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\CatRoot\{F750E6C3-38EE-11D1-85E5-00C04FC295EE}\CATMAST.cbk
> - busy or in use by another application, it will be skipped.
> Error: C:\_RESTORE\LOGS\vxdalt1.log - busy or in use by another
> application, it will be skipped.
> Error: C:\_RESTORE\LOGS\vxdsfp.log - busy or in use by another
application,
> it will be skipped.
> Processed File Count: 41,866
> Total Bytes Before Compression: 5,874,186,280
> Operation Completed - Yes
> Backup Job Ended - 9/16/2000 1:45:17AM
>
> Anyone know what these files are for and whether it's safe to not back
them
> up?
>
> Bruce.
>
>
>

"Fearless" wrote in message news:39c7c903$1@hronntp01....
> Is this possibly because 4.2.1 isn't compatible with WinME?

Do you know that or are you guessing?

Thanks,
Bruce.

"Bruce Chastain" wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I running BE 4.2.1 and just upgraded to Windows Me and am now getting
>several "file in use" errors associated with new Me features. Here's the
>log:
>
>Backup Job Started - 9/16/2000 12:06:22AM
> Active registry has been backed up.
> Error: C:\WINDOWS\wiaservc.log - busy or in use by another application, it
>will be skipped.

Windows Image Acquisition log file (scanner, digital camera), safe to
ignore.

> Error: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\CatRoot\SYSMAST.cbd - busy or in use by another
>application, it will be skipped.
> Error: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\CatRoot\SYSMAST.cbk - busy or in use by another
>application, it will be skipped.
> Error:
>C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\CatRoot\{F750E6C3-38EE-11D1-85E5-00C04FC295EE}\CATMAST.cbd
> - busy or in use by another application, it will be skipped.
> Error:
>C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM\CatRoot\{F750E6C3-38EE-11D1-85E5-00C04FC295EE}\CATMAST.cbk
> - busy or in use by another application, it will be skipped.
> Error: C:\_RESTORE\LOGS\vxdalt1.log - busy or in use by another
>application, it will be skipped.
> Error: C:\_RESTORE\LOGS\vxdsfp.log - busy or in use by another application,
>it will be skipped.

These are catalogs and monitoring log files for System File
Protection. Windows has these open and locked permanently. The logs
may be safe to ignore, but I'm not so sure about the CBD and CBK
files. The same errors occur with BED PRO 4.5 since none of the
desktop backup products can back up open files, so there's not much
you can do about it anyway.

_______________________________________________
Colin Sewell mailto:csewell@telus.net
Vancouver, BC

Let's put it this way. I don't *know* it, but BE 4.2.1 was released at
least 6 months before Windows ME saw the light of day, and ME was released 6
months after Windows 2K. Windows 2K required a major rewrite of BE 4.2.1
(it became BE 4.4.1). Version 4.5 is the first integrated version that is
advertised to work with Windows 95, 98, ME, NT, and 2000. The last ad I saw
for 4.2.1 said it was compatible with Windows 95, 98, and NT. It didn't say
it was compatible with the non-released ME and it did say it was
INcompatible with Windows 2000. Draw your own inferences.

Also, version 4.5 was released almost in tandem with the OEM release of
Windows ME. Since 4.2.1 worked just great with 95, 98, and NT, while 4.4.1
worked just fine with Win2000, the only rational reason one can come up with
for the timing of the 4.5 release is to add Win ME compatibility, n'est ce
pas?

With SFP in ME, I think it fair to state that BE 4.2.1 cannot ever be
completely compatible with ME. Your mileage, of course, may vary.


"Bruce Chastain" wrote in message
news:39c7fbcc$1@hronntp01....
> "Fearless" wrote in message news:39c7c903$1@hronntp01....
> > Is this possibly because 4.2.1 isn't compatible with WinME?
>
> Do you know that or are you guessing?
>
> Thanks,
> Bruce.
>
>
>

"Colin Sewell" wrote in message
news:634gss8qu4slt6tehf0jn5h0b64u5itg8p@4ax.com...
> These are catalogs and monitoring log files for System File
> Protection. Windows has these open and locked permanently. The logs
> may be safe to ignore, but I'm not so sure about the CBD and CBK
> files. The same errors occur with BED PRO 4.5 since none of the
> desktop backup products can back up open files, so there's not much
> you can do about it anyway.

Oh rats, that's disappointing. I was thinking about trying 4.5 to see if it
would help.

I'm not sure if you know, but IF any of these files are critical and can
never be backed up, wouldn't that kill any hope of a successful emergency
restore?

Thanks for the info,
Bruce.

"Fearless" wrote in message
news:39c8191b@hronntp01....
> With SFP in ME, I think it fair to state that BE 4.2.1 cannot ever be
> completely compatible with ME. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

Thanks, I see your logic. And from the sound of Colin's message, even 4.5
isn't completely compatible with Me, though may be better than 4.2.1.

Bruce.

"Bruce Chastain" wrote:

>"Colin Sewell" wrote in message
>news:634gss8qu4slt6tehf0jn5h0b64u5itg8p@4ax.com...
>> These are catalogs and monitoring log files for System File
>> Protection. Windows has these open and locked permanently. The logs
>> may be safe to ignore, but I'm not so sure about the CBD and CBK
>> files. The same errors occur with BED PRO 4.5 since none of the
>> desktop backup products can back up open files, so there's not much
>> you can do about it anyway.
>
>Oh rats, that's disappointing. I was thinking about trying 4.5 to see if it
>would help.
>
>I'm not sure if you know, but IF any of these files are critical and can
>never be backed up, wouldn't that kill any hope of a successful emergency
>restore?
---------
I'm not completely sure what the significance of skipping the CBD and
CBK files would be. Windows Me seems to keep a few more files opened
and locked while it's running than previous Windows versions. The
cookies and temporary internet files indexes were always locked after
IE 5 came along, but it's no big loss if those are skipped.

There are not too many backup programs that can back up open files and
provide emergency restore from DOS these days. I know that ArcSolo
(Cheyenne) Backup could, but it was a much more advanced backup
program than BE ever was. Too bad it's a dead product. Retrospect can
backup up most open files, but it has a confusing interface and
requires you to approach backup from a completely different mindset.
No true emergency restore. Novaback can, but it's butt ugly and they
make you purchase separate programs for each type of backup target.

The only backup that can give you a truly reliable emergency restore
is a partition imageing program like Drive Image, or Norton Ghost. I
believe Ghost supports a few tape drives too. Personally, I use Drive
Image and BED PRO. That might be overkill but my C: drive is only 2GB
used and only takes 15 minutes to image to an ORB. The BED PRO runs
at 3 AM while I sleep.
_______________________________________________
Colin Sewell mailto:csewell@telus.net
Vancouver, BC

"Colin Sewell" wrote in message
news:3lkgss8i2lock68h4jndbop7fbsruek3r2@4ax.com...
> I'm not completely sure what the significance of skipping the CBD and
> CBK files would be. Windows Me seems to keep a few more files opened
> and locked while it's running than previous Windows versions. The
> cookies and temporary internet files indexes were always locked after
> IE 5 came along, but it's no big loss if those are skipped.

Thanks. I appreciate the info and recommendations.

Bruce.

On Tue, 19 Sep 2000 23:12:51 -0700, Colin Sewell
wrote:

>"Bruce Chastain" wrote:
>
>>"Colin Sewell" wrote in message
>>news:634gss8qu4slt6tehf0jn5h0b64u5itg8p@4ax.com...
>>> These are catalogs and monitoring log files for System File
>>> Protection. Windows has these open and locked permanently. The logs
>>> may be safe to ignore, but I'm not so sure about the CBD and CBK
>>> files. The same errors occur with BED PRO 4.5 since none of the
>>> desktop backup products can back up open files, so there's not much
>>> you can do about it anyway.
>>
>>Oh rats, that's disappointing. I was thinking about trying 4.5 to see if it
>>would help.
>>
>>I'm not sure if you know, but IF any of these files are critical and can
>>never be backed up, wouldn't that kill any hope of a successful emergency
>>restore?

What ARE the consequences of not backing up and restoring those files?
How about making a copy (through a script ?) of those files and
backing up those files?

>---------
[snip]
>
>There are not too many backup programs that can back up open files and
>provide emergency restore from DOS these days. I know that ArcSolo
>(Cheyenne) Backup could, but it was a much more advanced backup
>program than BE ever was. Too bad it's a dead product. Retrospect can

Yeah, and it was a collasal PITA to use. I was using it until about 3
months ago, and I don't miss any of the advanced features, except
possibly the ability to queue up jobs. I liked the ability to set up
say 3-4 jobs (I have a 4 system LAN at home), and then let them run
all night, one after the other. I dislike that a BE job run through
the scheduler will fail if BE is already running, but not retry. Any
suggestions?

>backup up most open files, but it has a confusing interface and
>requires you to approach backup from a completely different mindset.
>No true emergency restore. Novaback can, but it's butt ugly and they

Yes, tried that also. Wouldn't use it if it was free!

>make you purchase separate programs for each type of backup target.
>

[snip]

Phl