OneCare 2.0 BackUp File Exclusions??? RRS feed

  • General discussion


    I wanted to lend my voice to the fray over back up files types.  I must say I do understand the need to protect the masses of non-tech enabled users from themselves.  However, is it reasonable to exclude all tech enable people from backing up what they want???  It is a shame to be punished by Microsoft (of whom I am an avid supporter) for being tech savvy. 


    My issue is this.  I have over the years accuulated all kinds of install files for cool little programs that I have downloaded and use on a regular basis.  Imagine my disapointment when after upgading to vista 64bit I performed a restore with OneCare 2.0 only to find all my accumulated exe files for all kinds of benign add-on programs where all gone.  Major loss and a major bummer.


    I really like OneCare.  I think in every other aspect it dose a great job of leaving me alone and just doing it's thing.  In this one area I feel that Microsoft is making a mistake. 


    Is it possible to create the program in a way that can make both tech and non-tech people happy?  If you are worried about the non-techies shooting themselves in the foot by backing up a virus or something why not make the enableing of a wider variety of backup files types possible by a options menue switch that is buried in the program and not likely to be discovered by the non techies out there.  That way those that want to can use there skills to enable it and customise OneCare to thier liking.


    Come on Microsoft...you know you guys are techies at heart.  Have mercy on your techie buddies and give a little will ya???



    Saturday, September 29, 2007 2:37 AM

All replies

  • I totally agree. Just because we are more advanced users doesn't mean we should be left out in the cold. Unfortunately, according to OneCarebear and the dev team, if we are more advanced than a person that only knows how to turn on a computer, then Onecare isn't for us and we should move onto something else.


    I know Norton 360 has Onecare beat big time when it comes to giving users what they need. I like their backup method better anyway.

    Monday, October 1, 2007 6:53 PM
  • Hey Scortch2,


    I apperciate your enthuiasm for Norton 360, however, I have used Norton for years and have been very dissatisfied with them.  Under XP I used their suite of programs for prethection.  It made my coumputer (which was quite robust) start up slow as Norton ran through it's start up.  They did not at first support Vista.  In the end I found them to be a bit over the top when it came to protection.  For me, using a computer is not ALL about protection (whcih seems to be Nortons appraoch).  It is about the ease of doing what I want.  I want my protection software to leave me alone and do its thing so I can do mine, 


    In the end this is why I went thin Onecare.  I really like the ease of use of OneCare.  It leaves me alone and does a great job protecting me.  I love it's one stop, simple approach to computer protection.  I like that it handles it all, virus, firewall, back up.  These are the tings that end users need whether they know it or not.  OneCare does a good job of doing all three.   


    My one issue with OneCare 2.0 is the back up.  I have all kind of stuff in my "Download" file that I spent the time finding and donwloading (and at times paying for) that did not get back up.  I have lots of EXE files for everything from programs for my PDA, drivers for my motherboard (printers, Trackir, etc), and programs like PowerDVD and others.  I placed all of these in the Downloads folder so I can take them with me when ever I rebuild my PC, or have a problem.  OneCare's back up is so simple under 1.0 and allowed me to include this one folder.  I had all my downloads.  Under 2.0 (which I switched to for it's support to Vista 64BIt) I lost all my downloaded program EXE files. 


    Here is a suggestion.  It seems reasonalbe to me, and quite simple to COMPLETELY back up the user folders that Windows automatically creates for it's users (Documents, Pictures, Music, DOWNLOADS, Favorites, Links, ...you get the idea).  These are folders that Microsoft makes for users to put their stuff in.  How does the stuff get there?  The user has to put it there.  They have to do this whether they are Techies or simple folk.  It seems safe to assume that if the USER put it there they want it there.  Why not keep Onecare simple like it is now, but COMPLETELY back up ALL FILES in ALL "USER" foldres created under VISTA or XP.  That way non-tech people do not have to know anything about what their computer is doing and Tech people at least know that no matter what kind of files they put into their user folders it will be there when the restore.  It just makes sense to me.  To me this is enough of a compromise to keep some of use techies happy enough to use OneCare 2.0.

    Monday, October 1, 2007 8:46 PM
  • That's the whole point of all these discussions. Onecare doesn't do it's job well, nor does it do it for advanced users.


    It's fine that Onecare works for you and you like it's simplicity. Onecare however, isn't the program for advanced users that want more (according to OneCarebear and the dev team) and thus the only reason I mention Norton 360, as far as backup is concerned. I only mention it so that others know that Norton can provide them with what they need, since the dev team for OneCare doesn't seem to want to.


    I have used Norton and had no major issues. At least nothing more than any other program. The fact that they allow you to backup what you want, where you want to, just shows they are more concerned with the desires of the users and the friendliness of thier program.


    Your idea is a decent one. The only thing is, there is already a user folder where Microsoft feels you should put everything. It's called My documents folder. It would be a reasonable workaround if everything in the My documents folder was backed up, regardless of file extension but, I don't see it happening.



    Tuesday, October 2, 2007 4:34 AM
  • I agree with you Scortch2.  I would like to see OneCare get better rather than switch over.  My feeling is that if they gave the ability to back up this would be a great program for all users.  As far as I am concerned I have no other grips with it.  It does what it should do with out annoying me to death like some others.


    It seems to me the point of a forum like this is to help Microsoft make their product better...if they will listen.  If they will not then that is up to them and they lose a piece of the market.  That is their perogative.  A foolish marketing decision to alienate the techies?  It seems to me yes, becasue it is the techies that often recommend software to the non techies.  I cannot count the number of people I have recommended software to that go out and buy it based on nothing more than my suggestion.  If it is similar to other Tech enabled users I fear that Microsoft is underestimating that impact that puttig off the tech users of the world will have.  I hope they listen to reason.

    Wednesday, October 3, 2007 1:59 AM
  • While OneCareBear and I may have different opinions, I can assure you that all of the discussion here on the topic is brought to the attention of the OneCare Program Managers. We can only speculate on the reason for the change in the way backup works in 2.0 and provide feedback about the issue. I know that I raised this issue up as a concern at the start of the beta and have repeated my concern a number of times.

    You are correct that one of the purposes of this forum is to allow us to provide feedback to Microsoft, which is what these threads on the backup changes most certainly are doing.



    Wednesday, October 3, 2007 6:28 PM
  • So far, my beef has only been with the backup section of OneCare. It is however an important section to me and many of my customers. That's why I have concentrated on this area, as the other areas are pretty much cut and dry.


    My only other complaint so far, which is also pretty big, is the way the server has to be up before areas of OneCare will work. People need a working program 24/7 and need to be able to save their setting changes 24/7. That's a topic for another area though. Install problems and issues with having to constantly reinstall or wait for servers to come up before you can change settings or whatnot, are really a breaking deal for many. I know that is what beta is for but, these will continue into release if they continue being done the way they are done now.


    It's great to have a program that you can set and forget and it defaults to protecting people from themselves but, certain areas like the backup, people need to be in control of what they want to backup and not have some dev member sitting behind some desk somewhere that has no clue whatsoever of what the persons backup needs are, making decisions on those backups.


    Just put a blooming Advanced button on the backup section with a warning acknowledge box and then let them continue on to a more advanced selection section. Much like the warning you get when going into system folders for the first time.


    I do feel they have done a decent job in the other areas. It's just these 2 important areas that they are lacking and stubborn about.

    Wednesday, October 3, 2007 6:44 PM
  • I think that the server side issue for settings and circles is being addressed. The problems we faced a few weeks back likely taught them some lessons. (Now, if the MSDN forums people get some better monitoring in place to prevent the outage that appears to have lasted close to 8 hours here today where we couldn't post.....)



    Wednesday, October 3, 2007 7:24 PM
  •  Stephen Boots wrote:

    While OneCareBear and I may have different opinions, I can assure you that all of the discussion here on the topic is brought to the attention of the OneCare Program Managers. We can only speculate on the reason for the change in the way backup works in 2.0 and provide feedback about the issue. I know that I raised this issue up as a concern at the start of the beta and have repeated my concern a number of times.

    You are correct that one of the purposes of this forum is to allow us to provide feedback to Microsoft, which is what these threads on the backup changes most certainly are doing.



    I think the reasoning is quite clear from this entry in the FAQ:


    2.      Can I exclude folders from my backup?  Why can I not include folders in my backup?


    Folder inclusion has been dropped in lieu of a rules change in 2.0.  In 1.5 we allowed a user to include folders.  This would ensure that all files in this folder were backed up, even if they did not pass the file selection rules.  We felt this complexity was unwarranted so we made the following changes in the rules to ensure files that were unrecognized by our rules engine were not inadvertently skipped.  The summary of the rules are as follows:


    a.       We scan all folders looking for file matches to the selected file categories.  If the files match the select category, they are backed up.  If the file match system/application file category they are excluded.  If the files match neither category, they are included.  This means that we will backup all files that are know data types, exclude all files that are known system and application types and backup all file that are unknown to us.  This ensures that if a new data type appears, or you have created your own file extensions, the files will be backed up.

    b.      We do not scan the windows system folder.

    c.       We look for specific file types in the program files folders because some applications still store data in their program folder. (This is much less prevalent today, but we still check to ensure.)


    Folder exclusion is still supported.  The link is located at the bottom of the file category page.  If you select folder exclusion the selected folder will not be scanned and NO files from that folder will be backed up. 


    There are separate rules and folders for on-line backup and centralized or local backup.  The selections may differ between the two backup features.


    Since there have been rules changes, the volume of files backup will likely increase after moving to 2.0.  We feel that this is a positive step in ensuring that the important data you have is protected.


    The default is to backup all items in the User's profile folders that aren't considered 'System Files', which I assume means the executable file types that are now excluded from backup. The Exclusions dialog displays folders/files in a tree view, just as most have requested.


    The only thing you can't already do is select backup of System Files (executables), so any other complaint is simply inability to understand such a simple system. It took me 30 seconds to understand this after I spent 5 minutes looking through it. The only valid complaint I can see is that System (executable) files can't be backed up.


    If this ability were allowed, the most sensible method would be to add a 'System/Executable files' type to the list of checkboxes on the File Types to backup screen and default it to unchecked. There is absolutely no need for an Inclusion ability. since all other file types are included in the 'other' file type selection. It would, however, make things more clear if ALL files were displayed in the Exclusions dialog, with the excluded files indicated in some manner such as the standard 'grayed out' effect and/or checkboxes that can't be checked.


    The only question I actually have is why the System/Application file types were excluded, though I believe I've already guessed the reason as I mentioned elsewhere.


    I still believe that those who are arguing about the Inclusions haven't taken the time to actually try any of this themselves, since otherwise they'd be focused on the only real issue of the System File types exclusion.



    Thursday, October 4, 2007 4:26 AM
  • There is no reason to argue against the user having the power to backup what he darn well wants to backup. The user should have the ability to select what he wants backed up. It's his files and to remove this feature is irresponsible. They can try and justify it any way they want, it still doesn't make it right. Having rules only in the program for file selection with no way to add your own takes away the power from the user and that's the wrong thing to do.
    Thursday, October 4, 2007 1:25 PM
  • Why not give the user control over the file types exclusions list? It seems that if Microsoft would just give us control over the exclusions list for file types (like they did with the folder exclusions list) then I would be happy. They could even set the defaults to not backup system files (for the non-technical users) but still allow us the option to decide if we would like. Even a back-end workaround that we could use would be helpful. I have no problems with going into the system registry or some config files to edit the exclusions list. It just seems to me like hard-coding it is a bad decision that introduces too many limitations.  


    Thursday, December 6, 2007 5:14 AM
  • The easiest and most effective way to allow people to backup what they want is to add a "Add file" & "Add Folder" selection and that file or entire folder would be backed up, regardless of file type.


    Configurable exclusion list would complicate things and still not provide what is needed. If I did away with .exe as an exclusion, I would end up with a lot of programs I don't need being backed up. With a file/folder choice though, I could leave the exe as a normal exclusion but, the exclusions would be overridden when it baced up that file or folder.


    It's not going to happen though because the team isn't listening. They have made up their minds and all the debating it and trying to make them understand has just gone no where.


    In the meantime, Norton 360 allows you the choice and works great. It has categories and the ability to add files/folders. Bitdefender's Total security allows choice but, it's a tree form selection and you have to manually select everything you want backed up.

    Thursday, December 6, 2007 5:36 AM