System Restore, Is it really needed?

I use Rollback RX instead of System Restore, simply because it's capabilities exceeds those of SR. However, until recently, I relied on System Restore from the release time of 'ME' and on into my use of 'XP'. That SR was included as part of the OS was reason for praise of the OS, rather than the disdain I'm hearing from people here.

To tell the truth, I never used SR to try to put my system back the way it was several weeks or months before. I don't really think it would have worked all that well, and I know for a fact that I wouldn't appreciate the loss of all the data. In the same way, I seriously doubt that I'll ever use Rollback RX to put my computer back to the installation baseline. With either, it's a bigger loss than I'd be willing to suffer. I'd find another way to get it back up and running while saving as much data as possible.

Where SR excels is in the ability to restore a system to a recently designated state. I do a weekly cleaning of my system, and it includes some very extensive alterations. I'd create a restore point before starting, and then when I was finished I'd create another. If something messed up, I felt absolute confidence in the ability to restore.

It might be something wished for that Microsoft would produce a SR type feature of the OS that would match the capabilities of Rollback. However, I think it would be great too if Horizon DataSys would make their Rollback RX as compatible with the OS as Microsoft would demand of it if it was included as part of the OS. I have always defragged, and I wish to continue...... but I can't. I've got Rollback RX, and Rollback RX won't permit defraggers to do their job. It will defrag it's own stuff, but won't permit the defragging of the remainder of the disc. Rollback does a good job, but it's not fully compatible with the OS. That is something that would never happen if it was a part of the OS. To be a part of the system, it would have to work with the system. System Restore works with the system. Rollback doesn't.

Having a system restore feature is far better than having none. Having something better than a OS supplied system restore is even better, but not everyone can have that.

 

This is the benefit for all of us here at Wilders to learn things that go way beyond the MS provisions,but for the majority out there , their only way is to rely on SR which is at best IMHO a feeble security.

 

Hogwash. SR will remove all installation files (dll, ocx, exe, ini, cat, sys, msi and shortcuts) and completely replace the registry hives. If anything is left over it's likely irrelevant.

DiscWizard is ATI 10. If you only use the imaging part, you wasted your money.

That's when you use Last Known Good from the boot menu and then use System Restore. It would be nice if you could use SR from the recovery console but MS lacked the foresight to implement that feature. You can access the restore points using the latest O&O Bluecon or VCOM Recovery Commander, however.

More nonsense, which makes your last statement especially ironic. Restore points are stored in the System Volume Information folder which has restricted permissions but nothing is encrypted.

You're confusing the Recovery Console with Safe Mode. System restore will not work in Recovery Console.

Not true. They are completely unrelated.

It's obvious most of the people dissing SR have very little experience with it or have only used the flawed pre-SP1 version. I use it every now and then and it's a rare occasion where it fails. Images are fine and I use them too, but it means I have to wipe out all changes since my last image - good and bad, documents and programs. Not to mention that you're risking your entire partition on an image that could be corrupt. SR is faster and it works so I keep it on.

 

With one hard drive my preference would be for C: Operating system D: documents/data to avoid the main problem you raise. As drives are now so cheap all of my machines, with the exception of laptops, have one drive for OS+Programs and another for data. I would really not want to go back to having OS+Programs and data all on the same partition.

Risking a partition to an image that could be corrupt is possible but - have made and restored in excess of 1000 images without issue I think its unlikely plus if it did happen an image made the day before could be used.
Yes SR is faster but most of the time a reboot and DeepFreeze 6 or Returnil do the job for me in about 1 minute.

 

Its always "Because it works for me,then its good all out",dismissing the people who met with problems the same app.To have a more reliable scope on things is quantification i.e. the total number of users in relation to number of users met with problems.If you have compiled the numbers then there is a more definite opinion about the worth of something.

And about your last statement,i advise you something to learn about imaging in combo with an ISR solution.

 

Disk imaging software by definition make an entire image of your disk. Might as well use disk mirroring if that is your worry. Only problem is with mirroring is that data corruption and virus infection or other security issues are simply integrated within your data during the imaging process...

The idea of backing up to a separate external medium is superior. See Grandfather method. meaning you can later retrieve different version of data. This is useful when you screw up and you need to go back. Imaging can keep multiple copies of current hard disk images. Also consider disk size... 1 terabyte and growing.

No argument that there are better solutions than SR... as with most other free software...

While those two products are great for backup and actually validate my argument, they are not examples of disk imaging! Disk imaging or cloning is a technology used to create multiple copies of similar configuration for wide deployment in corporate settings... Sometimes used effectively to "Recover" a system quickly but never actually intended or recommended for data backup purposes...

On a side note: Both products mentioned above are useless when the Disk actually fails. Since due to the convenience they provide users mostly backup on the same disk on a separate partition. Believe me disks do fail, often irrecoverably. Validating the age old advice: Use the grandfather method on an external medium.... It works!

 

There has never been any questioning here on Wilders about imaging to an external medium,the pros are already explained here for a very,very long time in endless threads.

Using an app. for multiple purposes [imaging,cloning and backup]shows only the strenght of this stuff and rightly so a longtime user can make valid statements about the useablility.

Its wise to clean your system before imaging to make sure that after recovery you start with a clean slate.With SR also after cleaning you have always the option to make manually a restore point.So from this viewpoint there are no arguments against Imaging or in favor for SR.In both cases the system has to be clean in whichever backupstrategy it is used.

 

Perman, I've used it many times and I can say that's it's rare that I see any of the installed files left over and definitely no functioning files (registry is completely replaced). There may be a couple non-executable files but I'm not sure how they're relevant. I did a restore yesterday after trying Sana Safeconnect and everything was removed. If you have a specific example let me know and I will try it.

To quote Hunter S Thompson, "That wisdom cuts both ways". Are there any numbers proving the lack of worth of SR? A lot of people here claim to turn it off as soon as they install windows which gives me the impression that they haven't tried it in a while. System Restore was barely usable before SP1 and that reputation still holds in the eyes of many. I've used it with a high success rate on a number of systems now and I'll bet it would work fine on all but the most mangled of systems. Imaging and SR aren't mutually exclusive so I'd rather take a shot with SR before trying a complete image restore. The image will always be there whether it works or not.

 

Hi, Espresso: I agree with you that SR will remove most of relevant files, registry, but not completely. Those left over files are not critical, but are still part of original files, that is why I say they are relevant. I am using SR along with VCOM System suites' recovery commander for regular restore(in DF's thawed mode). Both suit my needs, although not completely effective. Thanks for your findings and posts. Somehow we have commonly shared views. Take care.

 

Most users don't "Back-up" their data or if they do they don't back it up frequently enough. Using your "logic", therefore, it could be claimed that a particular back up program was useless.

Certainly when a disk actually fails System Restore is useless. The Acronis images of my system drive and my data drive on the other hand may still be of use.

If data security is important why then store data on the same physical drive as the operating system ?

 

SR Points are if you think about a kinda imaging the system partition to the same partition,and in case your disk is trashed you will lose everything,thats why imaging app. come in handy,just throw in another disk and recover an image from an ext. location and your back in business. Its that simple !

It should been better if MS had placed the System Volume Information on a seperate partition ,in case you really smash the system recovery is more easely done i guess.

 

I stand corrected regarding this. (I did mention that I 'believe' it's possible.)
What can definitely be achieved using the recovery console (when even safe
mode doesn't work), is restoring the entire registry, provided one has the
little program ERUNT installed with it's backup folders in C:\Windows.
I have done this and it saved my bacon. That was before ATI days.

 

Personally I think this post really sums up the whole discussion in a detached and unemotional way, no campaigning for any solution over another, just plain simple and to the point.