Windows XP System Restore - How Reliable?

How reliable is Windows XP System Restore?

It is rare that I have used Windows XP System Restore. I used it the other day to clear up a problem created by a minor software installation.

Everything seemed fine until I performed a routine manual malware signature update of SuperAntiSpyware Free (Latest Version). The update process said that the signatures were up-to-date but the date of the signatures was several days old. I made several attempts with the updates but with the same results. To clear up the problem I uninstalled/Restarted PC/re-installed SuperAntiSpyware Free. Now the update process is working properly.

In my opinion a proper system restore should not have affected SAS Free at all.

Thanks in Advance.

 

I've never found it all that reliable myself, in fact I keep it turned off on the off-chance I somehow manage to get infected with a rough malware so it doesn't attach itself to a restore point.

 

...... Well, I have System Restore turned off.

The following links shows how to use ERUNT, and the last links show the merits (or not) of using Erunt instead of System Restore.

Installing & Using ERUNT > http://www.silentrunners.org/sr_eruntuse.html#12

Using ERDNT > http://www.silentrunners.org/sr_erdntuse.html

About System Restore > http://www.pcug.org.au/16bits(catalogue)/16b2006/PCUG16b200603/system_restore.htm

 

system restore has never worked properly for me. it just restores certain files and then programs dont seem to work after.
I always disable system restore and using an imaging program these days.

 

Have to agree with the general sentiment about Sys Restore. Find it to be unreliable, may break things and a waste of space.

I disable it as well and use an image back-up.

 

I disagree.

I found it works fine.

 

Sys restore has saved my 'bacon' a few times. I Always do a restore point before installing software just in case.

Gordon

 

I agree with Joey & Gordon. It's free, & if it does not give the correct outcome. I can still restore from my imaging app.

Rico

 

Quote. To consider also the possibility that a malware infects it, as dw426 says, keeping the infection in the system after his removal in the other parts, and the useless employ of memory resources and of space in the HD. System Restore is one of the first Services that I disable when I install XP.

 

XP System Restore on my pc is disabled i preffer rollback rx or eaz fix

 

Having 'System Restore' on IMO is a function of users computer knowledge. The more knowledge one has, System Restore is less likely to be used or relied upon. Most of the folks, in my computer club have zero to minuscule, knowledge regarding PC's. I teach them to get 'System Restore' icon on the
desktop, how & when to use it. Granted' System Restore' doesn't always work, & was never meant to be a replacement for backing up.

Rico

 

I turn it off and rely on my imaging app. At best, System Restore may help. At worst, it hoses things up. Thus the reason I don't even bother with it. I want something that I can rely on...

 

I use "returnil" as my system restore it works everytime. The built-in windows system restore is worthless unless you do a "restore point" just before you encounter a problem, and even them it doesn't fix everything. I seriously doubt it can fix a virus/malware problem.

Worst case scenario I use my imaging software to restore my computer. I do a weekly backup and that is good enough for me. But "returnil" always restores me on a simple reboot.

 

Its not meant to "fix everything" . Just restores some files .
Don't blame it because you don't know how its meant to work !

 

System Restore has its place. You just have to understand its capabilities and the circumstances under which it can work and those which it can't. Many of you who think it's garbage probably haven't used it since pre-SP1 when it was next to worthless. I've used it dozens of times over the years and it's performed like a champ.

My system repair options in terms of preference:

Manual repair->ERDNT restore->System Restore->disk image restore

To me, a disk image restore is a last resort. A bad image and you lose it all.

 

I completely agree with you after SP 2, I never had a problem with System Restore. I have used it several times mostly when I had a power outage and didn't get to shut down my system properly. Sometime it can corrupt software, but that is an easy fix, just uninstall and re-install. Much better than not having a system that will boot. Of coarse your documents are not affected, so it won't restore corrupted documents or personal files that get deleted. But there are a hand full of programs that will and some are free.

It is a life savior when you system fails to boot because of a driver error.
But it has limitations, TrueImage is what I use as a backup and restore program. I have it set to make a full system backup every two weeks.

Of coarse TrueImage is not for novice users, therefore they should have System Restore enabled and use it when necessary.

Thanks.

 

In my experience system restore can work, but it's often incompatable with security software. Even then, it may work as long as the security software hasn't been updated/changed from the state it was in when the last system restore point was created.

It can also break other applications sometimes.

 

For me - System Restore is very useful.

But, for make my Windows lighter, I delete every week all restore points without 2 last's, on System Volume Information folder.


PROROOTECT

 

Like Tarnak I have System Restore turned off.

I use ERUNT and ERDNT.

In Quick Launch I have a . bat shortcut to do a registry backup with ERUNT that I use when needed (e.g. before install a app.): "C:\Programs\ERUNT\AUTOBACK.EXE" "C:\WINDOWS\ERDNT\#Date#" sysreg curuser otherusers /noconfirmdelete /noprogresswindow /alwayscreate /days:3

 

From when XP was launched until now i've used system restore around the 40-50 times mark and out of that only 1 issue which i fixed without doing anything drastic like an OS reinstall.

That's pretty good odds, actually it's better luck than with Acronis TI which i paid money for.

So.. Can't complain. It won't perform miracles, but it's an option at least.

 

I completely agree with your post. I usually turn it off for normal computer use and turn it on before I install anything new. If the new application doesn't feel good, I usually uninstall it first and restore to the point of installation.

It goes without saying that it's not a panacea for all problems, and it cannot replace a reliable imaging problem should things really get out of control.

 

ERUNT is certainly useful, but it can't help if system files have been replaced/deleted/corrupted.

I run ERUNT as a scheduled task 3 times a day.

 

TheKid7,

I turned it off years ago. You know what I use.

 

Most unreliable things #1 Windows System Restore

Its OK for the first few times, but just try going to it after a few installations,and you'll find that quite mysteriously, ALL! your restore points are missing