Wow sorry. Using XP for so long that I forgot about my Vista/Seven experience. Yea, they got it built-in. What I read was that Win8 will probably come with a system reset feature, something similar to what Deep Freeze does. That's useful and better than the old system restore as well. But I guess all is determined by the needs.
Still handy at times in XP Pro ... extricated from a tricky situation recently, after trying to install Livescribe Desktop. Apparently it need .Net Framework.
Is not even in my system anymore, Windows XP had to do some serious dissecting of Windows along with a bunch of other bout-ware it comes with Someday I guess I will have to start on Windows 7 or just go to Linux
Have been using Paragon Backup and Recovery suite for a while now, but system restore will still be enabled anyway.(mainly because it don't bother me at all) .But every month before system defragmation SR points will be erased.
I turn it off always and use Acronis True Image 2010 on my old laptop with standard HDD but I'm going to try it on my new Laptop with 2 SSD's and hope for the best! I did a back up on my new Laptop with ATI 2010 without problems but time will tell if it works if I need to do a restore! I will update if I do! TH
You peops must be lacking if you need more than System Restore to keep your computers sweet. SR has always kept me safe and I can rely on it completely without an army of backups.
Most members do Not consider System Restore reliable enough... And if something goes wrong what will you do? Do you exclusively/solely rely on System Restore ? You do Not use the Windows Back Up either, do you?
I have it enabled, but I never use it. Maybe it could be used as a last resort if something goes very wrong, as I'm kinda lazy on backups. However, I have used it once on Windows XP and it didn't work at all. I guess I'm one of them who likes to keep things on for compability (as someone mentioned Windows Updates).
System Restore is not reliable for backup. It only backs up critical areas of your system, not the entire thing. On restore, it leaves behind junk. The restore points are corrupted more often than images. Frequently targeted by malware, which can easily disable it. Useless if system can't boot. Disk imaging backs up your entire system, and restores it to the exact same state as before. You can boot from cd, usb, or different part of hard drive to access it.
I have 5 computers. I used to do System Restore every Sunday morning. After this, for months, when I needed it, it usually failed to restore. OK, it's my fault....what did I do wrong?
What you did wrong is trusting it. Use a disk imaging program instead, and you'll experience far less problems.
I agree with J_L, jadinolf: using SR so many times just left a mountain of debris and corruption which your pc could not withstand anymore. I completely agree with those who do NOT use SR in Windows, in fact I always disabled it completely since XP days, as i do now with win7 Backup methods as well: why would one restore a partially corrupted image or backup an image taking three hours to be done? As SR is concerned the security side regarding virus,trojans etc.- which could align in copies- is also a very heavy argument against its use. Why settle for third best? Providing you got an ext.media for storage of images, there are a host of very good ,free and reliable programs to use.... In order of preference: Paragon Backup&Restore, Clonezilla (or Redo),Macrium etc. all free and reliable.