DOES RETURNIL NEED LARGER PARTITIONS?

Back on topic assessment:

It seems to me that Returnil does in fact need bigger partitions (than the custom made small "browsing only partitions") especially if movies are downloaded (at 3 gigs and more per movie this could add up quite quickly).

As noted already hard drives are very inexpensive now and worth it in my view to accommodate Returnil and the protection from malware it provides.

 

Then a high capacity is needed beforehand since with downloading a hefty number of files with large file sizes inherently requires the user to have a big HD even without Returnil.

 

Hi bman412,
It depends on what you are saving and the total amount of space that content takes up. Referencing the example from cortez:

He will need at least 6 GB available to download and save his file. I would suggest that he have extra space for anything else he might be doing during the time it takes to download a file that large.

For most users, their current default HDD size should be just fine with adequate room for normal work even using a standard business machine HDD of 40 - 80 GB. As has been mentioned however, new systems and most who have already identified a need for greater storage have the capacity available.

I suggest that you experiment with your current setup to get a feel for whether it is adequate and then consider hardware upgrades if necessary. This is easier to monitor in the 2.01 series as it now includes a means to check available cache space through the tray icon (protection on > CNTRL > Double right click). It is a Beta so should be approached with the obvious precautions if you want to try it...

Mike

 

downloadable movies in the 3 gig size !??!

What are you downloading ?

regular AVI and MPEG files are 0,8 gig at most.

 

I don't download movies. When I buy them, I usually create my own DVD of the movie and keep the original untouched. All the rest of my movies are recorded from TV, which often require some editing. Paid movies on DVD = 8.5gb, not 4.7gb
3gb is nothing for a movie, one movie can be more than 11gb sometimes.
After editing movies, I usually have to delete between 10gb and 40gb in my system partition, which are intermediate files to get the final output-files, which I store on my data partition or burn directly on DVD's.
So movies have a large volume and it also depends on which quality you want.
Each movie (shrinked or not) I burn is always a full DVD of 4.3gb.

 

why not save the 3GB movie to the Virtual Partition?

 

I wonder in a multiboot environment if the space for the virtual partition will come from the partition where the most room is available?

In my case will this be the data partition (?):



Partitions E and C have OS's (both with returnil [E has the beta premium version]). Will the virtual partition work separately from each other (I imagine they would).

 

In a multiboot situation it is hard to say how returnil works. Everything from system restore points to the boot.ini file, and AV and image restore apps seem to have their hazards that are peculiar to returnil.

I hope that applications --present and future-- keep in mind that many windows users have to multi-boot for a myriad of legitimate reasons and construct their programs to address these possible problems.

VM solutions are not capable of mimicking their real life counterparts adequately and are only a small glimpse of the problems of a REAL MULTIBOOT environment.

If multi-booting is left out of the equation when developing applications it will be devastating to many users.

The future seems to be a multi-booting world for 21 century computer users ( regardless of VM and reboot-solution applications).

Multi-booting has to be taken seriously by computer engineers, no matter if they are from microsoft or from linux/unix based camps.

They seem blind to the problems of multi-booters and this will result in errors that will cost many much grief.

 

Hi cortez,

cortez asked:

The Virtual Partition through version 2.0 is limited to the System Partition. We upgraded 2.01 to support installing the VP on alternate partitions. The disk cache however is restricted to the System Partition which means you could have more than one cache on your system in a multi-boot setup.

In this case I suggest that it may be more efficient to restrict your use of disk caching on these setups to the OS that you use most often and presumably need to save content to disk with the greatest frequency and use memory caching for the other OS(s).

Hi Beto,
RVS can be used in a multi-boot environment just needing to install it within each supported OS separately. Also, you do not need additional licensing to do this as long as the OSs are on the same computer.

Can you please elaborate on this a bit more? Whether you are using RVS System Protection or the "shadow" or "freeze" features of other ISR solutions, the result (loss of changes at restart) is the same. As far as committing content to disk is concerned the effect (a file or folder is saved to the real HDD) is identical. The difference is that we take a protection centric approach to the concept by requiring that these same files and folders be saved on purpose rather than excluded from protection.

Mike

 

The problems I mentioned (setting restore points and changing the boot.ini file, or updating my AV) are returnil related only in so far as I do these things when the system is protected and thus erased upon reboot--this is my absentmindedness, so please disregard their mention.

As a whole returnil is very good with multi booting unlike many other applications (I am a multibooter by necessity).

I am happy to see that returnil allows for multi booting on the same computer: this should be the case for all apps in my opinion.

I shouldn't have included returnil in the same sentence with these other apps. The end of the school year has me wound up and sleepless-- thus the rant. Please disregard any stupidities in my post.