"Thinning out" restore points

[ChrisGreaves]

Curious, is all.

According to Microsoft, "You cannot delete an individual restore point, but you can either delete all restore points or all but the most recent restore point."

According to CCleaner, I can remove specific restore points:

Untitled.png

I'm curious: Why would one want to restrict restore-point clean up in the manner of Microsoft (apart from laziness, cheapness of coding, or failure to see what users see?)

I can see myself wanting to maintain specific major fail-safe points in my platform, but wanting to remove intermediate points which I created as a real just-in-case; valuable at the time, but indisgnificant after some minor tests had been performed.
That is I can see a reason for permitting thinning-out restore points, but except for development costs (or lack of vision) can't think of a System Reason for disallowing thinning out.

Obviously (CCleaner) it can be done without crashing the system.

[Rudi]

I found these threads in the Windows Club Forum.
Maybe they shed some light on your question?

-- http://forum.thewindowsclub.com/windows ... oints.html
-- http://forum.thewindowsclub.com/windows ... oints.html

[ChrisGreaves]

... Maybe they shed some light on your question? ...[/url]

Thanks Rudi; they did.
I now recall Hans saying something about chained restore points.
If restore points from the oldest A to the newest F in the sequence A, B, C, D, E, F really are chained it doesn't follow that deleting one will corrupt the chain; it may be that the restore isn't fully done.
I can see where a SRP might consist of a fixed portion and a set of variable portions. The fixed portion might include the Registry and some essential Windows stuff; the variable portion might be, for example, INI files or user data.
It's not the end of the world if a data setting is no longer available because I deleted "D" and "E"; the essential data will be in place regardless of which intervening SRPs I delete.

Some serious research is needed here.
Now which of us has nothing better to do than to create six restore points, delete 2 and restore from the latest

[viking33]

Chris wrote:
I'm curious: Why would one want to restrict restore-point clean up in the manner of Microsoft (apart from laziness, cheapness of coding, or failure to see what users see?)
---------------------------
Yes. All of the above.