System Protection

[Gloria E]

I just checked the configuration of System Restore. Under System Protection for OS (C:) Link Space Usage:
Current Usage: 218.97 GB. Set Maximum Usage: 49% (221.03 GB).

My concern is, since current usage is so close to maximum usage, should Max. Usage be set higher or is that too much to allow for it's use?

Goria E

[HansV]

That should be plenty. Windows will automatically remove the oldest restore points in order to make room for new ones.

[Gloria E]

That should be plenty. Windows will automatically remove the oldest restore points in order to make room for new ones.

I think that's what was done this morning. It generally takes about 4 minutes before a restore point's created. This morning when I booted into Windows it took less than 2 minutes, I was surprised at the short wait time.

When a restore points being created does that mean that SR is copying files and data to be used if a restore point is selected? If not, what exactly is SR doing while creating a system restore point?

Gloria E

[HansV]

When system restore creates a restore point, it copies the following items:

- Windows system files
- Program files
- Registry settings

This enables you to restore Windows and programs to the state of the date/time the restore point was made.

It does *not* copy your documents, in other words a restore point is not a complete backup of your hard disk. You can't use system restore to recover deleted documents.

[Gloria E]

When system restore creates a restore point, it copies the following items:

- Windows system files
- Program files
- Registry settings

This enables you to restore Windows and programs to the state of the date/time the restore point was made.

It does *not* copy your documents, in other words a restore point is not a complete backup of your hard disk. You can't use system restore to recover deleted documents.

Thank you for that information, Hans. I learn something new every day when I visit this lounge. Now if could just remember all that I've learned from you and others, might make me a so-called Geek.

[Roderunner]

My personal experience with System Restore is, its as useful as a chocolate teapot. After a lot of trial and many errors, its now disabled. I use and trust Acronis T I H 2010 to keep me on the straight and narrow. I can make a system image in 8 minutes & restore if needed even faster.

[John Gray]

I would be worried about trusting a single program to enable me to do system recovery...

[Gloria E]

My personal experience with System Restore is, its as useful as a chocolate teapot. After a lot of trial and many errors, its now disabled. I use and trust Acronis T I H 2010 to keep me on the straight and narrow. I can make a system image in 8 minutes & restore if needed even faster.

Roderunner, I'm very sorry for your less than perfect experience with System Restore. I've used it since I ran Windows 95. It's saved my bacon many, many times. I would just as soon be without it as being without Windows 7. But, we can't all like the same things, can we?

Gloria E

[Roderunner]

That was during my first 6 months of using a pc about 5-6 years ago, running XP Pro and its stuck with me ever since. Glad to hear it works for you Gloria.

[Gloria E]

That was during my first 6 months of using a pc about 5-6 years ago, running XP Pro and its stuck with me ever since. Glad to hear it works for you Gloria.

I recommend that you give System Restore another chance. I don't think you'll regret it.


Gloria E

[StuartR]

I create a weekly image backup of my system, using TrueImage, but I have managed to recover from a few incidents by using system restore. When it works it is much quicker and less intrusive.

I have had to use the TrueImage backup to recover from some incidents, notably a serious virus infection that affected user files as well as system files. Fortunately the partition with user data gets backed up every night!

[Roderunner]

I recommend that you give System Restore another chance. I don't think you'll regret it.

Gloria E

My C: drive is only 45gb but has enough space to allow for using System Restore, but is disabled. If I am going to do any experimenting, I make a 'System Image' back up using Acronis 2010 'One click' method. Its the only way I know of to completely remove any changes or added items. Revo, I know claims to do it but Acronis is more thorough and I trust it 100%.

[viking33]

That was during my first 6 months of using a pc about 5-6 years ago, running XP Pro and its stuck with me ever since. Glad to hear it works for you Gloria.

I recommend that you give System Restore another chance. I don't think you'll regret it.


Gloria E

I have SR running on a few of my partitions and depending on the problem, I would probably try that first BUT that does not always work. True Image is my MAIN and most trusted method of recovery. No doubt at all.

[Bigaldoc]

Up front, let me say that I've had "system restore" turned off from the first day it was known to me that it existed, AND I learned that it "only" restored "Windows" files per se.

The reason I did so may be all wet, but my thinking was - how can we mere mortals know, when something is wrong enough with our system to make us think of a restoration of some kind, whether the corruption is in an OS file or files, OR might be something corrupt in one or more peripheral software files, i.e. DLLs, etc.?

I readily admit that when I restore the WHOLE PARTITION from a backup image, I lose the emails and/or any software that HAS been installed since the date of that image. But, I'm willing to live with that "risk" and re-install any software that I've installed or even go to last night's backup to get the most recent email files, etc.

Truth is, I've never had to go back further than a day or two in a restoration and it has ALWAYS rectified whatever problem I was having. To each his/her own I guess...

[DaveA]

True System restores ONLY system files, but every time I needed it it has worked for me and all of my data and programs were intact. There has been times that I had to reinstall a Windows update as the restore point was before the last updates.

Since it is ONLY a system files restore, I have it turned on only on the System drive, as there are NO system files on the other drives.

If one is running a multi-Operating system machine, it is recommended NOT to use System restore as it may and has messed up the other OS's that are on the other drives. In this case one does not want any of the other system drives flagged to be included in the restore point of another OS.

[Argus]

Since the thread has expanded into a general discussion about System Restore...

... and to correct some errors.

I see System Restore (SR) as one option among several, perhaps a bit like Stuart does.

I can understand why MSFT added SR; to help users; and why they made it simple to use (such as by default monitoring all partitions as they are added, even if I don’t like it), but there were bound to be problems.

Some of the bad experiences with SR, over the years, could perhaps be attributed to:

• A lack of understanding of what it does and doesn't do (true for a lot of software troubles; but, for example, how many people actually uninstall a software if it was installed after the Restore Point (RP) was created before returning to said RP?).
• A non-healthy computer.
• Or simply a problem that wasn't possible to solve with the restored files and folders. Time travelling is a bit difficult (it will add and remove files; and then it might get complicated, especially if people have fiddled with the computer before deciding to use SR).

Nota bene, and I've mentioned it sometimes at the other place:
SR doesn't only involve OS, system, files; no matter what its name is (it restores "systems", not "system files" only, even though that may have been the main purpose at some point). And as Hans mentioned above in his reply, It WILL touch programs and some other files, very much so; depending on if they are monitored or not.

That’s true in Windows XP, and true in Windows 7, and all in between; and as mentioned below, it has expanded to include more after Windows XP, with System Protection; but once again, it will touch more than Windows files, even in XP.

A list of file name extensions monitored under, for example, Windows XP.

On the other hand it isn't like uninstalling a program, since it doesn't touch all file types. See:
This FAQ post about what's restored in Windows XP (at Bert Kinney's, MVP, site).
And this list of folders that are not monitored; the rest is monitored by default, even in Windows XP, and if they contain monitored file types, as per above, then they will be affected.

As for the subject, System Protection, and the initial question, size:

"... should Max. Usage be set higher or is that too much to allow for it's use?"

As some may know, System Restore has been further developed, it's now part of System Protection; and then it becomes a bit more complicated, since System Protection also involves "Previous versions" (of files and folders; these, previous versions, can also be created with Windows’ Backup, since System Protection is part of the backup tools in Windows 7).

For example, Windows XP didn’t use the Volume Shadow Copy service for SR; it was introduced in Windows Server 2003 and Vista.

There are some different Restore Settings in Windows 7, which I assume is the focus, given the subject, even if we are in Windows General, again... , but if you include "system settings", i.e. the "old RPs", you will also include previous versions.

I think Hans’ first reply is good, it’s plenty... I think the default is 5%; I also think System Protection will prioritise system settings before "previous versions", even if they are both now part of the RPs, when it decides about what to remove in the first in first out process, but I’m not sure about that one. I think most people will see the previous versions as a bonus, nothing to rely on for document backups, thus the size is perhaps of most interest for system settings and can be set to something that works with how one uses the computer, but that may differ between users.

But he’s wrong when he says that system restore does "... *not* copy your documents ...", it does; if you enable that level of protection in Windows 7, i.e. "system settings", under Restore Settings in the System Protection dialogue box, includes "previous versions"; and when he says "You can't use system restore to recover deleted documents." You can, sometimes, but I wouldn't rely on it, definitely not.

Then it's different matter that it's not an image of the drive, there are other solutions for that, and backup tools within Windows; it's also a different matter that there may be no shadow copy of a deleted file if it hasn't been included yet in a RP; or the previous version isn't the desired, since too old.

I've used it since I ran Windows 95.

I think SR was introduced in Windows ME, which I didn't use. Windows 98 had some backup and registry restore, I think; but that's OT anyhow.

[Argus]

True System restores ONLY system files ...

Not true, as mentioned above.

... and all of my data and programs were intact.

If no programs had been installed after the RP, and no data, consisting of file types being monitored, were placed in folders being monitored, then "everything" should be intact. For example SR doesn't monitor "My Documents" or a folder assigned as "My Documents"; and a lot of common data types are excluded, such as *.doc, *.xls, *.txt etc.

Since it is ONLY a system files restore, I have it turned on only on the System drive, as there are NO system files on the other drives.

As mentioned, it's not only a system files restore; it touches all monitored file types in all monitored areas, and bit different between Operating Systems, as mentioned above, which complicates the discussion a bit. That said, I agree with you turning it off on other drives/partitions. I have done that, but for other reasons; to protect files that could be monitored but shouldn't (for example be removed during a restore) and to save space. Not because there's no "system files" there.

If one is running a multi-Operating system machine, it is recommended NOT to use System restore as it may and has messed up the other OS's that are on the other drives. In this case one does not want any of the other system drives flagged to be included in the restore point of another OS.

I agree; it has been mentioned and documented that one should be careful. But it's not only the case that SR might be "messing" with the "other OS". If you, for example, have two OS with SR monitoring a common drive/partition, in both OS, just simply booting into one of them and doing something to the monitored files, when the other OS isn't online, will brake the RPs at the other OS when you return. So moving back and forth might render SR useless, if a common area is monitored. A bit same as if you remove a monitored OS drive and put it in another computer and do "something" with monitored files, and that can be plenty of files, offline; when you put that drive back the chain of RPs will be broken, i.e. a discrepancy between files and logs.

So it doesn't mess with the OS per se; it can however result in a loss of RPs. Then of course, as you say, it’s not a good idea to monitor another OS. That’s one step further, so, OK, there will be a mess. There are some different solutions; one should avoid monitoring more than necessary; and not do things with an OS offline if using SR, as long as one would like to keep current RPs. See for example: http://bertk.mvps.org/html/dualbootxp.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;