Turning off System Restore

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

I'm considering turning off System Restore (SR), but I wonder if there are
consequences beyond the obvious? For instance, do Microsoft security
updates ever need to set a restore point, and if SR is off would these
updates fail? TIA...
14 answers Last reply
More about turning system restore
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    swingman wrote:

    > I'm considering turning off System Restore (SR), but I wonder if there are
    > consequences beyond the obvious? For instance, do Microsoft security
    > updates ever need to set a restore point, and if SR is off would these
    > updates fail? TIA...

    The system will run fine with it off.

    --
    Rock
    MS MVP Windows - Shell/User
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    In news:OtD$HX9hFHA.3436@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
    swingman <sbt@silcom.com> typed:

    > I'm considering turning off System Restore (SR), but I wonder
    > if
    > there are consequences beyond the obvious? For instance, do
    > Microsoft security updates ever need to set a restore point,
    > and if
    > SR is off would these updates fail? TIA...


    Just the obvious. Turning it off won't cause anything to fail, it
    just takes away its safeguard.

    But my advice is not to turn it off. System Restore has its
    faults, sometimes gets corrupted, and has to be restarted.
    Nevertheless it usually works just fine and is a valuable
    safeguard. It's gotten me out of trouble, both on my own machine
    and and those of others I support more than once.

    By default, it uses much too much disk space on most people's
    machines, and reducing it to no more than 2GB or even less, is a
    good idea. But don't turn it off completely

    --
    Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    Please reply to the newsgroup
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    This is a bad, bad idea.

    System restore is sometimes the only way to recover from viruses and spyware
    without a complete re-installation. Take my advice, leave it on.

    Bobby

    "swingman" <sbt@silcom.com> wrote in message
    news:OtD$HX9hFHA.3436@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > I'm considering turning off System Restore (SR), but I wonder if there are
    > consequences beyond the obvious? For instance, do Microsoft security
    > updates ever need to set a restore point, and if SR is off would these
    > updates fail? TIA...
    >
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Bobby wrote:
    > This is a bad, bad idea.

    LOL! System Restore? It is a bad implementation of a good idea.

    > System restore is sometimes the only way to recover from viruses and
    > spyware without a complete re-installation.

    Not if you keep a good image of your OS partition on removable media.

    >Take my advice, leave it
    > on.

    System Restore is the last resort of the ignorant. Anyone with a good
    image to fall back on is much better off relying on that than SR.

    --
    Peace!
    Kurt
    Self-anointed Moderator
    microscum.pubic.windowsexp.gonorrhea
    http://microscum.com/mscommunity
    "Trustworthy Computing" is only another example of an Oxymoron!
    "Produkt-Aktivierung macht frei"
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    swingman wrote:

    > I'm considering turning off System Restore (SR), but I wonder
    > if there are consequences beyond the obvious? For instance,
    > do Microsoft security updates ever need to set a restore point,
    > and if SR is off would these updates fail? TIA...
    Hi,

    Security updates tries to set a system restore point, but will just
    continue to install even if they was not able to create one.


    --
    torgeir, Microsoft MVP Scripting and WMI, Porsgrunn Norway
    Administration scripting examples and an ONLINE version of
    the 1328 page Scripting Guide:
    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scriptcenter/default.mspx
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    > By default, it uses much too much disk space on most people's machines,
    > and reducing it to no more than 2GB or even less, is a good idea. But
    > don't turn it off completely

    Err... 1Gb costs 30p in the UK. So what's the problem?
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    In news:3jlgbvFqfocnU1@individual.net,
    Bobby <bobby@aventuremail.com> typed:

    >> By default, it uses much too much disk space on most people's
    >> machines, and reducing it to no more than 2GB or even less, is
    >> a
    >> good idea. But don't turn it off completely
    >
    > Err... 1Gb costs 30p in the UK. So what's the problem?


    It's not the waste of disk space that bothers me. It's that
    reverting to a restore point more than a week or so old is likely
    to cause other problems, getting other files out of synch with
    the registry. So there's no need to use the 12% that Windows
    defaults to. It just lets you save more old useless restore
    points.

    --
    Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    Please reply to the newsgroup
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Bobby wrote:

    >>By default, it uses much too much disk space on most people's machines,
    >>and reducing it to no more than 2GB or even less, is a good idea. But
    >>don't turn it off completely
    >
    >
    > Err... 1Gb costs 30p in the UK. So what's the problem?
    >
    >

    Also the more space allocated to it, the more restore points are created
    and greater the chance of corruption.

    --
    Rock
    MS MVP Windows - Shell/User
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    "Rock" <rock@mail.nospam.net> wrote in message
    news:uAJ9ZGCiFHA.3568@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > Bobby wrote:
    >
    >>>By default, it uses much too much disk space on most people's machines,
    >>>and reducing it to no more than 2GB or even less, is a good idea. But
    >>>don't turn it off completely
    >>
    >>
    >> Err... 1Gb costs 30p in the UK. So what's the problem?
    >
    > Also the more space allocated to it, the more restore points are created
    > and greater the chance of corruption.
    >
    > --
    > Rock
    > MS MVP Windows - Shell/User

    More restore points also means more disk fragmentation. For some reason SR
    files are highly fragmented in my experience. By the way, how much space
    does a restore point require? I currently have the space allocation set at
    200 megs and I wonder how many restore points can fit.
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    In news:eyffufKiFHA.1968@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
    swingman <sbt@silcom.com> typed:

    > "Rock" <rock@mail.nospam.net> wrote in message
    > news:uAJ9ZGCiFHA.3568@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >> Bobby wrote:
    >>
    >>>> By default, it uses much too much disk space on most
    >>>> people's
    >>>> machines, and reducing it to no more than 2GB or even less,
    >>>> is a
    >>>> good idea. But don't turn it off completely
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Err... 1Gb costs 30p in the UK. So what's the problem?
    >>
    >> Also the more space allocated to it, the more restore points
    >> are
    >> created and greater the chance of corruption.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Rock
    >> MS MVP Windows - Shell/User
    >
    > More restore points also means more disk fragmentation. For
    > some
    > reason SR files are highly fragmented in my experience.


    I haven't noticed that, but even if so, it really doesn't matter
    much, since you need to use them so infrequently.


    > By the way,
    > how much space does a restore point require?


    It varies quite a bit depending on your system, and even from
    restore point to restore point. That's because restore points are
    not independent but build on previous restore points. The concept
    is a little like that of an incremental backup.


    > I currently have the
    > space allocation set at 200 megs and I wonder how many restore
    > points
    > can fit.


    Go to system restore and see how many dates are in black rather
    than gray. That will tell you how many you presently have, and
    that will be at least an approximate answer to your question.

    --
    Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    Please reply to the newsgroup
  11. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
    news:OqrPxjLiFHA.1464@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
    > In news:eyffufKiFHA.1968@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl,
    > swingman <sbt@silcom.com> typed:
    >
    >> "Rock" <rock@mail.nospam.net> wrote in message
    >> news:uAJ9ZGCiFHA.3568@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >>> Bobby wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> By default, it uses much too much disk space on most people's
    >>>>> machines, and reducing it to no more than 2GB or even less, is a
    >>>>> good idea. But don't turn it off completely
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> Err... 1Gb costs 30p in the UK. So what's the problem?
    >>>
    >>> Also the more space allocated to it, the more restore points are
    >>> created and greater the chance of corruption.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Rock
    >>> MS MVP Windows - Shell/User
    >>
    >> More restore points also means more disk fragmentation. For some
    >> reason SR files are highly fragmented in my experience.
    >
    >
    > I haven't noticed that, but even if so, it really doesn't matter much,
    > since you need to use them so infrequently.
    >
    >
    >> By the way,
    >> how much space does a restore point require?
    >
    >
    > It varies quite a bit depending on your system, and even from restore
    > point to restore point. That's because restore points are not independent
    > but build on previous restore points. The concept is a little like that of
    > an incremental backup.
    >
    >
    >> I currently have the
    >> space allocation set at 200 megs and I wonder how many restore points
    >> can fit.
    >
    >
    > Go to system restore and see how many dates are in black rather than gray.
    > That will tell you how many you presently have, and that will be at least
    > an approximate answer to your question.
    >
    > --
    > Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    > Please reply to the newsgroup
    Thanks!
  12. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    In news:%23KR33fMiFHA.1044@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
    swingman <sbt@silcom.com> typed:

    > "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
    > news:OqrPxjLiFHA.1464@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...

    >>> By the way,
    >>> how much space does a restore point require?
    >>
    >>
    >> It varies quite a bit depending on your system, and even from
    >> restore
    >> point to restore point. That's because restore points are not
    >> independent but build on previous restore points. The concept
    >> is a
    >> little like that of an incremental backup.
    >>
    >>
    >>> I currently have the
    >>> space allocation set at 200 megs and I wonder how many
    >>> restore
    >>> points can fit.
    >>
    >>
    >> Go to system restore and see how many dates are in black
    >> rather than
    >> gray. That will tell you how many you presently have, and that
    >> will
    >> be at least an approximate answer to your question.


    > Thanks!


    --
    Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    Please reply to the newsgroup
  13. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    swingman wrote:

    > "Rock" <rock@mail.nospam.net> wrote in message
    > news:uAJ9ZGCiFHA.3568@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >
    >>Bobby wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>By default, it uses much too much disk space on most people's machines,
    >>>>and reducing it to no more than 2GB or even less, is a good idea. But
    >>>>don't turn it off completely
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Err... 1Gb costs 30p in the UK. So what's the problem?
    >>
    >>Also the more space allocated to it, the more restore points are created
    >>and greater the chance of corruption.
    >>
    >>--
    >>Rock
    >>MS MVP Windows - Shell/User
    >
    >
    > More restore points also means more disk fragmentation. For some reason SR
    > files are highly fragmented in my experience. By the way, how much space
    > does a restore point require? I currently have the space allocation set at
    > 200 megs and I wonder how many restore points can fit.
    >
    >

    Fragmentation in SR points shouldn't be much of a problem.
    Fragmentation is not much of a problem for most users any way until the
    disk starts to fill up. 200MB won't hold much, but the size depends on
    the system and will vary even on the same system. My system wouldn't
    get more than 3 or 4 points in that amount of space.

    --
    Rock
    MS MVP Windows - Shell/User
  14. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general (More info?)

    Hi Swingman,

    200mb's for System Restore is to low. Installing or uninstalling
    applications even update could cause the entire data store to be
    purged, and the loss of all restore points. And defeat it's purpose.

    Here are some tips and keeping System Restore Healthy and adjusting
    disk space.
    http://bertk.mvps.org/html/healthy.html

    --
    Regards,
    Bert Kinney MS-MVP Shell/User
    http://dts-l.org/

    swingman wrote:
    > "Rock" wrote
    >> Bobby wrote:
    >>
    >>>> By default, it uses much too much disk space on most
    >>>> people's machines, and reducing it to no more than 2GB
    >>>> or even less, is a good idea. But don't turn it off
    >>>> completely
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> Err... 1Gb costs 30p in the UK. So what's the problem?
    >>
    >> Also the more space allocated to it, the more restore
    >> points are created and greater the chance of corruption.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Rock
    >> MS MVP Windows - Shell/User
    >
    > More restore points also means more disk fragmentation. For some
    > reason SR files are highly fragmented in my
    > experience. By the way, how much space does a restore
    > point require? I currently have the space allocation set
    > at 200 megs and I wonder how many restore points can fit.
Ask a new question

Read More

Security Microsoft System Restore Windows XP