Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'lets debate'.
Found 1 result
-
Hey guys! I am curious as to what you all think of System Restore, and I think it could be good to start a little debate on it- because there are tech pros (and home users) who are firmly in support of it and others who firmly dislike it. So let's start with what "System Restore" actually is and does: System Restore was introduced with Microsoft Windows ME as a way to "rollback" a system after driver installation or modifications of system files rendered a computer unstable. It does this by creating images, or "snapshots" of the Windows Registry, along with key System files and the user profile. In it's initial rendition, a background service would monitor for certain file extensions (like *.exe, *.dll, *.sys, etc) and would create copies of said files and the registry values that associated with them- before they were changed or overwritten. There was/is also a scheduled snapshot point (much like how you might run antivirus once a week) to make a cushion, so to speak, so you would always have a point to restore to. In Windows Vista and later, System Restore began tracking changes at a block-level (think physical data on your disk). It would create copies of every file in the Windows folder, and make images of files outside of the Windows directory, based on file extension filtering. Restore Points are also created automatically when drivers and/or software is installed, and whenever Windows Update runs. Now here's what I think: I have used System Restore several times over the years, and each and every time- it has done nothing but disappoint. I have never seen it actually fix an issue, but rather mitigate it (ie: buy me time). Most of the times that I have used it, it has actually failed to restore, and would spend 30+ minutes reverting the changes. It's also notorious for being a cesspool for viruses and other malware- it's the first thing malicious software likes to infect, in an attempt to prevent removal. Although I have used it in the past to quickly get a workstation up and running again, there was always an underlying problem that needed attention, and I feel that it is rather worthless for anything other than quickly getting a "mission critical" machine back up to prevent unscheduled downtime. I also think that it provides users with a false sense of security, and I've seen people tinker with system settings and files with the pretense that "if they mess up", they can "always use System Restore". Personally, I save my disk space and keep System Restore turned off. I feel that if one really wants a "versioning" file system, shadow copies, or a backup- they need a full backup solution that writes to a separate drive, and has control over every file. For the average-Joe home user, I think it could serve a purpose. But for anybody who has familiarity with computers, I'd say that System Restore does more harm than good. Now I'm curious as to what you think! Feel free to post your opinion
