turning off system restore on XP

[speed24get]

I turned off my system restore to increase performance, but was wondering if anyone know a way to manually set up a restore point so i can manually restore files?

 

[c0rv1d43]

Were you under the impression that System Restore has a detrimental effect upon performance? It doesn't on any of the systems I use. Besides, if you lunch your system with a bad installation, how good will your performance be then? The only time I've seen the process using any CPU time at all on any machine I use is when it's actually creating a restore point, often at the point where the system is being updated. I know how to back up registry hives and miscellaneous configuration files, but I wouldn't turn off System Restore on one of my systems -- unless I just didn't care if that system went South. System Restore actually restores previous operational file complements, as well as registry and other configuration files. I don't understand why anyone would be so quick to try to turn off useful features like System Restore. (Windows File Protection is another favorite target.) Those are two of the most valuable changes brought to the table by WinXP over WinNT. I really think that, at least until you know the OS well enough that you don't have to ask how to create a "restore point", you might consider letting System Restore stay active. Just my $.02.

- Collin

 

[skyking]

Hey, collin.
People interpret the increased usage of hard drive capacity as a reduction in performance. Also, most benchmarks are run in XP with restore disabled, to produce consistent results(!?). Unless challenged by a lack of hard drive space, I'm with you, leave it enabled. I have yet to use it, but, what an option!

 

[c0rv1d43]

Hi, skyking!

Yeah, it would make sense to disable System Restore during benchmarking. If the system took it into its head to create a restore point during benching that would definitely skew the results. I've had occasion to use System Restore when I was doing destructive testing of the OS on some sandbox systems. It's definitely a great way to unscrew a screwup!

Insofar as hard drive space is concerned, I wouldn't even consider running Windows (of any kind) on a crowded drive. Operating systems need breathing room for so many different functions. But I know there are hobbyists out there who like to install Win95, Win98, WinNT, Win2K, RH, and Solaris on one 12 gigabyte hard drive. I know because I helped my neighbor do that on his computer. I only helped out to see if it would work. Well, it works -- sorta.

- Collin

 

[corkyg]

Let me pose an additional question. I have several partitions, and note that System Restore (XP Pro) creates a chucnk of space on each partition for its "files." However, none of these partitions have anything to do with the "System." The OS is all on "C" drive. So, my question is, are those S/R spaces on the other partitions necessary for S/R to function, or can they be disabled?

 

[c0rv1d43]

corky-g,

Are you referring to the System Volume Information directory structures? All of my personal WinXP systems are using single partitions, and the work ones are using dynamic disks, so I haven't seen the exact situation you report. Therefore, I'd have to say that I don't know the answer to your question. I suspect, however, that those structures are required. You can of course control the maximum size allowed for the structures from the System Restore applet. I can remember my first hard drive -- a whopping 2 megabyte, belt-driven job for a minicomputer. You should have seen the data transfer rate and seek times on that sucker! In these heady days of cheap gigabytes I never worry about space. I just buy more (or bigger) drives.

- Collin

 

[corkyg]

OK . . . that's a reasonable answer. I have no partition that is even approaching 50% usage yet . . . so there is no space problem. Just curious because I don't like those immovable files that plop themselves smack dab in the middle of the HDD's free area. That's an esthetic problem, not a functional one.

Ha, ha . . . I remember my first hard drive . . . a 10 MB "HardCard" in a ISA slot n my old 4088 PC. Lots of changes since then!

 

[c0rv1d43]

Yes, I know what you mean. The old habits die hard, and we always saw defraggers piling up everything at the "front" of the drive in the old days, didn't we? But Windows XP is pretty smart about where it puts things. And it turns out that the middle of the drive is usually where that stuff belongs considering the way the data is used and accessed -- at least if I can believe what I've been reading in various whitepapers.

I've done some funny experiments to see what Windows XP would do in an attempt to optimize itself. Its use of prefetch locations and defragmentation strategies is fascinating. I did a bootvis optimization of boot time on one machine that resulted in some anomalous behaviors of sound drivers and a jerky playback of the Windows logon sound. In a few reboots the problem gradually sorted itself out. I noticed that WinXP had relocated some files and changed loading order on a couple of items. Thinking this was a fluke I deliberately screwed with a couple of other sandbox systems. One of them I screwed with mightily, by manually rearranging files on its boot partition from within another installation of Windows XP on the same machine. I got sound system anomalies and longer boot times on both machines and video anomalies on the "screwed with mightily" system. Within a few reboots, all was sorted out and boot times returned to normal on both machines. I wouldn't be surprised if many of the people who use the more "invasive" defraggers aren't actually impeding performance on their systems -- at least if they are overriding WinXP's choices for file locations.

Ah yes, memories. I remember the hard cards. I especially remember how LONG they were! I had a friend with a Panasonic Senior Partner which, unlike mine, did not have a hard drive in it. We decided to try to use a hard card. Although the Sr. Partner had a huge, truly capacious case (especially for a "portable") there was no way to shoehorn that hard card into a slot. So then he outdid me and got a Panasonic Executive Partner which not only had a bigger hard drive than my Senior Partner but which also had the cool orange gas plasma display. Portable computers back then weighed somewhere around 40 pounds, had built-in CRTs and had the bulk of Pullman luggage.

- Collin

 

[extro]

To answer the original question:

Start/Programs/Accessories/System Tools/System Restore

Create a restore point

 

[extro]

corky-g, I have a similar setup. I disabled system restore on all partitions but C:.

 

[bacillus]

<< corky-g, I have a similar setup. I disabled system restore on all partitions but C:. >>


so have I!