Results 1 to 14 of 14
  1. #1
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Lewiston, Maine, USA
    Posts
    293
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Imaging vs Restore - fragmentation (Win XP-TrueImage 9.0)

    <img src=/S/ranton.gif border=0 alt=ranton width=66 height=37>
    I was just browsing PerfectDisk's defragmentation reports and noticed that the vast majority of files that were fragmented happened to be in the _RESTORE directory. That leads me to wonder if I need to keep the restore service running if I also religiously use TrueImage's program to create full images weekly and incremental images nightly? I can't help but feel like I may be running double insurance (although *that* is better than running none). <img src=/S/rantoff.gif border=0 alt=rantoff width=66 height=37>
    Curiosity is starting to get the better of me, I may <img src=/S/shootfoot.gif border=0 alt=shootfoot width=28 height=29>, but here goes - Question: What are the loungers that use imaging software doing:
    1 - running both Restore and Imaging Software.
    2 - running only Imaging Software w/restore turned off.
    .. and why?
    Bob (the other one)

  2. #2
    Plutonium Lounger
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    12,107
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: Imaging vs Restore - fragmentation (Win XP-Tru

    I turned OFF system restore soon after I became a WinXP Pro user and, if I ever had any directories with that name, they've long since been erased. The reasons I turned it off were (at that time) that it "only" restores system state and wouldn't help a nit with data; I've always been a faithful backer-upper (nightly & weekly), even before imaging, so I thought I'd "take my chances" and have never regretted that decision; my early experience with system restore was that it took horrendous amounts of drive space to store all those restore points. One man's point(s) of view.

  3. #3
    Silver Lounger
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    New York, New York, USA
    Posts
    2,328
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: Imaging vs Restore - fragmentation (Win XP-TrueImage 9.0)

    Answer:

    Everything depends how often you change your computer's configuration (installing and uninstalling programs and/or hardware) and how intrusive ("big") new programs are. So, if you are beta tester or if you like to test "demo" programs - forget about "Sysyem Restore", create an image before each installation and restore the image instead of program uninstall. But, if your system configuration is stable and you only installing new add-ins or minor (not new version) updates from time to time, keep System Restore running with possibility eventually uninstall an update if something goes wrong, and keep an image only for event of major crash, updating (replacing) the image if necessary.

  4. #4
    Uranium Lounger viking33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    6,308
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: Imaging vs Restore - fragmentation (Win XP-TrueImage 9.0)

    Hello other Bob,

    I use TI to image all my partitions about once a month, sometimes sooner.
    I also keep System Restore enabled in case there might be just a system problem that would not require a full Image restore.

    Although Acronis now says that SR is no longer needed with Version 9, I still have them BOTH alive and enabled.
    I have used both ( either or ) of them to get me out of occasional trouble, since I DO download and try new programs fairly often and I do Beta testing also.
    BOB
    http://lounge.windowssecrets.com/S/flags/USA.gif http://lounge.windowssecrets.com/S/f...sachusetts.gif


    Long ago, there was a time when men cursed and beat on the ground with sticks. It was called witchcraft.
    Today it is called golf!

  5. #5
    Uranium Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    7,089
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Imaging vs Restore - fragmentation (Win XP-Tru

    I use System Restore, but I ratchet down the amount of space it uses. The default is way too much.

    Like Al, I also back up my critical data separately and religiously. System Restore is good for a limited number of things - such as the "oops, I shouldn't have installed that driver" scenario - and other times when the machine won't start on its own. There is no such thing as "too many" backups. Redundancy is a good thing when it comes to fickle machines like computers.
    -Mark

  6. #6
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Lewiston, Maine, USA
    Posts
    293
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Imaging vs Restore - fragmentation (Win XP-Tru

    My thanks to all who have replied - This only leads me to re-affirm my beliefs that there are not 'wrong' or 'right' answers. It all depends on individual circumstances and what we are all willing to forego.
    Mark: one point you mentioned was that The default is way too much (System Restore's default storage) - I know that I haven't changed anything on that end and just checked my system - System Restore was set to 12% for each of my drives, this translates to approximately 13+ gigs per drive.. <img src=/w3timages/censored.gif alt=censored border=0> .. I never realized IT kept that much space for itself. While I have no problem in giving up that amount of space, I wonder what type of performance hit I may be taking by keeping that many restore points in the system (seems as though they are always being defragged). Would a setting of say .. 4% be more advantageous (keeping in mind that I do like to try newer softwares, but mostly decide the same day whether they are 'worthy' of being on my system)?
    Thanks again <img src=/S/smile.gif border=0 alt=smile width=15 height=15>
    Bob (the other one)

  7. #7
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    St Louis, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    23,593
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 1,059 Times in 928 Posts

    Re: Imaging vs Restore - fragmentation (Win XP-Tru

    Bob (the other one),

    It just depends on how far back in time you want to be able to go. Check how many restore points you have now and how far back they go. Then adjust the size downward and check again. Repeat as desired. As usual it really is up to you to decide based on your level of updating and anxiety.

    Joe
    Joe

  8. #8
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Lewiston, Maine, USA
    Posts
    293
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Imaging vs Restore - fragmentation (Win XP-Tru

    Joe,
    Thanks for that piece of common sense, sure sounds logical to me. Right now I have 32 restore points going back six weeks (that's at 12% of disc drives (x 2 drives). Sure is heavy, considering the last time I used System Restore was when I was running WinME. <img src=/S/smile.gif border=0 alt=smile width=15 height=15>

    Bob (the other one)

  9. #9
    Uranium Lounger viking33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    6,308
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: Imaging vs Restore - fragmentation (Win XP-Tru

    Other Bob,

    Joe has nailed the answer as usual. It's an individual preference and or need.
    I am using the full 12% and it seems about right for me. Since I have plenty of HD space, that's where I leave it.
    There is even a registry hack that will open that amount even more if needed. Whatever works for you !

    ( ME was the last time you used it? I sure can't say the same )
    BOB
    http://lounge.windowssecrets.com/S/flags/USA.gif http://lounge.windowssecrets.com/S/f...sachusetts.gif


    Long ago, there was a time when men cursed and beat on the ground with sticks. It was called witchcraft.
    Today it is called golf!

  10. #10
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Lewiston, Maine, USA
    Posts
    293
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Imaging vs Restore - fragmentation (Win XP-Tru

    - ( ME was the last time you used it? I sure can't say the same )

    That sounds more ominous than it really is <g>.. I've been computing since the early 1970's running with Windows 3.1 as my initial OS.. I only upgraded from WinME to XP this past May 2005 (a late bloomer you might say). System Restore was a BIG improvement in WinME as compared to Win98 and it did save my behind on several occassions. Since I've upgraded to XP I haven't even had the need to check it's files or status until today - to find out how many restore points it carried.
    Guess I'm living a charmed life. <img src=/S/smile.gif border=0 alt=smile width=15 height=15> <img src=/S/thumbup.gif border=0 alt=thumbup width=15 height=15> <img src=/S/yadda.gif border=0 alt=yadda width=15 height=15> <img src=/S/yawn.gif border=0 alt=yawn width=15 height=15> <img src=/S/yep.gif border=0 alt=yep width=15 height=15> <img src=/S/yikes.gif border=0 alt=yikes width=15 height=15> <img src=/S/yum.gif border=0 alt=yum width=15 height=15>
    Bob (the other one)

  11. #11
    Plutonium Lounger
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    84,353
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 29 Times in 29 Posts

    Re: Imaging vs Restore - fragmentation (Win XP-Tru

    > I've been computing since the early 1970's running with Windows 3.1 as my initial OS

    Must have been a VERY early version of Windows <img src=/S/grin.gif border=0 alt=grin width=15 height=15>

  12. #12
    Uranium Lounger viking33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    6,308
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

    Re: Imaging vs Restore - fragmentation (Win XP-Tru

    Other,
    Some people just live right, I guess? <img src=/S/clapping.gif border=0 alt=clapping width=19 height=23> <img src=/S/cloud9.gif border=0 alt=cloud9 width=25 height=23> <img src=/S/cool.gif border=0 alt=cool width=15 height=15>
    BOB
    http://lounge.windowssecrets.com/S/flags/USA.gif http://lounge.windowssecrets.com/S/f...sachusetts.gif


    Long ago, there was a time when men cursed and beat on the ground with sticks. It was called witchcraft.
    Today it is called golf!

  13. #13
    3 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Lewiston, Maine, USA
    Posts
    293
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Imaging vs Restore - fragmentation (Win XP-Tru

    If my memory serves me well, it also fit on one (1) floppy disk <img src=/S/grin.gif border=0 alt=grin width=15 height=15> and did not require memory up the gazooks..

    Bob (the other one).

  14. #14
    Uranium Lounger
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    7,089
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Imaging vs Restore - fragmentation (Win XP-Tru

    I see that there's been hearty discussion so I won't belabor the point.

    I cut System Restore space down because to me, it's wasted space if I'm not making use of it. Two or maybe three restore points are all that I would ever want or need. Knowing that I will never go back more than a day or two makes it seem kinda pointless to sacrifice disk space for the sole purpose of "time travel" further back than that.
    -Mark

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •