Why do people hate Vista?

[AllGamer]

system restore never worked properly, it is flawed, even in Vista, in both XP and Vista the system restore of windows always leave out stuff, and never restores things properly, it causes more mess than what it fixes.

the best thing to truly make a good restore, is using Ghost or Acronis, now that's infallible!

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: ielmox
I've read it creates a restore point every x and y hours regardless in addition to whenever it monitors system changes.

A restore point is created once every 24 hours. These are ONLY created during idle time.

MS claims that writing a restore point and monitoring have a small impact on performance, funny though how after disabling SR my computer runs noticeably better, is free from those annoying slow-downs, and fragments more slowly.

..speaking of "claims" do you have any objective data to back this up our just your "feeling"?

Restore will fill up 12% of a hard disk with restore points - clogging up the drive and impacting performance, which sure qualifies as a hog in my book.

assuming you manually set your space slidder in an awful position Windows will still reduce the size of the systemvolumeinformation folder dynamically as your drive fills up. Basically even if you use a dumb setting it will save you from yourself.

Sure, you can change the setting to a lower quota - I just turned it and a bunch of other stuff I don't need off and have been blissfully happy ever since...

...ignorance is the source of your bliss I think. Nobody needs system restore until they need system restore. Suit yourself though, it's your computer. Sucks to do a full restore from backups when a 3 minute fix will do. /shrug

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: ielmox

Originally posted by: Smilin
System restore only leverages computing resources when it is creating or restoring a restore point.

precisely. Turning off System Restore means that your system won't ever create a restore point, which means it will not be sluggish and unresponsive while a restore point is created (in the middle of running an application, for example). Since there are better, more reliable, and and less intrusive options available than System Restore, I turned it off - and have since been subject to fewer annoying slowdowns or bursts of sluggishness.

So spare me the superior attitude, it is completely unwarranted.

ORLY? So you know it all huh?

Here, read this: http://www.microsoft.com/techn...pro/plan/faqsrwxp.mspx
you'll save yourself any further embarassing displays of ignorance.

Restore points are NOT created while you are running an application unless that application happens to be a driver installer, winstall or install shield, or ntbackup. The periodic points only occur if idle.

Are we done yet? I only meant to laugh at you, not get into a debate. That requires effort that isn't worth it.

 

[Modelworks]

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=724

?Please note that some of what we are seeing is expected behavior, and some of it is not. In certain circumstances Windows Vista will trade off network performance in order to improve multimedia playback. This is by design.?

LOL
I would fire that designer.

 

[inhotep]

My opinion on why some people hate Vista:

1) They don't have the proper hardware to run it at optimal performance.
"Recommended system requirements" really means "minimal requirements."


2) They think OS taking too much ram is a bad thing.
No, it is not a bad thing unless you cannot afford more ram. It is a good thing because more OS files are stored on RAM for quicker system access and response. Unless you want your OS to run mostly from HD.


3) Some hardware and software vendors are not keen on making drivers / patches for Vista 32bit or 64bit.
Slackers.

 

[AllGamer]

Originally posted by: inhotep
My opinion on why some people hate Vista:

1) They don't have the proper hardware to run it at optimal performance.
"Recommended system requirements" really means "minimal requirements."


2) They think OS taking too much ram is a bad thing.
No, it is not a bad thing unless you cannot afford more ram. It is a good thing because more OS files are stored on RAM for quicker system access and response. Unless you want your OS to run mostly from HD.


3) Some hardware and software vendors are not keen on making drivers / patches for Vista 32bit or 64bit.
Slackers.

4) application software are not compatible with Vista, and Vista compatible versions are not available yet.

 

[inhotep]

Originally posted by: AllGamer

Originally posted by: inhotep
My opinion on why some people hate Vista:

1) They don't have the proper hardware to run it at optimal performance.
"Recommended system requirements" really means "minimal requirements."


2) They think OS taking too much ram is a bad thing.
No, it is not a bad thing unless you cannot afford more ram. It is a good thing because more OS files are stored on RAM for quicker system access and response. Unless you want your OS to run mostly from HD.


3) Some hardware and software vendors are not keen on making drivers / patches for Vista 32bit or 64bit.
Slackers.

4) application software are not compatible with Vista, and Vista compatible versions are not available yet.

I wonder if you run a Vista 64bit OS because all the apps, hardware and games I care about runs on Vista 64bit.

 

[ielmox]

Originally posted by: Smilin
A restore point is created once every 24 hours. These are ONLY created during idle time.

Actually, restore points are created every 10 hours AND every 24 hours. I've already addressed the idle time issue, but see below for a conflicting opinion.

..speaking of "claims" do you have any objective data to back this up our just your "feeling"?

I said "MS claims..." and if you actually bothered engaging your brain as opposed to the (admittedly less resource intensive) smugness engine, you'd no doubt have been able to parse such a simple statement. On this page is MS's claim that I referred to:
http://www.microsoft.com/techn...pro/plan/faqsrwxp.mspx

assuming you manually set your space slidder in an awful position Windows will still reduce the size of the systemvolumeinformation folder dynamically as your drive fills up. Basically even if you use a dumb setting it will save you from yourself.

Doesn't impact anything I said about it being a resource hog - and the 12% of disk space is a huge amount reserved for an application that just isn't that useful - particularly since previous restore points are increasingly unhelpful.

...ignorance is the source of your bliss I think. Nobody needs system restore until they need system restore. Suit yourself though, it's your computer. Sucks to do a full restore from backups when a 3 minute fix will do. /shrug

No, it appears that ignorance is the source of your bliss (certainly your smugness): I do not need System Restore and that's that. Aside from the fact that I've never once had to use it (when a simpler and less drastic fix would work), there are - as mentioned several times - better alternatives, alternatives that can back up data in addition to system files, and that are more comprehensive and more reliable.

ORLY? So you know it all huh?

Here, read this: http://www.microsoft.com/techn...pro/plan/faqsrwxp.mspx
you'll save yourself any further embarassing displays of ignorance.

Lest you haven't noticed (that shining bright light emanating from your ego must be pretty blinding) you are the one who started this discussion with mockery and superiority, Mr. know-it-all.

Recap, since you'll no doubt wish to hand-wave further: MS (and you) claim that System Restore is hunky dory. But a wealth of other sources (not to mention personal experience) explicitly indicate that system restore impacts performance (the point I originally made about it being an unnecessary hog). Some of these sources:

http://www.microsoft.com/windo...more/tips/mcgill1.mspx Clear System Restore Points For Performance

http://www.extremetech.com/art.../0,1697,1153280,00.asp here we learn that "System Restore can adversely affect application benchmark software, and might operate during active test periods"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_restore Wikipedia says "Users concerned with performance or space usage may also opt to disable System Restore entirely"

http://www.windowsdevcenter.co...5/05/17/xp_tuning.html O'Reilly recommends turning down System Restore disk quota to improve performance

http://www.infoworld.com/artic.../01/24/04winman_1.html The System Restore feature may slow you down without warning

http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.o..._system_restore_po.htm Clear Restore Points to improve performance

http://www.daniweb.com/forums/thread4609.html more of the same

http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfr...cc=us&docname=bph06569 same advice from HP / Compaq

http://www.tunexp.com/tips/mai...oints_for_performance/ and more

http://blogs.techrepublic.com....ndow-on-windows/?p=160 Improving XP Performance: "if you notice that your system isn?t performing as well as it used to, you can save on disk space and improve performance by disabling the System Restore feature"

And so forth.

 

[Scarpozzi]

I'm irritated that in 2 brand new computers my family members ordered there are "problems" with some of the gui things. For one, both are dual-core systems with 2GB of RAM and Vista still runs extremely slow. I know there are many tweaks and things that should be disabled to speed this up, but I almost would prefer running Linux (KDE Desktop) to take full advantage of a 64 bit architecture rather than limiting what I can do by draining resources in background processes that are used to protect me from code vulnerabilities that Microsoft should be responsible for.

Initially, Vista wouldn't recognize more than 3GB of memory for some reason. I believe they've either fixed it or are about to. It's just an example of how much you shouldn't trust them...

Major problems with the GUI....For instance, when you minimize a window, the registry is screwed up and doesn't display the running applications in the taskbar. (They're refered to as buttons by Microsoft)

Anyhow, this was a problem in XP from a patch a while back so there is a registry fix. It's just stupid that you buy a new OS and it's having major issues like this that the average computer user won't be able to figure out.

 

[BehindEnemyLines]

ielmox, the links you refer to are for Windows XP (designed about six years ago). Do these old technologies actually apply to Windows Vista today? I have System Restored enabled and disabled and honestly I don't feel anything different between the two in Vista.

 

[ielmox]

Originally posted by: BehindEnemyLines
ielmox, the links you refer to are for Windows XP (designed about six years ago). Do these old technologies actually apply to Windows Vista today? I have System Restored enabled and disabled and honestly I don't feel anything different between the two in Vista.

No I was referring primarily to XP (and, indeed, we won't see the whole picture on Vista until the greasemonkeys get their hands thoroughly filfhty under the hood, SP1 comes out, etc.). In Vista System Restore is supposed to work better but it is also a different system that MS bought and replaced their previous solution with.

I originally said that my XP box is more responsive compared to my Vista PC, and to avoid oranges to apples comparisons (even though the Vista PC is much better hardware) I had shut down unnecessary services on both computers. Perhaps on Vista System restore is less of a hog - I don't actually know. But one thing I am sure of is that my tweaking has helped to remove some of the sluggishness.

 

[juktar]

So your proof that system restore is a resource hog are articles that say when your low on disk space, delete the system restore points to clear up some disk space, thus improving performance?

The real cause of the slow down was not system restore, but the lack of disk space.

 

[tommo123]

personally i like vista more than xp. with enough RAM, it looks and 'feels' nicer than XP.

there is 1 thing that drives me mental though. the whole copy/move files thing that takes longer to calculate the time remaining than it does to actually copy/move the files

 

[ielmox]

Originally posted by: juktar
So your proof that system restore is a resource hog are articles that say when your low on disk space, delete the system restore points to clear up some disk space, thus improving performance?

Well, not all the posts are talking only about disk space. However, even if that interpretation were the case, the fact that System Restore is taking up a large chunk of space makes it by definition a hog, no? After all, when was the last time you loaded a restore point from 280 saves ago?

 

[ielmox]

Oh and disk space wasn't the issue, no.

The following might be specific problems with my implementation, I don't know, but here are some of my most recurring complaints:

- Why does it take so long to connect to a broadband connection in Vista?
- Why, when I right click on the taskbar networking icon for the first time after a boot, does it take several seconds for the menu to display?
- Is the screen supposed to flash on and off every time the user access warning comes up? Why not just display the window without trying to induce an epileptic attack? Why the short flashing delay? (mind you in spite of the horrible presentation this feature seems to have prevented several suspect web sites from installing crapware - even using FireFox - so it's not all bad)
- Why does my Vista box appear to copy files from disk to disk more slowly than under XP? Is it the copy/move calculation mentioned by tommo123?

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: ielmox
Oh and disk space wasn't the issue, no.

The following might be specific problems with my implementation, I don't know, but here are some of my most recurring complaints:

- Why does it take so long to connect to a broadband connection in Vista?
- Why, when I right click on the taskbar networking icon for the first time after a boot, does it take several seconds for the menu to display?
- Is the screen supposed to flash on and off every time the user access warning comes up? Why not just display the window without trying to induce an epileptic attack? Why the short flashing delay? (mind you in spite of the horrible presentation this feature seems to have prevented several suspect web sites from installing crapware - even using FireFox - so it's not all bad)
- Why does my Vista box appear to copy files from disk to disk more slowly than under XP? Is it the copy/move calculation mentioned by tommo123?

No idea...something sounds wrong.
I run dual ISPs (via dual LAN), & i disable/enable them often, & it happens extremely fast, possibly faster than XP.
Same with wireless connection speed on my notebook.
Connects fast as i've ever seen.

Again, not sure.
I also have a home network set up between my three PCs.
It does take a few second for the PCs to show in the network, but again, that's no different than my experience in XP.
Doesn't take a few seconds for the Network page to show up though...that happens at normal speed in my experience.

As for UAC's screen flashing, there are settings you can fine tune for UAC other than "On" or "Off"
The darkened screen is referred to as "Secure Desktop".
If you wish to switch to the popup to a normal popup without the darkened screen (which i agree is annoyingly unecessary), type "Local Security Policy" in the search above the Vista orb.
Then Security Settings > Local Policies > Security Options > & scroll to the bottom & you'll see this: http://www.imageannex.com/out.php/i7811_uacvista.JPG
If you disable "Switch to the secure desktop when prompting for elevation", you'll see a normal yes or no popup for UAC.

The file copy slowness error is one of the very few legit issues i've heard of in Vista thus far.
Oddly enough, none of the systems i own have the issue, but i know it exists.
I haven't looked if there's a fix yet since it hasn't happened to me.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: ielmox

Originally posted by: Smilin
A restore point is created once every 24 hours. These are ONLY created during idle time.

Actually, restore points are created every 10 hours AND every 24 hours. I've already addressed the idle time issue, but see below for a conflicting opinion.

Proof? Show me where it gets created every 10 hours. If you hadn't turned it off based on false information you would be able to CLEARLY see the number of restore points available in a give 24 hour period.

..speaking of "claims" do you have any objective data to back this up our just your "feeling"?

I said "MS claims..." and if you actually bothered engaging your brain as opposed to the (admittedly less resource intensive) smugness engine, you'd no doubt have been able to parse such a simple statement. On this page is MS's claim that I referred to:
http://www.microsoft.com/techn...pro/plan/faqsrwxp.mspx

...mmm...kaaayy...
You indeed said "ms claims" and I responded with "speaking of 'claims'"...I think I parsed your simple statement just fine. Now speaking of "smugness" why don't you stop trying to infer some verbal superiority and provide the proof to *your* claims that MS's claims here are incorrect.

assuming you manually set your space slidder in an awful position Windows will still reduce the size of the systemvolumeinformation folder dynamically as your drive fills up. Basically even if you use a dumb setting it will save you from yourself.

Doesn't impact anything I said about it being a resource hog - and the 12% of disk space is a huge amount reserved for an application that just isn't that useful - particularly since previous restore points are increasingly unhelpful.

12% of disk space could be a lot. 12% of *unused* disk space is nothing. If you unused disk space becomes needed system restore reduces it's footprint. If you are down to some 150mb then you have worse issues to worry about.

...ignorance is the source of your bliss I think. Nobody needs system restore until they need system restore. Suit yourself though, it's your computer. Sucks to do a full restore from backups when a 3 minute fix will do. /shrug

No, it appears that ignorance is the source of your bliss (certainly your smugness): I do not need System Restore and that's that. Aside from the fact that I've never once had to use it (when a simpler and less drastic fix would work), there are - as mentioned several times - better alternatives, alternatives that can back up data in addition to system files, and that are more comprehensive and more reliable.

You think system restore is meant to backup data? Did you even look to see what system restore was before you turned it off?[/quote]

ORLY? So you know it all huh?

Here, read this: http://www.microsoft.com/techn...pro/plan/faqsrwxp.mspx
you'll save yourself any further embarassing displays of ignorance.

Lest you haven't noticed (that shining bright light emanating from your ego must be pretty blinding) you are the one who started this discussion with mockery and superiority, Mr. know-it-all.

Actually I began this discussion by outright laughing at you. Call it what you want. I'm still laughing.

Recap, since you'll no doubt wish to hand-wave further: MS (and you) claim that System Restore is hunky dory. But a wealth of other sources (not to mention personal experience) explicitly indicate that system restore impacts performance (the point I originally made about it being an unnecessary hog). Some of these sources:

http://www.microsoft.com/windo...more/tips/mcgill1.mspx Clear System Restore Points For Performance

Michael Mcgill from warrenton virginia is making statements in direct conflict to the restore points faq provided earlier and to empirical evidence easily shown by browsing the contents of the system restore points folder :roll: You don't have to believe me. go look for yourself.

http://www.extremetech.com/art.../0,1697,1153280,00.asp here we learn that "System Restore can adversely affect application benchmark software, and might operate during active test periods"

...in other words if the computer is left idle a restore point is created :roll: duh.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_restore Wikipedia says "Users concerned with performance or space usage may also opt to disable System Restore entirely"

http://www.windowsdevcenter.co...5/05/17/xp_tuning.html O'Reilly recommends turning down System Restore disk quota to improve performance

http://www.infoworld.com/artic.../01/24/04winman_1.html The System Restore feature may slow you down without warning

http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.o..._system_restore_po.htm Clear Restore Points to improve performance

http://www.daniweb.com/forums/thread4609.html more of the same

http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfr...cc=us&docname=bph06569 same advice from HP / Compaq

http://www.tunexp.com/tips/mai...oints_for_performance/ and more

http://blogs.techrepublic.com....ndow-on-windows/?p=160 Improving XP Performance: "if you notice that your system isn?t performing as well as it used to, you can save on disk space and improve performance by disabling the System Restore feature"

And so forth.

...yeah,yeah and so forth. Looky,

here is another link supporting your claim!...

http://www.blackviper.com/WinX...em_Restore_Service.htm

You can find them all over the internet. If the claim was true you would only need one link to prove it (like that one I provided several posts ago). It's just like your claim that XP is producing a system restore point once every 10 hours....You can go dig up 10, 100, 1000 links that claim this to be true but all you have to do is look at the timestamps on your RP folders and your "facts" come crumbling down.

So call me smug all you want but I'm the one making the claim that water is wet. You're disputing it and that's why I'm laughing at you.


You should like call and talk to one of the guys that has supported system restore at Microsoft. I bet those guys have seen every SR case known to man and know the ins-and-outs and limitations. They might know what works, what doesn't and even have access to the SR source code. Heck I bet they've even seen dozens of cases where people claim performance issues but when troubleshot down to root cause it turns out to be something else. (someone here knows where I'm going with this... )

 

[juktar]

Originally posted by: ielmox

Well, not all the posts are talking only about disk space. However, even if that interpretation were the case, the fact that System Restore is taking up a large chunk of space makes it by definition a hog, no? After all, when was the last time you loaded a restore point from 280 saves ago?

Just becuase it is using disk space does not make it a hog. It just uses disk space. Some of the articles you quoted had specific mention of Windows ME version of System restore. It all boils down to, if your performance is lagging (because of disk space) then delete you r restore points. Just because they do not specifically say check your disk space does not mean they are not referring to a performace problem becuase of disk space. In fact, one of the articles you link says that system restore uses very little system resources.

I turn the disk space usage down, but I do not turn it off entirely.

System Restore is not meant to backup your data and you should not think it backs up your data, as it does not. It has saved people I know tons of times and is veryusefull.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: Smilin

You should like call and talk to one of the guys that has supported system restore at Microsoft. I bet those guys have seen every SR case known to man and know the ins-and-outs and limitations. They might know what works, what doesn't and even have access to the SR source code. Heck I bet they've even seen dozens of cases where people claim performance issues but when troubleshot down to root cause it turns out to be something else. (someone here knows where I'm going with this... )

Do you have his number? :Q

 

[ielmox]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Proof? Show me where it gets created every 10 hours. If you hadn't turned it off based on false information you would be able to CLEARLY see the number of restore points available in a give 24 hour period.

System Restore creates restore points (according to MS) as follows, as provided in a previous link: "once every 10 hours that Windows XP is running, or every 24 hours"
http://www.microsoft.com/windo...more/tips/mcgill1.mspx

Funny that you should choose to focus so much energy and time on this particular issue.

You indeed said "ms claims" and I responded with "speaking of 'claims'"...I think I parsed your simple statement just fine.

As evidenced by the complete lack of comprehension in your post? Oh wait, was that deliberate equivocation on your side? It's hard to tell the difference sometimes.

Now speaking of "smugness" why don't you stop trying to infer some verbal superiority and provide the proof to *your* claims that MS's claims here are incorrect.

I don't have to "try" to infer verbal superiority when arguing with you, since prose is evident as soon as it's read - unlike your repeated, feeble, and largely unsubstantiated protestations that you are right and I am wrong. But to wit: I already provided personal experience and a bunch of citations. Perhaps you need to focus on the arguments instead of further attempts at preserving ego in the community. Perhaps next time you'll think twice before mocking someone you don't even know just because they criticize (correctly or incorrectly) your employer/object of adoration.

12% of disk space could be a lot. 12% of *unused* disk space is nothing. If you unused disk space becomes needed system restore reduces it's footprint. If you are down to some 150mb then you have worse issues to worry about.

12% is a lot of space - it is more severe if you are running out of space, true, but that does not mean it is a non-issue if the drive has the free space. (Juktar take note) 12% of unused disk space still contributes to fragmentation, requires longer to be scanned, searched, indexed, etc. The end result would thus appear to be reduced system performance. As argued already a number of times.

You think system restore is meant to backup data?

Of course I do not think it is meant to back up data. Never suggested it. I suggested that there are better alternatives that can also back up data (i.e., in addition to system files). I am hardly alone in making this point, as others in this thread have commented on precisely this factor.

Actually I began this discussion by outright laughing at you. Call it what you want. I'm still laughing.

Ah yes, a fine display of geek chest beating.

Michael Mcgill from warrenton virginia is making statements in direct conflict to the restore points faq provided earlier and to empirical evidence easily shown by browsing the contents of the system restore points folder :roll: You don't have to believe me. go look for yourself.

How is it in direct conflict with the FAQ? Looks to me like he's expanding on the issue, if anything, so I'll let the source stand - thanks. Also note that (whether right or wrong) this is not the only source making the 10hr running / 24h claim.

http://www.extremetech.com/art.../0,1697,1153280,00.asp here we learn that "System Restore can adversely affect application benchmark software, and might operate during active test periods"

...in other words if the computer is left idle a restore point is created :roll: duh.

"Active test periods" now has to equal "idle"? I also invite you to re-read the source with a greater degree of accuracy: note the words "adversely affect".

[several cites omitted for brevity]

...yeah,yeah and so forth. Looky,

here is another link supporting your claim!...

http://www.blackviper.com/WinX...em_Restore_Service.htm

yes I noticed earlier you have something against Black Viper. I find that some of his recommendations dramatically speed up my machines - I say some because of course I do not follow his suggestions to the letter, rather I pick and choose. Furthermore he seems fairly well regarded and linked to. The fact that his tips just tend to work and have done so for several years inspires some degree of confidence. On the other hand perhaps I should just be convinced by the hot air coming from you. Hm, which to choose?

You can find them all over the internet. If the claim was true you would only need one link to prove it (like that one I provided several posts ago). It's just like your claim that XP is producing a system restore point once every 10 hours....You can go dig up 10, 100, 1000 links that claim this to be true but all you have to do is look at the timestamps on your RP folders and your "facts" come crumbling down.

Restore is off so there are no time stamps to check. Even if I am wrong, it is because of information disseminated on the Microsoft web site itself in addition to other sources. Why are you focusing so hard on this one tiny facet of the conversation while glossing over everything else? Having a hard time addressing the other cites and arguments? Looking for something you can latch on to and salvage your bruised credibility after failing to swat a newbie? Next time just adopt a modicum of civility, it'll be much easier.

 

[ielmox]

Originally posted by: n7
As for UAC's screen flashing, there are settings you can fine tune for UAC other than "On" or "Off"
The darkened screen is referred to as "Secure Desktop".
If you wish to switch to the popup to a normal popup without the darkened screen (which i agree is annoyingly unecessary), type "Local Security Policy" in the search above the Vista orb.
Then Security Settings > Local Policies > Security Options > & scroll to the bottom & you'll see this: http://www.imageannex.com/out.php/i7811_uacvista.JPG
If you disable "Switch to the secure desktop when prompting for elevation", you'll see a normal yes or no popup for UAC.

Thanks a lot for this n7, I appreciate the helpful input.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: ielmox

Originally posted by: n7
As for UAC's screen flashing, there are settings you can fine tune for UAC other than "On" or "Off"
The darkened screen is referred to as "Secure Desktop".
If you wish to switch to the popup to a normal popup without the darkened screen (which i agree is annoyingly unecessary), type "Local Security Policy" in the search above the Vista orb.
Then Security Settings > Local Policies > Security Options > & scroll to the bottom & you'll see this: http://www.imageannex.com/out.php/i7811_uacvista.JPG
If you disable "Switch to the secure desktop when prompting for elevation", you'll see a normal yes or no popup for UAC.

Thanks a lot for this n7, I appreciate the helpful input.

Heh, hope it's lessened the irritation UAC can be (w/o having to disable it)
If you don't mind messing around more, you can fine tune more of the UAC settings also.

I just wish Local security Policy was available in Home Premium...thus far i can't find it there.

Seems it's just in Ultimate & Business i assume.

Anyone know if this is correct?

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: ielmox

Originally posted by: Smilin
Proof? Show me where it gets created every 10 hours. If you hadn't turned it off based on false information you would be able to CLEARLY see the number of restore points available in a give 24 hour period.

System Restore creates restore points (according to MS) as follows, as provided in a previous link: "once every 10 hours that Windows XP is running, or every 24 hours"
http://www.microsoft.com/windo...more/tips/mcgill1.mspx

The link above contradicts this one:
http://www.microsoft.com/techn...pro/plan/faqsrwxp.mspx

One of them is technet documentation. The other is user-submitted tips. Sorry you chose poorly. It's a moot point though. If you understand system restore and how it works you can just go find out for yourself.

Funny that you should choose to focus so much energy and time on this particular issue.

Meh. I'm just here to make you feel better. Merely laughing at your ludicrous statement on system restore got you into some "prove it!" tizzy. My intention was to leave you with the one statement that I began with.

You can find them all over the internet. If the claim was true you would only need one link to prove it (like that one I provided several posts ago). It's just like your claim that XP is producing a system restore point once every 10 hours....You can go dig up 10, 100, 1000 links that claim this to be true but all you have to do is look at the timestamps on your RP folders and your "facts" come crumbling down.

Restore is off so there are no time stamps to check. Even if I am wrong, it is because of information disseminated on the Microsoft web site itself in addition to other sources. Why are you focusing so hard on this one tiny facet of the conversation while glossing over everything else? Having a hard time addressing the other cites and arguments? Looking for something you can latch on to and salvage your bruised credibility after failing to swat a newbie? Next time just adopt a modicum of civility, it'll be much easier.

It's not IF you are wrong, you ARE wrong. You could have figured it out just by spending 60 seconds looking at a machine with system restore running but instead you spent who knows how much time digging around "teh intarnets" desperately looking for some link to prove me wrong. My credibility remains perfectly intact, thanks! Next time don't expect to throw some tripe out and have us swallow it. If someone comes along and outright laughs at a statement you are making perhaps you should contemplate why.

If you would like to focus on additional aspects of your system restore conversation we can do that. Honestly I find you a bit tiresome though. Do you really want to go into how much of a drain system restore is on your system when it spins for 2 seconds once every 24 hours? Is that **really** an argument you want to have?

 

[hooflung]

The idea behind Vista is grand. The DRM shows pretty conclusively that trusted computing is misrepresenting the core ideals of what trusted computing actually is. It should be 'mis'trusting computing.

Microsoft cares more for its partners than it does the back of the people who put their products on the map.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: hooflung
The idea behind Vista is grand. The DRM shows pretty conclusively that trusted computing is misrepresenting the core ideals of what trusted computing actually is. It should be 'mis'trusting computing.

Microsoft cares more for its partners than it does the back of the people who put their products on the map.

Perhaps you can explain exactly how DRM has inconveinced you or stopped you from doing anything other than stealing content?