New
#31
Yes, I have enabled System Protection
No (please specify why)
Now I am confused. If you utilized Acronis images to restore your machines...wouldn't it also hold true that after virus repairs that you would have to dump your old backups as using them to restore your system could restore the virus to the computer in a flash??? In fact, I would think with system images the problem would actually be far worse as this is restoring data files and such...rather than just the drivers and DLL's...which usually aren't the infected bits.
I do use a "system image" from time to time with my machine. Usually I take one right after install and the base drivers are installed and the machine is activated. But that is usually it...with respect to images. But in the event that a driver update hoses some functionality and a system uninstall doesn't quite cut it...a "system restore" point is usually more effective as a quick solution than backup up any new data, restoring the "system image" and reinstalling apps and moving that new data back.
Who makes infected images using, say, Acronis TI?
I don't. Very few others will. Reason being is that you choose when to do it.
Unlike system restore...
Q. Can you boot from a Microsoft System Restore disk and reinstall your entire OS?
A. Nope.
Q. Does System Restore use a separate drive or partition for heightened data integrity?
A. Nope again.
Q. Can a virus which was incorporated into a System Restore archive resurrect itself to bite you in the a$$?
A. Yep.
I rest my case...
How can using an image restore the virus if you made the image on a 100% clean/running well machine ?
Somebody who doesn't yet know that their machine is infected. Even the most rigorous of AV products are unaware until a new enough definition file is released.
Playing Devils Advocate a bit and reversing the thought process
Q. Can a virus which was incorporated into a TI archive resurrect itself to bite you in the a$$?
A. Yep.
Q. Can a TI backup be used to simply reverse what 1 application did without having to restore your whole OS and recover any data between now and then.
A. Nope
I think my point is that each system provides different value to the end user. Honestly, best course of action to me would be to use both systems...and that is exactly what I do. Like I said, 1 image that puts me back to 100% clean and 100% vanilla...system protection to warrant against that isolated incident causing me some grief at any moment.
I'm not arguing against the use of other technologies. However, I'm not convinced that having system restore turned on is causing me any hardships other than a small amount of disk space which is easily afforded. So, I'm arguing that in my opinion there isn't a great reason for disabling it. At the end of the day, it's just my opinion. Your mileage indeed will vary.
Somebody who doesn't yet know that their machine is infected. Even the most rigorous of AV products are unaware until a new enough definition file is released.
Also, I've been fortunate enough to make a system change on a Monday which resulted in another application suffering an issue which wasn't discovered for 3-4 days since I didn't use the other application. So, I could have easily ran a TI backup on Tuesday assuming that all was well...and simply didn't know about it.
Playing Devils Advocate a bit and reversing the thought process
Q. Can a virus which was incorporated into a TI archive resurrect itself to bite you in the a$$?
A. Yep.
Q. Can a TI backup be used to simply reverse what 1 application did without having to restore your whole OS and recover any data between now and then.
A. Nope
I think my point is that each system provides different value to the end user. Honestly, best course of action to me would be to use both systems...and that is exactly what I do. Like I said, 1 image that puts me back to 100% clean and 100% vanilla...system protection to warrant against that isolated incident causing me some grief at any moment.
Can't agree with anyone who says System Restore is a decent alternative to third party disk imaging tools, nor with those who don't know the concepts of making bare metal backups, building on them stage by stage, and ensuring you don't have nasties aboard...
Perhaps this sort of mentality will enable them to go around believing System Restore makes them bomb proof, when the truth is that it does little more than bloat the systems primary partition and can serve as a vehicle to cache viruses on the same partition as the actual operating sytem... sheesh...
Maybe if Microsoft had labeled the name of the tool, "Critical System Components restore" instead we would all get along.
The name is a bit misleading, as it will not, nor can it restore an entire OS in the event of a massive failure. As can be done with any imaging tool.