System Volume Information

[Pook]

Hello guys,

this forum's administration is very quick to lock the threads.

I want to reply the last guy what is wrong with SP2. I don't want to offend anyone, and you yourself know that Windows are not perfect, and SP2 requires newer computers equipped with more powerful hardware which I don't have. Though I pay money, Microsoft doesn't give me any choice what to use, and each time I have to pay more and more like for better software that needs better hardware , and I don't like this. I just want to have my applications which I got used to running. But I installed SP2 because there is no solution how to prevent Comodo from blocking shutting down, and now it doesn't make any problems. But I have a different question I'd like to ask:

I have a folder "System Volume Information". It is very big like 3G or so. Do I really need it?

And one more question:

what programs do you use to back up your registry?

[jrf2027]

I have a folder "System Volume Information". It is very big like 3G or so. Do I really need it?

Short answer:

Yes, you need it. However, you can drastically decrease its size.

Long answer:

The "System Volume Information" folder is where System Restore backups are kept.

If you can open the folder, you'll see a series of subfolders called RP0, RP1, etc. If you can't open the folder, run this from a command prompt:

cacls "C:\System Volume Information" /E /G Pook:F

assuming the account you wish to have access to the folder is named Pook.

If you shut off System Restore, the folder remains, but its size shrinks down to about 20 kilobytes. You can tweak the size of the folder by adjusting how much disk space you allot to System Restore.

If you do have access to the folder, do NOT delete any files in the folder directly! It can delete necessary files from the computer.

As for backing up the registry...I've just always opened up Regedit, right-clicked on "My Computer", and saved the file that way.

[Pook]

Thanks for the hint. I just deleted it manually and adjusted its volume to 2% in System Restore.

As for the registry backup I always use erunt. It can restore registry from BartPE, but maybe there is something nicer, I don't know. What do you think?

[Jeremy]

JV16 PowerTools 2006, the absolute best registry suite available today (what most others originate from).

www.macecraft.com

[Pook]

JV16 PowerTools 2006, the absolute best registry suite available today (what most others originate from).

www.macecraft.com

Thanks, Jeremy, but that is a paid stuff. I need something freeware. And besides I don't think that cleaning registry this way is a good idea.

[jcarle]

Thanks, Jeremy, but that is a paid stuff. I need something freeware. And besides I don't think that cleaning registry this way is a good idea.

Indeed, registry cleaners can create a great deal of problems. Often a registry cleaner will delete registry keys which it believes are not important but are actually required by certain applications. A good example of which, running Registry Mechanic will hose your Visual Studio installation.

[Jeremy]

Thanks, Jeremy, but that is a paid stuff. I need something freeware. And besides I don't think that cleaning registry this way is a good idea.

Pook, the fact of the matter is, not many registry cleaners are freeware, except for CCleaner and RegSeeker and maybe a few others. CCleaner and RegSeeker are what I consider the most basic at cleaning the registry.

Another fact, Jouni Vuorio, the developer of of JV16 and founder of MaceCraft (also a friend of mine) offers the inexpensive product for 30 days with full functionality. Most other trialware cleaners don't provide full functionality unless you pay for it right there on the spot which is totally unfair.

Another fact, anyone who beta-tests the software or simply suggests a valuable idea to be included in the software gets a free license which is good for 5 PCs within the same household legitimately.

Read this: Link

Indeed, registry cleaners can create a great deal of problems. Often a registry cleaner will delete registry keys which it believes are not important but are actually required by certain applications. A good example of which, running Registry Mechanic will hose your Visual Studio installation.

That is correct for some registry cleaners, but not all. I absolutely hate how people seem to generalize all registry cleaners this way.

I've used several dozens of registry cleaners and JV16 happens to be the safest and most effective product I know of. Some people on this forum know how much software I test and compare with other products on a frequent basis and JV16 hasn't damaged anything in over two years (since the 2005 release). If something does go wrong, you can very easily restore the entries from a backup (assuming that you've made one ) and tell the software to ignore those entries in the future.

But yeah, too many people are so misinformed about how registry cleaner development has improved over the years and think great products like JV16 are no better for the registry than Norton is with anti-virus. Very sad.

[Pook]

Jouni Vuorio, the developer of of JV16 and founder of MaceCraft (also a friend of mine) offers the inexpensive product for 30 days with full functionality.

I readily believe that JV16 is an outstanding cleaner. I greatly appreciate your help, too. But you forgot that I am a foreigner from Belarus, as the flag indicates. Things differ here from what you, guys, have in North America, and inexpensive for ones is very expensive for others, while freeware is equally free for everyone. But I didn't ask about a cleaner. I prefer to clean registry manually. I asked about registry backup. Is there anything better than erunt? But it doesn't matter now, since I installed it already.

Thanks. I was happy to talk to you.

[[deXter]]

SP2 requires newer computers equipped with more powerful hardware which I don't have.

That's completly incorrect. The System Requirements for Windows XP Service Pack 2 page clearly states that the minimum requirements for SP2 are:

• 233 megahertz (MHz) processor

• 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM

• 1.8 GB of available hard disk space during installation

This configuration can hardly be called powerful.

I can confirm that the requirements are true as I have personally installed SP2 on computers using the above configuration. I'm sure plenty of others here in this forum installed XP on such a configuration.

Infact, SP2's requirements are almost the same as XP's, except that you'd need 300 MB more disk space.

I'm pretty sure you're using a disk drive greater than 2 GB.

I asked about registry backup. Is there anything better than erunt?

You could also use "System Restore".

[Pook]

SP2 requires newer computers equipped with more powerful hardware which I don't have.

That's completly incorrect. The System Requirements for Windows XP Service Pack 2 page clearly states that the minimum requirements for SP2 are:

• 233 megahertz (MHz) processor

• 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM

• 1.8 GB of available hard disk space during installation

This configuration can hardly be called powerful.

It's maybe incorrect when you are running plain Windows, but if you have a lot of other stuff running + annoying automatic updates which tend to restart your computer at the most unexpected moment, then it's correct. From my experience I can say that SP1 is faster than SP2. I don't know what hidden processes are there running, but SP2 constantly writes something and that slows down everything. So I use XP-AntySpy to turn a lot of unpleasant things off. As for erunt, as I said, you can use it to restore your registry from BartPE, the only bootable thing available. Can anybody tell me why for Linux there are plenty of nice little things like Knoppix available, and for Windows only one ugly BartPE?

Edited April 28, 2007 by Pook

[Jeremy]

I prefer to clean registry manually. I asked about registry backup. Is there anything better than erunt?

You can do it manually with regedit which comes with Windows.

You can do it manually with JV16. Just click the "Custom Fix" option.

You can backup the registry with JV16.

Cheers.

[[deXter]]

SP2 requires newer computers equipped with more powerful hardware which I don't have.

That's completly incorrect. The System Requirements for Windows XP Service Pack 2 page clearly states that the minimum requirements for SP2 are:

• 233 megahertz (MHz) processor

• 64 megabytes (MB) of RAM

• 1.8 GB of available hard disk space during installation

This configuration can hardly be called powerful.

It's maybe incorrect when you are running plain Windows, but if you have a lot of other stuff running + annoying automatic updates which tend to restart your computer at the most unexpected moment, then it's correct. From my experience I can say that SP1 is faster than SP2. I don't know what hidden processes are there running, but SP2 constantly writes something and that slows down everything. So I use XP-AntySpy to turn a lot of unpleasant things off. As for erunt, as I said, you can use it to restore your registry from BartPE, the only bootable thing available. Can anybody tell me why for Linux there are plenty of nice little things like Knoppix available, and for Windows only one ugly BartPE?

You can disable the Security Center (Administrative Tools -> Services). Windows Firewall is also new to SP2, so if you wish, you may disable that too.

annoying automatic updates which tend to restart your computer at the most unexpected moment

System Properties -> Automatic Updates -> "Download updates for me, but let me choose when to install them."

From my experience I can say that SP1 is faster than SP2.

And how did you test this? Did you disable the new services that come with SP2? Because if you didn't, then its unfair to say that SP1 is faster than SP2.

Did you do a clean, slipstreamed installation of SP1 and SP2 and run benchmarks?

Can anybody tell me why for Linux there are plenty of nice little things like Knoppix available, and for Windows only one ugly BartPE?

Because Linux is free and Windows isn't. Since Linux is free, it's possible to create LiveCDs like Knoppix and distribute them. You can't do that for Windows for obvious reasons. Which is why BartPE exists so that you can create your own LiveCD from your own Windows files, legally. However, if you're willing to pay money, there are easy to use Windows LiveCDs, like ERD Commander. ERD can perform many recovery tasks including System Restore - you don't have to boot into your Windows anymore to perform System Restore.

[Pook]

And how did you test this?

Thank you, deXter, for a better explanation. If under SP2 it takes 5 minutes to open outlook, I think it is too long. How can I test it?

Did you disable the new services that come with SP2? Because if you didn't, then its unfair to say that SP1 is faster than SP2.

I am an ordinary user, I don't know anything about computers. Do you mean that some services coming with Windows are harmful? How can I know what services to disable? Maybe they are important?

Did you do a clean, slipstreamed installation of SP1 and SP2 and run benchmarks?

Do you mean I have to do anything more that it was already done? I didn't clean anything, Windows did everything by themselves how it was meant to be, I guess.

Edited April 28, 2007 by Pook

[[deXter]]

And how did you test this?

Thank you, deXter, for a better explanation. If under SP2 it takes 5 minutes to open outlook, I think it is too long. How can I test it?

Then something is wrong. Because on my 450 MHz computer, it takes just a few seconds to open Outlook.

Did you disable the new services that come with SP2? Because if you didn't, then its unfair to say that SP1 is faster than SP2.

I am an ordinary user, I don't know anything about computers. Do you mean that some services coming with Windows are harmful? How can I know what services to disable? Maybe they are important?

That is why there are forums like these, to help out people. There are plenty of threads here on how to make your PC faster, on how to disable unnecessary services. Search the forums.

Did you do a clean, slipstreamed installation of SP1 and SP2 and run benchmarks?

Do you mean I have to do anything more that it was already done? I didn't clean anything, Windows did everything by themselves how it was meant to be, I guess.

I meant, the best way to install any Service Pack is to slipstream it into the setup disk and perform a clean install. (A clean install is when you're installing for the first time, instead of upgrading. It's basically when you format the windows drive and install).

You don't *have* to do it, but its always better to perform a clean install instead of a 'upgrade' install, because:

1) Installing a Service Pack takes almost the same (or more) time as installing Windows

2) You may face errors due to your existing software or configuration

3) A lot of files get fragmented, slowing down your system

4) You'll need additional space for storing the temporary files, for backup, etc

5) If/when you're (re)installing windows, you won't have to waste your time installing SP2 seperately.

[Pook]

Then something is wrong. Because on my 450 MHz computer, it takes just a few seconds to open Outlook.

You have 450 mHz, and my cpu is 1303.074 MHz, 64 KB cache size. But it is slow because of firewall, antivirus and other nice programs running at startup.

That is why there are forums like these, to help out people. There are plenty of threads here on how to make your PC faster, on how to disable unnecessary services. Search the forums.

Do I have time for that? I use XP-AntiSpy which allows to turn these services off by pressing a single button.

I meant, the best way to install any Service Pack is to slipstream it into the setup disk and perform a clean install. (A clean install is when you're installing for the first time, instead of upgrading. It's basically when you format the windows drive and install).

In my previous thread I explained why I don't think that slipstreaming is nice. Because you, English folks, don't need much. But when I tried nLite all the language modules were broken, and I coudn't use my native language support. And in general I think that it is not a good idea to drive the whole operation system through a buggy freeware.

There's something wrong with Windows, and I am afraid, if the things go on this way, Microsoft can loose its monopoly.