[MPMoriarty]

I was discussing this the other day with a friend of mine. He was saying how it's nice of XP to have its system restore in XP to fix things and its odd that OS X doesn't have anything like it.

I countered back that system restore doesn't always fix everything and that it is needed due to the fact that so many system files and settings are stored in such hard to find places (like the registry) that a normal user won't be able to find and fix them. Mac OS X doesn't really suffer a lot of these problem due to the fact that everything is really a file and can be easily edited, deleted, and fixed. Like deleting problematic preference files for applications which is a pretty easy way to fix the majority of application issues.

But then that got me to thinking that maybe a system restore app wouldn't be a bad idea. Mac OS X could do a quick backup of a user's library in their home directory at particular times and allow a user to restore their library directory with all of their preferences and plug-ins to more stable periods.

What do you think?

Mike

[ManOfSteal]

Not needed, but I wouldn't complain to have it either I suppose...

[Thinine]

Whole lot of work nearly zero benefit. You could do the same thing by creating a disk image of your drive before you run an update.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by Thinine:
Whole lot of work nearly zero benefit. You could do the same thing by creating a disk image of your drive before you run an update.

Do you honestly think even 1% of users know how to do this?

[Burke]

I don't know...

The first thing I disable after a fresh install of XP is System Restore. It's a hog, and even on a fast, tweaked system, its impact on the "zippiness" of the OS is appreciable (at least to me).

I can only imagine how awful it'd be on something like a 4200 RPM Mac mini hard drive.

[Randman]

[CharlesS]

System Restore is a Band-Aid slapped on the fragility of Windows which is the result of bad design decisions such as the Registry.

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by Thinine:
Whole lot of work nearly zero benefit. You could do the same thing by creating a disk image of your drive before you run an update.

Onto.. where? your 80 gig external that you have hanging around just for that purpose?

To answer the original question - yes. We need to be able to roll back updates. Just needs to back up the files that are changed during a system update.. shouldn't be a huge deal.

[MPMoriarty]

Well I was just thinking of something that backs up your library directory at different intervals making it easy for a user to restore their settings, preferences, etc if something becomes corrupted or a plug-in is acting funny.

While I know how to easily handle this situation myself by actually digging around in the library directory and deleting the culprit files, not everyone knows how to do this.

[toneloco28]

Personally, I would love such a feature in the upcoming release of Mac OS X. I am a recent switcher (9 months), and this is the only feature i really miss from Windows. It would have came in handy recently after having applied 10.3.8 and having it wreak havoc on my system. I think alot of people here are denouncing the usefulness of such a tool being that it is on the "dark side". This is of course, just my opinion .

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by toneloco28:
Personally, I would love such a feature in the upcoming release of Mac OS X. I am a recent switcher (9 months), and this is the only feature i really miss from Windows. It would have came in handy recently after having applied 10.3.8 and having it wreak havoc on my system. I think alot of people here are denouncing the usefulness of such a tool being that it is on the "dark side". This is of course, just my opinion .

Also possible is that they believe that since they haven't had a problem yet no one has ever had a problem. Maybe they also believe that this feature "can't work". My favorite so far is this one:

You could do the same thing by creating a disk image of your drive before you run an update.

Unbelievable.

[K++]

You miss the point entirely. A System Restore isn't necessary as part of the sytem, it's just a waste of space and resources because OS X doesn't suffer from teh same fragilty that windows does.

1) Windows systems get infected with spyware/viruses that make the machine ununsable and you roll back to a known good point. This scenario will never happen on a mac for a multitude of reasons.

2) A software install/uninstall screwed something else up and now your system is bahaving erratically. In OS X applications are pretty much self contained packages, so the installation/removal of anything is very unlikely to create such a situation.

3) System update/patch that breaks your system. We must be talking about different System Restore mechanism, because the one in XP merely rolls back yoru registry, it doesn't uninstall files or replace them with older versions that worked. That would be a seperate feature. Mac OS X has no registry, one update can't screw your machine over, and as always you should awit out the early downloaders and wait for reports if your system stability is that important to you.

4) Did I mention the fact that Mac OS X installs that do become screwed would not be fixed by a similiar mechanism? If a plist is corrupted, this type of system would merely treat the symtom, not the cause. And if you don't know the cause of the problem then you will likely be visiting this system restore again and again. One place I worked in was calling on system restore every 2 weeks and had no idea what was wrong with the machine, but hey system restore then install/update what wasn't on that machine from teh original image and that's 5 hours of the day that the machine was useless to anyone.

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by K++:
You miss the point entirely. A System Restore isn't necessary as part of the sytem, it's just a waste of space and resources because OS X doesn't suffer from teh same fragilty that windows does.

1) Windows systems get infected with spyware/viruses that make the machine ununsable and you roll back to a known good point. This scenario will never happen on a mac for a multitude of reasons.

2) A software install/uninstall screwed something else up and now your system is bahaving erratically. In OS X applications are pretty much self contained packages, so the installation/removal of anything is very unlikely to create such a situation.

3) System update/patch that breaks your system. We must be talking about different System Restore mechanism, because the one in XP merely rolls back yoru registry, it doesn't uninstall files or replace them with older versions that worked. That would be a seperate feature. Mac OS X has no registry, one update can't screw your machine over, and as always you should awit out the early downloaders and wait for reports if your system stability is that important to you.

4) Did I mention the fact that Mac OS X installs that do become screwed would not be fixed by a similiar mechanism? If a plist is corrupted, this type of system would merely treat the symtom, not the cause. And if you don't know the cause of the problem then you will likely be visiting this system restore again and again. One place I worked in was calling on system restore every 2 weeks and had no idea what was wrong with the machine, but hey system restore then install/update what wasn't on that machine from teh original image and that's 5 hours of the day that the machine was useless to anyone.

You're assuming that the system restore would work the same way as the Windows system restore. You also haven't' seen the uninstaller that does claim to be able to uninstall patches.

[philc]

One of the problems with Windows System Restore at least in how it is marketed is that it builds false confidence. Also one of the first things most power users will do is turn it off as it slows your system down so much.

I am not sure if it is absolutely necessary on OSX as the system is much more stable and less prone to malware. An external firewire backup is much more convenient as it can be taken offsite.

If you 'bless' your configuration one day once everything is installed and working and backup the entire HD. Then only backup your home directory nightly you should be fine.

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by philc:
One of the problems with Windows System Restore at least in how it is marketed is that it builds false confidence. Also one of the first things most power users will do is turn it off as it slows your system down so much.

I am not sure if it is absolutely necessary on OSX as the system is much more stable and less prone to malware. An external firewire backup is much more convenient as it can be taken offsite.

If you 'bless' your configuration one day once everything is installed and working and backup the entire HD. Then only backup your home directory nightly you should be fine.

It's the windows way. Create a crappy tool to fix a problem. The tool never works that well, and it doesn't really solve the problem, but people think it will.

My favorite example is "Go Back" bundled on some chick's Gateway i was putting a wireless card in. After i installed the netgear software, the comp wouldn't fully start. I saw the go back option on startup, thinking "ah, here we are". Yeah. It didn't work at all.

[Maflynn]

One word 10.3.8

There's been a fairly large hue and cry of people incurring problems with this latest update. With a feature like system restore they would have a process to roll back the update.

Now there's other solutions to get to that, such as apple providing an uninstall feature on its updates, or as someone else said clone the drive. While Apple has yet to produce an uninstall (and I doubt that they will) I do clone my drive.

Typically the updates that Apple has published have been pretty stable but once in while a dog of an update does sneak through. 10.3.8 isn't the first update that many users have complained about problems.

Since I don't use XP at work, and I don't use a pc at home, I don't know if this "feature" bogs down performance too much. My guess is that does, so if Apple were to implement such a feature, It would have to keep performance up.

Regards
Mike

[cpac]

Originally posted by Maflynn:
One word 10.3.8

Sure - plenty of people have problems. But then plenty more don't and they tend not to post about it (though there was a 10.3.8 thread created for this very purpose - scroll down and look at the list of people who had no problems at all with 10.3.8, like me).

Ultimately, I think it's better for people to learn that if they have mission-critical things going on and/or don't want to clone/backup everything before-hand, they should wait before installing the latest system and software updates.

Give it a week or three - look at posts about potential problems, then, if it makes sense to you, give it a try.

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by cpac:
Sure - plenty of people have problems. But then plenty more don't and they tend not to post about it (though there was a 10.3.8 thread created for this very purpose - scroll down and look at the list of people who had no problems at all with 10.3.8, like me).

Ultimately, I think it's better for people to learn that if they have mission-critical things going on and/or don't want to clone/backup everything before-hand, they should wait before installing the latest system and software updates.

Give it a week or three - look at posts about potential problems, then, if it makes sense to you, give it a try.

So you think that if Apple could implement a good version of a software update rollback utility, it would be pointless, because people should know better? If your argument is not this, please elaborate.

By the same argument, airbags & seatbelts are dumb. People should pay attention to the road. If they didn't have seat belts protecting them, maybe they'd be more careful.

Disclaimer: I do not support the above argument I'm just using it as an example.

[SMacTech]

Originally posted by leperkuhn:
You're assuming that the system restore would work the same way as the Windows system restore. You also haven't' seen the uninstaller that does claim to be able to uninstall patches.

Well, XP Pro's system restore failed to work for me just last night. I tried on several different dates to restore from, all to no avail.

That's not to say it doesn't work, because it has. It is as CharlesS, I think said, it's a band-aid, one that often falls off too.

I would much rather do an Archive and Install, which gives a clean OS and negating having to reinstall apps and user settings.

Everyone should have a 2nd drive to which they backup too, but most don't. Even those that do, often fail to use them. Hey, that reminds me...

[cpac]

Originally posted by leperkuhn:
So you think that if Apple could implement a good version of a software update rollback utility, it would be pointless, because people should know better? If your argument is not this, please elaborate.

Ok:

(1) I think most Mac users don't need this sort of a feature
(2) I think that anybody who is concerned that an update could screw up their system should be either: (a) willing to deal with the consequences (archive & install at worst) or (b) more cautious/willing to wait a while before installing it

Essentially I'd rather Apple spent the effort QCing their updates, rather than trying to build a "rollback" program/feature.

By the same argument, airbags & seatbelts are dumb. People should pay attention to the road. If they didn't have seat belts protecting them, maybe they'd be more careful.

This is certainly not the same argument. Seatbelts are like backing up your system - safety in case something goes wrong. All I'm advocating is that people drive defensively, and that if they're not comfortable driving a new and scary road, that they wait until others have driven it and can give them advice.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by MPMoriarty:
Do you think Mac OS X needs something similar to system restore like XP

Yes. I would love the ability to undo some OS updates without having to completely reinstall.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by cpac:
Essentially I'd rather Apple spent the effort QCing their updates, rather than trying to build a "rollback" program/feature.

I think, as with other OS developers, they use the end user as the final QC

[philc]

Originally posted by leperkuhn:
It's the windows way. Create a crappy tool to fix a problem. The tool never works that well, and it doesn't really solve the problem, but people think it will.

My favorite example is "Go Back" bundled on some chick's Gateway i was putting a wireless card in. After i installed the netgear software, the comp wouldn't fully start. I saw the go back option on startup, thinking "ah, here we are". Yeah. It didn't work at all.

So true, the first time I realized the irony was after making a minor video card update to my parents computer. It did not take very well so I decided to try the system restore, it actually made things worse.

Later on in this thread maFlynn notes the need to allow uninstalling system updates and he is right it would be good.

Phil

[Hash]

I think its a good idea, actually. Since XP and X are different OSes, System Restores will operate differently. Whether it works well or not in XP, is of secondary importance. Important is that the OS has such option.

Regarding the X System restore, I think it is fully possible and has huge benefits for final users. With one difference - differing from XP, I think that System Restore checkpoints with user-selectable dates are hard to implement, while SYSTEM-generated System Restore checkpoints are much easier to create. The difference is that in XP a user can install a large variety of drivers, while in OS X main drivers are included in OS X updates. So, the main checkpoints should be System upgrade points, that is

Checkpoint 10.3
10.3.1 and so on.

It means that upgrade installer must behave slightly different during upgrade installation. Instead of simply overwriting the system files, the installer must move older files to be replaced (or copy them) to a special place, say System Vault or a folder similar to System/Receipts, as well as main system preferences and user preferences, and only AFTER it the installer should install newer files. It means that installation time will be slightly longer, but not that much. During installation, Installer should ask user: "Do you want your older system to be backed up? You can revert to it later if necessary".

If a new upgrade messes the system, there should be a possibility to boot into command line or safe boot, and restore system files from the System Vault with older preferences or without preferences at all, so system rebuilds them with the un-upgraded files.

[Tyre MacAdmin]

I think it's a good idea too. I am of the clan that like to error on the side of caution. Also I do a lot of haxies and modifiactions to my Macs and once something goes wrong... which is easy to do if you're doing a lot to the computer, it's good to have a way to restore what you've done to a previous state.

This is what I do now to get around it:

-Have a separate partition or harddrive to backup your existing install. (install a new disk or repartition your existing w/ 2 partitions)

-Install Carbon Copy Cloner

-Go into the CCC prefs and download and install psync

-After you've copied your install to the new partition using CCC, set psync to backup your primary partition at a certain time of day, every day. That way, everything is updated. Also, have it remove files on the backup partition/hard drive that no longer exist on the primary partition/hard drive as well.

Now you've got an automatic backup that's really better than system restore, since it backs up *everything* and is a *bootable* system that you can use to reclone your screwed up partition.

This kind of configuration has got me out of many bad situations.

[Randman]

The CCC plan is good but it's safer to do it on an external drive. One, you don't need to partition OSX, that's another peecee-engrained habit. Secondly, it gives you a robust backup system in case of a hard drive failure.

[Tyre MacAdmin]

Originally posted by Randman:
The CCC plan is good but it's safer to do it on an external drive. One, you don't need to partition OSX, that's another peecee-engrained habit. Secondly, it gives you a robust backup system in case of a hard drive failure.

I agree... an external drive is optimal for those who have one. For those who don't have the money and have to reinstall you could do it the other way. I personally use an external drive.

[Randman]

I think the thing that most of the people here are not thinking of, is having a viable backup plan because a computer, any computer can go bad.

OSX has many ways to do it. Heck, even Apple's Backup app can be quite handy (it'll merge with iSync in Tiger and become .Mac Sync). I prefer CCC but I do use Backup as well to copy important files to my .Mac site as well as burned to a DVD which I keep in the office (in case of a fire or theft). It doesn't take more than 30 extra minutes.

The elegance of OSX is you don't really need things like system restore on XP. I would think (I'm not a switcher though I often use XP at work) having an OS NOT like XP would be a breath of fresh air.

Quit worrying about how things you used to use aren't there anymore and learn more about the OS and it's pluses (and any negatives).

If you really want system restore, stay on XP.

[Hash]

Originally posted by Randman:
...OSX has many ways to do it. Heck, even Apple's Backup app can be quite handy...The elegance of OSX is you don't really need things like system restore on XP... If you really want system restore, stay on XP.

This is a good example of an answer bringing nothing substantional to the problem discussed
First, it begins that OS X "has" many elegant ways to do it (without elaborating about these "elegant ways". Then it proceeds to say, that no OS X restore system is necessary (oh yeah? - care to tell why?), lastly it says - stay with XP.

[Randman]

Originally posted by Hash:
This is a good example of an answer bringing nothing substantional to the problem discussed, vague, general, apologetic and wrong
First, it begins that OS X "has" many elegant ways to do it (without elaborating about these "elegant ways". Then it proceeds to say, that no OS X restore system is necessary (oh yeah? - care to tell why?), lastly it says - stay with XP.

What does substantional mean? Sorry, English is my first language.

Ok, I'll rephrase what I said in small words for you: OSX has options similar to System Restore in XP, if one wants. OSX also is much different than XP. Finally, if people want System Restore, they can use XP or explore any of the options already available in OSX.

Understand that, or was that too "substantional" for you?

[Hash]

Now, if you now understand the "substance" of the problem, can you elaborate more about those "elegant" ways to restore OS X?

It seems that you need at least 3 postings to clarify just one thing - about those "elegant" ways. Now, i am waiting for the third one. Let's hope that it will have some substance.

[Wiskedjak]

It would seem to me that System Restore is a much more "elegant" solution than that which OSX offers since it only requires one step while similar solutions on OSX require several, as well as somewhat more advanced computer knowledge.

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by Randman:
What does substantional mean? Sorry, English is my first language.

Ok, I'll rephrase what I said in small words for you: OSX has options similar to System Restore in XP, if one wants. OSX also is much different than XP. Finally, if people want System Restore, they can use XP or explore any of the options already available in OSX.

Understand that, or was that too "substantional" for you?

Archive and Install, then install all the patches is not an elegant solution. Think about time as well. If an uninstaller actually worked it would kick ass, and take a few minutes rather than hours. Here are the reasons I've seen against this:

(1) I think most Mac users don't need this sort of a feature
(2) I think that anybody who is concerned that an update could screw up their system should be either: (a) willing to deal with the consequences (archive & install at worst) or (b) more cautious/willing to wait a while before installing it

here are some others:

1) Windows systems get infected with spyware/viruses that make the machine ununsable and you roll back to a known good point. This scenario will never happen on a mac for a multitude of reasons.

2) A software install/uninstall screwed something else up and now your system is bahaving erratically. In OS X applications are pretty much self contained packages, so the installation/removal of anything is very unlikely to create such a situation.

3) System update/patch that breaks your system. We must be talking about different System Restore mechanism, because the one in XP merely rolls back yoru registry, it doesn't uninstall files or replace them with older versions that worked. That would be a seperate feature. Mac OS X has no registry, one update can't screw your machine over, and as always you should awit out the early downloaders and wait for reports if your system stability is that important to you.

4) Did I mention the fact that Mac OS X installs that do become screwed would not be fixed by a similiar mechanism? If a plist is corrupted, this type of system would merely treat the symtom, not the cause. And if you don't know the cause of the problem then you will likely be visiting this system restore again and again. One place I worked in was calling on system restore every 2 weeks and had no idea what was wrong with the machine, but hey system restore then install/update what wasn't on that machine from teh original image and that's 5 hours of the day that the machine was useless to anyone.

People's main arguments seem to be "it wouldn't work" and "people should know better not to install updates".

If apple announced Monday morning that system update uninstallers will be available, everyone here who is opposed to it would scream that they love it, especially after you watch Steve do it on stage.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by leperkuhn:
If apple announced Monday morning that system update uninstallers will be available, everyone here who is opposed to it would scream that they love it, especially after you watch Steve do it on stage.

And then go on to accuse M$ of copying the idea

[theolein]

I am of the opinion that OSX could very well use a System Restore facility, but one NOT LIKE the one in WinXP. The one in WinXP is next to useless as it often doesn't help against the problems that are XP's weakness, which is the registry and dll problems, even though it was meant to stop the dll problem that Windows is so known for. Often enough it will not restore dll's that were overwritten by some third party application.

What OSX could really use, as people above have said, is a tool that specifically backs system files up when a system update is done, with the ability, on boot, to revert to that version if the new os revision gives problems.

It's as simple as that. The tool should be for the system and the system only, not third party apps, as tracking changes in those would be impossible.

All the talk about using CCC etc before doing an update is fine, and it's what I do, but it's something you have to know about and use and new comers and the less technically adept won't learn about it until it's too late. That talk is pure snobbishness on the part of power users who feel that being a power user somehow makes them a better breed of person and gives them the right to look down on the less technically inclined.

[Randman]

Originally posted by theolein:
All the talk about using CCC etc before doing an update is fine, and it's what I do, but it's something you have to know about and use and new comers and the less technically adept won't learn about it until it's too late. That talk is pure snobbishness on the part of power users who feel that being a power user somehow makes them a better breed of person and gives them the right to look down on the less technically inclined.

I disagree. I think it's more of helping switchers overcome engrained patterns of use and adapting to OSX. Look at all of the recent threads, system restore, icons on the left, anti-virus, adware/spyware, etc.

Honestly, I think something like System Restore is anti-Apple. I would be very, very surprised if Apple ever incorporated anything like it (the company sure isn't come Tiger and it's going to be at least 2007 before 10.5 is released as Apple is slowing down the rate of OS releases.

So, rather than hearing complaints of how OSX isn't like Windows, I think emphasizing the fact that it's not like Windows is what's needed. And for those die-hards, there are third-party options and multiple ways to manage options that are similar to System Restore but crafted for OSX.

[Hash]

Originally posted by Randman:
.... And for those die-hards, there are third-party options and multiple ways to manage options that are similar to System Restore but crafted for OSX.

And what would be those mysterious, elegant ways similar to System Restore but for OS X, about which you mention so much but never explain in detals?

[ApeInTheShell]

This system restore or rollback software was first introduced in Mac OS 9 and later copied by Windows ME and Windows XP. It wasn't that effective and I think commercial Backup utilities do a better job at it IMO.

The system restore disc is a better choice because it insures that those essential files you need are not corrupted by a backup. I also like the hardware test disc as well. You don't really see those on the Windows PC side.

I suppose they could use FileVault to lock up your entire system. Doesn't that save it as a disk image? Yet FileVault is slow and people have lost the password to it.

[Hash]

Originally posted by ApeInTheShell:
This system restore or rollback software was first introduced in Mac OS 9 and later copied by Windows ME and Windows XP...
The system restore disc is a better choice because it insures that those essential files you need are not corrupted by a backup... You don't really see those on the Windows PC side.

I think that many PCs come with such backup discs or images on hard disk you can use to restore system and applications. At least, my Sharp Mebius notebook (2003 model) came with 3 backup system and applications restore discs and also I think, had a special partition where system was backed up (i reformatted and installed XP Pro immediately after I bought it and never used Sharp discs, but..). But such system restores are different thing - it erases all your data and restores the system the way it was shipped, to period zero. It is not the System restore which I mean - say, to 10.3.7 from 10.3.8 with user files and documents intact.

[MPMoriarty]

I started this thread just suggesting a simply restore feature that backed up your library directory at certain times and then could be restored. A excellent example of how this could be useful is that if you somehow installed a font that started screwing with your system. Fixing it could be as simple as pushing a button that restored your library to another time.

[Randman]

Originally posted by MPMoriarty:
I started this thread just suggesting a simply restore feature that backed up your library directory at certain times and then could be restored. A excellent example of how this could be useful is that if you somehow installed a font that started screwing with your system. Fixing it could be as simple as pushing a button that restored your library to another time.

I would worry about permissions getting messed up with the unix background for something like this. I would say that's why some kind of backup is probably a better way to go.
If an OS can figure out what a problem is enough to restore it to a certain state, it should be able to go and fix the problem in the first place.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Randman:
If an OS can figure out what a problem is enough to restore it to a certain state, it should be able to go and fix the problem in the first place.

In the case of Windows System Restore, it's not figuring out what's wrong and fixing it. Rather, it returns the OS to a previous state where things were working properly.

[Randman]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
In the case of Windows System Restore, it's not figuring out what's wrong and fixing it. Rather, it returns the OS to a previous state where things were working properly.

Does it change everything back to a certain state? What happens with others things you don't want reverted?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Randman:
Does it change everything back to a certain state? What happens with others things you don't want reverted?

Everything system related. Drivers, system settings, installed software. But it doesn't delete files and you can choose how far back you go; Windows automatically sets restore points every few weeks and at major system updates. The user can also manually set restore points.

As with other Windows tools, System Restore is only so-so effective at fixing problems, but it is good at correcting problems resulting from the user messing up system settings, bad drivers or bad OS updates. For example, when we upgraded our Windows boxes to Service Pack 2 some strange combination between our proprietary software and SP2 caused Acrobat and Excel to stop working (we checked around the web and found no one else was having similar problems, so we concluded it had something to do with our software). We used System Restore to take our machines back to the point immediately prior to installing SP2. Worked like a charm and we were able to fix the problem with our software.

System restore is also not effective against viruses since no files are deleted.

[Tyre MacAdmin]

There are actually 2 different "restore" applications available on the windows side of things...

The one that everybody already knows, system restore actually came after the original program, "GoBack" was made (What, MS rip somebody off?)

GoBack was made by a company called Roxio (think Toast Titanium) and was recently bought by Symantec:
http://www.symantec.com/goback/

GoBack started with more features and still has more features than System Restore... To me this says that MS can't say it's a competing product that was not ripped off since it's not entirely the same thing.

Anyway, GoBack is awsome and can actually be configured many different ways that system restore can't. Consequently, GoBack can restore more and is generally a more valuable tool for restoring your computer and personal files you might have lost due to virus or whatever.

One of the bad things is that it can be heavy on disk usuage if it's not properly configured. It comes bundled standard with Windows Systemworks.

GoBack makes a much better "system restore", but since Roxio sold it to Symantec, I doubt it will ever make it to OS X now.

[bergy]

I had a similar experience to a lot of XP users ..

Went to use System Restore .. .. tried about 5 restore points ...

NONE of them worked ... Just eye candy ... more false advertising by MicroSlop

[legacyb4]

I think most people are missing the point; the original post wasn't whether XP's "System Restore" is good or not but more of whether a rollback feature would be a good thing.

Less "System Restore" and more in the style of Windows Server 2003's "Shadow Copy" would probably make more sense for user data; it's essentially an incremental backup implemented in the background with very little user intervention required except to click and restore from checkpoints.

Most any mission-critical system is backed up any multitude of ways; why are people insisting that a system-level backup system wouldn't be necessary?

[ReefHobbyist]

I'm not an advocate for either side. But keep in mind if Apple did decide to create one it would be done well, it would work well, and it would be user friendly. They just have a way with making things that make sense and are easy to use.


(hopefully I didn't just set myself up for the "No they don't, this ... sucks" replies)

[mitchell_pgh]

This is just like the one button mouse argument.

No, we shouldn't have it. It should NEVER be necessary to "roll back" your update. Apple isn't fail proof, but they shouldn't implement a system that gives them the ability to create poor code with little consequences.

Also, in my 5+ years of being on a Mac, there have only been a few "bum" updates. Sure some weren't great, but the were corrected rather quickly.

Fix the problem, don't create a solution to circumvent the issue.

[leperkuhn]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
This is just like the one button mouse argument.

No, we shouldn't have it. It should NEVER be necessary to "roll back" your update. Apple isn't fail proof, but they shouldn't implement a system that gives them the ability to create poor code with little consequences.

Also, in my 5+ years of being on a Mac, there have only been a few "bum" updates. Sure some weren't great, but the were corrected rather quickly.

Fix the problem, don't create a solution to circumvent the issue.

Yes, in an ideal world we wouldn't have a need for this. But the reality of the matter is far different. There will always be bugs. There will always be some system configuration that doesn't work right with an OS update.