Is PC World article statement about System Restore wrong?

[hogburgs]

Just read an article in PC World about System Restore, about how the restore points are dependant on each other. If one is corrupt it may make them all not useable.
PC World, August 2007, page 128.

“Restore points aren’t complete backups. Each hold only the changes since the previous restore point, and System Restore may need to use all the restore points on your hard drive so as to revert to any one of them. In that case, if any one restore point is corrupted, they’re all useless.”

To begin a fresh start the article tells you to turn off System Restore for all drives then back on. This deletes all existing System Restore files and creates a new one upon which the following ones are dependant.

From Wikipedia:

“System Restore can be configured to use up to a maximum of 15% of hard drive space. Old restore points are discarded in order to keep drive usage within the specified amount.”.

The Wikipedia statement seems to contradict the article statement.

Is the PC World article just plain wrong?

[contrex]

It's wrong. You can free hard disk space by removing all but the most recent system restore point.

[hogburgs]

Yea, that article just didn’t make sense.

HDD space is not a problem.

Can I backup old restore points, before Windows overwrites them?

If so, where are they stored?

[contrex]

Most SRPs become useless after a fairly short time, as other changes are made to
the system. Very old system restore points are useless and there is no point in keeping them.

There are kept in a hidden folder called "System Volume Information" in each partition on your system.

[hogburgs]

Yes, I see the folders now. Windows won’t let me do anything with them anyway.

Thanks,

Ken