Limiting Shadow Copies?

I agree that it was not such a great idea to tie the two different functions
together irrevocably. I think that the reason it was done has more to do with
ease of implementation (It's all apparently done at a very low level.) rather
than for forensic purposes. It is said that, because of lthe design, it would
be extremely difficult to provide a user level control in the interface. It
still doesn't alter the fact that it has definite ramifications for many
different types of users. It's a little like the old problem with versions of
Office apps that kept old data in documents without the users being aware of
it. Someone would send a Word document which had been revised heavily to a
customer or client or whomever not realizing that, though previously
discarded information was not immediately viewable when opening the document,
the old data could fairly easily be obtained. Sometimes this "discarded" data
had an unhappy effect upon the recipient.

I'm of the mind that, when I decide to discard something, it should be
discarded. Period.

"Scott Adams" wrote:

> Bottom line is: It's my data (and drive space) - let me decide how to manage
> it.
>
> I think linking previous versions to restore points is a bit "too helpful."
> I will assume that MS does this for the ease of the customer, but for some
> reaosn, I doubt there was an outcry from people who accidentally deleted
> files, and emptied their trash, then decided they wish they had historical
> copies of their documents from the past.
>
> I am thinking it was designed to be helpful to forensic scientists who wish
> to retrieve data from the PC of folks they assume are committing crimes. I
> am fine with that, but I am not a criminal and want my files gone when I
> delete them -- and my drive space scrubbed.
>
> Either way, I will disable my system restore points - or limit the space
> available to them so I don't have a long list of them available.
>
> Thanks for the help!