Only ppl who haven''t tried win 2000 pro , find NTFS and other windows xp pretty amazing.


For me, Windows 2000 pro has everything xp has minus a cheesy interface and compatibility problems and annoying installation key codes and inability to freely upgrade your hardware or install it on two computers and .........

I don''t know if it is a fact that win xp runs faster than win2000 pro(it is surely better and more stable than win 98 based window versions).

How interesting. I''ve been using Windows 2000 for almost two years. And yes, I do find XP impressive.

quote:

---

Original post by OpenglLearner
For me, Windows 2000 pro has everything xp has minus a cheesy interface and compatibility problems and annoying installation key codes and inability to freely upgrade your hardware or install it on two computers and .........

---

.... remote desktop, cleartype, built in zip file support, built-in cd writing support, built-in firewall, driver rollback, fast boot, fast user switching, side-by-side DLLs, VESA and DMA support in NTVDM, multiple TCP/IP configurations, and WebDav.

Martee:

I never said FAT32 would be good. God no, if you only have the choice between FAT32 and NTFS, then take NTFS, no discussion. Although it actually *is* slower than FAT32.

BUT: Ext2 is alot more secure (concerning stability and data integrity) than NTFS. About JFS: OK it is still beta but you can''t beat the data integrity and it''s allready *very* stable under Linux. Hell, lots of professional Linux based server systems run JFS. I never tried XFS, but I''m using ReiserFS under Linux and I''m very happy with it. The main reasons I don''t like NTFS are: first fragmentation, as I mentioned before, it is a *shame* how fast this FS fragments. Second: MFT makes you loose tons of diskspace. In theory, you can use the MFT space for data, if your disk is really full, but then comes the fun part: if the disk is full to a certain degree, defragmentation isn''t possible anymore, and data integrity isn''t guaranteed, because of a bug in NTFS.

My experience is, that people who never used anything else than FAT32 find NTFS good. People used to systems such as ReiserFS or more recently JFS wouldn''t dare to install NTFS.

Don''t get me wrong, NTFS isn''t bad. But there are better FS available.
> Oh, and IIRC, you can''t use HPFS on anything > NT4.

That''s correct. I use NT4, and I''m very happy with it. Especially with HPFS, no fragmentation, and extreme data integrity.

- AH

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster
Although it actually *is* slower than FAT32.

---

Not from what I''ve seen.

quote:

---

BUT: Ext2 is alot more secure (concerning stability and data integrity) than NTFS.

---

Well, I don''t have any studies to back me up, but my own experience suggests otherwise. Try flipping the power switch of a machine running NTFS, then try it with one running EXT2

quote:

---

The main reasons I don''t like NTFS are: first fragmentation, as I mentioned before, it is a *shame* how fast this FS fragments.

---

Thank goodness for Task Scheduler.

quote:

---

In theory, you can use the MFT space for data

---

It already is used for data. Small files are stored directly in the MFT.

Anyway, we all know that UFS is the best filesystem around

>> Although it actually *is* slower than FAT3
> Not from what I''ve seen.

Even Microsoft says so. It trades security for speed.

>Well, I don''t have any studies to back me up, but my own experience suggests otherwise. Try flipping the power switch of a machine
>running NTFS, then try it with one running EXT2

Right, the result will be the same: no problems. No FS should have a problem with flipping the power switch (well except FAT perhaps), this would be a very poor behaviour.

>> The main reasons I don''t like NTFS are: first fragmentation, as I mentioned before, it is a *shame* how fast this FS fragments.
> Thank goodness for Task Scheduler.

Pfff, defragmentation is unacceptable, the extreme fragmentation of NTFS shows only one thing: poor design. JFS fragments also (I think the only 2 non-fragmenting FS are HPFS and XFS), but to a much less extend (I read something about 5-10% of NTFS ? Perhaps implementation depended). But compare defragmentation time of JFS and NTFS ! Also to consider: Most JFS implementations can defragment a partition but you can still have normal (only slowed down) file access to it. Defragmenting an NTFS partition means blocking your machine for hours (for big partitions), and don''t touch anything, cause if Windows crashes, you''re pretty f*cked.

> It already is used for data. Small files are stored directly in the MFT.

Thats correct, it''s the same principle than Ext2 saving small files directly in INodes. But other than Ext2, this function has unfortunately some severe bugs in NTFS, that may corrupt data integrity. All in all, the MFT is an archaic relict from the early days of NTFS - and herited a lot of bugs from former implementations.

Ofcourse MS was in the strong need to get another filesystem, FAT32 is just too bad. But IMO they should have ported XFS (sources available) or JFS - something more modern and up to date than trying to ''renew'' this old and bugged NTFS. But it''s always the same with MS: Never do something compatible, better use your own proprietary format, even if it''s bugged.

- AH

quote:

---

Original post by Anonymous Poster
Even Microsoft says so. It trades security for speed.

---

Really? Where?
... NTFS performance (including the extra "journaling") is equivalent to FAT on small disks and is faster than FAT on large disks. (Referring to NTFS 5.1 in Windows XP)

quote:

---

Pfff, defragmentation is unacceptable, the extreme fragmentation of NTFS shows only one thing: poor design.

---

Show me some benchmarks which demonstrate the performance loss due to fragmentation. Give me some Performance Monitor results showing Split IO/Sec as a percentage of Disk Transfers/Sec.

quote:

---

Defragmenting an NTFS partition means blocking your machine for hours (for big partitions), and don't touch anything, cause if Windows crashes, you're pretty f*cked.

---

No it doesn't. Out of spite, I'm currently defragmenting my hard drive. Oh look, nothing bad is happening! Only a slight decrease in performance!

quote:

---

some severe bugs in NTFS, that may corrupt data integrity. All in all, the MFT is an archaic relict from the early days of NTFS - and herited a lot of bugs from former implementations.

---

Do you have any links to back that up? I've never seen any evidence of this.


Edited by - Martee on October 24, 2001 12:53:10 AM

Hi.. I also use WinXP & NTFS.. well i used from win2k and winNT on and there is no way I''m going back to FAT32..
about NTFS being more fragmented than FAT32 : NTFS can be MUCH more fragmented to cause any troubles or become slower than FAT32...
And I agree with Martee.. O(log n) complexity is much better when having floders with +2000 files...
and please dont flame me for this : someone said NTFS is bad becouse he can''t acces it from linux.. well that''s not winXP or NTFS fault.. it''s linuxs

There are more worlds than the one that you hold in your hand...

quote:

---

Original post by Martee
How interesting. I've been using Windows 2000 for almost two years. And yes, I do find XP impressive.

.... remote desktop, cleartype, built in zip file support, built-in cd writing support, built-in firewall, driver rollback, fast boot, fast user switching, side-by-side DLLs, VESA and DMA support in NTVDM, multiple TCP/IP configurations, and WebDav.

---

Nothing special in those you mentioned. Where did i hear about the opengl problems with winxp.....? don't remeber and am not even interested. All the features you mentioned can not cover the fact that the installation is a pain in the ass for ppl who try and test harware parts. I will stick to my good old win 2000
for its stability and performance. Winxp might be good but it's not THAT good.


Edited by - OpenglLearner on October 25, 2001 1:29:07 AM

DarkWing:

I didn''t say FAT32 was better than NTFS, absolutely not. I said that NTFS is worse than other filesystems, except FAT. FAT must be the worst FS on the planet. Under Windows you don''t have much choice anyway, then NTFS is definitely the best option. Or does WinXP support IFS (installable file systems) like Linux does, so that I can install third party filesystems ? This would be an interesting point for WinXP.

Though you are right with the Linux argument: Linux not supporting NTFS very well isn''t Microsofts fault. But Linux users should use a better FS anyway, and for simple data exchange, the NTFS support is good enough.

Martee:

Oh fun, again a fight against ''Mr. Microsoft Martee''. No Thanks.

Look mate, I''m not going to waste my time searching for documents against your pro-MS, pro-WinXP, and pro-NTFS ideas, you won''t accept them anyway, even if they were from Bill Gates in person. If using all that makes you happy, then good for you. I doesn''t make me happy though.

You know, NTFS is not one of those new-super-cool-mega-hype features of WinXP, it has been in use for years now, in several different versions. Lots of servers used it, and it''s flaws and bugs are well known - why do you think lots of servers are switching over to JFS ? You never run a large scale server, did you ?

Try Google and search for NTFS flaws - have fun browsing through the results.

- AH

Woah, you need to relax a little dude. FYI, I _did_ search on Google for NTFS problems. Unfortunately, most of the results were for ancient problems which had been fixed years ago. I'm sorry if you thought that was a stupid question, but I would honestly like to know what these data corruption-causing flaws you speak of are. Not flaws that affect an NT 3.51 box running an early version of NTFS, but flaws that affect a freshly installed copy of XP running on NTFS 5.1.

Edited by - Martee on October 25, 2001 2:16:30 AM