Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

PyroMeistar

Seeing this page from WinXP...

Recommended Posts

... and very happy of it! Windows XP is cool (except maybe for the ''friendly interface'' type of stuff but you can always switch back to the old style). I reformatted my HD and used the new NTFS type partition. Actually, it''s two time as fast as FAT32 without the exuberances of a Linux native partition. Even the diskette reading process is 2x faster! I also like the way each users have their own work directory (much like linux) + the root user. My only complaint is about micro$oft who freely gives utility programs and doesn''t even let you uninstall them (explorer for instance...). That is what we call unfair competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you can uninstall IE.
or even have the option of not installing it to begin with..
they''re trying to avoid antitrust this time.

-eldee
;another space monkey;

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DONT UNINSTALL IE!!!! AAAAKKK!!! YOU''LL ALL DIE!!! Just a kind warning. All operating systems (recent ones) are closely tied into ie. Your os will function, but you''ll get all kindsa interesting issues. This is my experience anyway.

Alex Broadwin
A-Tronic Software & Design
-----
"if you fail in life, you were destined to fail. If you suceed in life, call me."
"The answer is out there."
"Please help, I''m using Windows!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Explorer is the name of the taskbar executable... uninstalling that wouldnt be fun unless you had a different shell set

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, ie runs the whole show. Havent you noticed the similarities between control panel & your internet explorer web browser? :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NTFS is fun??

You would know better if you have a Linux on parallel, as I do. Try exchanging data (it would be really great to have only one opera.adr, but writing for NTFS isn''t supported under Linux, and using reiserfs under Win seems to be far away) then.

Greetings Ben

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
NTFS is horrible. Just two words: extreme fragmentation. I find it unbelievable how a filesystem can actually fragment *that much* ! And defragmentation isn''t fun at all on big partitions. I use HPFS, it works on Windows and Linux, it''s self-defragmenting, and faster (under Windows).

- AH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NTFS faster than FAT? Excuse me? Every benchmark I''ve seen so far have got the same results: NTFS is *slower* than FAT32. I''m too lazy to dig them up now, but one can always can search the net.

Now, I''m not talking about security here, just speed. And yes, having to share an NTFS partition with Linux is a pain in the a**.

Now, how can one use HPFS under Windows XP?

Gaiomard Dragon
-===(UDIC)===-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I see this has turned into an NTFS-bashing thread. Incidentally, I do run Linux on this machine. Call me when EXT2 or FAT32 supports streams, ACLs, encryption, compression, and fault tolerance, or when ReiserFS, JFS, and XFS are slightly less beta. And as for speed ... the only thing that NTFS is inherently slower than FAT32 at is opening files, and this is because it has to do much more extensive security checks. But as your partitions get larger, and directories grow to have more files, NTFS easily overtakes FAT32. I hope you all know the difference between O(n) and O(log n). Directories containing 10,000 files are no fun with FAT32 . Oh, and IIRC, you can't use HPFS on anything > NT4.

Edited by - Martee on October 24, 2001 1:45:08 PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
>> 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


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Anonymous Poster
it is a *shame* how fast this FS fragments.


Funny, I run Win2k for a year without defragging and the filesystem is only 20% fragmented, and thats with a LOT of files being added and deleted, from the drive having 8gig free to it having 100meg free. I defragged it when I went out, I get home and its all done.

If thats fast fragmentation, I wont even ask what you call the speed that FAT16/FAT32 fragmentate at.

I will admit that it is a pain to get files from NTFS to a linux partition without booting windows tho, but that isnt a problem for me anymore as I ditched linux when I changed ISP as 3 weeks of searching came up with nothing in the way of linux drivers for my DVB receiver card (used for IP over DVB, not digital video). If I could find drivers that worked again, Id surely install linux again.... its a fun OS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Anonymous Poster
For me too, NTFS to Linux isn''t a problem anymore, I ditched Windows. Now my System is 100% M$ free, and I''m very happy.

- AH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites