Is Windows 2Kpro more stable than W98 because of NTFS or even with Fat32?

[bsobel]

W2K SP4 included an update to support compatible interoperability with NTFS volumes created/updated by XP ("NTFS 5.1"), when running on a dual-boot system.

Where do you come up with this spectacular fiction dude?!?!? You should write children's books or fairy tales or something. WTF is NTFS 5.1 ?!?!?!?! Oh man I broke my liver when I read this.[/quote]

Actually, this was the one point he was correct about.

Windows NT version 3.5 -> NTFS 1.1
Windows NT version 4.0 -> NTFS 1.2 (commonly called NTFS 4.0 after the OS release)
Windows 2000 aka NT version 5.0 -> NTFS 3.0 (commonly called NTFS 5.0 after the OS release)
Windows XP aka NT version 5.1 -> NTFS 3.1 (commonly called NTFS 5.1 after the OS release)

This is documented here by MS. NTFS 3.1 (what VL called 5.1) included in XP added support for disk quotas, encryption, repartse points, sparse files, and USN journaling.

That said, the on disk format is the same (but some features like sparse files wouldn't make sense if read on a pre-3.1 system)

Bill

p.s. You nailed everything else tho

 

[Nothinman]

bwaahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stupid MS didn't include a cheese grater for my transmission! Those bastards! Good old larry. He wouldn't be happy with MS if Bill split his fortune with him.

Actually I think it's pretty stupid of them not to include an option to mount a fs read-only and even stupider that they 'upgrade' your filesystem at mount time without any notification at all.

Where do you come up with this spectacular fiction dude?!?!? You should write children's books or fairy tales or something. WTF is NTFS 5.1 ?!?!?!?! Oh man I broke my liver when I read this.

Guess you never really looked at the MSDN docs on NTFS, eh?

 

[Smilin]

Ok, you buncha monkey Larry boys.

There has been no change to NTFS since 2000.

These all use the same version of NTFS (v3.1)
Windows NT 4.0 Service Pack 4 and higher
Windows 2000 (all service packs)
Windows XP (all service packs)
Windows 2003 (all service packs)

Anything prior to NT 4.0 sp4 used a different version. I never fooled with anything prior to NT 4.0 so I won't claim any knowledge.

The version of NTFS that came out with XP was NOT unique. It was NOT released for the first time with XP, it was released for the first time with Windows 2000 retail. There was nothing new released with Windows 2000 sp4 either.

Bsobel:
The link you provided, http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;310749 explains this fully. Read it more carefully. I had never actually read that before. Easy way to remember is simply that 2000 supports quotas but NT 4.0 doesn't. However NT 4.0 can read 2000 disks just fine provided you're at sp4. There were no such changes when XP came out.

Nothinman:
Nope, I've never read any MSDN articles on it. I've read my share of technet articles as well as some MS internal ones you've probably never seen tho

Both of ya:
I've never heard it called NTFS 5.1. That's not the name of it, but if you can all agree on what it is you're talking about that's cool. Not correct, but cool. If this is what VL was talking about then I'll cut him some slack...NOT.

Now don't you both go Larrying me and ramble off on some tangent or inconsequential detail to try and correct me unless I'm really truly wrong. If you do show me I'm wrong, I won't Larry you and try to dodge it. I'll fess up.

I got love for ya.

 

[bsobel]

Well this PROVES NTFS 3.1 wasn't avilable until Oct 02.... link

 

[Nothinman]

I've never heard it called NTFS 5.1. That's not the name of it, but if you can all agree on what it is you're talking about that's cool. Not correct, but cool. If this is what VL was talking about then I'll cut him some slack...NOT.

Some places refer to them as NTFS 3.x and some as 5.x, AFAICT even MS can't decide what the real version should be. I believe the 3.1 is the real NTFS revision but they've been calling it 5.1 because that coincides with the Windows version that XP is.

The link you provided, http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;310749 explains this fully. Read it more carefully. I had never actually read that before. Easy way to remember is simply that 2000 supports quotas but NT 4.0 doesn't. However NT 4.0 can read 2000 disks just fine provided you're at sp4. There were no such changes when XP came out.

Read it again yourself: NOTE:Microsoft Windows 2000 uses NTFS 3.0. NTFS 3.0 and 3.1 have compatible on-disk formats, so volumes upgraded to NTFS 3.1 by Windows XP can continue to be accessed by Windows 2000 or by Windows NT 4.0 with SP4 or later.

What that means is that Win2K uses NTFS 3.0 and XP uses 3.1 but the changes in 3.1 were minor enough that Win2K will still be able to properly use a 3.1 filesystem.

 

[bsobel]

Ok, it's somewhat scary that I'm trying to google a link showing when NTFS 3.1 was released (Windows NT magazine talks about 3.0 being shipped with W2K). The 4th fricken link down on google under "ntfs 3.1 "on disk format"" is THIS thread. Pretty quick of them...

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: bsobel
Well this PROVES NTFS 3.1 wasn't avilable until Oct 02.... link

ROFL. Good find!

New Tactical Forecast System (N-TFS) 3.1

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Some places refer to them as NTFS 3.x and some as 5.x, AFAICT even MS can't decide what the real version should be. I believe the 3.1 is the real NTFS revision but they've been calling it 5.1 because that coincides with the Windows version that XP is.

Nope, no confusion over at MS about what version it is. It drives them nuts that people get it wrong.

Read it again yourself: NOTE:Microsoft Windows 2000 uses NTFS 3.0. NTFS 3.0 and 3.1 have compatible on-disk formats, so volumes upgraded to NTFS 3.1 by Windows XP can continue to be accessed by Windows 2000 or by Windows NT 4.0 with SP4 or later.

K, I read it again. What they are saying is Win2k (and XP) can all read NTFS from before 2000/NT4.0sp4. That doesn't mean 2k, XP and 2k3 use this by default.

What that means is that Win2K uses NTFS 3.0 and XP uses 3.1 but the changes in 3.1 were minor enough that Win2K will still be able to properly use a 3.1 filesystem.

Win2k uses NTFS 3.1. That's how you get quotas and USN journaling (which is required by 2k domaincontrollers). NTFS 3.1 also allows SIS/Groveler which is used by RIS to keep collective image sizes down. (man, I wish they would use that outside of RIS. It rocks... it's just so prone to misuse/mistakes by most admins that could result in massive data loss or failed backups/restores)

I think we are officially splitting hairs. My original point being VL is a tard and I just didn't want this poor fella running off with bad advice in hand.

 

[bsobel]

My original point being VL is a tard and I just didn't want this poor fella running off with bad advice in hand.

No argument there...

 

[Nothinman]

Nope, no confusion over at MS about what version it is. It drives them nuts that people get it wrong.

If it drives them nuts why don't they fix their own docs?

I think we are officially splitting hairs. My original point being VL is a tard and I just didn't want this poor fella running off with bad advice in hand.

That's fine. But I do agree that the inability to mount a filesystem read-only and the automagical upgrade on mount sh!t is pretty stupid.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Nope, no confusion over at MS about what version it is. It drives them nuts that people get it wrong.

If it drives them nuts why don't they fix their own docs?

Docs are fine. People made up this whole 5.1 thing all on their own because they failed to read. When I used to be over there I never once heard of any version of NTFS called 5.1.

That's fine. But I do agree that the inability to mount a filesystem read-only and the automagical upgrade on mount sh!t is pretty stupid.

I suppose I could buy a gripe on the read only thing. I've never once in eight years of this crap ever had the need to do it, but hey whatever. Only reason I could ever think of read-only is you're dealing with some form of untrusted software you shouldn't be running to begin with, OR you're running something with privledges elevated beyond what are needed. Seems like some silly VL based anti-MS rant to me. Just because you can do it in one OS doesn't mean it's necessary. Without hardware support (lockable write head on a drive for instance) is it really going to be read only? If you have the authority to bypass read only ACLs how are you going to restrict a volume? Put ACLs on a volume? Disable bypass traverse checking and make the whole OS non posix compliant?

My question: let's suppose you CAN read-only a volume. Why?

As for upgrading the filesystem. If they didn't you would have someone griping about not being able to use quotas or something. No win situation as it always is for MS. It's not like it's a destructive upgrade or something. If you're still running NT 4.0 pre sp4 this is probably the least of your problems. If they forced you to upgrade to dynamic disks without telling you I would have a serious problem with that. They don't tho.

 

[Nothinman]

Docs are fine. People made up this whole 5.1 thing all on their own because they failed to read. When I used to be over there I never once heard of any version of NTFS called 5.1.

Well I can't find any now, but I know I've seen them before. The only ones I can find that look like they might refer to it as NTFS 5.1 were in Japanese and I don't really speak Japanese.

I suppose I could buy a gripe on the read only thing. I've never once in eight years of this crap ever had the need to do it, but hey whatever ...My question: let's suppose you CAN read-only a volume. Why?

I take it you've never wanted to retrieve a deleted file or do any type of forensics on a drive?

As for upgrading the filesystem. If they didn't you would have someone griping about not being able to use quotas or something

No, I did tech support for a few years and had lots of fun installing NT4 SP4 which automagically upgrades the filesystems thus making them incompatible with earlier releases. I couldn't care less about quotas on workstation systems.

If you're still running NT 4.0 pre sp4 this is probably the least of your problems.

You say that like there's absolutely no chance they'll do the same thing with XP SP3 or Longhorn.

 

[biostud]

If something really trashes your windows installation you can always acces a FAT32 drive using an win98 boot disc and copy of important data. That's pretty tricky with NTFS.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I suppose I could buy a gripe on the read only thing. I've never once in eight years of this crap ever had the need to do it, but hey whatever ...My question: let's suppose you CAN read-only a volume. Why?

I take it you've never wanted to retrieve a deleted file or do any type of forensics on a drive?

Mmm, not getting you here. Diskprobe will mount a drive read only so you have an extra few buttons to click before you shoot your foot, but that's about it. Any forensics deeper than that and you should probably try working off an image or sending it off to Ontrack who can mount your platters and heads in a case without write capability.

Still looking for the "Why" here.

As for upgrading the filesystem. If they didn't you would have someone griping about not being able to use quotas or something

No, I did tech support for a few years and had lots of fun installing NT4 SP4 which automagically upgrades the filesystems thus making them incompatible with earlier releases. I couldn't care less about quotas on workstation systems.

Why were you running earlier releases when SP4 was available? If there was a problem with SP4 why were you upgrading? Can't gripe both ways.

If you're still running NT 4.0 pre sp4 this is probably the least of your problems.

You say that like there's absolutely no chance they'll do the same thing with XP SP3 or Longhorn.

So? Who cares? Say they do, then what? Is your data magically gone? You get a warning on the changes being made and you get the option to upgrade or not. It's not like the NTFS.sys guys are cackling with glee thinking about every possible way they can make things incompatible. Geez they've done one change in 10 years and still maintained almost seamless backwards compatibility. Did you wet yourself when FAT32 made everything incompatible with FAT only OSs?

You're really blowing this way out of proportion. Seriously.

You've also not made any real earth shaking point in several posts now and I feel like I'm in some VirtualLarry quagmire with this conversation so I'm going to bow out. If your point is that NTFS sucks or something then I concede merely out of exhaustion.

 

[Nothinman]

If something really trashes your windows installation you can always acces a FAT32 drive using an win98 boot disc and copy of important data. That's pretty tricky with NTFS.

So make a BartPE disc, it's a lot more useful these days.

Still looking for the "Why" here.

Because it's a basic function that should be possible. There is absolutely no technical reason why it shouldn't be possible.

Why were you running earlier releases when SP4 was available? If there was a problem with SP4 why were you upgrading? Can't gripe both ways.

Dude that was like 3 years ago, I don't remember the specifics just that I got bit more than once by that autoupgrade crap.

You get a warning on the changes being made and you get the option to upgrade or not

Hardly. You install SPX, reboot and it happily upgrades your filesystems and if you uninstall SPX you're f'd. If you boot from a BartPE disc made with that SP level it'll upgrade all the disks as it mounts them, after that happens how are you supposed to even install that SP to get the machine bootable again?

Geez they've done one change in 10 years and still maintained almost seamless backwards compatibility.

That NT4 SP4 change had almost no backwards compatibility since it wasn't readable by pre-SP4 machines.

Did you wet yourself when FAT32 made everything incompatible with FAT only OSs?

No because the two could coexist. If you made a FAT filesystem and booted up Win95B it didn't automatically convert you to FAT32.

You're really blowing this way out of proportion. Seriously.

Sorry, I'm used to software that works for me, not against me.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

If something really trashes your windows installation you can always acces a FAT32 drive using an win98 boot disc and copy of important data. That's pretty tricky with NTFS.

So make a BartPE disc, it's a lot more useful these days.

Cool, didn't know about those (had to google)

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: biostud

Originally posted by: Nothinman

If something really trashes your windows installation you can always acces a FAT32 drive using an win98 boot disc and copy of important data. That's pretty tricky with NTFS.

So make a BartPE disc, it's a lot more useful these days.

Cool, didn't know about those (had to google)

You can still get to your non-FAT32 data with recovery console. Just set your local policy to allow access to all drives and folders.

WinPE does rock tho!

 

[classy]

The major reason is the memory management.