Is NTFS worth the bother?

[howard schwartz]

Windows 2000 and XP usually run on NTFS, being based on NT technology.
I strongly suspect at least some of the compatibility problems with our old and
beloved freeware are connected to software that can not read/write to NTFS.
I may be wrong here: I realize virtually all old software that tries to talk to
the disk directly will run into the inpenetrable `hardware layer interface' or
whatever it is called. If software talks to the (NTFS) disk through the bios, I
suppose the bios can translate, yes?

On the other hand NTFS has a lot of cooporate intended features (security,
etc.) that may not be important to single home users, and probably takes
unknown abouts of resources and ram to keep up.

Windows 9x does not run on NTFS, and 2000 and XP do not have a simple
command line OS that can be used in times of trouble.

Overall, are the benefits of NTFS sufficient to offset the old, tried and true
programs, and even OSes and command lines, recovery software, etc.
that freeware folks already know and use?

 

[scootgirl.com]

Windows 2000 and XP usually run on NTFS, being based on NT technology.
I strongly suspect at least some of the compatibility problems with our
old and
beloved freeware are connected to software that can not read/write to
NTFS.
I may be wrong here: I realize virtually all old software that tries to
talk to
the disk directly will run into the inpenetrable `hardware layer
interface' or
whatever it is called. If software talks to the (NTFS) disk through the
bios, I
suppose the bios can translate, yes?

On the other hand NTFS has a lot of cooporate intended features (security,
etc.) that may not be important to single home users, and probably takes
unknown abouts of resources and ram to keep up.

Windows 9x does not run on NTFS, and 2000 and XP do not have a simple
command line OS that can be used in times of trouble.

Overall, are the benefits of NTFS sufficient to offset the old, tried and
true
programs, and even OSes and command lines, recovery software, etc.
that freeware folks already know and use?

WindowsNT/2K/XP/03 etc use NTFS because it is a more efficient file system.
NTFS supports larger partitions on disks. You can buy a 250GB hard drive and
use the whole disk as one giant partition whereas with FAT32 you must divide
all that up into smaller partitions.

The fact that WindowsNT/2K/XP/03 doesn't allow programs to talk directly to
the low level hardware systems is separate from the filesystem issue for
consideration and programs will work the same on either format (assuming
proper filesystem permissions are set, and by default they are).

Personally, I use all NTFS on my windows systems, and allow a 700MB FAT32
partition to ghost an image to from DOS.

Karen
http://scootgirl.com/

 

[Mark Carter]

Overall, are the benefits of NTFS sufficient to offset the old, tried and true
programs, and even OSes and command lines, recovery software, etc.
that freeware folks already know and use?

If you want to run Linux, then I'd recommend that your Windows partition
be FAT32. That way you can read and write Windows partitions easily. I
think Linux can sometimes "have a stab" at the NTFS, but it all seems
touch-and-go at best.

From a recovery point-of-view, I believe that FAT32 is also better.
DOS utilities can read/write to it. Once something's in NTFS, then it's
a black blox, penetrable only by the likes of Windows XP, NT, 2k.

 

[derek / nul]

Windows 2000 and XP usually run on NTFS, being based on NT technology.
I strongly suspect at least some of the compatibility problems with our old and
beloved freeware are connected to software that can not read/write to NTFS.
I may be wrong here: I realize virtually all old software that tries to talk to
the disk directly will run into the inpenetrable `hardware layer interface' or
whatever it is called. If software talks to the (NTFS) disk through the bios,

The NT kernel does not allow communication through the bios as it is not multi
tasking.
The only time the bios is used is to load the boot loader.

I suppose the bios can translate, yes?

no

 

[Anonymous]

Windows 2000 and XP usually run on NTFS, being based on NT technology.
I strongly suspect at least some of the compatibility problems with our old and
beloved freeware are connected to software that can not read/write to NTFS.
I may be wrong here: I realize virtually all old software that tries to talk to
the disk directly will run into the inpenetrable `hardware layer interface' or
whatever it is called. If software talks to the (NTFS) disk through the bios, I
suppose the bios can translate, yes?

On the other hand NTFS has a lot of cooporate intended features (security,
etc.) that may not be important to single home users, and probably takes
unknown abouts of resources and ram to keep up.

Windows 9x does not run on NTFS, and 2000 and XP do not have a simple
command line OS that can be used in times of trouble.

Overall, are the benefits of NTFS sufficient to offset the old, tried and true
programs, and even OSes and command lines, recovery software, etc.
that freeware folks already know and use?

I use 98SE, but doesn't XP have the option to emulate an earlier version of
Windows when running a program? I thought they built this option into it
just for the types of programs you are describing.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Windows 2000 and XP usually run on NTFS, being based on NT technology.
I strongly suspect at least some of the compatibility problems with
our old and beloved freeware are connected to software that can not
read/write to NTFS.

If the software uses normal Windows file commands, then it makes no
difference if the disk is FAT, FAT32, or NTFS.

Windows 9x does not run on NTFS

No, but Win 9x CAN have total read-access to NTFS volumes, even from
DOS. See: http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/ntfswin98.shtml

2000 and XP do not have a simple command line OS that can be used in
times of trouble.

Yes they do: the Recovery Console.

are the benefits of NTFS sufficient

Depends what your needs are. FAT32 has a file size limit of 4 GB, so
if you're into video capture and/or DVD image burning then you will
be unable to do these [easily] with FAT32. NTFS files, on the other
hand, can be ANY size; and NTFS files/folders can be encrypted and
hidden from unauthorised use.

 

[bambam]

(e-mail address removed) (howard schwartz) wrote in

Overall, are the benefits of NTFS sufficient to offset the old,
tried and true programs, and even OSes and command lines, recovery
software, etc. that freeware folks already know and use?

Before I upgraded to WinXP about a year ago I did some study on this
subject. Most sites seemed to advise that NTFS was the way to go, so
I stuck with Fat32. ;o)
I have 4 different operating systems on my computer, I use F-Prot for
dos, Ranish partition manager, Partition Saving (Savepart), XOSL, and
Partition Resizer. All without any problems, that I know of. Although
Art has warned me that F-Prot may not be scanning all files.
I do have an NTFS partition that I use for video related stuff.
Just to make sure I'm on topic, all the above programs are
Pricelessware-

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/2004/about2004PL.php

http://pricelessware.org/thelist/aboutplw.htm

except Partition Resizer-

http://zeleps.com/

So an answer to your question, "Is NTFS worth the bother?" IMHO NO


PS-Although the Fat32 file system will support partitions up to 2 TB,
above 8 GB it is not a very efficient user of space. It just so
happens that my C:\ is 8 GB.

http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/file/partFAT32.html

 

[Bob Adkins]

Windows 2000 and XP usually run on NTFS, being based on NT technology.
I strongly suspect at least some of the compatibility problems with our old and

A little off-topic, but I have heard that as NTFS installs grow old, with
lots of file deletions etc. that it slows down. It's my understanding that
it leaves "ghosts" of files and folders behind, which must be dealt with as
though they were real files.

I Personally have not noticed this, but have heard very credible people say
FAT32 is faster than a stale NTFS partition.

 

[Fritz Wuehler]

Windows 2000 and XP usually run on NTFS, being based on NT technology.
I strongly suspect at least some of the compatibility problems with our old and
beloved freeware are connected to software that can not read/write to NTFS.
I may be wrong here: I realize virtually all old software that tries to talk to
the disk directly will run into the inpenetrable `hardware layer interface' or
whatever it is called. If software talks to the (NTFS) disk through the bios, I
suppose the bios can translate, yes?

On the other hand NTFS has a lot of cooporate intended features (security,
etc.) that may not be important to single home users, and probably takes
unknown abouts of resources and ram to keep up.

Windows 9x does not run on NTFS, and 2000 and XP do not have a simple
command line OS that can be used in times of trouble.

Overall, are the benefits of NTFS sufficient to offset the old, tried and true
programs, and even OSes and command lines, recovery software, etc.
that freeware folks already know and use?

I use 98SE, but doesn't XP have the option to emulate an earlier version of Windows when running
a program? I thought they built this option into it just for the types of programs you are
describing.

 

[howard schwartz]

I use 98SE, but doesn't XP have the option to emulate an earlier version of
Windows when running a program? I thought they built this option into it
just for the types of programs you are describing.

XP and 2000 have a `compatibility mode' that you can set in properties for a
particular application. It does set certain variables and such to try to fool
the application into thinking it is in a win9x environment. But to my
knowledge, it does NOT present the NTFS file system to an application
as if it were a FAT file system. For that, one must install third party
drivers. I know there are such drivers that provide read/right access to
files on NTFS from an OS booted from FAT.

But I have not come across a driver that tries to fool an application
residing on NTFS into thinking other files on this disk actually reside
on a FAT system (with a FAT type file table, etc.).

Does anyone know precisely what settings and so on the win 2x or XP
`compatibility' setting spoofs?

 

[howard schwartz]

Often not mentioned are NTFS's inherent downsides: generally slower than FAT,
takes up a lot of disk space to perform its additional functions (e.g.,
auditing), and uses memory of unknown (to me) amounts in connection with
windows to implement its added features. As a result, I read regularly that
128 megs of ram is actually to little to get optimal performance from an XP,
NTFS system, and that users experience up to a 20% performance degregation
when running the same application, on the same hardware, using win XP/NTFS.

If the software uses normal Windows file commands, then it makes no
difference if the disk is FAT, FAT32, or NTFS.

I beg to differ, and think the phrase `normal Windows file commands' begs the
question.

We all know and have experienced applications that do not run
on NTFS because of one or more of its features (e.g., the old but liked dos
program, readmail). True, it is hard to tell if the problem is win 2x, XP, NTFS
or some combination that causes trouble for an application that used to
run fin on win 9x, FAT32. The question becomes how to define `normal
windows commands (services or functions) that do not offend the win XP/NTFS
combination. I believe another poster pointed that win 9x applications can not
read NTFS tables that locate files - directly since they were not built to read
an NTFS disk directly, or through the bios, since win 2x, XP does not permit
that kind of access.

We all see version of applications offered separately for 9x and win 2x/XP.
This is not only to take advantage of additional NT-based features!

No, but Win 9x CAN have total read-access to NTFS volumes, even from
DOS. See: http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/ntfswin98.shtml

I am well aware of drivers that provide read/write access to NTFS from FAT
systems. The site you quote, does not provide freeware drivers for this.
However, these drivers do not provide execute access.

It is unclear to
me the extent to which one can run win 9x from a FAT drive and actively
use an NTFS drive to store and retrieve data files produced by the FAT
applications, expecially setup files (e.g., lynx.rc, pinerc, readmail.set,
some-application.cfg, etc.). Certainly, you not execute applications stored
on NTFS from an OS running on a FAT disk, even with read/write drivers.

Has anyone tried to run, say win 9x on a FAT disk, and use NTFS as
some kind of secondary storage drive in real time?

Yes they do: the Recovery Console.

Not they do not. The recovery disk and console are not full OSes like dos
or Linux (command line console). They are partial devices designed for
recovery only. And they exclude many well tested and feature right recovery
tools.

FAT32 has a file size limit of 4 GB, so
if you're into video capture and/or DVD image burning then you will
be unable to do these [easily] with FAT32. NTFS files, on the other
hand, can be ANY size;

I myself, was never bothered by partitioning a FAT disk into seperate, smaller
logical drives. For many of us home users, we seldom need more than 4 gigs of
space to read, store, or write a single file!

and NTFS files/folders can be encrypted and
hidden from unauthorised use.

Another feature introduced in win 2x intended primarily for coorporate and network
use. Most home users, in my view are happy enough with the more modest security
features provided by FAT. Indeed, if desired, there are third party
applications that provide for hiding and/or incrypting specific files.

 

[INspire]

(e-mail address removed) (howard schwartz) wrote in

Overall, are the benefits of NTFS sufficient to offset the old,
tried and true programs, and even OSes and command lines, recovery
software, etc. that freeware folks already know and use?

[snip]
So an answer to your question, "Is NTFS worth the bother?" IMHO NO


PS-Although the Fat32 file system will support partitions up to 2 TB,
above 8 GB it is not a very efficient user of space. It just so
happens that my C:\ is 8 GB.

http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/file/partFAT32.html

[quote from storagereview]
(Really, what this all shows is the FAT file system is stretched beyond
its limits even with FAT32. To get both good performance and disk space
efficiency for very large volumes requires a clean break with the past
and the use of a high performance file system like NTFS.)
[/quote from storagereview]

[quote Bob Adkins]
(I) ...have heard very credible people say
FAT32 is faster than a stale NTFS partition.
[/quote Bod Adkins]

What do you recommend for an 80Gb drive with two partitions?

 

[James]

Windows 2000 and XP usually run on NTFS, being based on NT technology.
I strongly suspect at least some of the compatibility problems with our old and
beloved freeware are connected to software that can not read/write to NTFS.
I may be wrong here: I realize virtually all old software that tries to talk to
the disk directly will run into the inpenetrable `hardware layer interface' or
whatever it is called. If software talks to the (NTFS) disk through the bios, I
suppose the bios can translate, yes?

On the other hand NTFS has a lot of cooporate intended features (security,
etc.) that may not be important to single home users, and probably takes
unknown abouts of resources and ram to keep up.

Windows 9x does not run on NTFS, and 2000 and XP do not have a simple
command line OS that can be used in times of trouble.

Overall, are the benefits of NTFS sufficient to offset the old, tried and true
programs, and even OSes and command lines, recovery software, etc.
that freeware folks already know and use?

I use NTFS and would recommend it. I have never noticed a performance hit
(but I do have a 2.2GHz PC). I have had occasion to rebuild corrupted
drives (caused by testing disk drivers) and NTFS rebuilt/recovered perfectly
without the loss of a single byte. Lost data on FAT32 every time. (And I
do have backups before you ask but it's a pain to restore).

 

[ozzy]

this read access is useless when trying to recover from malware.

I am well aware of drivers that provide read/write access to NTFS from FAT
systems. The site you quote, does not provide freeware drivers for this.
However, these drivers do not provide execute access.

read/write/delete/execute access is a MUST !

FAT32 has a file size limit of 4 GB, so
if you're into video capture and/or DVD image burning then you will
be unable to do these [easily] with FAT32. NTFS files, on the other
hand, can be ANY size;

I've been doing DL size dvd's for years on fat32 systems. Never once
came across a file that was >4GB. The whole directory structure
totalled > 9GB at times, but that is why dvd shrink & such utils are
used. The actual .vob files were never more than 1GB each in size.

This is an excellent topic at an extremely fortunate time

I have Mark's new computer in front of me (Compaq Presario S6300NX)
with the factory Win XP Home SP1 installed. NTFS boot partition
(109GB) and a 6GB FAT32 hidden recovery partition.

The last 2 days of grief that Mark endured will demonstrate why MOST
average home users should not use NTFS unless they want to spend lots
of time restoring/recovering their systems. Losing precious data in
the process is a given with inaccessable ntfs systems

His computer was randomly rebooting whenever his family tried to
connect to the internet (dial-up). Lsass.exe errors and numerous
others I have seen many times before on clients computers.

Too easy I thought.... get rid of the Trojans and viruses & he'll be
all set. Not as easy as I thought. I was just going to take his
computer home, yank out his hard drive & throw it into my system &
purge the nasty malware.... Done it millions of times before & is the
quickest approach.

Mark didn't want it done that way. He wanted to be shown properly how
to correct this mistake on their part & PREVENT it from happening
again. He also wanted it cleaned up without buying any new software.
Mark did have a valid point with the desire to be self sufficient &
not dependent on others for assistance (admirable ambition I thought


Norton AV 2004 & Norton Firewall was installed properly on his
computer & fully updated but it still allowed the malware. Booting to
safe mode w/ command prompt was useless as none of the installed
utilities can run properly in safe mode nor recovery mode for that
matter
In safe mode w/ command prompt; AVG & F-prot are also useless with
ntfs also. They don't recognize it either.

The trick is to find a bootdisk util that will allow the user to
safely boot to a command prompt that will still allow FULL access to
the ntfs partition (read, write, delete, execute) such that they may
install OR run a disk-based antivirus utility. None exist. If anyone
does know of such a beast (NO INSTALL & BOOT-DISK style) please post
in this newsgroup. Emails to sysinternals & several other gurus also
resulted in the same answer.... none exist. They said either reformat
or try non- destructive recovery. Neither choices were desired by
Mark.

We ended up going with my original method of swapping out his drive to
my system. His system is now malware free & no critical data was lost.
NTFS is no longer on his system & fat32 IS faster on his AMD Athalon
2800+.

Anyone else have a reliable NO INSTALL method to correct ntfs
corruption due to malware, please post to the group. I am sure we are
all ears


ozzy

 

[derek / nul]

(e-mail address removed) (howard schwartz) wrote in

Overall, are the benefits of NTFS sufficient to offset the old,
tried and true programs, and even OSes and command lines, recovery
software, etc. that freeware folks already know and use?

[snip]
So an answer to your question, "Is NTFS worth the bother?" IMHO NO


PS-Although the Fat32 file system will support partitions up to 2 TB,
above 8 GB it is not a very efficient user of space. It just so
happens that my C:\ is 8 GB.

http://www.storagereview.com/guide2000/ref/hdd/file/partFAT32.html

[quote from storagereview]
(Really, what this all shows is the FAT file system is stretched beyond
its limits even with FAT32. To get both good performance and disk space
efficiency for very large volumes requires a clean break with the past
and the use of a high performance file system like NTFS.)
[/quote from storagereview]

[quote Bob Adkins]
(I) ...have heard very credible people say
FAT32 is faster than a stale NTFS partition.
[/quote Bod Adkins]

What do you recommend for an 80Gb drive with two partitions?

NTFS of course

 

[Larry Sabo]

(e-mail address removed) (ozzy) wrote:

[snip]

The trick is to find a bootdisk util that will allow the user to
safely boot to a command prompt that will still allow FULL access to
the ntfs partition (read, write, delete, execute) such that they may
install OR run a disk-based antivirus utility. None exist. If anyone
does know of such a beast (NO INSTALL & BOOT-DISK style) please post
in this newsgroup. Emails to sysinternals & several other gurus also
resulted in the same answer.... none exist. They said either reformat
or try non- destructive recovery. Neither choices were desired by
Mark.
[snip]
Anyone else have a reliable NO INSTALL method to correct ntfs
corruption due to malware, please post to the group. I am sure we are
all ears

Create a BartPE with A-V programs on it. It's exactly what you
describe as needed.

See http://www.windowsubcd.com/ for the easiest way; it has all the
add-ins preconfigured. I've used it; works great!

Larry

 

[Ben Cooper]

Windows 2000 and XP usually run on NTFS, being based on NT technology.
I strongly suspect at least some of the compatibility problems with
our old and beloved freeware are connected to software that can not
read/write to NTFS.
I may be wrong here: I realize virtually all old software that tries
to talk to the disk directly will run into the inpenetrable `hardware
layer interface' or whatever it is called. If software talks to the
(NTFS) disk through the bios, I suppose the bios can translate, yes?

On the other hand NTFS has a lot of cooporate intended features
(security, etc.) that may not be important to single home users, and
probably takes unknown abouts of resources and ram to keep up.

Windows 9x does not run on NTFS, and 2000 and XP do not have a simple
command line OS that can be used in times of trouble.

Overall, are the benefits of NTFS sufficient to offset the old, tried
and true programs, and even OSes and command lines, recovery
software, etc.
that freeware folks already know and use?

There's a lot of good information here-
http://www.ntfs.com/

Including the freeware NTFS Reader DOS Boot Disk, which "provides read
access to NTFS drives from the MS DOS environment. It supports long
filenames as well as compressed and fragmented files. NTFS Reader for
DOS allows you to preview the files on NTFS and copy them from NTFS to
FAT volumes or network drives. In order to use the software you need to
copy the readntfs.exe file to a bootable floppy disk and boot from it."

 

[bambam]

What do you recommend for an 80Gb drive with two partitions?

If I wasn't interested in Linux & freeware utilities I would probably
use NTFS, but that isn't the case. I have WinXP on a 8GB Fat32
partition and I try to keep the content under 4.7GB so that it will fit
on a DVD. It's really a personal preference thing, and every one is
different. Here is an interesting read on the subject of partitions-

http://partition.radified.com/

 

[James]

The trick is to find a bootdisk util that will allow the user to
safely boot to a command prompt that will still allow FULL access to
the ntfs partition (read, write, delete, execute) such that they may
install OR run a disk-based antivirus utility. None exist. If anyone
does know of such a beast (NO INSTALL & BOOT-DISK style) please post
in this newsgroup. Emails to sysinternals & several other gurus also
resulted in the same answer.... none exist. They said either reformat
or try non- destructive recovery. Neither choices were desired by
Mark.

We ended up going with my original method of swapping out his drive to
my system. His system is now malware free & no critical data was lost.
NTFS is no longer on his system & fat32 IS faster on his AMD Athalon
2800+.

Anyone else have a reliable NO INSTALL method to correct ntfs
corruption due to malware, please post to the group. I am sure we are
all ears

Well I have never yet found a system I couldn't clean of viruses, trojans,
spyware etc. so long as I could boot it and the Recovery Console in XP (boot
it off the XP CD) allows sufficient access to repair a boot problem.

I do agree with Larry about Bart's PE (Preinstalled Environment) boot CD.
It's based on Microsoft's PE which MS will be basing future install versions
of Windows on. Bart's PE is excellent and if you must have an alternate
way to access any system (FAT32 or NTFS) it's the way to go. Larry
referred to the Windows Ultimate Boot CD (WUBCD) site which is based on
Bart's PE. Bart's own site is at: www.nu2.nu/pebuilder
Despite it looking a bit complex, if you follow the instructions it's quite
easy to create the CD and also to add any other favorite utilities you would
like to have on it. There are several versions of Bart's PE now quite
popular although the WUBCD is probably the best. They all provide full
read/write access to NTFS volumes.

 

[ozzy]

(e-mail address removed) (ozzy) wrote:

[snip]

The trick is to find a bootdisk util that will allow the user to
safely boot to a command prompt that will still allow FULL access to
the ntfs partition (read, write, delete, execute) such that they may
install OR run a disk-based antivirus utility. None exist. If anyone
does know of such a beast (NO INSTALL & BOOT-DISK style) please post
in this newsgroup. Emails to sysinternals & several other gurus also
resulted in the same answer.... none exist. They said either reformat
or try non- destructive recovery. Neither choices were desired by
Mark.
[snip]
Anyone else have a reliable NO INSTALL method to correct ntfs
corruption due to malware, please post to the group. I am sure we are
all ears

Create a BartPE with A-V programs on it. It's exactly what you
describe as needed.

See http://www.windowsubcd.com/ for the easiest way; it has all the
add-ins preconfigured. I've used it; works great!

Larry

Thanks but I already had a BartPE cd made & it is useless too cause it will not
allow direct access to the ntfs system

Remember, Mark is the one that will be doing all this in the future & he
doesn't have the resources/skills (his words) to do the BartPE (even though I
told him it was easy). He wants eveything on floppy.

AVG or f-prot will be used on boot disks so direct disk access is needed & ntfs
systems don't permit that.

ozzy