If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Foxit Crashing (was - Is It Time To Stop Using Windows XP?)
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Is It Time To Stop Using Windows XP?
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Is It Time To Stop Using Windows XP?
Bill in Co wrote:
That NTFS format is a guarantee to losing all important data. Not so. In truth, NTFS is a more robust file format with its journaling. NTFS is not "more robust" compared to FAT32. There are passive and active components to file systems. The most simple of file systems have no active component. There is really no active component to FAT32. When a file needs to be written, it's target sector locations are computed and the data is handed off to the hard drive. With NTFS, there are active processes that are always "supervising" the state or condition of open files (yes, journalling is one such process). FAT32 could have journalling and it would still be FAT32. When a write operation happens in NTFS, and the operation does not complete properly, journalling rolls back the state of the file to that of it's last known good state. Any data that may actually have been written to the file during the so-called failed write operation is lost. And actually, much more data can be lost depending on the write-buffer settings. Example: I have an NT-4 web server running IIS. It creates daily logs of who is surfing to it and what pages they are requesting. When that server unexpectedly loses power, I can expect that not only will I lose the contents of the currently-opened log file, I will also lose the contents of the previous 14 days log files. Put that into your NTFS-is-robust pipe and smoke it. When orphaned sectors are created in FAT32, there is no supervisory process that corrects them in real-time. The orphaned sectors simply remain on the drive and are dealt with when (or if) the user runs scandisk (or scandisk is run automatically at the next system bootup). NTFS performs the eqivalent of scandisk every time an NT-based system is started, and it removes orphaned sectors in real time, and because these operations are transparent, the user is left with the impression that orphaned sectors are never created under NTFS, giving the user the impression that NTFS is more robust. The reality is that NTFS simply makes it seem that way be not giving the user the ability to rescue data from orphaned sectors - it simply wipes them away. NTFS was created and given certain abilities for these reasons: 1) microsoft needed a file system that contained permission structures that would allow various levels of access to individual files. Home and soho users don't really need that ability, but they're stuck with it because NT and it's derivatives are designed first and formost for corporate / enterprise use. 2) NT and it's derivatives (2k, XP, etc) when used as servers requires a file system that can handle multiple users accessing the same file, and some files can be rather large (larger than 4 gb). NTFS was designed with this ability in mind. Again, home and soho users don't need this. 3) hard drives of the early 1990's to the early 2000's had limited on-board write buffers and limited or no ability to perform internal bad-sector re-mapping, so the NTFS was given journalling capability and bad-sector remapping capability, neither of which is needed today given the built-in error handling capability of drives made during the past 7 or 8 years. NTFS is proprietary and is not fully, publically documented. The command and control structures of NTFS is distributed throughout the drive space, making it hard to piece together if it has been corrupted. FAT32's command and control structures are concentrated in specific sectors of the drive, making recovery easier because file data is not mixed in with those control structures. FAT32 is fully documented, and there exists more software (free and paid) that can recover FAT32 drives. One thing I do love about XP is the almost complete absence of blue screens, in comparison to Win 98. Windows 98 got a bad rap early in it's life because computers at the time had very pathetic hardware. AGP was a new video bus format, and there were lots of buggy drivers and even AGP hardware during the years 1998 - 2002. The amount of memory that systems had back then was a joke (32 mb, 64 mb if you were lucky). Blue screens were common. But if you are running 98 on at least a P-3 system with 256 mb of ram and a motherboard made after 2002 (or ideally, a P-4 system with 512 mb ram and a motherboard made after 2003) then you will see hardly any blue screens. The frequency with which you see a blue-screen under win-98 is, in my experience, a function of the age of the system hardware and the amount of installed memory - NOT anything inherent in the code of the OS itself. It's been a LONG time since I've gotten a blue screen on XP - in stark contrast to Win 9x I don't know about you, but I run 98 daily at work and at home. I can't remember the last time I got a blue screen on win-98. If you actually do run win-98 on a frequent basis today, then tell us something about the hardware it's installed on. What is the CPU? What is the vintage of the motherboard and video card? How much installed ram? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Foxit Crashing (was - Is It Time To Stop Using Windows XP?)
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Is It Time To Stop Using Windows XP?
98 Guy wrote in :
wrote: On top of that, the XP installation was formatted with NTFS, and if I can not access my data from dos, its not going to be saved on my computer. That NTFS format is a guarantee to losing all important data. You can install XP and Win-2k on a FAT-32 formatted drive. If you install DOS first (like DOS 7.1) then you can have a dual-boot DOS/XP system. I've build a few systems by doing that. I've done it for basically the same reasons - I can access the all files from DOS, and the system runs faster because of the lack of NTFS 98 Guy: I've done it for basically the same reasons - I can access the all files from DOS, and the system runs faster because of the lack of NTFS overhead. And yes, your data is actually safer and more recoverable under FAT32 vs NTFS. This is interesting. Could you please provide refer- ences to prove these facts about FAT32 vs NTFS? -- Anton Shepelev |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Is It Time To Stop Using Windows XP?
"If you actually do run win-98 on a frequent basis today, then tell us
something about the hardware it's installed on. What is the CPU? What is the vintage of the motherboard and video card? How much installed ram?" CPU: 64-bit AMD Phenom X3 (I run 32-bit 98/2K and 64-bit Mandriva on it,) 3GHz Motherboard: mid-2008 MSI Video "card": the built-in AGP-esque chipset RAM: 2 gigs Hard drive: 750GB Seagate SATA drive Floppy drives: 1.44MB 3.5" Mitsumi; 1.2MB 5.25" Mitsumi D509V3 (salvaged from an old Frankenstine piece-of-junk computer I built in the '90s) CD drives: 2007 TSST/Toshiba Samsung SH-S202N (halfway decent IDE multiformat CDVD recorder) 2009 Sony Blue Ray/CDVD recorder SATA drive that I snagged for $20 at an estate sale earlier this year 98 just screams on this machine, despite that it's a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit chip. I can bring it up 98 on it and it'll be ready in about 10 seconds flat (compared to the 25 it took my previous 2.4 GHz P4 with 512 MB of RAM!) I think you can figger out what I run my Audacity on. 2KSP4 is a little sluggish, but usable. I mainly only have it so I can run Andlinux, because Ardour runs like utter crap on my Mandriva. Andlinux runs in a 6GB NTFS partition, whilst everything else is FAT32 (save for Mandriva, which is on a separate EXT3 partition.) Interestingly, some programmes in 2000 (like 7-Zip and Andlinux) see the triple-core architecture of the Phenom as being three seperate CPUs, and can utilise it as such. -- MotoFox Former superstar of the Muzak Forums, 2003-2009 Do not staple, fold, spindle or mutilate. If ingested, do not induce vomiting. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Is It Time To Stop Using Windows XP?
NTFS see Fat
But Fat see no NTFS So if you running win 98 and you need a file off win 2000 that is in FTFS you can not have it! But on the older hand FTFS see all know all! so make all Fat if you need to Share files! |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Is It Time To Stop Using Windows XP?
"MyNews" wrote:
NTFS see Fat But Fat see no NTFS Not exactly. Neither file system sees anything but its own files. Operating systems that can use NTFS can also use FAT. Not all operating systems that can use FAT can use NTFS. In particular the NT series of systems - NT, Win2K, XP, Vista, Win7 - can use both file systems. the Win9x systems can use FAT but not NTFS. -- Tim Slattery http://members.cox.net/slatteryt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Is It Time To Stop Using Windows XP? | Ed[_2_] | General | 2 | August 24th 10 06:11 PM |
how to stop popups on IE of windows me | gursaran abott | Software & Applications | 0 | June 26th 08 06:38 PM |
Stop people from change the Date and Time | Ken | Setup & Installation | 6 | October 28th 04 07:45 AM |
How to stop a program from starting at the same time as Windows | Joe Merk | General | 0 | August 30th 04 04:35 AM |
How do I stop windows from promoting themselves to foreground? | Richard | General | 0 | July 22nd 04 01:30 AM |