1 |
On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 00:28:54 +0000 |
2 |
Stroller <stroller@××××××××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> |
5 |
> On 2 Dec 2008, at 13:13, Wolfgang Liebich wrote: |
6 |
> > ... |
7 |
> > My experience with NTFS is somewhat more balanced (maybe). In about |
8 |
> > 12 years I experienced one damaged NTFS instance. This was caused |
9 |
> > by a crash during an installation ... |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > So my conclusion --- NTFS is not so easy to damage, but if you |
12 |
> > manage it, you're toast :-/ |
13 |
> |
14 |
> I'm not sure that your experience with NTFS _is_ more balanced - |
15 |
> I've seen a number of PCs this year which fail booting into Windows |
16 |
> (displaying the XP splashscreen before rebooting again in an |
17 |
> unending cycle) which have been repaired using only chkdsk. |
18 |
> |
19 |
> Because the user liked to power his PC down at the wall - for energy- |
20 |
> saving reasons or peace-of-mind over house-fires, I'm knackered if I |
21 |
> know - and because "it was taking too long to shutdown" when he |
22 |
> wanted to go to bed - I know one of these was unplugged whilst still |
23 |
> shutting down, but surely not all of them were. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> Stroller. |
26 |
> |
27 |
|
28 |
|
29 |
Very much the same happens with Linux FSs when abused like this. |
30 |
I live in area with frequent power outages and have my share of |
31 |
damaged FSes and destroyed HDDs. (Un)fortunately I can't put NTFS in |
32 |
the same chart for comparison, because I have "no Windows, no Gates - |
33 |
only Apache inside". |
34 |
|
35 |
(sorry for the old joke, I couldn't help it) :) |
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
P.S. |
39 |
|
40 |
It's not Windows vs Linux as somebody implied. My choice is |
41 |
clear. I'm just trying to stay objective. |
42 |
|
43 |
|
44 |
-- |
45 |
Best regards, |
46 |
Daniel |