Guest Horns Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !? I realy think they should supply us with a replacement as been as they are ending any support. Give us something we can use that you will support. Upload something too us or something. This PC came with XP, back when XP very first came out. I couldn't do a thing with all the bugs, so I put 98se on here just to get by. Well XP never sent CD's with anything so there was no way to ever re-add it later. "Bill in Co." wrote: > cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote: > > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 02:48:31 -0700, "Bill in Co." > >> cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote: > > > >>> 2) XP does not have a maintenance OS: True, and that's Bad > > > >> Yeah, and that one scares me a bit, at least at this point in time. > I've > >> had to go down to DOS on a few occasions, including reinstalling and/or > >> "fixing" windows, and losing that "maintenance OS" capability kinda > bothers > >> me (even if you do have a "Recovery Console" in XP) > > > > You can have the best of both worlds; the safety and maintainability > > of FATxx with the stability and scalability of XP. > > Yeah but it *seems* that the consensus is that if you choose to use FAT32, > you must be an idiot, or something! (or at least it FEELS that way to me, > sometimes). > > Of course NTFS has advantages. But for a single, non-networked, user? > (Not as many adavantages as otherwise, although still some good ones there, > admitedly). > > >>Tips: > > > > 1) Keep C: as a FAT32 < 7.9G > > > > This will ensure 4k clusters, which fit the processor's natural page > > size for best virtual memory performance. > > > > There are other goodnesses to a small C: > > - keeping C: de-bulked makes for sustained performance > > - faster defrag and Scandisk / Chkdsk / AutoChk for C: > > - most writes, thus corruption risk, kept on C: (page/temp/TIF) > > - as data is off C:, it's safer from file corruption > > > > 2) Install a Win9x DOS mode to HD > > > > Easiest way is to format C: /S from a Win9x DOS mode before installing > > XP; that way, the XP installation process will preserve the DOS mode > > as a "Microsoft Windows" Boot.ini boot alternative. > > > > 3) Use DOS Mode Scandisk, not XP's file system checker > > > > I suspect XP's file system checker is pretty useless on FATxx volumes, > > because if you rt-click such volumes and go Properties, Tools, Check > > for errors, it zips through the process so quickly that I doubt if it > > does anything at all. I suspect this is where the XP vs. FATxx horror > > stories come from; plain lack of decent file system maintenance. > > > > 4) Shrink Temporary Internet Files (TIF) for each user account > > > > FATxx is less efficient than NTFS when it comes to large numbers of > > entries per directory - and that's a big problem with IE's ludicrous > > huge default TIF size. > > I'm using 100 MB for the TIF. I don't see any "big problems". > > > Huge TIF also means the tiny files within TIF > > get ancient before they are finally FIFO's out; hello, fragmented file > > system! > > Even if it is fragmented, (and it is), I don't really see or feel the > results, in practical terms. (Besides which, I often run Defrag anyway, > just because I like to). > > But let's face it: even when the files ARE fragmented, the *observeable* > difference in performance of the application (like Word, or whatever), to > the user, seems minimal, at least from what I've seen. > > > 5) Locate shell folders off C: > > > > Now that you have volumes other than C: that are safer for data, you > > want to relocate "My Docs" etc. off C:, and I'd also un-nest the bulky > > "My Pics", "My Vids" and "My Music" and the dangerous "My Received > > Files". TweakUI for XP can do this, but once again, it has to be > > repeated for each user account - and any newly-created user accounts > > will start off with MS's duhfault shell locations and huge TIF. > > > > 6) Use a compitent partitioning/formatting tool > > > > XP is worse than useless when it comes to FAT32 volumes over 32G in > > size, plus you want all volumes to be aligned such that if you do > > convert to NTFS later, you won't be cursed with s-l-o-w 512-byte > > clusters. BING from http://www.bootitng.com fits the bill on all counts; you > > don't need to install it to HD, just use it to manage partitions. > > > > 7) Know the limitations of FATxx! > > > > Choosing FATxx over NTFS is throwing away per-user security as a > > tradeoff for better safety. Many of XP's per-user and per-file > > security features require NTFS to work, and if you convert a C: to > > NTFS later, the installation will not be set up with the appropriate > > NTFS security attributes that would have been in place had you set the > > system up as NTFS in the first place. > > I'm the only user, so security is a non issue for me. > > > Also, remember that NTFS is required if you want single files to exceed 2G > in size. > > Actually, it's 4 GB, but you can't use Windows Explorer to copy or move > files larger than 2 GB, as I recall. You've got to do that in DOS. > > > If you don't want to lose the security benefits of NTFS, but want some > > measure of maintainability, you can use a hybrid approach; a mixture > > of NTFS and FATxx volumes. For example, you can route all incoming > > material through FATxx so that it can be virus-scanned from DOS mode > > as a pointer to what may have infected the system. > > > > You'd need to make decisions about C: as well as your data locations, > > as to whether you want NTFS or FATxx for these. If you see value in > > security settings that require NTFS in order to protect the OS, you > > may choose an NTFS C:; if you don't mind losing the ability to recover > > data via Diskedit etc. and want NTFS's security benefits, you might > > choose NTFS for your data set as well. > > > > There's still no interactive file system repair tool (like Scandisk) > > for NTFS, but you can formally scan NTFS from a Bart's PE CDR and > > Trend's SysClean that you can drop and run from a USB stick. Both > > Bart's PE and Linux boot CDRs require USB sticks to be present at time > > of boot, unlike XP which will detect them on the fly. > > > > > >> -- Risk Management is the clue that asks: > > "Why do I keep open buckets of petrol next to all the > > ashtrays in the lounge, when I don't even have a car?" > >> ----------------------- ------ ---- --- -- - - - - > > >
Guest MEB Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !? Re: Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !? "Horns" <Horns@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:03CAD96A-7DDB-4838-9BE3-9BE19398081E@microsoft.com... | I realy think they should supply us with a replacement as been as they are | ending any support. Give us something we can use that you will support. | Upload something too us or something. This PC came with XP, back when XP very | first came out. I couldn't do a thing with all the bugs, so I put 98se on | here just to get by. Well XP never sent CD's with anything so there was no | way to ever re-add it later. Your apparent On Topic issue is not related to XP [Microsoft] not supplying the CDROM, its with the computer manufacturer. When you bought the PC you likely had the ability to either burn a CDROM/DVD with the installation files, OR the ability to contact the manufacturer for the CDROM. Blame the manufacturer or more appropriately, yourself for failing to proceed in a manner which ensured your ability to use XP sometime in the future. There are or were several services from which you can/could buy the manufacturer's computer specific installation CDROM(s) if they are no longer offered or were never *publicly* offered. I'll leave the XP supposed security and disk handling/file system aspects discussion alone at this time. Seems strange that this is a "Phasing Out Win98" discussion when end of life/support WAS 2006... posting into an old 2005 discussion is rather weird... -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com -- _________ | | "Bill in Co." wrote: | | > cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote: | > > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 02:48:31 -0700, "Bill in Co." | > >> cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote: | > > | > >>> 2) XP does not have a maintenance OS: True, and that's Bad | > > | > >> Yeah, and that one scares me a bit, at least at this point in time. | > I've | > >> had to go down to DOS on a few occasions, including reinstalling and/or | > >> "fixing" windows, and losing that "maintenance OS" capability kinda | > bothers | > >> me (even if you do have a "Recovery Console" in XP) | > > | > > You can have the best of both worlds; the safety and maintainability | > > of FATxx with the stability and scalability of XP. | > | > Yeah but it *seems* that the consensus is that if you choose to use FAT32, | > you must be an idiot, or something! (or at least it FEELS that way to me, | > sometimes). | > | > Of course NTFS has advantages. But for a single, non-networked, user? | > (Not as many adavantages as otherwise, although still some good ones there, | > admitedly). | > | > >>Tips: | > > | > > 1) Keep C: as a FAT32 < 7.9G | > > | > > This will ensure 4k clusters, which fit the processor's natural page | > > size for best virtual memory performance. | > > | > > There are other goodnesses to a small C: | > > - keeping C: de-bulked makes for sustained performance | > > - faster defrag and Scandisk / Chkdsk / AutoChk for C: | > > - most writes, thus corruption risk, kept on C: (page/temp/TIF) | > > - as data is off C:, it's safer from file corruption | > > | > > 2) Install a Win9x DOS mode to HD | > > | > > Easiest way is to format C: /S from a Win9x DOS mode before installing | > > XP; that way, the XP installation process will preserve the DOS mode | > > as a "Microsoft Windows" Boot.ini boot alternative. | > > | > > 3) Use DOS Mode Scandisk, not XP's file system checker | > > | > > I suspect XP's file system checker is pretty useless on FATxx volumes, | > > because if you rt-click such volumes and go Properties, Tools, Check | > > for errors, it zips through the process so quickly that I doubt if it | > > does anything at all. I suspect this is where the XP vs. FATxx horror | > > stories come from; plain lack of decent file system maintenance. | > > | > > 4) Shrink Temporary Internet Files (TIF) for each user account | > > | > > FATxx is less efficient than NTFS when it comes to large numbers of | > > entries per directory - and that's a big problem with IE's ludicrous | > > huge default TIF size. | > | > I'm using 100 MB for the TIF. I don't see any "big problems". | > | > > Huge TIF also means the tiny files within TIF | > > get ancient before they are finally FIFO's out; hello, fragmented file | > > system! | > | > Even if it is fragmented, (and it is), I don't really see or feel the | > results, in practical terms. (Besides which, I often run Defrag anyway, | > just because I like to). | > | > But let's face it: even when the files ARE fragmented, the *observeable* | > difference in performance of the application (like Word, or whatever), to | > the user, seems minimal, at least from what I've seen. | > | > > 5) Locate shell folders off C: | > > | > > Now that you have volumes other than C: that are safer for data, you | > > want to relocate "My Docs" etc. off C:, and I'd also un-nest the bulky | > > "My Pics", "My Vids" and "My Music" and the dangerous "My Received | > > Files". TweakUI for XP can do this, but once again, it has to be | > > repeated for each user account - and any newly-created user accounts | > > will start off with MS's duhfault shell locations and huge TIF. | > > | > > 6) Use a compitent partitioning/formatting tool | > > | > > XP is worse than useless when it comes to FAT32 volumes over 32G in | > > size, plus you want all volumes to be aligned such that if you do | > > convert to NTFS later, you won't be cursed with s-l-o-w 512-byte | > > clusters. BING from http://www.bootitng.com fits the bill on all counts; you | > > don't need to install it to HD, just use it to manage partitions. | > > | > > 7) Know the limitations of FATxx! | > > | > > Choosing FATxx over NTFS is throwing away per-user security as a | > > tradeoff for better safety. Many of XP's per-user and per-file | > > security features require NTFS to work, and if you convert a C: to | > > NTFS later, the installation will not be set up with the appropriate | > > NTFS security attributes that would have been in place had you set the | > > system up as NTFS in the first place. | > | > I'm the only user, so security is a non issue for me. | > | > > Also, remember that NTFS is required if you want single files to exceed 2G | > in size. | > | > Actually, it's 4 GB, but you can't use Windows Explorer to copy or move | > files larger than 2 GB, as I recall. You've got to do that in DOS. | > | > > If you don't want to lose the security benefits of NTFS, but want some | > > measure of maintainability, you can use a hybrid approach; a mixture | > > of NTFS and FATxx volumes. For example, you can route all incoming | > > material through FATxx so that it can be virus-scanned from DOS mode | > > as a pointer to what may have infected the system. | > > | > > You'd need to make decisions about C: as well as your data locations, | > > as to whether you want NTFS or FATxx for these. If you see value in | > > security settings that require NTFS in order to protect the OS, you | > > may choose an NTFS C:; if you don't mind losing the ability to recover | > > data via Diskedit etc. and want NTFS's security benefits, you might | > > choose NTFS for your data set as well. | > > | > > There's still no interactive file system repair tool (like Scandisk) | > > for NTFS, but you can formally scan NTFS from a Bart's PE CDR and | > > Trend's SysClean that you can drop and run from a USB stick. Both | > > Bart's PE and Linux boot CDRs require USB sticks to be present at time | > > of boot, unlike XP which will detect them on the fly. | > > | > > | > >> -- Risk Management is the clue that asks: | > > "Why do I keep open buckets of petrol next to all the | > > ashtrays in the lounge, when I don't even have a car?" | > >> ----------------------- ------ ---- --- -- - - - - | > | > | >
Guest MEB Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !? Re: Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !? "Horns" <Horns@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:03CAD96A-7DDB-4838-9BE3-9BE19398081E@microsoft.com... | I realy think they should supply us with a replacement as been as they are | ending any support. Give us something we can use that you will support. | Upload something too us or something. This PC came with XP, back when XP very | first came out. I couldn't do a thing with all the bugs, so I put 98se on | here just to get by. Well XP never sent CD's with anything so there was no | way to ever re-add it later. Your apparent On Topic issue is not related to XP [Microsoft] not supplying the CDROM, its with the computer manufacturer. When you bought the PC you likely had the ability to either burn a CDROM/DVD with the installation files, OR the ability to contact the manufacturer for the CDROM. Blame the manufacturer or more appropriately, yourself for failing to proceed in a manner which ensured your ability to use XP sometime in the future. There are or were several services from which you can/could buy the manufacturer's computer specific installation CDROM(s) if they are no longer offered or were never *publicly* offered. I'll leave the XP supposed security and disk handling/file system aspects discussion alone at this time. Seems strange that this is a "Phasing Out Win98" discussion when end of life/support WAS 2006... posting into an old 2005 discussion is rather weird... -- MEB http://peoplescounsel.orgfree.com -- _________ | | "Bill in Co." wrote: | | > cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote: | > > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 02:48:31 -0700, "Bill in Co." | > >> cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote: | > > | > >>> 2) XP does not have a maintenance OS: True, and that's Bad | > > | > >> Yeah, and that one scares me a bit, at least at this point in time. | > I've | > >> had to go down to DOS on a few occasions, including reinstalling and/or | > >> "fixing" windows, and losing that "maintenance OS" capability kinda | > bothers | > >> me (even if you do have a "Recovery Console" in XP) | > > | > > You can have the best of both worlds; the safety and maintainability | > > of FATxx with the stability and scalability of XP. | > | > Yeah but it *seems* that the consensus is that if you choose to use FAT32, | > you must be an idiot, or something! (or at least it FEELS that way to me, | > sometimes). | > | > Of course NTFS has advantages. But for a single, non-networked, user? | > (Not as many adavantages as otherwise, although still some good ones there, | > admitedly). | > | > >>Tips: | > > | > > 1) Keep C: as a FAT32 < 7.9G | > > | > > This will ensure 4k clusters, which fit the processor's natural page | > > size for best virtual memory performance. | > > | > > There are other goodnesses to a small C: | > > - keeping C: de-bulked makes for sustained performance | > > - faster defrag and Scandisk / Chkdsk / AutoChk for C: | > > - most writes, thus corruption risk, kept on C: (page/temp/TIF) | > > - as data is off C:, it's safer from file corruption | > > | > > 2) Install a Win9x DOS mode to HD | > > | > > Easiest way is to format C: /S from a Win9x DOS mode before installing | > > XP; that way, the XP installation process will preserve the DOS mode | > > as a "Microsoft Windows" Boot.ini boot alternative. | > > | > > 3) Use DOS Mode Scandisk, not XP's file system checker | > > | > > I suspect XP's file system checker is pretty useless on FATxx volumes, | > > because if you rt-click such volumes and go Properties, Tools, Check | > > for errors, it zips through the process so quickly that I doubt if it | > > does anything at all. I suspect this is where the XP vs. FATxx horror | > > stories come from; plain lack of decent file system maintenance. | > > | > > 4) Shrink Temporary Internet Files (TIF) for each user account | > > | > > FATxx is less efficient than NTFS when it comes to large numbers of | > > entries per directory - and that's a big problem with IE's ludicrous | > > huge default TIF size. | > | > I'm using 100 MB for the TIF. I don't see any "big problems". | > | > > Huge TIF also means the tiny files within TIF | > > get ancient before they are finally FIFO's out; hello, fragmented file | > > system! | > | > Even if it is fragmented, (and it is), I don't really see or feel the | > results, in practical terms. (Besides which, I often run Defrag anyway, | > just because I like to). | > | > But let's face it: even when the files ARE fragmented, the *observeable* | > difference in performance of the application (like Word, or whatever), to | > the user, seems minimal, at least from what I've seen. | > | > > 5) Locate shell folders off C: | > > | > > Now that you have volumes other than C: that are safer for data, you | > > want to relocate "My Docs" etc. off C:, and I'd also un-nest the bulky | > > "My Pics", "My Vids" and "My Music" and the dangerous "My Received | > > Files". TweakUI for XP can do this, but once again, it has to be | > > repeated for each user account - and any newly-created user accounts | > > will start off with MS's duhfault shell locations and huge TIF. | > > | > > 6) Use a compitent partitioning/formatting tool | > > | > > XP is worse than useless when it comes to FAT32 volumes over 32G in | > > size, plus you want all volumes to be aligned such that if you do | > > convert to NTFS later, you won't be cursed with s-l-o-w 512-byte | > > clusters. BING from http://www.bootitng.com fits the bill on all counts; you | > > don't need to install it to HD, just use it to manage partitions. | > > | > > 7) Know the limitations of FATxx! | > > | > > Choosing FATxx over NTFS is throwing away per-user security as a | > > tradeoff for better safety. Many of XP's per-user and per-file | > > security features require NTFS to work, and if you convert a C: to | > > NTFS later, the installation will not be set up with the appropriate | > > NTFS security attributes that would have been in place had you set the | > > system up as NTFS in the first place. | > | > I'm the only user, so security is a non issue for me. | > | > > Also, remember that NTFS is required if you want single files to exceed 2G | > in size. | > | > Actually, it's 4 GB, but you can't use Windows Explorer to copy or move | > files larger than 2 GB, as I recall. You've got to do that in DOS. | > | > > If you don't want to lose the security benefits of NTFS, but want some | > > measure of maintainability, you can use a hybrid approach; a mixture | > > of NTFS and FATxx volumes. For example, you can route all incoming | > > material through FATxx so that it can be virus-scanned from DOS mode | > > as a pointer to what may have infected the system. | > > | > > You'd need to make decisions about C: as well as your data locations, | > > as to whether you want NTFS or FATxx for these. If you see value in | > > security settings that require NTFS in order to protect the OS, you | > > may choose an NTFS C:; if you don't mind losing the ability to recover | > > data via Diskedit etc. and want NTFS's security benefits, you might | > > choose NTFS for your data set as well. | > > | > > There's still no interactive file system repair tool (like Scandisk) | > > for NTFS, but you can formally scan NTFS from a Bart's PE CDR and | > > Trend's SysClean that you can drop and run from a USB stick. Both | > > Bart's PE and Linux boot CDRs require USB sticks to be present at time | > > of boot, unlike XP which will detect them on the fly. | > > | > > | > >> -- Risk Management is the clue that asks: | > > "Why do I keep open buckets of petrol next to all the | > > ashtrays in the lounge, when I don't even have a car?" | > >> ----------------------- ------ ---- --- -- - - - - | > | > | >
Guest Gary S. Terhune Posted June 25, 2008 Posted June 25, 2008 Re: Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !? Re: Microsoft Phasing Out Win98 !? What make/model is your machine? If no reinstallation CDs were provided, then there's probably a hidden partition on your HD that is used to restore the system. The actual procedures vary, so that's why I ask the make & model. Unless you wiped out the Restore partition when you installed 98. Even then, the vendor will may provide a replacement. -- Gary S. Terhune MS-MVP Shell/User http://grystmill.com "Horns" <Horns@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:03CAD96A-7DDB-4838-9BE3-9BE19398081E@microsoft.com... >I realy think they should supply us with a replacement as been as they are > ending any support. Give us something we can use that you will support. > Upload something too us or something. This PC came with XP, back when XP > very > first came out. I couldn't do a thing with all the bugs, so I put 98se on > here just to get by. Well XP never sent CD's with anything so there was no > way to ever re-add it later. > > "Bill in Co." wrote: > >> cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user) wrote: >> > On Sun, 6 Mar 2005 02:48:31 -0700, "Bill in Co." >> >> cquirke (MVP Win9x) wrote: >> > >> >>> 2) XP does not have a maintenance OS: True, and that's Bad >> > >> >> Yeah, and that one scares me a bit, at least at this point in time. >> I've >> >> had to go down to DOS on a few occasions, including reinstalling >> >> and/or >> >> "fixing" windows, and losing that "maintenance OS" capability kinda >> bothers >> >> me (even if you do have a "Recovery Console" in XP) >> > >> > You can have the best of both worlds; the safety and maintainability >> > of FATxx with the stability and scalability of XP. >> >> Yeah but it *seems* that the consensus is that if you choose to use >> FAT32, >> you must be an idiot, or something! (or at least it FEELS that way to me, >> sometimes). >> >> Of course NTFS has advantages. But for a single, non-networked, user? >> (Not as many adavantages as otherwise, although still some good ones >> there, >> admitedly). >> >> >>Tips: >> > >> > 1) Keep C: as a FAT32 < 7.9G >> > >> > This will ensure 4k clusters, which fit the processor's natural page >> > size for best virtual memory performance. >> > >> > There are other goodnesses to a small C: >> > - keeping C: de-bulked makes for sustained performance >> > - faster defrag and Scandisk / Chkdsk / AutoChk for C: >> > - most writes, thus corruption risk, kept on C: (page/temp/TIF) >> > - as data is off C:, it's safer from file corruption >> > >> > 2) Install a Win9x DOS mode to HD >> > >> > Easiest way is to format C: /S from a Win9x DOS mode before installing >> > XP; that way, the XP installation process will preserve the DOS mode >> > as a "Microsoft Windows" Boot.ini boot alternative. >> > >> > 3) Use DOS Mode Scandisk, not XP's file system checker >> > >> > I suspect XP's file system checker is pretty useless on FATxx volumes, >> > because if you rt-click such volumes and go Properties, Tools, Check >> > for errors, it zips through the process so quickly that I doubt if it >> > does anything at all. I suspect this is where the XP vs. FATxx horror >> > stories come from; plain lack of decent file system maintenance. >> > >> > 4) Shrink Temporary Internet Files (TIF) for each user account >> > >> > FATxx is less efficient than NTFS when it comes to large numbers of >> > entries per directory - and that's a big problem with IE's ludicrous >> > huge default TIF size. >> >> I'm using 100 MB for the TIF. I don't see any "big problems". >> >> > Huge TIF also means the tiny files within TIF >> > get ancient before they are finally FIFO's out; hello, fragmented file >> > system! >> >> Even if it is fragmented, (and it is), I don't really see or feel the >> results, in practical terms. (Besides which, I often run Defrag anyway, >> just because I like to). >> >> But let's face it: even when the files ARE fragmented, the *observeable* >> difference in performance of the application (like Word, or whatever), to >> the user, seems minimal, at least from what I've seen. >> >> > 5) Locate shell folders off C: >> > >> > Now that you have volumes other than C: that are safer for data, you >> > want to relocate "My Docs" etc. off C:, and I'd also un-nest the bulky >> > "My Pics", "My Vids" and "My Music" and the dangerous "My Received >> > Files". TweakUI for XP can do this, but once again, it has to be >> > repeated for each user account - and any newly-created user accounts >> > will start off with MS's duhfault shell locations and huge TIF. >> > >> > 6) Use a compitent partitioning/formatting tool >> > >> > XP is worse than useless when it comes to FAT32 volumes over 32G in >> > size, plus you want all volumes to be aligned such that if you do >> > convert to NTFS later, you won't be cursed with s-l-o-w 512-byte >> > clusters. BING from http://www.bootitng.com fits the bill on all counts; you >> > don't need to install it to HD, just use it to manage partitions. >> > >> > 7) Know the limitations of FATxx! >> > >> > Choosing FATxx over NTFS is throwing away per-user security as a >> > tradeoff for better safety. Many of XP's per-user and per-file >> > security features require NTFS to work, and if you convert a C: to >> > NTFS later, the installation will not be set up with the appropriate >> > NTFS security attributes that would have been in place had you set the >> > system up as NTFS in the first place. >> >> I'm the only user, so security is a non issue for me. >> >> > Also, remember that NTFS is required if you want single files to exceed >> > 2G >> in size. >> >> Actually, it's 4 GB, but you can't use Windows Explorer to copy or move >> files larger than 2 GB, as I recall. You've got to do that in DOS. >> >> > If you don't want to lose the security benefits of NTFS, but want some >> > measure of maintainability, you can use a hybrid approach; a mixture >> > of NTFS and FATxx volumes. For example, you can route all incoming >> > material through FATxx so that it can be virus-scanned from DOS mode >> > as a pointer to what may have infected the system. >> > >> > You'd need to make decisions about C: as well as your data locations, >> > as to whether you want NTFS or FATxx for these. If you see value in >> > security settings that require NTFS in order to protect the OS, you >> > may choose an NTFS C:; if you don't mind losing the ability to recover >> > data via Diskedit etc. and want NTFS's security benefits, you might >> > choose NTFS for your data set as well. >> > >> > There's still no interactive file system repair tool (like Scandisk) >> > for NTFS, but you can formally scan NTFS from a Bart's PE CDR and >> > Trend's SysClean that you can drop and run from a USB stick. Both >> > Bart's PE and Linux boot CDRs require USB sticks to be present at time >> > of boot, unlike XP which will detect them on the fly. >> > >> > >> >> -- Risk Management is the clue that asks: >> > "Why do I keep open buckets of petrol next to all the >> > ashtrays in the lounge, when I don't even have a car?" >> >> ----------------------- ------ ---- --- -- - - - - >> >> >>
Recommended Posts