I beg to differ but I think you are dead wrong, nothing was changed in
the root folder itself so it was not modified. If we were to follow
your logic then almost everything from the \?? root folder on down
itself would always show as being modified. NTFS has been in
development for 15 years or more and over the years it has had many
major revisions and tweaks applied to it. If other customers had asked
for it and if the powers that be and the developers at Microsoft would
have seen any logic in applying your suggestion they would have done it
many years ago, it doesn't even require a revision to the file system
itself, it merely requires a change in the way the timestamp attribute
is applied, such a tiny detail that it could be changed in about 3
seconds by the file system programmers at Microsoft.
Unfortunately for you, but luckily for the rest of us, Microsoft didn't
think to implement such a change. What you refer to as a bug is
absolutely, plain and simply not a bug! Your idea of how things should
be and how they should work would result in an absolute mess for those
who use NTFS in data centers and large organizations. If you really
think that you have a genuine bug to report, or if you really want
Microsoft to consider your request for changes to the file system then I
can only suggest that you address your query here:
http://support.microsoft.com/gp/contactbug/
Regards;
John
R.K. wrote:
> I consider this a bug as ANY stuff within a folder and subfolders has been
> changed, the root folder should reflect this. This is a good indication
> where changes have been made. Other things within FOLDER1 has changed.
> FOLDER1 timestamp for last modified date should reflect that it has been
> changed so that it is easier tosearch which folders have been recently
> modified from one given point. Otherwise you have to run an exhaustive
> search to determine what has been changed.
>
> If the filesystem worked like it should, as a filing cabinet, whenever you
> pull out a file, add new stuff to it, then return the file back into the
> cabinet, the whole folder has been modified with new/modified/deleted
> content. It is IMPOSSIBLE to gain access to add/modify/delete within the
> folder of a manual filing cabinet without pulling out the file folder. Same
> should go for the root folders in Windows.
>
> Other operating systems like FreeBSD, *Nix work the later by modifying the
> root folders modified dates when a document is changed within its subfolders.
>
> And as for your example, It would NOT be a mess as you can actually follow
> where the folders within a DOS prompt to find what had been changed. There
> is no mess as you will get a trail from the root folder all the way down to
> the sub folders to know that it was changed.
>
> "John John" wrote:
>
>
>>A bug? That is not a bug! I very strongly disagree with you that items
>>that were not changed should have their Timestamp/Modified information
>>changed because other things were changed! If you didn't add new files
>>or folders in the root folder then the folder was not modified and the
>>timestamp on it shouldn't be changed!
>>
>>Think of this:
>>
>>You have a root folder, in that folder you have 5,000 folders which each
>>have 100 nested folders which in turn each have another 10 nested
>>folders. Something in one of the folders somewhere in folder 4,996 got
>>changed without your knowlege and now something is amuck with a process
>>or application. You say, no problem, I will search/sort the folder
>>hierarchy on the timestamp value and find out which folder was added or
>>modified. Imagine the mess? Now *that* would be a bug!
>>
>>John
>>
>>R.K. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>I have confirmed a new bug pertaining to the modified dates of folders and
>>>subfolders.
>>>
>>>Basically create multiple folders within one folder 1 minute apart like this:
>>>+ folder1
>>> + folder2
>>> + folder3
>>> + folder4
>>> | new text document.txt
>>>Now go back to the root folder and look at the modified date of folder1.
>>>You will see that the modified date did not change vs the date of your last
>>>item which was the new text document.txt.
>>>
>>>A root folder that has contents changed underneath it should modify the date
>>>of the root folder as well instead of only the end file. This should make it
>>>easier for us to determine what has and hasn't changed by looking at the root
>>>folders.
>>>
>>>Is there any way this can get fixed soon?
>>>
>>>
>>
Similar Threads
