Re: Anything new for Vista's NTFS?

I'm puzzled. How does "we won't tell you about fragmentation" in OS X/Linux
equate to "no defrag needed"?

Seriously, take a look at ext2. It fragments all over the place. ext3 does
not change the on-disk format. That used to be reported on boot with the
ext2 tools (there was even an ext2 defragger.) ext3 just doesn't tell you.

"Leszek Lesner" <leszek.lesner@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:ucRZXD7OGHA.2064@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> It would be nice if they get to manage the "no defrag needed" NTFS .
> Something similiar Linux and MacOS X Users have for a while now.
> The "Auto-Defragmenter" in the latest CTP moves the main problem only
> away.
>
> "Andre Da Costa" <andred25@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eKWlADYLGHA.2696@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>> The only thing I am aware being 6.0 in Vista is the Kernel and Windows
>> Installer.
>> --
>> --
>> Andre
>> Windows Connect | http://www.windowsconnected.com
>> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
>> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
>> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
>> FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
>> <Nicholas> wrote in message news:Oioc2LVLGHA.3936@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>> Or will NTFS in Windows Vista become NTFS 6.0?
>>>
>>> "roman modic" <modicr@astral-it.com> wrote in message
>>> news:uPzItDALGHA.1076@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>>> Hello!
>>>>
>>>> "Zack Whittaker (R2 Mentor)" <admin@zacknet.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:uJtUi$0KGHA.720@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl...
>>>> > There definately is! Check out: http://msblog.resdev.net/?p=78 for an
>>> article that Jabez wrote in December - it highlights all the
>>>> > good points )
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> But NTFS version is still 3.1, isn't it?
>>>> Will this change in final release?
>>>>
>>>> http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/info/ntfs.html#1.4
>>>>

Quote:

>>>> 1.4 Is NTFS the same in every version of Windows? >>>> No. They will look similar, but newer versions have extra features. For >>> example, Windows 2000 has quotas. >>>> ------------------------------------ >>>> NTFS; Windows Version >>>> v1.2; NT 3.51, NT 4 >>>> v3.0; 2000 >>>> v3.1; XP, Server 2003 >>>> >>>> Version 1.2 is sometimes known as 4.0. >>>> Versions 3.0 and 3.1 are sometimes referred to as 5.0 and 5.1. >>>>

>>>>
>>>> http://mlf.linux.rulez.org/mlf/ezaz...size.html#vista
>>>>

Quote:

>>>> Does ntfsresize support Windows Vista NTFS? >>>> Yes, it supports. There have been reports that ntfsresize and the Linux >>> kernel driver can recognize and handle flawlessly the NTFS >>>> version of the beta releases of Windows Vista, Microsoft's next >>>> generation >>> operating system. During startup the softwares of the >>>> Linux-NTFS project check the NTFS version and report unsupported NTFS >>>> if >>> the version is unknown. So far they reported Windows >>>> Vista's NTFS version 3.1, exactly the same what Windows XP and Windows >>> Server 2003 use. It will be seen if this remains true. If >>>> you'd ever find otherwise please let us know. >>>> >>>> Please note, WinFS is a storage system and will not replace NTFS >>>> however >>> to function it builds on and requires NTFS. Windows Vista, >>>> currently planned to be shipped in the end of 2006, will not include >>>> WinFS >>> yet >>>>

>>>>
>>>> http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/07.htm
>>>> [/quote]
>>>> 15. File Systems. There's been a good deal of confusion about how
>>>> Windows
>>> XP will handle file system support out of the box. I
>>>> consulted Microsoft's Kristian Gyorkos about this and got the straight
>>> dope. Win XP will not convert your existing file system on
>>>> upgrade installations. It will leave FAT16 or FAT32 in place. If you're
>>> installing over NT 4.0 or Win2000 NTFS (NT File System), it
>>>> will update your NTFS file system to the version supported by Win XP.
>>> There's an XP command-line utility you can use to convert to
>>>> NTFS after an upgrade installation.
>>>>
>>>> When you clean install Windows XP, you're given the option to keep your
>>> existing file system or to convert to NTFS prior to
>>>> installation. Unless you're dual-booting with another version of
>>>> Windows,
>>> it's best to opt for NTFS.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, Microsoft expects that the vast majority of new Windows XP
>>> computers will ship with NTFS, not FAT32.
>>>>
>>>> Microsoft gave me the following details about the different versions of
>>> Windows and NTFS. XP updates NTFS to the latest version --
>>>> which is an update to the version that shipped in Win2000. NT 4.0
>>>> shipped
>>> with NTFS v1.0; Windows 2000 came with NTFS v3.0; Windows
>>>> XP has NTFS v3.1. (Note these NTFS version numbers are slightly
>>>> different
>>> from what Microsoft has used in the past.) Minor version
>>>> numbers are only informational. They imply that the x.n version of the
>>> on-disk format is backwards compatible with the x.n-1
>>>> implementation of the file system. NT 4.0 SP3 and earlier will not
>>>> mount
>>> NTFS v3.0 or later. NT 4.0 SP4-SPx will mount NTFS v3.x.
>>>> Windows 2000 will mount NTFS v1.x and v3.x. Installation of Win2000
>>>> over
>>> an existing NTFS partition automatically upgrades those
>>>> partitions to NTFS v3.0. Windows XP will mount NTFS v1.x and v3.x.
>>> Installation of WinXP over an existing NTFS partition
>>>> automatically upgrades those partitions to NTFS v3.1.
>>>> [/quote]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards, Roman
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>