On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 13:13:56 +0100, "Edward W. Thompson"
There is no doubt the NTFS is an efficient system and has advantages of
FAT32 but knowing what I know now I am not sure I would have formatted my C
drive NTFS as it is pretty much impossible to work with if you have a boot
problem. You can't access it from DOS unless you purchase a program
(NTFSDOSPro) which is not cheap!
Yes, the unmaintainability of NTFS is why I avoid it too. See...
http://cquirke.mvps.org/whatmos.htm
....on maintenance oprions; for NTFS, you have:
- free NTFS driver for DOS (read-only, memory hog TSR, buggy)
- free stand-alone NTFS reader for DOS (copy files/dirs, no LFNs)
- reverse-engineered or "captured" support in Linux
- Recovery Console (not an OS, limited, needs preparation)
- MS WinPE bootable CDR (rendered unavailable due to licensing)
- Bart's PE bootable CDR (3rd-party workalike for WinPE)
That page also covers what you need to do to make Recovery Console
less useless for recocovering data - i.e. the RegEdit hoops you have
to jump through in advance, so that you can copy data files off NTFS
to some other drive (one at a time; no wildcards or XCopy) or read any
drive volumes other than C:
The pros and cons of NTFS vs. FAT32 are covered here:
http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm
Unless you have some particular reason to switch to NTFS, if I were you, and
I'll probably suffer flack for this, I would stick with FAT32 for the C
drive purely on the basis of comparitive ease of accessiblity/repairability
if you have a problem.
That's exactly my take as well.
Either way, I'd avoid "one big C:" blues, for a variety of reasons.
-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Hmmm... what was the *other* idea?