Jump to content

NTFS write support?


kahlil88

Recommended Posts


Paragon NTFS4WIN98

Utter cr@p!\\\\\\\\\\ (politically correct version : use of that product may require a certain amount of caution.)

$0.00 is overpriced, it's not worth the download IMVHO.

In my experience :

- did not identify ANY partitions - not just NTFS ones - on an external USB disk, which however were perfectly mounted and accessible, by letters, in Windows. I gave Paragon NTFS the benefit of doubt and retried twice, wensuring the USB disk was plugged in to the system before rebooting the machine. Still no joy.

- on the main (fixed) disk : failed to create a new NTFS inside of an extended partition, or - actually - it created one but failed to properly chain it to the parent EMBR.

- generally PNTFS conflicts with Vadim Burtyanski's excellent Letter Assigner, a must if you ask me.

- last but not least, while evaluating PNTFS, it crashed Windows 98 SE.

I wouldn't dare use PNTFS to /read/ an existing NTFS part if by chance it succeeded to recognise it, even less so try to /write/ !

Needless to say that thing was removed from my system in less time than it took to install. Good riddance.

If someone /needs/ to access NTFS partitions from Windows 9x, there are other solutions - formerly from Sysinternals' Russinovitch - that actually /work/

Just my 2 cts

--

Ninho

Edited by Ninho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

jaclaz that page about NTFS contains some very interesting information :D which are totally absurd :)

this is about fat32

supporting systems

DOS v7 and higher

Windows 98

Windows ME

Windows 2000

Windows XP

max volume size

32GB for all OS

currently i am running 73gb disk via my SCSI, and 80gb disk via PATA. currently my limit was around 137gb since i dont want to install esdi506 patch by llx, so i am absolutely sure that that page is not reliable source. i was also running a 137gb disk without problem.

also i know that each FAT (including newer filesystems in vista, but also old ones such as FAT32) has lower hardware requirements as NTFS. NTFS is also reason why the NCQ was developed for disks. Fat does not require such stuff because it is not acessing some data in NTFS header any time when it asks for permission to read or write.

"Fragmentation of FAT - no fragmentation on NTFS" - stupid myth. Each magnetic harddisk fragments its data especially when pagefile/swapfile is used without strictly defined size.

"NTFS is Safer and locked/ecrypted files cant be acessed by other users" - this is also big myth. use "mstask" to run "cmd" and acess all files without limitation with Admin rights :) also boot from diskette and use "NTFS reader" tool to access any data. althought both methods are used as exploits it just shows how easily can be safety broken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are running (or if you want to run) a dual-boot system (Win-98 and 2k/XP) and want full access to all volumes using both OS's, the answer is simple:

Format all volumes using FAT-32, and then install 2K/XP on the fat-32 volume of your choice.

This gives you that added benefit of being able to boot DOS from a floppy or your win-98 volume and then access all files on the 2k/XP volume. It lets you boot win-98 and perform an AV scan on your 2K/XP volume.

NTFS is crap. There is no practical need for it for the home or SOHO user.

The 4-gb file size limit is rarely encountered by most people.

You can use On-track Disk Manager to prepare a FAT-32 volume using any cluster-size you want (I use 4 kb size regardless the size of the volume).

Using a SATA drive configured in the bios as raid-controlled, win-98 has no problem with volume size of up to 500 gb (no 137 gb problem). Raid driver availability will depend on your motherboard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Offler

My remark was NOT intended to start yet another FAT vs. NTFS flame war, I will REPEAT, maybe bolding helps:

NTFS is not "better" than FAT, no filesystem is "better" than another, each has it's own advantages/drawbacks

Everyone should form his own opinion on the matter and choose whatever filesystem he feels confident with or simply "likes" better.

If you want to discuss BIG FAT32 volumes, read this first:

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/partFAT32-c.html

Fragmentation is obviously more probable when the "minimum unit" (the cluster in FAT filesystems) grows in size.

NTFS indexes single sectors, no matter size of volume, thus it is more efficient with bigger volumes, but has other drawbacks.

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking more along the lines of a kernel driver. Has anyone successfully compiled and installed NTFS-3G on Windows?

NTFS-3G is a user-mode application, not a kernel driver. FUSE for Windows, now that would be an interesting project.

BTW, journaling alone is enough for me to say that NTFS is a much better filesystem. (However, journaling is not that great on flash filesystems, which proves that there is no real "better" filesystem).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
NTFS-3G is a user-mode application, not a kernel driver. FUSE for Windows, now that would be an interesting project.
Wikipedia tells me that NTFS-3G uses FUSE. In any case, it would be nice to have something seamless and not some wonky, separate Explorer-like program to get the job done.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but you cant install windows 9x on a ntfs drive right?

Windows 9x still run on top of DOS-X with modified dos codes not so different from MS DOS or PC DOS. I tried loading minimal NTFS driver and I/O buffer just ate up so much memory and I/O range necessary for Windows 9X, Windows 9X barely able to run Note Pad then crushed on NTFS. That is why Windows 9X can not run within NT file system. This trial was IO.sys, MSDOS.sys, Command.com, modified ntfs.sys and SCSI driver on floppy with FAT12 (A:) and the rest of Windows 98SE on NTFS (C:) 8 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Windows 9x still run on top of DOS-X with modified dos codes not so different from MS DOS or PC DOS.

Please explain what you mean when you say that Win-9x runs "on top of DOS-X".

Win-98 is invoked from DOS. It does not "run on top of" DOS.

Win-98 uses the FAT-32 file system. FAT-32 does not equal DOS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...