NTFS turns 30 years old today! I hear it's still in use by some crufty old legacy operating systems 😁
NTFS turns 30 years old today! I hear it's still in use by some crufty old legacy operating systems 😁
Happy 30th Birthday "New Technology" File System! Thanks for 30 years of demonstrating Linux superiority with a gap that widens with every new kernel release 👍
You're viewing a single thread.
There's nothing wrong with solid old file systems; ext4 is almost 17 and no one complains about it,
But that's the problem, NTFS is not solid at all.
It's not?
No it's not. Ever tried grabbing it? You can't. Must be liquid or something
What's wrong with ntfs?
Very slow, still needs defragmented, proprietary, (I know a lot of people don't care about that but also a lot feel that proprietary software is malware) and is so unbelievably slow on hard drives. I know I said slow twice but god damn on a hard drive it's rough. I know just get an SSD but I have a 2TB hard drive I keep my games on. It used to be on NTFS so I could dual-boot and not download a game twice but once I left windows I put ext4 on it and it helps a bit.
I have a 2TB HDD that was ntfs and now ext4 as well. I can't say I've noticed a difference, but I didn't do any benchmarking either.
I wouldn't consider ntfs as malware like I would something like anticheat software. As far as I know ntfs doesn't intentionally or negligently harm, open a system to harm, or perform tasks that have nothing to do with the designed function.
Drefragging sucks I guess, but it had to be run so infrequently. I can certainly understand why someone would want to move onto something that removed the need for it.
When I swapped from l windows to linux my at the 12+ year old pc went from needing like 15 minutes from boot to load the web browser. Linux mint cut that down to 1 minute. yes i cleaned my disk and defrag it regularly. Just less bloat and better fs
Nothing inherently wrong with NTFS itself as a filesystem besides being proprietary, and Microsoft supplies absolutely no support for using it in Linux. All the work done to get it running in Linux has been from the ground up and it shows. Many times I've had a hiccup on my external drives and they completely lock up until they're repaired on a windows machine. Unfortunately NTFS is one of the only journaled file system that works on both Windows, Apple, and Linux.
There has also been a lot of advances for filesystems like checksumming so you know when you get bitrot. Or copy-on-write which can take snapshots of a file and then further changes are stored as the difference. You can then rollback to any snapshot you've taken.
Shadow copy.
I think a better question would be: "what's not wrong with NTFS?"
His list is so expansive he cant even list one item from it in response.
The only reason why there's NTFS hate in the Linux community is because it's associated with windows.
This tribalism bullshit is tiring.
most of it yeah:/
NTFS is genuinely inferior in many respects, especially on hard drives, Mister Blue Tribe.
Yes, NTFS lacks features that surely one of the many Linux filesystems have. But it also has features others do not. There is no one-siize-fits-all filesystem.
- Ext4 is generally faster than NTFS, but cannot handle as large of files
- ZFS has a multitude of features that NTFS does not, like zraid, dedup, etc., but usually at the cost of RAM.
- BTRFS is included in the Linux kernel and also has many features, like being able to conveniently switch hard drive raid-like configurations on the fly with rebalance, but doesn't support fs-level encryption
- NTFS lacks in many features the others do not, and is a "non-standard" filesystem. However, it's one of the few with better cross-platform support, more advanced access control, pre-emptive journaling, reparse points, etc.
It's quite obvious that my calling out tribalism has felt to you an attack.
We get enough of this "us vs them" mentality in literally every topic and medium. I'd just like a little more nuance and genuine discourse. So I apologize if I've offended you.
Ext4 is generally faster than NTFS, but cannot handle as large of files
Going to be honest with you, this has not been my experience.
And you can imagine whatever you want, but that doesn't make it reality.
? Imagine? 16 exabytes for NTFS according to multiple sources, like Wikipedia and Microsoft documents, and 16 terabytes for ext4.
If you want to refute that then it's most likely you have just had some unlucky experience, and at best it's anecdotal.
Considering your rather disingenuous second sentence, I can see that you are not here to engage in conversation, but to troll. You're exactly what nobody needs buddy. Cya.
im not the one who came onto a linux community to talk about how microsoft is better
I'll try. Short: It's not as powerful as ZFS.
Examples:
- no low cost snapshots (don't harm performance)
- no checksums, no self-healing
- 256 TB limit
- magical reserved $ and OneDrive filenames
- magical 8.3 mapping
- broken standard API calls (CreateFileW instead of fopen)
Another reason ZFS is better is it gives you something to do with all your spare RAM.
also ntfs doesn't support many common symbols. so you can't use them
@Montagge @riskable @phoenix591 @proton_lynx It’s from Microsoft, it’s proprietary.
I don't necessarily see that as wrong
I got curious so did some quick research. I know very little about file systems and Windows. Found this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReFS I wonder what Microsoft wanted to improve upon or change?