Re: Seeing VERSIONINFO under Vista?

"Joseph M. Newcomer" <newcomer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:df6b531pbrrjmqltrfud9jae812jo77lor@xxxxxxxxxx
Historical note: as recently as 2003, a certain large multinational
company required that
all machines be configured with a FAT file system under XP, "because it is
more secure".
This proves beyond all doubt that we are descended from monkeys, except
for certain IT
managers, who have not yet evolved. A friend of mine who worked there was
told this when
his computer was installed (the second day he worked there), and when he
stopped laughing
he typed 'dconvert' to a command shell to convert it to NTFS. When he was
told 'you can't
do that' he looked blank and said "but I just did!". Ultimately his group
had the only
NTFS-based systems in the entire company (even the servers were FAT,
except for his
group's servers).

I resisted NTFS for many years because it had poorer performance that a
regularly defragmented FAT-32, especially if journalling is enabled, which
it took a reg key to disable (don't know the case now). In addition, it was
downright handy to use a Win98 boot disk to boot to DOS and be able to
access files on drive C:. For me, the only reason to move to NTFS was its
support of files larger than 4 GB, which I get regularly now that I record
video using Media Center.

As for reliability, FAT-32 was plenty reliable. Even if you had to ScanDisk
all the time. I rarely lost data that couldn't be recovered. BTW, you
still have to ChkDsk even now after a crash, but in Vista, MS chose to
display a blank screen when it's running. As if hiding the truth will
somehow make the pain go away.

-- David


.

Relevant Pages
Loading