Can you convert your startup disk to htfs without loosing
- Thread starter Santilli
- Start date
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
convert /fs:ntfs /v
Works better if you have some free disk space, but you don't lose anything.
Works better if you have some free disk space, but you don't lose anything.
Re: Can you convert your startup disk to htfs without loosin
Do you mean [b[N[/b]TFS Santilli?
All the details are here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/using/itpro/managing/convertfat.asp
C
Santilli said:
Do you mean [b[N[/b]TFS Santilli?
All the details are here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/using/itpro/managing/convertfat.asp
C
Cliptin
Wannabe Storage Freak
Re: Can you convert your startup disk to htfs without loosin
No, HPFS is no longer a supported file system for 2000.
Santilli said:
No, HPFS is no longer a supported file system for 2000.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Not completely true, Cliptin. If you start a machine with NT 3.5.1 with HPFS and upgrade it to NT4 and then to 2000, HPFS will still work.
I mean, if you're some kind of sicko who wants HPFS instead of NTFS for some reason.
I mean, if you're some kind of sicko who wants HPFS instead of NTFS for some reason.
Tea
Storage? I am Storage!
Sicko? Don't be ridiculous, Mercutio.
HPFS is NTFS. Same thing, different label. Which was done for marketing reasons (and the usual shaft-the-opposition anti-competitive stuff of course).
Essentially you have three versions of it:
1: HPFS. Written by Microsoft, used in both OS/2 and Windows NT.
2: NTFS. Same as HPFS but with an extension to (a) add security as an integral part of the FS and (b) slow everything down to no purpose unless you need the security.
3. New NTFS (I forget Microsoft's name for it, but they have added a range of new features and (from memory) speed enhancements too. Was it with W2k? Or XP? Or both? I forget. IBM, meanwhile, have all-but abandoned HPFS and these days you unly use it to boot off; for your data volumes you use JFS (which is developed from and essentially the same as their JFS filesystem for AIX).
But if you have a dual boot system or for any other reason need to access a robust file system from two or more different operating systems, HPFS is a sensible, and indeed often the only choice.
HPFS is NTFS. Same thing, different label. Which was done for marketing reasons (and the usual shaft-the-opposition anti-competitive stuff of course).
Essentially you have three versions of it:
1: HPFS. Written by Microsoft, used in both OS/2 and Windows NT.
2: NTFS. Same as HPFS but with an extension to (a) add security as an integral part of the FS and (b) slow everything down to no purpose unless you need the security.
3. New NTFS (I forget Microsoft's name for it, but they have added a range of new features and (from memory) speed enhancements too. Was it with W2k? Or XP? Or both? I forget. IBM, meanwhile, have all-but abandoned HPFS and these days you unly use it to boot off; for your data volumes you use JFS (which is developed from and essentially the same as their JFS filesystem for AIX).
But if you have a dual boot system or for any other reason need to access a robust file system from two or more different operating systems, HPFS is a sensible, and indeed often the only choice.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
Microsoft made extensions to NTFS for NT4, for 2000 and for XP, Tannin. Essentially to drive the installed base of NT3-based machines from HPFS (where it was often the FS of choice, for performance reasons) to NTFS, but also to add some minor improvements in data integrity above and beyond HPFS-type journaling. I'm not sure what was done between 2000 and XP, but it must've been something, 'cause all my disk utilities just broke again.
That and I wouldn't dump on any filesystem with builtin security. It's too damned useful.
That and I wouldn't dump on any filesystem with builtin security. It's too damned useful.
Tea
Storage? I am Storage!
I think you read that "dumping on" into my post, Mercutio. I have nothing against it in theory, just a complete and total lack of use for it. I have never personally worked on a system that hade a use for file system security. (At least not to remember.) Doubtless in the corporate world, it's an essential. For me and for my customers, it's just one more thing to go wrong. If you can access the physical building here, then I have far more important things to worry about than my files. (RAM, drives, CPUs, cash, banana stockpile, you name it.)