On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 00:28:54 +0000 Stroller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2 Dec 2008, at 13:13, Wolfgang Liebich wrote: > > ... > > My experience with NTFS is somewhat more balanced (maybe). In about > > 12 years I experienced one damaged NTFS instance. This was caused > > by a crash during an installation ... > > > > So my conclusion --- NTFS is not so easy to damage, but if you > > manage it, you're toast :-/ > > I'm not sure that your experience with NTFS _is_ more balanced - > I've seen a number of PCs this year which fail booting into Windows > (displaying the XP splashscreen before rebooting again in an > unending cycle) which have been repaired using only chkdsk. > > Because the user liked to power his PC down at the wall - for energy- > saving reasons or peace-of-mind over house-fires, I'm knackered if I > know - and because "it was taking too long to shutdown" when he > wanted to go to bed - I know one of these was unplugged whilst still > shutting down, but surely not all of them were. > > Stroller. > Very much the same happens with Linux FSs when abused like this. I live in area with frequent power outages and have my share of damaged FSes and destroyed HDDs. (Un)fortunately I can't put NTFS in the same chart for comparison, because I have "no Windows, no Gates - only Apache inside". (sorry for the old joke, I couldn't help it) :) P.S. It's not Windows vs Linux as somebody implied. My choice is clear. I'm just trying to stay objective. -- Best regards, Daniel
