On Sat, 16 Nov 2024, at 21:49, Robin Vowels wrote: > On 2024-11-17 02:52, Jeremy Nicoll wrote:
>> That's a little unfair; while I agree that they seem determined to >> remove useful function (in eg File Explorer) and add pointless >> glitz, successive versions of NTFS and Windows have become >> much more robust. > > That's not true. > It's still possible to lock up the system trying to cancel a print job > -- > a fault that has been there since Windows XP. Did you ever report that to them? (Or was it an issue widely discussed online so they surely knew about it?) I didn't say it's perfect, just better. In XP I fairly often had BSODs and learned early on that I had to run a chdsk after reboot. Nowadays I still do, but the system always says there's no need (but I still have it run the scan). I'm sure I remember reading about NTFS changes which were intended to make it more robust. Also after XP, (though I dunno when precisely as for me Win 8 was the next version I used) MS restructured the way that many of the OS's tasks had previously all run under a single process, resulting in there being many more, simpler processes. My understanding was that this made it far less likely for abends in a one such task to crash all the others in the same process. Presumably formalising interfaces between these processes will have made it harder for malware to interfere with them? -- Jeremy Nicoll - my opinions are my own. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
