This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
What a click bait title. Article goes on to explain the rational reasons why ReFS wasn't built for mainstream use and doing so might bloat its performance on the very server systems it was designed to be efficient for.
I wish Microsoft adopted and upstreamed changes to OpenZFS instead of duplicating all this effort.
Though then I'm sure they would tell the community to fuck off by trying to take over the entire project and pushing the actually open and compatible version out of favour.
Problem is Microsoft has zero interest in zfs. Not even as far as answering questions the openzfs windows dev asks them.
Does Windows support any filesystems that don't suck?
NTFS? It’s a standard for a reason. Most of the “better” options out there aren’t ready for mainstream/average user use.
I need the better options. I need to be able to detect corruption. ZFS and btrfs let me do that. It's part of the reason why I couldn't use Windows even if I wanted to.
It could be Sco vs Linux all over again
Just like systemd is experiencing right?
eh, I was thinking like Google and that open chat protocol.
Though I do dislike some of systemd's architecture decisions as well. Like why tha fuck can I not turn off it's own built in authentication to sudo mechanism -_-
I agree but just don't otherwise understand why Microsoft is so obsessed with extending system in the manner they currently are
May I be the first one here to say.. Fuck Microslop
I remember being excited for this in 2011, it's about 15 years too late.
It’s not ready yet. It’s good for some specific use cases but it’s not anything the typical end user needs.
This. NTFS is still the gold standard for stability. ReFS is meant for data ops, and while it's fairly stable, and offers a lot of advantages, it's not perfect and can suffer greatly if used incorrectly. Until the quirks are gone, users are probably better off with NTFS for a lot of reasons.
Yet?? They’ve been making it since the Stone Age. I read about it in my teens
Right? I’ve gone through ReiserFS, ext3, ext4, XFS, Btrfs, ZFS; hell on macOS I’ve been through HFS+ and AFS. And clunky ol’ Microsoft is still on fucking NTFS.
Apple’s APFS I am not a fan of. I have been using Macs since 2008-ish. In all my HFS+ days, I’ve never lost an entire drive. I rebooted my M2 Mac Mini via command prompt, and my external APFS drive is corrupted. Never had that problem before APFS. And since I’m an idiot, I’ve got to pay DiskDrill to hopefully recover the data when I get a larger drive on hand.
Why change it if it works?
What is so bad about NTFS?
Why use NTFS if FAT32 works?
Because 4GB file limit?
exFAT then
Maybe “it’s not needed yet” is more accurate.
They’ve edged us a few times. I’m sure it was supposed to come with vista
Why would you use either over btrFS?
Why would you use BTRFS over ZFS?
Why would you use zfs over fat12?
I was fat since I was 12. Now, I'm fat32.
Yeah but is it better than WinFS?
