Re: Trojan bifrose removal?

Leythos wrote:

Read this VG:

http://thundercloud.net/information-avenue/ntfs-vs-fat32/

------------
Point 1: You cannot format a volume larger than 32 gigabytes (GB) in
size using the FAT32 file system during the Windows XP installation
process.
------------

There has been some critical commentary about this, and the consensus is
that it's an intentional handicap given to win-2k and XP by Micro$oft.
If you use third-party drive software (On Track Disc Manager for
example) or even DOS fdisk and format, you can format any size drive as
FAT32 and give it any cluster size you want (cluster-size scaling is
another Micro$oft peculiarity for FAT32).

------------
Point 2: Clusters cannot be 64 kilobytes (KB) or larger. If clusters
are 64 KB or larger, some programs (such as Setup programs) may
incorrectly calculate disk space.
------------

That point is not really a point. Since NTFS uses default 4kb cluster
size, I'm not sure why there would be a complaint that FAT can't have
clusters larger than 32kb. Even on very large volumes (500gb, 1tb, etc)
I'm not sure why you'd want to have clusters larger than 32kb anyways.

------------
Point 3: Windows XP supports three file systems for fixed disks: FAT16,
FAT32, and NTFS. It is recommended that you use NTFS with Windows XP
because of its advanced performance, security, and reliability features.
------------

"Advanced Performance" = hollow statement. Note he does not say "Higher
Performance".

"Security" - in what context? Does the SOHO need file system security -
to keep his system secure from himself? Or does a sys-admin need
network-level security?

"Reliability features" = unsubstantiated in the real world.

------------
Point 4: Some older programs that were not written for Windows NT 4.0 or
Windows 2000 may exhibit slow performance after you convert the FAT32
file system to NTFS. This behavior does not occur on a clean partition
of NTFS.
------------

This is irrelavent in the current context.

------------
Point 5: If you run other Windows operating systems on your computer in
addition to Windows XP, note the following issues: Only Microsoft
Windows 2000 and Windows XP have full access to files on an NTFS volume.
Also, Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition (Me), Windows 98 Second
Edition and earlier, and MS-DOS cannot access files on an NTFS volume.
------------

So if you want both OS's to see the contents of all volumes, then why
isin't the advice given to use FAT32 on all volumes? Otherwise, this
point is also irrelavent in the current context.

------------
Point 6: What is Microsoft's recommendation on this? NTFS is the
recommended file system for computers running the Microsoft Windows XP
and Windows .NET Server operating systems. NTFS offers many end-user
benefits related to functionality, security, stability, availability,
reliability, and performance. NTFS, which was originally introduced
with Microsoft Windows NT® 3.1, has always provided advanced file system
features such as security, transacted operations, large volumes, and
better performance on large volumes. Such capabilities are not available
on either FAT16 or FAT32
------------

Functionality: What can NTFS do that FAT32 can't do that would impact
the average individual or SOHO user?

Stability / Reliability: Saying it's more stable doesn't make it more
stable. Being more complex to impliment again doesn't make anything
more stable.

Availability: What the hell kind of speak is that? Did a Micro$oft PR
guy create this document?

Performace: Every drive test I've seen shows FAT32 scores because FAT32
is just plain faster - because it's simpler.

Security: Again, a fuzzy thing that in reality means nothing for the
individual or SOHO user and is the domain of the institutional /
corporate desktop setting.

Transacted Operations: If that means server use, then again we're not
talking about the individual or SOHO user.

Large volumes / better performance on large volumes: FAT32 can be used
on large volumes (up to 2.2 tb I believe) and with the same cluster-size
choices as NTFS. The fact that 2k/XP was handicapped and can't natively
format FAT32 volumes with those characteristics is not a handicap of the
file system.

What is not mentioned is ease of maintenance and virus detection /
extraction. FAT32 comes out ahead on those.

------------
Point 7: Boot time with FAT32 is increased in hard drives larger then
32 GB because of the time required to read all of the FAT structure.
This must be done to calculate the amount of free space when the volume
is mounted.
------------

It's a fallacy that the (entire) FAT is read into memory during normal
use. If that were the case, then the first win-98 systems with 16 mb of
ram wouldn't be able to function at all. The truth is that the only
time that the entire FAT (or at least large chunks of it) are read into
system memory is during dist maintenance like scandisk and maybe defrag.

When it comes to the calculation of free space when a volume is mounted,
that parameter is stored within the file system and it doesn't have to
be calculated every time a drive is mounted. I will say that a FAT32
drive with more than 6.x million clusters will take a minute or two to
initially appear under DOS and win-98 (explorer), but 2K and XP doesn't
exhibit that behavior.

------------
Point 8: Read/write performance with FAT32 is affected because the file
system must determine the free space on the disk through the small views
of the massive FAT structure. This leads to inefficiencies in file
allocation.
------------

That is just pure bull*** pulled from someone's ass.

-----------------------------------------

http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm

Max Volume Size FAT32: 32GB for all OS. 2TB for some OS

That is wrong. If we're talking about Win-98, 2K or XP they can all use
FAT32 for very large drives, certainly 500 gb and probably higher.

Max Clusters Number: FAT32: 4,194,304

That is wrong. The real number is 268,435,437.

Compression: Fat: no

That is wrong. Although I never use it, stacker, drivespace and
doublespace were options under FAT12 and FAT16 (but not FAT32).

Recoverability: NTFS yes FAT32 no

Define recoverability.

Disk Space Economy

That rating does not consider the potential to use the same cluster-size
as NTFS on a given volume. So disk space economy is exactly the same
for both NTFS and FAT32.

Fault Tolerance

Without explaining why or how, the score for "Fault Tolerance" is just
more arm waving.
.