A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Quick assessment of 3 Windows tools to read/write Linux filesystems on dual-boot desktops



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #61  
Old September 27th 18, 09:05 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.freeware
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 937
Default Quick assessment of 3 Windows tools to read/write Linux filesystems on dual-boot desktops

Paul news Sep 2018 17:55:33 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

Diesel wrote:

You should NOT, I repeat, you should NOT be writing to NTFS
partitions from outside of Windows. Documentation is sketchy on
NTFS.


The ability to write to NTFS existed on Knoppix 5.3.1, which
was released roughly ten years ago. That was the first easy-to-use
formulation that I used regularly. I *never* suffered damage while
using that capability, and regularly booted 5.3.1 to fix stuff.

The spec was established by reverse engineering.


I know. I've made it a point to mention the reverse engineering, no
official docs, nothing, with nearly all posts concerning writing to
NTFS from linux...It was semi built in with that Knoppix release,
but, you could be writing to NTFS prior, if you wanted. The ... ehm,
attempts to read/write to ntfs weren't so dependable back then.
Reading was one thing, but writing without corrupting anything was
another matter entirely.

I'm old school and see no reason to absolutely trust reverse
engineering efforts that aren't kept up to date....


The situation was relatively simple ten years ago.

In the year 2018, Microsoft keeps the same file system
version number (3.1), but messes with representations in there
for Windows 10. This means, if you run CHKDSK from Windows 7,
it will erase some extended attributes it doesn't like. Presumably
the Win10 developers took this behavior into account, before
making their changes.


MS made changes previously. For example, use an older copy of norton
ghost that sees an XP NTFS formatted drive just fine. (Norton Ghost
11.5 corporate edition) Now, take that same copy and see what it
reports for Vista or later. Yep, unknown file system..It doesn't
recognize it as HPFS/NTFS. XP to vista wasn't a big jump, but, the
file system changes were enough to require newer software packages to
deal with it. And, it's for things like this, little gotchas that
I've seen MS pull with each iteration going back decades that causes
me to pause when writing to NTFS from linux if it's not necessary.

MS didn't just pull this with file system changes that weren't well
documented to outsiders, they pulled this **** all the time with
changes to interrupt calls and memory management alterations,
requiring you to patch your code... And they pulled the same crap
with the APIs later, although documentation improvements were made.

4) Linux does not implement permissions, one of the great features
of the capability. But then, most Windows users are not aware
of what a mess they're leaving all over their system anyway.
To see a professional do something, try this article to see
how a pro works on Windows.


I agree. It's for the lack of permissions implementation that makes
data recovery easier with a linux disk when accessing ntfs...

You will not have a problem if working in the Downloads
folder of your user account on the Windows C: you're accessing.
As long as you simplify the sharing model between the two
environments, there should be zero surprises. For the other
items, it will take some effort. If you're on a mission to
smash your Windows OS... sure, you'll probably succeed at it.
I would not say a person on a pathological mission to ruin
stuff, they won't succeed. They will.


Aye. Hence my previous comment about conservative writing....

So while you continue to get all frothy on the topic,
writing to NTFS works just fine.


In some cases and in some configurations. Suffice to say, I'm not
about to go on record claiming that writing to NTFS from linux is
perfectly safe, either.

As otherwise, other environments have proven over time, that
a user can gain access without an immediate disaster.


Sure, via reverse engineering. Reverse engineering is by no means,
perfect.


--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit he
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
================================================== =
And they shall plow their swords into beach chairs.
Ads
  #62  
Old September 27th 18, 09:05 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.freeware
Diesel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 937
Default Quick assessment of 3 Windows tools to read/write Linux filesystems on dual-boot desktops

"Arlen H. Holder"
news alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 07:47:10 -0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote:

Don't use it to write files to windows while under linux.. you
are placing the contents of your NTFS partition(s) in harms way
when you do so.


*Many people are paralyzed by abject inordinately incomprehensible
fear.*


I don't fear much of anything....

Bear in mind that intelligent people like Paul and others have
successfully booted to Linux in order to "write" to the Windows
System directory, e.g., we have entire threads on how best to do
that in the safest way to accomplish things that Microsoft doesn't
want us to accomplish.


MS could most likely, care less.

Suffice to say Paul is intimately familiar (more so than I), with
the various tweaks Microsoft does so that the Linux methods, over
the years, have to be changed.


As Am I, as are others who've written low level code for years....

Point is that the inordinately fearful people will say you can't
do what you can clearly do, if you're not supremely paralyzed by
abject fear.


I didn't say you couldn't do it...





--
To prevent yourself from being a victim of cyber
stalking, it's highly recommended you visit he
https://tekrider.net/pages/david-brooks-stalker.php
================================================== =
But I forgot all about the Amnesia Conference!!
  #63  
Old September 27th 18, 09:13 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.freeware
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 586
Default Quick assessment of 3 Windows tools to read/write Linux filesystems on dual-boot desktops

"Diesel" wrote in message
3r.K...
Paul news Sep 2018 17:55:33 GMT in alt.comp.freeware, wrote:

Diesel wrote:

You should NOT, I repeat, you should NOT be writing to NTFS
partitions from outside of Windows. Documentation is sketchy on
NTFS.


The ability to write to NTFS existed on Knoppix 5.3.1, which
was released roughly ten years ago. That was the first easy-to-use
formulation that I used regularly. I *never* suffered damage while
using that capability, and regularly booted 5.3.1 to fix stuff.

The spec was established by reverse engineering.


I know. I've made it a point to mention the reverse engineering, no
official docs, nothing, with nearly all posts concerning writing to
NTFS from linux...It was semi built in with that Knoppix release,
but, you could be writing to NTFS prior, if you wanted. The ... ehm,
attempts to read/write to ntfs weren't so dependable back then.
Reading was one thing, but writing without corrupting anything was
another matter entirely.


What is the best filesystem to use which can handle large files 4 GB and
which is safe for both Windows and non-Windows to write to if a disc is
shared between the two (eg used as a means of copying files between the
two)? Is exFAT any safer than NTFS?

  #64  
Old September 27th 18, 09:34 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,221
Default NTFS (was: Quick assessment of 3 Windows tools to read/write Linux filesystems on dual-boot desktops)

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:56:34 +0100, "NY" wrote:

"Ken Blake" wrote in message
.. .
It is the Windows limit of 32 GB per FAT32 partition which would mean that
you would need a lot of partitions and therefore a lot of drive letters to
access all the disc (1000/32 is 32 which is greater than the number of
drive
letters in the alphabet).


Windows does *not* a have limit of 32GB per FAT32 partition. It's the
Windows *Format command* which has that limit, but as Char said,
there are many third-party utilities that do not have that limitation.


If you format a drive as FAT32 with a utility that doesn't have the 32 GB
limit, can Windows still access the whole drive OK - is it only the
built-in
FORMAT command (and the equivalent in Windows Explorer) that is crippled,
as
opposed to the underlying file- and folder-access mechanism?



Yes, as Char said, and as I said above.


Thanks for answering that. I wasn't sure how widespread the limit was: if
it's only the format command and not disk-access once the drive has been
formatted then it makes a great deal of sense to use a third-party tool to
format the drive - once you are aware than it is the Windows format command,
and not the FAT32 filesystem design, which imposes the limit.



You're welcome. Glad to help.



Until today I'd thought that the 32 GB limit was common to all devices that
use FAT32 and was part of the standard. I've been brainwashed by Windows :-)



You and lots of other people. g


Does anyone know why the Windows command can't go bigger than 32 GB - is it
a bug that has never been fixed?



No, as far as I'm concerned, it's to press people to use NTFS.

  #65  
Old September 27th 18, 09:40 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.freeware
Arlen H Holder
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Quick assessment of 3 Windows tools to read/write Linux filesystems on dual-boot desktops

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:05:57 -0000 (UTC), Diesel wrote:

MS could most likely, care less.


You mean "couldn't care less" (not "could care less"), don't you?


Suffice to say Paul is intimately familiar (more so than I), with
the various tweaks Microsoft does so that the Linux methods, over
the years, have to be changed.


As Am I, as are others who've written low level code for years....


Paul explained in this post, rather elegantly, what I alluded to prior.
Message-ID:
http://alt.comp.os.windows-10.narkive.com/EOP3G3NM/quick-assessment-of-3-windows-tools-to-read-write-linux-filesystems-on-dual-boot-desktops#post48
  #66  
Old September 27th 18, 09:56 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default NTFS

NY wrote:

Does anyone know why the Windows command can't go bigger than 32 GB


Plain and simple foolishness.

It's like the pretense of holding your little
finger in the air when drinking a cup of tea.

Sure, it might not be a very efficient choice (making a 2TB drive into
a single FAT32). But this is a choice the user should get to make
for themselves.

I don't think I have any long-term volumes here over about 100GB
for FAT32, so I don't make a habit of testing the limit.

At one time, a WinXP machine might come with 512MB of RAM. The size
of the FAT table for a 2TB drive, might not work very well with
only 512MB of RAM. If I had a table of FAT size versus volume
dimension, I might have an easy reference to it. A second
best way, is to use fat32formatter, as it tells you
how much writes it did when preparing a drive (creating
an empty FAT). If you have a spare drive, you can make your
own table of values in five minutes work (keep bumping
the size of the partition, run the tool, get the FAT
size number).

Paul
  #67  
Old September 27th 18, 10:05 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.freeware
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Quick assessment of 3 Windows tools to read/write Linux filesystemson dual-boot desktops

NY wrote:


What is the best filesystem to use which can handle large files 4 GB
and which is safe for both Windows and non-Windows to write to if a disc
is shared between the two (eg used as a means of copying files between
the two)? Is exFAT any safer than NTFS?


I continue to use NTFS for this. The Linux driver is
a bit slow, but... that's life.

I never seem to leave ExFAT on anything for longer than
about 60 seconds. I don't know why that is... so something
must be annoying about it. It's supposed to be kind to
Flash devices and not wear them quite as much (via
the write pattern).

And I have used FAT32 on my sneakernet USB3 flash sticks.
and then just use 7ZIP in segmented mode, to get around
the 4GB limitation. To transfer a 20GB file, 7ZIP would
write 5 or 6 files to represent the whole thing, and these
can be unpacked as part of the copy operation at the
other end. It's not "highly convenient", but... it works.

Paul
  #68  
Old September 27th 18, 11:17 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default NTFS

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 16:56:02 -0400, Paul wrote:

NY wrote:

Does anyone know why the Windows command can't go bigger than 32 GB


Plain and simple foolishness.

It's like the pretense of holding your little
finger in the air when drinking a cup of tea.


One of the conspiracy theories floating around out there is that
Microsoft imposed that limit (only in their format command, not anywhere
in the filesystem itself) to encourage folks to migrate to NTFS.

  #69  
Old September 27th 18, 11:26 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default NTFS (was: Quick assessment of 3 Windows tools to read/write Linux filesystems on dual-boot desktops)

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 19:49:15 +0100, "NY" wrote:

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in message
...
Why would a 1TB drive need more than a single drive letter?

I think you missed that I was talking about FAT32 *and* that I would like
to
know whats available, other than (the proprietary) NTFS.

You said "a single Terrabyte drive would easily exhaust all available
drive letters", so I'm asking why that would be the case.

Just format it with a single partition and give that partition a letter,
right?

The format command will not _offer_ you FAT32 even as an _option_ if the
partition is over a certain size. (Try it.) Windows/Microsoft artificially
limit the permissible size even more, but the utility Paul has mentioned
circumvents that limit - but there is still a maximum size for FAT32 that
is significantly lower than the limit for NTFS.


It is the Windows limit of 32 GB per FAT32 partition which would mean that
you would need a lot of partitions and therefore a lot of drive letters to
access all the disc (1000/32 is 32 which is greater than the number of drive
letters in the alphabet).


Right. That's almost certainly what Rudy was referring to, although I
seriously doubt that anyone interested in FAT32 within the past 15-20
years is trying to do the formatting with the native Windows format
command.

Rudy, if that's what you were referring to, my apologies for not picking
up on it sooner. There's still a question about why you'd suggest doing
it that way, but I'll let it rest. You probably meant it as a joke.

If you format a drive as FAT32 with a utility that doesn't have the 32 GB
limit, can Windows still access the whole drive OK


Yes, of course. The so-called 32GB limitation for FAT32 is entirely
within Microsoft's format command. Every third party formatter that I've
seen will happily format about 2TB.

is it only the built-in
FORMAT command (and the equivalent in Windows Explorer) that is crippled, as
opposed to the underlying file- and folder-access mechanism?


Exactly right. Once formatted with any formatter other than the native
Windows command, Windows will be happy with the results.

  #70  
Old September 27th 18, 11:28 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default NTFS (was: Quick assessment of 3 Windows tools to read/write Linux filesystems on dual-boot desktops)

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 19:56:33 +0100, "NY" wrote:

If you only have a formatting program (such as the one built into Windows)
which can only create partitions up to 32 GB in size. If you use a
third-party formatter than can format up to the real limit of FAT32, can
Windows already read it right to the end of the partition?


Previously answered as a resounding yes.

  #71  
Old September 27th 18, 11:34 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default NTFS (was: Quick assessment of 3 Windows tools to read/write Linux filesystems on dual-boot desktops)

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:56:34 +0100, "NY" wrote:

Does anyone know why the Windows command can't go bigger than 32 GB - is it
a bug that has never been fixed? Or is it faster and/or more space-efficient
to use exFAT or NTFS for a larger partition so they imposed an arbitrary
limit even though the underlying standard has a much higher limit.


Here's one theory. ;-)

"Microsoft has set a 32GB partition size limit for the FAT/FAT32 file
system to promote NTFS, which is generally more efficient when working
with large partitions."

Taken from
https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/format...ive-fat-fat32/

  #72  
Old September 27th 18, 11:36 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default NTFS (was: Quick assessment of 3 Windows tools to read/write Linux filesystems on dual-boot desktops)

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 13:34:37 -0700, Ken Blake
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 20:56:34 +0100, "NY" wrote:

Does anyone know why the Windows command can't go bigger than 32 GB - is it
a bug that has never been fixed?



No, as far as I'm concerned, it's to press people to use NTFS.


Hmm, I just posted a link to a site with what I thought was a novel
theory, but you're way ahead of me.

  #73  
Old September 27th 18, 11:42 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default NTFS (was: Quick assessment of 3 Windows tools to read/write Linux filesystems on dual-boot desktops)

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 21:10:59 +0200, "R.Wieser"
wrote:

You might be on to something, though. Rudy might have been
limiting his thinking to formatting a 1 TB drive via the Windows
format command,


Yes, I have. Funny how you, or at least I, tend to use the OSes own tools
to manage it. No idea why that would be. Do you have any ?


In many cases, Windows tools are far from the best available, including
formatting tools, partition management, system/data backups,
antivirus/antimalware, and so on. If you're limiting yourself to what
Windows provides, you're probably coming up short.

but like I said above, no one would do that.


Not one, but for me and all the people who install XP from DVD I guess ?
Would be hard to execute that third-party format command before you have an
OS available ...


If you can boot an XP install CD, you can presumably boot another CD
before that, containing utilities to manage your drive and its
partitions. That's what I remember doing back in the day.

In short, I consider people who use such a "no one" claim - against direct
proof of it being incorrect, if only in regard to the person they wish to
use it towards - as wishful thinkers, and actually purposely lying.


You're right, in hindsight "no one" was overly harsh. I used it as a
figure of speech, but perhaps not a particularly good one.

I'm well aware that Windows artificially limits the FAT32
partition size,


And by acting as if the whole world should be actutily aware of it you've
made an ass of yourself.

But thank you for reminding me that FAT32 can fact can be much bigger - as
long as you are comfortable with using third-party tools, which I'm not.
Which, FYI is also the reason I forgot all about it.

So, goodbye. Even though you have been of some kind of value I do not wish
to deal with your caustic approach of the matter.


Thanks.

  #74  
Old September 27th 18, 11:49 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.freeware
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,449
Default Quick assessment of 3 Windows tools to read/write Linux filesystems on dual-boot desktops

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 17:05:06 -0400, Paul wrote:

And I have used FAT32 on my sneakernet USB3 flash sticks.
and then just use 7ZIP in segmented mode, to get around
the 4GB limitation. To transfer a 20GB file, 7ZIP would
write 5 or 6 files to represent the whole thing, and these
can be unpacked as part of the copy operation at the
other end. It's not "highly convenient", but... it works.


There's this thing called an Ethernet cable... ;-)

  #75  
Old September 28th 18, 12:26 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,alt.windows7.general
Ken Blake[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,221
Default NTFS (was: Quick assessment of 3 Windows tools to read/write Linux filesystems on dual-boot desktops)

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 17:42:43 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 21:10:59 +0200, "R.Wieser"
wrote:

You might be on to something, though. Rudy might have been
limiting his thinking to formatting a 1 TB drive via the Windows
format command,


Yes, I have. Funny how you, or at least I, tend to use the OSes own tools
to manage it. No idea why that would be. Do you have any ?


In many cases, Windows tools are far from the best available, including
formatting tools, partition management, system/data backups,
antivirus/antimalware, and so on.



Not to mention browsers, e-mail programs, word processors, graphics
editors, etc. Yes, these aren't strictly tools, but the same thing
applies to such programs.


If you're limiting yourself to what
Windows provides, you're probably coming up short.




Yes. Unfortunately many (probably most) people do that, either because
they think that what comes with Windows is the best or because they
don't realize they have other choices.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.