Re: Useful Utility

[Paul Breeze paul.breeze@xxxxxxxx]

J R FOX wrote:
> *Strong* opinions ? No. But then, I'm no Windows
> maven. I think the "headlines" are that NTFS is a
> more robust file system, supposedly more resistant to
> corruption or other such disasters. I made my W2K
> boot partitions NTFS back when I began using W2K.
> Certainly, there are the access issues you mention,
> but what I found was that in actual practice, it did
> not matter a whole lot when Windows got seriously
> hosed. Fixing the Registry by hand is a task beyond
> the ken of mere mortals. Fixing a damaged Windows by
> most any other means was also a daunting proposition.
> (In my opinion, the Win "Recovery Console" is a joke.)
>
>
> The one exception I can think of is if the problem is
> indeed the Registry, and you could cure it by simply
> running ERDNT. *Then*, having that access can make
> the difference. But this is not enough to make me
> revert to using FAT-32 for the boot partitions, which
> I suspect is going to be less efficient, and possibly
> less stable.
I've always kept a one-to-one copy of my windows system which is kept up
to date every day (takes about one minute, after each boot to update),
so that when I have a problem I always have an earlier system to revert
to. This has kept Windows 2000 going for several years with no serious
problems. However I do need to run ERDNT if I have to revert to the
copy in order to get back to my original system since the copy software
I use cannot copy the live registry files. This is no problem with
FAT32, but is more difficult with NTFS, which is why I've avoided it so far.

I've never really bothered with the Windows Recovery Console either.

Paul