RSS Feed (xml)
Myth - "There is a hidden ASCII version of Star Wars in Windows you can access using Telnet"
Reality - "Telnet is a simple, text-based program that allows you to connect to another computer by using the Internet. While Telnet is included in Windows, the ASCII (text-based) version of Star Wars is not. Simply disconnecting or powering down your modem will prevent you from watching it. This is no different from watching a video file over the Internet but instead of using a web browser you are using the Telnet program. These text-based animations can be viewed online at ASCIIMATION.co.nz"
Showing posts with label XP Myths Unknown To Professionals Revealed. Show all posts
Showing posts with label XP Myths Unknown To Professionals Revealed. Show all posts
Monday, March 17, 2008
Notepad Phrases
Myth - "There are Secret phrases like "bush hid the facts" you can type into Notepad"
Reality - "Notepad makes a best guess of which encoding to use when confronted with certain short strings of characters that lack special prefixes. The encodings that do not have special prefixes and which are still supported by Notepad are the traditional ANSI encoding (i.e., "plain ASCII") and the Unicode (little-endian) encoding with no BOM. When faced with a file that lacks a special prefix, Notepad is forced to guess which of those two encodings the file actually uses. The function that does this work is IsTextUnicode, which studies a chunk of bytes and does some statistical analysis to come up with a guess. Sometimes it guesses wrong and displays random characters after you save and open the file. Any combination of characters in the same order 4-3-3-5 will cause the same problem: "Bill lie and cheat" "this app can break", "hhhh hhh hhh hhhhh", "this isa bug dummy" ect..."
Reality - "Notepad makes a best guess of which encoding to use when confronted with certain short strings of characters that lack special prefixes. The encodings that do not have special prefixes and which are still supported by Notepad are the traditional ANSI encoding (i.e., "plain ASCII") and the Unicode (little-endian) encoding with no BOM. When faced with a file that lacks a special prefix, Notepad is forced to guess which of those two encodings the file actually uses. The function that does this work is IsTextUnicode, which studies a chunk of bytes and does some statistical analysis to come up with a guess. Sometimes it guesses wrong and displays random characters after you save and open the file. Any combination of characters in the same order 4-3-3-5 will cause the same problem: "Bill lie and cheat" "this app can break", "hhhh hhh hhh hhhhh", "this isa bug dummy" ect..."
'CON' Folder
Myth - "Not being able to name a file or folder 'CON' is a bug or a secret"
Reality - "Several special file names are reserved by the system and cannot be used for files or folders: CON, AUX, COM1, COM2, COM3, COM4, LPT1, LPT2, LPT3, PRN, NUL. This goes back to DOS 1.0 which didn't support subdirectories, lowercase, or filenames longer than 8.3. 'CON' is a reserved word from the old DOS days, simply meaning 'console'. If you wanted to create a new text file in DOS you could type 'copy con newfile.txt' meaning copy from the console to newfile.txt. This would let you type some lines and when you ended the file you would have a file called newfile.txt containing whatever you wrote in the console. Since they are still relied on with things like batch files (redirect to >NUL) they are still reserved today."
Reality - "Several special file names are reserved by the system and cannot be used for files or folders: CON, AUX, COM1, COM2, COM3, COM4, LPT1, LPT2, LPT3, PRN, NUL. This goes back to DOS 1.0 which didn't support subdirectories, lowercase, or filenames longer than 8.3. 'CON' is a reserved word from the old DOS days, simply meaning 'console'. If you wanted to create a new text file in DOS you could type 'copy con newfile.txt' meaning copy from the console to newfile.txt. This would let you type some lines and when you ended the file you would have a file called newfile.txt containing whatever you wrote in the console. Since they are still relied on with things like batch files (redirect to >NUL) they are still reserved today."
XP Firewall
Myth - "The Windows XP Firewall is not good enough because it lacks outbound filtering."
Reality - "I believe there are a lot of incorrect assumptions and outright myths about outbound filtering. I really like the Firewall in Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2). It is lightweight, centrally manageable, does the job well, is unobtrusive, and does something very critical: it protects the system at boot. That last one is crucial; we have seen many systems in the past get infected during boot even with a firewall turned on. Any outbound host-based firewall filtering in Windows XP is really just meaningless as a security feature in my opinion. True, it stops some malware, today, but only because current malware has not been written to circumvent it. There simply are not enough environments that implement outbound rules for the mass market malware authors to need to worry about it. In an interactive attack the attacker can circumvent outbound filters at will. To see how, consider this. Circumventing outbound host-based firewall filters can be accomplished in several ways, depending on the scenario of the actual attack. First, the vast majority of Windows XP users run as administrators, and any malware running as an administrator can disable the firewall entirely. Of course, even if the outbound filter requires interaction from the user to open a port, the malware can cause the user to be presented with a sufficiently enticing and comprehensible dialog, that explains that without clicking "Yes" they will not ever get to see the "dancing pigs". See, the problem is that when the user is running as an administrator, or the evil code runs as an administrator, there is a very good chance that either the user or the code will simply disable the protection. Of course, the user does not really see that dialog, because it is utterly meaningless to users. That is problem number one with outbound filtering. Given the choice between security and sufficiently enticing rewards, like "dancing pigs", the "dancing pigs" will win every time. If the malware can either directly or indirectly turn off the protection, it will do so. The second problem is that even if the user, for some inexplicable reason clicked "No. Bug me again" or if the evil code is running in using a low-privileged account, such as Network Service, the malware can easily step right around the firewall other ways. As long as the account the code is running as can open outbound connections on any port the evil code can simply use that port. Ah, but outbound Firewalls can limit outbound traffic on a particular port to specific process. Not a problem, we just piggy back on an existing process that is allowed. Only if the recipient of the traffic filters based on both source and destination port, and extremely few services do that, is this technique for bypassing the firewall meaningful. The key problem is that most people think outbound host-based firewall filtering will keep a compromised asset from attacking other assets. This is impossible. Putting protective measures on a compromised asset and asking it not to compromise any other assets simply does not work. Protection belongs on the asset you are trying to protect, not the one you are trying to protect against! Asking the bad guys not to steal stuff after they have already broken into your house is unlikely to be nearly as effective as keeping them from breaking into the house in the first place
Reality - "I believe there are a lot of incorrect assumptions and outright myths about outbound filtering. I really like the Firewall in Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2). It is lightweight, centrally manageable, does the job well, is unobtrusive, and does something very critical: it protects the system at boot. That last one is crucial; we have seen many systems in the past get infected during boot even with a firewall turned on. Any outbound host-based firewall filtering in Windows XP is really just meaningless as a security feature in my opinion. True, it stops some malware, today, but only because current malware has not been written to circumvent it. There simply are not enough environments that implement outbound rules for the mass market malware authors to need to worry about it. In an interactive attack the attacker can circumvent outbound filters at will. To see how, consider this. Circumventing outbound host-based firewall filters can be accomplished in several ways, depending on the scenario of the actual attack. First, the vast majority of Windows XP users run as administrators, and any malware running as an administrator can disable the firewall entirely. Of course, even if the outbound filter requires interaction from the user to open a port, the malware can cause the user to be presented with a sufficiently enticing and comprehensible dialog, that explains that without clicking "Yes" they will not ever get to see the "dancing pigs". See, the problem is that when the user is running as an administrator, or the evil code runs as an administrator, there is a very good chance that either the user or the code will simply disable the protection. Of course, the user does not really see that dialog, because it is utterly meaningless to users. That is problem number one with outbound filtering. Given the choice between security and sufficiently enticing rewards, like "dancing pigs", the "dancing pigs" will win every time. If the malware can either directly or indirectly turn off the protection, it will do so. The second problem is that even if the user, for some inexplicable reason clicked "No. Bug me again" or if the evil code is running in using a low-privileged account, such as Network Service, the malware can easily step right around the firewall other ways. As long as the account the code is running as can open outbound connections on any port the evil code can simply use that port. Ah, but outbound Firewalls can limit outbound traffic on a particular port to specific process. Not a problem, we just piggy back on an existing process that is allowed. Only if the recipient of the traffic filters based on both source and destination port, and extremely few services do that, is this technique for bypassing the firewall meaningful. The key problem is that most people think outbound host-based firewall filtering will keep a compromised asset from attacking other assets. This is impossible. Putting protective measures on a compromised asset and asking it not to compromise any other assets simply does not work. Protection belongs on the asset you are trying to protect, not the one you are trying to protect against! Asking the bad guys not to steal stuff after they have already broken into your house is unlikely to be nearly as effective as keeping them from breaking into the house in the first place
Registry Cleaners
Myth - "Registry Cleaners improve performance."
Reality - "A few hundred kilobytes of unused keys and values causes no noticeable performance impact on system operation. Even if the registry was massively bloated there would be little impact on the performance of anything other than exhaustive searches." - Source
Notes - "Registry Cleaners can fix problems associated with traces of applications left behind due to incomplete uninstalls. So it seems that Registry junk is a Windows fact of life and that Registry cleaners will continue to have a place in the anal-sysadmin's tool chest, at least until we're all running .NET applications that store their per-user settings in XML files - and then of course we'll need XML cleaners.
Reality - "A few hundred kilobytes of unused keys and values causes no noticeable performance impact on system operation. Even if the registry was massively bloated there would be little impact on the performance of anything other than exhaustive searches." - Source
Notes - "Registry Cleaners can fix problems associated with traces of applications left behind due to incomplete uninstalls. So it seems that Registry junk is a Windows fact of life and that Registry cleaners will continue to have a place in the anal-sysadmin's tool chest, at least until we're all running .NET applications that store their per-user settings in XML files - and then of course we'll need XML cleaners.
RegClean
Myth - "It is safe to use Microsoft's RegClean."
Reality - "The RegClean utility is no longer supported by Microsoft and has been removed from all Microsoft download sites. This was done for legitimate compatibility reasons with certain applications and Operating Systems. The RegClean utility was originally supplied with Microsoft Visual Basic version 4.0 for Windows. The last version of RegClean was 4.1a (build 7364.1) released on March 13, 1998 (RegClean.exe is dated December 30, 1997). During this time the latest Operating Systems were Windows 95 OSR2.1 and Windows NT 4.0. Windows 98 was not released until June 25, 1998. Compatibility with any Operating System besides Windows 95 and NT 4.0 was never substantiated, especially Windows XP. It is very dangerous to run a Registry Cleaner that was never certified to run on your Operating System since removing the wrong Registry Keys can break Applications and the Operating System. RegClean breaks functionality in the following Applications:
- Microsoft Office XP (Setup)
- Microsoft Office Standard Edition 2003
- Microsoft Office Small Business Edition 2003
- Microsoft Office Access 2003
- Microsoft Office FrontPage 2003
- Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2003
- Microsoft Office Word 2003
- Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003
- Microsoft Office Student and Teacher Edition 2003
- Microsoft Office Basic Edition 2003
- Microsoft Office Excel 2003
- Microsoft Office Outlook 2003
- Microsoft Office Publisher 2003
- Microsoft Office 2000 Premium Edition
- Microsoft Office 2000 Professional Edition
- Microsoft Office 2000 Standard Edition
- Microsoft Office 2000 Small Business Edition
- Microsoft Office 2000 Developer Edition
- Microsoft Access 2002 Standard Edition
- Microsoft Excel 2000 Standard Edition
- Microsoft FrontPage 2000 Standard Edition
- Microsoft Outlook 2000 Standard Edition
- Microsoft PowerPoint 2000 Standard Edition
- Microsoft Word 2000 Standard Edition
This occurs for any Microsoft Windows Installer product on which the program's installation state is set to Installed on First Use
Reality - "The RegClean utility is no longer supported by Microsoft and has been removed from all Microsoft download sites. This was done for legitimate compatibility reasons with certain applications and Operating Systems. The RegClean utility was originally supplied with Microsoft Visual Basic version 4.0 for Windows. The last version of RegClean was 4.1a (build 7364.1) released on March 13, 1998 (RegClean.exe is dated December 30, 1997). During this time the latest Operating Systems were Windows 95 OSR2.1 and Windows NT 4.0. Windows 98 was not released until June 25, 1998. Compatibility with any Operating System besides Windows 95 and NT 4.0 was never substantiated, especially Windows XP. It is very dangerous to run a Registry Cleaner that was never certified to run on your Operating System since removing the wrong Registry Keys can break Applications and the Operating System. RegClean breaks functionality in the following Applications:
- Microsoft Office XP (Setup)
- Microsoft Office Standard Edition 2003
- Microsoft Office Small Business Edition 2003
- Microsoft Office Access 2003
- Microsoft Office FrontPage 2003
- Microsoft Office PowerPoint 2003
- Microsoft Office Word 2003
- Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003
- Microsoft Office Student and Teacher Edition 2003
- Microsoft Office Basic Edition 2003
- Microsoft Office Excel 2003
- Microsoft Office Outlook 2003
- Microsoft Office Publisher 2003
- Microsoft Office 2000 Premium Edition
- Microsoft Office 2000 Professional Edition
- Microsoft Office 2000 Standard Edition
- Microsoft Office 2000 Small Business Edition
- Microsoft Office 2000 Developer Edition
- Microsoft Access 2002 Standard Edition
- Microsoft Excel 2000 Standard Edition
- Microsoft FrontPage 2000 Standard Edition
- Microsoft Outlook 2000 Standard Edition
- Microsoft PowerPoint 2000 Standard Edition
- Microsoft Word 2000 Standard Edition
This occurs for any Microsoft Windows Installer product on which the program's installation state is set to Installed on First Use
RAM Optimizers/Defragmenters
Myth - "Increasing the amount of available RAM using RAM Optimizers/Defragmenters improves performance."
Reality - "RAM Optimizers have no effect, and at worst, they seriously degrade performance. Although gaining more available memory might seem beneficial, it isn't. As RAM Optimizers force the available-memory counter up, they force other processes' data and code out of memory. Say that you're running Word, for example. As the optimizer forces the available-memory counter up, the text of open documents and the program code that was part of Word's working set before the optimization (and was therefore present in physical memory) must be reread from disk as you continue to edit your document. The act of allocating, then freeing a large amount of virtual memory might, as a conceivable side effect, lead to blocks of contiguous available memory. However, because virtual memory masks the layout of physical memory from processes, processes can't directly benefit from having virtual memory backed by contiguous physical memory. As processes execute and undergo working-set trimming and growth, their virtual-memory-to-physical-memory mappings will become fragmented despite the availability of contiguous memory.
Reality - "RAM Optimizers have no effect, and at worst, they seriously degrade performance. Although gaining more available memory might seem beneficial, it isn't. As RAM Optimizers force the available-memory counter up, they force other processes' data and code out of memory. Say that you're running Word, for example. As the optimizer forces the available-memory counter up, the text of open documents and the program code that was part of Word's working set before the optimization (and was therefore present in physical memory) must be reread from disk as you continue to edit your document. The act of allocating, then freeing a large amount of virtual memory might, as a conceivable side effect, lead to blocks of contiguous available memory. However, because virtual memory masks the layout of physical memory from processes, processes can't directly benefit from having virtual memory backed by contiguous physical memory. As processes execute and undergo working-set trimming and growth, their virtual-memory-to-physical-memory mappings will become fragmented despite the availability of contiguous memory.
QoS
Myth - "Disabling QoS will free up the 20% bandwidth reserved by QoS."
Reality - "As in Windows 2000, programs can take advantage of QoS through the QoS APIs in Windows XP. 100% of the network bandwidth is available to be shared by all programs unless a program specifically requests priority bandwidth. This "reserved" bandwidth is still available to other programs unless the requesting program is sending data. By default, programs can reserve up to an aggregate bandwidth of 20% of the underlying link speed on each interface on an end computer. If the program that reserved the bandwidth is not sending sufficient data to use it, the unused part of the reserved bandwidth is available for other data flows on the same host.
Reality - "As in Windows 2000, programs can take advantage of QoS through the QoS APIs in Windows XP. 100% of the network bandwidth is available to be shared by all programs unless a program specifically requests priority bandwidth. This "reserved" bandwidth is still available to other programs unless the requesting program is sending data. By default, programs can reserve up to an aggregate bandwidth of 20% of the underlying link speed on each interface on an end computer. If the program that reserved the bandwidth is not sending sufficient data to use it, the unused part of the reserved bandwidth is available for other data flows on the same host.
NTFS is Fragmentation Free
Myth - "The NTFS File system does not get fragmented and Defragmenters are unnecessary."
Reality - "Even though NTFS is more resistant to fragmentation than FAT, it can and does still fragment. The reason NTFS is less prone to fragmentation is that it makes intelligent choices about where to store file data on the disk. NTFS reserves space for the expansion of the Master File Table, reducing fragmentation of its structures. In contrast to FAT's first-come, first-served method, NTFS's method of writing files minimizes, but does not eliminate, the problem of file fragmentation on NTFS volume
Reality - "Even though NTFS is more resistant to fragmentation than FAT, it can and does still fragment. The reason NTFS is less prone to fragmentation is that it makes intelligent choices about where to store file data on the disk. NTFS reserves space for the expansion of the Master File Table, reducing fragmentation of its structures. In contrast to FAT's first-come, first-served method, NTFS's method of writing files minimizes, but does not eliminate, the problem of file fragmentation on NTFS volume
Disk Defragmenter
Myth - "The built-in Disk Defragmenter is good enough."
Reality - "This statement would be true if the built-in defragmenter was fast, automatic, and customizable. Unfortunately, the built-in defragmenter does not have any of these features. The built-in defragmenter takes many minutes to hours to run. It requires that you keep track of fragmentation levels, you determine when performance has gotten so bad you have to do something about it, and then you manually defragment each drive using the built-in defragmentation tool."
Disk Defragmenter Limitations - "The Disk Defragmenter tool is based on the full retail version of Diskeeper by Executive Software International, Inc. The version that is included with Microsoft Windows 2000 and later provides limited functionality in maintaining disk performance by defragmenting volumes that use the FAT, the FAT32, or the NTFS file system. The XP version has the following limitations." - Source
- It can defragment only local volumes.
- It can defragment only one volume at a time.
- It cannot defragment one volume while scanning another.
- It cannot be easily scheduled without scripts or third party utilities
- It can run only one Microsoft Management Console (MMC) snap-in at a time.
Reality - "This statement would be true if the built-in defragmenter was fast, automatic, and customizable. Unfortunately, the built-in defragmenter does not have any of these features. The built-in defragmenter takes many minutes to hours to run. It requires that you keep track of fragmentation levels, you determine when performance has gotten so bad you have to do something about it, and then you manually defragment each drive using the built-in defragmentation tool."
Disk Defragmenter Limitations - "The Disk Defragmenter tool is based on the full retail version of Diskeeper by Executive Software International, Inc. The version that is included with Microsoft Windows 2000 and later provides limited functionality in maintaining disk performance by defragmenting volumes that use the FAT, the FAT32, or the NTFS file system. The XP version has the following limitations." - Source
- It can defragment only local volumes.
- It can defragment only one volume at a time.
- It cannot defragment one volume while scanning another.
- It cannot be easily scheduled without scripts or third party utilities
- It can run only one Microsoft Management Console (MMC) snap-in at a time.
Clearing the Paging File
[HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\SessionManager\MemoryManagement] "ClearPageFileAtShutdown"
Myth - "Clearing the Paging File at Shutdown improves performance."
Reality - "Enabling this will clear the Window's paging file (Pagefile.sys) during the shutdown process, so that no unsecured data is contained in the paging file when the shutdown process is complete. If you enable this feature, the shutdown time will be increased. Some third-party programs can temporarily store unencrypted (plain-text) passwords or other sensitive information in memory. Because of the Windows virtual memory architecture, this information can be present in the paging file. Although clearing the paging file is not a suitable substitute for physical security of a computer, you might want to do this to increase the security of data on a computer while Windows is not running.
Myth - "Clearing the Paging File at Shutdown improves performance."
Reality - "Enabling this will clear the Window's paging file (Pagefile.sys) during the shutdown process, so that no unsecured data is contained in the paging file when the shutdown process is complete. If you enable this feature, the shutdown time will be increased. Some third-party programs can temporarily store unencrypted (plain-text) passwords or other sensitive information in memory. Because of the Windows virtual memory architecture, this information can be present in the paging file. Although clearing the paging file is not a suitable substitute for physical security of a computer, you might want to do this to increase the security of data on a computer while Windows is not running.
Disable Dr. Watson
[HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\AeDebug]
Myth - "Disabling Dr. Watson improves performance since it is always running."
Reality - "If a program error occurs, Dr. Watson will start automatically but not before unless you manually start it. Which means disabling Dr. Watson has no effect on system performance. Dr. Watson (Drwtsn32.exe) for Windows is a program error debugger that gathers information about your computer when an error (or user-mode fault) occurs with a program. Technical support groups can use the information that Dr. Watson obtains and logs to diagnose a program error. When an error is detected, Dr. Watson creates a text file (Drwtsn32.log) that can be delivered to support personnel by the method they prefer. You also have the option of creating a crash dump file, which is a binary file that a programmer can load into a debugger. This is valuable information to help troubleshoot a system problem, thus it makes no sense to disable Dr. Watson."
Notes - Programs errors should be addressed and not ignored by making sure you are using the latest non-Beta version of the application that crashed and apply all patches that are available from the developer of the application. This can also be a warning sign something is wrong or misconfigured with your system. Use the Diagnose XP Guide to help troubleshoot the most common causes of system problems.
Myth - "Disabling Dr. Watson improves performance since it is always running."
Reality - "If a program error occurs, Dr. Watson will start automatically but not before unless you manually start it. Which means disabling Dr. Watson has no effect on system performance. Dr. Watson (Drwtsn32.exe) for Windows is a program error debugger that gathers information about your computer when an error (or user-mode fault) occurs with a program. Technical support groups can use the information that Dr. Watson obtains and logs to diagnose a program error. When an error is detected, Dr. Watson creates a text file (Drwtsn32.log) that can be delivered to support personnel by the method they prefer. You also have the option of creating a crash dump file, which is a binary file that a programmer can load into a debugger. This is valuable information to help troubleshoot a system problem, thus it makes no sense to disable Dr. Watson."
Notes - Programs errors should be addressed and not ignored by making sure you are using the latest non-Beta version of the application that crashed and apply all patches that are available from the developer of the application. This can also be a warning sign something is wrong or misconfigured with your system. Use the Diagnose XP Guide to help troubleshoot the most common causes of system problems.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Converting FAT32 to NTFS
Myth - "Converting FAT32 volumes to NTFS instead of formatting them will reduce performance by forcing a 512 byte cluster size."
Reality - "Windows XP CONVERT creates the best possible cluster size according to the existing FAT format. On NTFS volumes, clusters start at sector zero; therefore, every cluster is aligned on the cluster boundary. For example, if the cluster size was 4K and the sector size was 512 bytes, clusters will always start at a sector number that is a multiple of 4096/512 for example, 8. However, FAT file system data clusters are located after the BIOS Parameter Blocks (BPB), reserved sectors, and two FAT structures. FAT formatting cannot guarantee that data clusters are aligned on a cluster boundary. In Windows 2000, CONVERT handled this problem by forcing an NTFS cluster size of 512 bytes, which resulted in reduced performance and increased disk fragmentation. In Windows XP, CONVERT chooses the best cluster size (4K is the ideal)." - Source
Notes - The FAT32 file system does not use a default cluster size smaller than 4 KB. The maximum NTFS default cluster size under Windows XP is 4 KB because NTFS file compression is not possible on drives with a larger allocation size.
Reality - "Windows XP CONVERT creates the best possible cluster size according to the existing FAT format. On NTFS volumes, clusters start at sector zero; therefore, every cluster is aligned on the cluster boundary. For example, if the cluster size was 4K and the sector size was 512 bytes, clusters will always start at a sector number that is a multiple of 4096/512 for example, 8. However, FAT file system data clusters are located after the BIOS Parameter Blocks (BPB), reserved sectors, and two FAT structures. FAT formatting cannot guarantee that data clusters are aligned on a cluster boundary. In Windows 2000, CONVERT handled this problem by forcing an NTFS cluster size of 512 bytes, which resulted in reduced performance and increased disk fragmentation. In Windows XP, CONVERT chooses the best cluster size (4K is the ideal)." - Source
Notes - The FAT32 file system does not use a default cluster size smaller than 4 KB. The maximum NTFS default cluster size under Windows XP is 4 KB because NTFS file compression is not possible on drives with a larger allocation size.
FAT32 vs. NTFS
Myth - "The FAT32 file system is faster/better than NTFS."
Reality - "NTFS is the better file system with many advantages over FAT32. NTFS features: Built-In Security, Recoverability, Alternate Streams, Custom File Attributes, Compression, Object Permissions, Economical Disk Space Usage using a more Efficient Cluster Size and Fault Tolerance. Windows 2000 and XP come with NTFS version 5 which includes even more advanced features such as: Encryption, Disk Quotas, Sparse Files, Reparse Points, Volume Mount Points. None of which is available with FAT32." -
Performance
"NTFS is built for speed with impressive disk I/O performance on large volumes (Over 400 MB). NTFS uses a binary tree structure for all disk directories, which reduces the number of times the system has to access the disk to locate files. This system is best for large directories, and NTFS easily outperforms FAT32 in these situations. In addition, NTFS automatically sorts files in a folder on the fly. NTFS gains an edge over FAT32 by using relatively small disk allocation units (cluster sizes) for NTFS volumes. Smaller clusters prevent wasted disk space on volumes, especially those with numerous small files. Because NTFS uses small clusters better and has a more efficient design, its performance doesn't degrade with large volumes, in contrast to FAT's."
"NTFS is generally believed to be slower than FAT. However, with a correctly created NTFS volume, NTFS performance optimizations, and improved disk defragmentation, NTFS performance (including the extra "journaling") is equivalent to FAT on small disks and is faster than FAT on large disks. FAT32 performance is further reduced for volumes larger than 32 GB in two areas:
- Boot time with FAT32 is increased 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.
- 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." - Source
Gaming Performance
"The numbers show...not much difference. In fact, the only test that doesn't show near-perfect parity is PCMark04, and the difference between the results on the two file systems is less than two percent. HDTach's read and access tests, which respectively measure how fast data can be read from the drive and how quickly the drive can locate data, were nearly identical. More importantly, the gaming tests showed nary a difference in all-important frame rates between the file systems and the cluster sizes. Based on the uniformity we experienced, we highly recommend that users of Windows XP take advantage of the NTFS file system. Its gaming prowess matches that of FAT32 and it boasts a healthy line-up of advantages over its opponent." - Source
Reliability
In addition to its extensive memory and application protection features, NTFS is a reliable file system. When storing data to disk, NTFS records file I/O events to a special transaction log. If the system crashes or encounters an interruption, NTFS can use this log to restore the volume and prevent corruption from an abnormal program termination or system shutdown. NTFS doesn't commit an action to disk until it verifies the successful completion of the action. This precaution helps prevent corruption of an NTFS volume. NTFS also supports hot-fixing disk sectors, where the OS automatically blocks out bad disk sectors and relocates data from these sectors. This housecleaning happens in the background. An application attempting to read or write data on a hot-fixed area will never know the disk had a problem. I only recommend and use NTFS with Windows 2000 and XP.
Reality - "NTFS is the better file system with many advantages over FAT32. NTFS features: Built-In Security, Recoverability, Alternate Streams, Custom File Attributes, Compression, Object Permissions, Economical Disk Space Usage using a more Efficient Cluster Size and Fault Tolerance. Windows 2000 and XP come with NTFS version 5 which includes even more advanced features such as: Encryption, Disk Quotas, Sparse Files, Reparse Points, Volume Mount Points. None of which is available with FAT32." -
Performance
"NTFS is built for speed with impressive disk I/O performance on large volumes (Over 400 MB). NTFS uses a binary tree structure for all disk directories, which reduces the number of times the system has to access the disk to locate files. This system is best for large directories, and NTFS easily outperforms FAT32 in these situations. In addition, NTFS automatically sorts files in a folder on the fly. NTFS gains an edge over FAT32 by using relatively small disk allocation units (cluster sizes) for NTFS volumes. Smaller clusters prevent wasted disk space on volumes, especially those with numerous small files. Because NTFS uses small clusters better and has a more efficient design, its performance doesn't degrade with large volumes, in contrast to FAT's."
"NTFS is generally believed to be slower than FAT. However, with a correctly created NTFS volume, NTFS performance optimizations, and improved disk defragmentation, NTFS performance (including the extra "journaling") is equivalent to FAT on small disks and is faster than FAT on large disks. FAT32 performance is further reduced for volumes larger than 32 GB in two areas:
- Boot time with FAT32 is increased 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.
- 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." - Source
Gaming Performance
"The numbers show...not much difference. In fact, the only test that doesn't show near-perfect parity is PCMark04, and the difference between the results on the two file systems is less than two percent. HDTach's read and access tests, which respectively measure how fast data can be read from the drive and how quickly the drive can locate data, were nearly identical. More importantly, the gaming tests showed nary a difference in all-important frame rates between the file systems and the cluster sizes. Based on the uniformity we experienced, we highly recommend that users of Windows XP take advantage of the NTFS file system. Its gaming prowess matches that of FAT32 and it boasts a healthy line-up of advantages over its opponent." - Source
Reliability
In addition to its extensive memory and application protection features, NTFS is a reliable file system. When storing data to disk, NTFS records file I/O events to a special transaction log. If the system crashes or encounters an interruption, NTFS can use this log to restore the volume and prevent corruption from an abnormal program termination or system shutdown. NTFS doesn't commit an action to disk until it verifies the successful completion of the action. This precaution helps prevent corruption of an NTFS volume. NTFS also supports hot-fixing disk sectors, where the OS automatically blocks out bad disk sectors and relocates data from these sectors. This housecleaning happens in the background. An application attempting to read or write data on a hot-fixed area will never know the disk had a problem. I only recommend and use NTFS with Windows 2000 and XP.
Disable System Restore
Myth - "Disabling System Restore improves performance."
Reality - "System Restore does not cause any noticeable performance impact when monitoring your computer. The creation of a Restore point also is a very fast process and usually takes only a few seconds. Scheduled System Checkpoints (every 24 hours by default) are created only at system idle time to avoid interfering with a computer during use."
Reality - "System Restore does not cause any noticeable performance impact when monitoring your computer. The creation of a Restore point also is a very fast process and usually takes only a few seconds. Scheduled System Checkpoints (every 24 hours by default) are created only at system idle time to avoid interfering with a computer during use."
Deleting Temp Files
Myth - "Deleting Temp Files improves performance."
Reality - Deleting temporary files does not improve application, gaming or system performance. All it does is increase your available disk space. While AntiVirus and AntiSpyware scan times and general disk search times can be reduced, these are not what people associate with improved performance. Deleting the contents of your browser cache actually reduces performance for previously visited webpages since they must be reloaded into the cache.
Notes - Modern disk search engines such a Windows Desktop Search take the location of temporary files into account and does not waste time indexing these files. Versions are available for download for Windows 2000, XP, 2003 and it is included in Vista.
Reality - Deleting temporary files does not improve application, gaming or system performance. All it does is increase your available disk space. While AntiVirus and AntiSpyware scan times and general disk search times can be reduced, these are not what people associate with improved performance. Deleting the contents of your browser cache actually reduces performance for previously visited webpages since they must be reloaded into the cache.
Notes - Modern disk search engines such a Windows Desktop Search take the location of temporary files into account and does not waste time indexing these files. Versions are available for download for Windows 2000, XP, 2003 and it is included in Vista.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
