eazFix/Rollback RX - The Case Of The Defect Snapshots

[wilbertnl]

I'm pleased to announce that eazSolution released a new build of eazFix build 2691291151, which should elimitate the often discussed problems with defect snapshots.
Since more than a week I have been running a test release and I haven't had one single error with this release.
Rollback RX customers should tune in to the HDS website, expect the update release before this weekend.

By the way, just for no reason I decided to install eazFix on a 15 GB FAT32 system partition and I noticed significant less hard disk overhead.
Windows XP runs fast . Something to consider?

[sukarof]

Originally Posted by wilbertnl

I'm pleased to announce that eazSolution released a new build of eazFix build 2691291151, which should elimitate the often discussed problems with defect snapshots.
Since more than a week I have been running a test release and I haven't had one single error with this release.
Rollback RX customers should tune in to the HDS website, expect the update release before this weekend.

By the way, just for no reason I decided to install eazFix on a 15 GB FAT32 system partition and I noticed significant less hard disk overhead.
Windows XP runs fast . Something to consider?

I´ll check HDS and look out for the new build (who is the developer, HDS or EAZsolution?)
Nice to see that Windows runs faster. When I tried it a month ago I noticed that build slowing down Windows a bit. Never noticed that when I ran it the first time last winter.

[aigle]

Originally Posted by wilbertnl

By the way, just for no reason I decided to install eazFix on a 15 GB FAT32 system partition and I noticed significant less hard disk overhead.
Windows XP runs fast . Something to consider?

I will repeat my Q. Do u loose something by using FAT32 for OS partition as compared to NTFS.

Thanks.

[starfish_001]

Originally Posted by aigle

I will repeat my Q. Do u loose something by using FAT32 for OS partition as compared to NTFS.
Thanks.

yes quite a lot - security and robustness

[Peter2150]

It's good that it might run faster under FAT, but that says they still have a lot of work to do. Kind of like saying it runs better under Windows 98.

[wilbertnl]

Originally Posted by Peter2150

It's good that it might run faster under FAT, but that says they still have a lot of work to do. Kind of like saying it runs better under Windows 98.

The explanation is that NTFS is not documented for developers. The snapshot concept of eazFix with their sector mappings is more complex compared to FD-ISR. To prevend the problems from the past they added checks to the NTFS implementation.

[wilbertnl]

Originally Posted by starfish_001

security and robustness

Microsoft has a reputation in that area.

[Peter2150]

Originally Posted by wilbertnl

Microsoft has a reputation in that area.

While there is a humorous elimate there indeed. I think the NTFS system has a lot of advantages, and like it or not it is the future. If the Rollback genre of programs doesn't work as well on NTFS as FAT, then they have to get with it.

I grant you there are people that still have old and slow machines, and FAT probably offers them advantages, but that isn't the future. Having just bought a new high end high performance machine, no way I am degrading it for any one piece of software. Too many options.

[wilbertnl]

I wasn't advocating FAT32, I share my experience.
The good news is that eazFix/Rollback RX does support Windows 9x.

On NT based Windows most users login with administrator privileges, simply because software doesn't work otherwise. This security design is accepted, while it's not done to suggest some alternatives in a different area that might work better.