72
ReFS is better than NTFS, but Microsoft refuses to let regular users have it (www.xda-developers.com)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 16 points 7 months ago (10 children)

It’s not ready yet. It’s good for some specific use cases but it’s not anything the typical end user needs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    Yet?? They’ve been making it since the Stone Age. I read about it in my teens

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago* (5 children)

    Right? I’ve gone through ReiserFS, ext3, ext4, XFS, Btrfs, ZFS; hell on macOS I’ve been through HFS+ and AFS. And clunky ol’ Microsoft is still on fucking NTFS.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    Why change it if it works?
    What is so bad about NTFS?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    Apple’s APFS I am not a fan of. I have been using Macs since 2008-ish. In all my HFS+ days, I’ve never lost an entire drive. I rebooted my M2 Mac Mini via command prompt, and my external APFS drive is corrupted. Never had that problem before APFS. And since I’m an idiot, I’ve got to pay DiskDrill to hopefully recover the data when I get a larger drive on hand.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 7 months ago

    This. NTFS is still the gold standard for stability. ReFS is meant for data ops, and while it's fairly stable, and offers a lot of advantages, it's not perfect and can suffer greatly if used incorrectly. Until the quirks are gone, users are probably better off with NTFS for a lot of reasons.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent