Digital BW, The Print

Austin Franklin wrote:

>>NTFS is much more resistant to corruption, and is generally
>>much more solid overall.  The processor time required to handle the file
>>system is insignificant compared to other consumers of processor
>>resources.
>>    
>>
>
>I completely agree with both those statements, ESPECIALLY the first.  It
>seems to be the registry is now the real fragility of W2k, not the NTFS file
>system.  IMO, the registry is simply a foolish concept that never should
>have seen the light of day.  It is WAY too easy to corrupt, and cause
>catastrophic, unrecoverable failure.  Been there, done that.  And...I don't
>mean by registry editing, I mean by some fool program writing the registry
>and screwing it up.
>
>
>  
>
Ummm And the quote you just referenced relates "how" to the registry?


Keith
 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]