Digital BW, The Print

Keith,

> >>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?

Er, reliability.  Now that NTFS has increased the reliability of the file
system on Windows systems to a point where it's not really a problem any
more, the new bad apple is the registry.  It is the weak link (aside from
very bad code that is) in the Windows "architecture".  I use "architecture"
and "windows" in the same sentence loosely...though I know the "architect"
of Windows NT, Dave Cutler, as he was the architect (not loosely used) of
Digital's VMS...and I know he knows better...

Austin