It's possible during setup though I'm not sure how supported it is. Not sure why you'd really want to, writes are much slower than NTFS in general due to journaling.
For the same reason I want btrfs or ZFS on Linux; cheap snapshots so if something breaks I can easily restore to a safe point.
A large part of my complaints about Windows Update have come because it can brick your machine, System Restore doesn’t work, and so you’re stuck spending a weekend trying to back up and fix stuff.
When I ran Ubuntu with ZFS on root, I had it so that I every time apt was run, it took a snapshot. This came in handy when my WiFi driver got borked during an update; I was able to restore from a previous point, it took like ten minutes.
ReFS doesn't give you any more rollback capability than NTFS in that sense. ReFS supports file level snapshots, not volume.
And on a client machine, it's of much less importance overall (to you, it may be super important and I don't want to discount that). And on the server side, that's why we have n+2 failovers. No single machine of importance should ever be a point of failure... I realize that's not always reality but it's more or less Microsoft's position; after all, why sell one Windows Server license when you can sell 3!
NTFS getting corrupted by the tiniest errors would be one reason to use ReFS
Using it for the OS partition is not very well supported right now though (for a consumer), installing etc. works fine, but DISM doesn't support ReFS so adding features generally doesn't work
Can't recall the last time I saw a corrupt NTFS volume... even when using Storage Spaces. I'm sure it's happened to someone given Windows is in use by billions of machines, but NTFS becoming corrupt can't be all that common.
Besides, ReFS doesn't do data journaling by default.
EDIT: Just to be clear, if you don't understand when you'd use this command, do not use it. I suddenly realised people might not be familiar with formatting, and don't want to be responsible for the destruction.
4. Designating the original or traditional form of something that has a digital or computer-mediated counterpart.
5. colloquial (chiefly humorous). Esp. of a person: unaware of or unaffected by computer technology or digital communications; outdated, old-fashioned.
To be fair, downloading and running random executables from the internet is a genuinely terrible security model when the OS (like Windows, Linux, or (to a lesser extent) MacOS) does nothing to prevent it from doing anything you can do.
> "Why is Claude writing TypeScript I'm supposed to read?" 40% of code is now machine-written. That number's only going up.
How much of the code is read by humans, though? I think using languages that LLMs work well with, like TS or Python, makes a lot of sense but the chosen language still needs to be readable by humans.
I keep having this nagging suspicion that the biggest AI boosters just aren’t very good programmers. Maybe they cannot see all the subtle bugs. I’m not an amazing coder but I frequently have “wait, stop!” moments when generating code with an LLM.
> Do you debug JVM bytecode? V8's internals? No. You debug at your abstraction layer. If that layer is natural language, debugging becomes: "Hey Claude, the login is failing for users with + in their email."
I debug at my abstraction layer because I can trust that my compiler actually works, LLMs are fundamentally different and need to produce human readable code.
This is the fault of whoever is administrating your Windows machines, Teams and Outlook are perfectly capable of opening links in your configured default browser.
How would rebuilding Windows on top of Linux help anything? Nobody is complaining about the NT kernel and none of the Linux DEs are clearly superior to the Windows userland, they all have at least as many bugs and warts.
reply