Talk:Installable File System

I strongly disagree
I strongly disagree with this sentence: "The IFS interface changes in every Windows version, making it almost impossible to use an IFS designed for one Windows version to work in another." The interface was backwards compatible from Windows NT 4 (at least) up to Windows XP. In Windows Server 2003 there was change (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:DhqBIa-huxsJ:https://www.osronline.com/article.cfm%3Farticle%3D283&hl=en) that could have broken several drivers, but the interface still remains largely the same. - Filip Navara


 * Well I wrote that sentence more on practical experience.
 * I tested a NT 3.1 IFS in NT 4 and worked (only the IFS, not the tools -chkdsk, format-, that failed).
 * Tried the same on 2000 and not worked at all.
 * However I didn't tried a NT 4 one on 2k or a 2k one on XP.
 * Also I remember that a Microsoft guy said me that the IFSs weren't backwards compatible, when I got IFSKits for 2000 and XP, but I lost that e-mail.
 * &mdash;Claunia 23:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

IFS was also present in Windows 9x/ME
For those who doubt me, the relevant structures and api is covered by ifs.h in the win98 DDK. Actually, there was a pretty good book which was written about it:

More info on this book can be found here and here. --130.127.121.188 16:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Installable File System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160110130653/http://palissimo.de/ to http://www.palissimo.de/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Installable File System. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150510214930/http://macdrive.com/ to http://www.macdrive.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150110193853/http://www.student.nada.kth.se/~f96-bet/HFS/ to http://www.student.nada.kth.se/~f96-bet/HFS/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

DOS 4.x?!?
I would like to see just one (acceptable) source that IFS was ever available in DOS. AFAIK IFS was developed for OS/2 and introduced in OS/2 1.2. Since Microsoft and IBM, who both were developing OS/2, had a strong disagreement on how OS/2 should be done, Microsoft left the development. OS/2 2.0 was from IBM alone, and Microsoft took the code and made Windows NT out of it. Along with Presentation Manager, one of the things that got included in Windows NT was IFS, which was then also ported to Windows 3.11 and is part of Windows ever since, as it is part of OS/2 ever since.

But not DOS.

This should either be verified from a reliable source (which, honestly, I doubt exists), or deleted. Soon.

‣Andreas• ⚖ 13:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * IFS per se does not exist in DOS, at all, dunno who created that entry.
 * In DOS 3.1 the network redirector was introduced, and was considered stable API/ABI since DOS 4.0 onward, I suppose that's where the confusion is.
 * The network redirector was basically a driver interface that allows to redirect file i/o to network shares, and it was used, effectively, as a way to implement local filesystems, including most famously, MSCDEX.
 * There is a good explanation about them in http://www.os2museum.com/wp/redirectors-and-dos-3-0/
 * also they have their own page at Network redirector, and in any case their usage as a primitive IFS system should be added there, and not here.
 * I agree that the DOS 4.0 section makes no sense here, and I vote to remove it if you want.
 * Claunia (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the DOS 4.0 section makes no sense here, and I vote to remove it if you want.
 * Claunia (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)