Talk:NTFS volume mount point

QUESTION
Article says "This is not as powerful or as useful as a regular POSIX mount point found in Unix and Unix-like systems."

That may well be true, but the reader is left to wonder: In what way is it less powerful or useful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.68.133 (talk • contribs)
 * It would appear that the limitation is that they can't mount remote filesystems, only ones physically attached to the system. On Vista, though, you can create NTFS symbolic links which fill in that gap reasonably well. --Quietust (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

regarding section: Limitations
It seems like the Limitations was included there because symbolic links were mentioned: the list was copied from the NTFS symbolic link page. However, that information seems irrelevant here. It was done with rev. 509436355, and the editor who included that seems knowledgable enough on the topic, so perhaps this could be elucidated?

As it is now, that same list is included on three pages: Not only does such duplication risk inconsistent edits — it should be featured on a Template or the like, — but there is already a small difference between the two versions. — JamesEG (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * NTFS junction point — version A
 * NTFS symbolic link — version B
 * NTFS volume mount point — version B