Talk:Ntfsresize

questions re re-sizing around bad sectors (moved from article into discussion)

 * dangerous to use, as such disk failures are likely to affect other sectors without software detecting it first

Not all partitions are on disks (eg: USB drives), and not all failures affect other sectors. In fact - aside from disks that are shortly about to completely fail - I disagree that a bad sector is "likley" to affect other sectors. It may - sure - but it's not "likley".


 * Does this mean that bad sector markers are copied to resized partition?

Sounds like a crazy question to me - if they did *not* do that, it would be flagrantly negligent and dangerous... eg: highly improbable.


 * Or does it means undetected bad sectors on space where resised partition is going to be build can make errors?

Having just used the facility - I can say for certain that it does not read all disk sectors - it only modifies ones that are affected. Thus - it will be unable to "find" any new bad sectors to mark for you, and if you happen to have some which are about to get used - it will be upto (A) the O/S to mark them later, when they fail, or (B) S.M.A.R.T to reallocate the failed ones for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.137.129 (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

POV-check
I added this because this sentence:


 * It is often shown that Ntfsresize is safer than commercial alternatives such as PartitionMagic or Partition Commander, as it has several safety checks and rigorous testing from many people (while commercial alternatives might have just a few people testing on few volumes).

Sounds more like open-source propaganda than descriptive text. I agree with the open-source propaganda btw, but that's not the point.

- PhilipR 16:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree this statement is not fact and sounds more like propaganda. Even if open-source is better :p --Sweety Rose 16:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The offending statement was removed. Is the POV-check still needed? --72.24.251.239 16:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Everything remaining in the article looks NPOV enough to me. I removed the POV-check. JPStanley 14:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

It is still Linux centric, which is a factual error. ntfsresize (and the whole package) also work on non-Linux *nixes like FreeBSD 88.159.74.100 10:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I also believe that that article is unnecessary - there is lots of software (including free and supplied with operating system), and either all of them should be mentioned (and compared), or none of them - otherwise it is biased opinion about existing software. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.129.193 (talk) 03:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Outdated article
This article is rather outdated: links are broken, and doesn't reflect the merge of ntfsprogs with ntfs-3g. As others have asked, is this article necessary, or can it be deleted/merged into ntfs-3g? ChrstphrChvz (talk • contribs) 08:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)