Talk:Windows Resource Protection

Also, Windows File Protection required a considerable amount of disk space to maintain cached versions of the protected files, which Windows Resource Protection does not require. That is not true because the amount of protected files in Vista is larger than older versions.

Check out the WFP directory size for yourselves.

Yes, that's correct but Windows File Protection required space because of the requirement to maintain a cache of all files. The size and number of files in Vista being more by design makes it take up much more disk space but that is not due to Windows Resource Protection. Btw, which directory are you referring to under Vista when you mean "check out the WFP directory size for yourselves"? :) Because there is no Dllcache folder under Vista. AFAIK, Vista seems to store cached versions in %Windir%\WinSxS and mixes it with the side by side DLLs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.181.60 (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

File change notification usage
I don't believe Windows Resource Protection uses file change notifications at all. This is what the former solution (Windows File Protection) must have been doing, but Windows Resource Protection probably does not need to. The protection should be based on restricting the access in the first place by the limited file permissions.

Also, when testing under Windows 7 (which should be using the Windows Resource Protection the same way Windows Vista did) I could not detect any activity from the OS after I renamed or even deleted a protected file (on the live system too – with the (ab)use of administrator's privileges to bypass the ACLs, of course ;-) ). No renamed or deleted files were replaced and no Event Log entries were logged about the corruptions I created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JITR (talk • contribs) 23:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)