Talk:NTFS volume mount point

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Microsoft (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

QUESTION[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

  • 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[edit]

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)