- Joined
- Nov 4, 2005
- Messages
- 11,874 (1.73/day)
System Name | Compy 386 |
---|---|
Processor | 7800X3D |
Motherboard | Asus |
Cooling | Air for now..... |
Memory | 64 GB DDR5 6400Mhz |
Video Card(s) | 7900XTX 310 Merc |
Storage | Samsung 990 2TB, 2 SP 2TB SSDs, 24TB Enterprise drives |
Display(s) | 55" Samsung 4K HDR |
Audio Device(s) | ATI HDMI |
Mouse | Logitech MX518 |
Keyboard | Razer |
Software | A lot. |
Benchmark Scores | Its fast. Enough. |
Booting up "live cd" on a computer containing a NTFS drive allowed deletion and or copy/access of whatever file and you could totally ignore everything unless it was encrypted. Even reading the Metadata table to recover deleted files was easy.Is this a rhetorical question or a legitimate one? Given, even NTFS's file hierarchy and ownership system isn't exactly the most advanced or secure thing in the world. FAT simply has no security whatsoever.
But still lightyears ahead of FAT disk.
It matters as newer drives aren't getting smaller, and if we reach a limit in the future a lot of non-power users won't be able to create an update tool.I asked why does it matter what FS you need to update firmware? There's no technical limitation as such, except on old(er) machines. The reason multiple FS is not supported is probably more down to $$$ than anything else!
Secure is "relative" in the context of BIOS updates, if you have local/physical access FS should be the last of your worries!
You can manually change a partition size and bypass the limit but would Windows let a batch file like that run since it could also destroy volumes if pointed at the wrong drive?