> Yeah, I know what it's supposed to do....
> Don't believe everything you hear or read about NTFS - especially when
> it's from Microsoft. 
Well... I sort of agree with you here. However my own experiance over the 
years, has shown me that NTFS is far mor reliable than FAT whatever MS is 
saying in that regards.
> You need to read the Microsoft Newsgroups regarding NT.  It's not as
> "self repairing" as MS says it is, however, I don't want to get into a
> which is better "NTFS or FAT" so it's best to drop this.
I'm not reading Microsoft Newsgroups regarding NT, so I can only judge it 
from my own personal experiance, and it has shown me that NTFS is BY FAR more 
reliable than any of the FAT systems out there. But since we may differ in 
oppinion here, it's probably better to drop the matter, even though it might 
have been interesting to discuss it though?
BTW: I have been running NT on a server at work since the ver "3.1 Advanced 
Server Days", about 4 years (?) now, and have over that period had no 
problems with NTFS what so ever. The problem with fragmentation has been 
dealt with using Diskkeeper for the last year or so. But no cluster problems, 
no bad sector problems, in fact, I have only once seen chkdsk /f reporting 
problems, and that was on a Hard Disk that died, and I atribute the problems 
to the Hard Disk and not the File system.
Torbj|rn
--- BBBS/NT v3.42 ToMmIk-4v
---------------