71
ReFS is better than NTFS, but Microsoft refuses to let regular users have it
(www.xda-developers.com)
this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2026
71 points (85.1% liked)
Technology
82856 readers
4944 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It’s not ready yet. It’s good for some specific use cases but it’s not anything the typical end user needs.
This. NTFS is still the gold standard for stability. ReFS is meant for data ops, and while it's fairly stable, and offers a lot of advantages, it's not perfect and can suffer greatly if used incorrectly. Until the quirks are gone, users are probably better off with NTFS for a lot of reasons.
Yet?? They’ve been making it since the Stone Age. I read about it in my teens
Right? I’ve gone through ReiserFS, ext3, ext4, XFS, Btrfs, ZFS; hell on macOS I’ve been through HFS+ and AFS. And clunky ol’ Microsoft is still on fucking NTFS.
Why change it if it works?
What is so bad about NTFS?
Why use NTFS if FAT32 works?
Because 4GB file limit?
Maybe “it’s not needed yet” is more accurate.
They’ve edged us a few times. I’m sure it was supposed to come with vista