66
ReFS is better than NTFS, but Microsoft refuses to let regular users have it
(www.xda-developers.com)
Yeah but is it better than WinFS?
this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2026
66 points (84.4% liked)
Technology
82830 readers
4041 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
What a click bait title. Article goes on to explain the rational reasons why ReFS wasn't built for mainstream use and doing so might bloat its performance on the very server systems it was designed to be efficient for.
I wish Microsoft adopted and upstreamed changes to OpenZFS instead of duplicating all this effort.
Though then I'm sure they would tell the community to fuck off by trying to take over the entire project and pushing the actually open and compatible version out of favour.
Problem is Microsoft has zero interest in zfs. Not even as far as answering questions the openzfs windows dev asks them.
Does Windows support any filesystems that don't suck?
It could be Sco vs Linux all over again
Just like systemd is experiencing right?
eh, I was thinking like Google and that open chat protocol.
Though I do dislike some of systemd's architecture decisions as well. Like why tha fuck can I not turn off it's own built in authentication to sudo mechanism -_-
I agree but just don't otherwise understand why Microsoft is so obsessed with extending system in the manner they currently are
May I be the first one here to say.. Fuck Microslop
I remember being excited for this in 2011, it's about 15 years too late.
Why would you use either over btrFS?
Why would you use BTRFS over ZFS?
Why would you use zfs over fat12?
I was fat since I was 12. Now, I'm fat32.
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