Mount NTSF vs Driver letter

[SAMSAMHA]

hi, I have a bit of odd question. I am curious what is the difference between the 2? Are there any advantage/disadvantage of choosing 1 vs another?

I konw that mount ntsf folder is kind of like attach a hard drive to an existing folder so that any files saved to that "fodler" will essentially being saved onto that hard drive. While the Driver letter has a physical letter dessignation on the My computer where the files can be accessed there.

Now the reason I am asking this is because I got a 60gig ssd and I am thinking what would be the best way to manage my files/programs so I can get a best performance while not worried about storage limitation. I am planning to use some mechanical hd for storage and maybe also for program installation. But my past expereince with Windows is that if you install program on anotehr HD, it can be problematic. But it appears to me that mount ntfs folder can be a good choice to do so but are there any limitation or complications?

 

[Nothinman]

The only difference from a user perspective is the path that you use to reference that drive. I.e. c:\blah instead of D:\. There's no physical thing involved at all in either case, unless you want to count the hard disk itself.

It should work fine, just like installing apps to D:\Program Files or E:\Games will be fine as well. The only time that's problematic is if the program/game itself is shitty. I really with MS would make drive letters 100% optional, but that will probably never happen because of compatibility with existing apps.

And it would work a lot better if the Windows installer would let you specify mount points during the install and if certain things like Volume Shadow Copies didn't require a drive letter. But if you're not worried about that, you should be fine.

 

[mv2devnull]

It should work fine, just like installing apps to D:\Program Files or E:\Games will be fine as well.

On Vista and 7 the "Program Files" (and other default directory trees) have different permissions than generic letter volumes. More or less than fine, depending on situation.


But yes, usually the choice of "mount-point" does not matter.

 

[SAMSAMHA]

I some some apps would still install some files and stuff on C: and I have had issues when I install apps on a different HD with different drive letter. So do you guys think use the "mount point" is a better option to guarantee smooth operation?

Also, I am curious if I use the mount point, then what happen if the windows happen to fail and I had to reinstall it, would I need to reinstall the software?

 

[Nothinman]

I some some apps would still install some files and stuff on C: and I have had issues when I install apps on a different HD with different drive letter. So do you guys think use the "mount point" is a better option to guarantee smooth operation?

Any issues you had were specific to those apps so it's impossible to guess if they'd deal with a mount point any better.

Also, I am curious if I use the mount point, then what happen if the windows happen to fail and I had to reinstall it, would I need to reinstall the software?

Again, it depends on the app. Reinstalling Windows would likely mean you lost all of the app's registry entries regardless of the directory into which it's installed.