Talk:NTFS volume mount point

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Microsoft Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

QUESTION

Article says "This is not as powerful or as useful as a regular POSIX mount point found in Unix and Unix-like systems."

That may well be true, but the reader is left to wonder: In what way is it less powerful or useful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.68.133 (talk • contribs)

It would appear that the limitation is that they can't mount remote filesystems, only ones physically attached to the system. On Vista, though, you can create
NTFS symbolic links which fill in that gap reasonably well. --Quietust (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

regarding section: Limitations

It seems like the Limitations was included there because symbolic links were mentioned: the list was copied from the

NTFS symbolic link

page. However, that information seems irrelevant here. It was done with rev. 509436355, and the editor who included that seems knowledgable enough on the topic, so perhaps this could be elucidated?
As it is now, that same list is included on three pages:

NTFS volume mount point — version B

Not only does such duplication risk inconsistent edits — it should be featured on a Template or the like, — but there is already a small difference between the two versions. — JamesEG (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]