Vista Versions

Windows XP is widely accepted to be Windows 5.1 or Windows NT 5.1 and the
NTFS file system it employs is numbered both NTFS 3.1 and NTFS 5.1.


For example, here when I run winver, the version reported is Windows is 5.2.
When I use:

fsutil fsinfo ntfsinfo c:

on the NTFS formatted C: drive, the utility reports version 3.1.

I'm requesting that someone report what version Windows Vista is and what
version of NTFS it uses.

Thank you very much for the help.

-----
Key Pounder VPE Cert. 2004-2009

Windows Vista is version 6.0, whilst "Longhorn" Server will be either 6.0 or
6.1.
I'm not sure about the 3.1 you're getting... but that might well be the
version of the utility you're using.

--
Zack Whittaker
» ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk
» MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org
» Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk
» This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not
of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared
that up!

--: Original message follows :--
"Key Pounder" <key@pounder.anon> wrote in message
news:eognJClWGHA.4324@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Windows XP is widely accepted to be Windows 5.1 or Windows NT 5.1 and the
> NTFS file system it employs is numbered both NTFS 3.1 and NTFS 5.1.
>
>
> For example, here when I run winver, the version reported is Windows is
> 5.2.
> When I use:
>
> fsutil fsinfo ntfsinfo c:
>
> on the NTFS formatted C: drive, the utility reports version 3.1.
>
> I'm requesting that someone report what version Windows Vista is and what
> version of NTFS it uses.
>
> Thank you very much for the help.
>
> -----
> Key Pounder VPE Cert. 2004-2009
>
>

Zack Whittaker wrote:

> Windows Vista is version 6.0, whilst "Longhorn" Server will be either 6.0
> or 6.1.
> I'm not sure about the 3.1 you're getting... but that might well be the
> version of the utility you're using.

No, it's the version of NTFS for Windows XP. I don't have access right now
to my Vista machine so cannot check the NTFS version included with Vista,
but I would assume that it is also 3.1.
--
Tom Porterfield

Zack Whittaker wrote:

Here's the "read-out":

NTFS Volume Serial Number : 0xe6b07905b078dd8d
Version : 3.1
Number Sectors : 0x00000000076acbc1
Total Clusters : 0x0000000000ed5978
Free Clusters : 0x0000000000d98c0b
Total Reserved : 0x0000000000000900
Bytes Per Sector : 512
Bytes Per Cluster : 4096
Bytes Per FileRecord Segment : 1024
Clusters Per FileRecord Segment : 0
Mft Valid Data Length : 0x0000000002fd0000
Mft Start Lcn : 0x00000000000c0000
Mft2 Start Lcn : 0x000000000076acbc
Mft Zone Start : 0x00000000000c2fc0
Mft Zone End : 0x000000000029ab40

WhenXP came out there was this discussion about what version of NTFS XP
actually used. The one and same version was designated 3.1 by the fsutil
utility .. and in the press is was called NTFS 5 and NTFS 5.1. Most referred
to it as NTFS 5.

It's lots of fun that this comes up as Windows is changing numbers. Now it's
Windows 6.x. I'm wondering what Vista's fsutil reports.

usage:
fsutil fsinfo ntfsinfo <volume pathname>

e.g.:
fsutil fsinfo ntfsinfo c:

The Kernel is 6.0 and file system (NTFS) is a different version, not sure,
it must be the 3.1 you mentioned.
--
--
Andre
Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta

"Key Pounder" <key@pounder.anon> wrote in message
news:eognJClWGHA.4324@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Windows XP is widely accepted to be Windows 5.1 or Windows NT 5.1 and the
> NTFS file system it employs is numbered both NTFS 3.1 and NTFS 5.1.
>
>
> For example, here when I run winver, the version reported is Windows is
> 5.2.
> When I use:
>
> fsutil fsinfo ntfsinfo c:
>
> on the NTFS formatted C: drive, the utility reports version 3.1.
>
> I'm requesting that someone report what version Windows Vista is and what
> version of NTFS it uses.
>
> Thank you very much for the help.
>
> -----
> Key Pounder VPE Cert. 2004-2009
>
>

Yeh, that's what I was trying to say... 'cept Andre somehow manages to word
it better every time )

--
Zack Whittaker
» ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk
» MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org
» Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk
» This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not
of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared
that up!

--: Original message follows :--
"Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <andred25@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u14WznmWGHA.752@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> The Kernel is 6.0 and file system (NTFS) is a different version, not sure,
> it must be the 3.1 you mentioned.
> --
> --
> Andre
> Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com
> Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
> Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
> http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
>
> "Key Pounder" <key@pounder.anon> wrote in message
> news:eognJClWGHA.4324@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>
>

No that it may have any bearing, however generally when you check the
version by rt. click>properties>version - the number given is the version of
the windows installer and not the version of the application.


"Zack Whittaker" <admin@zacknet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%23FSH4QnWGHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Yeh, that's what I was trying to say... 'cept Andre somehow manages to
> word it better every time )
>
> --
> Zack Whittaker
> » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk
> » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org
> » Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk
> » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and
> not
> of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared
> that up!
>
> --: Original message follows :--
> "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <andred25@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u14WznmWGHA.752@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>
>

I learnt about it on channel9 - http://channel9.msdn.com
--
--
Andre
Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta

"Zack Whittaker" <admin@zacknet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%23FSH4QnWGHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> Yeh, that's what I was trying to say... 'cept Andre somehow manages to
> word it better every time )
>
> --
> Zack Whittaker
> » ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk
> » MSBlog on ResDev: www.msblog.org
> » Vista Knowledge Base: www.vistabase.co.uk
> » This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and
> not
> of my employer, best friend, Ghandi, my mother or my cat. Glad we cleared
> that up!
>
> --: Original message follows :--
> "Andre Da Costa [Extended64]" <andred25@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:u14WznmWGHA.752@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

>
>

In Windows Vista though, the Windows Installer is version 6.0, which is also
reflection of the kernel also I guess. Its a wide jump from 3.1 to 6.0.
MovieMaker is also version 6.0.
--
--
Andre
Windows Connected | http://www.windowsconnected.com
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta

"AJR" <ajrjdr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eHRTYgnWGHA.1352@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

> No that it may have any bearing, however generally when you check the
> version by rt. click>properties>version - the number given is the version
> of the windows installer and not the version of the application.
>
>
> "Zack Whittaker" <admin@zacknet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:%23FSH4QnWGHA.748@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>
>

Just received my Vista DVD today. Is this the same version as the
downloadable one?
It says Beta 2 on the box, but it does not give version number.