Talk:Windows Resource Protection

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 Windows: Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows 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.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Also, Windows File Protection required a considerable amount of disk space to maintain cached versions of the protected files, which Windows Resource Protection does not require.

That is not true because the amount of protected files in Vista is larger than older versions.

Check out the WFP directory size for yourselves.

Yes, that's correct but Windows File Protection required space because of the requirement to maintain a cache of all files. The size and number of files in Vista being more by design makes it take up much more disk space but that is not due to Windows Resource Protection. Btw, which directory are you referring to under Vista when you mean "check out the WFP directory size for yourselves"? :) Because there is no Dllcache folder under Vista. AFAIK, Vista seems to store cached versions in %Windir%\WinSxS and mixes it with the side by side DLLs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.128.181.60 (talk) 07:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File change notification usage[edit]

I don't believe Windows Resource Protection uses file change notifications at all. This is what the former solution (Windows File Protection) must have been doing, but Windows Resource Protection probably does not need to. The protection should be based on restricting the access in the first place by the limited file permissions.

Also, when testing under Windows 7 (which should be using the Windows Resource Protection the same way Windows Vista did) I could not detect any activity from the OS after I renamed or even deleted a protected file (on the live system too – with the (ab)use of administrator's privileges to bypass the ACLs, of course ;-) ). No renamed or deleted files were replaced and no Event Log entries were logged about the corruptions I created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JITR (talk • contribs) 23:14, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]