Filesystem FAT32 or NTFS

L

lykke

New member
Which filesystem is best to use ? FAT32 or NTFS, I need to partition my 80GB harddisk up in four partition for some pictures
 
big_gie

big_gie

1
lykke said:
Which filesystem is best to use ? FAT32 or NTFS, I need to partition my 80GB harddisk up in four partition for some pictures
Click to expand...
NTFS is the way to go.
period
:p

NTFS isn't perfect. Like if you boot you computer from a floppy, you cannot access your drive, except with special program like NTFSDOS pro (http://www.winternals.com) witch is great but expensive... I think some linux boot CD can access NTFS drive...

FAT32 is the old windows 95/98 not-efficient way of doing things. NTFS is the windows 2000-XP professionnal way of doing the same thing.

In terms of speed, I'm not sure if there is really a difference...

For security NTFS is the only option: you can encrypt your data, if your computer crash, you don't loose your data like on FAt32 (remember the "Your computer didn't shut down correctly, please run scandisk" and after this you get plenty of SCAN000 files?)

You're the jugde :)
 
serjer

serjer

1
totally agree :)
ntfs is much better than fat32 or fat16,with enhanced file security...if u're gonna use win2k or winxp ,the rite choice is ntfs...
;)
 
P

plextorman

1
Yup-But FAT32 is somewhat faster than NTFS under Windows XP,though less economical due to cluster sizes.But look at the extra benefits NTFS has to offer.No contest! So it`s gotta be NTFS! :)
 
L

linhthao

1
If you have a dual-boots system with one of them is a previous version of windows (98/ME) then there is a point you should know that the NTFS partition will not be recognized.
Other than that NTFS is the way to go.
Just my 2 cents.

linhthao_____________
 
S

scarecrow

1
plextorman said:
But FAT32 is somewhat faster than NTFS under Windows XP...
Click to expand...
That is not true. FAT32 should be not faster at all than NTFS.
The only case that you might encounter some NTFS sluggishness is at an old puter will little oomph, where a couple more of services that run at startup when NTFS is used can affect the puter performance- hardly feasible to anything better than PIII 500 with 192 MB of RAM.
And of course if you have a big HD with plenty of small files (e.g. large databases) then NTFS with the indexing service active should be WAY faster than FAT32, even on old, slow machines!
 
Last edited:
stimpleton

stimpleton

1
Just to add
if you go for video editing you will need NTFS as it can manage file sizes larger than 4gb, fat 32 has a 4GB limit
 
P

plextorman

1
scarecrow said:
That is not true. FAT32 should be not faster at all than NTFS.
The only case that you might encounter some NTFS sluggishness is at an old puter will little oomph, where a couple more of services that run at startup when NTFS is used can affect the puter performance- hardly feasible to anything better than PIII 500 with 192 MB of RAM.
And of course if you have a big HD with plenty of small files (e.g. large databases) then NTFS with the indexing service active should be WAY faster than FAT32, even on old, slow machines!
Click to expand...
Sorry,scarecrow,Some good points you made there,but basically I think you are incorrect.On a "level playing field",i.e. NTFS indexing service (and so on..)off-this is one of the advantages of NTFS we mentioned-(One of the many reasons I`d choose NTFS over FAT32!) and identical components and XP installations-the NTFS system loads data (i.e. programs) SLOWER than a FAT32 system.Try it and see..Don`t get me wrong,I`m not trying to promote FAT32 over NTFS..Far from it..I`m an NTFS man-It`s a wonderful thing to have! :)
 
big_gie

big_gie

1
plextorman said:
Sorry,scarecrow,Some good points you made there,but basically I think you are incorrect.On a "level playing field",i.e. NTFS indexing service (and so on..)off-this is one of the advantages of NTFS we mentioned-(One of the many reasons I`d choose NTFS over FAT32!) and identical components and XP installations-the NTFS system loads data (i.e. programs) SLOWER than a FAT32 system.Try it and see..Don`t get me wrong,I`m not trying to promote FAT32 over NTFS..Far from it..I`m an NTFS man-It`s a wonderful thing to have! :)
Click to expand...
I think we are arguying over something that clearly just computer pros-geek can see... Even myself, I never a difference of speed between those... but more: I don't care...:p
My father think that our Pentium 166MhZ is pretty fast...:) I'll never talk to him about FAT32 or NTFS; I just put NTFS and thats it...:)
 
P

plextorman

1
big_gie said:
I think we are arguying over something that clearly just computer pros-geek can see... Even myself, I never a difference of speed between those... but more: I don't care...:p
My father think that our Pentium 166MhZ is pretty fast...:) I'll never talk to him about FAT32 or NTFS; I just put NTFS and thats it...:)
Click to expand...
@big_gie Yes-you`re right-Who really cares anyway?..XP with NTFS offers the home user the advantages of Windows NT blended with the advantages of M$`s
more mainstream OS`s-that`s good for almost all of us... :)
 
P

plextorman

1
Big_gie-Hehe,the first link`s got better stuff on it but at least the second link`s stuff`s free! LOL
But NTFS read only for 95/98 (And not forgetting the latest and greatest (discounting XP/2K,of course..)(but only if you`ve got it configured correctly.. ;) )-Windows Millennium (ME)!! LOL..
BUT READ ONLY NTFS..I`ve said this for years about it...WHAT`S THE B****Y POINT? :D
Another nice site found though-Nice one big_gie... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top