nfts or fat32???

Johnstar

New member
Could someone tell me if the fact that I have a fat32 fromatted HD changes somethjing in the fact that I can't burn dvds???
Thanks
 
If you are using the likes of AnyDVD,DVD Decrypter,DVD Shrink,DVD20ne, Nero, RNM etc., then you shouldn't find any limitations with FAT32. It certainly will not affect your ability to burn.

Nearly all of the easy click methods use files .... and these are normally only 1,048,574KB each, so when ripping, compressing and burning files, you will not get anywhere near the maximum filesize limit of 4gb.

If you intend to start authoring disks, with menus/creating images etc. and getting into more advanced things then it's possible that you will hit the size limitation.
 
I have burnt hundreds od DVDR's with a FAT32 system and never have any problems.

I am using Traxdata Ritek G04's and Windows XP Pro, with a dual boot system with W98se.

Trust me .... I'm a Doctor :D
 
Both FAT32 or NTFS will be fine. I have a 160Gb HD and I am using FAT32 becuase NTFS with windows xp only recognizes 134GB of my Hard Drive. If using NTFS on a Drive larger than 134GB i believe it is, you have to use an ATA Controller card in order to get the OS to recognize the entire drive. Anyway, I've burned 100's of DVD's on FAT32 and almost as many with NTFS and see no difference.
 
desavedo said:
Both FAT32 or NTFS will be fine. I have a 160Gb HD and I am using FAT32 becuase NTFS with windows xp only recognizes 134GB of my Hard Drive. If using NTFS on a Drive larger than 134GB i believe it is, you have to use an ATA Controller card in order to get the OS to recognize the entire drive. Anyway, I've burned 100's of DVD's on FAT32 and almost as many with NTFS and see no difference.
Do you have SP1 install, I thought they fixed that problem? :confused: See I have two 120GB and a 80 GB so I wouldn't know. Other than that I agree with The-poacher and lately I've been setup a lot of 80 or 120 cause so same good sales on them.
 
Last edited:
PC-GUY said:
Do you have SP1 install, I thought they fixed that problem? :confused: See I have two 120GB and a 80 GB so I wouldn't know.
Hey PC Guy,
I do have SP1 installed, and I spent a few hours trying to get that issue resolved, and gave up. Actually right now I'm on NTFS, but am not thrilled about losing about 20GB of space, so I'll be reformatting probably this weekend and going back to FAT32. There must be a way around this so that an NTFS partition can recognize over the 134GB , but I'm not sure how. However, i tried installing it as the primary drive and was going off a fresh format.
Possibly if i set the 160Gb drive as a slave, and had Windows XP SP1 installed on a temp Primary drive, I might be able to get it to load NTFS and recognize the entire drive, but have not had time to try that. I think i would have been better off buying a 120Gb drive just to bypass this problem.
 
@ desavedo: all that sounds like a bug in your BIOS... There is no reason at all not being able to setup a HD larger than 120G to one or more NTFS partitions. My VERY old Asus CUSL2-C mobo had no trouble setting up a single NTFS partition on a 200G Western Digital harddisk (I used the Mandrake 9.2 setup CD to make the partition).
 
Just saw that some IDE controllers, eg Promise TX100 won't support more than 137G per disk with their initial BIOS. But a BIOS upgrade should fix this issue.
 
serjer said:
upgrade ur BIOS as scarecrow suggested or @ worse make partitions smaller than 137 Gb

Hey all,
Yea, I have the Chantech 7NJS and am running the latest bios, but still doesn't recognize the drive as a 160Gb. I'm not sure what the deal is, but when i have time i'll toss in win98 bootdisk and check to see if i can make another partition or something. thx.
 
This is a new mainboard- it uses the Promise PDC20376 SATA/RAID controller, which ought to have absolutely no problems with harddisks up to 250 GB, at least. If you've set up a RAID array on that mobo, check out the stripe size- it might well be the problem.
 
Top