NTFS or FAT32 ?

tonygunns

tonygunns

1
Hi I have a question that I'll put out there. Hope you all can help me:) I just reformatted my system. I was running XP Pro with the FAT32 file structure. This time I set it up as NTFS File structure. Was this a mistake on my part? Which is better? I don't know too much about either. Should I change back to FAT32 or should I leave it at NTFS? Thanks!

-tonygunns
 
kugmo

kugmo

1
NTFS has a compression option (saves space, and it's not like the compression used by Win9X), performance does not degrade over time unlike FATxx, and is more flexible compared to FAT in terms of security.
On the downside, an NTFS boot partition with a f**ked-up master boot record is a bitch to fix.
On my pc, i have set aside a small drive (10GB) as a FAT32 partition, mainly for the purpose of backing up and restoring my NTFS boot partition (have a compressed GHOST image on it).
 
A

adelies

1
NTFS has more security options than FAT32. But this is a trade-off issue if you consider the "disk performance" and "compatibility" with DOS or Windows 9x/Me.
 
sabio

sabio

1
If you install only windows xp is a good choise, as it's sayd above it allow more things to do that fat32, especially if you work with big video files. But the compatibility with fat32 or DOS may be a problem if you have in the same PC anohter OS, becouse you won't be able to acces to the NTFS format from DOS or Win95/98 but you can acces from ntfs to fat32.
 
tonygunns

tonygunns

1
So in the opinions here...is it okay for me to leave it as NTFS or should I redo the system in FAT32?

-tonygunns
 
sabio

sabio

1
I would leave NTFS if you will work only using winxp. You won't notice any diference to fat32 but you could take some extra advantages.
 
kugmo

kugmo

1
besides, "NTFS" sounds nicer than "FAT32". ;)


-------------------------------------
kugmo - the resident k-rad kewl awesome hAx0r d00d.
aka Idi0t.
 
tonygunns

tonygunns

1
Thank You everyone for your replys :) I thought maybe I made a mistake going to NTFS, but yes XP Pro is the only operating system I'm using. And NTFS does sound better then FAT32 :D

-tonygunns
 
S

shadoe_phantom

1
I have 2 machines on FAT32 & 2 on NTFS. Performance wise, there is hardly any difference. Security wise there isn't much either (with the right tweaks you can have fat32 as secure). However, as mentioned, it will be better for video (NTFS), though you do comprimise compatibility with a lot of other software & games.
But like they say, until it breaks on you, no need to switch.
Hope it works out for you.
Good luck
 
A

adelies

1
NTFS is great but its' disk performance is lower than FAT32.

x-bit labs
_hssp://www.xbitlabs.com/storage/ibm-vancouver-lp/
_hssp://www.xbitlabs.com/storage/promise-tx2000/

Article from Microsoft: Choosing between NTFS, FAT, and FAT32
Code: 
_hssp://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/using/productdoc/en/default.asp?url=/WINDOWSXP/home/using/productdoc/en/choosing_between_NTFS_FAT_and_FAT32.asp
 
K

KenL

1
I only recently (about a six weeks ago) went over to Windows 2000 with NTFS as my choice over Fat32. My sytsem crashes less and I never have a leakage problem anymore when I want to go to the internet and with Win98SE, I'd have to reboot at times to get to the internet.

I don't know if that is just Windows 2000 or NTFS that has something to do with it. I suspected that NTFS had something to do with it but that is just a guess and not backed up by any knowledge or facts.

I'd appreciate someone who knows for sure to set me straight.:confused:
 
S

shadoe_phantom

1
KenL it is windows 2000 actually, not the NTFS that has to do with it. Win9x fat is the pitts, alot different from winXP & win2k fat32 or ntfs.
The difference lies in how the OS manages the programs (win2k/xp manage things properly in memory, so easy to flush things out & therefore virtually no crashes), while win9x does not do this & that's why you have to hit ctrl+alt+delete & select the process to shutdown a few times before it will even react (most times even not very well).
However your choice is a good one (for win2K is much better than win9x/me *sorry joripe & others on Me lol)
 
dx

dx

1
Just a little geek talk ;)

NTFS: stands for NT Files System which was created back in the NT 3.1 days. NTFS has features to improve reliability and stability...such as transaction logs to help recover from disk failures. However, NTFS files are not accessible from other operating systems such as DOS (Win 9x doesnt really like it either).

M$ upped NTFS to NTFS 5.1 for WinXP which gives even greater reliability and stability. Here is a good article weighing the benefits and pitfalls of NTFS.

h**p://www.digit-life.com/articles/ntfs/index3.html


FAT32: File Allocation Table 32-bit. It is an enhancement of the File Allocation Table file (FAT) created back in 1977. FAT32 was updated for 32-bit operating systems and has been available since Win95 OSR2.

Oh, and yes there was a FAT16 that was used for 16-bit OS's like Win3.x. It was also on the first version of Win95. Technically it is the fastest file system, but its a BIG waste on file size. The effect on raw disk performance is about 5%. However, the overall impact on application performance is typically less than 1%. BTW, FAT16 is not dead though...your floppy disc uses it.
 
kugmo

kugmo

1
...and don't forget about cluster sizes. a file, say about 2K long, will take 8 to 16K of disc space on a huge FAT32 partition, but will take 2-4K on a similarly partitioned NTFS (hey, even ext2/3) disc. and that's not even considering the compression factor.
i've typically seen space savings of about 500MB for every 10GB of space for drives filled with ZIPs, MP3s and other supposedly compressed formats.

two cents from a two-bit database developer on a 64-bit machine.
 
dx

dx

1
Thunder Bolt said:
dxkim

I always thought floppy discs used a pre-historic fat system, known as fat12?
Click to expand...
Hmmm... I think to bring it into full DOS compatability it was moved to FAT16 around the time of Win95 (or was it 3.11). FAT16 gave you a little more format space, which was needed at the time as files were starting to get bigger and bigger. It hasn't changed since that time.

Remember when floppies were your only real backup medium?! Now you can get a 20Gig portable HD the size of a packet of cigs for about $125.00 (I have one great stuff). Hell even flash RAM pen drives are 1 Gig in size now. Ahh, how thing change ;)

I have a really good book about this...somewhere...

I could be wrong on this though ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top