FAT32 or NTFS??


(@ce) #1

the reason is because I’m gonna format my harddrive soon, just to begin on a clean sheet again. I’m running on Windows XP and I would really like to know all ur oppinions about the both systems!!

please…react :smiley:


(Pablosbrain) #2

Use NTFS. It will perform better and allows you to have larger files. Fat32 I believe has a limit at files being under 2 gigs… and for animation files… well… once you string them into a video… they can get quite large for uncompressed video.


(Timothy) #3

I would say use fat32 for now.

NTFS is alot better, however if anything happens to your computer you won’t be able to access your files (easily that is).

If you however don’t care about this or make regular backups than I would say go NTFS.

Another solution would be to simply make 2 partitions, 1 partition big enough for windows XP (say 1 to 2 gb) and 1 partition for all your programs, files etc. Make them both NTFS so that if something does happen to your computer,… you can always still install anything on your first partition without losing data on your 2nd.

Greets,
Timothy


(@ce) #4

I allready have 2 partitions…and by the way…2 gigs is no way enough for windows and other standard files…you need at least 15% free space each partition, to work smoothly
but thanks Kib…

I think I’m doing NTFS then…
is it also faster then FAT32?


(Eric) #5

I think I’m doing NTFS then…
is it also faster then FAT32?

I believe it’s slower than FAT32, not much but it is. But then again, NTFS is the better one. I use fat32 to get full access from linux.


(acasto) #6

Here is the deal:

NTFS is faster on big drives and partitions, FAT32 is faster on smaller ones.

NTFS is I believe a little more stable compared ot FAT32

However FAT32 is more cross compatible, say you wanted to access your windows from a linux partitions, FAT32 is fully supported where with NTFS read-only is the only safe thing.

If you plan to only use windows (no other OSes) and have a single big drive, I would go with NTFS. However, if it is an older system and/or has a smaller driver or partition, use FAT32.


(dmoc) #7

It’s a while since I touched NT (hence NTFS) but I think you get more access control over files and directories (important if other people use your machine) and you don’t have to worry about defragg’ing. I have little practical knowledge of XP after deciding never to go near it while MS continue down the same road re licencing issues.


(acasto) #8

Oh ya, one more thing, NTFS does offer better control like dmoc says. You can have file permissions and such where FAT32 dosn’t support it.

I know what you mean dmoc about the licensing issue. One thing that startled me about XP, was that big hole in the remote connection thing that you should be able to hook home appliance up to in the near future. That’s would be the last thing we need is hackers able to do laundry and cook stuff from their computer.


(Eric) #9

and you don’t have to worry about defragg’ing.

That’s wrong, NTFS does fragment your data more than FAT32. It’s one of the bad things with NTFS.


(Timothy) #10

2gb is more than enough for windows ace
I have it running here aswell.
I install all my programs and games etc on my 2nd partition


(basse) #11

ext3


(S68) #12

Partially true… in FAT32 you have NO CONTROL AT ALL :slight_smile:
while with NTFS you have control which is even more versatile than UNIX one… being able to specify access on a user basis even for multiple users…

Wrong

NTFS gets fragmented and it slows down a lot when fragmented.

Stefano


(kevin3d) #13

Acosta,

I’m thinking of building a win2K/linux box from available pieces. Here is a possible config:

(1) BOOT DISK: 10gig

  • 6 gig (NTFS): Win2K & applications
  • 4 gig (?): Linux & linux apps

(2) STORAGE DISK 1: 6 gig ATA (FAT32)

(3) SWAP/STORAGE DISK 2: 4gig SCSI (FAT32)

So this would allow me to acess disk 2 & 3 when running Linux?