Ntfs less coruptable?

[grindee]

I have a 40gig maxtor harddrive, and its fat32 format, and it seems to have corrupted after i put my fsb to 180, is ntfs better and less coruptable? mmkay thank you.

[Ridenow]

My understanding is that corruptions have more to do with environment. What is arround the computer, how it is shealded and what it is being used for. My experiance is that FAT and NTFS are about the same as far as corruption. I had a Win2000 install go bad on me yesterday:mad:

[grindee]

after i put the fsb to 180, i got a blue screen o'death, so i put it back to stock 133x10.5. It seems to have started after the 180fsb. When i turn on my comp now, the windows xp loading bar starts moving back and forth, then a strange thin green line flashes across the screen, and the hd light turns off. Thats when it freeze...... :P. I think imma have to reformat, ill prolly try ntfs. oh btw, i read that fat32 is only good for up to 32gb hd's and ntfs is for anything up to 2terabytes, is that true?

thanks.

[TheDS]

Your size comparison is pretty good; FAT32 might be good for bigger drives than that (like 180?) but won't come near NTFS limit.

NTFS is supposed to also be stabler, faster, and all-around better. Plus, you can set file-permissions to limit/prevent some forms of hack-attacks, and you can have transparent compression on your files; no WinZip needed (but WinZip is still tons better for archiving).

For the paranoid of you, NTFS also supports file encryption, such that only the creator of the file can ever access it. Of course, if your password is "password" (or something else really simple), count on getting hacked in short order if you have reason to be paranoid.

I've had fewer files go corrupt with NTFS, but the downside is that occasionally the file permissions get in the way if you have multiple people using the same computer, or if you're on a network. It's an inconvenience, not a show-stopper, and a minor one at that. You should NEVER use the "Everyone" group (which is the default), because then ANYONE can log into your computer and access those files. FAT32 is even less secure than that.

Be careful when changing permissions on your C: drive. I found out the hard way that if you accidentally deny read access to the wrong things to the wrong accounts, you can no longer boot, and you can't fix the problem without deleting the partition, and you can't recover any files either. The important stuff seems to all be in the Winnt folder, and the root directory. You want your valid users to have read-access to those. I haven't dug deeper yet, cuz I'm having some other, more important problems atm.

[miketay89]

I am using ntfs but to no avail, as I have had to format my Maxtor 40G twice now due to file corruption.

[bdf24]

I've had file curroption on both Win98, and WinXP or 2K. But I must say it was much more while running win98.

[PhobMX]

file corruption isnt a matter of file system or fsb, well, partialy. The thing that really corrupts data is hot memory, my crap ram corrupted my ntfs winxp partition at only 175mhz fsb and agressive timings, while my cpu doesnt give out a glitch of unstability at default vcore. So just get quality ram and dont exceed 38MHz in PCI bus, it will go smooth.

[mbentley]

Originally posted by grindee
I have a 40gig maxtor harddrive, and its fat32 format, and it seems to have corrupted after i put my fsb to 180, is ntfs better and less coruptable? mmkay thank you.

if you get a bsod after an overclocking, it is possible that some data was corrupted due to the system halt. that is most likely what caused that, but technically speaking, i have not seen any difference between the two when it comes to corruptability. both seem to be able to become corrupt so i don't see much of a difference. personally, i had my drives in ntfs for a long time and i just recently updated them to dynamic just because i can...