NFTS or Fat32? (sp?)

[xbiker321]

I am not quite sure if i spelled those right but what is the better choice when you install windows xp pro...NFTS or Fat 32. Is there any performance gain? What do these do for me? Please help me out ;)

I am using a W.D 80gb hard drive - 8mb cache

[WyrmMaster]

FAT32 is SLIGHTLY faster, not much, but NTFS is more secure, more stable, doesnt need to run scandisk after a bad shutdown, and needs to be defraged less. The performance difference is hardly noticable, and you will need to defrag FAT32 way more often to maintain that performance. Also, even with frequent defrags people report slow performance degradation with FAT32 that doesnt seem to happen with NTFS.

[ronin1967]

XP Pro likes NTFS more, and SP1 will give you nothing but headaches on FAT32, so again NTFS is the way to go. Unless you are running a dual boot rig and plan to do some file sharing. I agree with WyrmMaster, there is almost no performance difference and defrag works great on NTFS and leaves a lot to be desired on FAT32.

[flixotide]

wow... this is probably more religious than any other topic in computer software... at least when it comes to speed.

NTFS offers more integrated security with Windows 2K and XP...

Without getting over techy (because I have a splitting headache for 9 hours straight), I'd opt for NTFS any day, both concerning speed, stability, security and tweaking features .

FAT32 is very basic, and thus often easier to access in case you need to boot in DOS using funky utils.. but even they have NTFS support these days..

Choke FAT32... use NTFS

Cheers, Flix

[stereo555]

NTFS NTFS NTFS (you'll be GLAD you did) My.02 ;)

[TRANCER24]

NTFS <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< :burn:

[PYROMANIAC]

FAT16 !!!!!!!!!!!!!! :beer:

[CrashOveride]

what are the disadvatages to FAT16 (im assuming there are only bad things? (heh jk... and advantavges too):D :eh?: :D

i like NTFS cept the file sharing part.. it sucks

[lclark2074]

the way NTFS marks the drive it only lets peple with permishin to look at data that why it harder to file share its fore securte reasons it also makes it little slower ps fat 16 old made fore small drives fat32 is newer

[ninthebin]

NTFS does hold high over the ol' Fat32, on disk defrag it seems to analyze and actually carry out the defrag itself alot smoother and faster...it adds some funky options to folders (that I never use but its nice to know they are there)

I have also heard that the more you fill your drive the slower that Fat32 becomes, so all you with Uber filled Drives full of mp3s and what not you might wanna swap ;)

[1-Man-Army]

NTFS defrags faster too!

[craigiz1]

NTFS....Do it! NOW! :)

[CrashOveride]

gogogogogo now! NTFS NTFS NTFS!!! (the peer pressure is unbearable now huh?):D :eh?: :D

[xbiker321]

lol, ok guys. I just got my Sapphire Radeon 9700pro today. I am making some back up CD-R's right now so i will re-install Windows XP Pro with NTFS once i finish. Thanks for the info.

[BomberBear]

There is a way to do it in the dos prompt inside of XP... I mean change the Fat32 to NTFS. I can't remember the command but its probably something like "convert C: /NTFS" I know that isn't it but yeah you get the point.

BTW I did it this way the first XP install 1 of 20 or 30

[soundfx4]

Also NTFS uses smaller cluster sizes then FAT32. I noticed this when comparing the same file on a FAT32, and NTFS partition. So an NTFS can actually hold a little bit more data, Although probably not that much more. However if you computer ever fails to start up it is a pain to try and fix it since you can't access NTFS partitions with DOS, but there is a way with the repair console included with windows xp. Overall I would say Go with NTFS. Much more secure uses less space and just cooler :D

[ninthebin]

the command is "convert volume: /fs:ntfs"

close though ;)

[lclark2074]

Originally posted by soundfx4
Also NTFS uses smaller cluster sizes then FAT32. I noticed this when comparing the same file on a FAT32, and NTFS partition. So an NTFS can actually hold a little bit more data, Although probably not that much more. However if you computer ever fails to start up it is a pain to try and fix it since you can't access NTFS partitions with DOS, but there is a way with the repair console included with windows xp. Overall I would say Go with NTFS. Much more secure uses less space and just cooler :D
there a little file called ntsf fore dos witch shoud alow you to look at the ntsf in dos

[ArBiTaL 24]

If you have a system running on Fat32 (ugh!), then i belive there are programs to convert in to NTFS without having to format...

[ninthebin]

I said before...

the command is "convert volume: /fs:ntfs"

just do that in command prompt and your dandy

[ArBiTaL 24]

I've heard that that can corrupt data and/or files...
Is this not true? :confused:

[Tygur]

Go for NTFS.

Somebody mentioned that NTFS has smaller clusters than FAT32. I would like to mention that they are the same for partitions between 2 GB and 8 GB.

NTFS clusters generally will not be larger than 4 kilobytes, regardless of the size of the partition. You can force them to be larger if you want, but you won't be able to enable compression on the drive if you do. In FAT32, the larger you make the partition, the larger the clusters are. I believe this is because FAT32 can only have so many clusters.

Here is a table of cluster sizes for FAT32, taken from a Microsoft Knowledge Base article:
Partition size Cluster size
-------------------------------------
512 MB to 8,191 MB 4 KB
8,192 MB to 16,383 MB 8 KB
16,384 MB to 32,767 MB 16 KB
Larger than 32,768 MB 32 KB


As far as speed is concerned, a smaller NTFS partion will be faster than a larger one, because there would be less clusters. But I'm not completely sure how NTFS and FAT32 compare to each other in terms of speed. I would stick with NTFS just because of the waste FAT32 brings on.

[madman_sam81]

Only drawback to NTFS targets all you Win98 buffs. NTFS = 2K+

[madman_sam81]

I miss some stuff in 98 though.....being able to touch the autoexec.ini and config.sys for gods sake. 2K has renamed it some bs name and you cant touch the damn things!

I can do without almost half of the processes that execute on startup, yet I cant do a damn thing about it. :cry:

[ArBiTaL 24]

The solution?


Linux:cool:!

[Tygur]

Originally posted by madman_sam81
Only drawback to NTFS targets all you Win98 buffs. NTFS = 2K+
By 2K+, do you mean Win2K+, meaning that it's only available in Win2K and later? If so, I'd like to mention that NTFS started with WinNT, and each successive version of WinNT (including Win2K and WinXP) supported it and sometimes enhanced it.


Originally posted by madman_sam81
I miss some stuff in 98 though.....being able to touch the autoexec.ini and config.sys for gods sake. 2K has renamed it some bs name and you cant touch the damn things!

I can do without almost half of the processes that execute on startup, yet I cant do a damn thing about it. :cry:
autoexec.bat and config.sys were there because Win9X/ME were starting DOS first, then Windows. Any Windows processes weren't even being started from those files. WinNT/2K/XP don't use those files because they don't use DOS.

[ArBiTaL 24]

I miss DOS... :(

[ninthebin]

I converted 7 of my drives partitions to NTFS from FAT32 and no data corruptions or any problems in general...

[ArBiTaL 24]

Oh cool...
kudos to u :D

[AMDnitromike]

NTFS OWNZ FAT32 .... Go NTFS dude.

[ArBiTaL 24]

Originally posted by AMDnitromike
NTFS OWNZ FAT32 .... Go NTFS dude.

lol SO TRUE, SO TRUE ;)