NTFSxFAT32

[o770]

which one is better?
thanks.

[UnseenMenace]

NTFS apparently features better security and fragments less, however I personally think that Win2000 is more lively on FAT

[RED Hot Machine]

I personally found that win2k was faster using NTFS. If you can try it with both and see which one you prefer.

[Vryce]

win2k should run better on NTFS, as win2k is nt...but remember that NTFS can be very secure (and you can give yourself problems accidentally)

also, no boot disks will work without ntfsdos (annoying)

also..if you ever decide to dual boot, linux can read/write FAT, but can only read ntfs (it can write it, but that's VERY unstable)
also, other windows OS (non nt) will not be able to read your drive(w/out ntfsdos), if you ever decide to put your computer on a network..

That said, I personally use NTFS because I'm a security freak, and FAT32 is unsecure and inefecient...

they both fragment horribly

[o770]

i found that relating to performance:
http://www.zdnet.com/zdhubs/stories/special2000/0,9968,2426073,00.html