FAT and/or NTFS???

[sangram]

Hi

I'm dual booting with Win2K Pro and Win98SE. I'm sort of comfortable using 98SE, because of its speed (98lite) and good framerates in games. 2k slows down games somewhat, I think it's because of single IRQ for both sound and video.

I also find for some strange reason 2K is better at other kinds of stuff, like is it my imagination or is text actually crisper in 2K? Also its core speed etc, and the fact that audio recording is best done in 2K.

Anyway, here's the thing. Both OSs are actually sharing the same (FAT32) partition: DriveC. There are a total of four partitions, D is for all programs including audio programs, compression and archiving utils, etc. E has only games loaded, including Need for Speed, Deus Ex and stuff. F is basically the basement, used for storing files, downloads, MP3s, etc.

1. Do I need to reformat the partitions to NTFS for optimum performance in 2K?
2. If I do so, will I be able to install 98Se on an NTFS partition?
3. If I convert all partitions to NTFS and leave the system partition in FAT (presuming 98SE requires a FAT partition only), will 98 be able to 'see' the other partitions?
4. Can I install programs meant for 98 on to NTFS partitions, will they install correctly and can 98 run them off those partitions?
5. Finally, what are NTFS advantages/disadvantages/limitations over FAT32?


Thanks for your time.

Sang

[Al Capone]

1) Yes (but the difference is not very significant)
2) No
3) No
4) Not all windows 98 programs will work in windows 2000, last one No
5) NTFS is more stable and will be quicker for bigger hard disks
NTFS partitions will not work in Dos and will not work with Windows 95/98/ME and will not be seen in them

[nodoze]

I did some testing when I first installed WIN2K.
First I installed 2K on a FAT32 partition & then benchmarked the hard disk.
Next, I reformated the hard drive as NTFS, reinstalled 2K & benchmarked again.

The results: 2K on NTFS was 15% SLOWER than 2K on FAT32.

[Al Capone]

that's really wierd because NTFS is usually a little bit faster, like on my machine, 15%? maybe you did something wrong or something overheated, well keep to FAT32 then

[nodoze]

No, everything was done correctly & nothing was overheating.
From what I've read, the decrease in performance is normal.
NTFS introduces alot of overhead that the processor has to deal with & that slows things down a bit. Of course, there are benefits to using NTFS that may, or may not, be worth the trade-off.

[sangram]

Thanks all

Guess I'm stayin with FAT then. I was readingup on the web about this, and I didn't get much help. You guys rock!!

Sang