NTFS vs FAT 32

[phungilax]

I plan on loading windows xp soon and i have read that it works better with NTFS rather than fat 32. right now i am running fat 32 for windows me.

does this mean that i will have to fdisk to get into NTFS or can i just load XP onto the fat 32 partiton and it will do its deal.

any help is appreciated, thanks

[nodoze]

I can't say for sure about XP, but Win2K asks if you want to convert a FAT/FAT32 partition to NTFS during the installation.

FYI - NTFS is 10-15% slower than FAT32, but it will give you more security options & will eliminate running SCANDISK if you system gets shutdown improperly.

[phungilax]

Originally posted by nodoze
I can't say for sure about XP, but Win2K asks if you want to convert a FAT/FAT32 partition to NTFS during the installation.

FYI - NTFS is 10-15% slower than FAT32, but it will give you more security options & will eliminate running SCANDISK if you system gets shutdown improperly.

so theres really no advantage other than security?

[nodoze]

For some users (mostly businesses) NTFS's security options + the "stability" is more important than performance. For most home users NTFS is overkill.

If all your interested in is balls to the wall performance, FAT partitions are the fastest, FAT32 are slower & NTFS is the slowest of all.

[Visidex]

FAT partitions get really slow when working with very large amounts of files, or so I thought. Doesn't FAT32 also have a file size limitation of 2gig or something? May want to keep that in mind depending on what your doing.

[nodoze]

That is correct. I remember reading something about VERY large directory structures & performance. NTFS handles these better than FAT & FAT32. If you have thousands of files in 1 folder NTFS will work more effeciently than FAT/FAT32. As far as file size limitations, I think your right, but a 2Gig file is HUUUGE! I know some users may get some this big, maybe from video editing? So that may be a reason the go NTFS.

[mcennis3]

did you mean a hard drive limitation of 2gigs...or file size. Fat 32 allows for larger drives I believe Fat 16 is only 2 gigs.

[Jon]

Considering the overall efficiency and fact that it doesn't fragment a fraction of what FAT32 does, I'd have to say NTFS is a better choice.

Two fresh installs of XP, one on FAT32 and one on NTFS and after a week of gaming and ordinary use, I would guarantee the NTFS formatted drive is running better due to less fragmentation. Sure, you can just defrag your drive on the FAT32 rig to keep it up to par but I personally find it too time consuming.

I only need to defrag my systems, which all run NTFS, at most maybe once every month or two.

[rogerdugans]

Anything above 500mb will usually do better with NTFS.
I don't put fat32 on anything, and I'm not sure about it being faster than NTFS either, but I have no references to back it up.

It fragments less, handles just about any size file/drive and its stable. Go NTFS.

[mcennis3]

http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ntfs/index3.html

Has some answers as far as speed and which is best.

[Newbie_Doo]

NTFS also has more in-depth file security options. If you are planning to Dual-Boot, FAT32 is your only option if you need to access files on both partitions. Given a choice (and knowing you are going to dump ME) go with NTFS.

[twump]

NTFS has a file size limitation of 4GB. my old teacher found this out doing some video editing.

I would also say NTFS is better. alot more stable, secure then fat32. I only have to scandisk about 1once a month where as fat32 i ran scandisk about 5 times a day. and formatting, well I have bad luck with that because my hard drives are old and beat.

[Subzer0]

ok what about playing games etc in NTFS? eg counter strike online and like that? what limitations are there?
i will dual boot and its not important for me to be able to access the ntfs partition from 98 but you can still access fat32 files from ntfs so thats cool, so whats the deal with a gamer like me?
also in sisfot or an other benchmarking software do you score more or less in NTFS?
cheers :D
(sorry bout the bunch of Q's!):)

[rogerdugans]

NTFS is just a file system: doesn't affect games that I know of at all.
Look at it this way: if you have piles of paperwork you have to maintain from 3 different clients you built pcs for, you could- put it in 3 small piles on your desk (fat16), 1 Big pile on the desk (fat32) or 3 folders in a file cabinet (NTFS).

Would the way you stored the paperwork have any influence on the Superbowl?

If you get my drift.....

[Subzer0]

not bad you phylosypher! lol
i kinda get what you mean!

[Cooler666]

no one mentioned that you can't see NTFS partitions in Dos, so if you want to use Norton Ghost or need to visit Dos sometimes then stick with FAT32, and you can use Fdisk and Format from dos.

[Crash893]

ntfs eleminates the need for scandisk if your computer is shutdown improperly

it may cause some problems with games if the securitys are set werid

its slower but it lets you deal with much bigger hdd and its more effeshent ( more stuff stored in a small place with lest waste like fat)


i like ntfs becuase it keeps people out of my stuff

[It_The_Cow]

Originally posted by twump
NTFS has a file size limitation of 4GB. my old teacher found this out doing some video editing.Are you sure it's NTFS? I know FAT32 has such a limitation, and NTFS is supposed to have a 1tb limit, or so. I'll find out soon enough, though. I've got some marching band videos to capture

[Maddman]

Originally posted by Cooler666
no one mentioned that you can't see NTFS partitions in Dos, so if you want to use Norton Ghost or need to visit Dos sometimes then stick with FAT32, and you can use Fdisk and Format from dos.

There are utilities that let you access ntfs in dos. As far as fdisk and format are concerned you can fdisk a ntfs drive then you can format it .

[Bmxpunk86pl]

i didnt see an change in speed from fat32, im runnin win2kpro

[Maddman]

overall on new drives they are about the same speed but the ntfs is more secure and resists file system damage better. It is also easier to extract data from a damaged drive if ytou ever have to.

[MoPMatrix]

I'm not sure, but I think I've had bigger then 2GB files on my HD when riping videos.. usin 98se on FAT32....
So all those limitations could mean crap :P
But I dunno I could just be remembering wronge...

[Quaky]

Don't forget the NTFS block size... If the block size of your NTFS partition is 4kb, all the files smaller than 4kb will take 4kb. Eg. a file of 1kb will take 4kb on the partition. You can specify very small block size to deal with this but it affects the speed for larger files. The trick is to find a block size that works well for your type of files.

Personally I work with rather large HDD's and files (video editing and compression) and I can safely say that NTFS kix the crap out of FAT32. Add to this the improved security and data integrity and the choice is easily made. I expierienced no compatibillity issues. If the program tells you that Access is denied on a file, it's basically because you screwed up the security settings :D

[MoPMatrix]

Originally posted by Quaky
Personally I work with rather large HDD's and files (video editing and compression) and I can safely say that NTFS kix the crap out of FAT32

I agree it's much nicer when workin with large files...

[Malakai]

data integrity is a big thing. files almost never go corrupt on NTFS systems, where as on FAT32, they do it quite a bit more often.
also, fat 32's clusters get bigger with the drive size. NTFS makes them usually 4kb or so. a 60 gig HDD can have like 16kb clusters, so even small files like shourtcuts take up 16kb of space(very inefficient)
NTFS all the way here

[Genoide]

Guys am running Fat 32, and i notice how I have high FSB Settings and i don't have any type of corruption, planning on going WinXP... don't know, all my hardware is compatible... i don't know if I should... is it really worth it?

[MoPMatrix]

Originally posted by Genoide
Guys am running Fat 32, and i notice how I have high FSB Settings and i don't have any type of corruption, planning on going WinXP... don't know, all my hardware is compatible... i don't know if I should... is it really worth it?

I would go with NTFS if I were u =)
I use NTFS on my server,, it's great

[Genoide]

woops typo, what i ment to say is that i have ntfs already on win2k,... and i am thinking of going winxp, but i don't know if the switch is worth it?

[MoPMatrix]

I have XP on my server and thinkin about goin to 2k :P
I guess the saying "the grass is always greener on the other side of the road" is true :P

[Genoide]

Hahaha! 2k is great.

[cyberey66]

Originally posted by Genoide
Guys am running Fat 32, and i notice how I have high FSB Settings and i don't have any type of corruption, planning on going WinXP... don't know, all my hardware is compatible... i don't know if I should... is it really worth it?

I think it's the bad pci speeds that mess up your harddrive, so if you have good dividers you should stay stable. My computer gets abused a lot, so I'm the person that has NTFS and intel to increase stability and so I have less stuff to worry about. It depends on what you use your system for and what you are like. If you don't have any stability problems you can stay with your setup. Windows XP is a very great OS, but just be sure to have good hardware support. Some of my hardware doesn't have good support, but still the added stabilty of XP makes up for it. I remember having many many "improper shut-downs" when I first setup XP, but my harddrive stayed good for the most part. So if you play around and mess with your computer a lot then XP is a good choose. If you just use your computer to browse the net, and play games then Fat32 is fine.

[phungilax]

alright well i use three partitions which one of them is my operating system. can i make just that partition NTFS and the rest FAT32 so that my linux drive can reach the data?

When XP prompts me if i want to change over to NTFS does it only do it on that partition and not the whole drive?

[engjohn]

Originally posted by twump
NTFS has a file size limitation of 4GB. my old teacher found this out doing some video editing.


nope...

FAT:
Max volume size is 4GB, best at 2GB or lower
max file size 2GB

Fat32:
Max Volume size is 2TB but is limited to around 32GB in Win2k.
Max file size 4GB

NTFS 4.0 (NT4)
Max Volume size is 32GB
Max File size is 32GB

NTFS 5.0 (NT5 or win2k/XP)
Max volume size is 2TB
Max file size only limited my volume size


;)

[bdf24]

Originally posted by twump
NTFS has a file size limitation of 4GB. my old teacher found this out doing some video editing.

I do alot of video editing. I run Win XP or Win 2K (which ever one I've got installed at the time) with NTFS file system. I capture AVI's of 10 to 15 gigs or more quit often before I encode them. So that 4 gig limitation is not true.

[twump]

I could have sworn he said he was using win2k when he found the 4Gb file size limit. oh well he was a monotone and was extremely hard to pay attention to in class so i may have been mistaken