| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 35006 | 2003-06-30 03:32:00 | FAT32 or NTFS? | hasco (2698) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 156304 | 2003-06-30 03:32:00 | If i do a clean install of XP pro which system should i pick? As in whats the difference ;in laymans terms ? ;-) I do a fair amount of video editing but no game playing. TIA Rick 800hz 128 ram 20 gig HD |
hasco (2698) | ||
| 156305 | 2003-06-30 03:40:00 | NTFS if you value security. Are you networked, do other people have access to the computer. Cheers Murray P |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 156306 | 2003-06-30 03:41:00 | ntfs gives you security benefit at the expence of compatability of some programmes. NTFS gives no performance benefit on drives under 40GB So if you're willing to cut off any older programmes and take a small performance hit for the sake of controlling access to your drive then choose NTFS If you want speed and compatability and to hell with access controll the go with FAT32 :) |
gerardkean (1765) | ||
| 156307 | 2003-06-30 03:45:00 | Some people swear by FAT32 because of it's DOS compatibility or because they've had trouble with NTFS . I haven't been caught out by NTFS (yet) so I just stick to that as it's the default . The benefits of NTFS is that you can use file permissions to not allow other users to access files . If the security isn't needed there is not really a lot of point in NTFS . *uses NTFS anyway* |
-=JM=- (16) | ||
| 156308 | 2003-06-30 04:00:00 | I would also recommend ntfs unless you want to access data from a Linux partition in which case Fat32 is easier but you are better off having your data on a separate partition anyway. | mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 156309 | 2003-06-30 04:22:00 | Fat file systems suffer from file fragmentation a lot worse than ntfs. Also the maximum file size for a fat file is 4gb where ntfs is unlimited. Also ntfs has a jounaling feature which means that it creates a journal of write operations to the disk before it writes to the disk. So if the machine crashes during a write operation, the filesystem is more likely to prevent data loss. After about an 8gb partition the fat32 file system also becomes increasing slower. On the other hand fat32 is compatible with almost every operating system, you can read ntfs in linux but writing support is not recommended. So ntfs is the better choice if your not using another operating system and want to write data to this partition as well. | rsnic (3780) | ||
| 156310 | 2003-06-30 11:13:00 | >Also the maximum file size for a fat file is 4gb where ntfs is unlimited. Actually there is still a limit but the average joe blow would never hit it. ( In almost a million years.) |
mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 156311 | 2003-06-30 23:42:00 | > Are you networked, do > other people have access to the computer. > Networking actually doesnt matter, as the OS acts as a gateway between the HDD and the Network, as the network communicates in an independant way! :-) If others are going to be using it, and/or you want Disk Quota management etc, then NTFS would be your best bet. If there's even a slight chance you'll use Linux sometime in the future, use FAT32 :-) Just remember NTFS is NOT DOS read-able by and large, so if your OS dies, and your FS is NTFS, you wont be able to suck the data off as easily :-) |
Chilling_Silently (228) | ||
| 156312 | 2003-07-01 04:22:00 | You can get ntfs drivers for dos but you cannot write to the disk with them. But you are correct dos will not read ntfs by itself. | rsnic (3780) | ||
| 156313 | 2003-07-01 05:27:00 | you can get ntfs dos drivers that are read and write capable but they cost $$. | tweak'e (174) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||