| 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 | ||
| 156314 | 2003-07-01 10:57:00 | I seem to remember posting about a free program just recently that can read an ntfs drive from dos. | mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 156315 | 2003-07-02 03:43:00 | norton ghost requires at least one fat32 partition onn the drive when you make an image. | gerardkean (1765) | ||
| 156316 | 2003-07-02 04:08:00 | The answer is "42" . Or "Yes" . FAT works . NTFS works . I don't think you'll very often have problems with a 4GB limitation on file size . I've been using computers since 1965, and I haven't ever had files that big . Most people don't . FAT will give fewer problems with DOS access . . if you do that . If you want to use Linux, FAT will be best (for a while . . . they are working on it) if you want to use Linux . But if you just want to use the damn computer, I'd just hit return or click "Continue" when it asks for decisions, and let the installer do its defaults . Most of the time, that will give a usable system . :D It's possible for "enthusiasts" to be carried away with all the things you can do to make the computer more efficient . You can spend hours playing (all right, configuring ;-), to save a millisecond every few days . :D |
Graham L (2) | ||
| 156317 | 2003-07-02 04:57:00 | Thats the only thing I personally have against NTFS is that if it turns to custard, there is a dire shortage of fix/recover software out there for NTFS compared to FAT32. As above I guess, everyone to their own, and what THEY want in/for their system. |
Pheonix (280) | ||
| 156318 | 2003-07-02 05:06:00 | >norton ghost requires at least one fat32 partition onn the drive when >you make an image. I can't go along with that one I'm sorry. I just finished making an image of the c: drive (NTFS) to the e: drive (NTFS) with no FAT32 drives in my system at the time. I use WinXP Pro as the O/S and Norton Ghost 2003 as the application. |
Elephant (599) | ||
| 156319 | 2003-07-02 05:34:00 | >You can spend hours playing (all right, configuring , to save a >millisecond every few days . I love that one . I actually CONFIGURE!!! Well that's my excuse anyway!!! I also use that sort of excuse when I want a hardware upgrade . (Tells Wife that her Works 6 recipe database with 15 records can't be read unless I get a $1000 video card) Nope . . . . She doesn't believe me either for which I can't blame her . I should have married a BLONDE . Don't bother replying as I'm heading for the garden to dig a bunker for the incoming . |
Elephant (599) | ||
| 156320 | 2003-07-02 10:35:00 | lol Elephant - I will try the same technique, i.e, mention to my partner that it's imperative we get a Radeon 9800 or Nvida 5900 to browse the net!! Worth a try anyway!! PF1 :-) |
PressF1 User (1065) | ||
| 156321 | 2003-07-02 12:10:00 | If you are going to be sharing stuff over a network you would use NTFS for security. Because you can allow/deny access to whoever, and also stop them from modifying stuff they shouldn't be. NTFS would be quicker in the long run, because it doesn't fragment as bad as Fat32. Hence you spend only 2mins defragging your drive rather than 2hours with fat32. Also NTFS is quicker because with Fat32, windows is constantly maintaining the File Allocation Table. Which means the heads have to constantly go back and keep writing the FAT. Well thats what I understand of it anyway. Linux, not really an issue with NTFS. Sure you can't write to it (yet) but you can read from the partiton, and if necessary copy the stuff from the ntfs to linux as a backup, then reinstall windows. :) Just make sure you haven't encrypted the files using the Windows built in encrypter. You won't ever get your files back? :). My advice: Make your OS partition NTFS, make a separate partiton for a swap file in NTFS, make another partition in NTFS for program installs. Then make a fat32 partiton for all your mission critical data :) |
PoWa (203) | ||
| 156322 | 2003-07-02 23:26:00 | > lol Elephant - I will try the same technique, i.e, > mention to my partner that it's imperative we get a > Radeon 9800 or Nvida 5900 to browse the net!! Worth a > try anyway!! > PF1 :-) Oh.. For all those highly graphical-intensive Flash Animations that PressF1 run.. right!?! |
Chilling_Silently (228) | ||
| 156323 | 2003-07-02 23:56:00 | if your doing video editing then the 4gig limit of fat32 will potentially hit you sooner or later,althogh i see you are running a 20 gig which isn't big enough to handle big video files. But if in the future you get a bigger hd and do some large captures then ntfs will be a godsend. |
metla (154) | ||
| 1 2 3 | |||||