Fat32 Vs. Ntfs
<div class="IPBDescription">pros and cons</div> So I'm getting ready to unclutter my HDD and reformat. Was talking to one of my clan members about various crap, and he suggested I format my HDD to FAT32.
He then told me all kind of crap about 64 bit OS over 32 bit HDD and vice versa blah blah blah.
Call me noob, but I was unaware that winXP 64 bit (pro I think?) could run on a FAT32 HDD.
So what are the pros and cons of running winXPpro on a NTFS HDD, and pros and cons of running it on a FAT32 HDD?
Thanks in advance!
He then told me all kind of crap about 64 bit OS over 32 bit HDD and vice versa blah blah blah.
Call me noob, but I was unaware that winXP 64 bit (pro I think?) could run on a FAT32 HDD.
So what are the pros and cons of running winXPpro on a NTFS HDD, and pros and cons of running it on a FAT32 HDD?
Thanks in advance!
Comments
boo hoo
But if you planning on sticking to Winblows and not get a better OS for a while, use NTFS. You can convert it to FAT32 when you decide to move on anway <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
The speed of FAT32 and NTFS is negligible I think, though NTFS may be a wee bit faster. I haven't noticed a difference myself though. So speed isn't a concern really.
Two major areas to think about are Security and Compatability.
Will you be sharing the drive on a network with Windows9x machines? They can't read NTFS at all, so if you are, you better format FAT32. While I hear that now Linux can finally write NTFS w/o completely borking it, I still wouldn't trust it yet as its a very very newly fixed thing, so if you're going to be using Linux then I wouldn't use NTFS either.
If you have any needs of extensive security (passworded files/folders) then go NTFS.
Another consideration is the size of the drive itself. Because Microsoft is a bunch of jerks and they want to push NTFS down your throat, they hardcoded WinXP not to format a FAT32 volume above something like 60GB. So if you have a 160gb HDD and you want a 120gb partition, tough luck. Again, this isn't a FAT32 limitation (so if you have a third party formatter, you can use it) but rather a stupid Microsoft one. Stupid heads.
I run NTFS on my drive because its so large FAT32 won't recognize its entire size and I didn't want to bother w/ hunting down a third party format utility.
stuff <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
He speaks from knowledge, not from conjecture or anti-windows fanboyism, GG.
I've deployed windows 95 > XP, including NT 4 and 2000, and perform a variety of computer services for all kinds of enterprise.
My advice is as follows:
<b>Security</b>
FAT32 offers very little security. Windows 98 was not designed for security; It was created to allow users that could not handle NT 4 (which was the current NT) to have an upgrade path.
NTFS (Or, New Technology File System) was designed for security. Under Windows 2000 Professional and XP Professional, you can excrypt files.
<b>Stability</b>
Fat32 is very flawed. For one, it offers no journeling. This means that, if you have a crash, you are far more likely to encounter lost clusters, among other things, as disk writes were never completed. Another flaw inherent within FAT32 is the logical (and by extention, physical) location of the FAT; 2 copies are located at the beginning of the partition, meaning that if some physical corruption effects one copy, there is a reasonable chance that it will effect the second copy. This is not as bg a deal since a FAT over 1 GiB will be over 1 MB, but it's still a consideration.
NTFS fixes these porblems with the MFT (Master File Table). Tradiitonally, the MFT is located in teh centre of the volume, which enhances access to it (since it's always half way between each part of the disk), and the filesystem is journeled. Microsoft uses the maturity of the journeling features as an arguement against Linux. (EXT3 is fairly recent compared to NTFS).
<b>Support</b>
FAT32 is supported in most operating systems, including later versions of DOS, Linux, Windows 95B+, and many other operating systems.
NTFS is not fully supported by many operating systems in it's full capacity. While Linux users use this as a claim that NTFS is inferior, this arguement is flawed, since NTFS will be supported, and is quite superior to FAT32 for the reasons outlined above.
If you don't intend to use Linux or Windows 9X, use NTFS.
<b>Performance</b>
FAT32 is theoretically faster than NTFS< since NTFS updates additional attributes, such as logs, time of access, security, etc. Most of these can be disabled via registry modifications.
NTFS is less likely to fragment, because it reserves 16 MB blocks for files, and tries to situate the larget files into clean 16 MB blocks. When it does fragment, it comes with a defragmentation utility created by Executive Systems called Disk Keeper (German editions of Windows XP may not include it, due to Executive System's ties to teh Church of Scientology).
<b>A note on Windows</b>
The Windows NT Line is 32 Bit. XP, in it's current form, is a 32 Bit OS, and a derivitive of NT code. Do not be told otherwise.
Windows Server 2003 is also 32 Bit.
Microsoft has a 64 bit version of Windows XP, which will fully support AMD's x86-64 instruction set. Stay tuned.
<b>A Note on WinFS</b>
WinFS is currently planned as an overlay on top of NTFS.
<b>Finally... A Disclaimer!</b>
I do not work at Microsoft, nor do I guarantee that I am correct on any of the above points. Hopefully this information was mostly correct, and assists you. If anyone sees a problem with a fact listed here, please correct it with a correct fact (As opposed to FUD <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).
If you have any needs of extensive security (passworded files/folders) then go NTFS.
Another consideration is the size of the drive itself. Because Microsoft is a bunch of jerks and they want to push NTFS down your throat, they hardcoded WinXP not to format a FAT32 volume above something like 60GB. So if you have a 160gb HDD and you want a 120gb partition, tough luck. Again, this isn't a FAT32 limitation (so if you have a third party formatter, you can use it) but rather a stupid Microsoft one. Stupid heads.
I run NTFS on my drive because its so large FAT32 won't recognize its entire size and I didn't want to bother w/ hunting down a third party format utility. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
What are your sources on this information? Windows 98 can read and write to NTFS <b>over a network</b>, for the same reason I can upload a file to a Linux based FTP server - One windows box connects to another, says "I want to put a file here", and the other says "OK, shoot!". The sending machine sends the file packet by packet, while the other reconstructs it packet by packet. The client never touches the file system directly. You don't see this, because Network Neighborhood is a neat looking SAMBA Client <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
The Fat32 limitation under most NT systems is 32GB, and is in place to prevent people from losing data because FAT32 is a stupid file system. There is practically ZERO data redundancy. Would you trust your life's writing in a duotang, or would you place it in a thick binder? If Microsoft is guilty for anything, it's over simplification.
Incidently, You can create a 120GB Partition using first party utilities such as the fixed Windows 98 FDISK (available on Microsoft's site).
As whimsy said, this would be true only if you're physically sharing the harddisk between computers (as in "moving the harddisk between computers all the time"). On networks, no difference is felt.
I've personally stuck to NTFS after converting an old harddisk to FAT and realizing that nothing worked. The disk was probably completely messed up and scratched to pieces, but the fact that NTFS worked without complaints and FAT messed up has left me sticking to NTFS for all windoze purposes.
<b>paranoid?</b>
get NTFS, it's more secure
<b>linuxmonkey?</b>
FAT32, it's compatible
<b>saving memoirs to harddrive?</b>
NTFS is more stable
<b>performance junkie?</b>
FAT16 is actually the fastest, but go with FAT32
(MonsE thinks that you should make a FAT16 partition for your pagefile, and he will ban you if you dont! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->)
<b>paranoid?</b>
get NTFS, it's more secure
<b>linuxmonkey?</b>
FAT32, it's compatible
<b>saving memoirs to harddrive?</b>
NTFS is more stable
<b>performance junkie?</b>
FAT16 is actually the fastest, but go with FAT32
(MonsE thinks that you should make a FAT16 partition for your pagefile, and he will ban you if you dont! <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
FAT16 will not officially support partition sizes over 2 GB (though many books about NT state that NT will support 4 GB FAT16 partitions, I've never personally tested this).
That said, well... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
My post contains absolutely no ill-gotten software-booty (Yarrr!). Besides, warez is slang.
It's also where I perform temporary hard disk backups for clients inbound <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
So win9x CAN read NTFS over a network share? I thought it couldn't....
hmm...
I remember there was some reason why file sharing is a pain in the arse w/ win9x and winnt mixed together...
Oh yeah, it was the login crap, that's what made it not work. heh. nevermind, I was wrong. :)
I have a 2.5 GB FAT16 partition. MonsE told me to make the page file 2.5 times the size of the amount of RAM I have! (I have a gig.)
Wow, thats crazy. I didnt know that software could be religiously censored (at least since the software itself has nothing to do with religion). I use the stand alone Disk Keeper, its a great defragger, but now I don't know. Scientologists make me uncomfortable.
6.22 for life!
6.22 for life! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hm. I wonder what the hell I've got on my bootdisk, then <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
6.22 for life! <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heh, I wonder about those freeDOS's
Well I'm currently trying to add linux to my home computing (not just at school). Can't wait to see how these file systems work, although working in a lighter desktop doesn't really provide a good comparison (XFCE is great). Go reiserfs!
FAT32, it's compatible <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Theres no reason you can't use NTFS here either. Just so long as you don't intend to write to it from linux (technically, you can write to it, but only in so far as modifying a file and not increasing its size).
So win9x CAN read NTFS over a network share? I thought it couldn't....
hmm...
I remember there was some reason why file sharing is a pain in the arse w/ win9x and winnt mixed together...
Oh yeah, it was the login crap, that's what made it not work. heh. nevermind, I was wrong. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Give the guest account permission to access the folder over the network, or login on the windows 98 computer with a valid login on the NT system, and it should send the required credentials to access the files on the volume. You should then be able to access the folder.
<b>Quick note on page files, since a few people in this thread have brought it up...</b>
Once you hit about 1.5 GB, it's generally not worth having a larger page file. I use a 1.95 GB pagefile as at times I deal with large amounts of data, but unless you actually use all your memory, you will actually see a performance boon with a smaller page file. On the other hand, Windows will use unused memory as Disk Cache.
If anyone can test it and report back, Windows is supposed to support "swap raid", which means that, if you have multiple physical disks, Windows can spread the swap file among them, and access them at different times, enhancing performance moreso than any number of optimizations. As I said, I have not tested the theory, but it has some credability, at least in theory.
FAT32, it's compatible <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Theres no reason you can't use NTFS here either. Just so long as you don't intend to write to it from linux (technically, you can write to it, but only in so far as modifying a file and not increasing its size). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That shouldn't be a problem much longer after a certain release of some source code from somewhere, I'm sure someone is looking at how that works.
FAT32, it's compatible <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Theres no reason you can't use NTFS here either. Just so long as you don't intend to write to it from linux (technically, you can write to it, but only in so far as modifying a file and not increasing its size). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That shouldn't be a problem much longer after a certain release of some source code from somewhere, I'm sure someone is looking at how that works. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anyone with any intelligence in the Linux community knows better than to touch that source code. Reverse engineering is legal and ethical. Stealing ideas from source code is not. If Linux code were infected with MS Code, then we would have another ****storm not unlike SCO.
Even Microsoft has strict policies about their engineers even looking at GPL'd code - They fear the potential that Linux code would indirectly leak all of Microsoft's assets (The "viral nature" of GPL, as they tend to call the effect).
edit: I feel partially guilty that this thread has fallen off track. I'll stop replying to posts that don't discuss the advantages of different file systems now <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo-->
FAT32, it's compatible <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Theres no reason you can't use NTFS here either. Just so long as you don't intend to write to it from linux (technically, you can write to it, but only in so far as modifying a file and not increasing its size). <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That shouldn't be a problem much longer after a certain release of some source code from somewhere, I'm sure someone is looking at how that works. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anyone with any intelligence in the Linux community knows better than to touch that source code. Reverse engineering is legal and ethical. Stealing ideas from source code is not. If Linux code were infected with MS Code, then we would have another ****storm not unlike SCO. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course they shouldn't copy the code, that'd be pretty dumb. But looking at how its done and coding your own solution would be pretty safe.