|
|
|||||||
| About Us | Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
General of Tangerines
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Defending the Sea
Posts: 3,885
|
Currently I have three paritions that uses the FAT32 file system. (The main parition is on NTFS for my Win XP Pro OS)
In the past with Win 9x, if the operating system messed up I could always insert a DOS boot disk and access my drives this way. Of course with NT OS you can't do this in the same manner. I have been using Win XP Pro for months now and I'm thinking covering more of my paritions to NTFS. Do you guys recommend the NTFS over the FAT32? If so why? |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
邪魔ゎ指せない
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Gosport, England
Posts: 26,255
|
I use NTFS on all my drives, simply as I don't use a Win98 boot on this machine.
NTFS is faster, less prone to fragging, can handle larger drive sizes and appears to be less prone to data loss. It also supports on-the-fly compression (in Fat you have to use Diskspace which is a real chore and causes innumerable problems) and encryption. If XP fecks up on me, I just call my system partition (6 gigs) a dead loss. My machine is set up in such a way that as long as I don't break my other partitions, my essential data, favorites, stored forms, passwords, etc are all saved when I re-install.
__________________
![]() >Site Live< Pop over to my site for help with setting up PSX emulators. Help for the Final Fantasies and other RPGs avalaible Celes: (Desktop) Athlon 64 X2 4200+, 2Gb 400MHz DDR Ram, MSI K8N Platinum, GeForce 8800 GTS 320Mb, 500Gb RAID HDD, Vista Business Erika: (MCPC) Athlon XP 2400+, 1Gb 400MHz DDR Ram, geForce 6800 256Mb, 80Gb Hdd, XP 2005 MCE Kimiko: (Desktop 2) Athlon 64 3000+, 512Mb 400MHz DDR Ram, Asus K8V, geForce 6800 128Mb |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 (permalink) |
|
Experenced But New User
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: United States of America
Posts: 865
|
My comp at home is runnin Win XP home. When for some reason, after failing to install an HP printer, Win XP would no boot up, even in safe mode. I was freekin out beacsue all of my HomeWork was saved on it. I slapped in a Win98 boot disk, formated a small partion on my 120gb HD and installed Win98. Using some random program I found on the web which allowed me to access NTFS formated drives in win98, I copyed my imported them on to the FAT32 partion. Then over the lan backed them up on my dad's comp. This let me compleatly format the entire drive and reinstall windows perfectly. I did not loose one importent file, but never tryed to install that printer again...
__________________
MY PC!!!! Intel 2.44 ghz // Intel Desktop Board D845PEBT2 (533MHz FSB) // 1GIG DDR PC2700 (NEW) // 120 gig Western Digital HD // 8x DVD+/-R 4x DVD+/-RW Burner (NEW) // 48x15x48 CD-RW // ATI Radeon 9800 Pro 128mb // USB 2.0 // Firewire (soon) // 6 Channel Digital Audio // Serial ATA //
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 (permalink) |
|
Emulation Junkie
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 731
|
ntfs has never given me any problems....even recovered pretty much all my important files after an accidental format and only had about 3 small files corrupt on me.
__________________
Current Specs: AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ Manchester/ 2 GB Corsair PC3200 Ram / DVD-RW DL Light Scribe / Lite-On SOHW-832S DVD+-RW DL / 200 Gig Samsung HD / 250 Gig Maxtor HD / Nvidia GeForce 7600GT 256 MB PCI-E / Creative SoundBlaster Audigy2 ZS Bruce Almighty: How do you make someone love you without affecting free will? God: Good Question. If you find the answer to that, let me know.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 (permalink) |
|
The Handsome Man
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Unlucky Place
Posts: 881
|
it seems like FAT32 perform faster on smaller size of HDD than NTFS, but I wonder a 40GB HD is consider small or large...
http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm
__________________
PROCESSOR: AMD Athlon 64 3000+ @1.8Ghz RAM: Kingstone 512MB PC3200 MOBO: ECS Nforce4 A939 VGA: Pixelview Geforce 6600GT (Golden Limited Edition) 128MB OS: WinXP pro Service pack 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 (permalink) |
|
Open Source Zealot
![]() ![]() Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 190
|
The subtle point being made is that neither Windows FS is particularly well designed and frankly any well informed person wouldn't take either of them seriously. Both are just as big an unnecessary risk with your data.
But hey. It's your data. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 (permalink) | |
|
de-vowel'd
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Холандија
Posts: 1,499
|
FYI, there are more people using these filesystems without a problem than there are *nix users on a global scale. As for NTFS and FAT not being well-designed, these are proprietary and anything but open, making their only disadvantage that you don't even know how it was designed. If you mean performance-wise, there are better ways to convince people than by just saying that something is. References help for people who have never tasted both sides.
Kethinov, there are people who consider some of your posts flamebait in an anti-microsoft kind of way. If you want to come across as helpful, then providing credible sources/references for your claims would help you achieve that. As a fellow member, I ask you to keep excessive windows-bashing to yourself unless asked for. I ask you this, because I am a well-informed (and formally educated) user who enjoys the best of both worlds. You are implying that I am not. EDIT: Quote:
__________________
Signed, --"Not young enough to know everything."
Last edited by Grv; January 7th, 2005 at 10:10. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 (permalink) | |
|
Open Source Zealot
![]() ![]() Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 190
|
You call that a well informed statement? NTFS and especially FAT have been in existence for many years; plenty of time for anyone to know exactly how they were designed. In fact, both filesystems have been reverse engineered. You can even write to them from unix systems with a proper configuration.
That said, I know exactly what I'm talking about when I say the filesystems are crap--because they are. NTFS sucks and FAT32 sucks more. Make your choice accordingly. Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 (permalink) | |
|
General of Tangerines
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Defending the Sea
Posts: 3,885
|
Quote:
Can you give me some source information that proves that EXT3 is better than NTFS? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 (permalink) | ||
|
Wind, Life, Eternity
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: El Monte
Posts: 1,331
|
Quote:
![]() Quote:
All these people who just say something's crap but they don't know why themselves .
Last edited by WindHydra; January 7th, 2005 at 03:57. |
||
|
|
|
|
|
#13 (permalink) |
|
邪魔ゎ指せない
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Gosport, England
Posts: 26,255
|
Will you all STFU.
Keithinov: This isn't about Linux. He asked which was better FAT32x or NTFS. He didn't ask for your 2 penneth on why Linux is better, so just can it. It's not relevant and thus is essentialy SPAM.
__________________
![]() >Site Live< Pop over to my site for help with setting up PSX emulators. Help for the Final Fantasies and other RPGs avalaible Celes: (Desktop) Athlon 64 X2 4200+, 2Gb 400MHz DDR Ram, MSI K8N Platinum, GeForce 8800 GTS 320Mb, 500Gb RAID HDD, Vista Business Erika: (MCPC) Athlon XP 2400+, 1Gb 400MHz DDR Ram, geForce 6800 256Mb, 80Gb Hdd, XP 2005 MCE Kimiko: (Desktop 2) Athlon 64 3000+, 512Mb 400MHz DDR Ram, Asus K8V, geForce 6800 128Mb |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|