FAT32 vs. NTFS

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

For 30 and 40 gigabyte multi-partition hard drives, is there any advantage to
using FAT32 vs. NTFS?
 
FAT32 only if accessibility needed for non-NT based OS'es.
Otherwise, NTFS would always be the preferred File System.
 
Today Alias attempted to dazzle everyone with this profound
linguistic utterance
Forget about FAT32 forever.
Click to expand...
besides the 4 gig limit on file size, why do you say that? fat32
is noticably faster to access a folder tree and measureably
faster on disk transfer rate.
 
Today R. McCarty attempted to dazzle everyone with this
profound linguistic utterance
FAT32 only if accessibility needed for non-NT based OS'es.
Otherwise, NTFS would always be the preferred File System.
Click to expand...

why, exactly?
 
As to speed variances, I've tested and found that overall you'll
only see a 2-3% in FAT32's favor.
The following is a little dated, but gives a good overview of the
points in NTFS' favor:
http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=63
**In a upcoming version of Windows, NTFS will be the only
option for File System on the System partition.
 
All said:
Today Alias attempted to dazzle everyone with this profound
linguistic utterance

besides the 4 gig limit on file size, why do you say that? fat32
is noticably faster to access a folder tree and measureably
faster on disk transfer rate.
Click to expand...

And painfully slow to defrag. I prefer NTFS. YMMV.

Alias
 
Really, I've never heard of this, disk read/writes is taken care of by the
O/S so the file system should be transparent to pretty much all
applications.
 
Today Alias attempted to dazzle everyone with this profound
linguistic utterance
And painfully slow to defrag. I prefer NTFS. YMMV.
Click to expand...
I don't defrag my FAT32 partitions, I simply copy them to a temp
folder on another drive and quick format the whole shebang, much
faster all the way around, and yes indeedy, MMDV! <grin>
 
All Things Mopar said:
Today R. McCarty attempted to dazzle everyone with this
profound linguistic utterance


why, exactly?
Click to expand...

Security for one! FAT32 has no way of securing files between one user and
another, NTFS has file permissions and EFS. Quotas & auditing for 2, you
can't set quota limits or audit file ownership on FAT32. Functionality for
3, NTFS supports much larger disk sizes, also supports volume mount points.

I agree with R. McCarty, now a days, I see no reason to use FAT32 on a
single boot XP system. Only time I would use FAT32 is between a dual boot OS
where the other OS doesn't support NTFS. Even then I'd use NTFS for the boot
partition, and FAT32 for a second data partition.
 
Today R. McCarty attempted to dazzle everyone with this
profound linguistic utterance
As to speed variances, I've tested and found that overall
you'll only see a 2-3% in FAT32's favor.
The following is a little dated, but gives a good overview
of the points in NTFS' favor:
http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=63
**In a upcoming version of Windows, NTFS will be the only
option for File System on the System partition.
Click to expand...

the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I, too have
benchmarked FAT32 vs NTFS and SP1 vs SP2. Variences from
standardized test suites show less variance than seen in real-
world situations, much as lab test of max speed for a broadband
connection vary, and performance of any physical HD varies
considerably from what the manufacturer claims in their specs,
which are just so much bullshit as to be totally meaningless.
 
Today attempted to dazzle everyone with this profound
linguistic utterance
Security for one! FAT32 has no way of securing files
between one user and another, NTFS has file permissions and
EFS. Quotas & auditing for 2, you can't set quota limits or
audit file ownership on FAT32. Functionality for 3, NTFS
supports much larger disk sizes, also supports volume mount
points.
Click to expand...

First, SP2 has no more security than did SP1 in this regard,
but it really doesn't matter in a single-use environment, that
used by the vast majority of XP users outside corporate IT
houses. Add to that the simple fact that "microsoft security"
is in the same class of oxymoron as "military intelligence" or
even the TLA "MAD", used during the Cold War, which was itself
a 3-word oxy - Mutually Assurred Distruction.
I agree with R. McCarty, now a days, I see no reason to use
FAT32 on a single boot XP system. Only time I would use
FAT32 is between a dual boot OS where the other OS doesn't
support NTFS. Even then I'd use NTFS for the boot
partition, and FAT32 for a second data partition.
Click to expand...
I use NTFS for my primary partitions and for one of my two
data partitions, primarily to get greater-than-4-gig file
sizes, not for performance, which is best described in my many
years of experience as "dismal".

But, as another said, YMMV. Cheers!

--
ATM, aka Jerry

"Rule breakers are always one step ahead of rule makers" -
Bert Sisson, referring to competition in 196x Mobil Gas
Economy Runs
 
JS said:
Older Applications may not support NTFS.
Click to expand...


No, the file system used is transparent to application software. Only disk
utilities need to be able to handle particular file systems.

The only exception to that is some older software (primarily games) which
accessed the hardware directly, rather than through Windows. But since such
applications can't run under Windows XP, regardless of file system, that
exception is irrelevant here.
 
Abraham said:
For 30 and 40 gigabyte multi-partition hard drives, is there any advantage to
using FAT32 vs. NTFS?
Click to expand...


Personally, I wouldn't even consider using FAT32 when NTFS is an
option. FAT32 has no security capabilities, no compression
capabilities, no fault tolerance, and a lot of wasted hard drive space
on volumes larger than 8 Gb in size. But your computing needs may vary,
and there is no hard and fast answer.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
 
All said:
besides the 4 gig limit on file size, why do you say that? fat32
is noticably faster to access a folder tree and measureably
faster on disk transfer rate.
Click to expand...


No, not on any tests I've performed. NTFS consistently out-performs
FAT32, particularly on larger volumes.


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
 
All said:
why, exactly?
Click to expand...

Because it's the superior OS, and WinXP was designed to run optimally
on it.

FAT32 has no security capabilities, no compression capabilities, no
fault tolerance, and a lot of wasted hard drive space on volumes larger
than 8 Gb in size.

To answer your questions without getting too technical is
difficult, but has been handled quite well by the late Alex Nichol in
the article here:

FAT & NTFS File Systems in Windows XP
http://www.aumha.org/a/ntfs.htm

Somewhat more technical information is here:

Limitations of the FAT32 File System in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/directory/article.asp?ID=kb;en-us;Q314463

Choosing Between File Systems
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tr...prodtechnol/winntas/tips/techrep/filesyst.asp

NTFS file system
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ntfs/


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. -Benjamin Franklin
 
Then I guess Windows Vista will have FAT in it. Just lean mean New
Technology File System which goes back about 10 years or more.

JS
 
Back
Top