NTFS to FAT32?

[Anomaly]

Is there anyway to convert an NTFS partition back to FAT 32? If so, any
caveats to doing so?

Thanks!
Anom

 

[Bob Willard]

Is there anyway to convert an NTFS partition back to FAT 32? If so, any
caveats to doing so?

Thanks!
Anom

XP has no built-in way to do so, other than backing up all needed files,
then reinstalling XP, then restoring all those files.

There are non-M$ tools that can convert NTFS to FAT32. But first, you
should think seriously about why you want to switch back to a relatively
primitive filesystem.

 

[Anomaly]

XP has no built-in way to do so, other than backing up all needed files,
then reinstalling XP, then restoring all those files.

There are non-M$ tools that can convert NTFS to FAT32. But first, you
should think seriously about why you want to switch back to a relatively
primitive filesystem.

I have a small network in my home/office, 2 of which are my main machines.
On these two machines, I have several drives with multiple partitions. Some
are NTFS, some are FAT32. I hesitate to convert all to FAT32 due to DOS
inaccessibility. The partitions that I *did* convert are for Video and ghost
images. What I discovered that I don't like about NTFS for the imaging
partitions is that it limits my choice of programs to restore (and thus
write) images. I have several imaging programs, amongst them those that have
will read from NTFS drives (Acronis TI for example), but I would like to
maintain compatibility with the DOS imaging programs and really see no
reason to maintain NTFS for an imaging partition. Am I missing something in
that regard?

Thanks,

Anom

 

[Anomaly]

XP has no built-in way to do so, other than backing up all needed files,
then reinstalling XP, then restoring all those files.

There are non-M$ tools that can convert NTFS to FAT32. But first, you
should think seriously about why you want to switch back to a relatively
primitive filesystem.

Another thought:

Since the partition I wish to revert back to FAT32 is not an OS partition,
is it possible to merely move the files to another partition, re-format the
partition to FAT 32 from within the Disk Management snap in and then move
all the files back?

Thanks,

Anom

 

[CJT]

I have a small network in my home/office, 2 of which are my main machines.
On these two machines, I have several drives with multiple partitions. Some
are NTFS, some are FAT32. I hesitate to convert all to FAT32 due to DOS
inaccessibility. The partitions that I *did* convert are for Video and ghost
images. What I discovered that I don't like about NTFS for the imaging
partitions is that it limits my choice of programs to restore (and thus
write) images. I have several imaging programs, amongst them those that have
will read from NTFS drives (Acronis TI for example), but I would like to
maintain compatibility with the DOS imaging programs and really see no
reason to maintain NTFS for an imaging partition. Am I missing something in
that regard?

Thanks,

Anom

I think NTFS can handle larger files than FAT. That can be important
for, e.g., video capture.

 

[Arno Wagner]

Another thought:

Since the partition I wish to revert back to FAT32 is not an OS partition,
is it possible to merely move the files to another partition, re-format the
partition to FAT 32 from within the Disk Management snap in and then move
all the files back?

I see no reason why not. The risk should be relatively small:
If you do this and it fails, you still have the files on that other
partition and can change the first one back to NTFS.

Arno

 

[Peter]

Ghost 8.0 can read and write images from/to NTFS while system is booted in
DOS mode.

 

[Peter]

You will lose assigned security permissions and will probably get new SFNs
for some files. If that is not your concern, then your procedure is fine.

 

[Anomaly]

I think NTFS can handle larger files than FAT. That can be important
for, e.g., video capture.

Thanks, CJT. That's the main reason I converted my video partitions to NTFS,
and imaging partitions as well, but had 2nd thoughts later regarding the
imaging partitions.due to compatibility.

 

[Anomaly]

Ghost 8.0 can read and write images from/to NTFS while system is booted in
DOS mode.

Ghost is (was?) a great program. I had recently come to the conclusion that
I would no longer use Norton products but, believing that there was no way
Symantec could screw up Ghost, I recently upgraded to Ghost 9. I was wrong
and am awaiting my refund. I have Acronis TI7, which is pretty good and am
considering BING as well, but, paranoid that I am, I would like to keep
backward compatibility.

 

[Anomaly]

You will lose assigned security permissions and will probably get new SFNs
for some files. If that is not your concern, then your procedure is fine.

Most of the image file names I have used are confined to 8 characters for
DOS compatibility anyway, so the SFN issue shouldn't be a problem, and I had
no security permissions on that partition.

Thanks,
Anom

 

[Anomaly]

I see no reason why not. The risk should be relatively small:
If you do this and it fails, you still have the files on that other
partition and can change the first one back to NTFS.

Arno

Thanks, Arno.

 

[Peter]

Ghost 8.0 still is a great program, but it seems that it is the end of line.
Using Ghost 9.0 name for a completely different product is a big mistake.

 

[Anomaly]

Ghost 8.0 still is a great program, but it seems that it is the end of
line.
Using Ghost 9.0 name for a completely different product is a big mistake.

Is Ghost 8 the version# for Ghost 2003? And does it see NTFS partitions?

 

[Peter]

From Symantec Document ID:2000012811284125

"Storing Ghost image files directly to NTFS partitions
Situation:
You are using Ghost (Ghost.exe or Ghostpe.exe) to create an image of a disk
or partition. You want Ghost to save the image file to a partition that has
been formatted with NTFS (the Windows NT file system).
Solution:
Ghost's ability to save an image file directly to an NTFS partition depends
on your Ghost version:
- Symantec Ghost 8.0 and Norton Ghost 2003 can save image files directly to
NTFS partitions.
- Ghost consumer versions other than Norton Ghost 2003 cannot save image
files directly to NTFS partitions. See the section "Alternative storage
locations." Note that the version of Ghost included in Norton SystemWorks
Professional Edition is a consumer version.
The ability of Ghost corporate versions to save an image file directly to an
NTFS partition depends on whether your Ghost version supports that
connection type and whether that connection type supports NTFS."

 

[Curious George]

Is there anyway to convert an NTFS partition back to FAT 32?

I believe tools like partition magic may be able to do this.

If so, any caveats to doing so?

Yeah. You're going from a half-decent file system to one which is a
total piece of crap for what I assume is a grand goal of migrating to
a ridiculously bad OS (Win9x/ME).

 

[Curious George]

Another thought:

Since the partition I wish to revert back to FAT32 is not an OS partition,
is it possible to merely move the files to another partition, re-format the
partition to FAT 32 from within the Disk Management snap in and then move
all the files back?

Thanks,

Anom

Why exactly do you need FAT32?

 

[Anomaly]

I believe tools like partition magic may be able to do this.


Yeah. You're going from a half-decent file system to one which is a
total piece of crap for what I assume is a grand goal of migrating to
a ridiculously bad OS (Win9x/ME).

I've always used FAT 32 until I recently converted a few partitions to NTFS.
The partitions were for video (to accommodate larger file size) and for
Ghost images (also for the larger file size, but for some reason, the
imaging programs--Ghost 2000 & Drive Image 2002--still break the file apart
@2gb). However, I have been considering reverting the Ghost image partition
back to FAT 32 for compatibility with DOS and imaging programs which I don't
want to throw out simply because they can't read NTFS partitions..

That being said, I'd be interested in hearing the case for NTFS conversion.
My circumstances are:

1) The systems in question are used by no one other than myself and are used
for business and non business use. OS=XP Pro SP2.

2) Although I am on a small network, the other machines are used by my
computer illiterate wife and kids.

3) I have a cable always-on connection, but am behind a hardware firewall
and am using windows firewall as well (I have had issue with my router and
ZA).

4) Again, no one uses my systems aside from myself. Only essential
partitions are shared, and in many cases, I share only "transport" folders,
which are used exclusively for transporting files across the network. These
folders do not have files living in them.

So, given the above circumstances, can you make a case for NTFS being
advantageous for my purposes?


Thanks,
Anom

 

[Peter]

Just a small comment on Ghost. You can still image one machine's hard disk
to an image file located on another's PC share. It doesn't matter if it is a
FAT32 or NTFS.

 

[Curious George]

If you have programs that you NEED to use and you CAN'T get updates
that allow them to use NTFS, then you don't really have a choice in
the matter- although I'd still recommend limiting your use of Fat via
partitioning.

I don't believe the other reasons cited really influence the decision
to go NTFS or not. It is just more reliable. While it is not a
_fully_ journaling file-system, there are journalizing features and
better handling of MFT copies, etc which help quite a bit for
reliability/recoverability over Fat(32). It doesn't matter what you
use it for, reliability is reliability and you need it to work
properly whether it is your business or your free time that depend on
it. One can argue that NTFS isn't the _Best_ file system, but it is
the best for windows and therefore the only real choice for windows
users.

Yes it handles multi-user stuff better and allows you to do sexy stuff
with servers & domains etc., but there are other basic features than
anyone would want to use:

You can set a compression attribute and control it for the entire
drive or individual files. Compression is handled seamlessly unlike
Win9x/dos/fat drive compression (with all its quirks & limitations.
AFAIK there are no products to compress FAT32 partitions).

You can control security attributes and encryption. This is not only
helpful in even the smallest of networks, but it also just makes sense
for stand-alone computers using apps like Quicken, etc.

Yes there are other features but I think reliability, compression, and
security are common needs to all users & installations. NTFS is also
relatively mature and Win2k & above are so well entrenched that I
really wonder whether you NEED to run such antiquated software that
wasn't ever intended for serious use anyway (non NT-compatible) and if
resisting upgrading them is false economy. Also FWIW I don't think
_older_ versions of Ghost support FAT32 anyhow (only FAT16) & IMHO
there is great benefit in switching to programs like Acronis TI & V2i
which do incremental backups and making a single image just for the
system partition with installed OS & Apps without user data (which
would also coincidently limit individual file size along with
compression).