NTFS vs FAT32

[Guest]

Currently the partition I'm using is FAT32. Should I convert that to NTFS. Also I don't know too much about computers so is it a complicated process. Is there a difference between FAT and FAT32. Any help would be appreciated.

 

[Rick \Nutcase\ Rogers]

Hi,

This may help:
http://aumha.org/win5/a/ntfscvt.htm

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers aka "Nutcase" MS-MVP - Win9x
Windows isn't rocket science! That's my other hobby!

Associate Expert - WinXP - Expert Zone

Currently the partition I'm using is FAT32. Should I convert that to

NTFS. Also I don't know too much about computers so is it a complicated
process. Is there a difference between FAT and FAT32. Any help would be
appreciated.

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

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.

To answer your questions without getting too technical is
difficult, but has been handled quite well by 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

You can safely convert your hard drive to NTFS whenever desired,
without having to format the partition and reinstall everything. As
always when performing any serious changes, back up any important data
before proceeding, just in case. A little advance preparation is also
strongly recommended, so you can avoid any performance hits caused by
the default cluster size:

Converting FAT32 to NTFS in Windows
http://www.aumha.org/a/ntfscvt.htm


Bruce Chambers

--
Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on
having both at once. -- RAH

Currently the partition I'm using is FAT32. Should I convert that

to NTFS. Also I don't know too much about computers so is it a
complicated process. Is there a difference between FAT and FAT32.
Any help would be appreciated.

 

[S.Sengupta]

Hi,
"NTFS vs. FAT: Which Is Right for You?"
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/columns/russel/october01.asp
Also:-
File Systems
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tr...prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/prkc_fil_buvl.asp

regards,
ssg MS-MVP
pronetworks.org

 

[Ken Blake]

In

Currently the partition I'm using is FAT32. Should I convert that to
NTFS.

Probably, but it's your choice.

Also I don't know too much about computers so is it a
complicated process.

To convert to NTFS, you use the CONVERT command. But first read
http://www.aumha.org/a/ntfscvt.htm because there's an issue
regarding cluster size that isn't obvious.

Also note that conversion is a big step, affecting everything on
your drive. When you take such a big step, no matter how
unlikely, it is always possible that something could go wrong.
For that reason, it's prudent to make sure you have a backup of
anything you can't afford to lose before beginning.

Is there a difference between FAT and FAT32.

Some people use the word "FAT" to refer to FAT16, differentiating
FAT from FAT32, but in reality FAT32 is one "flavor" of FAT. FAT
comes in three "flavors:" FAT12 (used almost exclusively for
diskettes), FAT16 (used on small hard drives, but almost obsolete
now), and FAT32.

 

[Max]

If you have a newer computer and use your computer a lot (power user),
definitely upgrade to NTFS.

-Max

 

[w_tom]

FAT was obsoleted by HPFS which in turn was obsoleted by
NTFS. FAT is that inferior. In the meantime, Microsoft
needed a filesystem that could handle larger drives for
Windows 98 and ME. So they created FAT32 which corrected none
of the other deficiencies in FAT12 and FAT16 - because NTFS
had already existed. Go to NTFS and don't even look back. FAT
offers no significant advantage and is chock full of
deficiencies that motivated new filesystems such as NTFS.

FAT was obsoleted twice over. Why even consider it? NTFS
existed as a more stable alternative before even Windows 98
was released and before FAT32 was even kludged together.

 

[Shane]

But there are significant advantages in being able to access the drive from
DOS, eg virus scanning. FAT32 is scarcely less reliable than NTFS in
practice and many do not believe the pros outweigh the cons on a standalone
machine.


Shane

 

[CS]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:47:55 -0000, "Shane"

I have to agree with you Shane. The only reason I use NTFS on my
80 gb drive is to avoid the cluster waste that would be present if I
used FAT-32. (I didn't want to divide it into many smaller
partitions) However, my second drive is FAT-32 so I always have an
easy way to get into my XP system if something should prevent it from
booting.

My Toshiba notebook came formatted from the factory as NTFS. I
quickly used Partition Magic to make smaller partitions and then using
PM again, changed it to FAT-32. The HDD was only 30gb so dividing it
into smaller partitions was easy.

 

[john]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2003 10:47:55 -0000, "Shane"

I have to agree with you Shane. The only reason I use NTFS on my
80 gb drive is to avoid the cluster waste that would be present if I
used FAT-32. (I didn't want to divide it into many smaller
partitions) However, my second drive is FAT-32 so I always have an
easy way to get into my XP system if something should prevent it from
booting.

How does having a second fat32 harddrive help you to into your NTFS XP
system on the system drive? DOS is allergic to NTFS.

I usually use a Knoppix linux self booting cd or a NTFS filesystem
access driver on a dos disk to access data on a NTFS partition, if I
can't fix the boot problem.

Or do you mean backing up your data files to the fat32 drive incase of
NTFS filesystem problems? If so what do you do for file security on the
fat32 filesystem. You don't want any tom dick and harry with a dos boot
disk browsing your backup documents. You don't want to make it too easy.

Another reason for NTFS is better file security if wanted, along with a
journeling system to help protect disk integrity in case of such things
as power failures etc.

Just wondering

 

[w_tom]

NTFS is roundly more reliable than FAT32. And moreso, the
reliability is often instituted without user knowledge. Virus
protection? Where does FAT offer any advantage? In fact, it
is much easier (many more ways) for viruses to attack a FAT
filesystem. And virus protection programs work just fine on
NTFS.

Need to use DOS on NTFS? No problem. The solutions are
numerous - and free. How do I know? Before anyone was using
Windows 98, I was using NT, NTFS filesystems, DOS, and DOS
based programs on NT - while WIN 98 users suffered through
unreliable operations, disk problems, lost data, a need to
manually execute repair programs - and more important -
hardware slowed down by 20% because they were using the
obsolete operating system with obsolete filesystem. Decades
of experience - NTFS is the superior alternative - without
doubt.

For example, what happens to a file if power is lost when
writing an updated version to the FAT filesystem? Even the
original 'already stored on disk' file can be erased. Just
does not happen on any acceptable filesystem. Erasing existing
files is just another problem with obsolete FAT. Just another
reasons why FAT was obsoleted twice over when NTFS was
created.

Hands down - and from over ten years experience using both
FAT and NTFS simultaneously and on interconnected systems -
NTFS has always been the superior solution.

When I need the FAT filesystem: partition a tiny partition
on one harddisk as FAT16 so that I can use those DOS programs
from the 1980s that I still use today. Yes, I still use both
that often and know from experience the superiority of NTFS.

The longest task a computer system can do is 'disk seeks'.
Because of its superior architecture, NTFS filesystems do less
disk seeks resulting in faster operation - especially on
smaller files such as cookies. Just too many little reasons,
like this one, make FAT the obsolete filesystem it has long
been. FAT was so inferior that FAT32 included no attempt to
fix its weaknesses - other than permit larger drives for
Windows 98 SE and ME. FAT32 STILL has the same problems that
plagued FAT users in the early 1990s.

FAT was obsolete before Windows 98 was released. Go to NTFS
and don't look back - from one who has been working with disk
drives and filesystems (at the design level) long before there
were PCs. NTFS solves problems that the user should not even
need know exist. FAT users encounter problems that just don't
happen in NTFS. What is the easiest filesystem for a virus to
attack? FAT. It just does not have any security, self
correcting mechanisms - and even puts all critical tables in
one location on disk - no redundancy.

And so the inferiority of FAT goes on and on. But then that
is why FAT was obsoleted twice over and why its deficiencies
were left uncorrected by FAT32.

 

[Shane]

NTFS is roundly more reliable than FAT32.

What I'm saying is, if almost nobody using a standalone machine had, in
practice, a problem as a consequence of using FAT32 rather than NTFS - a
problem that stops them being able to do whatever they bought the computer
for - the pros of NTFS are largely irrelevent.

And moreso, the
reliability is often instituted without user knowledge. Virus
protection? Where does FAT offer any advantage? In fact, it
is much easier (many more ways) for viruses to attack a FAT
filesystem. And virus protection programs work just fine on
NTFS.

Which AV progs scan all files without booting NTFS Windows?

Need to use DOS on NTFS? No problem. The solutions are
numerous - and free. How do I know? Before anyone was using
Windows 98, I was using NT, NTFS filesystems, DOS, and DOS
based programs on NT - while WIN 98 users suffered through
unreliable operations, disk problems, lost data, a need to
manually execute repair programs - and more important -
hardware slowed down by 20% because they were using the
obsolete operating system with obsolete filesystem. Decades
of experience - NTFS is the superior alternative - without
doubt.

So, is it that you want the non-expert users to pay you to fix their
machines? Or do you think what you can do everyone should be able to do? Or
don't NTFS users have problems?

For example, what happens to a file if power is lost when
writing an updated version to the FAT filesystem? Even the
original 'already stored on disk' file can be erased. Just
does not happen on any acceptable filesystem. Erasing existing
files is just another problem with obsolete FAT. Just another
reasons why FAT was obsoleted twice over when NTFS was
created.

Hands down - and from over ten years experience using both
FAT and NTFS simultaneously and on interconnected systems -

I'm talking about standalone machines.

NTFS has always been the superior solution.

When I need the FAT filesystem: partition a tiny partition
on one harddisk as FAT16 so that I can use those DOS programs
from the 1980s that I still use today. Yes, I still use both
that often and know from experience the superiority of NTFS.

Yes, I use both. I also talk from experience.

The longest task a computer system can do is 'disk seeks'.
Because of its superior architecture, NTFS filesystems do less
disk seeks resulting in faster operation - especially on
smaller files such as cookies. Just too many little reasons,
like this one, make FAT the obsolete filesystem it has long
been. FAT was so inferior that FAT32 included no attempt to
fix its weaknesses - other than permit larger drives for
Windows 98 SE and ME. FAT32 STILL has the same problems that
plagued FAT users in the early 1990s.

*Plagued* ? Yeah, everywhere you go people are unable to use Win9x.

FAT was obsolete before Windows 98 was released. Go to NTFS
and don't look back - from one who has been working with disk
drives and filesystems (at the design level) long before there
were PCs. NTFS solves problems that the user should not even
need know exist. FAT users encounter problems that just don't
happen in NTFS. What is the easiest filesystem for a virus to
attack? FAT. It just does not have any security, self
correcting mechanisms - and even puts all critical tables in
one location on disk - no redundancy.

And so the inferiority of FAT goes on and on. But then that
is why FAT was obsoleted twice over and why its deficiencies
were left uncorrected by FAT32.

This is a *political* argument. You're not trying to justify NTFS, you're
trying to justify ramming your opinion down people's throats.

 

[john]

What I'm saying is, if almost nobody using a standalone machine had, in
practice, a problem as a consequence of using FAT32 rather than NTFS - a
problem that stops them being able to do whatever they bought the computer
for - the pros of NTFS are largely irrelevent.

If you think a modern journelled filesystem is too much of a problem for
a "standlone workstation", what are you going to do when MS comes out
with winFS? You will be begging for NTFS judging from your current agrument!

You can make the same ludite agrument about XP with regards to the win98
series of OSes. Win XP, a true modern multiuser OS, which MS should
have produced backed in 95 (the OS technology was available), just makes
things more complicated as compared to simple single user win9x with its
dos based system. So why suffer the increased complexity of a modern NT
based kernel OS? You can still do what you bought the computer for with
a win9x system.

Look the average computer user today cannot fix their computer no matter
what OS or file system they use.

If you are a tech or a real power user you should be able to fix "any"
system, not have to limit yourself to older technology so you can have
the expertise to "fix" the problem.