NTFS??!!

[Pam]

I have a new computer from Dell, and when I just ran Defrag, I realized I
now have NTFS instead of FAT32, the old familiar. Not that I ever had a
clue what difference it made, but is there anything I need to know about
general goings-on? Point me to a website or something, please, or tell me
"don't worry about it." I've been blundering along cluelessly for a couple
of weeks before I ever even realized it.

Thanks.
Pam

 

[Carey Frisch [MVP]]

NTFS Preinstallation and Windows XP
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hwdev/tech/storage/ntfs-preinstall.mspx

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User

Be Smart! Protect your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


| I have a new computer from Dell, and when I just ran Defrag, I realized I
| now have NTFS instead of FAT32, the old familiar. Not that I ever had a
| clue what difference it made, but is there anything I need to know about
| general goings-on? Point me to a website or something, please, or tell me
| "don't worry about it." I've been blundering along cluelessly for a couple
| of weeks before I ever even realized it.
|
| Thanks.
| Pam

 

[peter]

dont worry about it
peter

I have a new computer from Dell, and when I just ran Defrag, I realized I
now have NTFS instead of FAT32, the old familiar. Not that I ever had a
clue what difference it made, but is there anything I need to know about
general goings-on? Point me to a website or something, please, or tell me
"don't worry about it." I've been blundering along cluelessly for a couple
of weeks before I ever even realized it.

Thanks.
Pam

 

[Richard Urban]

Having it has caused you no problems, right? It's just an advanced file
system used by Windows XP. Type in NTFS in Start/Help and Support. Read all
about it.

--
Regards:

Richard Urban

aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard

 

[Norm]

It's just a better file system than FAT32 but for all practical purposes you
needn't worry about it.

 

[Pam]

Carey, much thanks. i've scanned the info at the site. With 110+GB hard
drive, it's obviously the way to go. I just hadn't even thought about it!

 

[Pam]

Dear Peter, Richard and Norm,

Thanks. Having gone from 98SE to XP previously and having retained FAT32
and then getting the new system with XP pre installed, I never even thought
about it, duh.
No problems to speak of other than self-induced, and those minor, I love the
system so far.

Pam

 

[DILIP]

With NTFS each user can have an account for themselves which cannot be
accessed from other accounts. Also, if you have WinXP Pro, you can even
lock individual folders and files, and decide which users can access them
(and how), and which can't.

 

[Pam]

Thank you. I like that. I had individual users with XP Pro on my old FAT
32 machine, but as far as I know, I could only hide folders and anyone who
knew anything could find them.

Pam

 

[Darrell]

Click on Start..... Help... enter NTFS. Read all about it.

 

[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

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


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

 

[Alex Nichol]

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

Thank you for the commendation, Bruce. Jim has reorganised the site
into Win4 (9x) and Win5 (2000 and XP) divisions, so that URL is no
longer correct: now
http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/ntfs.htm

so please note for the future, and check references to any other pages
you may wish to quote

 

[Bruce Chambers]

Greetings --

Thanks for the update. Now I'll have to watch what I cut & paste!
Curse Jim and his organizational skills. <VBG>

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

 

[Pam]

....and I have been reading a bit, too. Thanks, all.
Pam

 

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

Bruce Chambers wrote:
http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/ntfs.htm

Nice article! A couple of comments...

"NTFS has stronger means of recovering from troubles than
does FAT. All changes to files are journalized, which allows
the system to roll back the state of a file after a crash of the
program using it or a crash of the system."

I think one should be clear that while this maintains file system
sanity (much as a Scandisk /Autofix would) it is data-destructive.

Any file fragments in progress are irreversably discarded, and this
may apply even if you suppress the automatic ChkDsk /F that runs if
the file system is flagged as "dirty" on startup.

"Also, the structure of the file system is less likely to suffer
damage in a crash, and is therefore more easily reinstated
by CheckDisk (CHKDSK.EXE)."

I haven't seen anything that backs up this claim, but it should be
noted that ChkDsk is far less user-respectful than Scandisk:
- no interactive mode; either "autofix" or "don't touch"
- "don't touch" may return spurious errors if volume in use
- may "autofix" (rollback) even in "don't touch" mode
- does not display results when done (you have to search the log)

So "more easily re-instated by ChkDsk" is a two-edged sword.

"I suggest that NTFS should be used for partitions of 16 G
or above, where the FAT 32 cluster size goes up to 16k,
the intermediate region (that is, partitions between 8 and 16G
in size) being largely a matter of taste."

Can someone verify 16G as the roll-up point? AFAIK, FAT32 is...
- 4k up to 8G
- 8k for 8G to 32G
- 16k for 32G to 128G
....but I may be wrong. Unlike FAT16, the rollup is not dictated to by
rigid address bitfield factors, but rather what is a prudent balance
of granularity vs. speed and keeping FAT size manageable.

Use of a compitent formatter will create FAT32 > 32G just fine, and
once this service has been performed on behalf of XP, XP will use and
maintain the volume just fine too.

Being locked out of DOS mode access has wider implications than
blowing away many chances of data recovery; it also snookers you from
formal scanning and cleaning for/of malware.

--------------- ---- --- -- - - - -

"We have captured lightning and used
it to teach sand how to think."

 

[Shane]

Nice article! A couple of comments...

"NTFS has stronger means of recovering from troubles than
does FAT. All changes to files are journalized, which allows
the system to roll back the state of a file after a crash of the
program using it or a crash of the system."

I think one should be clear that while this maintains file system
sanity (much as a Scandisk /Autofix would) it is data-destructive.

Any file fragments in progress are irreversably discarded, and this
may apply even if you suppress the automatic ChkDsk /F that runs if
the file system is flagged as "dirty" on startup.

"Also, the structure of the file system is less likely to suffer
damage in a crash, and is therefore more easily reinstated
by CheckDisk (CHKDSK.EXE)."

I haven't seen anything that backs up this claim, but it should be
noted that ChkDsk is far less user-respectful than Scandisk:
- no interactive mode; either "autofix" or "don't touch"
- "don't touch" may return spurious errors if volume in use
- may "autofix" (rollback) even in "don't touch" mode
- does not display results when done (you have to search the log)

So "more easily re-instated by ChkDsk" is a two-edged sword.

"I suggest that NTFS should be used for partitions of 16 G
or above, where the FAT 32 cluster size goes up to 16k,
the intermediate region (that is, partitions between 8 and 16G
in size) being largely a matter of taste."

Can someone verify 16G as the roll-up point? AFAIK, FAT32 is...
- 4k up to 8G
- 8k for 8G to 32G
- 16k for 32G to 128G
...but I may be wrong. Unlike FAT16, the rollup is not dictated to by
rigid address bitfield factors, but rather what is a prudent balance
of granularity vs. speed and keeping FAT size manageable.

Use of a compitent formatter will create FAT32 > 32G just fine, and
once this service has been performed on behalf of XP, XP will use and
maintain the volume just fine too.

Hi Chris. Just today I created a 13.6G FAT32 volume with 4k clusters (using
PM).

OT & btw the Me262 is a blast, but the prettiest thing in the new hangar is
the Mustang.


Shane

 

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

Hi Chris. Just today I created a 13.6G FAT32 volume with 4k clusters (using
PM).

That might be a non-standard result; AFAIK you can do the same with
undocumented Format.com parameters. I'm a bit wary of non-default
cluster sizes in case they break assumptions made by utilities or
viruses, which could result in serious data carnage!

OT

Yep, that had my brain's shortcut target resolution routing groping
around for a while

the Me262 is a blast, but the prettiest thing in the new hangar is
the Mustang.

Sounds cool - which "new hanger"?

--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

Dreams are stack dumps of the soul

 

[Alex Nichol]

Hi Chris. Just today I created a 13.6G FAT32 volume with 4k clusters (using
PM).

OT & btw the Me262 is a blast, but the prettiest thing in the new hangar is
the Mustang.

You can force the matter. But the resulting number of clusters can get
too large for some of he system's utilities (eg scandisk; defrag) to
work. IIRC you will be OK at a 13GB partition, the problems arise if
over 16G is formatted this way

 

[Shane]

That might be a non-standard result; AFAIK you can do the same with
undocumented Format.com parameters. I'm a bit wary of non-default
cluster sizes in case they break assumptions made by utilities or
viruses, which could result in serious data carnage!

Like juggling the Caldera, NT, Lilo and BootItNG loaders? I was
experimenting and planning on reinstalling anyway - I've never seen so much
digital mush! Jeez!

Anyway, I'm sure you know that according to MS the 4 - 8k FAT32 (in XP Pro
file system) rollover is 8G.

Yep, that had my brain's shortcut target resolution routing groping
around for a while


Sounds cool - which "new hanger"?

'Milestones of Flight' (at Hendon). Also the original Grahame-White factory
is now open, though didn't have time to visit. I could see the nose of a
Hunter poking out from behind one of the buildings.

btw on a FAT16 Win95B/NT4.0 dual boot Diskeeper 8 pretty-much arranges the
files at the front of the volume (not that it has much choice).


Shane

 

[cquirke (MVP Win9x)]

"cquirke (MVP Win9x)" <[email protected]> wrote in message

Anyway, I'm sure you know that according to MS the 4 - 8k FAT32 (in XP Pro
file system) rollover is 8G.

Yes, hence the 7.99G FAT32 C: for 4k clusters
I see 102G FAT32 is 32k clusters, so presumably there are rollovers
for 8k-16k at (say) 32G and 16k-32k at (say) 64G. I'd have expected
32G and 128G though (noting that other issues may kick in at 128G)

--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -

Dreams are stack dumps of the soul