Sorry to have to ask this.

  • Thread starter Thread starter John Corliss
  • Start date Start date
J

John Corliss

After four years of holding out, I have finally caved in and purchased
the XP Home Edition with SP2. I could have gotten XP with this system,
but I got ME instead and it's served me well. However, lately too much
software is being written so that it won't work in ME.

I've backed up all of my data and will be going for a fresh install of
the OS (formatting and installing).

And now I'm faced with the old (I suppose to you folks in this group)
dilemma of whether or not to go with NTFS or stick with FAT32. I've
heard that Scandisk won't work with NTFS and that NTFS is slower than
FAT32. Not only that, but you can't use an emergency startup disk or
disc with NTFS. Anybody care to elaborate or clarify?

Since I'm going to be using the Home edition of XP, how would NTFS be
more secure than FAT32?

I wish I could say I'm excited about this upgrade, but frankly I'm
looking forward to it with serious dread and apprehension.

TIA
 
For most users, it is ok to stick with FAT32. The advantage of using
NTFS is that you are able to set access rights for files and folders,
which you cannot do with FAT32.

In my opinion, if you're just going to be using this machine for your
own personal use, and with XP Home, sticking with FAT32 is just fine.

And be excited about XP, it (and other NT based Windows OS's) is MUCH
MUCH more stable than Windows ME.
 
NTFS is more secure and faster. The OS is better able to allocate space with
NTFS. In XP, the utility like scandisk is now called CHKDSK. And it works
just fine with NTFS.

NTFS will prevent you from booting with a FAT32 disk and accessing the OS
partition, but this is one of the security measures. Plus, there are other
utilities that can bypass this.

In the end, it is really a personal decision.
 
Thanks for replying, Jim.

I'm going to be using this computer at home, and nobody else will be
getting on it. I intend to rig it so as to not have to log in. At any
rate, I won't be needing to assign access rights for anything, so it
sounds like my inclination to want to stick with FAT32 is a good one.

The reason I'm not excited is because I really don't look forward to
figuring out how to tweak this version into submission. I have to go
through that with every new version of Windows. Each time, it gets
harder and harder. I hear that Windows Messenger is very difficult to
get rid of in XP for instance. I don't do instant messaging and won't
want it on my system.

As far as ME being stable or not, the only real problem I ever had with
it was trying to run an version of a (non-MS) program that was intended
for use with Windows 3.11. It locked up often.

Other than that, I currently have ME totally beaten into submission.
Beaten and COWED!!!

80)>
 
One thing to prepare for is the User Interface change. XP uses a very
different Graphic User Interface from earlier OS releases. Associated
with that are a lot of "Eye Candy" or appearance enhancements. They
are OK, but I still use the Windows Classic Theme and disable all the
enhancements. Also, XP has a different style Start Menu. You may
want to use it for a few days and see if it fits your needs. If need be you
can toggle everything back to a more familiar 9X/ME/2000 look.
 
Thanks for replying!
NTFS is more secure and faster.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I've seen claims to the contrary. Check out this site:

http://elexorr.com/ntfs_vs_fat32.htm
The OS is better able to allocate space with
NTFS. In XP, the utility like scandisk is now called CHKDSK.
Click to expand...

Really? They went back to that one? Is that the same as the old "check
disk"? Does it look for and correct hard drive errors like Scandisk does
or does it just provide info about the disk?
And it works just fine with NTFS.

NTFS will prevent you from booting with a FAT32 disk and accessing the OS
partition, but this is one of the security measures.
Click to expand...

Aahhhh.... I don't think I'd like that at all and frankly, don't see why
I would want such a thing. This isn't a local area networked computer,
it's a single user (NOBODY gets on my computer unless I am glaring right
over their shoulder and allow them) rig on a cable modem for internet
access. I don't intend to even have to log in.

At any rate, I would be the only one who would want to boot from an
emergency disk or disc and access the partition.
Plus, there are other utilities that can bypass this.
Click to expand...

Will Bart's PE do this?

http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/
In the end, it is really a personal decision.
Click to expand...

Well, my computer has never caught a virus (well, there was that
"Happy99 virus a long time ago, but it was kind of fun and pretty -easy
to kill) and has never been hacked into. I guess what I'm trying to say
is that I'm not that worried about file security. I run a continuously
updated AV program and a good firewall. Of course, there are always
those rootkits that the CIA and FBI run on everyones' computers...
 
NTFS is faster not slower on anything that newer than 10 years. The main reason is finding files. XP has a lot more files than ME (MS's best post 3.1 OS) so it's even more important.

Directories in Fat are unsorted (too much CPU time in the old days to resort the directory on every new file being added). In NTFS they are sorted.

My System32 folder has about 3000 files (it did when I looked a few years ago). On Fat it takes an average of 1500 directories entries to be checked to find a given file (max 3000). However on NTFS XP jumps to the middle of the list and checks that. As it is sorted it then knows if the file is in the first 1500 or last 1500. It jumps to the new half way point and finds what 750 it is in, then 375, 188, 94, 47, 24, 12, 6, 3, 2, 1. The average and max will be around 12 entries to be checked.

However NTFS is not documented so troubleshooting is a lot more difficult.
 
John said:
Thanks for replying!


Unfortunately, I've seen claims to the contrary. Check out this site:
Click to expand...

Believe it/them (I didn't even bother to go there).

NTFS is of NO significant value to the home user.

PERIOD.
 
Thanks for your input.

Yes, I've worked on computers running XP and once I show the owner how I
can make the Start Menu "Classic" styled as well as organize it better,
they never go back to the "Stock XP" version. I also agree that the "eye
candy" (AKA "Fisher-Price" toy look) is ugly as sin. I always get rid of
that first off and remove any color gradient scheme in the appearances
settings. Themes and "animations" as well as that horrible and
unnecessary initial menu delay (easily removed via TweakUI) are also
among the first things I get rid of. Small icons in the Start Menu make
less scrolling necessary too.

Shortcut text backgrounds bother me and I always disable them in M.E.
via an old program called "See Thru Icon Captions". Heck, I even auto
hide the task bar and remove the (IMO useless) "Quick Launch" toolbar!

By the time I get done torturing XP into submission, visually it will be
exactly like the copy of ME that I'm currently running.

Over time, Windows has accumulated as much makeup as a cheap tart IMO. I
always scrub it with a bar of fels-naptha soap and a course brush
before I'll have anything to do with it.

YMMV.
 
Techdango said:
Those really aren't official tests, and assuming those specs are correct, I
honestly don't think you will see any noticable difference.

Another item I thought about was partition size when adding hard drives.
You'll be able to handle quite a bit of space with NTFS. Check out this
link:
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/...Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/prkc_fil_tdrn.asp

Again, in the end it is really up to you.
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for that link. I will be reading it thoroughly as soon as I
post this reply.
 
Very intellectually/thought out counter-point. That one word really helps
to explain your position on the advantages of FAT over NTFS. There
are two universal tip offs to a vacuous opinion - Personal Slurs or cursing.
 
NTFS is more resistant to corruption. Fat is better able to recover from corruption. If data is important then Fat is best.

PS Do you realise there is an easter egg in Dos's Recover command. Noone found it afaik. Wonder why?
 
John said:
After four years of holding out, I have finally caved in and purchased
the XP Home Edition with SP2. I could have gotten XP with this system,
but I got ME instead and it's served me well. However, lately too much
software is being written so that it won't work in ME.

I've backed up all of my data and will be going for a fresh install of
the OS (formatting and installing).
Click to expand...


Although many people will tell you that formatting and installing cleanly is
the best way to go, I disagree. Unlike with previous versions of Windows, an
upgrade to XP replaces almost everything, and usually works very well.

My recommendation is to at least try the upgrade, since it's much easier
than a clean installation. You can always change your mind and reinstall
cleanly if problems develop.

However, don't assume that doing an upgrade relieves you of the need to
backup your data, etc. before beginning. Before starting to upgrade, it's
always prudent to recognize that things like a sudden power loss can occur
in the middle of it and cause the loss of everything. For that reason you
should make sure you have backups and anything else you need to reinstall if
the worst happens.

And now I'm faced with the old (I suppose to you folks in this group)
dilemma of whether or not to go with NTFS or stick with FAT32. I've
heard that Scandisk won't work with NTFS
Click to expand...


True, but irrelevant. The reason that Scandisk won't work with NTFS is that
NTFS is available only with Windows-NT-based versions of Windows, and
Scandisk is available only with DOS/Windows 9X versions of Windows.

Since there's no Scandisk in Windows XP, you can't use it whether your drive
is NTFS or FAT32. Instead you use the XP equivalent program, Chkdsk.

and that NTFS is slower than
FAT32.
Click to expand...


False. There's no measurable difference on modern harder. In fact, with
larger hard drives, NTFS is probably marginally faster.

Not only that, but you can't use an emergency startup disk or
disc with NTFS.
Click to expand...


MS-DOS has no support for NTFS, and you therefore can't see an NTFS
partition if you boot from an MS-DOS diskette. Howver there is special
third-party software available to provide that support if you absolutely
have to have it. In general however, your Windows XP CD, with its built-in
recovery console, is your emergency start-up disk, and no diskette is
needed.

Anybody care to elaborate or clarify?
Click to expand...


In my view, the only good reason for using FAT32 in preference to NTFS is if
you are working in a dual-boot scenario with an older operating system that
doesn't provide NTFS support.
 
John said:
After four years of holding out, I have finally caved in and purchased
the XP Home Edition with SP2. I could have gotten XP with this system,
but I got ME instead and it's served me well. However, lately too much
software is being written so that it won't work in ME.

I've backed up all of my data and will be going for a fresh install of
the OS (formatting and installing).

And now I'm faced with the old (I suppose to you folks in this group)
dilemma of whether or not to go with NTFS or stick with FAT32. I've
heard that Scandisk won't work with NTFS and that NTFS is slower than
FAT32. Not only that, but you can't use an emergency startup disk or
disc with NTFS. Anybody care to elaborate or clarify?

Since I'm going to be using the Home edition of XP, how would NTFS be
more secure than FAT32?

I wish I could say I'm excited about this upgrade, but frankly I'm
looking forward to it with serious dread and apprehension.

TIA
Click to expand...

NTFS is more robust than FAT32. This means it can recover from errors
usually without user intervention. For example if you cut the power during a
write operation in Win9x there is a good chance of file corruption and
possibly FAT corruption. At the very least you will have to run scandisk
when power is restored. NTFS is a semi-journaling system. It can usually
recover automatically when power is restored because it has a record of the
changes it was making. The real kicker though is that Windows XP will only
make a maximum 32 GB FAT32 partition and FAT32 has a maximum file size of 4
GB. The partition size can be worked around by using a different OS to
create the partition but the file size cannot be worked around. This means
for instance that you may not be able to store large image or video files,
can't create an iso of a DVD etc.

Kerry
 
Although many people will tell you that formatting and installing cleanly is
the best way to go, I disagree. Unlike with previous versions of Windows, an
upgrade to XP replaces almost everything, and usually works very well.
Click to expand...

I've tweaked the heck out of the current install of M.E. I don't trust
it to an update. I'm sure that you'd agree that Registry bloat, orphan
..dlls, etc. etc. as well as a backlog of bugs that develop over time are
all taken care of with a fresh install.
My recommendation is to at least try the upgrade, since it's much easier
than a clean installation. You can always change your mind and reinstall
cleanly if problems develop.
Click to expand...

Thanks, but I'm running two hard drives, the second cloned off of the
first. I will disconnect the second drive until the install is complete.
I could even go with an NTFS install of XP if I wanted to, and then use
Seagate's disk setup utility to remove that file system completely and
go back to FAT32. Then all I'd have to do is to make the backup drive
the master, and clone the main drive off of the backup. VOILA! Right
back where I started.
However, don't assume that doing an upgrade relieves you of the need to
backup your data, etc. before beginning. Before starting to upgrade, it's
always prudent to recognize that things like a sudden power loss can occur
in the middle of it and cause the loss of everything. For that reason you
should make sure you have backups and anything else you need to reinstall if
the worst happens.
Click to expand...

Not only is my stuff backed up as I described above, but I've burnt all
of my data to DVDs and CDs redundantly (two copies). I'm not going to
lose anything. As for power outages, I have the computer going through
an APC UPS. Not really a concern.
True, but irrelevant. The reason that Scandisk won't work with NTFS is that
NTFS is available only with Windows-NT-based versions of Windows, and
Scandisk is available only with DOS/Windows 9X versions of Windows.

Since there's no Scandisk in Windows XP, you can't use it whether your drive
is NTFS or FAT32. Instead you use the XP equivalent program, Chkdsk.
Click to expand...

Heh. Sounds kind of "retro."
False. There's no measurable difference on modern harder. In fact, with
larger hard drives, NTFS is probably marginally faster.


MS-DOS has no support for NTFS, and you therefore can't see an NTFS
partition if you boot from an MS-DOS diskette. Howver there is special
third-party software available to provide that support if you absolutely
have to have it. In general however, your Windows XP CD, with its built-in
recovery console, is your emergency start-up disk, and no diskette is
needed.


In my view, the only good reason for using FAT32 in preference to NTFS is if
you are working in a dual-boot scenario with an older operating system that
doesn't provide NTFS support.
Click to expand...

Yes, but if it was a matter of simply accessing data, couldn't a person
just burn the stuff to a CD or DVDRW and read the disc from most other
O.S.es? I mean, the copy that's on the disc is going to be ISO anyway.
 
John

Install XP in an NTFS partition.. knock out all of the eye candy except for
drop shadows.. use it as you would use ME.. forget some of the old
conventions, like having to format monthly and watch resources.. enable a
firewall, AV, and anti spyware.. start to enjoy computing..

After the conversion, you will wonder what all the fuss was about, and you
will finally be able to place your ME CD in your box of computing
memorabilia.. gone but not forgotten, eh
 
Uncle Grumpy said:
Believe it/them (I didn't even bother to go there).

NTFS is of NO significant value to the home user.

PERIOD.
Click to expand...

Really?

I'm a home user and frequently work with files in excess of the FAT32 4GB
limit.

I use the computer as a PVR. Recorded dvr-ms files are in excess of 6GB for
a two hour show.

For backup I use ATI to image to secondary drives. The resulting image files
can be hundreds of gigs in a single file.

Being able to do so is of significant value.

TILDE ;~)

--
D

I'm not an MVP a VIP nor do I have ESP.
I was just trying to help.
Please use your own best judgment before implementing any suggestions or
advice herein.
No warranty is expressed or implied.
Your mileage may vary.
See store for details. :)

Remove shoes to E-mail.
 
Back
Top