Sorry to have to ask this.

  • Thread starter Thread starter John Corliss
  • Start date Start date
I have 13,440 files in the Windows folder, 6556 of these files are in the
system32 folder. The NTFS file system handles this load flawlessly.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!

"David Candy" <.> wrote in message
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.
 
FAT32 file system support was included in Windows XP only due to legacy
considerations. There is no reason what-so-ever to even consider using
FAT32, unless you are dual booting with an older version of Windows 9x, and
want a partition/drive to be usable by both operating systems.

Do yourself a favor and use the NTFS file system. You will be unencumbered
with the few remaining hurdles thrown at you by the FAT32 file system.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
 
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.
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.

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/

I've
heard that Scandisk won't work with NTFS ....
Click to expand...


A moot point. WinXP does not have a program called "Scandisk," as this
was a Win9x/Me program. Instead, because WinXP is descended from the
WinNT/2K OS family, it has a command line utility called "Chkdsk," which
performs much better.

Start > Run > Cmd > Chkdsk.exe /? for the correct syntax and
available options.

Alternatively, double-click My Computer > right-click the desired
hard drive > Properties > Tools > Error-checking/Check Now. This will
run Chkdsk, normally on the next reboot.

However, unless you are actually experiencing a specific problem
related to your hard drive's file system, there's no real need to run
Chkdsk. The utility is not designed to be used as part of any period
maintenance plan.

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


Not usually. Someone's been feeding you a line. In most cases, it's
just the opposite.

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

Well, with NTFS, there's almost never a need for an emergency startup
disk, beyond the WinXP installation CD, which is bootable and provides
access to the Repair Console.

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

Well, since FAT32 has *NO* security capabilities at all.....


--

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
 
Bruce said:
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 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
Click to expand...

Well, there is also this one:

http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm
A moot point. WinXP does not have a program called "Scandisk," as
this was a Win9x/Me program. Instead, because WinXP is descended from
the WinNT/2K OS family, it has a command line utility called "Chkdsk,"
which performs much better.
Click to expand...

Command line? Really. Sorry, but that certainly doesn't seem like a step
forward to me. Also, is this the same as the old "Chkdsk" from DOS days?
Start > Run > Cmd > Chkdsk.exe /? for the correct syntax and
available options.
Alternatively, double-click My Computer > right-click the desired
hard drive > Properties > Tools > Error-checking/Check Now. This will
run Chkdsk, normally on the next reboot.
However, unless you are actually experiencing a specific problem
related to your hard drive's file system, there's no real need to run
Chkdsk. The utility is not designed to be used as part of any period
maintenance plan.
Click to expand...

My main concern is that if the system locks up and has to be restarted
("Windows has detected that the last shutdown wasn't normal" or
whatever), what takes care of the problem? Or does journaling usually
make such things unnecessary?
Not usually. Someone's been feeding you a line. In most cases,
it's just the opposite.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid that this seems to be a serious point of contention from what
I've read on the internet. For instance:

http://elexorr.com/ntfs_vs_fat32.htm
Well, with NTFS, there's almost never a need for an emergency
startup disk, beyond the WinXP installation CD, which is bootable and
provides access to the Repair Console.
Click to expand...

From this link:

http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm

the following:
____________________________________
But while NTFS has no maintenance OS from which...
* Data can easily be recovered
* File system structure can be manually checked and repaired
* Malware can be scanned for and cleaned

....I would avoid the use of NTFS in consumer PCs.
____________________________________

Care to comment? Please? Hey, I'm new to this NTFS vs. FAT32 s argument.
Well, since FAT32 has *NO* security capabilities at all.....
Click to expand...

Not sure why I should be worried about such things on a single user
computer. Besides, it's my understanding that XP Home and NTFS doesn't
allow built in file encryption like XP Pro and NTFS5. File encryption is
pretty fundamental to file security one would think.

One last question: what if I want to access the files from another OS on
another computer? Can I simply burn them to a CD or DVD and put that
disc in the other computer? Seems to me that I tried this with some
files from a computer that was running Windows 2000. I was unable to
read some of the files. Of course, the computer's file structure was in
pretty bad shape.

Thanks for your input!
 
Well, there is also this one:

http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm


Command line? Really. Sorry, but that certainly doesn't seem like a
step forward to me. Also, is this the same as the old "Chkdsk" from
DOS days?
Click to expand...

Similar and works very well. Although you're likely never to have to use
it.
My main concern is that if the system locks up and has to be restarted
("Windows has detected that the last shutdown wasn't normal" or
whatever), what takes care of the problem? Or does journaling usually
make such things unnecessary?
Click to expand...

Journaling. I've never seen a NTFS system not recover from a lockup,
power failure etc.
I'm afraid that this seems to be a serious point of contention from
what I've read on the internet. For instance:

http://elexorr.com/ntfs_vs_fat32.htm


From this link:

http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm

the following:
____________________________________
But while NTFS has no maintenance OS from which...
* Data can easily be recovered
Click to expand...

Recovered from what? in what form?
* File system structure can be manually checked and repaired
Click to expand...

chkdsk in Safe Mode or command line Safe Mode.
* Malware can be scanned for and cleaned
Click to expand...

Run those utils in Safe Mode. I've yet to see a malware scanner that
did not require GUI.
...I would avoid the use of NTFS in consumer PCs.
____________________________________

Care to comment? Please? Hey, I'm new to this NTFS vs. FAT32 s
argument.
Click to expand...


Go with NTFS. If for nothing else, for the support of large HDD and
files.
Not sure why I should be worried about such things on a single user
computer. Besides, it's my understanding that XP Home and NTFS doesn't
allow built in file encryption like XP Pro and NTFS5. File encryption
is pretty fundamental to file security one would think.

One last question: what if I want to access the files from another OS
on another computer? Can I simply burn them to a CD or DVD and put
that disc in the other computer? Seems to me that I tried this with
some files from a computer that was running Windows 2000. I was unable
to read some of the files. Of course, the computer's file structure
was in pretty bad shape.

Thanks for your input!
Click to expand...

If the other computer is networked to yours, XP will take care of the
translation. Writing them to CD will work.
 
John

The file system on a CD is CDFS which can be read by other OS'es.. XP can
read NTFS, CDFS, FAT32, FAT16, FAT12, so there is no incompatibility
backwards.. problems arise only when coming from the other direction which
you should not need to do.. there may be a desire, but there is no real
need..

You will not regret moving to XP..
 
I'd go for it John, you won't regret it once you start using it. I will
assume you have all the necessary drivers to support your
software/hardware to run XP.
WinME was a good system for me while I ran it, my daughter is still using
it, but I prefer running XP now which I have done for a couple of years.
Joan
 
Asher_N said:
Similar and works very well. Although you're likely never to have to use
it.


Journaling. I've never seen a NTFS system not recover from a lockup,
power failure etc.
Click to expand...

Well, that certainly seems like a strong point in NTFS's favor.
Recovered from what? in what form?
Click to expand...

LOL Sorry, I wouldn't have a clue.
chkdsk in Safe Mode or command line Safe Mode.


Run those utils in Safe Mode. I've yet to see a malware scanner that
did not require GUI.


Go with NTFS. If for nothing else, for the support of large HDD and
files.
Click to expand...

Now this is the part that confuses me. Right now I'm running a 120 gb
hard drive partitioned into equal halves. Are you saying that XP is
going to make that impossible if I stay with FAT32? Why would that be
the case? Why would Microsoft impose this kind of apparently artificial
limitation?
If the other computer is networked to yours, XP will take care of the
translation. Writing them to CD will work.
Click to expand...

I wouldnt' dream of networking a computer to mine. Most of the computers
I work on are riddled with virii and other types of malware. No, what I
mean is that I often need to transfer files like anti-malware program
installation files to such computers. But since you say that writing
them to CD will work, then I guess this isn't an issue.

Thanks again!
 
Mike said:
John

The file system on a CD is CDFS
Click to expand...

I thought it was ISO 9600, or does that just refer to the file naming
system?
which can be read by other OS'es.. XP can
read NTFS, CDFS, FAT32, FAT16, FAT12, so there is no incompatibility
backwards.. problems arise only when coming from the other direction which
you should not need to do.. there may be a desire, but there is no real
need..
Click to expand...

Mike, the instance I was refering to is when I have to transfer
anti-malware setup files that I've downloaded onto somebody else's
computer that's so far gone that I dare not hook it to the internet.
You will not regret moving to XP..
Click to expand...

We shall see. If it goes anything like the time I upgraded to W95 from
3.11, then the whole neighborhood will be hearing me as I tear my hair
out. The wall of black evil and hatred coming from my house will terrify
passersby.
 
John Corliss said:
Now this is the part that confuses me. Right now I'm running a 120 gb
hard drive partitioned into equal halves. Are you saying that XP is
going to make that impossible if I stay with FAT32? Why would that be
the case? Why would Microsoft impose this kind of apparently artificial
limitation?
Click to expand...

Win XP's Disk Management system won't create a FAT32 partition larger
than 32GB, simply because NTFS is available and is a *much* better
choice for huge partitions. If you use something else to create a
larger FAT32 partition - Partition Magic, Win98's FDISK utility,
something else - XP will use it.
 
John

The fact that a file is stored on an NTFS drive does not make it an NTFS
file, any more than a file on a FAT32 file system is a FAT32 file.. file
type is governed by the file extension which is governed by the program
which may or may not run dependant on it being ported to X86..

XP will see NTFS, FAT32, FAT16, FAT12 with no problems at all.. one can
exchange or move files between the file systems..

Any major change to an operating system can be a little fraught.. the
difference this time is that it could go very well, and even if there are
one or two problems, they can be ironed out easily enough..
 
Mike said:
The fact that a file is stored on an NTFS drive does not make it an
NTFS file, any more than a file on a FAT32 file system is a FAT32
file.. file type is governed by the file extension which is governed
by the program which may or may not run dependant on it being ported
to X86..
XP will see NTFS, FAT32, FAT16, FAT12 with no problems at all.. one
can exchange or move files between the file systems..
Click to expand...


Well said, but let me add one other point which has possibly been
misunderstood by John below.

Over a network connection, all the issues of what file systems an operating
system can recognize are irrelevant. It's the file itself which is
transferred over the network, not its uinderlying file system.

So a computer running Windows 98 can read a file stored on an NTFS drive on
a Windows XP computer without a problem, if it does so over a network.

If John already understood that, my apologies.
 
Tim said:
Win XP's Disk Management system won't create a FAT32 partition larger
than 32GB, simply because NTFS is available and is a *much* better
choice for huge partitions. If you use something else to create a
larger FAT32 partition - Partition Magic, Win98's FDISK utility,
something else - XP will use it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that info. Then If I stick with FAT32, I won't fdisk the
drive, but only format it.
 
Thanks for that info. Then If I stick with FAT32, I won't fdisk the
drive, but only format it.
Click to expand...

The thing is, why would you stick with FAT 32? As others have
mentioned when you get above 32 GIG for a partition, NTFS is much more
efficient than FAT 32. For one thing, NTFS uses a much smaller
cluster size. So you have a lot less wasted space on the drive.

If all you are running is XP on the system then using NTFS is a much
better choice. Now if you were dual booting XP and say Win98, then
you would be forced to leave the boot partition FAT32 or Win 98 would
not boot.
 
Back
Top