to FAT or not to FAT?

[Shelley]

When installing Win2000 on an existing machine, is it
correct to choose FAT, FAT32, or the updated file system?
The only reason I can think of to want DOS on the system
is to run some old DOS games. If I upgrade my file system,
what do I lose?

 

[me]

if you're gonna run dos games through windows, fat is not necessary
pick whatever filesystem you want, just be mindful of the partition limits
fat - 2gb
fat32 -64gb

 

[John Doue]

if you're gonna run dos games through windows, fat is not necessary
pick whatever filesystem you want, just be mindful of the partition limits
fat - 2gb
fat32 -64gb

Choosing NTFS means you would lose the ability to use most disk utilies
in case of problems. For the average user, including me, Fat 32 is the
way to go. The additional benefits of NTFS are mostly valuable for IT
professionals. NTFS is supposed to be safer, but it is more complicated
to manage, slower (because of the additional complexity of file
handling) and recovering from a crash involving file problems in NTFS is
much much more difficult.

With regards to partition size limitations, anyway, I do not advise very
large partitions since the bigger they are, the more data you have to
recover after a crash (file crashes seldom involve more than one
partition). But computing is about individual choices...

Regards

 

[R. C. White]

Hi, Shelley.

MOST programs that run in Win9x/ME will work fine in WinXP. MOST of those
that run in MS-DOS will work fine in a "DOS" window in WinXP. But recognize
that the "DOS" window is an emulator of MS-DOS, not true MS-DOS; it cannot
deal directly with the hardware but must access it through the HAL (Hardware
Abstraction Layer).

Unless you plan to use MS-DOS or Win9x/ME on this computer, it's best to use
NTFS all the way. NTFS has several advantages, especially with the
multi-gigabyte HDs that are typical in today's computers. The advantages
are largely in security, both in the sense of secure from unauthorized
access and in secure from hard disk glitches. But if you do plan to install
MS-DOS/Win9x/ME, then the system partition (almost always Drive C must be
FAT (16 or 32); otherwise the DOS-based systems can't boot. Also, of
course, any volume (primary partition or logical drive) to be used by those
systems must also be FAT, because they can't even SEE an NTFS volume.

As "me" said, FAT16 volumes are limited to 2 GB. Win2K will not format a
volume larger than 32 GB as FAT32, but Win9x/ME will, up to about 127 GB;
after formatting, Win2K will happily use all of that large FAT32 volume.
For details, see this page from the online version of the Win2K Pro Resource
Kit:
File Systems
http://www.microsoft.com/windows200...techinfo/reskit/en-us/prork/prdf_fls_pxjh.asp

RC

 

[Lanwench [MVP - Exchange]]

Choosing NTFS means you would lose the ability to use most disk
utilies in case of problems.

....well, FAT tends to have a lot more problems....and NTFSDOS will let you
boot from a floppy & see your data just fine.

For the average user, including me, Fat
32 is the way to go. The additional benefits of NTFS are mostly
valuable for IT professionals. NTFS is supposed to be safer, but it
is more complicated to manage, slower (because of the additional
complexity of file handling) and recovering from a crash involving
file problems in NTFS is much much more difficult.

I don't know about that - I use NTFS even on people's home PCs, and haven't
had problems with it. It's fairly 'self healing' and isn't prone to
fragmentation as badly as FAT is. But to each their own.

With regards to partition size limitations, anyway, I do not advise
very large partitions since the bigger they are, the more data you
have to recover after a crash (file crashes seldom involve more than
one partition). But computing is about individual choices...

I always set up at least two partitions - one for system files/programs, and
one for data. If there's an OS problem, I can just reinstall over the system
partition and not lose data.

 

[Gary G. Little]

If you have to boot to DOS then FAT is required, but a primary argument of
FAT over NTFS has been ignored. Cluster size.

A cluster is the MINIMUM amount of data that will be transferred to and
from the disc, and is defined by the OS for the volume in a FAT system. NTFS
will allow you to specify cluster size. This is critical because it is the
MINIMUM transfer size for normal disc access. Given a 2 Gig partition for
DOS you will have a 64K cluster size that will be transferred to and from
the disc for either reads or writes. Given a file containing 36 bytes, it
will be stored on the disc in a 64k cluster. So to the argument that DOS/FAT
is faster --- that depends on how big your cluster size is. I have seen NTFS
systems far outperform DOS systems when 1/2 gig and larger partitions were
used.

 

[John Doue]

If you have to boot to DOS then FAT is required, but a primary argument of
FAT over NTFS has been ignored. Cluster size.

A cluster is the MINIMUM amount of data that will be transferred to and
from the disc, and is defined by the OS for the volume in a FAT system. NTFS
will allow you to specify cluster size. This is critical because it is the
MINIMUM transfer size for normal disc access. Given a 2 Gig partition for
DOS you will have a 64K cluster size that will be transferred to and from
the disc for either reads or writes. Given a file containing 36 bytes, it
will be stored on the disc in a 64k cluster. So to the argument that DOS/FAT
is faster --- that depends on how big your cluster size is. I have seen NTFS
systems far outperform DOS systems when 1/2 gig and larger partitions were
used.

Gary,

The debate over cluster size is as old as FAT. What you say is quite
right but cluster size can be adjusted in FAT32 partitions with the
appropriate tool (including Partition Magic), in the very few cases a
user has very specific needs in terms of file sizes. I suspect that as
you say, in some cases NTFS can be faster but the fact remains that NTFS
file management being far more complex than FAT32's (a complexity
unnecessary for most individual users), there is necessarily an impact
on performance. To what extent it is a significant is probably a
function of lots of variables.

To me, the main argument against NTFS for individuals users is its added
layer of complexity in file management and most importantly, the fact
that when a problem occurs on such partitions (and they do), the average
user will often have little alternative but to reformat. Once it has
happened to you and you have felt helpless when confronted with a
problem you could have solved with FAT32, you reconsider choosing NTFS.

But as Lanwench wisely said, "to each their own".

Regards

-

 

[Al Dykes]

Choosing NTFS means you would lose the ability to use most disk utilies
in case of problems. For the average user, including me, Fat 32 is the
way to go. The additional benefits of NTFS are mostly valuable for IT
professionals. NTFS is supposed to be safer, but it is more complicated
to manage, slower (because of the additional complexity of file
handling) and recovering from a crash involving file problems in NTFS is
much much more difficult.

With regards to partition size limitations, anyway, I do not advise very
large partitions since the bigger they are, the more data you have to
recover after a crash (file crashes seldom involve more than one
partition). But computing is about individual choices...

John Doue

If your data is important to you, you have to depend on backups of your data.

"Recovery" if for people that forgot to backup.

If it's business data, you are negligent if you don't make backups and
get them to another location on a regular basis.

Nothing protects you against disk crashes except backups.

The MTFB of NFTS is vastly higher that the hardware it runs on.

If the operating system becomes unbootable (which happens once in a
while) the are plenty of tools to revover NTFS data; the easiest ime
IMO is to put the NTFS disk into another XP machine as the secondary
disk and copy your data.

FAT32 is much more likely than NTFS to produce broken files if yoiur
hardware is less than perfect.

See http://www.ntfs.com/ for lots more info and comparison to FAT32.