WD My Book Essential: FAT32 vs NTFS?

[BRH]

I got my WD My Book Essential (250 Gigs) installed using USB 2.0, thanks
to the replies I got on an earlier thread.

Now that it's up and running, "Properties" reports that there are approx
232 Gigs free on the drive. (It comes with some software on it, which
takes up the rest of the space.) It also says that its formatted under
FAT32. I've read that FAT32 has a 4Gig limit, which seems to contradict
what I'm seeing under "Properties" for this drive. I also have an
internal hard drive partition on my system of approx 60 Gigs that I have
formatted under FAT 32.

So what's the truth -- Is there a limit under FAT32 or not? If not,
what's the advantage of converting this drive over to NTFS, which seems
to be recommended in some of the online reviews I've read?

If it matters, I'm using Win XP Pro SP2 as my Operating System.

Thanks!

 

[Rod Speed]

BRH wrote

I got my WD My Book Essential (250 Gigs) installed using USB 2.0, thanks to the replies I got on
an earlier thread.

Now that it's up and running, "Properties" reports that there are
approx 232 Gigs free on the drive. (It comes with some software on it, which takes up the rest of
the space.) It also says that its
formatted under FAT32. I've read that FAT32 has a 4Gig limit, which
seems to contradict what I'm seeing under "Properties" for this drive.

Nope, the limit is with the file size, not the partition size.

I also have an internal hard drive partition on my system of approx 60 Gigs that I have formatted
under FAT 32.

So what's the truth -- Is there a limit under FAT32 or not?

Yes, there is a limit to the file size. That is not the size of the partition.
http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm

If not, what's the advantage of converting this drive over to NTFS,

You can have files bigger than 4G on it. Those are mostly video files.

which seems to be recommended in some of the online reviews I've read?

NTFS has a number of advantges over FAT32.

 

[BRH]

BRH wrote




Nope, the limit is with the file size, not the partition size.




Yes, there is a limit to the file size. That is not the size of the partition.
http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm




You can have files bigger than 4G on it. Those are mostly video files.




NTFS has a number of advantges over FAT32.

OK. Thanks!

 

[Ed Light]

NTFS is more reliable -- far less likely to corrupt a file.


--
Ed Light

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org

Send spam to the FTC at
(e-mail address removed)
Thanks, robots.

 

[Rod Speed]

NTFS is more reliable -- far less likely to corrupt a file.

But much more likely to see the OS hold its nose
and claim that the partition is unformatted or RAW.

 

[Arno Wagner]

I got my WD My Book Essential (250 Gigs) installed using USB 2.0, thanks
to the replies I got on an earlier thread.

Now that it's up and running, "Properties" reports that there are approx
232 Gigs free on the drive. (It comes with some software on it, which
takes up the rest of the space.) It also says that its formatted under
FAT32. I've read that FAT32 has a 4Gig limit, which seems to contradict
what I'm seeing under "Properties" for this drive.

That is a file size limit, not a filesystem size limit. You can have
a partition far larger than 4GB, but you cannot fill it up with
a single file.

I also have an
internal hard drive partition on my system of approx 60 Gigs that I have
formatted under FAT 32.

So what's the truth -- Is there a limit under FAT32 or not? If not,
what's the advantage of converting this drive over to NTFS, which seems
to be recommended in some of the online reviews I've read?

You get a fancier permission system with NTFS. That is about it.
Unlee you are unhappy with FAt32, I would stay with it in
your place.

Arno

 

[Ed Light]

You get a fancier permission system with NTFS. That is about it.
Unlee you are unhappy with FAt32, I would stay with it in
your place.

Except NTFS is so much more resistant to corrupting files, like when the
power fails, OS crashes, etc.


--
Ed Light

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org

Send spam to the FTC at
(e-mail address removed)
Thanks, robots.

 

[Arno Wagner]

Except NTFS is so much more resistant to corrupting files, like when the
power fails, OS crashes, etc.

I have not lost any data with FAT32 under XP. Before, especially
under DOS, it was a problem. I think it is not really anymore.

It may be that I have just been lucky.

Arno

 

[Doug]

I have not lost any data with FAT32 under XP. Before, especially
under DOS, it was a problem. I think it is not really anymore.
It may be that I have just been lucky.
Arno

Yes. I recently had a horribly messed up drive come back completely
after running chkdsk. I was stunned by the number of system messages I
received as one error after another was corrected. Good things were
going on that I'd never even heard of. All because the drive was NTFS
instead of FAT.

I am now a true believer.

Doug

 

[Arno Wagner]

Yes. I recently had a horribly messed up drive come back completely
after running chkdsk. I was stunned by the number of system messages I
received as one error after another was corrected. Good things were
going on that I'd never even heard of. All because the drive was NTFS
instead of FAT.

I am now a true believer.

You mean, because NTFS needs more repairs after a problem than
FAT, it is more save? That seems counterintuitive to me. Or did
I misunderstand?

Arno

 

[Eric Gisin]

You mean, because NTFS needs more repairs after a problem than
FAT, it is more save? That seems counterintuitive to me. Or did
I misunderstand?

Are you trying to be funny or is it just drugs?