NTFS or FAT32 for your WIN2k???

[Delusion2001]

i use fat32 cuz i dual boot with win98se, and i wanna be able to access stuff on both drives

 

[VinY]

I'm confused about something, hoping someone could clear this up. I have a 45gig primary drive and a 13gb backup drive which has backup files and is formatted with fat32. If I formatted my primary 45gig drive to NTFS and put Win2k on it, would I be able to access files from my other drive from within Win2k? Thanks.

 

[Elledan]

VinY, yes. You can use a mixture of NTFS and FAT(32) without any problems.


I'm running NTFS only on my main PC, on my Linux/Win2k box I use FAT32 for Win2k.

NTFS is better IMHO: more features, (more) security and you don't have to defrag it every month.

 

[loup garou]

FAT32. That last defrag has me doubting my choice though...

 

[Entity]

NTFS all the way.

Rob

 

[Zach]

"Hmm I'm using fat32, but I want to convert to NTFS because of the 4gig file size limitation.. I do some work with video."

Neither has a 4GB limitation.. FAT16 has a 2GB limitation though. Old NT installs (pre SP3 or SP4) may have had a 4GB NTFS limit though.

 

[~zonker~]

IcemanJer

WinDVD as well as the DVD player that comes with the ATI Radeon, as well as the hollywood plus card all have worked in Win2k for me

 

[Ranger X]

NTFS if you're going to run straight Win2k.

 

[JoLLyRoGer]

I'm running strictly NTFS. It does better when your drives begin to fill up and also when you have to deal with larger files.

 

[John]

NTFS here

 

[MillionaireNextDoor]

ntfs if you're using only win2k. fat32 if dual boot, etc.

 

I use fat32.
NTFS may be better for security, but Ive noticed that it slows my performance, and useless if I cannot cross platform to others.

 

[Plantanthera]

FAT32 - Win8se/Win2k

 

[gittyup]

NTFS

 

[Imaginer]

<< started with FAT32, but was convinced to convert the drive to NTFS, and my ATI TV tuner card hasn't worked since.. >>



Have you tried the latest software and drivers? My AIW worked with NTFS.

 

[Zorro]

Can you convert a Win 2k Fat32 system to NTFS without reformatting?
And will all programs that run on win2k run on NTFS?

 

[Killbat]

I have NTFS on my main drive, a FAT32 disk for the occasional Win98 (two games need it ), and I keep backups in my mind. :Q

 

[bigrash]

zorro
i think you can reformat to ntfs from fat32 if you have the windows2k cdrom. i think that there's an option there.

and i don't think all programs will work on ntfs

 

[afropick]

I do believe that there is a problem with ATI DVD under Win2K. The new ATI Multimedia Center drivers don't even include the DVD Player! I have the ATI All-In-Wonder Radeon, and everything else seems okay, but I have to use Cyberlink's PowerDVD for playback under Windows 2000.

As for me, FAT32 in Win98 and NTFS for Win2k. I have another &quot;archive/backup&quot; drive with a partition that's in FAT32 so that if I need something shared, I put it there.

 

[AfterBurn]

<< Neither has a 4GB limitation.. FAT16 has a 2GB limitation though. Old NT installs (pre SP3 or SP4) may have had a 4GB NTFS limit though. >>


FAT16 has a 2GB partition limitation
FAT32 has a 2GB filesize limitation
NTFS has neither

NTFS is faster than FAT32 on large partitions (and arent all partitions large these days?)
NTFS doesnt fragment as fast as FAT32
NTFS is more secure than FAT32
NTFS allows you to use symbolic links (not shortcuts, but like UNIX) and mountpoints
NTFS has smaller clusters, thus less wasted space

Needless to say i run NTFS on all drives.

 

[lilstevo]

fat32

 

[Plantanthera]

FAT32 - 2 terabytes

NTFS - Can't remember exactly, but it is either 8 or 16 terabytes.

 

[afropick]

Tell 'em Plantanthera,

Haven't you folks ever installed Windows 98 w/FAT32 on a hard drive larger than 4GB?

... and Afterburn,
NTFS is faster than FAT32 on large partitions
I keep hearing this, but it doesn't feel like it.

NTFS doesnt fragment as fast as FAT32
But it apprears to defragment much slower.

NTFS is more secure than FAT32
No comment.

NTFS allows you to use symbolic links (not shortcuts, but like UNIX) and mountpoints
NTFS has smaller clusters, thus less wasted space
Symlinks &amp; mount points = good!
Aha, smaller clusters = slower, no?

 

[AfterBurn]

<< I keep hearing this, but it doesn't feel like it >>


There are certain features with NTFS that are set by default to make the filesystem more redundant and failsafe, that are usually not needed other than on servers. You can turn those off and gain some extra speed of the filesystem. Ill see if i can find a link with the details for you.



<< But it apprears to defragment much slower. >>


Actually it doesnt. Its just that W2K comes with a very crappy defragmenter. I use Raxco Perfectdisk 2000, and it defragments my drives in under 30 mins. And it allows me to defragment remote stations, but thats a different thing. I also hear Norton Speeddisk is MUCH faster than the original defragmenter.



<< Aha, smaller clusters = slower, no? >>


That depends. NTFS lets you choose the cluster size you want when you format it, and you should chose wisely depending on the use of the drive and the amount and size of those files.

If you have lots of large file on a disk, ie a disk full with MP3's at cd quality, you will want to make the clustersize large to speed up things, yet when you have a disk full of small files, like word documents, you will want to make the clustersize smaller to not waste too much space. Of course its always a compromise between speed and space.

 

[Riddler]

NTFS