NTFS or FAT32

[niranjan162]

Hey guys i just formatted my hard drive but i made it use the NTFS system or whatever instead of FAT 32, should I reformat it and use FAT 32 or is NTFS good??

Also a little noob question I was looking at my system specs in everest and it says i only have 958mbs of ram instead of 1024 is that normal?

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

NTFS is the way to go for WindowsXP as far as I'm concerned.

Do you have integrated graphics? If it's set to 64mb, that could explain your missing ram.

 

[Valkerie]

NTFS is better and intended for multiple OS support. Also, FAT32 has limited features where NTFS will otherwise take advantage of. Use NTFS if you're installing Windows XP.
You can change from NTFS to FAT32 with files not being deleted, vice versa, as well.

1024-958=66

You probably have a 64mb integrated graphics card.
Also, how RAM bytes add up, doesn't always mean you're going to get the max amout you purchase on the price tag label when you stick it into a computer system.

 

[w00t]

3dmark05 and everest take 2mb of my ram I have 1022mb

Where did they go?

 

[niranjan162]

Hey

thanks for all the responses, I am using WIN2K, so is NTFS still good for that, also yoyoyo was right I am using integrated graphics so its using 64mb of the memory

thanks again guys,

 

[YOyoYOhowsDAjello]

Originally posted by: niranjan162
Hey

thanks for all the responses, I am using WIN2K, so is NTFS still good for that, also yoyoyo was right I am using integrated graphics so its using 64mb of the memory

thanks again guys,

Yeah, NTFS is good for 2000 afaik. (I've never used 2000 so I don't have firsthand experience though)

 

[Leros]

FAT32 has an annoying file size limit.

 

[bob4432]

win2k+ntfs=great

the main thing for people that don't need the security features that ntfs offers is the fact that it does not have the 4GB file size limit (or is it 2GB, can't remember it has been since win98 that i used fat32) and if you do any type of video work you will see that uncompressed video files take up huge amounts of space - uncompressed avi from mini dv camera = 13GB/Hour.

 

[Excelsior]

ntfs

 

[Leros]

Originally posted by: bob4432
win2k+ntfs=great

the main thing for people that don't need the security features that ntfs offers is the fact that it does not have the 4GB file size limit (or is it 2GB, can't remember it has been since win98 that i used fat32) and if you do any type of video work you will see that uncompressed video files take up huge amounts of space - uncompressed avi from mini dv camera = 13GB/Hour.

Its a 4gb limit. Not a big deal 99% of the time. But something as simple as a DVD iso can cause problems.

 

[Some1ne]

NTFS is better in almost all circumstances. If however you want to dual-boot Windows and Linux, and be able to read and write to your Windows drive from Linux (especially if you need to write...read works okay for NTFS), then using FAT32 makes sense since last time I checked writing to NTFS volumes from Linux is finnicky at best, if not downright catastrophic.

 

[Leros]

Originally posted by: Some1ne
NTFS is better in almost all circumstances. If however you want to dual-boot Windows and Linux, and be able to read and write to your Windows drive from Linux (especially if you need to write...read works okay for NTFS), then using FAT32 makes sense since last time I checked writing to NTFS volumes from Linux is finnicky at best, if not downright catastrophic.

Ive used NTFS with some of the major distros. Knoppix (reads it at least), Debian/Ubuntu and one other one.... I forget.

 

[Some1ne]

Correct, there is support for most distros in terms of being able to read NTFS, but as far as I know write support doesn't work right.