Win2k, Fat32 or NTFS? Is there a difference?

[T3ddyG]

I am going to install win2k, and i wanted to know what the difference between installing on a Fat32 partition and a NTFS partition? Is there any performance difference? Thanks for any information you can provide. This was at the bottom of one of my other posts, but no one responded.. i think it was too far off the Message topic, So i made it its own post.

 

[DAM]

to my knowledge the differense is security, ntfs is a lot more secure and can be secured more easily. ntfs can read fat, but fat cant read ntfs.





dam()

 

[T3ddyG]

Is there a performance difference at all? I'm running a home desktop computer, not a server or anything. Just for personal use, so security isn't a huge factor for me. But performance is. If NTFS performs better than Fat32, then i will install on a NTFS

 

[Zach]

FAT32 will be a bit faster, it's more simple. NTFS may have better error recovery though..

Generally, you don't need NTFS if you aint worried about security.

 

[TimeThrash]

Go Fat32. My roomate was hardcore NTFS about two years ago because he liked specifying specific permissions on each and every folder. Then his computer crashed, f***** up his drive and he couldn't access it because NTFS had locked it out. If Fat32 is faster, go Fat32.
Tt

 

[dcane2000]

Yeah, there are special security tweaks and stuff you can do with NTFS that makes it a bit slower although I'm not sure how big of a performance hit your system would take if at all. But to keep things simple I'd stick with FAT32. Especially if you ever want to dual boot with Win98. You only really want to use NTFS 5.0 if you have special security concerns, otherwise avoid the headache.

 

[Techwhore]

Actually, I've read in numerous reports that NTFS is faster, though I still can't tell a difference... I personally use NTFS and it works great, but there's way more overhead involved and like people have said, it can be a b*tch if something goes wrong... If you don't need it, then run on FAT32.

You can always convert the drive from one to the other using disk manager or partition magic... However, if you start out as FAT and convert to NTFS you'll keep all the FAT default security settings, so you'll need to manually secure your NTFS instead of it being done for u

 

[DieselMan]

NTFS volumes also get fragmented a bit less (I think it had to do with the way files or clusters were linked??? binary tree vs. sequential, or something of the sort...). Don't quote me on this, I have a terrible memory.

 

[Zach]

<< NTFS volumes also get fragmented a bit less (I think it had to do with the way files or clusters were linked??? binary tree vs. sequential, or something of the sort...). Don't quote me on this, I have a terrible memory. >>



I think so too, but it's still not that good anyway.

And, as far as speed, I think it depends on how you use it. If I remember, general normal use would very slightly benifit from FAT32.

 

[5mudge]

You want to go with FAT32 if you still have old disk utilities you plan to use. For example, I do a lot of file transfers for side jobs with an old DOS version of FastLynx, an ancient Laplink-style program. This program will *not* work under NTFS....

 

[HansXP]

GO with NTFS. Depending on what you're doing, it may be faster or slower, but you WON'T NOTICE THE DIFFERENCE. What you will notice is that NTFS gets fragmented less, stores files in less space, and is much more secure.

 

[Shadow07]

HANSXP is right on. The difference between NTFS and FAT32 can be discussed for ever. Basically, I would always go wtih NTFS, unless you have another app that will not work on NTFS. The only case like this would be if you were going to use another OS, like Linux, on a FAT partition and needed to keep the existing partitions the same.

You will not see any performance difference between the two. In fact, on most newer machines, you might see a better performance difference than that of FAT32. You see, the filesystem NTFS API is built into the Executive level of the Kernel. This is below the User level of the Kernel and any file level operations will be transparent to the user. This includes COMPRESSING data. When the file is compressed and de-compressed, the user will not see any difference nor know that the file is being compressed/de-compressed when the user is opening the file.

With NTFS, the location(s) of the data is stored in a journal. As opposed to the FAT table, journaling helps with reliability. If your system does happen to crash, you can recover for data lose easier than you would with FAT.

 

[senior guy]

While NTFS may be more sucure, FAT32 kicks butt for performance

 

[techwanabe]

I learned in my MCSE certification classes that NTFS has security as mentioned above. Basically FAT32 has no security.

If you are a home user, go with FAT32. NTFS is aimed and needed in the office environment for security purposes. The only reason you would want to intentionally choose NTFS and have security at home is if you are a parent and want to administrate the computer and remove certain privelages from your kids.

For example, I have a single mom friend who had to remove AIM chat from her WIN98 PC because her teenage kids were really abusing it badly. If she had Win2000 with NTFS file security, she could set up profiles for her kids which lock them out of AIM or other applications she didn't want them to use. But she could log in as herself with admin rights and do AIM herself.

Go with FAT32

 

[HansXP]

There is no reason not to use NTFS. That performance test is a bunch of BS.

 

[rbV5]

For me, the best reason to use NTFS was the file size limitation of the fat file system(2gb for fat16 and 4gb for fat32, 1TB? for NTFS)if you're doing any video/audio editing/capturing, its the only way to go.

 

[T3ddyG]

Thanks for all the info guys. I decided to go with fat32 due to my tri-boot system. I originally tried it under NTFS, but i couldn't get it to dual boot with win98. I then formatted into Fat32 and things went smoothly. I'm tribooting with redhat, win2k, and win98. I really wish i could get rid of win98.. but gaming performance in win2k is horrible. Thanks for all the help though. If i was only running win2k, i would have definitely gone with NTFS.