Fat32 To Ntfs?

[Crazy Dave]

I am trying to convert a windows xp1 system to ntfs, ok so i am into ms dos, I then type,,,,Convert c: /FS:NTFS,,,, this is ok and it asks for volume label, so i then type,,,,,"C:" and nothing happens

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]© Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\Computer>Convert c: /FS:NTFS

The type of the file system is FAT32.

Enter current volume label for drive C: C:

An incorrect volume label was entered for this drive.

C:\Documents and Settings\Computer>c:

C:\Documents and Settings\Computer>

hmmm, what am i doing wrong???

[Darknight]

I am trying to convert a windows xp1 system to ntfs, ok so i am into ms dos, I then type,,,,Convert c: /FS:NTFS,,,, this is ok and it asks for volume label, so i then type,,,,,"C:" and nothing happens

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]

© Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\Computer>Convert c: /FS:NTFS

The type of the file system is FAT32.

Enter current volume label for drive C: C:

An incorrect volume label was entered for this drive.

C:\Documents and Settings\Computer>c:

C:\Documents and Settings\Computer>

hmmm, what am i doing wrong???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Drop the double point in the volume label...

[Abandon]

FAT32 file system is far faster than the NTFS format. This is something that M$ have not made public, mainly as they hold patents on NTFS (and have been trying for FAT too).

Check your Drive speeds here:

http://www.pcpitstop.com/

If you reformat check before and after, and compare the speed of drives of different formats - the FAT is 15-40% faster on my machine (which has 5 virtual drives)

The advantage of NTFS, that I have found, is with networking - it gives more options for sharing and system wide changes governed by the lan server. If you have a peer to peer lan or no lan it makes almost no difference.

The other advantage is that ntfs supports file sizes of more than 4 GB which FAT does not - and you need that if you want to encode large video files or dvd's.

Otherwise it is a ###### of a lot slower than FAT, and can cause problems if you start installing passwords, and user recognition, especially if you re-install windows. Furthermore Linux and Macs do not read NTFS file systems properly (in some instances)

My advice - stick with FAT unless you are in charge of a server in a lan network. Pcpitstop results should convince you if I havn't.

[Bizz]

quite simple ntfs is XP.

FAT 32 IS win 98.

This i know is putting it very simple

the whys and where fors are explaned by pandit35

[Crazy Dave]

I am led to believe that ntfs is better, i know when i set up my pcs i changed them all over to ntsf,

i just done a google"ntfs fat32 which is better" everytime ntfs won out, apart from this little nugget

but the important thing is not to convert a FAT32 drive to NTFS unless it was originally formatted by XP. There's a problem with the way it converts FAT32 drives created by older operating systems that results in tiny cluster sizes and really slow performance.

http://forums.ebay.com.au/thread.jsp?forum...d=1103474872232

anyay i have tried many differant versions of c /c c: etctec, and im d.amn

sure i have no idea of what his volume label is, he has 2 hdds one is C: and one is D: , no partitions, hmmm wot to do next?

[Darknight]

I am led to believe that ntfs is better, i know when i set up my pcs i changed them all over to ntsf,

i just done a google"ntfs fat32 which is better" everytime ntfs won out, apart from this little nugget

but the important thing is not to convert a FAT32 drive to NTFS unless it was originally formatted by XP. There's a problem with the way it converts FAT32 drives created by older operating systems that results in tiny cluster sizes and really slow performance.

http://forums.ebay.com.au/thread.jsp?forum...d=1103474872232

anyay i have tried many differant versions of c /c c: etctec, and im d.amn

sure i have no idea of what his volume label is, he has 2 hdds one is C: and one is D: , no partitions, hmmm wot to do next?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you just enter on the volume label does it return to the command prompt?

if so you just need to restart your computer. the conversion takes places during boot up.

PS, Don't believe the fat32 is better hype

[Crazy Dave]

if i remember rightly it should ask if u want to convert the drive and you just type "Y", but it was accepting one of the c or C or C: but then it would just come up with something like this "C:/mydocuments" etc etc and no more prompts, if i remember rightly it would convert then reboot, but h.ell the last time i done this was a couple of years ago and many cases of whiskey ago, infact i dont even like to think how many cases of whiskey ago

[Crazy Dave]

C:\Documents and Settings\Computer>c:

C:\Documents and Settings\Computer>

here it is

[Abandon]

I am led to believe that ntfs is better, i know when i set up my pcs i changed them all over to ntsf,

i just done a google"ntfs fat32 which is better" everytime ntfs won out, apart from this little nugget

but the important thing is not to convert a FAT32 drive to NTFS unless it was originally formatted by XP. There's a problem with the way it converts FAT32 drives created by older operating systems that results in tiny cluster sizes and really slow performance.

http://forums.ebay.com.au/thread.jsp?forum...d=1103474872232

anyay i have tried many differant versions of c /c c: etctec, and im d.amn

sure i have no idea of what his volume label is, he has 2 hdds one is C: and one is D: , no partitions, hmmm wot to do next?

lets make this clear mr googler....

Dunno who was doing the tests you mention but I do admit that NTFS is better than FAT32 - The point is that the extra features on NTFS are not things you are likely to use unles you encode large video files or have a server run lan.

If you are a home user, or are on a peer-to-peer lan I can't see any advantage of NTFS.

NTFS is 15-40% slower than FAT - so make sure that you really need it before converting.

FAT volumes (oldest ssytem) may have problems when converting with XP, but FAT32 volumes (which have more dynamic cluster sizing) should not be any problem. FAT32 was an improvement on FAT introduced (I think) as the default format with win 98, though it was available before.

Now - speeds:

pc pitstop explains

Cached and uncached speed is measured in megabytes per second (MB/s). When a percentage is shown for cached and uncached speed, it compares the performance of the drive with those of systems in our database with the same processor and clock speed. A rating of 200% means a disk is twice the performance of similar systems, 50% means it's half the performance. Cached disk speed generally measures the efficiency of the system's processor and memory system, not the performance of the hard disk. Uncached speed is most affected by the physical hard disk and the disk interface.

My G and F volumes are on the same physical machine.

F FAT32 ---- records 21 MB/s uncached speed (63%)

G NTFS ---- records 13 MB/s uncached speed (39%)

and the F drive needs de-fragging

That's a heck of a difference. And when pcpitstop used to test cached speeds it was even more pronounced.

But as I say - go do the tests yourself.

Anyone who wants to google something actually useful to the discussion should find out exactly what features NTFS that are so important to warrant such a massive loss of speed. I have listed the adv. / disadv. that I have discovered.

So if you use at home - stick with FAT32

[astral]

When asked for the volume label either hit the enter key as someelse suggested or you can give the disk a "name" like Data, or Photos,

or whatever you like.

This will show up on the explorer alongside the letter. Photos (F:)

It make sit easier to remember what if on the disk.

[Firefoxx]

C: is not the volume label, it's the drive letter. The volume label can be seen by looking in My Computer. If it says "Local Disk (C:)" below the drive, then it doesn't have a label and you can just press enter when it asks for one. Otherwise, the label is the word before (C:).

As for NTFS vs FAT32, I think that NTFS has better file management. If you have an all FAT32 system and the power goes out, you'll have some problems with error checking once you reboot. With NTFS, there is less chance of this happening (in my experience). Of course, if you use an NT-based kernel (winNT, win2k, winxp) then it's highly recommended that you use NTFS. They were optimised for each other. And yes, you should do a fresh format, not a conversion (this holds true for most things).

[Insight]

FAT32 file system is far faster than the NTFS format. This is something that M$ have not made public, mainly as they hold patents on NTFS (and have been trying for FAT too).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well I didn't know that....

Sure it's not because one of the drives your comparing it against is a partition, sharing it with other partitions on the same drive, while the other is on a seperate disk as a solo partition?

The only reason I avoided NTFS to begin with was due to it not being compatible with older OS's, should mine go tits up. Now nearly OS I go near is 2K/XP, there doesn't seem much point anymore.

[francois]

hi'

I don't know about speed differences between ntfs and fat32 but, I read somewhere that it was not possible to have a dual-boot with ntfs ...

anyone knows about this?

could it be usefull to keep the C drive in fat32 for a gain of speed to launch programs and keep partitions with videos in ntfs?

francois

ps; question to pandit ... how did you set your main disk?

[monty]

Choosing between FAT32 and NTFS is not very hard!

If you have big drives or big partitions (anything ove 20gb) NTFS actually works faster then FAT32. FAT32 can handle maximum 32 gb partitions, but handling anything over 20gb slows the FAT32 system down a lot.

I have two 200GB drives, and having forty 20 gb partitions wouldn't be very handy even if it was possible at all (which it isn't)

FAT 32 needs a lot more defragging, much more then NTFS, and it take's a lot more time as well.

FAT32 is not very reliable, NTFS handles disk errors much more efficiently.

In short, if you have partitions of less then 20 gb, and don't need the extra's NTFS offers, then stick with FAT32. A 10 gb FAT32 partition will outperform a 10 gb NTFS partition by a big margin! At 20gb partitions the performance gain is not that big anymore...

If you have four 100gb partitions (like me) using FAT32 would be a dead sure way to get into trouble very fast! You'll have to stick with NTFS in this scenario.

Most new PC's come with these big drives, that's why you'll only see NTFS nowadays.

[monty]

FRancois,

Dual booting in NTFS is not done, all the older windows versions (95,95 and Me) cannot read NTFS partitions, and I think dual booting with Linux needs a FAT partitions as well.

It is possible to dual boot, for example Win2000 and WinXP as they both can use NTFS partitions...

[Abandon]

I have 2 phisical hard drives, split into 5 virtual drives.

1st physical drive

C FAT32 10 gig

D FAt32 10 gig

E FAT32 40 gig

2nd phsical drive:

F FAT32 3 gig

G NTFS 17 gig

EVERY time I do speed checks the NTFS volumes are slower. I too had followed M$ advice and changed to ntfs on all drives. I slowly changed each one bak to FAT as I shuffled files around to allow space for reformatting. Every time the ntfs was 15-40% slower.

I use W2K but have used XP too and neither had any problems using FAT.

Of course, if you use an NT-based kernel (winNT, win2k, winxp) then it's highly recommended that you use NTFS. They were optimised for each other. And yes, you should do a fresh format, not a conversion (this holds true for most things).

Such comments as "they are optimized for each other" (no offence) are bad science. I want specifics to convince me to change to NTFS. I am providing raw data and giving each of you the link to do your own experiments. 'optimized' , and 'which is better' googles are fuzzy and not specific.

I tested each of my drives before and after converting back from NTFS to FAT and though the results varied a little, the FAT was faster every single time, by a large margin.

It is M$ that recommends you use NTFS and it is admittedly superior for use on a server based LAN. But the reality is NTFS is slower.

Personally I have never seen any difference in error checking after a crash between the two types of format and as you see, I use both on the same machine. I did find that the XP AMD processor has more unrecoverable files after a crash than my old Duron - probably due to the larger cache.

But hey - do the test yourself. pcPitstop seem to no longer test cached speeds but when they did there was a similar speed difference.

Now I am under steam, I might mention another benefit of NTFS - you can lock the folders so that no one can take the HD out and access the information on another machine. Again - this is not something that I care about - I use a com at home with no sevret files on it. And should my machine go belly up I would want to take out the HD and run access my information elsewhere. I have done this before when transferring large files accross machines.

Look - it is like ordering steak at a restaurant. The steak alone might be 10$ and the steak with veg 12$. Obviously the steak and veg is "better" as it has more choice etc... But suppose you never eat the veg anyway - why on earth would you pay for it.

You are paying for NTFS with a VERY significant loss of speed. If you use the computer at home, or on a peer to peer lan there is absolutely no benefit at all of using NTFS that I have ever found unless you have files (not folders) that are more than 4 gig in size.

M$ have patents on NTFS and they do not on FAT32 (though they are trying) and they encourage people to use NTFS for that reason, and also it makes it easier to set up your machine as a server to run a Lan with file synchronisation, server forced updates etc....

My advice is, .... well I'm sure you know by now.

[Crazy Dave]

to boot up using a differant os u just go into ur bios and choose where to boot up from@somebody on the first page

pandit, i assume most ppl have a couple of drives of 40 gb or bigger, i cant remember me mates pc, but this one is like real old and has 120 gb with the 2 hdds, and this is an antique

[Abandon]

Oops, forgot, Francois - I had a dual boot running on NTFS with no problem. Had XP on C and W2K on D.

There are many versions of XP that do not allow you to install on a machine that has any other operating system running, even another XP. Can't recall if that was the corporate version or???

Anyway, after insatalling XP it would only find XP when booting. I used the auto repair disc for W2K and it then found both systems and offered the option for which one to boot. I did the same with ME and XP. If you have no disc, then a fast repair will do the job with the W2K CD.

I might also mention that when comparing speeds of the physical or virtual drives both virtual machines have the same RPM.

And francois - havn't seen you in the hub for a while - lots of new stuff.......

[Darknight]

if you want dual or (triple or more) boot within nt4 based OS'es it is no problem , when installing the second it will adjust the boot.ini file in c:\ to accomedate multiple os.

If you want linux, dos, or win95/98 dual boot you have to use a external bootmanager like partition magics for example.

This is because the difference in file formats.

You can dual boot win98/Nt,xp if you want to leave your c:\ in fat 32 but is needs some tweaking to get it up and running. best to use an external boot manager or

Use vmware or virtual pc on your basic xp install and your free to run multiple machines simultaneously on the same hardware.

[monty]

Pandit,

What drives (brand, model) are you using?

The test results you posted in an earlier post seem awfully slow!

I just ran the pcpitstop test and my drives transfer rate (uncached) comes in at a shade over 40 mbps. One drive was highlighted because it's transfer was only 29mbps, and pcpitstop suggested I free up some space since it was 96% full.

I use Maxtors 6Y200P0 model (7200rpm 8mb cache) NTFS file system.

I have an external and older maxtor (40mb, 2mb cache), NTFS and connected through usb2 which still reports 38mbps on pcpitstop's results.

Also pcpitstop advises not to go back to fat32, except for experts needing every bit of performance!

Monty

[krider]

if in doubt as to your volume label - change it

Start a new Command prompt - and type "Label" <ENTER>

Then give it a label like "disk" and then use this when you want to convert the disk to NTFS

Hope this was help

K

[Abandon]

I use Seagate. I notice that the speeds of the discs are below the average figures for their compairsons but don't know why. I ran the tests with my old ASUS mainboard and Duron 700 (otherwise the exact smae system) and got similar results but the comparisons were favourable. Tested in Sept this year.

C- 19 MB/s (107%)

D- 21 MB/s (118%)

E- 21 MB/s (118%)

F- 17 MB/s (96%)

G- 15 MB/s (85%) (NTFS)

In October I had:

33 MB/s (99%) 35 MB/s (105%) 33 MB/s (99%) 18 MB/s (54%) 13 MB/s (39%)

Today:

32 MB/s (96%) 34 MB/s (102%) 32 MB/s (96%) 22 MB/s (66%) 13 MB/s (39%)

Which compares ok. I am running Bit Torrent, sharing in the Thai File Share Hub, and hosting the Hub at the same time which I presume is slowing the drives down somewhat.

The F and G drives are on a IDE expansion card and so are slower. But I also get a "16 bit DOS subsystem is unsuitable for these tests" error, which I never used to get. Anyone shed any light on that? Maybe because I still use W2K??? Drives are horribly fragmented too, except for C.

Do you have a link for their page that recommends NTFS? I can't see it there. Not having read it, I presume the recommendation is so that people have the full raft of Networking options: but these are not necessary on a single home com. It is such a huge speed difference that , well.... there I go again.

[monty]

The later tests seem more normal (low thirties transfer rates)

The fragmentation definately slows you down a lot. This is one of the stated disadvantages of the FAT32 system, combined with very long defragmentation times, especially on large partitions. A friend of mine has a 120Gb drive in FAT32 which takes on average 14 hours to defragment. He needs to do it around twice a month.

My 400 Gb of hard drive needs defragmentation about once every two months and takes around 1 hour.

They don't have an actual page recommending NTFS, they only gave some tips, and reasons why one of my drives was running to slow (it was to full at 96%). On that page they wrote that it is unadvisable to go back to fat32 to regain some performance, exept for certain proffesionals who really need the extra bit of speed! (which in itself is an admittance that FAT32 is faster )

My personal opinion is that on slightly older systems with not overly big drives it's probably better to stick with FAT32.

With faster systems, using very big drives it seems better to go for NTFS, as the performance hit gets very small, and who knows the extra options of NTFS might be usefull at some later day!

It is also not a good idea to convert drives from FAT32 to NTFS because this will result in a very slow drive, due to the inefficiency of the conversion process.

Starting with a cleanly formatted NTFS drive is the only way!

Monty

[Firefoxx]

When I said that NTFS and NT kernels were optimised for each other, I meant that they were built to work best each other. If you don't use NTFS with NT kernels, you won't be able to do certain things (I forget what).

I remember reading something on the advantages of NTFS, and error checking, and it happened to coincide with my experiences. When I was using mostly FAT32, the system would have to go through a thorough disk check after an unexpected reboot. Not so with NTFS, which hardly ever does this (with no adverse file system problems experienced).

A comparison, in theory and practice, of both shows that there are advantages and disadvantages to both. I suspect that if you used different benchmarks, you would also get different results.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ntfs/index3.html

I like what NTFS does for me, and so I've formatted (not converted) all my partitions to NTFS. It's also recommended for DV editing, something which I do often.

[Darknight]

When I said that NTFS and NT kernels were optimised for each other, I meant that they were built to work best each other. If you don't use NTFS with NT kernels, you won't be able to do certain things (I forget what).

No security on files.

A comparison, in theory and practice, of both shows that there are advantages and disadvantages to both. I suspect that if you used different benchmarks, you would also get different results.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ntfs/index3.html

Ntfs is better microsoft technology then fat or fat 32. Unless you still have that old pentium 1 pc i find it really far fetched to start searching for a way to make your HD go that litlle faster

I have the latest model always and it doesn't make a bloody difference if the Hd takes 1 millisecond to retrieve something or 1,2 milliseconds

Ntfs is more secure, less prone to defragmentation , easyer to repare when corrupted, and is more compatible with Nt/2000/xp.

No prfessional will say you need to install your pc's with a fat primary partition for Windows XP.

[francois]

hi'

No prfessional will say you need to install your pc's with a fat primary partition for Windows XP.

agree with this 100% and I still never seen a pc with XP on fat32 ... until today.

a friend of mine (techy) told me that every pc he had buit and running XP were delivered with ntfs ...

seems a kind of logical thing here .. may be

francois

[Abandon]

More security??

On a lan there are more options for NTFS as I have stated earlier. If it is a peer to peer lan it's extraordinarily easy to share/unshare folders - so no security issue. NTFS you can share/unshare folders within folders... but I never had any cause to do this. With a server run lan you can have extensive options for lan wide system changes and server forced updates - which is vital for a business installation. But if you don't operate a server run lan what is the need?? If you are on a simgle home com (as I am) or a P2P lan there is no use for NTFS.

The only actual fact anyone has yet come up with as an advantage for ntfs on a home system is defragmentation times. I havn't compared these so you may well be right. But I use norton defragger anyway which takes a fraction of the time Windows de-fragger takes. As for error checking on FAT - I doubt there is any difference between the two - but again you need to run direct comparisons by pulling the plug on the com when writing files, and I don't believe anyone has done this. Better to address the crash issues. MyW2K installation simply never crashes anyway.

I agree that all techs recommend NTFS but none has yet given me any reason for it with hard facts. "it's better" "it's newer" "they are optimized" simply does not cut it for me. I want to know hard facts of why it is so much better to warrant a 15-40% speed drop. This is not a tweak to squeeze a final ounce of performance - it is a HUGE difference! Frankly, everyone I know who comments on the 2 formats has simply "updated" to NTFS when going over to Win XP, and thenceforth claimed it is superior. But never a good reason why. I have searched for lists of the advantages and found none. I have tested each drive before and after changing back to FAT ( as I too had gone to NTFS on every drive when going to XP) and every time there is a huge speed advantage to the FAT drives.

As francois says - he has never even seen an XP installation running on FAT - so who is it that says it is an advantage??? No one has done it, so how can they say.

NTFS advantages:

many useful options on server driven lans

restricted access to files so HD cannot be taken to another com and data accessed (this needs to be enabled and who has? Anyway I would consider it a disadvantage as I have had to put HDs in other machines before)

Can handle a file size of more than 4 G (only time I needed this is for ripping DVDs ready for encoding)

Faster de frag ???? Maybe, but who has run a good test on this - my drives vary in the files they have - i.e. C has 1000's of windows files, E has 30 DivX files.

Disadvantage:

Speed - the figures I posted speak for them selves - this is a huge difference

[Firefoxx]

I really wouldn't put that much faith into a single benchmark, or even multiple benchmarks for that matter, since they are synthetic measures of performance. Also, the consensus on most sites on NTFS vs FAT32 performance is that "it depends". On small volumes, FAT32 does indeed have a performance advantage.

In the end, it really depends on the user. I do a lot of DV editing, and the typical 60 minute DV file is 12GB+, which FAT32 cannot handle. I also use partitions of 120-200GB (well, only 9+ DV files can fit on these), something that NTFS theoretically handles more efficiently. I have a high-end computer and can live with the small (if any) performance loss due to NTFS.

I could understand why a professional would always go with NTFS. There are none of the limitations of FAT32. There is a small (if any) performance loss to pay. It supports unicode and large drives. It has built-in security and recoverability, not to mention compression. All this means less headaches afterwards.

The built-in security on NTFS drives can be beaten pretty easily, if you know what you're doing. I think it's there to defeat the casual snooper.

This is a quote about error recovery on NTFS:"NTFS is a very recoverable file system since it maintains a log of transactions on the hard drive. The CHKDSK utility made use of in XP, which takes the place of the Scandisk utility used in previous versions of Windows on FAT16/32 systems, will check the consistency of various pointers within the directories, allocation and file tables. If an inconsistency is found, then transactions can be rolled back to a point where consistency is recovered. Multiple copies of the Master File Table are maintained."

Another quote, about converting from FAT to NTFS:For volumes converted from FAT or FAT32 to NTFS, due to existing disk usage, the MFT is created in a different location than on a volume originally formatted with NTFS, so volume performance might not be as good as on volumes originally formatted with NTFS. For optimal performance, consider recreating these volumes and formatting them with the NTFS file system.

Volumes converted from FAT to NTFS leaves the files intact, but the volume might lack some performance benefits compared to volumes initially formatted with NTFS. For example, the MFT might become fragmented on converted volumes. In addition, on converted boot volumes, convert applies the same default security that is applied during Windows Setup.

Edited December 24, 2004 by Firefoxx

[francois]

hi'

well, actualy I did an install of Xp on fat32 ... on one of my machine.. "old one",

the result was that I could have a dual boot with Linux and the drive that hosted the windows system had been formatted during the XP install.

I would not recommend to anyone to convert a drive from fat to ntfs for the reasons given by Firefoxx.

I consider(I may be wrong here..)that any OS should be installed on a formatted drive, before or during install.

question is fat and ntfs are they fully compatible ... yes and no

it's a bit like saying that ext3 is better than ext2 or reiserFS ...

each have their own specifications for one OS.

I begin to think that it's a fake problem, considering speed access when it's only a question of mms, with 2 or 3 gb processor and disk runing at least

ATA100 @7200tr

my brother first installed on fat32.. then soon after, reformatted the drive and reinstalled XP with ntfs during install.

advantage or disadvantage ... don't know, the only thing that I know well about ntfs is that it's bit more secure than fat, permissions, encryption ..etc.

I have a SATA 80gb all on ntfs and an ext drive 80gb on ntfs too, and it's runing pretty well.

I found a great program for drefrag, it's called "Defragmenter Pro Plus",

closing all unnecessary services, cleaning the swap and running without any program strated before, it makes a real efficient defrag

francois

[Darknight]

On a lan there are more options for NTFS as I have stated earlier. If it is a peer to peer lan it's extraordinarily easy to share/unshare folders - so no security issue. NTFS you can share/unshare folders within folders... but I never had any cause to do this. With a server run lan you can have extensive options for lan wide system changes and server forced updates - which is vital for a business installation. But if you don't operate a server run lan what is the need?? If you are on a simgle home com (as I am) or a P2P lan there is no use for NTFS.

You're mixing sharing and file security. they have nothing to do with each other except that both can have permissions set. You can set permissions on applications, registry, files, shares, Active directory, Network communications, profiles etc..

Only Ntfs (New Technology File System) is about File security. Wether i have a network or not is not to the point.

I can easely have two users sharing a pc (especially in thailand) were one can't access the others files. This is only possible with NTFS. Also there is no need for a server to use ntfs , in a peer to peer i can secure files just as well for different users on another pc. the only drawback is then that i have to create all the users on all the pc's equally.

I agree that all techs recommend NTFS but none has yet given me any reason for it with hard facts. "it's better" "it's newer" "they are optimized" simply does not cut it for me. I want to know hard facts of why it is so much better to warrant a 15-40% speed drop. This is not a tweak to squeeze a final ounce of performance - it is a HUGE difference! Frankly, everyone I know who comments on the 2 formats has simply "updated" to NTFS when going over to Win XP, and thenceforth claimed it is superior. But never a good reason why. I have searched for lists of the advantages and found none. I have tested each drive before and after changing back to FAT ( as I too had gone to NTFS on every drive when going to XP) and every time there is a huge speed advantage to the FAT drives.

Why is this so important to you ??? I don't notice any difference on my 3.2 PIV 1024 ram 160 and 200 Gb (7200rpm) HD.

As francois says - he has never even seen an XP installation running on FAT - so who is it that says it is an advantage??? No one has done it, so how can they say.

People have done it, i've had them, companies tried this long before Xp came out. Mostly because unattended earlier installs had a problem rebooting to ntfs as they couldn't read their config files anymore (they all started from dos).

Compaq desktops in 2000 were standard fat32 on the c drive (NT4 os) and ntfs on the D:, This only made that the os crashed quicker then a direct install on ntfs.

So we just installed them directly from a bootable cd instead of using the install present on the disks.

For francois

the result was that I could have a dual boot with Linux and the drive that hosted the windows system had been formatted during the XP install.

As said before that could be a reason to do it but i think using vmware is a lot simpler now. Merry christmas francois