Fat 32 Or Ntfs

[Wanderer]

Hi, I recently bought an external Hard Disc.(thx fro info on previos post ) i am going to copy my "program files" and "my documents and setting" folders from the c drive of my existing laptop computer (windows XP , NTST format) mainly for back-up reasons and to access personal stuff on other computers.

I am going to partion the new drive 50/50, do i format it NTFS or FAT 32, i don't know the differance

One more quick query , when i bought my laptop (Compaq presario 700, win XP) 4 years ago,the drive had been partioned with -- D: System Save. (FAT 32) -- It has over 4 Gig of files, none of which i but in there. What is this about. thanks

[Abandon]

here is a thread on this topic - and the heated disagreement ....

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...040&hl=ntfs+fat

I know it's a bit long but there are a number of good links in there that give you detailed comparison.

In short - if you are not connected to a lan network with users other than yourself, use FAT32 as it is far faster.

If you are on a lan, or need single files of more than 4 GB in size (such as uncompressed movie files) then go with NTFS.

This is good advice - ignore the others below who disagree.

[Firefoxx]

And I'm the first of the "others below"....

Although in many cases Fat32 may be faster, it's not *that* much faster, and in some cases it's slower. I say go NTFS... it's future proof, and you're not going to notice the performance impact (if any). Aside from the dubious performance advantage, I can't see any advantages to Fat32.

The system save is probably a partition with backup system files, in case you need to reinstall. A lot of OEMs do this. Don't do anything with it unless you're very sure of your computer knowledge.

[monty]

Ntfs versus Fat32 is a bit of an ongoing debate!

Fat32 tends to be a bit faster compared to ntfs, but ntfs has more options such as on the fly encryption and compression.

ntfs is also less prone to unrecoverable errors. These extra capabilities increase the workload during writing / reading, hence the small performance penalty...

The main advantages of ntfs are when the ntfs drives are used in a networking environment, where you can give defined permissions to users / groups as to what they are allowed to do on the drive (read only, write, delete etc...)

Even when the extra capabilities of ntfs are not important, I would still advise on using it, since you still have the advantage of a drive less prone to errors, and the last bit of extra performance is usually not important on an external drive.

[Abandon]

but it's a HUGE speed difference ..... arrrrgggggg

Future proof? If you go over to linux at any point, or a different OS they all handle FAT but have probs with NTFS.

And you can go plug ur FAT into any OS and read it - not so if you use ntfs encryption or compression. If security is a majour issue then ok ntfs, but I prefer to have accessibility of my drive in case the OS goies belly up.

Aside from the speed, ntfs buffers files as it writes, meaning that it starts snarling up if you have more than 80% of your drive full. File sharers can attest to this problem as they often fill their drives right up.

Still I failed to convince anyone on the last thread, so I guess I'd better keep shtum from here on....

[Firefoxx]

Sorry Pandit, I can't see any noticeable (ie earth-shattering, mind-boggling, experience-enhancing) increase in speed for FAT32. This is for systems where I use a mix of both, since I haven't gotten around to re-formatting.

We're talking FAT32 vs NTFS, not FAT vs NTFS. While FAT is is very compatible, FAT32 is not. While in the past NTFS was very proprietary, currently it has fairly good support, nearly on par with FAT32 (which isn't saying much). For a comparable disk (ie no security, no compression, etc), you will have as much trouble with FAT32 as with NTFS on linux.

When I was talking about future proofing, I was referring to future windows os's (I assume anyone deciding between FAT32/NTFS is using windows) which will be very net-concentric and require at least the properties of NTFS (actually, a new file system is being developed), and doubtless FAT32 will be phased out. But of course, this is just a prediction.

Consider also the spread of DVD writers. Consider that an ISO DVD image will take around 4.3GB (and for dual layer, 8.5GB). Consider the 4GB file size limitation of FAT32. Future proofing? I think so.

Since the old thread is no longer active, it's probably ok to continue the argument here.

[slimdog]

I think in the scenario supplied by the OP, I would go for the FAT32 option. This would give the user a little more flexability, as the backup harddrive could be used on all systems 98,Me,2000 and xp.

The only reason why I would use NTFS in a backup drive would be if the amount of available space was an issue, as FAT32 does tend to allow less usable space than NTFS.

Encryption shouldn't be an issue, as EFS is not a particularly good encryption program anyway, and there are far better (read secure) freeware programs available.

Networking shouldn't be an issue on a backup harddrive

Guess I go with Pandit

It won't be too long in the future when Microsoft will finally unveil WinFS, guess around 1 year after Longhorn (Which is a definate maybe for this year).That should start a few threads..

[moebius]

(clip)

It won't be too long in the future when Microsoft will finally unveil WinFS, guess around 1 year after Longhorn (Which is a definate maybe for this year).That should start a few threads..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Billy said Longhorn will be at least 11 months from this month just last month.

[bkk_mike]

One question - how big is the hard drive?

You can only format FAT32 to 32Gb with XP, so if the drive is bigger than 64Gb, you have to go NTFS to do a 50/50 split. (or use a utility like partition magic to format it which can do FAT32 partitions bigger than 32Gb).

[slimdog]

As Bkk_mike said xp has a 32GB limit on FAT32.

Other than Partition Magic, another alternative would be to format using either a win98/Me computer or use a win98/Me boot disk and format from that.

[Firefoxx]

So as to not assume:

Will you be using the drive on win9x/me systems? Yes->FAT32

Will you be doing any video editing? Yes->NTFS

Will you write any DVDs? Yes->NTFS

Do you have the mentioned tools to do partitioning? Yes->FAT32

Other than these factors, it's doubtful that your experience will differ in any noticeable way if you choose either filesystem.

[Abandon]

video editing and dvd burning are fine on a fat32 - a dvd is automatically split into smaller pieces. How often do you burn a SINGLE file of more than 4 GB ? A regular dvd cpmprises lots of small vob files.

Same for video editing, you are mad if you work with a file over 4 GB because of the rendering time for each change. The exception is if you use Dr DivX to encode a whole movie to divX as it requires the movie to be decompressed first. To demonstrate the rendering times here a movie of 1.5 hours will take about 7 or 8 hours on a fast computer. There are other programs about that let you encode without full decompression (which everyone uses now as finding a 15 GB free space can be a problem)

But you did not mention:

If data security is paramount --> NTFS

If you are on a non Peer2peer lan newtwork with other users who you don't trust --> NTFS

[Firefoxx]

Pandit, I mentioned an "ISO DVD image", which is in fact the image of the whole disc. I didn't mention anything about making a movie DVD (which would then have your VOB files). An image of a disc has roughly the same size as the contents of the disc, hence 4.4GB and 8.5GB. Why make (or have) an image? Copying, authoring, and downloading (as most illegal sites will have image downloads).

Although, yes, a person working with DV clips may or may not record to disk as one file (ie allowing the capture program to do automatic scene cutting, but this is up to the preference of the person doing the editing, as I usually don't do this), the final product, which for me is usually around 1 hour, is not cut. A file which comes from DV is usually output as DV (if the person is doing serious work... it's not wise to use the editing program to do format conversion) is therefore nearly always more than 4GB and usually around 15GB-22GB. After that, if I convert it to mpeg2 (with an external program), I end up with a 4+GB file, which I then proceed to author. I use mpeg2/DV nearly all the time, as the Mpeg4 stuff (divx, xvid, etc) is way too gimmicky for serious work.

[The Coder]

With my end user hat on, I have noticed two differences not mentioned here. First, if you shut down improperly (crash/power loss), NTFS reboots really quick where FAT32 grinds away for many minutes checking the disk structure. The other thing I noticed after converting fat32 to ntfs using partition magic is the hard drive had many extra gigabytes of free space as a result.

I like the ubiquitousness of FAT32 unlike ntfs whose format has changed over time and for instance xp ntfs is unrecognized by windows 2000! Knowing Microsoft, longhorn will again break compatibility though this problem doesn't matter to 99% of the people. With FAT32, I have the confidence I can plug in a single boot floppy laying around and get to my data or know I can always plug the hard drive into another system. The FAT32 max partition size is 2 terabytes. I have seen brand new high end systems with giant hard drives that come formatted with FAT32 and xp installed for performance reasons.

No real recommendation here; just some more infos to ponder.

[Abandon]

Pandit, I mentioned an "ISO DVD image", which is in fact the image of the whole disc.  I didn't mention anything about making a movie DVD (which would then have your VOB files).  An image of a disc has roughly the same size as the contents of the disc, hence 4.4GB and 8.5GB.  Why make (or have) an image?  Copying, authoring, and downloading (as most illegal sites will have image downloads).

Although, yes, a person working with DV clips may or may not record to disk as one file (ie allowing the capture program to do automatic scene cutting, but this is up to the preference of the person doing the editing, as I usually don't do this), the final product, which for me is usually around 1 hour, is not cut.  A file which comes from DV is usually output as DV (if the person is doing serious work... it's not wise to use the editing program to do format conversion) is therefore nearly always more than 4GB and usually around 15GB-22GB.  After that, if I convert it to mpeg2 (with an external program), I end up with a 4+GB file, which I then proceed to author.  I use mpeg2/DV nearly all the time, as the Mpeg4 stuff (divx, xvid, etc) is way too gimmicky for serious work.

Yes FF - in such a case you are quite correct. I have noticed funnily enough, that my dvd burner makes an image of the dvd first but seems to work ok on my FAT35. I didn't think it would. Personally I have a 20 gig NTFS on an IDE expansion card for contingencies.

As for crash recovery, only files that were writing at the time of the crash get affected, and your WORD etc have auto recovery files. Best to address the real reasons for the crash.

Anyway, thinking about it, the differences we have escribed, while important, probably do not affect the OP in any way. I would say that generally speaking, if you don't know the difference between the two format systems, in all probability either will do. Lets face it, 99% of home computer users can use either system without noticing anything different.

[Firefoxx]

How is XP ntfs unrecognized by win2k? I've never experienced that (I swap disks between my win2k systems and XP systems a lot).

I agree on the crash (happens often in blackout country... read: all of LOS). Long time for checkdisk with FAT32 systems with questionable results, while NTFS boots up without nary a hiccup. But I think this was mentioned in the last thread.

[The Coder]

How is XP ntfs unrecognized by win2k?  I've never experienced that (I swap disks between my win2k systems and XP systems a lot).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I first discovered this when installing XP in a dual boot role. During install it said it had to upgrade the drive from ntfs v1 to ntfs v2 and if the already installed Win2K was not upgraded to the latest service pack it would break. Sure enough, it did.

[Abandon]

interesting ... I have had W2K and XP on dual boot several times and did not have a problem even when I was using NTFS (before I tested it and found out how slow it was .... aaarrrggggg (((stifle)))) But good to know. These days I use only W2K as it seems more sane and does not try to do everything automatically for me.

[Firefoxx]

Probably only affects non-SP'ed win2k systems, and even then probably only the boot/system partition. I do know that older non-SP'd NT installs will not recognize newer (NTFS 5) XP partitions.