NTFS or FAT - Page 2 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Software > Microsoft Windows and Software
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 03-21-2006, 03:59 PM   #11 (permalink)
PowerQuest / Opera
 
TheMajor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 10,177
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by RicoDirenzo
FAT 32 is much beter on smaller drives, as Major mentioned, however, FAT 32 file systems are limited to the single file sizes (not over 3 gigs) and subject ot quick framentation and must be defragmented more often or HD's will slow down horribly. If you are storing files (Video or large Wave files) above 3 gigs in size FAT 32 will not work for you.
4 gigs, not 3. NTFS also suffers from fragmentation, and don't think it will be a huge issue anyway.
__________________

__________________
TheMajorMMX - Intel P200 MMX @ 225Mhz - V-Tech (PcPartner) Baby-AT mb w/ Intel Triton TX chipset - Nvidia Riva TNT2 M64 w/ 16MB - 256MB M-Tec SDRAM - Still running.....
TheMajor is offline  
Old 03-21-2006, 05:11 PM   #12 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
alexsabree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1,845
Default

im not sure about fat being better with smaller drives but i am really sure that NFTS is faster and better cause i jus changed to ntfs on one of my drives, and it is much faster..... just go with the newer technology. That way your never get problems
__________________

alexsabree is offline  
Old 03-21-2006, 05:44 PM   #13 (permalink)

Triforcer
 
Baez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 6,987
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Ste
Not as Compatible with????
ntfs only works with 2000 and XP while FAT is used in 95, 98 and ME as well. therefore, more compatible
__________________


Baez is offline  
Old 03-21-2006, 06:53 PM   #14 (permalink)
!!GAMER!!
 
fr34ky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Southeast,AZ
Posts: 509
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by alexsabree
im not sure about fat being better with smaller drives but i am really sure that NFTS is faster and better cause i jus changed to ntfs on one of my drives, and it is much faster..... just go with the newer technology. That way your never get problems
So pretty much you know nothing about it.LMAO
I used FAT32 on windows 98.But never on windows xp becuase when you reformat it doesnt ask you if you want FAT32.
__________________
fr34ky is offline  
Old 03-21-2006, 07:03 PM   #15 (permalink)
PowerQuest / Opera
 
TheMajor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 10,177
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by fr34ky
But never on windows xp becuase when you reformat it doesnt ask you if you want FAT32.
Yes it does.
__________________
TheMajorMMX - Intel P200 MMX @ 225Mhz - V-Tech (PcPartner) Baby-AT mb w/ Intel Triton TX chipset - Nvidia Riva TNT2 M64 w/ 16MB - 256MB M-Tec SDRAM - Still running.....
TheMajor is offline  
Old 03-21-2006, 09:12 PM   #16 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 319
Send a message via AIM to evelmunkey
Default

Wow, a lot of really bad answers in this thread! The most common reason and most useful reason for NTFS is security. NTFS allows object permssions while FAT32 does not. I dont know if it is important, but NTFS also allows compression. There is a max size of 2TB with NTFS and 32GB with FAT32. FAT32 also has a max file size of 4GB while NTFS would allow a file size the same as the drive. These are the only things I can remeber from a class that I took on Operating Systems. But really, it comes down to security. NTFS is always the way to go. There isnt any instance I can think of when FAT32 would be better. Well..one...If you are dual booting with an OS that is formatted FAT32, you would *edit not *edit be able to access the NTFS drive from the FAT32 drive.
__________________
evelmunkey is offline  
Old 03-21-2006, 09:49 PM   #17 (permalink)
Ste
Do not Stare at my Avatar
 
Ste's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Upon Gleaning Infinity
Posts: 9,577
Send a message via MSN to Ste
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by cvb724
ntfs only works with 2000 and XP while FAT is used in 95, 98 and ME as well. therefore, more compatible
Duh.... Most new File systems Don't work with older OS's.........
Ste is offline  
Old 03-22-2006, 08:22 AM   #18 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
MrCoffee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 1,858
Default

NTFS is better unless you need FAT32 compatability for some reason then go with NTFS.

NTFS is more efficient, cluster sizes are limited to 4K which is much smaller then used by FAT. So this means if you put a 1k file on an NTFS drive 4K of space is used but FAT would use an amount dependant on the drive size, perhaps for example 64K.

NTFS allows for the use of security permissions, encryption, and compression.

NTFS has multiple redundant tables and can easily recover from incompete operations e.g. if you computer crashed whislt writing data and NTFS drive would be fine but a FAT drive would become corrupt (atleast the file would).

FAT Should only really be used if you plan to run an older OS from the drive e.g. my second computer dual boots XP and win98 so I have to use FAT.
__________________

__________________
Intel core I7 920
GA-EX58-UD3R
6GB OCZ platinum 1600
XFX HD4890
Noctua nh-u12p
Corsair HX520
Antec 300
Samsung 1TB F1 Spinpoint
Samsung SM2443BW 24"
MrCoffee is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.