would it be possible to change C partition to NTFS using the Command line prompt

minir · Post by **minir** » Mon Jun 18, 2001 10:35 am

I'll try not to bore you, but when i ran into difficulty installing 2K

(turned out to be a bad vid card) i went to my dealer to help me out with it

i was using Partition Magic 5 and have 7 partitions. on 98se. well he replaced my vid card N/C

and completed the setup

when i went to install my scanner the other night it went to C partition and was advised

insufficient space. i was confused as i have very little on C

it turns out that C is Fat 16 ?

everything else is Fat32

i would like to convert C to NTFS

that is when i discovered PM 5 doesn't work on 2K, hence the question of the post.

would it be possible to change C partition to NTFS using the Command line prompt

and going " convert c:/fs:ntfs " without the quotesof course.

Would this do the trick, taking me from FAT16 to NTFS on C partition & leaving all

other partitions as Fat32

i do not have a dual boot and will be running this as is. will everything work ok or am i

at a loss till i get Partition 6?

Your responses will be most welcome.

Thanks minir

BMED · Post by **BMED** » Mon Jun 18, 2001 2:03 pm

Hey minir, I would convert to "FAT32". NTFS will run slower. PM 6 is what you're going to need for Win2k, and it will allow you to convert to FAT32 with ease.

Good luck, BMED

Check your PM........

gmcd33 · Post by **gmcd33** » Mon Jun 18, 2001 2:14 pm

In the command prompt window, type
convert drive_letter: /fs:ntfs

This will convert the volume to NTFS from FAT32 or FAT

minir · Post by **minir** » Mon Jun 18, 2001 2:30 pm

Hi Fellows

Thanks for your input

so ntfs is slower in your experience than Fat 32 BMED?

may i enquire as to the reasons why it would not be quicker?

curiousity on my part (Thanks by the way)

Thanks as well gmcd33, i do appreciate your input

regards to both

minir

BMED · Post by **BMED** » Mon Jun 18, 2001 7:41 pm

Originally posted by minir
Hi Fellows

Thanks for your input

so ntfs is slower in your experience than Fat 32 BMED?

may i enquire as to the reasons why it would not be quicker?

curiousity on my part (Thanks by the way)

Thanks as well gmcd33, i do appreciate your input

regards to both

minir

Here is one article about Fat32 and NTFS,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is no straightforward answer to this one! Undoubtedly unless you are dual-booting with another Operating System, or need to use DOS then NTFS is the only way to take full advantage of Windows 2000's security and stability. If outright speed is your main requirement, then FAT32 is slightly faster on all but the largest drives: however both NTFS and FAT32 can be tweaked for speed by altering the Cluster Size.

FAT 32
FAT32 is an enhanced version of the FAT file system that can be used on drives from 512 megabytes (MB) to 32 GB in size. FAT and FAT32 offer compatibility with operating systems other than Windows 2000. If you're setting up a dual-boot configuration, you should probably use FAT or FAT32.

If you're dual booting Windows 2000 and another operating system, choose a file system based on the other operating system, using the following criteria:

Format the partition as FAT if the installation partition is smaller than 2 gigabytes (GB), or if you're dual booting Windows 2000 with MS-DOS®, Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows 98, or Windows NT.

Use FAT32 for use on partitions that are 2 GB or larger. If you choose to format using FAT during Windows 2000 Setup and your partition is greater than 2 GB, Setup automatically formats it as FAT32.

It's recommended that you use NTFS rather than FAT32 for partitions larger than 32 GB.

NTFS

The NTFS file system is the recommended file system for use with Windows 2000. NTFS has all of the basic capabilities of FAT, and it provides the following advantages over the FAT and FAT 32 file systems:

1. Better file security.

2. Better disk compression.

3. Support for large hard disks, up to 2 terabytes (TB).(The maximum drive size for NTFS is much greater than that for FAT, and as drive size increases, performance with NTFS doesn't degrade as it does with FAT.)

If you're using a dual-boot configuration (using both Windows 2000 and another operating system on the same computer), you may not be able to gain access to files on NTFS partitions from the other operating system on your computer. For this reason, you should probably use FAT32 or FAT if you want a dual-boot configuration. The NTFS used by Windows 2000 is not compatible with the version used by Windows NT4. There are programmes available that will make NTFS partitions accessible under Windows 98/ME such as NTFS for Win98.

gmcd33 · Post by **gmcd33** » Mon Jun 18, 2001 8:40 pm

If you want my 2 cents I would go NTFS. But as BMED pointed out you cannot dual boot. The compression is better and the stability is unsurpassed.

BMED · Post by **BMED** » Mon Jun 18, 2001 8:55 pm

Originally posted by gmcd33
If you want my 2 cents I would go NTFS. But as BMED pointed out you cannot dual boot. The compression is better and the stability is unsurpassed.

just to add a little thought about this subject, I have found NTFS slower with my system. This does not mean that any other system will run slower, each PC has a character of it's own.

i dual boot with win98se/win2kpro on my desktop, i also have a laptop with only win2kpro and i prefer fat32 there also. i would suggest to anyone to try them both out for a month of so and gather your own opinion.

the majority of info that i have read so far has stated that fat32 runs faster, my system feels the same. it all depends on what you use your system for, and you may have to experiment for yourself.

minir · Post by **minir** » Mon Jun 18, 2001 11:08 pm

Hi Guy's

Once again i thank you both for your input on this subject.

i guess it really is trial by fire to see what each system brings to the table on your own comp.

Thanks for the articles BMED

it is something to mull over at length.

regards minir

Cornbread · Post by **Cornbread** » Mon Jun 18, 2001 11:17 pm

keep us posted minir. very interesting topic. personally i have heard fat32, and i had mine in fat32 when i had win 2k, but if ntfs IS more stable that would be a good advantage. maybe do a poll and see what others are using, and what results they have had.

minir · Post by **minir** » Tue Jun 19, 2001 12:56 am

Thanks cornbread

Totally good idea.

if i can figure it out i will give it a shoy now

Thanks for the suggestion

regards larry

twwabw · Post by **twwabw** » Tue Jun 19, 2001 1:11 am

When you use the "convert"utility to convert a fat32 partition to NTFS, it 512byte sectors by default- this cannot be changed. This causes the drive to become very fragmented, very quickly and easily. If you choose NTFS during installation, it will determine the optimum sector size in relation to the partition. In a drive up to about 20gb, it will usually be 4kb for the sector size. A much more efficient setup.

As long as Win9.x is installed 1st, on the C partition, you can still install Win2000 on another partition and choose to format it NTFS during setup.

True- your Win9.x OS won't be able to read anything on the NTFS partition. But, once you get used to Win2000, you'll eventually bail out of 9.x altogther.

BTW.... 7 partitions????? Why??

minir · Post by **minir** » Tue Jun 19, 2001 1:22 am

Hi twwabw

Thanks for your advice

7 partitions, well let me count the ways

1 = O/S

2 = Applications

3 = Utilities

4 = Internet

5 = Downloads

6 = Pictures & Backup Image

7 = I Drive

My Pal set it up for me way back and it works quite well for me. it took a little getting

used to, but now its fine.

regards minir

twwabw · Post by **twwabw** » Tue Jun 19, 2001 1:31 am

Oh well- if it works for you, that's all that really matters.

But, sounds like a throw back to the "old" days- when partition size was limited by your OS. Not the case anymore. And today, many apps insist on installing to a folder in the system root. Even if you tell them otherwise, they will still install portions onto the root anyway.

Arguably easier to back up though, especially if you're using lower capacity storage mediums like CD or older tapes.

My favorite way to dual boot? separate phyical drives. I just bought 10 Maxtor 7200 rpm 20gb drives from CompUSA (I know... but it was easier) for $109.00 each.

twwabw · Post by **twwabw** » Tue Jun 19, 2001 1:34 am

512byte sectors by default

oops... brain fart. Meant cluster size. Ronnie Reagan moments

minir · Post by **minir** » Tue Jun 19, 2001 3:23 am

Hi twwabw

yes it has some advantages in that it's very orderly and easy to find what i need. i have a 20 gb harddrive so it's ok for me

My Pal was a tech at the very start of things and trial & error plus experience showed him a system he believes strongly in.

i fought it at first, as too much for me but time has proven hinm correct on many occassions.

i think it all depends a great deal as to useage and really what your adjusted too.

i can see the advantages your system holds as well

it was all Greek to me 9 months ago or so, still is in alot of ways buti'm learning as time permits and no doubt will make changes when i go to a new system sometime down the road.

this 2K changeover will occupy the Grey Cells for awhile i'm sure Hahaha

well nice chatting with you

be well

larry

Anime-loo · Post by **Anime-loo** » Tue Jun 19, 2001 7:19 am

well

i run fat32 on my frist 2 HDS becase there both under 30 gig's, but i only use 2kpro, and i have two 80 gigs and a big ass 120 gig outa a server

on them i use NTFS (becase i dont want all thoese damn partestions

) and i use them for file serving as well

minir · Post by **minir** » Tue Jun 19, 2001 9:23 am

Hi Anime-loo

i appreciate you comment's

Thanks minir