Fat 32 or NTFS?

Bonskibon · Post by **Bonskibon** » Thu Dec 13, 2001 8:27 am

The laptop I bought has the hard drive split into two drives. The C drive is fat 32 and the D drive is NTFS.

My question is.....should I convert the C drive to NTFS? Is there any benefit to doing that? and can I do that without re-formatting?

Thank you.

I know about NTFS having encryption, and permissions on files and stuff like that, just wondering if changing the file system would make for better overall performance.

twwabw · Post by **twwabw** » Thu Dec 13, 2001 9:18 am

Oh boy... this one will bring some responses I bet!

First off, I wonder what the motivation was by the manufacturer to partition into NTFS and Fat.... hmmmm...

Anyway, here's what I see as the biggest disadvantage to CONVERTING- when you use the convert.exe utility, the drive is reformatted into 512byte sectors (same as fat32). These are, imho, too small to be practical. It will result in a great deal of fragmentation (although arguably not worse than you have now), and becomes a real snail to defragment. And, you better do it often! Also, worst thing you can have is to let the pagefile become too fragmented- this becomes a real performance hit.

However, if during a clean install you choose to format NTFS, the sector size will become much larger- most likely 4 kilobyte, depending on drive size. I forgot the breakoff point where it jumps to 8...... Anyway, this really helps fragmentation, and results in efficient disk access, although, not efficient disk utilization. This used to be a great argument back when discs were small, and you had to try to scrimp and recover every last spec of drive space. But, today, with drives routinely 20, 40, 80 gig, is this a valid concern? I don't think so.

So, IMO, would I "convert" ? NO. Would I format all NEW installs as NTFS? Absolutely. Will your performance increase on convert to NTFS- no- it will probably decrease slightly. Would your performance increase with a newly formatted NTFS install vs. FAT32? Possibly, although that's open to debate to. Performance is not the real reason to choose or not choose NTFS though- it's security, and file integrity.

Clear as mud now, huh?

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Thu Dec 13, 2001 9:56 am

I don't believe in NTFS unless you're in a network, like at the office, where you're in a domain where security is setup strickly. How many people setup home computers with permissions locked down on the security level? I'd say none. That's the benefit I see from NTFS....it "CAN" be more secure if you choose to lock down your shared files. Out of the box, with the generic sharing that most home users will know how to do, I don't see any difference in security between FAT and NTFS.

What I don't like about NTFS on the boot partition is troubleshooting when the system isn't booting up. At least with FAT/FAT32, you can boot from a good ol' Win98 boot disk, and browse the directories to copy in any files that many be hosing your system. With NTFS....bit more tough, you're usually stuck doing a mirror install temporaritly just to get to desktop to work your magic.

Performance wise, eh, like TWW said, drives now being so big, the fight to claim more space is moot. But one point...for people who work with HUGE files, like movie editing, you want NTFS on your drive that is the workspace for your video editing, since you want support for individual files that are larger than 4 GIGs.

Bonskibon · Post by **Bonskibon** » Thu Dec 13, 2001 9:59 am

so, it is possible for two different file systems to "share" the same drive? Does it create problems with installing programs say onto the NTFS drive even when some files will be put into the fat 32 drive if that's where the windows folder is?

Da_Devastator · Post by **Da_Devastator** » Thu Dec 13, 2001 10:06 am

Hi.

I personally beleive the best file system to have in FAT32.

bye.

twwabw · Post by **twwabw** » Thu Dec 13, 2001 10:58 am

Hi YOS-

How many people setup home computers with permissions locked down on the security level? I'd say none.

Actually, IMO this is one of the greatest assets for home users with kids, and yes, I've set it up for several home users and they love it. New local group- KIDS- and they each get a logon. Assign rights accordingly. Now, Mom and Dad have their "stuff", like Quicken, correspondence, etc., that the kids are locked out of- period! wokrs great! Can't do that on the local machine with FAT32- you can only set share access permissions.

What I don't like about NTFS on the boot partition is troubleshooting when the system isn't booting up. At least with FAT/FAT32, you can boot from a good ol' Win98 boot disk, and browse the directories to copy in any files that many be hosing your system.

Gotta agree with you there... you can always set up the old "diagnostic partition" NT trick though. Still a pain in the a*s. But truthfully, I've never had an issue yet w/2000 like I used to with NT. Dumb luck? Maybe.

Hi Bonskibon

so, it is possible for two different file systems to "share" the same drive?

The same drive- yes- if it has multiple partitions.. The same partition? No.

Does it create problems with installing programs say onto the NTFS drive even when some files will be put into the fat 32 drive if that's where the windows folder is?

Knee jerk answer- no. But, if you do assign particular permissions to individual files and/or folders, could be an issue if a user needs access to one or the other they don't have permissions for.

But, That's the whole point, right?

Bonskibon · Post by **Bonskibon** » Thu Dec 13, 2001 11:05 am

Thank you all, the answers have been very informative. I think I'll just leave it alone.

Post by **YeOldeStonecat** » Thu Dec 13, 2001 1:06 pm

Originally posted by twwabw
Hi YOS-
Actually, IMO this is one of the greatest assets for home users with kids, and yes, I've set it up for several home users and they love it. New local group- KIDS- and they each get a logon. Assign rights accordingly. Now, Mom and Dad have their "stuff", like Quicken, correspondence, etc., that the kids are locked out of- period! wokrs great! Can't do that on the local machine with FAT32- you can only set share access permissions.

Point you have there....I should have said "most users" will not use it to that level, not "none".

My views coming from the view of repairing these machines when they blow up, you see users set them up with NTFS "because they just hear about it"...and they're hosed because of the difficulty and unlikelyhood of repairing it. Granted, if you truely use NTFS or have a true need for it, then it's a tradeoff you have to live with.

crazyjw1971 · Post by **crazyjw1971** » Fri Dec 14, 2001 3:18 am

Originally posted by YeOldeStonecat
What I don't like about NTFS on the boot partition is troubleshooting when the system isn't booting up. At least with FAT/FAT32, you can boot from a good ol' Win98 boot disk, and browse the directories to copy in any files that many be hosing your system. With NTFS....bit more tough, you're usually stuck doing a mirror install temporaritly just to get to desktop to work your magic.

Umm... doesnt the Command Console do the same thing? I've used it to fix my boot record once before (in Windows 2000).

twwabw · Post by **twwabw** » Fri Dec 14, 2001 4:13 am

Originally posted by crazyjw1971

Umm... doesnt the Command Console do the same thing? I've used it to fix my boot record once before (in Windows 2000).

I think you mean the Recovery console? Yes- sort of. You can do some things with it like copy files from floppies; format; set some partition settings, but it's sure nothing like booting up to dos. You are strictly limited on the recovery console to functions it allows. But, when you boot to dos on a 9.x machine, you've literally just loaded a complete operating system, and can do pretty much whatever you want.

SG Broadband Community

Fat 32 or NTFS?

Fat 32 or NTFS?

reply