NTFS or FAT32?

[farns]

I will be installing win2K or win98ME and formatting a HD and was wondering if I should stick with FAT32 as it compresses files=more HD space.

[AcurA]

only reason u'd want fat32 is for dual booting & compatibility with older op sys. NTFS is much more stable... hell of a lot more options when used with win2k/xp - native compression/encryption bla bla bla

[Grrr!!]

You WANT ME? OK I won't get started ranting about that OS.

Anyway ... NTFS is much better.

[AcurA]

agree with garr - NT os definetely

[Grrr!!]

Well in my opinion not necessarily an NT operating system, but I'd only ever use one of the following: 98SE, 2000 or XP Pro.

[farns]

Well its what I got ;) Id rather SE as a barebones OS from what I hear.
Im gonna use 2k tho as it has more options and ME sounds unstable. Just checking comaptibility with yous in case 2K is too complicated for a dummy like me and I have to use t'other.
Im using win98 at the mo.

So NFTS data isnt bigger than FAT32? NFTS sounds the job from what yous are saying but I thought FAT32 compressed stuff in case my HD gets a bit full.

[Jazzed]

go for NTFS. It will be faster than FAT32 and compress better, have security etc... the only reasons to go FAT32 is if your HD is under 2GB in size (NTFS has higher overheads) or if you want to dual boot to an older operating system like 98 etc...
forgot to mention DONT GO ME!!!!!! GO W2K!!!!!!

[Wibber]

are you kidding? ntfs is noticably slower than fat32, it has a hell of alot more overheads, but its alot more stable and supports file compression, file permissions and has intelegent file allocation

[farns]

Ok sussed. Jazzed are U saying FAT32 is best with win98 based(win9x?) OS's tho?

edit: dam Wibber just ruined it :( ;)

[Grrr!!]

Use Fat32 on 9x operating systems yes.

ME is unstable, don't use it!

[Agent666]

Originally posted by farns
Ok sussed. Jazzed are U saying FAT32 is best with win98 based(win9x?) OS's tho?

edit: dam Wibber just ruined it :( ;)


just to clear this up ...... FAT32 FAT16 and FAT are the only file systems that you can use natively with win9x........ it will NOT natively read NTFS formatted partitions

BTW go NTFS with a small FAT32 partition for stuff you might need to access in DOS or if you want to dualboot winME and XP
put the fat32 partition at the END of your drive if you are going to be using XP as your primary OS

[AcurA]

also with win2k u can use software raid - benchies are comparable with hardware solutions. Atomic had a great lil write up bout his... :D

as for speed - significantly slower might be an overstatement...

[Agent666]

yeah never really noticed a hell of a lot of difference in speed between the 2 once tweaked ..... so do yourself a favour and go NTFS as its just got more going for it;)

[Wibber]

yeah ya will! but I still say go for ntfs...

[Humantuckshop]

Simply put: If you want the best performance use FAT32. If you want the best data security use NTFS.

[Wibber]

yeah after having windows chew my fat table twice with high fsb I went ntfs , with probs there after@ cept without working modem :( )

[Mashed_Penguin]

Ntfs is the way to go, especially if you need to deal with files larger than about 3.2 GB.

[I.R]

So does teh linux support teh NTFS :rolleyes:

[Binky Stunt Cat]

i'm currently converting all mine to ntfs...wonder why i got harranged by my friends on our irc channel today when i mentioned ntfs....oh wait, they're all 'nixers......spose thats it.

[BeachBum]

Originally posted by I.R
So does teh linux support teh NTFS :rolleyes:

Nope, but there are some 3rd party attempts to which you use at your risk and from my own experience a quick way to ensure your NTFS partition(s) are nfg:( I'd hoped the new version of RH was about to address the issue but ... The next thing is how to get Linux to recognise an HDD on a Promise RAID controller .. fun, fun, fun :D

[I.R]

Man does no one recognise the "sarcastic" emoticon :eek:

[Doogie]

Originally posted by BeachBum


The next thing is how to get Linux to recognise an HDD on a Promise RAID controller .. fun, fun, fun :D

That one is easy... I have a Fastrak 100 Lite at work and a MBFastrack 133 at home, and I have raid's on both, all working perfectly under linucks :D

Go to the promise site, and download the lastest driver (even if it says it doesn't support your chipset) and then follow the instructions in the readme.

[farns]

Originally posted by Agent666
[B

BTW go NTFS with a small FAT32 partition for stuff you might need to access in DOS or if you want to dualboot winME and XP
put the fat32 partition at the END of your drive if you are going to be using XP as your primary OS [/B]

I just want 9x for speed in games, I have SE now btw, so what partitions should I have on a 40gig HD?
Doesnt all the stuff I wanto use SE with have to be in a FAT32 partition?
What do you mean about putting FAT32 partition at the "end of the drive"?

I have to know this by 6 pm too if anyone can help

[KingJackal]

Originally posted by farns


I just want 9x for speed in games, I have SE now btw, so what partitions should I have on a 40gig HD?
Doesnt all the stuff I wanto use SE with have to be in a FAT32 partition?
What do you mean about putting FAT32 partition at the "end of the drive"?

I have to know this by 6 pm too if anyone can help

This thread is irrelevant unless you use Windows NT, Windows 2000 or Windows XP.

Windows 98SE CANNOT DO NTFS, so you have no choice.

And FYI, Win98/98SE can run on FAT32, FAT16 or even FAT partitions ;).

[SilverPriest]

98SE can only read FAT32 and FAT16 AND FAT (thanks KJ)
Go with FAT32 ;)
By having the partition at the "end of the drive"
I do believe he means having the partition on the outer sectors of your HD
The rotational speed is higher, and the speed of reading and writing is faster :)
I think a Norton disk util of some sort allows you to do it.
Not 100% on that one...

[Agent666]

yes win9x will only be able to access data on a fat32 formatted drive

by putting at the end of the drive I mean as the last partition physically on your drive....... ie the last one you setup

Unfortunately how you partition your drive is a personal preference ...... I prefer one big sucker as opposed to lots of little ones but that is just me ...... sure it isnt as fast as having a system partition at the beginning of the disc but it is a whole lot easier to organise and find stuff if you are only dealing with one large partition...... but I have been thinking of moving to a 5 Gb partition at the start of my primary HD just to keep that speed advantage so my windows folder doent become fragmented all over my primary disc..... but not sure if it really makes any difference in real world speed or not.....

so at the moment I have

45Gb primary drive (c:)- raid 1 array as one partition (NTFS 4k clusters) (WinXP)
60Gb secondary storage drive (d:) - as 2 partitions a 58Gb partition (NTFS 16k Clusters) and a 2 Gb one (z:) (FAT32 2k Clusters) (WinME)

[Agent666]

Originally posted by SilverPriest
98SE can only read FAT32 and FAT16 AND FAT (thanks KJ)
Go with FAT32 ;)
By having the partition at the "end of the drive"
I do believe he means having the partition on the outer sectors of your HD
The rotational speed is higher, and the speed of reading and writing is faster :)
I think a Norton disk util of some sort allows you to do it.
Not 100% on that one...

nope I meant the complete opposite ...... slowest part of drive since I only use fat32 partition for backup work etc

[Agent666]

physically the end of the drive is the slowest at writing/reading

[farns]

Yep I know 9x cant read NTFS, sorry I meant Im dual-booting with 2K and 98SE

I want 2K for security and stability and SE for speed in games, ok sorted on the "back of the drive" thanks :)

I think a partition for each OS sounds good to avoid windows files getting cross-pollinated with other files or whatever so how much would I need for each? Just the size of the OS or do I need extra headroom for cache and stuff?
I dont wanto waste space by giving the OS too much headroom but not too little either, esp with SE where speed is the whole point

Would say 5 partitions be much slower than 2? I didnt realise there was a speed difference.

Im sort of stuck on this aye :rolleyes: so all the data I want SE to use(games etc) has to go into a FAT partition(FAT32 for sake of argument) cos 9x cant read NTFS.....which means 2K will also read it as FAT32 cos thats what it is so erm wheres the advantage of using 2K...it seems 2K is just a different interface if they are both reading FAT32

It seems to me if the only FAT32 is my OS(98SE) then theres nothing for it to read cos all the other games and stuff is NTFS

[SilverPriest]

Good God, lol
How about this for an idea.
A 5 Gig partition for Win2k on NTFS and its swapfile etc
A 5 Gig partition for 98SE on FAT32 and its swapfile etc
And use the rest of the drive as a FAT32 partition for the files that you might want to cross referance between the OS'es

5 Gigs is a good size, allows a decent amount of proggies without limiting the space on the drive, or your options to install on that partition.
Within reason :)
That make sense?
This is my opinion of course, hehe

[farns]

Originally posted by SilverPriest
Good God, lol
How about this for an idea.
A 5 Gig partition for Win2k on NTFS and its swapfile etc
A 5 Gig partition for 98SE on FAT32 and its swapfile etc
And use the rest of the drive as a FAT32 partition for the files that you might want to cross referance between the OS'es


But wont 2K read the rest of the drive/shared data (FAT32) as FAT32?
If the only NTFS data is the OS then whats the point of having 2K?

..Im sure Im missing something major and blindingly obvious but until I am enlightened I shall blunder on... :cool:

Is it possible to add/delete/change size of partitions after windows is installed without re-formatting?
I think you can do it with 3rd party apps like partition magic but I was meaning just windows

[Humantuckshop]

Originally posted by farns
But wont 2K read the rest of the drive/shared data (FAT32) as FAT32?

Yes. Because it IS FAT32.


If the only NTFS data is the OS then whats the point of having 2K?


Because Windows 9X cannot do NTFS. Win2K however can do FAT32, and of course NTFS. Win2K operates better on an NTFS partition, not to mention NTFS is more secure.


Is it possible to add/delete/change size of partitions after windows is installed without re-formatting?


I think you'll be wanting Norton Ghost for that.......... It's been a while since i've used it actually - damn good utility tho.

[farns]

Thanks
Ive done a bit more research and yes my knickers were in a bit of a knot but Ill just go win SE and set aside a 5 gig partition for 2k if I wanto install it later as its easier that way rather than starting with 2K and installing 9x on a dual-boot.

I think SE will prolly be stable enough for me, not sure how 2K is more secure but take yer word 4 it and can u u encrypt folders in SE?
I know u can in 2K and I remember I asked something like this in the old forums but alas I didnt save the info concerned

Im thinking on a 40gig HD Ill go:

3gig WinSE (can I use less space?)
7gig 2K (has a bit of space for a few useful start-up 3rd party progs) NTFS
20gig games (FAT32)
5gig mp3s (fat32 tho either is cool)
5 gig programs (fat32)

...dam shoulda got that 60gig HD...
..I heard the 40gig 'cuda IV was a little quieter than the other Seagates and it has better seek time too tho

[Deviant]

Originally posted by Humantuckshop


I think you'll be wanting Norton Ghost for that.......... It's been a while since i've used it actually - damn good utility tho.

Yes you can do it with Ghost if you have a lot of spare room on a third partition or another drive, Partition magic is designed for it and you don't need over half your drive free like you will with Ghost, and you don't need to format partitions etc, it will convert and do all the work for you.

[swiftynz]

i have both a 40 and an 80gb cuda IV and the sound difference is zero. its zero cos i cant hear either of them anyway. :p
yes the 40gb does have a slightly faster seek time but it's not really noticeable. :)

your 3gb win98se partition: yes you can use less space than that.

this is my setup:
40gb hdd (on primary master hdd controller):
1gb fat32: win98se and apps
4gb ntfs: win2k and apps
32.2gb ntfs: small win2k swapfile, games, downloads, general scratch volume

80gb hdd (primary master on raid controller in ata mode):
74.5gb ntfs: larger win2k swapfile, app & game installs, movies, music etc, storage drive.

you may notice that i'm all ntfs. that's because win98 is only for emergency use. and it's proved to be darn handy! but why you still want to use win98 as your primary OS i'll never know ;). the drivers for win2k are far better than they used to be, bringing it up to the speed of win98 and superceeding it in many ways. for the record, my 3dmark score in win98 was ~3200 (23.11 dets). in win2k it's ~3700 (29.42 dets). the detonator difference is negligable.

btw, you have to install win98 first, unless you want a huge hassle later. luckily you were going to do that anyway! :)

[BeachBum]

Originally posted by Doogie


That one is easy... I have a Fastrak 100 Lite at work and a MBFastrack 133 at home, and I have raid's on both, all working perfectly under linucks :D

Go to the promise site, and download the lastest driver (even if it says it doesn't support your chipset) and then follow the instructions in the readme.

Yeah thanks. I've done that and although the raid controller does work now the hdd makes one awful noise when shutting down. Sounds like its looking for somewhere to park the heads ... like outside the hdd case :eek: OH well, I'll pursue this cos I really do want to use the onboard controller. Under winxp raid works just fine. I wonder what the hdd is trying to do when it shuts down under linux on the raid controller?