Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

ntfs vs. fat32

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:16:08 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

OK, I've got a laptop that's ntfs formatted, and an external drive that
ntfs formatted, but my pc HD is FAT32. I don't notice any difference
between the systems but I'm wondering if I should reformat the pc to NTFS?
Can I just reformat the existing pc HD without losing all the data and
files on it? What if any advantage does NTFS really provide?

TIA

Paul.

More about : ntfs fat32

Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:16:09 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

Try the internet:
http://www.google.com/search?q=compare+NTFS+FAT32

Modem Ani

"Pdigmking" <PUdstrand@att.net> wrote in message
news:Xns960F912B0534Pudstrandattnet@127.0.0.1...
> OK, I've got a laptop that's ntfs formatted, and an external drive that
> ntfs formatted, but my pc HD is FAT32. I don't notice any difference
> between the systems but I'm wondering if I should reformat the pc to NTFS?
> Can I just reformat the existing pc HD without losing all the data and
> files on it? What if any advantage does NTFS really provide?
>
> TIA
>
> Paul.
Anonymous
March 4, 2005 11:16:09 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"Pdigmking" wrote:

> OK, I've got a laptop that's ntfs formatted, and an external drive that
> ntfs formatted, but my pc HD is FAT32. I don't notice any difference
> between the systems but I'm wondering if I should reformat the pc to NTFS?
> Can I just reformat the existing pc HD without losing all the data and
> files on it? What if any advantage does NTFS really provide?

Yes, you should reformat your FAT32 HD to NTFS unless it contains another OS
that runs only on FAT32, e.g. Windows 98. The differences have to do
primarily with file system stability (error avoidance, detection, and
recovery) and security (NTFS has security and privacy features that FAT32
does not have), but if your HD is beyond a certain size, a NTFS drive will
also be faster (it will never be slower). There is no reason whatsoever to
keep FAT32 if the only OS on the drive is XP, and every reason to switch to
NTFS.

As for reformatting the HD to NTFS, XP has a utility under System Tools that
will do this for you without wiping out your data. Before you jump the gun
and do it, do some research on how to do it in a way that your cluster sizes
are only 4 kb long. Maybe others here will chime in on how to do that (I
have never ran this utility before; I know only that it exists). Or if all
this makes you nervous, go out and get Partition Magic 8.0 or similar utility
and have it do the conversion for you.

Ken
Related resources
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 1:36:40 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"Modem Ani" <notquinoas@notmyrealbox.com> wrote in
news:o CdkciPIFHA.2976@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl:

> Try the internet:
> http://www.google.com/search?q=compare+NTFS+FAT32
>
> Modem Ani
>
> .
>
>

Your a genius Ani, wish I'd thought of that. Wait, now I remember, yeah
yeah I did goopgle NTFS vs. FAT32. Now I remember, I posted here to see if
I could get any additional info, newsgoups are interactive, that's
advantage. You cold google any topic you see here on this group.. but then
why do we have newsgoups at all?

Paul
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 2:35:12 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"=?Utf-8?B?S2VuIEdhcmRuZXI=?=" <KenGardner@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:C1FC2E8A-1E9B-46E8-8FF1-40783F5DBFCE@microsoft.com:

> "Pdigmking" wrote:
>
>> OK, I've got a laptop that's ntfs formatted, an...
>
> Yes, you should reformat your FAT32 HD to NTFS unless it contains
> another OS that runs only on FAT32, e.g. Windows 98. The differences
> have to do primarily with file system stability (error avoidance,
> detection, and recovery) and security (NTFS has security and privacy
> features that FAT32 does not have), but if your HD is beyond a certain
> size, a NTFS drive will also be faster (it will never be slower).
> There is no reason whatsoever to keep FAT32 if the only OS on the
> drive is XP, and every reason to switch to NTFS.
>
> As for reformatting the HD to NTFS, XP has a utility under System
> Tools that will do this for you without wiping out your data. Before
> you jump the gun and do it, do some research on how to do it in a way
> that your cluster sizes are only 4 kb long. Maybe others here will
> chime in on how to do that (I have never ran this utility before; I
> know only that it exists). Or if all this makes you nervous, go out
> and get Partition Magic 8.0 or similar utility and have it do the
> conversion for you.
>
> Ken

Thanks Ken. See, the reason I ended up with FAT32 to begin with is I run
a data base program, Alpha 4. That program didn't originally work with
NTFS. Later versions of the program, like the one I have now, work with
it just fine, but when I built my system, I didn't know that yet so I
opted for Fat32 at the time. When I got my laptop, I loaded Alpha and it
works just fine on an NTFS system. Now I think I'm having some system
stability issues, and my previous look at the "internet" revealed that
the NTFS is more stable format. But before I mess with it I appreciate
some feedback from folks who know more than I do. There a big difference
between running that conversion and re-formatting and and reloading all
the programs so I'd like to have some idea what I'm getting into before I
do it.

Paul.
Anonymous
March 5, 2005 2:35:13 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"Pdigmking" wrote:

> Thanks Ken. See, the reason I ended up with FAT32 to begin with is I run
> a data base program, Alpha 4. That program didn't originally work with
> NTFS. Later versions of the program, like the one I have now, work with
> it just fine, but when I built my system, I didn't know that yet so I
> opted for Fat32 at the time. When I got my laptop, I loaded Alpha and it
> works just fine on an NTFS system. Now I think I'm having some system
> stability issues, and my previous look at the "internet" revealed that
> the NTFS is more stable format. But before I mess with it I appreciate
> some feedback from folks who know more than I do. There a big difference
> between running that conversion and re-formatting and and reloading all
> the programs so I'd like to have some idea what I'm getting into before I
> do it.

If it was me, I would reformat the hard drive (using NTFS) and then reload
programs and data. I always trust the clean-install approach over upgrading
an OS or (in this case) converting a file system on the fly. It takes a bit
more time in the beginning, but you also get the fresh start and resulting
performance and stability gains of newly installed OS and software.

In any event, you should find that all of your programs will run great on
NTFS. But as long as you do the conversion right, i.e. whatever you need to
do to get the 4 kb cluster size, you should be fine with the conversion as
well.

Ken
Anonymous
March 6, 2005 9:39:30 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"=?Utf-8?B?S2VuIEdhcmRuZXI=?=" <KenGardner@discussions.microsoft.com>
wrote in news:53ED72CC-61B3-405F-A914-290181626F06@microsoft.com:

>
>
> If it was me, I would reformat the hard drive (using NTFS) and then
> reload programs and data. I always trust the clean-install approach
> over upgrading an OS or (in this case) converting a file system on the
> fly. It takes a bit more time in the beginning, but you also get the
> fresh start and resulting performance and stability gains of newly
> installed OS and software.
>
> In any event, you should find that all of your programs will run great
> on NTFS. But as long as you do the conversion right, i.e. whatever
> you need to do to get the 4 kb cluster size, you should be fine with
> the conversion as well.
>
> Ken
>

Well, I figured I give the conversion a try. Worst that can happen is I
have to reformat. So far so good, no problems to report.

Thanks for you input,

Paul.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 12:19:49 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 18:39:30 GMT, Pdigmking <PUdstrand@att.net> wrote:
>"=?Utf-8?B?S2VuIEdhcmRuZXI=?=" <KenGardner@discussions.microsoft.com>

>Well, I figured I give the conversion a try. Worst that can happen is I
>have to reformat. So far so good, no problems to report.

There are two downsides to converting from FAT32 to NTFS, as opposed
to installing XP on NTFS:

1) Appropriate security attributes are not set

NTFS extends the usual file attributes to include fine-grained access
control, as part of the OS's depth of security. When the OS is
installed on NTFS, the installation process can set these
appropriately. When it is installed on FATxx, the settings cannot be
applied, so a subsequent conversion cannot apply them either.

2) Possible 512-byte clusters

This may or may not be a problem. It won't be a problem if the
original partitioning and formatting was aware of NTFS's alignment
needs; it may or may not be a problem otherwise. If the existing
FATxx partition is not aligned the way NTFS would like, you would get
tiny 512-byte clusters instead of the more desirable 4k clusters, and
while this may be more space-efficient, it is s-l-o-w.

http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm covers the bigger picture of whether
FATxx or NTFS is likely to suit your needs. What may be as important
is whether you divide your HD into multiple volumes, and how these are
sized; this also lets you choose NTFS for some and FATxx for others.



>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Tip Of The Day:
To disable the 'Tip of the Day' feature...
>-------------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 12:19:50 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in
news:4glm21l424i29e1p6hagnot3qmohvktrfj@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 18:39:30 GMT, Pdigmking <PUdstrand@att.net> wrote:
>>"=?Utf-8?B?S2VuIEdhcmRuZXI=?=" <KenGardner@discussions.microsoft.com>
>
>>Well, I figured I give the conversion a try. Worst that can happen is
I
>>have to reformat. So far so good, no problems to report.
>
> There are two downsides to converting from FAT32 to NTFS, as opposed
> to installing XP on NTFS:
>
> 1) Appropriate security attributes are not set
>
> NTFS extends the usual file attributes to include fine-grained access
> control, as part of the OS's depth of security. When the OS is
> installed on NTFS, the installation process can set these
> appropriately. When it is installed on FATxx, the settings cannot be
> applied, so a subsequent conversion cannot apply them either.
>
> 2) Possible 512-byte clusters
>
> This may or may not be a problem. It won't be a problem if the
> original partitioning and formatting was aware of NTFS's alignment
> needs; it may or may not be a problem otherwise. If the existing
> FATxx partition is not aligned the way NTFS would like, you would get
> tiny 512-byte clusters instead of the more desirable 4k clusters, and
> while this may be more space-efficient, it is s-l-o-w.

Yes, Ed has said the same thing. I had that in mind when I ran the
conversion... but of course, since the options didn't pop-up for the
monkey to punch a button I have no idea what size my clusters are. Maybe
I'm cluster F*&%ed. He he. Any ways, now that I've gone and done this,
how can I see what size my clusters are.. always nice to know after the
fact. I'm not worried about security options, and so far the machine
doesn't seem an slower.

Paul.
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 10:46:27 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 20:13:09 GMT, Pdigmking <PUdstrand@att.net> wrote:
>"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote in

>> There are two downsides to converting from FAT32 to NTFS, as opposed
>> to installing XP on NTFS:
>>
>> 1) Appropriate security attributes are not set
>> 2) Possible 512-byte clusters

>Maybe I'm cluster F*&%ed. How can I see what size my clusters are.

Hm, good question...
- create a 1-byte file, rt-click, Properties; space occupied?
- use "system info" type tools like AIDA32
- try rt-click, Properties
- try ChkDisk from a Cmd windows and see what it says

>I'm not worried about security options

What prompted you to convert to NTFS, then? Need for files over 2G?
Desire for smaller clusters and less space wasteage? Possible
performance gains? Peer pressure?

Whatever the gains, you've lost the ability to use DOS mode as a
platform from which you can formally scan for viruses, recover data,
or do interactive file system repair using Scandisk.


>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Never turn your back on an installer program
>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
Anonymous
March 7, 2005 9:11:26 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.perform_maintain (More info?)

"cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)" <cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote
in news:k9qn21tgpquspdihif5j43npsr1cjmt4p4@4ax.com:


>
>>I'm not worried about security options
>
> What prompted you to convert to NTFS, then? Need for files over 2G?
> Desire for smaller clusters and less space wasteage? Possible
> performance gains? Peer pressure?
>
> Whatever the gains, you've lost the ability to use DOS mode as a
> platform from which you can formally scan for viruses, recover data,
> or do interactive file system repair using Scandisk.
>
>
>>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
> Never turn your back on an installer program
>>--------------- ----- ---- --- -- - - -
>

I think I was having some performance issues. The system seemed to become
unstable on occassion and I would have to reboot and run a file check.
Also, all my other computers are NTFS so I figured consistency could hurt.
I haven't used DOS mode to anything but a scandisk in fifteen years, but
with my luck I'll need to it tomorrow eh. Looks like XP still has a
scandisk utility however, but the reason I've not it for so long is the
size of HDs these days. The last time I did on on a 40 gig drive it took
something like 16 hours.

Paul.
!