NTFS? FAT32? difference?

grassapa

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2002
807
0
18,980
when you format, there are 2 ways: NTFS AND FAT32, whats the difference? the only thing ive heard is that NTFS is more secure but i dont know... what are the cons and pros for each?

the worst failure is not trying........so go ahead and TRY to overclock your cpu to 5ghz
 

jc14all

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2001
1,210
0
19,280
Check this out -> <A HREF="http://www.winnetmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=8294" target="_new">click here</A> & <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=63" target="_new">here</A>.

<font color=purple><b>An average human brain weights aprox. 3lbs., but a thought weights a load.</font color=purple></b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by jc14all on 08/05/02 09:31 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

Arrow

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
4,123
0
22,780
Hm... a lot of threads about this have been posted in the past. Do a quick search of the boards and I'm sure you'll find something :)

Rob
Please visit <b><A HREF="http://www.ncix.com/canada/about.php?affiliateid=319048" target="_new">http://www.ncix.com/canada/about.php?affiliateid=319048</A></b>
 

grassapa

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2002
807
0
18,980
eeerrrr.....so basically NTFS is better than FAT32 in all ways?

the worst failure is not trying........so go ahead and TRY to overclock your cpu to 5ghz
 

lhgpoobaa

Illustrious
Dec 31, 2007
14,462
1
40,780
Have you tried reading the <i>FAQ</i>?
Who knows, you may find what your looking for! :smile:

<b>Before visiting THG i was a clueless noob. Now im still clueless, but look at my nice title!<b>
 

marneus

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,327
0
19,280
NTFS is used by NT4, NT2000 & XP... win 95/98/98se & me cannot read NTFS... likewise Fat32 cannot be read by NT4, fat16 can be read by anything...
NTFS is more efficient method of formatting a harddrive, fat32 is old-tech (legacy) & untidy ... if you dont plan to ever go back to w9x OS or previous use ntfs but if you hook up to a network & want to share HDD space, any W9x machines will be unable to read a NTFS formatted hard drive...
for more info see http://whatis.techtarget.com & look them up... enjoy

There are no stupid questions... just lots of inquisitive idiots...
 

NickM

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2001
563
0
18,980
RE: <font color=blue>“... but if you hook up to a network & want to share HDD space, any W9x machines will be unable to read a NTFS formatted hard drive...
for more info see... “ </font color=blue>

How come?
I’m sitting at the networked Win98 machine at the moment and I am able to see the shares on all my NTFS-formatted XP and Win2000 boxes. And I <b>transfer files</b> back and forth <b>from NTFS to FAT32</b>!!
Actually, from my Win98 box I don't see the difference between file systems on the networked machines.

Even more:

from my old Win95 machine (just bare Windows, <b>no</b> 3d-party software installed) I just did telnet to my Solaris box and I searched through the directories and files on UFS partitions !
Then from my Win95 box I typed FTP and copied couple files from UNIX box to my Win95 ! From UFS to FAT16!!
And I even did't see my NTFS- and UFS-based boxes, they are in another rooms !!
 

AMD_Man

Splendid
Jul 3, 2001
7,376
2
25,780
RE: “... but if you hook up to a network & want to share HDD space, any W9x machines will be unable to read a NTFS formatted hard drive...
for more info see... “

How come?
I’m sitting at the networked Win98 machine at the moment and I am able to see the shares on all my NTFS-formatted XP and Win2000 boxes. And I transfer files back and forth from NTFS to FAT32!!
Actually, from my Win98 box I don't see the difference between file systems on the networked machines.
That's because you're not accessing the file system directly through your network. You're just telling your Win98 machine to tell your Win2K machine to read what's on the hard drive. Win98 doesn't need to know anything about NTFS to do that.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
 

NickM

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2001
563
0
18,980
QUOTE: <font color=blue>” NTFS is safer”</font color=blue>

In addition to Encryption and other safety features, the NTFS provides some more advantages:

<b>Disk Quotas</b>
<b>File Compression</b>
<b>Hard Links</b><i> (NTFS adds a directory entry for the hard link without duplicating the original file)</i>
<b>Distributed Link Tracking</b> <i>(ensures that shell shortcuts and OLE links continue to work after the target file is renamed or moved)</i>
<b>Sparse Files </b><i>(a method of saving disk space)</i>
<b>POSIX Compliance</b><i>(e.g. Case-sensitive naming, Hard links, Additional time stamps)</i>
<b>TFS Change Journal</b> <i>(a persistent log of changes made to files on a volume)</i>
<b>Indexing Service</b>


QUOTE: <font color=blue>” …and FAT32 is faster”</font color=blue>

It’s not so simple, HDD performance on FAT32 vs. NTFS depends on a variety of factors.

--------------------------------
<b>FAT highs:</b>
The effective work requires few of RAM.
Fast work with small and average directories.
The disc implements less movements of the heads (as compared with NTFS).
The effective work on slow (old models) discs.

<b>FAT32 lows:</b>
- Quick performance decrease with the fragmentation going up.
- Difficulty in access to big files (more than 10% of the disc space).
- Very slow work with directories containing huge amount of files.
- Not effective work on large (modern) discs

<b>NTFS highs:</b>
- Fragmentation does not influence the system performance (the work might became worse as far as data access is concerned).
- Complicity of the structure of directories and the number of files do not affect the performance.
- Quick access to the required file fragment (i.e. editing of big .wav files).
- Very quick access to small files (several hundreds bytes) - the whole file is located in the same place as the system data (MFT recording).

<b>NTFS lows:</b>
- The memory size mustn't be less than 64 MBytes.
- Slow discs and controllers without Bus Mastering slows the system performance down tremendously.
- The work with average-size directories is quite difficult, since they are fragmented.
- The disc working for a long time with 80% - 90% of its space occupied shows low performance.
------------------------------------------

OK, the RAM size is the chief factor influencing the system performance. In case of 64-96 MBytes both NTFS and FAT are equal.
If you are using only an OS and simplest applications, FAT32 might turn to be better on the PCs with bigger size of memory.

QUOTE: <font color=blue>"...If you will work with your PC use NTFS, if its for gaming use FAT32."</font color=blue>

Yes, on typical game system NTFS won't show the brilliant operating speed!

NTFS is still a system for future. The main advantage is that the complicity of directory structure, disc size, fragmentation do not have an influence on the system performance.

In FAT, on the contrary, all these factors slow the operating speed down.
FAT 32 <b>is the better choice for simple users' systems</b>. As for graphics workstations, office computers with thousands of documents and moreover file-servers, NTFS shows higher performance.
Probably the support for FAT will be discontinued soon.
 

marneus

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
1,327
0
19,280
'Win98 machine to tell your Win2K machine to read what's on the hard drive'

Thanks AMD_man... I totally forgot that this could be done this way...

There are no stupid questions... just lots of inquisitive idiots...