I thought i would ask this here cause most places i have checked on the net are either confusing or don't give much on the subject. Now in about a day i'll be putting win xp on this old girl(computer) and i was told if i used the NTFS file system i wouldn't be able to run/use some of the programs that i use plus i would have trouble looking at anything that comes off a system with the FAT 32 filing system on it.. If you answer this PLEASE make it simple enough but still explaining things for me..i'm at that crossroad and have no idea which direction to go..

Hehe..I'm working on the MCSE stuff for XP, just went over this.

FAT/FAT 32 - old school. This is a way of formatting the hard drive that allows other operating systems to access it (Linux, Unix, Win 95, etc), if you want to boot more than one OS on a single system (there are people that do this; but if I've learned anything from the Internet, is that there are all kinds of people out there). Operating systems from DOS up to NT 4 and Windows 2000 were either FAT, or FAT/32 (FAT means File Allocation Table). It's easy to use.

NTFS- Is another way of formatting the Hard drive. It has some additional features, like security settings (you can lock files and directories out for certain users, etc). The only thing about NTFS, is that FAT and FAT 32 can't recognize it. Windows NT 4, Win 2000, and XP can do NTFS.

Not sure how much help that is. I have NTFS on my 2 hard drives, and haven't noticed anything unusual.

Not sure if that helps, but it's the nickel tour..;)

Message edited on: 11/29/2005 20:50

pakled that helps me a lot most of the people i know now use either win 2000pro or win xp. As long as i don't have trouble using most of the programs i use if i go with NTFS then i'll be a happy chipmunk.

NTFS I think also uses smaller allocation chunks (clusters maybe.. can't remember the term) so its more space efficent I think - from what I've read this efficiency is more noticable with bigger HDDs. And yeap, the biggest thing I've noticed is that win98 can't see a ntfs formatted harddrive.. which is mainly only an issue if you've networked xp and win98 computers together.

At home, my XP machine has 2 hard drives in it - one is an ntfs HDD (the main drive) and the other is an old fat32 HDD (for backup purposes) and it all works fine. I have had no problem with taking things from the fat32 drive and copying to the ntfs drive. I do know that some old old games programs that I have and used to run on win98 don't seem to want to run on xp. However, I think there's a way in xp that you can run a program in an old legacy type operating system shell... but not too sure about that as I haven't tried it yet.

Message edited on: 11/29/2005 21:21

Flak is right about file allocation. In the old days, a 1byte file would still take 4k (or whatever, depending on the size of the partition). WHich means there's a lot of wasted space and NTFS is more efficient with the file allocation. Another thing is that FAT32 has a limit on the file size of each file. 4gb I think. Which shouldn't be a problem, unless you're doing something that could be illegal, like making backup copies of DVD's onto the hard drive. Not that I would ever do that and do not condone piracy of any kind. The only issue I had was when my machine went belly up and I tried to plug my HDD into an old machine in order to recover the data and couldn't since the old machine couldn't read NTFS drives. I've not had any software that won't run on NTFS.

Thank you guys..looks like i turn to the right at this crossroad and go with the NTFS.

If anything goes wrong at least i can blame you for it ;)

Again thanks for you helpful information. Ps: now come the nightmare of installing it..shhh why can't things be easy for us older people ;)

Message edited on: 11/29/2005 21:42

I've networked xp and win98 computers together with no problems. (98 with FAT32 and XP with NTFS) I had no problem transferring files from one to the other. Just go with NTFS and all will be well. Tom

As far as Win98 seeing a networked NTFS drive, it should be able to because it's getting it's drive information from WinXP which reads the drives not from the drives themselves.

Ntfs is for XP and is the better way to go.

"Another thing is that FAT32 has a limit on the file size of each file. 4gb I think. Which shouldn't be a problem, unless you're doing something that could be illegal, like making backup copies of DVD's onto the hard drive." It might be less than 4gb, because I've hit that wall a few times myself on a FAT32 system. It's not just 'illegal' stuff, it can also be a problem for legitimate uses, like if you are a video editor who needs to convert video from tape to DV, or converting large animations from still image sequences to a single uncompressed video format, for output to film or DVD.

3 HDDs all NTFS using Windoze 2k-sp4

I have 2 partitions on Fat32 and 2 on NFTS on my main disc and a second disc on NFTS all running on XP, no problems.

CD,
There should not be any difference, between FAT32 and NTFS, in the way programs are executed on Windows. The difference is that NTFS allows for a better security protocols/permissions to be added to the file system (very important if a trojan virus is installed on your computer). There is no security in the FAT/FAT32 file systems. Also, Win2000/WinXP/2003/Vista are the only operating systems that can read/write to an NTFS file system.

@Flak
You are correct on the file allocation size on NTFS up to 4GB partitions. NTFS has a 4KB allocation size up to 4GB, but is the same as FAT32 after that.* The reason why some games don't work in WinXP is because WinXP changed how some of the internal libraries are loaded. Which causes a problem sometimes with games written for DOS/Win95/Win98. Changing the compatibility mode of the games .exe file to Win98 mode should fix this problem. * This information will change when the new file system (WinFS) is released sometime in 2007. The allocation size will be 4KB no matter how large the partition is.

-Chris

Message edited on: 11/30/2005 10:56

You should see no problems as far as apps or viewing ability. NTFS will be slightly more efficient on the performance side, FAT32 will be slightly more stable. The differences will be negligible at best.

Late as usual. :) Like everyone above have already pointed out, NTFS is the way to go. Ive been running XP and NTFS for as long as i can remember, and have had no problems.

Go with NTFS, or, install XP as FAT32 and then upgrade the partition to NTFS afterwards. It is pretty easy to do. As a whole, NTFS is the better way to go. The only significant compatibility problems you will have is with apps like Diskeepers' defragmenter and Partition Magic, and of course, only if they are really old versions. I believe NTFS also has what is called journaling. (though I may be mistaken). Journaling in a database system is used to keep track of all executed statements for recovery purposes. It also allows a system to do a multipass insert/update/delete. For instance, instead of just deleting something it would check the system, mark the file for deletion, save a record in the journal stating what would be deleted and what the data was, then asking the system if it was ready to delete. The system acknowledges, delete occurs and journal is marked as it being committed. If the system dies mid-stream than it back be reversed out. I suspect NTFS supports a similar feature. Either way, what is more important than Fat32 (do not run fat16!!) versus NTFS is a) making sure you have at least 256 mb ram, if not far far more, XP runs really poorly on just 256 b) loading all of the XP updates, including service pack 2 and all the updates afterwards. Failing to load the service packs IMMEDIATELY after loading XP is asking for problems. Unprotected and unfirewalled computers on the internet have been shown to be infected in one way or another within 25 minutes on average of being installed. Your best bet is to install XP offline (wire unplugged) and then plug in and install SP2 and updates. If you are behind a firewall/router this isn't quite as important. Either way, I'd go with no less than 384mb on an XP system, 512+ is obviously the right way to go. I run 1gb on my laptop and 756 on my desktop (haven't needed to upgrade it yet). RAM is cheap and will double the speed of a machine with 256 going to say, 512.

Hartwichr, thanks for the info. gee where you getting your ram from if its cheap. Here in Western Australia i pay $130+ for 512mb ddr ram.. I'll be upgrading the ram to 1gb when i install xp then a month or so later i'll be going up it to 1.5gb-2gb depending on money at the time.

When you format a partition using NTFS, you can choose to use a non-default allocation size.
If you know you going to have a lot of small files, use 512 bytes.

Hartwichr,

NTFS is not a journaling filesystem. NTFS does not have a built in recovery system, but does use the restore point and recovery manager systems to manage any errors that happen. What you described is more inlined with the new WinFS filesystem.

WinFS is a journaling filesystem using SQL Server 2005 database that implements UNIX-based security measures for improved security accross the computer.

• Chris

Good call Chris, you are write on the WinFS journaling. My mistake. Still, people should go for NTFS over FAT. Crazydawg: consider ordering online and having the memory shipped to you. It looks like I can buy a 1gb stick of PC2700 DDR for $60 US. 512 for $40.