Hi everyone- can anyone help me understand the advantages and disadvantages of converting from FAT32 to NTFS in Windows 2K. I have a 60 GB hard drive, and things seem to be running slow under FAT32. What are the ramifications of changing to this format. I know that Floppy's can't be formatted to NTFS. DOes that mean I can't use a floppy disk on a machine that is using the NTFS file system? I am guessing that that is not the case, but if you know otherwise, please let me know. Also, will I be able to carry files from a computer using Fat32 to my NTFS machine and vice versa? Anything else worth mentioning that you can think of would be appreciated. Thanks! Aharon

NTFS overcomes many of the limitations imposed by FAT32. For instance, NTFS doesn't have a file-size limit of 4 GB, or a partition limit of 32 GB. This is very helpful if you're messing around with uncompressed video.

As for transporting files from one computer to another, there shouldn't be any problems with floppies and recordable CDs. You'll have to format the floppies with Fat32, but your NTFS machine should be able to read them.

Here's a link to an informative article on the subject:
Choosing FAT or NTFS

Thanks. I'll have a look. Aharon

Good article Little Dragon. So then does this apply to WinXP too?

what does partition limit of 4 gb or 10 gigb mean ? is that saying that if I want to partion the HD so that only some of it holds the OS that that partition should not be less than 10 gig or 4 gig? What if I have 2 Hard drives...one is 10 gig and one is 40 gig? can I just have the OS on the 10 gig HD and EVERYTHING ELSE on the 40 gig? if so, when I install poser, for example, do I do the install process on the 10 gig side holding the OS or on the 40 gig HD? Am I making any sense? Thanks :)

Attached Link: http://www.elementkjournals.com/ewn/9711/ewn97b1.htm

I am using Windows 2000 as well. I had the same decision to make when I brought my 60 GB a week ago, although this will be my Slave Drive I went with NTFS. My Master drive is Fat32. The real debate from what I gathered in reading is that using NTFS is not the best solution if it is going to be your Master Drive, since it proved difficult for some to get the system back up and running if there was hard drive or Windows problems requiring you to reboot etc. But this argument has now been thought of as false, it really depends on how you will use the drive. NTFS is a new file allocation system, it really was made to phase out FAT32. So by using NTFS you are thinking of the future. FAT32 is horrible when it comes to compression, and by using FAT32, you are using much more space then required if you used NTFS. But NTFS is not good if you compress the whole drive and need to write to it a lot, if you do need to Write to the drive a lot, then you do better compressing only certain folders not the whole drive. Anyway, here is a great link to the info. I hope this helped. I also have more links on this topic if you need them, that discuss more differences. I'll see if I can find the links.

Duh, I guess I got carried away and didn't read, Little Dragon listed a great article too.

scifiguy: Yes, this applies to WinXP also. XP's version of NTFS is slightly newer, but it pretty much works the same way. XP has a conversion utility, so you can start out with FAT32 and convert to NTFS without reformatting and losing any data. Bia: Yes, you're making sense. The 4 gig limit is on individual files. You can't have a file larger than 4 GB. Partitions are a means of dividing a single hard drive into many parts. For instance, you could divvy up a 40GB hard drive into two partitions, one being 10GB, and the other 30GB. Each partition has a separate drive letter (C:, D:, whatever). You could install your OS on one partition, and put Poser or other software on another. FAT32 has a partition limit of 32GB maximum, so you can't assign one of today's enormous 100GB drives to a single partition and drive letter, and still access all of the storage space. You have to divide it up. In theory, at least. The hard drive manufacturers usually have workarounds to let you make supersized partitions.

Actually you can readily format a higher capacity 100 or even 120 Gig harddrive as one FAT32 partition, but Microsoft has crippled the FDisk/Format utilities in any NTFS-capable OS to only create FAT32 partitions under 32 Gig. I have an 80-Gig harddrive in my WIN98se workstation that works just fine. When I installed an 120 Gig drive in my newer XP machine, I found XP would only initialize it as one partition if I formatted to NTFS, so I did. I was so disgusted with the sluggish operation, random file-access denials, and the glacial slowness of any file operations (from a file find to a rt-clk->properties to find out the total size of a folder & all it's subfolders), that I decided to go back to FAT32. Patched it iinto my WIN98 machine & reformatted as one big FAT32 partition with no problems (Backed up my data first, of course), swapped it back to my XP unit & it works fine. Partition Magic 7 can handle the conversion from NTFS to FAT32 without data loss, also, but won't work on partitions over 80 Gig (their tech support admits it really only works well if there's 65 Gig or less data on the drive, too). Since converting back, disk access, file-finds, & other file operations are MUCH faster, and the OS doesn't claim other users have most of the files in my system open when I try to rename, delete, or move them! I've talked to a lot of technically inclined people about the relative formats, & find that most of the staunchly pro-NTFS folk, actually run WIN-XP-Pro, not WIN-XP-Home (which I have). Like anything computer related, there are conflicting opinions, depending on individual experiences & expectations, but I'm happy with my decision to go FAT32 in XP-Home. Solved my 2 worst problems without causing any new ones (except the hassle of overcoming MS's attempt to force the NTFS down my throat). Anyway, that's my experience.

All the super duper razmataz encrypting OS stuff with XP requires you to use the NTFS format which supports on the fly encryption. Supposedly if you are running your own server this is a high priority. Also if you want to stripe together drives to make a raid you'll need to use the NTFS format. When I have a choice I use FAT32. For me the main issue is speed, if I were running a commercial service with mission critical data I'd have to choose NTFS. Most of the people touting NTFS do so for that reason.

Most people will be surprised that many videocapture card and firewire mfg. recommend you use the Fat16b format for the sole reason of speed. The trade off going to Fat32 is larger partitions (fat16b has 4GB partitions a real hassle on large drives). Also, if you have partition magic change your cluster size to larger numbers. There is a trade off between speed and the useable size of your hard disk but often you can but a good speed increase with a little excess disk space. If you normally access a lot of large files then the trade off becomes less of an issue. A lot of us fall into this category because models and textures tend to be large compared to word processing docs.

I agree NTFS is slower on my system than FAT32, my hard drive churns much slower when accessing the NTFS drive. I never get slow response from FAT32, maybe I should partition the 60 GB drive? Right now its one partition, even though this may have nothing to do with why its slow though, it may be a inherited problem with NTFS I guess. leather-guy do you have 2 hard drives or one?

On the XP unit I have the factory installed 80 Gig (pre-partitioned into a 20 Gig FAT32 C: drive and a 40 Gig D: drive (NTFS then, FAT32 now). I added a 120 Gig H: drive that's FAT32 now, and a couple of external Firewire drives at 120 Gig & 100 Gig (both FAT32) that I plug in for weekly backups & archiving that trade off as drive I:.

leather-guy, I've been hearing rumors that Windows XP Home Edition doesn't come with a backup utility. Is that true? Or is it on the disc but not installed automatically?

We run all NTFS drives here, for a number of reasons.

• On the fly encryption
• Superior error recovery
• Flexible partition options (striping, software raid, on the dynamic linking)
• Superior security, the access bits and information is inherent in the NFTS format

There is no way I would run a mission critical system (and I consider my personal box mission critical) under FAT32... I use the security procedures to much to take the chance.

BTW - I haven't noticed a speed difference.

All my drives are NTFS, I compress my 3d models folder which is over 3GB and it comes down to under 2gb with virtually no appreciable loss of speed.

Little Dragon Backup is readily available in XP-Pro under System tools, I understand. MicroSoft seems to think their System Restore Utility is all us XP-Home users need. It's still available on the XP-Home distrib disk (ntbackup.exe) in the valueaddmsftntbackup folder, and can be installed from there. It's enhanced over the Win2000 version, but still pretty primitive (designed for tape drives, no direct support for CD-R drives). Frankly, a couple of well-written batch files using the command-line switches of Xcopy or xcopy32 makes more sense (as long as you can find the key system files in the incredible warren of redundant folders that the OS insists on cluttering up the hard drive with). For the record; I'm VERY impressed overall with XP's stability & reliability, but with over 1,700 coders at a time working on aspects of XP with a turnover of about 11%/month (as I've heard), it's only natural that a lot of features & options weren't finished properly or implimented with the real end-users needs in mind instead of what a clutch of arrogant misanthropic nerds feel users should want if they were only brite enough to know what they should want. (I say this as a 15-year professional nerd, myself) Again; just my opinions - opposing views expected :-))

Leather-guy, I read your description of problems. That sounds exactly like my Maxtor drive was acting when it died. I replaced it under warranty, and don't have those problems any more. Do you defrag your hard drive, run scan disk or disk doctor?

OK, now I am confused. I am running a 60 GB hard drive with no partitions - and I am in FAT32. Clearly it is possible tohave FAT32 in a 60 GB Hard Drive. Does a large Hard Drive (or volume) run slower or faster on FAT32? Should I just convert to NTFS or will it slow things down? Also, is partitioning a better option? Can someone reccomend a good resource for info on partitions? What is the best software to do this? Thanks. Aharon

This may sound obvious, but try the Windows Help Files. They have lots of great information. And you can always check out the appropriate Microsoft Windows Home page, or newsgroups. The thing I discovered with Windows 2000 Professional is that most of the other Windows 2000 users know this is for Professionals, and you're supposed to already know this stuff if you have Windows 2000 Pro. That's one of the reasons I now have Windows XP.

Just my two cents worth. I use both FAT32 and NTFS on my computers. Home computer runs Win98SE and Win2K at work. I use a portable drive (USB) to carry files to and from work. The only reason my home computer uses Win98SE instead of Win2K is the video editing software I use won't run under Win2K. NTFS allows greater security of files and directories (ie sharing or not sharing), and the directory structure is more compact than that used by FAT32. As to speed, I have yet to see any difference between my drives. Also, if you are going to use FAT32 on drives bigger than 64 Gb, go to Microsoft's website and download the updated FDISK file. The limit with FAT32 is 64 Gb, FDISK will report an 80 Gb drive as 15 Gb (80 - 64). Formatting it will also only recognize the drive as 15 Gb. This is a problem that I encountered last week with a new 100 Gb drive. Went to Western Digital's site to see what was up, and found the solution in their FAQ section. Hope this rambling helps you out some. Robin

well, I am confused now too... if I have a 10 gig drive with Win 2000 on it right now in Fat 32 tell me this: 1. can I install a second HD (40 gigs) for data, files, graphics etc... 2. leave win 2000 on the 10 gig but uninstall all programs and data and put them all on the 40 gig drive so that only win 2000 is on the 10 gig drive? Will I be able to access stuff this way? And, when I reinstall actual programs...do I do the install on the 10 gig drive or the 40 gig drive? Yikes...I am lost! :)

Attached Link: http://www.microsoft.com/Downloads/Release.asp?ReleaseID=34951

Bastard! I type in a long and technically complex reply and the "reply" button eats it... :( It works like this: NTFS has no file size limit with a 2Tb (Terrabyte disk/partition limit. FAT32 has a file size limit of 4Gb with a 30/32Gb (approx) disk/partition limit. So with a partition limit of 4 per drive and a size limit of 30-32Gb, if you have a drive bigger than 120Gb you'll need to use NTFS for at least one partition, or start losing drive space. FAT32 relies on a FAT (File Allocation Table) to tell it where all your data is, you lose it, or it gets corrupted, you're screwed. There are viruses out there that corrupt it. NTFS has no FAT, it uses a "journalled" (kind of) filesystem, where each bit of data knows where it is, what it is, and what it's a part of. So it's more internally consistent when it comes to file handling/deletion, etc. You don't have to use scandisk if you don't shut it down properly, or windows dies on you. FAT32 disks/partitions "fragment" real quick, which means that after a certain amount of time accessing your data takes longer, as the head must constantly go back to the FAT to find out where the next cluster is, etc. NTFS "fragments" far less, and it always stores it's file entry table in the middle of the disk/partition, so you have a finite length of time to access any data on the disk, this is especially evident with big disks with lots of data on them. You can tune NTFS far more than you can FAT/FAT32 see this page: http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/ntfs/impl_Part.htm It has a page on NTFS Vs Fat too :) Having had to salvage my data (took me a lot of time and money) when my FAT32 drive died under Windows Me on my laptop, I decided data security and intergity was the way to go in future, so both my boot and data partitions now use NTFS under Xp pro, (Users of Xp should download the "latest" security patch from Microsoft, link attached) Those interested in the latest Microsoft screw-up should check here :) http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1722000/1722745.stm Rule of thumb: "if you think you're ready for NTFS, you probably are..." later jb

Hi, Having just had a quick scoot about the 'net, looking at related "stuff" I'd have to concurr with the advice on not converting a FAT32 partition to NTFS, (the reasons are technical, but it'll slow you down) I'd also advise against compressing your NTFS (or any FS :) partition, (or encrpting it for that matter) as that will ad software overhead to the hardware overhead ad infinitum. I experimented with compressing my boot disk, (just to see what'd happen really :) what happened is it got a lot slower accessing the drive, though booting up seemed just as quick. "Here endeth the lesson" :) later jb

Why would anyone think of compressing any disks any more? That was something we did before we had huge and cheap hard drives.

Thanks everyone. I am totally at a loss as to what I will actually do, but You've given me a lot to think about. Like all things Microsoft, there is never a simple answer... Thanks. Aharon