Advantages of NTFS over Fat32 if you're the only user of the machine?

[JEDI]

since i'm the only user, that kills the ntfs security advantages.

i'm using fat32 because i have a bootdisk incase something goes wrong w/XP.

any other advantages of ntfs over fat32?

THX

 

[MrChad]

1. It's faster
2. It's more reliable
3. It's more secure (do you have an internet connection? Then security matters)

Setup a Bart's PE disc for data recovery.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: MrChad
1. It's faster
2. It's more reliable
3. It's more secure (do you have an internet connection? Then security matters)

Setup a Bart's PE disc for data recovery.

thx!

good timing too. i'm formatting my hd today. going to try ntfs and make a image out of it.

btw- how is it more secure than fat32?

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: JEDI

Originally posted by: MrChad
1. It's faster
2. It's more reliable
3. It's more secure (do you have an internet connection? Then security matters)

Setup a Bart's PE disc for data recovery.

thx!

good timing too. i'm formatting my hd today. going to try ntfs and make a image out of it.

btw- how is it more secure than fat32?

With FAT32, if you have access to the drive, you have access to any folder or file on that drive.

With NTFS you have much more control. You can restrict permissions on both files and folders for individual users, which is much more secure than an "all or nothing" model.

 

[VirtualLarry]

NTFS is only more secure if the user runs as an ordinary user, not as a Power User or an Administrator, and even then only if they aren't exploited using some system component, that gives the exploit code SYSTEM privs anyways.

Basically, for a single-user workstation in which the user follows the most common practice (of running as Admin, due to compatibility issues, or if they are running XP Home), then NTFS is useless, for security reasons. Since it's generally also slightly slower, the best reason to run NTFS on a desktop/workstation machine, is if you plan to work with "large files", ones bigger than the 4GB filesize limit that FAT32 imposes. If you work with video files or DVD images that may matter.

If you want to be able to access your OS disk without installing a parallel-install of Windows, then I also suggest installing the OS onto a FAT32 partition, say 8GB or so, and the rest NTFS if you need too.

I also multi-boot, so FAT32 is BIG advantage there, for me at least. It's also saved my bacon a few times when my disks needed manual filesystem recovery work.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
If you want to be able to access your OS disk without installing a parallel-install of Windows, then I also suggest installing the OS onto a FAT32 partition, say 8GB or so, and the rest NTFS if you need too.

Or you can use Bart's PE, as I suggested in my original post. There's no need to format with FAT32 if recovery is your only concern.

 

[bsobel]

since i'm the only user, that kills the ntfs security advantages.

The transparent compression is usefull (at least to me) for some types of document stores.

i'm using fat32 because i have a bootdisk incase something goes wrong w/XP.

NTFS is more resiliant to damage, regardless of what a certain other poster in this thread will wrongly contend, it is much more likely you can recover data from the NTFS partition after failure.

Bill

 

[Mermaidman]

Isn't NTFS slower than FAT32?

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Mermaidman
Isn't NTFS slower than FAT32?

Only for small files on small volumes. The difference is minimal at best. The advantages of NTFS far outweigh any speed disadvantages.

 

[spyordie007]

Isn't NTFS slower than FAT32?

On larger volumes it's actually faster (esp. as the number of files increases).

I also multi-boot, so FAT32 is BIG advantage there

There are a number of linux drivers for NTFS if you dont want to use something like Bart PE. Yes even some that can write to NTFS partitions. But if you're looking for file recovery it doesnt matter if you can write (just read). Also as Bill stated NTFS is much less likely to have a failure or get corrupted in the first place.

FAT really is an obsolete file system and modern OSes have no place running on it.

 

[JEDI]

Originally posted by: bsobel

since i'm the only user, that kills the ntfs security advantages.

The transparent compression is usefull (at least to me) for some types of document stores.

i'm using fat32 because i have a bootdisk incase something goes wrong w/XP.

NTFS is more resiliant to damage, regardless of what a certain other poster in this thread will wrongly contend, it is much more likely you can recover data from the NTFS partition after failure.

Bill

transparent compression w/ntfs?!

i usually have small MS Office docs (word/excel), games, and movies on my machine.

how much compression does ntfs give?

 

[Nothinman]

since i'm the only user, that kills the ntfs security advantages.

No it doesn't, or atleast it shouldn't. Most unix people run as a regular user because it's safer, if something does go wrong it only affects their files and doesn't break the OS. Windows can be run in the same way, give yourself a limited account and use "Run As..." when you need to do administrative things. Of course there are things you may do a lot that require Administrator rights that may undermine that model, but you can still work around most of those with "Run As...".

 

[bsobel]

transparent compression w/ntfs?!
i usually have small MS Office docs (word/excel), games, and movies on my machine.
how much compression does ntfs give?

Already compressed data (your movies are most likely already compressed well) will see no benefit. Office docs and other non compressed data usually shrinks down well. It's easy and safe to check, just select a folder or file and turn on the compression attribute. If you do it for a folder, you can apply it to all current files/folders under it as well as all new files created within it.

Best,
Bill