Format Win XP to NTFS or regular windows files system?

[bullion416]

I am reformatting Windows XP Pro. So far, I have only tried XP using NTFS (NT FILE SYSTEM). Which do you recomend I use and it one faster or more reliable than the other?

 

[Nothinman]

NTFS is the regular Windows filesystem, FAT is just there for backwards compatibility.

And this has been beat to death, please use the search button.

 

[AndyHui]

FAT32 vs NTFS

 

[Netopia]

If security isn't involved, got Fat32. It's faster and if you ever crash and have to use a standard boot floppy, you'll be able to easily get at all of your files. There are ways to get at them in NTFS also, but with a fair amount of extra working. If you need security, there's no choice, go NTFS.

Joe

 

[Nothinman]

If security isn't involved, got Fat32. It's faster and if you ever crash and have to use a standard boot floppy, you'll be able to easily get at all of your files. There are ways to get at them in NTFS also, but with a fair amount of extra working.

You should say 'if data integrity isn't involved' because NTFS is many times more reliable than FAT. The extra work required to save an NTFS drive from a software failure is minimal, as long as you do some research and know ahead of time what's needed.

 

[DnetMHZ]

Personally I always use NTFS, unless of course i want to dual boot with a 9x OS.. but right now thats not the case so everything is NTFS on
my systems.. (not counting the BSD boxes of course)

NTFS is simply a far superior file system in terms of security and reliability compared to FAT

DnetMHZ

 

[Netopia]

I still consider it a mixed bag.

Fat is faster and easier to recover from a system failure. NTFS is more secure, and (because it's now journaled) is easier to recover from soft errors, but still harder to get to if the system is no longer bootable. For ordinary home use, I'd still stay mainly with FAT32... at least for data that I wanted to get at. Of course, I do regular backups, so I guess I'm a hair less worried about the non-journaled system.

Joe

 

[EmperorRob]

FAT = CRASH

 

[Netopia]

<< FAT = CRASH >>

,

Hmmmm.... that was over simplified, overstated and basically misleading!

I run all the tech stuff for a company of about 160 people. The main NT PDC uses a FAT16 Boot/System partition and striped NTFS drives for the data. The machine has been in continuous operation (regular reboot schedule, as should be) since Feb '99. That's three years. No corruption. No lost data. No crashes.... not ONE.

I have several machines that I make the Boot/System partion FAT and others NTFS as needs be. Physical security is provided for servers, so I'm not that concerned about someone being able to easily boot the machine from a DOS floppy and get to the C: drive. NTFS on the other partitions gives us the use of the added features of NTFS without the headaches that can happen if you have a problem with the Boot/System that is NTFS.

Now... what, if any, information do you have from a high utilization environment that will back up your statement that "FAT=CRASH"? None, I'm sure. And I don't argue that NFTS is more robust, just that is isn't always the best solution, as is, I believe, the case with most home users.

Joe

 

[Mem]

I switched from FAT32 to NTFS in XP and it seemed to be faster in NTFS to me ,also better overall so I`ve kept with NTFS.

 

[Alex]

if ya dont plan to go back to any other OS then NTFS its the best