I've just done a re-install after completing a new build.. I made a partition while installing Windows XP, and the C drive is FAT32 but the D seems to be stuck on NTFS. Is there any way of changing it to FAT32 without having to install Partition Magic or something like that?
is there a quick way to change from NTFS to FAT32 in XP?
- Thread starter phlip
- Start date
There is no going backwards. You have to either reformat or use Partition Magic. If you do reformat it, XP won't format a FAT32 partition larger than 32Gigs - for that you'll have to use a Win98 bootdisk.
Well, the other (obvious but painful) way--backup the data (file copy) to another disk/partition/etc. Then delete partition and recreate it as fat32. Then restore data.
No free convert util though, not that I know of.
No free convert util though, not that I know of.
You don't have to delete a partition to reformat it in a new file format. Just format it and select the file system you want.
You DO have to back the data up though.
phlip, listen to these people that are telling you to STICK WITH NTFS. NTFS is light years ahead of FAT32 man.
FAT32 should only be used on a 9x system.
You DO have to back the data up though.
phlip, listen to these people that are telling you to STICK WITH NTFS. NTFS is light years ahead of FAT32 man.
FAT32 should only be used on a 9x system.
- Mar 4, 2000
- 27,370
- 239
- 106
It is very easy to change back to FAT32 from NTFS using PMagic 8. I did it twice today - it is a way of moving the NTFS MTF Reserved area away from growing files so it doesn't end up in the middle of them. The reserved area is about the same size as your files, but is invisible unless you use PerfectDisk. Then it show. The MTF Reserved area is what NTFS uses to manage files - and it does cost you quite a bit of HDD space - but I'd say most people never see it or are unaware of it.
I keep a backup copy of my XP OS on a FAT32 drive - that way I can fix problems should they occur. NTFS repairs are somewhat illusory and never able to do what is needed - like replace the NTOSKERNL file so the system can boot. That's easy to do with FAT 32.
I keep a backup copy of my XP OS on a FAT32 drive - that way I can fix problems should they occur. NTFS repairs are somewhat illusory and never able to do what is needed - like replace the NTOSKERNL file so the system can boot. That's easy to do with FAT 32.
When you refer to MTF are you meaning MFT (Master File Table)? AFAIK it is visible in all of the defraggers, including the one that comes with the OS. It's certainly visible with Diskeeper, which I use, and with the O&O defragger. I had figured that most people who used NTFS were probably well aware of the MFT and its functions, but you may well be right in saying that they're not -- especially now that Windows XP is finding its way into so many homes.
It has been my understanding that the MFT actually belongs right there in the midst of the file system. The reason is two-fold. First of all, the heads have to read alternately from and write to the MFT, the pagefile, the metadata caches, and the "regular" files. Moving one or more of these entities away from the others probably just increases average seek time. The second reason is that all files that are smaller than 1,024 bytes are actually contained within the MFT. That's right. They don't have any existence outside the MFT. That's one of several reasons why it's so much harder to go back from an NTFS format to FATxx format.
I would also like to say that I haven't found the recovery and repair tools that are used with NTFS to be less reliable or robust than those which are used with DOS (FATxx) partitions. My experience has been quite the contrary. It's true that the tools are different from those you use for DOS recovery / repair. It's also my experience that an NTFS partition is much less likely to need repair than a FATxx partition.
One of the confusing issues for many people with NTFS, I think, is that so many third party and / or previous Windows version tools are often used for creating and altering the partitions. When a failure occurs later on the recovery and repair tools may not be able to do their thing because the NTFS partition (or the partition table or boot sector) are not "standard". I don't think that this can be blamed on Windows XP. The fault lies in having used inappropriate tools for establishing or maintaining the partition(s) on the drive in the first place. Note that when I use the word "inappropriate" here I don't intend to indicate that tools like PM and alternate boot manager don't have their place. But I do think that they should be used with caution since they do compromise the operating system's recovery and repair features.
- prosaic
so is NTFS much faster than FAT32, and is it ok to have FAT32 on the C drive and NTFS on the D? next time I re-install I'll keep it all on NTFS.. just finished a re-install and dont fancy doing it all again.
For most home use purposes I doubt that you'd be able to tell the difference between the two file systems, speed-wise, without a benchmark. It is certain that the reliability benefits of NTFS are the most compelling reason for using it. But, as I implied earlier, it is important to learn about the file system and the recovery and repair techniques if you wish to use NTFS because it is a different file system. What works for FAT won't work for NTFS and vice versa. It appears that many people try to base the file system decision on speed. My response is to point out that a computer with a borked file system doesn't do anything at all, much less do it fast.
You can certainly use FAT32 on the C: partition and keep NTFS on the D: partition, but it's not an arrangement that I'd normally recommend on any system other than one that was running another operating system in addition to Windows XP, where I might need to have access to the C: partition when booted into an OS that doesn't know NTFS.
How large is the C: partition? If it is 32 megabytes or smaller, and if it was created by the Windows XP installer, then it may be possible to perform an optimum conversion on it. What I mean by optimum is that, if the partition was created by some other partition creator than the one that Windows XP ships with, then using the CONVERT utility to convert the partition from FAT32 to NTFS is very likely to result in file system cluster sizes of 512 bytes. That's NOT good. It will lead to a tendency for rapid file system AND internal MFT fragmentation, and that will be bad for performance. If the primary partition was created by the Windows XP setup then conversion would normally result in a 4 kiloybyte cluster size. That size is optimal for almost all normal circumstances. However, in any conversion process there is always the possibility that the cluster size will go to 512 bytes. This is determined by a number of factors including where the partition boundaries have been aligned with respect to multiples of the hard disk sectors.
- prosaic
You can certainly use FAT32 on the C: partition and keep NTFS on the D: partition, but it's not an arrangement that I'd normally recommend on any system other than one that was running another operating system in addition to Windows XP, where I might need to have access to the C: partition when booted into an OS that doesn't know NTFS.
How large is the C: partition? If it is 32 megabytes or smaller, and if it was created by the Windows XP installer, then it may be possible to perform an optimum conversion on it. What I mean by optimum is that, if the partition was created by some other partition creator than the one that Windows XP ships with, then using the CONVERT utility to convert the partition from FAT32 to NTFS is very likely to result in file system cluster sizes of 512 bytes. That's NOT good. It will lead to a tendency for rapid file system AND internal MFT fragmentation, and that will be bad for performance. If the primary partition was created by the Windows XP setup then conversion would normally result in a 4 kiloybyte cluster size. That size is optimal for almost all normal circumstances. However, in any conversion process there is always the possibility that the cluster size will go to 512 bytes. This is determined by a number of factors including where the partition boundaries have been aligned with respect to multiples of the hard disk sectors.
- prosaic
NTFS is not always more reliable than FAT32.
Sometimes NTFS systems get corrupted and chkdsk at boot time does not fix it.
I had this happen and found that Windows XP would always mark the boot disk as "dirty". This meant that chkdsk would run everytime I had to reboot and would never fix the problem. This also meant that the drive could never be defragmented by Diskkeeper.
The only solution was to reformat the drive and re-install Windows XP. I had to do this several times before I finally resolved the problem that was causing the disk corruption.
Most of the time NTFS is more reliable than FAT32 but when it breaks it really breaks.
Sometimes NTFS systems get corrupted and chkdsk at boot time does not fix it.
I had this happen and found that Windows XP would always mark the boot disk as "dirty". This meant that chkdsk would run everytime I had to reboot and would never fix the problem. This also meant that the drive could never be defragmented by Diskkeeper.
The only solution was to reformat the drive and re-install Windows XP. I had to do this several times before I finally resolved the problem that was causing the disk corruption.
Most of the time NTFS is more reliable than FAT32 but when it breaks it really breaks.
Just a little information about the role of the "dirty bit"...
Windows XP (and Windows 2000 and Windows NT) mark a file system as "dirty" at startup every time the system is started. Yes, every time. Then the last thing the system does during the shutdown process (after saving the user and system settings) is to switch this so-called "dirty bit" in the registry back to the clean state. If it succeeds in switching the dirty bit back to the clean state, then autocheck will not run the file system check at startup. If you are having a hardware / driver issue or a system configuration issue that causes the system to shut down without changing that dirty bit to the clean state, that is probably not the fault of the operating system, but it is certainly not the fault of the file system. And the system will run a check on the file system to try to be certain that no file system corruption resulted as a result of the unfinished shutdown write.
This is a Good Thing (TM) because it causes the file system to be checked since the presence of the dirty bit indicates that other shutdown writing may not have been completed before power to the drives was shut down. This commonly occurred on systems with specific combinations of fast processors, certain chipsets, and specific hard drive models.
But the ideal solution for such a system is not to reformat and reinstall but to find out why the improper shutdown is occurring in the first place and to fix that problem. In the same case there would be less protection from the possibility of incomplete shutdown writes if the file system were FAT32 because of the fact that FAT32 is not a journaling file system. (NTFS keeps track of each file system transaction as it happens so that the system can restore itself to the state it was in just prior to cessation of function.)
NTFS is never a less reliable file system than FAT32. The issue you describe wasn't the fault of the file system. The symptoms you describe indicate that the file system was trying to save you from losing data or system configuration settings due to a problem that resided elsewhere in the system.
- prosaic
Windows XP (and Windows 2000 and Windows NT) mark a file system as "dirty" at startup every time the system is started. Yes, every time. Then the last thing the system does during the shutdown process (after saving the user and system settings) is to switch this so-called "dirty bit" in the registry back to the clean state. If it succeeds in switching the dirty bit back to the clean state, then autocheck will not run the file system check at startup. If you are having a hardware / driver issue or a system configuration issue that causes the system to shut down without changing that dirty bit to the clean state, that is probably not the fault of the operating system, but it is certainly not the fault of the file system. And the system will run a check on the file system to try to be certain that no file system corruption resulted as a result of the unfinished shutdown write.
This is a Good Thing (TM) because it causes the file system to be checked since the presence of the dirty bit indicates that other shutdown writing may not have been completed before power to the drives was shut down. This commonly occurred on systems with specific combinations of fast processors, certain chipsets, and specific hard drive models.
But the ideal solution for such a system is not to reformat and reinstall but to find out why the improper shutdown is occurring in the first place and to fix that problem. In the same case there would be less protection from the possibility of incomplete shutdown writes if the file system were FAT32 because of the fact that FAT32 is not a journaling file system. (NTFS keeps track of each file system transaction as it happens so that the system can restore itself to the state it was in just prior to cessation of function.)
NTFS is never a less reliable file system than FAT32. The issue you describe wasn't the fault of the file system. The symptoms you describe indicate that the file system was trying to save you from losing data or system configuration settings due to a problem that resided elsewhere in the system.
- prosaic
this should do it without losing any info [ convert c: /fs:ntfs ] , but as always your milege may vary , ALWAYS backup your data before attempting this...
good luck
One unmentioned advantage that NTFS has over FAT32 is file level security. This, along with the journaling make it a much more robust and secure filesystem.
I am just curious that if I bring my NTFS formatted HD to my friend's XP computer, will he be able to read my files?
I assume that you are planning on placing your hard drive in the friend's PC as a slave, NOT on trying to boot with your drive -- correct? Yes, that should work out okay. There are a couple of things to consider. Is your data encrypted using EFS? If so, you won't be able to access it by booting into your friend's OS installation. Unencrypt the data before taking the drive out of your system. (If you are running Windows XP Home Edition, then you don't have EFS, and you don't have to worry about checking for this.)
Once you have installed your hard drive as a slave on your friend's computer and booted into its OS installation (as an admin level user) you may have to take ownership of the files. To do this in Windows XP Professional you have to have Simple File Sharing disabled. In Windows Explorer you right-click on the top-level folder of the data to which you wish to gain access, click on Properties, go to the Security tab. (You won't see a Security tab if your friend has Simple File Sharing enabled.) Click on the Advanced button, then click on the Owner tab. Should be pretty self-explanatory after that.
If your friend's PC is running Windows XP Home Edition I'm not quite sure how your proceed here. I assume that you'll be able to get to the data. In this case it might be a good idea to check your data folders before removing the drive from your PC to be sure that they aren't marked "Private". Right-click on the top-level folder, select Sharing and Security, make sure that "Make this folder private" is UNchecked. I'm not certain that this will do the trick, but I hope that it will keep you from having to jump through any hoops in order to get to the data.
- prosaic
Once you have installed your hard drive as a slave on your friend's computer and booted into its OS installation (as an admin level user) you may have to take ownership of the files. To do this in Windows XP Professional you have to have Simple File Sharing disabled. In Windows Explorer you right-click on the top-level folder of the data to which you wish to gain access, click on Properties, go to the Security tab. (You won't see a Security tab if your friend has Simple File Sharing enabled.) Click on the Advanced button, then click on the Owner tab. Should be pretty self-explanatory after that.
If your friend's PC is running Windows XP Home Edition I'm not quite sure how your proceed here. I assume that you'll be able to get to the data. In this case it might be a good idea to check your data folders before removing the drive from your PC to be sure that they aren't marked "Private". Right-click on the top-level folder, select Sharing and Security, make sure that "Make this folder private" is UNchecked. I'm not certain that this will do the trick, but I hope that it will keep you from having to jump through any hoops in order to get to the data.
- prosaic
I have had it both ways but I pefer fat32 over ntfs for the boot drive. My reason is quite simple! I use Norton Ghost to do an image of my boot drive (ie c on to CD-R's. If you use NTFS you can restore but not format the drive in DOS. This creates problems that requires you have a partition manager like Partition Magic to solve. Under Fat32 you can with Gdisk (compainion program to Ghost) format the drive before restoring the image and you get an exact image of the drive the way it was before! Thus making the restore process a snap! Just my 2 cents worth!
on to CD-R's. If you use NTFS you can restore but not format the drive in DOS. This creates problems that requires you have a partition manager like Partition Magic to solve. Under Fat32 you can with Gdisk (compainion program to Ghost) format the drive before restoring the image and you get an exact image of the drive the way it was before! Thus making the restore process a snap! Just my 2 cents worth!
Originally posted by: HdwGuy
I have had it both ways but I pefer fat32 over ntfs for the boot drive. My reason is quite simple! I use Norton Ghost to do an image of my boot drive (ie c
Why not use some intelligence along with NTFS's security and stability features to help you so you dont have to restore?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter