• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

NTFS or FAT32 any performance differences on win2k?

S

sadb0i

Golden Member
id just like to know if the overall performance of a computer...for gaming, video editing, etc...is affected on different formats...
dont really care for security as of right now...
 
NTFS is supposed to be 2 or 3 % faster than FAT..

The best thing about NTFS is that you will gain 300 MBs or so of space (my gain on a 20 Gig drive) after the conversion because of the way it handles small files.. instead of using FAT clusters.
 
Using ATTO to test hard drive performance, I found FAT32 with 8k clusters to be faster than NTFS.

Bozo 😀
 
thanks for inputs...took me forever to find this post again too...ill stick with fat32...more familiar..if i want NT i guess ill head over to NTFS btu until then.....fat32 is fine...thanks again
 
NTFS has file and folder level security with NTFS Permissions, encryption, compression, disk quotas, and it supports remote storage, dynamic volumes...
FAT32 has no file level security, the only security on files is the shared folders option, and it supports dual booting.
You dont need to reformat or reinstall Windows 2000 to get to NTFS from FAT32... i think the command is convert.exe or something.. i dont remember at the moment
 
who cares about security.. I'm running a workstation, not a server. FAT32 all the way. It's much simpler with dual boot, ghost etc.
 
Iv'e tried both and I would say NTFS is a little faster. But I'm using FAT32 on both of my drives for compatibility incase I wanna install ME or something.
 
This argument has been going on for ages... some tests say NTFS is faster, some say FAT32... but one thing is common among all the tests: the gains are sooo small that you will hardly notice... so I would consider them the same...

The big selling point of NTFS is the security features...

However, personally I am sticking with FAT32... in case my computer crashes, I can still boot into DOS with my regular bootdisks and try and save my system and files...
 

Not much diff in performance, except in ideal situation that depend on the size of the files & block alocation.

Another vote for FAT32, because it do DOS.
 
I use only NTFS with Win2k. It gives you so many functions you don't have with FAT32 that it's worth the inconvenience on some points, like not being able to see the HD when using a regular Win9x/ME bootdisk, but there is still the Win2k bootdisk (actually 4 disks) 😉

I haven't defragmented the HD for more than 4 months now, and no problems at all. It isn't dramatically faster than one of my FAT32 using PC's, but especially the lack of need for an utility like scandisk after each crash is convenient 🙂
 
Aside from security functions, the reliability of NTFS is far superior to Fat32. I have yet had lost clusters in NTFS, when in Fat32, if you just shutdown improperly, your drive gets messed up. Overall, NTFS just feels much more industrius and robust, and its designed for NT OS.

With regard to bootdisks, all you need is a cdrom that supports bootup, and just pop the win2k cd in, and it should bootup fine. Say bye-bye to floppies.


Heifetz
 
NTFS is really what you want. Even when I was dual bootin Win98 and Win2k I kept Win2k on NTFS. FAT-anything is ancient/outdated technology. NTFS is more features and is MUCH more reliable (journaling fs). Even if it is a tad slower than FAT, I'm not so addicted to performance that I'd sacrifice quality and reliability just for a few percent extra speed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top