NTFS or FAT32 in WinXP?

[Fastball]

I'm doing a clean install of XP Pro. Should I choose NTFS quick, NTFS, FAT32 quick, or FAT32? It's just a home system.

 

[kylef]

Unless you're in a hurry, NTFS is the way to go. With FAT32 you lose all semblance of security.

 

[fastman]

I read an article just resently that said NTFS is faster!

 

[Fastball]

what are these "quick" options that it gives?

 

[n0cmonkey]

http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=63

FAQ duh.

 

[Blayze]

unless you need to share the partitions with Win98/ME then go with NTFS

 

[Mucker]

NTFS

 

[Maggotry]

I'm not trying to punk your thread fastball, but I have a question along these lines and hopefully it will be good information for you too. The FAQ says NTFS and FAT32 are not compatible with each other (one can't read the other). I've got lots of data that I've archived to CD in 98SE (FAT32). If I do an NTFS install of XP, will it be able to read these CD's?

 

[Rob G.]

>> "The FAQ says NTFS and FAT32 are not compatible with each other (one can't read the other)"

The filesystems don't 'read' anything. Whether or not a particular filesystem can be used depends on the operating system.

Windows 95/98/Me CANNOT read or 'see' NTFS partitions. It can only use FAT/FAT32.

Windows NT/2000/XP CAN read NTFS as well as FAT/FAT32.

Any data you have moved onto CD-R will be in CD format (I think it's called CDFS) and therefore are readable by either.

 

[n0cmonkey]

cds are in iso 9660 format, sometimes with Microsoft's Joliet extentions. Im gonna stop pointing out the faqs if people dont read them right

 

[Maggotry]

I was at work last night when I posted that question. No, I didn't read the faq thoroughly....I was at work. I appreciate the linkage and I'll go through it much more thoroughly over the weekend. I'm much more of a hardware geek than a software geek. Keep the linkage coming!

 

[Mem]

I had my XP OS using FAT32 then I used the convert command to change it to NTFS,it converted it on my next restart but it only took a few minutes anyway it seems slightly faster to me in NTFS also fragmentation takes a lot longer to happen in NTFS.

 

[scottrico]

NTFS


It feels a little faster, I think winxp runs smoother on it.

flamers suck!

 

[Fastball]

But what about the "quick" options that XP gives you? What's the difference?

 

[rbaibich]

FAT32 runs a little bit faster, but NTFS has all those security features, plus it's turns XP into a more stable system.

 

[rbaibich]

<< But what about the "quick" options that XP gives you? What's the difference? >>



The "quick" option is for when you are reformatting, so the format process won't take so long.

 

[n0cmonkey]

<< FAT32 runs a little bit faster, but NTFS has all those security features, plus it's turns XP into a more stable system. >>



It depends on what you are doing. This has been debated before and I believe someone showed a link that NTFS will run faster in some circumstances.

 

[easternerd]

Comeon Buddy .. hvent u had enough with ur native fat32 in ur 9X machines..
switchover to the NTFS arena it gives amazing performance for large disks..
Plus it is is the best for security supports EFS (encryption)
So i would opt for NTFS .

 

[manly]

By most accounts, NTFS is a a quality journaling filesystem.

However, I've been using it since NT 4.0 and it's a horribly fragmented filesystem.

If you use NTFS filesystems, you really need Diskeeper 6.0 SE or later. The defragmenter in Win2K/XP is somewhat adequate but basic.

 

[manly]

<< But what about the "quick" options that XP gives you? What's the difference? >>



I'm someone making this up on the fly, but in general any filesystem quick format just sets up the meta-data to successfully setup/describe/use the filesystem.

A full format would wipe out every sector of the drive, and possibly also verify that its not defective. Usually, quick is adequate (whether you're formatting a brand-new drive or reformatting an old one).

You don't need to have an old (already formatted filesystem) to use quick format.