NTFS slower than FAT-32 in some situations?

[The Wildcard]

Hello, although the overwhelming majority of you recommend NTFS, i have read that fat-32 can be fast in certain situaions, like for small partitions.

I have a 6gig hdd that i plan to format compleltley and load win2k on. It's my os hdd with all of my system files and some misc progs, like office 2000, etc, etc. I only plan to use about 1.5 gigs of that 6 gig hdd. the rest is just empty space cuz all of my games and mp3's are on a different hdd.

So since i only use such a small amount, maybe fat-32 would be better than ntfs? I need some help.

 

[BCYL]

Actually according to some benchmarks, FAT32 IS faster than NTFS... but only very slightly, nothing that you would notice... However NTFS does offer much better security features...

I would recommend going with FAT32 if you are not that concern with security... cuz with FAT32 if something goes wrong, you can simply boot into DOS and can access the FAT32 partition without a problem... not the case with NTFS...

Also I would make your partition a little bigger than 1.5gig... win2k itself will take up most of that space... so if you plan to put some other programs like office in there also, I would probably make it something like 3 gigs just to be safe...

 

[The Wildcard]

Oh i plan to let Win2k use the entire 6gig hdd. When i mentioned the 1.5 gb info i was talking about how much win98se and other progs are CURRENTLY taking up right now on my hdd, BUT i plan to FORMAAT completely. I do not plan on dual booting.

Hmm, could you elaborate on the dos situation with ntfs partition?