NTFS vs. FAT32

[butch84]

I was thinking of dual booting my pc with windows 2000 (i currently am running 98se). Should i use NTFS or stay w/ FAT32? What are the differences between the two? What do you prefer? Also, i have the option to upgrade to win ME. I have heard some unfavorable things about me though. Anyway, tell me what you think.

 

[SergeantDan]

I run Win Me at home, all it is, is a fattened up version of Win 98se. It has a lot more drivers, and a few programs that take up a lot of space. Win 98 or Win98se will not run with NTFS. At least that is my impression. I dont actually own Win2k, so Im not 100% positive. I do know that Dos is definately not capable of running in ntfs. Im sure someone here has figured out a way to do it, but for the hoi poloi dos is unavailable. Anyway, WIN2K is definately worth upgrading to. Most who have tried it, and worked out all the early bugs, love it. Dont bother with ME.

 

[potz]

use fat32, for compatibility and speed. i'm assuming you're a home user, so you probably won't be needing the security features in ntfs. this way, you can access your win2k drive from win9x.

 

[sohcrates]

1) stay away from winME

2) for most dual booters, it's easier to run fat32 on both drives else the 9x install won't be able to read the NTFS drive (although the opposite is possible)

 

[DAM]

yep i agree, since you are already runing 98se and if you want to access files from the win2k partition you will have to with fat32. although i recommend that if youever move to complete win2k to blast your drive to ntfs.





dam()

 

[mjquilly]

I use NTFS in my dual-boot system to get around the 4GB file limit Fat32 has. If this is an issue for you, it's someting to consider.

 

[mikejae]

My scanner and mp3 player need win98 to work so I had to make a dual boot me/2k on an old p3 comp. Win me does boot up faster and programs seem to run better than on win2k, it also has a rage fury 128 pro and win2k doesn't seem to like it. Dvd's are much better in win me. I tried a ntfs dual boot once but it just turned out to be a real pain because you couldn't see files on the ntfs. If you have a burner, try to search for the thread telling you how to make a win2k sp2 cd. Very convenient.

 

[lucidguy]

If you use Smart Boot Manager as your multiboot manager, it completely bypasses the 4 Gb limitation of of FAT32. Smart Boot Manager will boot any partition on any hard disk, regardless of whether it is a primary partition, and regardless of its location on the hard disk.

It is keen and swell. It is also GNU Free Software.

http://btmgr.sourceforge.net/

 

[rbV5]

<< it completely bypasses the 4 Gb limitation of of FAT32 >>



Ummm....BS, you know not what you speak of there Lucidguy. WTF does a boot manager have to do with the file size limitation of the fat32 filesystem?

 

[lucidguy]

You misunderstand. The 4 Gb limitation does not refer to the size of the partition. In fact, a FAT32 partition can be as large as 2 terabytes. Rather, the 4 Gb limitation requires that a bootable FAT32 partition start within the first physical 4 Gb of a hard drive. Smart Boot Manager makes this requirement irrelevant, because it is able to boot from any partition on any hard disk attached to the system.

 

[rbV5]

Actually, lucidguy, you misunderstand:

You are mixing up terms, sizes and file systems and Operating systems.

When your computer boots, the only way for Windows NT(as in NT 4.0, which of course this thread isn't even about) to access your hard drive is to use a set of BIOS functions known as &quot;Interrupt&quot; (as in INT 13). When INT 13 was developed, today's large hard drives weren't even available and INT 13's limitation of 7.8 GB wasn't a problem. So, Windows NT 4.0 can't access more than 7.8 GB during the first stages of the boot process; thus, the system partition is limited to 7.8 GB.

Newer operating systems such as Windows 98 and Windows 2000(hmmmm, the operating systems this thread actually IS about) don't have this limitation because they use a newer extended INT 13 that can address more than 7.8 GB.(a SCSI controller with options for drive translation disabled, is a caveat however)

BTW, What was that crap about linux users being &quot;better&quot; than other people you were talking about in another thread? Is this what you're talking about? Geez