what file system for my 3.2 HD?

[sniperruff]

well im planning to set up my old ancient computer for my mom to watch movies and such, here are the specs...

P233
128mb SDRAM
4gb WD HD (3.2 actual)

well i just wondering whether i should use FAT or NTFS? seems like i'll be installing Win2000 (i can choose from XP, 98 or 2000) on it...

so any thoughts?

 

[Gunbuster]

NTFS

 

[TheCorm]

Originally posted by: Gunbuster
NTFS

Yeah....or FAT32....won't make a huge difference I wouldn't have thought.

 

[Gunbuster]

IMHO NTFS is a lot more stable and reliable than FAT

 

[JBT]

NTFS

 

[AnMig]

---waiting for the NTFS vs FAT file system war


I like to use FAT file system for my operating system partition because I sometimes like to bring out my old ghost program that doesnt support NTFS, newer version however does.

I use NTFS for my storage drives since I can capture files that >4gb (limit for fat) useful for video editing and capturing tv shows


personally with a old 3.2 hd I would go fat

 

[chocoruacal]

You won't be watching many movies on a 233mhz chip. Go w/fat32 and 98SE...you'll need all the free RAM space and CPU cycles you can get.

 

[PanzerIV]

^^

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

[snidy1]

98 will run a lot faster on that system

 

[WHipLAsh13]

Computer System Requirements for Windows 2000 Professional:
133 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU
128 MB of RAM is strongly suggested. 64 MB of RAM recommended minimum; more memory generally improves responsiveness [4 gigabytes (GB) RAM maximum.]
2 GB hard disk with a minimum of 650 MB of free space. (Additional free hard disk space is required if you are installing over a network.)
CD-ROM or DVD drive
VGA or higher resolution monitor
Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
28.8 Kbs modem or faster with current Internet connection
Windows 2000 supports single and dual CPU systems

Computer System Requirements for Windows 98:
133 MHz or higher Pentium-compatible CPU
32-64 MB of RAM is strongly suggested
Hard disk with a minimum of 295 MB of free space
CD-ROM or DVD drive
VGA or higher resolution monitor
Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device
28.8 Kbs modem or faster with current Internet connection

I would go with 98. You will get alot better performance out of that setup.

 

[DrVos]

What kind of movies are you planning on them watching? Even with a decoder card, I'd doubt that computer could play DVD's well, and Divx is out of the question. I'd recommend at least a PIII 600.

 

[WobbleWobble]

Windows 98, 98SE, ME would be better suited for that system than Windows 2000.

 

[dml54]

Tryed to watch DivX and DVD on a K6 233Mb with 192Mb RAM and a 32Mb PCI Radeon AIW and it wasn't worth it. I tried Win98SE, WinME, Win2000Pro on the machine and 98SE with FAT32 was more responsive than WinME with FAT32 and Win2000 with FAT32 or NTFS. Go with Windows 98 SE and a FAT32 partition, just don't plan on watching much for movies

 

[wetcat007]

FAT aint PHAT lol

 

[txxxx]

Originally posted by: WobbleWobble
Windows 98, 98SE, ME would be better suited for that system than Windows 2000.

Not true. Ive ran Windows 2000 Pro on a P233, it was significantly faster for general day to day running.

 

[modedepe]

Go with FAT and win98. I've had similar setups with both win98 and win2k and the 98 setup was definitely faster.

 

[WobbleWobble]

Originally posted by: txxxx

Originally posted by: WobbleWobble
Windows 98, 98SE, ME would be better suited for that system than Windows 2000.

Not true. Ive ran Windows 2000 Pro on a P233, it was significantly faster for general day to day running.

With the amount of RAM he has? I still think the 9x kernal based OSes are better.

 

[txxxx]

Originally posted by: WobbleWobble

Originally posted by: txxxx

Originally posted by: WobbleWobble
Windows 98, 98SE, ME would be better suited for that system than Windows 2000.

Not true. Ive ran Windows 2000 Pro on a P233, it was significantly faster for general day to day running.

With the amount of RAM he has? I still think the 9x kernal based OSes are better.

Yup, ive done the same, I know personally.

 

[WobbleWobble]

Originally posted by: txxxx

Originally posted by: WobbleWobble

Originally posted by: txxxx

Originally posted by: WobbleWobble
Windows 98, 98SE, ME would be better suited for that system than Windows 2000.

Not true. Ive ran Windows 2000 Pro on a P233, it was significantly faster for general day to day running.

With the amount of RAM he has? I still think the 9x kernal based OSes are better.

Yup, ive done the same, I know personally.

I've tested a similar setup as well and I personally felt that the 9x OS was faster.

 

[sniperruff]

thanks for all the replies guys...

well considering the win98 is not SE...

and the movies my mom will be watching... they are realmedia or DivX... well its for my mom so speed should not be a matter

heh maybe i'll just try 98 first and if it's too buggy then i'll go with win2k

thanks a bunch