What's the better Windows OS, 2k or XP? Now another question: NTFS or FAT32???

[JackDawkins]

Edit: Also, trying to figure out what better file system to use NTFS or FAT32. If it makes any difference, the new box will have a single 200 Gb Western Digital Caviar 7200 Ultra ATA/100 with 8 Mb buffer. I'll probably pick up another drive and go to a RAID 0 later on but I'll reinstall then.

Any opinions on the file system? I've always used FAT32 and don't know if one is better than the other. From what I've read, NTFS offers better security for LAN systems but this is a stand alone box with just a cable connection for internet access.

 

[yruffostsif]

XP Pro, NTFS - because you can get bigger partitions.

 

[JackDawkins]

Originally posted by: yruffostsif
XP Pro, NTFS - because you can get bigger partitions.

Isn't there something like a 127 Gb partition limit or physical drive size with FAT32? I read something somewhere but I can't remember where or exactly what the details were.

I plan on a few small partitions and then one huge storage partition.

 

[stevewm]

You should definately use NTFS. FAT32 is a old file system. It effciency decreases as partition size increases.

FAT32 can have partition sizes up to 4TB......

If you want to use file/folder permissions you HAVE to use NTFS. NTFS also has many features to help ensure file system integrity. FAT32 has no redundancy features.

Unless you have a specific reason for using FAT32, then don't use it. If you are going to use a modern OS such as 2k or XP then you might as well use a modern filesystem along with it. No reason to use a file system that was originally created nearly 15 years ago

 

[PanzerIV]

As a former Win2000 user I must say I was hesitant to switch over to XP as well. I had heard of nothing but problems when it first came out and I refused to change. Then, due to circumstance I had to familiarize myself with it and grew to like it. Plus it had matured by that time. I've used it exclusively ever since and not regretted it once.

I would suggest going NTFS as well. Not only does it optimize cluster size it's more robust in repairing itself were you to run into a problem and features many more security options which you may wish to utilize down the road if not now.

You can remove the bloat by uninstalling the extra junk, using performance options and turning off the eye candy and unnecessary services.

 

[Diz2K2]

Originally posted by: JackDawkins

Originally posted by: yruffostsif
XP Pro, NTFS - because you can get bigger partitions.

Isn't there something like a 127 Gb partition limit or physical drive size with FAT32? I read something somewhere but I can't remember where or exactly what the details were.

I plan on a few small partitions and then one huge storage partition.

I believe that is a Windows limitation. I know Windows ME had the limitation of 137 gigs. You needed to get a third party utility to get around it.

 

[Nothinman]

Isn't there something like a 127 Gb partition limit or physical drive size with FAT32? I read something somewhere but I can't remember where or exactly what the details were.

Technically it can go much higher but MS enforces a small (~37G IIRC) limit in XP because they want people to stop using it and move onto NTFS.

I know Windows ME had the limitation of 137 gigs. You needed to get a third party utility to get around it.

That's a limitation of the ATA spec, if you used a SCSI drive you'd never see that limit, you need a controler and driver that support LBA-48 to get around it. I believe all ATA-133 and up controllers are LBA-48, some older ones are but you'd have to poke around to find out.

 

[skrjones]

I would seriously go for NTFS as the cluster size for FAT32 is going to be BIG. That means if you have any small files they waste vast amounts of space.
IIRC 32Kb for every cluster.

 

[bitterspleaf]

BM

 

[Bruck]

I was a win2k-er for a long time and on my system i will stick with win2k. (because i have a 3year old system with scsi) but I am a new fan of Xp, since SP1 i have trusted it on my family's computer and have been very happy with it, with a little tweaking it can look exactly like win2k (which i like) and then its perfect, the little differences and handling of hardware and gaming support is worth it, since there are no negative sides anymore. I would choose winXp, but i full understand your dilema.

 

[faye]

isn't this post is about NTFS or FAT32? not xp or win98/2000

anyways,
I have NTFS and FAT32 installed on 1 harddrive but 3 partitions.
i can't tell the difference. so i think either one can do.

depend what u need, FAT32 is faster, NTFS is more secure, correct me if i am wrong.

 

[PanzerIV]

Originally posted by: faye
isn't this post is about NTFS or FAT32? not xp or win98/2000

anyways,
I have NTFS and FAT32 installed on 1 harddrive but 3 partitions.
i can't tell the difference. so i think either one can do.

depend what u need, FAT32 is faster, NTFS is more secure, correct me if i am wrong.

Actually the orginal poster said "Just curious what others think about these two OS's and in your opinion which one is better." So he was looking for a Win2000 vs XP comparison. His edit later on asked about NTFS vs FAT32.

And you are correct in your basic summary of the two file system types however as has been said by other posters NTFS uses cluster size much more efficiently than FAT32 and is not as susceptible to corruption while also affording better security options as you mentioned. It's the superior file system in many regards.

 

[faye]

oh i miss that

 

[spamsk8r]

NTFS > FAT32.

NTFS is better, period. 2k is real good, xp is good, doesn't really matter, just go with xp since it boots faster.

 

[faye]

i like xp, i heard that 2000 has gaming compatibility problem when i was considering xp or 2000. no regret using xp.

more convenient i believe. looks better.

 

[crisp82]

Both 2000 and XP are solid OS'es, but it does come down to personal preference. For work stuff, I prefer 2000, but home use I prefer XP.

As for FAT32 vs NTFS, is down to what you will be using it for. NTFS has more security, FAT32 is faster.