Win7 new install: Fat32 or NTFS?

[shortylickens]

When I installed Windows 7 fresh it didnt even give me a choice. Where are you seeing this option?

 

[Nothinman]

Are we talking about installing Windows 7 from a thumb drive, or running Windows 7 from a thumb drive?

Both can be done, but one makes sense, while the other does not.

Sure it does, maybe not for normal usage but for a rescue disc it would be good to have something more functional than the other MS choices of WinPE or DOS.

 

[RaiderJ]

Sure it does, maybe not for normal usage but for a rescue disc it would be good to have something more functional than the other MS choices of WinPE or DOS.

That's true, although I'd imagine whatever you'd need a Win7 rescue USB drive for could probably be done faster with something else.

 

[Nothinman]

That's true, although I'd imagine whatever you'd need a Win7 rescue USB drive for could probably be done faster with something else.

And what would that something else be?

 

[MrChad]

When I was setting up my in-laws' Acer Aspire One netbook with a Windows XP install, FAT32 was worlds faster than NTFS on the pitiful little SSD that was bundled. That was the only time in the last 8 years or so that I've used FAT32 over NTFS.

 

[Nothinman]

When I was setting up my in-laws' Acer Aspire One netbook with a Windows XP install, FAT32 was worlds faster than NTFS on the pitiful little SSD that was bundled. That was the only time in the last 8 years or so that I've used FAT32 over NTFS.

That's odd, besides the extra writing involved in the journal, NTFS should be faster.

 

[nemesismk2]

Because you think Windows 98 is cutting edge?

Windows 98 is cutting edge if your OS is MS-DOS

 

[MrChad]

That's odd, besides the extra writing involved in the journal, NTFS should be faster.

It shipped with the SSD formatted as FAT32 from the factory. I ran an in-place conversion to NTFS and the performance nose-dived (perhaps due to inefficient cluster sizes?). After reading some Acer blogs, the general consensus was that FAT32 worked better, so I reformatted with FAT32 and found the overall performance better. If I had more time, I'd like to check out the performance on a clean NTFS format as well.

 

[Nothinman]

It shipped with the SSD formatted as FAT32 from the factory. I ran an in-place conversion to NTFS and the performance nose-dived (perhaps due to inefficient cluster sizes?). After reading some Acer blogs, the general consensus was that FAT32 worked better, so I reformatted with FAT32 and found the overall performance better. If I had more time, I'd like to check out the performance on a clean NTFS format as well.

Ah, yea it's possible the conversion messed up the alignment which hurt performance.

 

[Albatross]

FAT16 is where is at.