Win7 new install: Fat32 or NTFS?

[JEDI]

I've always used Fat32 because it's easy to boot from DOS and recover files incase something happened.

Now that Win7 is out, is it time to switch to NTFS?

Why/Why not?

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Fat32 is quite archaic. I'm sure you'd be taking a performance hit.

 

[Nothinman]

It was time to switch to NTFS about 10 years ago...

 

[thedosbox]

I've always used Fat32 because it's easy to boot from DOS and recover files incase something happened.

There are plenty of Linux LiveCD's that can read NTFS filesystems.

Now that Win7 is out, is it time to switch to NTFS?

It was time to do that as soon as hard drives could hold more than 32GB.

Why

You'd like to minimize the amount of wasted hard drive capacity.
You'd like a reliable filesystem.
You'd like to be able to save files bigger than 4GB.
You'd like better performance on modern hard drives (i.e. ones which can handle large volumes).
You'd like to be able to encrypt files at the OS level.

Why not?

Because you think Windows 98 is cutting edge?

 

[Spicedaddy]

NTFS is more reliable, especially for larger drives.

 

[SimMike2]

FAT32 also has a file size limit of I think 4GB. It is super easy to get video files and other stuff larger than this. With Windows 7, I would not be messing with DOS at all. Not smart.

 

[EricMartello]

 

[ViRGE]

Be nice guys...

Anyhow, as everyone else has stated, there's no good reason to use FAT32 right now. If anything it's a problem - FAT32 doesn't have file permissions, which means any program can overwrite any file, negating UAC and the like. Nor is it as reliable, as NTFS has more modern technologies such as journaling to reduce the chance of file corruption.

For removable media there's still a case for FAT32, but for a fixed disk there's no reason to go with it.

 

[RebateMonger]

I haven't used FAT32 for nearly ten years now. But I do recall a lot of corrupted FAT32 disks (where you do a "dir" command and get characters that look like a middle-eastern language, but you aren't from the middle-east).

Anyway, with disks so cheap and great backup software tools available today, there's not much reason to ever have to do data recovery.

 

[stash]

This is all moot, because I'm pretty sure that Windows 7 will not boot from FAT32. Also, the installer doesn't give you an option to use FAT32.

 

[Nothinman]

This is all moot, because I'm pretty sure that Windows 7 will not boot from FAT32. Also, the installer doesn't give you an option to use FAT32.

I knew it wasn't an option but I didn't realize that MS broke it so that it wouldn't work at all.

 

[yinan]

Since Win7 uses junctions even on a default install FAT32 wont work even if the partition is precreated.

 

[EricMartello]

Be nice guys...

Anyhow, as everyone else has stated, there's no good reason to use FAT32 right now. If anything it's a problem - FAT32 doesn't have file permissions, which means any program can overwrite any file, negating UAC and the like. Nor is it as reliable, as NTFS has more modern technologies such as journaling to reduce the chance of file corruption.

For removable media there's still a case for FAT32, but for a fixed disk there's no reason to go with it.

There really is no case for using FAT32 any more than there is a case for using DOS. If you want to boot from removable media, you can make it bootable with NTFS using the bootsect command...and most other OSes besides windows have a way to access NTFS partitions.

 

[SimMike2]

This thread is like a rugby match with one poor guy on the bottom of the scrum. The OP did have a legitimate question and we all learned a lot from the resulting answers.

 

[ViRGE]

There really is no case for using FAT32 any more than there is a case for using DOS. If you want to boot from removable media, you can make it bootable with NTFS using the bootsect command...and most other OSes besides windows have a way to access NTFS partitions.

True. But to make a long story short, Microsoft doesn't consider NTFS suitable for use on "regular" Flash memory due to the fact that NTFS does some things that are bad for Flash memory (devices with more complex controllers such as SSDs are a different story). Microsoft's official recommendation is to use FAT32 or exFAT on removable flash drives instead of NTFS.

 

[SimMike2]

True. But to make a long story short, Microsoft doesn't consider NTFS suitable for use on "regular" Flash memory due to the fact that NTFS does some things that are bad for Flash memory (devices with more complex controllers such as SSDs are a different story). Microsoft's official recommendation is to use FAT32 or exFAT on removable flash drives instead of NTFS.

That is another good tip that I never heard about.

 

[corkyg]

And, in order to make thumb drives bootable, FAT format is often required.

 

[JackMDS]

http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/information/usb-flash-drive-comparison-part-2-fat32-vs-ntfs-vs-exfat/

 

[thedosbox]

And, in order to make thumb drives bootable, FAT format is often required.

Anybody regularly booting Windows 7 off a thumb drive should probably step away from the keyboard and rethink their approach.

 

[Nothinman]

Anybody regularly booting Windows 7 off a thumb drive should probably step away from the keyboard and rethink their approach.

Why? I can put Linux on a thumb drive with virtually no effort at all so why would Windows having the same functionality be a bad thing?

 

[thedosbox]

Why? I can put Linux on a thumb drive with virtually no effort at all so why would Windows having the same functionality be a bad thing?

Are we talking about booting your everyday OS from a thumb drive, or only doing so for diagnostic purposes?

Performance of thumb drives is going to be poorer than a modern hard drive, so using it for your everyday OS is a bad idea.

 

[stash]

And, in order to make thumb drives bootable, FAT format is often required.

You can make a thumb drive bootable with NTFS using diskpart and a Windows 7 DVD.

http://www.intowindows.com/how-to-install-windows-7vista-from-usb-drive-detailed-100-working-guide/

 

[Nothinman]

Are we talking about booting your everyday OS from a thumb drive, or only doing so for diagnostic purposes?

Performance of thumb drives is going to be poorer than a modern hard drive, so using it for your everyday OS is a bad idea.

Bad ideas are relative. I didn't say I was using it as my everyday OS even though I could if I really wanted.

 

[GaryJohnson]

This is all moot, because I'm pretty sure that Windows 7 will not boot from FAT32. Also, the installer doesn't give you an option to use FAT32.

+1 vote for moot point

 

[RaiderJ]

You can make a thumb drive bootable with NTFS using diskpart and a Windows 7 DVD.

http://www.intowindows.com/how-to-install-windows-7vista-from-usb-drive-detailed-100-working-guide/

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.