1. Computer problem? Tech Support Guy is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations. Click here to join today! If you're new to Tech Support Guy, we highly recommend that you visit our Guide for New Members.

Windows xp fat32 or ntfs what is better

Discussion in 'Windows XP' started by Fastlane247, Sep 3, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement
  1. Fastlane247

    Fastlane247 It's My Birthday! Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2004
    Messages:
    236
    Hi all was wondering what file system is better to use. some people say that fat32 is better to use then ntfs but i am not to sure. Also is it better to make a 5 gig partition for my os and then put my programs on a seperate partition i have herd that will increase performance aswell. any info would be much apprciated.
    oh and is there any issues with using fat32 or ntfs

    thank you all
     
  2. ReidCorbett

    ReidCorbett

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    26
    NTFS all the way... Smaller cluster size allows for higher efficiency data storage and FAT is incredibly insecure. It was originally designed with Windows 3.1 for Workgroups to be used in a peer-to-peer network with minimum security.

    Use NTFS
     
  3. Fastlane247

    Fastlane247 It's My Birthday! Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2004
    Messages:
    236
    ok thanks, Do you have any info on putting the os on a seperate smaller partition then the programs or is that just a waste of time? ... like is it going to make things work faster by putting my programs on a different partition then the os?
    thanks
     
  4. ReidCorbett

    ReidCorbett

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    26
    If you want to put your OS on a different partition than thats your prerogative. It won't necessarily or noticeably speed things up and in fact can actually slow things down as the hard drive will have to jump between partitions if you install any applications to your DATA partition.

    Best advice if you want to keep your OS and your DATA seperate put them on different physical drives. Not different partitions on the same. If you do and your drive crashes you lose everything ;-) Good Luck! (y)
     
  5. Fastlane247

    Fastlane247 It's My Birthday! Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2004
    Messages:
    236
    Thanks for all the info, it was the info i was looking for. thank you.
     
  6. ReidCorbett

    ReidCorbett

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    26
  7. crjdriver

    crjdriver Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Messages:
    39,949
    NTFS is the native file structure for nt based os and should be used. I would make your os partition at least 10 gig for xp and basic apps like office. You can put data / docs on the other partition along with games.
     
  8. Bob Cerelli

    Bob Cerelli

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2002
    Messages:
    22,468
    It somewhat depends on your requirements.

    For example, if security is a big issue (e.g. you only want certain users to access certain directories), then NTFS is better for that.

    If you want to work with large files over the 4 gig FAT32 files size limit, then NTFS is better again.

    If those are not overriding concerns then I haven't found that much real-world performance or stabitly issues between the two. Just for ease of access, I've been using FAT32 on many systems with no problems at all since the early beta days. It's not usually the file system that crashes but the OS itself anyway.

    The configuration is a relatively small 10 gig or so partition just for the OS and what needs be put there.

    The rest of the partition is for programs, and data.

    Then it is easy to use a program like Drive Image to regularly create an image of the C: drive.

    Both this image and the D: partition are then copied to a 2nd hard drive which serves as an easy backup or restore. Again, FAT32 makes this a lot easier to get to if necessary. The reason I don't use a 2nd drive for programs and data is again that I have not noticed any real-world difference in performance and this would require a 3rd drive for the backups. More performance can be gained by adding memory, getting faster hard drives and keeping a cleaner system.
     
  9. ReidCorbett

    ReidCorbett

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    26
    It should be noted that NTFS can read FAT data on other drives but not vice versa. With the advent of XP MOST users and systems are running NTFS. Windows XP was designed with NTFS in mind.

    FAT is archaic and dying and will be an immense source of issues for you in the future if you choose to use it. Your call.
     
  10. Bob Cerelli

    Bob Cerelli

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2002
    Messages:
    22,468
    Other than user security or file size (if those are requirements), do you have any specific examples of "immense source of issues" you have been experiencing with FAT32 (not FAT).

    So far I haven't had problems related to either file system on any Windows2000 or XP computers.

    Far more of the problems are user related (downloading spyware, opening infected file attachments etc.)
     
  11. Fastlane247

    Fastlane247 It's My Birthday! Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2004
    Messages:
    236
    Thanks to all for all the replys they have been very helpful
     
  12. Bob Cerelli

    Bob Cerelli

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2002
    Messages:
    22,468
    Perhaps some clarification, and fixing a typo would be helpful.

    The main point that I prefer to have a smaller partition for the OS and a larger partition of the rest of the drive for programs, data etc. (there was a typo about this).

    Regarding the file system, I just haven't seen any real difference between the two either in performance or stability. While there a lots of 3rd party claims about this, I just haven't experienced it. Otherwise I would have switched a long time ago. Now most of my customers to want security so I make the D: partition on their server with NTFS. Still have FAT32 for the OS since, if it does crash, it is far easier to fix.

    Although rare, so far the only "crashes" I've had are with the hard drive itself, not the file system or OS. In this case I just restored the OS image from the backup drive. This is where FAT32 is easier. Then booted and restored the data files. Typically a moderately used server can be restored in under an hour. Mostly I don't prepare for what can go right but for what might go wrong.
     
  13. Bob Cerelli

    Bob Cerelli

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2002
    Messages:
    22,468
    Also noted more previous misinformation, something about FAT not being able to read NTFS. This is incorrect.

    You can easily install NT (with FAT16), Windows2000 or XP with FAT32 and have full access to NTFS partitions. It is just not a correct statement.

    There are even drivers for Win9x to be able to access NTFS partitions.

    It is this type of incorrect information that make me suspect other undocumented comments as well.

    Again, not that you want to choose one over the other. But at least do it for the right reasons. NTFS works great. So does FAT32. Really, they are both fine. Just make your choice from accurate information and for valid reasons.
     
  14. ReidCorbett

    ReidCorbett

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2004
    Messages:
    26
    You cannot use Fat to create dynamic disks for 2000/ or XP.

    Windows XP cannot format drives over 32 gigs if they are FAT16 or FAT32 unless using 3rd party appz like FastFAT

    FAT partitions are not accesible by many other operating systems (Linux, Solaris) except a few Microsoft ones...

    No native level file security

    Does not support secure encryption

    Does not support fault tolerance (creating dynamic volumes)

    Does not support auditing

    Prone to errors and/or corruption

    File system easily accessible from using a simple boot disk



    U need documentation? I thought this stuff was common knowledge... Try google.com



    From what I've read and understand the only reason you would use fat is if you were dual booting between an ntfs based os and a fat based OS AND you were in a SECURE environment.
     
  15. Bob Cerelli

    Bob Cerelli

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2002
    Messages:
    22,468
    FAT16 has always had a 2 gig limit so there would be no ability to format it as 32 gigs.

    You do not need any 3rd party programs to create a partition greater than 32 gigs. A regular ME boot disk (which can be created from XP), or a Win98 boot disk work just fine.

    All the rest would only be important if they are required.
     
  16. Sponsor

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 733,556 other people just like you!

Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Short URL to this thread: https://techguy.org/269683

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice