FAT32 question

[footballking3420]

Everywhere I look I always read this same statement for FAT32, "Faster for smaller drives, smaller on larger drives." But what exactly does that mean? I mean, how small is small? How big is big? Is 100gigs considered a small drive or 50gigs or 32gigs?

[ChrisKuhli]

FAT32 makes sense for partitions/ drives lower than 40 GB.

The more smaller then e.g. 10 GB or even < 4 GB Partition you have to use it!

Edited February 1, 2008 by ChrisKuhli

[Arie]

Google could have answered your question easily in my humble opinion

[TheFlash428]

Rare these days that drives small enough to require FAT32 are used (esp. for XP). I wouldn't install XP on a drive smaller than 30GB (although I have), and even with that size I would use NTFS.

[Tarun]

I'd use NTFS as well. I even convert my flash drives to NTFS.

http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm

[Andromeda43]

For technogeeks or total masochists, NTFS is great, but for the great unwashed masses, FAT-32 is the only way to have 100% total control over every file on their HD, from as little as a DOS boot disk.

I've set up my own SATA2, 200 gig, HD for Windows XP-Pro with FAT-32, working from my Windows ME Utilities floppy disk.

NO Problem! XP runs just fine (probably better) on a FAT-32 partition, of any size you want.

The only HD out of a dozen or more, in my house that's in NTFS mode, is the one I just installed Vista Ultimate on.

Vista will refuse to load on a FAT-32 HD. Go figure!

Cheers!

B)

[j7n]

It might be possible to transfer an installed Vista to a FAT32 disk.

[Tarun]

For technogeeks or total masochists, NTFS is great, but for the great unwashed masses, FAT-32 is the only way to have 100% total control over every file on their HD, from as little as a DOS boot disk.

I've set up my own SATA2, 200 gig, HD for Windows XP-Pro with FAT-32, working from my Windows ME Utilities floppy disk.

NO Problem! XP runs just fine (probably better) on a FAT-32 partition, of any size you want.

The only HD out of a dozen or more, in my house that's in NTFS mode, is the one I just installed Vista Ultimate on.

Vista will refuse to load on a FAT-32 HD. Go figure!

Cheers!

B)

I honestly have no idea why you would want to run Windows XP as FAT32. You get much more speed, stability, security and much more running as NTFS.

A SATA-II drive running FAT32 will not see anywhere near the true performance gains you receive from SATA-II.

Just do a quick Start > Run > cmd and then convert C: /fs:ntfs and you'll be amazed at the improvements.

[cluberti]

Not only that, but why bother with DOS boot disks nowadays when recovery CDs that can read/write NTFS drives and copy files over the network are commonplace? Why do things the hard way ...

[j7n]

What disks? In the most popular "zeraw" s’neriH Boot CD only selected applications can work with NTFS, or require loading of additional possibly unstable modules. For example Partition Cloning. With NTFS you cannot use PowerQuest Drive Image and are forced to use Acronis, files of wich cannot be easily browsed offline.

How can a file system gain "much more speed" is beyond me, maybe a little.

[Ponch]

What disks? In the most popular "zeraw" s’neriH Boot CD only selected applications can work with NTFS, or require loading of additional possibly unstable modules. For example Partition Cloning. With NTFS you cannot use PowerQuest Drive Image and are forced to use Acronis, files of wich cannot be easily browsed offline.

How can a file system gain "much more speed" is beyond me, maybe a little.

No warez. WinPE/BartPE boot from CD or USB and can read NTFS no problem. And they are so much more than a DOS boot disk. Ghost32 works fine with them as well.

[Kelsenellenelvian]

Also UBCD for windows...

[Tarun]

Even some versions of Linux can work with NTFS. Majority is read only, but some now can do read/write.

[cluberti]

And in recovery mode, read only is good enough as you're just backing up data at that point to reinstall in most cases anyway.

[severach]

If you want to store files >4GB you must use NTFS.

If you want to set file security you must use NTFS.

If you want to have a disk that can read and write with any OS, you must use FAT32.

If you want the ability to boot from a DOS boot disk without addon software you must use FAT32.

Other than that it doesn't really matter which you use. I've used FAT32 and NTFS for drives up to 300GB and there just isn't enough performance difference to worry about. I prefer FAT32 unless I need to store large files. File security works against me and I do too many things that require a DOS prompt. One of those boot disks doesn't cut it.