Jump to content

Ntfs Support In Win98se Or Me?

Shadow_Fi

By Shadow_Fi
in Windows 9x/ME

 Share

Recommended Posts

prathapml

prathapml

Posted
Posted
Ya, Marsden, XP is a shining example of "Security"!

As a matter of fact, there's no desktop windows OS to beat XPSP2's security.
Spyder2k the only advatage of NTFS is it allows you to break the 1gb ram limit, JMHO

Incorrect. File-system and memory handling are totally different issues.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marsden

Marsden

Posted
Posted
Ya, Marsden, XP is a shining example of "Security"!

That pretty much sums it up where I live... 12 machines that are 5 desktops, 7 servers, 3 kids and a wife and not a single virus in 20 years!!!

That makes it secure enough for me and my family. Caveats... never ran a copy of Win98, 98se, or Me. Total crap! We run SBS 2003 Premium. It works!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jaclaz

jaclaz

Posted
Posted

If I may, I would like to point out how once again, a thread is drifting completely out of topic.

The question posted is this:

So, is there gonna be NTFS support, on WIN98SE or ME?

....

And im talking about properly working integrated NTFS support, not some util.

The answer is NO.

Later on,

same poster says:

But, as you may know, Windows 98 SE, is so fast and lite, so i would wanna use it with some heavy games, as UT2004.

The answer to this is that you DO NOT need NTFS for gaming.

@Marsden

Due to the fact that the scope is gaming, and as the poster affirmed:

Well, i can use, and I am using Windows XP Pro right now. I have no problem with using it.
your post:
Try a journaling file system which is less prone to file corruption. You don't have that protection under 9X anything! NTFS allows YOU to choose your cluster size to fit your needs. 98 sticks you with 4K and that's it.

If you can't make ANY application of any flavor (DOS, Win95, 98, 98SE, Me) run on XP then you don't know what the hell you are doing. There is a tool out there... the Compatibility Administration Tool located on your XP CD and can be found in the \Support\Tools folder.

Everyone has excuses why they can't do this and that... user ignorance is not the fault of your OS.

If you have been using 98 for the last 7 to 8 years and have not bothered to save up for a newer system... that is your problem. By my figures you can get a new system from Dell for under $500 bucks. $500 by 8 years is only $62.50 a year! That is all you would have had to save to be able to afford a new system. That's about 3 movies for two people a year. That is not a huge cost to bare. Can't afford a new system... please whine to the figure in the mirror... the blame is on you!

There is no business logic to justify Win98 with all it's short comings and lack of security, especially in today's hostile Internet environment.

apart from being slighthly aggressive:

Everyone has excuses why they can't do this and that... user ignorance is not the fault of your OS.

If you have been using 98 for the last 7 to 8 years and have not bothered to save up for a newer system... that is your problem.

.....

Can't afford a new system... please whine to the figure in the mirror... the blame is on you!

is completely unneeded.

Please, let's try to keep on topic and avoid hinting ignorance, stupidity or negligence of other board members, that are here looking for help or advice.

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites
erpdude8

erpdude8

Posted
Posted

jaclaz has got very good points here.

I want to add that NTFS file system was designed ONLY for NT-based systems

such as NT4, 2000 & higher NT-based Window versions.

I don't mind if Win9x/ME users get third party utilities to read/write on NTFS volumes. Win9xME systems will NEVER have built-in NTFS support AND that is just the LIMITATION to Windows 9x systems. COME ON PEOPLE! Utilities that read NTFS partitions on Win9x system will NEVER EQUAL the built-in NTFS support found in Win2000 & XP systems.

Little quote from jaclaz about NTFS:

>It is even a little slower than FAT32, the good thing is that it is a little less prone >to fragmentation.

not really. NTFS can be a little faster than FAT32 on Win2k/XP systems on superfast machines. NTFS has built-in file/folder compression which nobody else but me has mentioned.

NTFS less prone to fragmentation, maybe. But still a disk defragmenter tool is needed like Diskeeper to optimize performance regardless of file system.

Eventually, files do fragment on NTFS systems & can drag performance down and running a disk defragmenter tool like Diskeeper (or the built-in Defrag tool in Win2k/XP) will speed up file access.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
erpdude8

erpdude8

Posted
Posted

I want to clarify about my statement on NTFS being faster than FAT32.

I use an XP Home ed. system (Intel P3 1.2ghz cpu, 512 Mb of RAM) with FAT32.

It ran ok but it wasn't always fast. Converted from FAT32 to NTFS and my system

ran a little faster.

what I meant to say was NTFS used on a superfast PC w/ Win2k/XP can be a little faster than

using FAT32 on a superfast PC w/ Win2k/XP. If you compress a bunch of large files that are space hogs with NTFS, then you might notice a slight speed boost in disk access.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jaclaz

jaclaz

Posted
Posted
what I meant to say was NTFS used on a superfast PC w/ Win2k/XP can be a little faster than

using FAT32 on a superfast PC w/ Win2k/XP. If you compress a bunch of large files that are space hogs with NTFS, then you might notice a slight speed boost in disk access.

Well, you are right, but you are saying that by compressing the NTFS filesystem you are faster because you transfer LESS data, the filesystem itself remains slower.

Under 98 and FAT32 you can use Drivespace to the same effect, though I do not think anyone bothered to make a comparison between NTFS compressed filesystem and FAT32 Drivespace ones.

Quite obviously, in times of (relatively) high speed processors and (relatively) slow hard disks, the LESS data you transfer the FASTEST will be the "responsiveness" of the PC.

But if (just for the fun of it) you put a SCSI 320 controller and 10,000 RPM SCSI disk on, say, a 400 Mhz P2, you'll want to avoid compression!

Also a detemining factor in filesystem speed is the cluster size as opposed to file size, see here:

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documen...kc_fil_lxty.asp

http://aumha.org/win5/a/ntfs.htm

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

http://www.spcug.org/reviews/bl0401.htm

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites
erpdude8

erpdude8

Posted
Posted
what I meant to say was NTFS used on a superfast PC w/ Win2k/XP can be a little faster than

using FAT32 on a superfast PC w/ Win2k/XP. If you compress a bunch of large files that are space hogs with NTFS, then you might notice a slight speed boost in disk access.

Well, you are right, but you are saying that by compressing the NTFS filesystem you are faster because you transfer LESS data, the filesystem itself remains slower.

Under 98 and FAT32 you can use Drivespace to the same effect, though I do not think anyone bothered to make a comparison between NTFS compressed filesystem and FAT32 Drivespace ones.

Quite obviously, in times of (relatively) high speed processors and (relatively) slow hard disks, the LESS data you transfer the FASTEST will be the "responsiveness" of the PC.

But if (just for the fun of it) you put a SCSI 320 controller and 10,000 RPM SCSI disk on, say, a 400 Mhz P2, you'll want to avoid compression!

Also a detemining factor in filesystem speed is the cluster size as opposed to file size, see here:

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documen...kc_fil_lxty.asp

http://aumha.org/win5/a/ntfs.htm

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

http://www.spcug.org/reviews/bl0401.htm

jaclaz

The MS DriveSpace program is INCOMPATIBLE with FAT32 volumes. Drivespace (in Win95/98) can only compress FAT12 or FAT16 volumes. The WinME version of Drivespace cannot compress any drives because it said so. Drivespace is limited to compressing 2 Gb FAT16 volumes, no higher than 2 gigs. And 2 Gb is the limit for FAT16 volumes.

In NTFS in NT4, 2000 & XP you can compress a file, folder or even an entire hard drive. When I install XP security updates the files that are backed up by the updates are automatically compressed and Explorer indicates the compressed files/folders in a different color.

Also, NTFS is less susceptible to data/file system errors than FAT16 & FAT32.

So the REAL answer to the earlier question of having "integrated" NTFS support in Windows 95, 98 & ME is NO! Never going to happen cuz Microsoft has no plans whatsover to add NTFS support and Win98 & WinME are on extended support (aka. life support) 'til 6-30-2006. MS is concentrating on XP & future Windows versions.

So for those who have not gotten that should get over it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jaclaz

jaclaz

Posted
Posted

Sorry, just a slip in my memory, I meant FAT16 and Drivespace, my bad.

However the point stands still:

Apart from cost of physical storage which is dropping by the minute,

1) If you have a (relatively) high speed processor and (relatively) slow hard disks, you have a good reason to use compressed volumes

2) If you have a (relatively) slow speed processors and (relatively) fast hard disks, compressed volumes might not be the fastest choice

As always TRUTH (and SPEED) is not always on the same side, as pointed in the previously linked pages, EVERY filesystem has it's own Up's and Down's, so it all depends on the use you need it for.

jaclaz

Link to comment
Share on other sites
soldier1st

soldier1st

Posted
Posted

Well ntfs does reserve some of the space on the hard drive where fat32 does not(It's like a book where paper takes up space in that book and fat32 is is like a table with legs on it,it has to allocate those legs for it to stand up correctly),true fat32 can have file allocation errors (alot less than fat because it is still based on it,it is just an extension of fat)where ntfs does not have file allocation errors(Because it is not based on the file allocation table but a journal),fat32 is actualy best on small drives and ntfs on bigger drives,using a compressed drive does indeed give more space but when you access a file it has to decompress it and recompress it(thats alot of work to do)and you loose performance,with a non compressed drive you don't have those extras processor hungry and time cunsuming tasks to perform.so ntfs is faster and more reliable on large drives than fat32 but fat32 can be faster on smaller drives and it's not as reliable as ntfs

indeed i would use ntfs on small drives(defenatly not on a 1 or 3 GB drive),you loose a bit of speed but you keep the reliablity and that could mean less crashing n such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Marsden

Marsden

Posted
Posted

Remember with Drivespace you are forced to compress the entire partition.

NTFS allows you to compress a folder or a single file or a hundred single files in a hundred folders, doesn't matter. You are not forced to compress the entire partition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
erpdude8

erpdude8

Posted
Posted

exactly Marsden and soldier1st.

remember that Drivespace can not compress FAT32 formatted drives/partitions.

It can only compress FAT16 partitions. FAT16 can only work with up to 2 Gb

partitions and no higher. FAT32 can work beyond 2 Gb and theoretically up to 2 Tb

though FAT32 does become inefficient with very large partitions higher than 32 Gb.

best to use NTFS on 32 Gb or bigger HDs.

i don't see much performance drop when decompressing & compressing files on a large

NTFS partition on a superfast laptop PC my brother has. it has XP Home ed. with SP2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...