Jump to content

[Question] - NTFS vs FAT32


hankjrfan00

Recommended Posts

I am aware of the security and stability issues with fat32. But I would like to know which is the best option for xp if speed is the only concern. It will be installed on a 40gb hard drive. I was just curious I have installed xp countless times and have always choosen ntfs. I was just wondering if their is any reason to use fat32 in xp.

Title Edited - Please follow new posting rules from now on.

--Zxian

Link to comment
Share on other sites


40GB--that's a given, you'll have to use NTFS. It should be faster than FAT32 on a 40g drive. Plus NTFS is more reliable..

NTFS has security, the permissions capability doesn't mean jack always running as admin; but if you want encryption, it's there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40GB--that's a given, you'll have to use NTFS.
Just an explenation on the statement...Windows 2000 and Windows XP can't create a FAT32 partition larger than 32GB. Than in and of itself should be the best reason. :)

NTFS will definitely be faster though. Not only is the security and stability of NTFS better, it offers far superior data recovery and is much more resistant to fragmentation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an explenation on the statement...Windows 2000 and Windows XP can't create a FAT32 partition larger than 32GB. Than in and of itself should be the best reason. smile.gif

I was not aware that of that.

And yes I knew of all the reasons to run ntfs over fat32. I was just not sure what the difference in performance was.

Thanks the both of you for a prompt reply. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, properly defragmented FAT32 is proven to be slightly faster than NTFS, which makes sense since NTFS is a more complex filesystem than FAT32.

I'd choose FAT32, both for the slight speed advantage and for its cross-platform compatibility (many more HDD-utilities are able to work on FAT32 part'ns than NTFS). It's also *much* easier to manually recover files using a disk editor in the case of corruption.

Choose NTFS if you want the extra features it provides, choose FAT32 if you just want simple and compatible.

Edited by LLXX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read here the basics of a comparison:

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

http://www.thundercloud.net/information-av.../ntfs-vs-fat32/

Nothing prevents you from dividing the disk in a number of smaller partitions, FAT32 should be slightly faster on volumes smaller than 8Gib:

http://www.pcguide.com/ref/hdd/file/partFAT32-c.html

i.e. with a cluster size of 4Kb

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, properly defragmented FAT32 is proven to be slightly faster than NTFS, which makes sense since NTFS is a more complex filesystem than FAT32.
This statement is true on smaller volumes. NTFS may be more complex, but it is more optimized for large volumes. Since it's more resistant to fragmentation it'll also hold up better over time.
It's also *much* easier to manually recover files using a disk editor in the case of corruption.
NTFS will recover files on it's own by simply using chkdsk. It will even detect if there's been corruption and automatically schedule a chkdsk. The chances of data corruption are also far less when using NTFS vs. FAT32.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the beginning I've found it easiest to stick to FAT32. FAT32 was the most supreme format my old K6 could use for a while until I did a low level format. Afterwards, I could finally use NTFS when installing Windows 2000/XP. What really screwed me was encryption in Windows .NET Server. I wound up locked out of all my stuff, the admin finally went insane and I decided NTFS was something for those that only know everything happening to their computer.

I'm a guy that likes keeping images around. Big images. I stuck by FAT32 for the past 5 years until I got myself a DVD burner. Now I recognize the need to store files composed of 4GB+. Right now my 300GB SATA is just one big NTFS6 partition. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're a control freak, and I am, you'll love FAT-32.

With a 40 gig hard drive, you can easily FDISK and Format that drive into two partitions.

Main and Storage. I use a Windows ME boot floppy for that little chore.

I now have 100% access to any file on that HD, and all from a simple DOS boot disk.

Now, there's no such thing as a virus or trojan file that cannot be deleted.

If you can keep the size of your C: partition just under 8 gigs, your cluster size will be just 4K and space wasted by all those thousands of little 1k files will be at a minimum.

I heard the term "Defragment" used a couple of times in the previous posts.

Regardless of what file system U use, U should defrag at least once a week anyway.

That's just good common sence, and good Maintenance too.

Now, for the Ultimate use of FAT-32, I do a Ghost 2003 backup of my HD at least once a week.

With my new SATA drive, that little chore takes only about three (3) minutes.

On the floppy that I boot up with to run Ghost, I have several cleanup batch files that I use to delete my windows XP pagefile, the Restore Points folder and several other folders containing temp files, cookies, histories, my AV Quarantine folder and a few other assorted folders of just plain ol' crap.

I'm able to decrease the size of the Backup Image file by over a gigabyte with this cleanup routine.

This would not be possible if my C: drive was in NTFS mode. I could still run the backup but not do the cleanup. I let Ghost burn my Backup Image File directly to a DVD and it all fits on just one disk.

Doing a Restore immediately after doing a backup results in a HD that looks like This.

It's better than any defrag.

I laugh at those who say, out of their own ignorance I suppose, that NTFS is more secure and more stable.

NO system could be more stable than mine and as for security, well, I'm in charge of my system security and I guarantee that there is no system anywhere any more secure than mine.

Computer security is my business, and I'm dang'd good at it.

NTFS will do nothing to keep you safe from Viruses, Worms, Trojans, Adware, Spyware, hackers or Rootkits.

You still have to do that yourself. So where's the SAFETY?

In a business environment, where NTFS belongs, I suppose it has its place, but for a home computer with NO IT specialist nearby, NTFS can be a total nightmare for the unschooled user.

K.I.S.S.= Keep It Simple Stupid!, and use FAT-32.

If you don't intend to go to school and become an IT specialist and you want total access to your HD, then go FAT-32 with your HD. And create two partitions, one for your OS and data and one for dead storage.

That second part. is a great place to store pictures, music and of course Backup Images of C:.

My Gawd! It's March 1 already and it's ASH Wednesday. :thumbup

Y'all have a great day now, Y'hear?

Andromeda43

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard that FAT is faster on small drives (let's say a 5gigs or less) and NTFS is faster on larger drives (more than 5gigs). But I've never benchmarked it myself to prove it.

Plus if you disable the "last accessed" parameter of NTFS you get a minor speedup.

Don't forget tho obvious features of NTFS being, there's more than JUST security & large disk sizes

1. viruses can no longer (easily) destroy your index table

2. file on NTFS don't get corrupt (HD failure is a given)

3. no more "lost file chains"

4. reliable file compression on the OS level

5. less wasted space on file blocks (NTFS can use smaller file blocks that FAT)

For those who don't know what file blocks are, just know that your HD is more like a grid than a big box, no matter how small 1 item is it must take up the entire block of the grid. You can see this by creating a tiny file (like an empty text file) then right clicking the file and seeing it's (real) "size" vs it's "size on disk" in properties. IIRC FAT32 requires very large blocks (like 16k or 32k) when you get really large disks (30gigs or more). Obviously you can see a bunch of 1k files would shrink your 30gig FAT32 VERY quickly.

Edited by travisowens
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, you can have a FAT32 partition bigger than 32 GB if you use a third party partitioning utility.

There's nothing in FAT32 that prohibits you from creating partitions bigger than 32 GB!

The 32 GB partition limitation in Windows XP Setup is arbitrary! That's because Microsoft want everybody to use NTFS.

Edited by RJARRRPCGP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, you can have a FAT32 partition bigger than 32 GB is you use a third perty partitioning utility...

Anybody that uses FAT on anything larger than 20gigs is a sick little monkey that doesn't understand the differences between FAT and NTFS (or they just need cross OS readability which is forgivable). Windows didn't set the limit to push an agenda, they did it for sanity.

U should defrag at least once a week anyway. That's just good common sence, and good Maintenance too.

I can't disagree more:

#1 HD life is measured in usage, defragging obsessively is HD abuse

#2 fragments are only created if you are constantly deleting and creating new files which doesn't happen as often as you think in a desktop scenario

#3 it takes years to fragment a system badly enough that a defrag actually speeds up usage

I only defrag once a year and I still don't see a difference in speed. Any speed difference you see after a week/month is all in your head :)

NO system could be more stable than mine and as for security, well, I'm in charge of my system security and I guarantee that there is no system anywhere any more secure than mine. Computer security is my business, and I'm dang'd good at it. NTFS will do nothing to keep you safe from Viruses, Worms, Trojans, Adware, Spyware, hackers or Rootkits.

I believe that you know security very well but NTFS does offer protection that FAT32 alone does not, why do you think you no longer hear of viruses that destroy hard drives? (like in the old days?). Fat32 first offered improved protection because it keeps a 2nd copy of the FAT and replaces the live version if it gets corrupted, that was 3/4th of the security trick I will admit.

But keep in mind in a normal usage scenario (at work, at home with roomates/kids/wife/etc) that FAT is not really a great idea.

PS: you spend too much time making sure your file system is pristine :P

Edited by travisowens
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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