Thinking of converting fat32 to Ntfs ,Is Ntfs file system better that Fat32 ? worthit?
Printable View
Thinking of converting fat32 to Ntfs ,Is Ntfs file system better that Fat32 ? worthit?
When I formatted my Windows XP to NTFS I managed to somehow regain an extra gig of space. However, this XP installation was an upgrade from Windows ME so it may have been icky stuff with ME that caused me to get some space back. If you installed a clean Windows XP as FAT32 for your home, personal use, I really don't see any reason why you should bother formatting to NTFS. But whenever I do a clean install of XP, I do use NTFS for...some reason :P. I don't think it's worth it for you to bother switching though.
I read that in a double blind test with same OS and identical computers, ntfs all scored faster than the fat32 computers by people
i think NTFS is more secure and is more stable and robust so less data will be lost in a crash.
ntfs is much more efficient, can handle larger filesizes and much larger disks (2^64). it also has built in compression of data which can be handy.
the only problem is that it is not supported by linux very well. <_<
Not to mention file and folder encryption.
I know what you mean though, at least linux can write to fat partitions. So far it can not do that with ntfs, but read support works fine for me for now. :smilie3:
edit *that's cool*
cheers shn i already have read support. :D its write that i dont really want to play with just yet since i value my data.
I don't have any sources but I've seen places where they say FAT32 is slightly faster than NTFS. But as I said I have no solid proof but I wouldn't mind knowing for sure. :DQuote:
Originally posted by muchspl2@25 February 2004 - 22:41
I read that in a double blind test with same OS and identical computers, ntfs all scored faster than the fat32 computers by people
in windows xp 'help and support' it actually says that the ntfs format is recommended. on fat32 you cant have folder security, and on a personal note i used touse fat32 and changed to ntfs after having asked exactly the same question here a few months ago, and i wont be going back to fat32 anytime soon
It's not always a good idea to 'listen' to the m$ help/support. Remember, it's the m$ help/support which suggests leaving the XP firewall on :lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by the mask@26 February 2004 - 05:17
in windows xp 'help and support' it actually says that the ntfs format is recommended
I don't have any sources but I've seen places where they say FAT32 is slightly faster than NTFS. But as I said I have no solid proof but I wouldn't mind knowing for sure. :D[/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Schuler+26 February 2004 - 01:02--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Schuler @ 26 February 2004 - 01:02)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-muchspl2@25 February 2004 - 22:41
I read that in a double blind test with same OS and identical computers, ntfs all scored faster than the fat32 computers by people
When I upgraded from 98 to XP, I used Nero to test the read speed from both my hard drives under FAT32. Then I used Partition Magic to convert them to NTFS. When I rechecked my speeds in Nero, they were both slightly faster.
So yes, I recommend switching. I you're really worried about it, you can use Partition Magic to create a small NTFS partition on your HD first, just to see if you notice any speed difference.