Any reason I should not go NTFS?

[DivXExpert]

Just got Win2k and thinking about switching to NTFS. Any reason I should not?

[Bob W]

I can't think of any reason why not. Also it supports file sizes over 4GB.

[DivXExpert]

I've heard of some compatibilty issuse between FAT and NTFS. Whats up with that?

[racer-x]

The only thing I can think of is if you dual-boot with Win98. Win98 won't be able to see that partition. Also if system has total failure and can't boot, you won't be able to retrieve data of the disk.

But there is a Program called ReadNTFS that you install on a bootfloppy that will let you copy files from an NTFS partion. But I recomend you create atleast 1 fat32 partion for backup data.

[DivXExpert]

Does that mean that if I back up my HD, FAT right now, to CD-R, that I will not be able to put it back on, once its NTFS? Because the files where originally on a FAT drive.

[impmon2]

You shouldn't have any issue with files going between FAT and NTFS. NTFS is just a form of directory format. It is known older OSes can't read or access NTFS (95, 98 and I think ME as well) NTFS was originally created for Windows NT and is carried over to XP.

With XP, you can have both NTFS and FAT drives on the same system and even on the same hard drive if it's partioned.

If you backup files from NTFS drive, it will still be readable on FAT and vice versa in the future.

[racer-x]

DivXExpert;

No. the files you put on a CD-ROM can be read by any system. They are neither fat32 nor ntfs. They are a standard file system.
Also NTFS systems can read fat32, but fat32 systems can't read NTFS.

[zodiac]

Also NTFS systems can read fat32, but fat32 systems can't read NTFS.

thats if you have windows 9x
you can have windows 2000/xp on fat32 and have a NTFS partition or a second drive.

[energy80s]

That's what I have done. Format your OS drives as FAT 32 and your capture drives as NTFS. Best of both worlds.

[marsmayhem]

For my own system (running XP btw), I have 3 physical harddrives and 6 partitions, most important ones configured as follows:

C: (Boot partition) FAT

D: Capture drive - 40Gb drive/partition (on seperate channel for performance reasons) - this is NTFS

F: System partition, the one where XP "lives" - this is also NTFS (I never get the blue screen/Scandisk if XP ever crashes, which hardly ever happens - I generally leave my PC running all the time; it's been going for almost 30 days last time I checked )

C & F partitions are on the same physical drive.

I chose NTFS for the capture drive to overcome the 4Gb file limit, primarily. I'm not sure if XP's NTFS performance is faster than FAT32 - there are lots of factors that can affect speed.

I chose NTFS for the system partition for stability reasons.

I chose FAT32 for the boot partition in case I have a problem booting up, or I choose to someday boot with another OS, like Linux for example.

If you're going to play around with this stuff, I highly recommend PartitionMagic for conversion/partitioning/shifting partitions around.

Hope this helps some...

[Psycho_Dad_Rules]

Hi all,

I think it's just a matter of what people prefer....

The most significant differences between FAT32 and NTFS is:
FAT32 is readable using a standard win9x bootdisc, NTFS isn't (But there are tools..)
NTFS is faster and less error sensitive.
NTFS can store bigger files. FAT has a 2GB per file limit.
NTFS can store more files per sector (this is getting technical.) let me explain.. On a FAT32 partition, if you have a sector size of 32kbyte and you save a file of just 100 bytes it takes up 1 whole sector (32Kbyte !!) on NTFS this is not true. More files can be put is this sector untill it is full.

Some ideas to use or not use NTFS:
My bootpartition (one whole drive) is NTFS because it is faster.
My second partition (First of two) is NTFS is my swap space. This i use for unpacking big stuff (dvd/cd images etc) or when encoding movies from C: to D:.
My Third and last partition (second of two) is FAT32 and this is ONLY because this contains a ghost-image of my bootpartition. Which can't be accessed if it where on a NTFS partition. This Partition does contain other files, but are mostly just for storage.

Hope this helps,

Greetz,

pSyChO dAd

[ChrisX]

Just got Win2k and thinking about switching to NTFS. Any reason I should not?

DivXExpert -

I noticed your computer as a Celeron 533 MHz. Is your computer info up to date? If not, update it so we know what is your system is like.

The NTFS file system maybe a problem on a slow CPU speed computer such as your Celeron. I can’t guarantee performance will be better on NTFS and maybe worse compared with using FAT32 as the filing system takes up more of your computers resources. Good luck.

How old is your computer? Don’t bother with NTFS on an old Win98 computer as again performance issues.

Is your hard drive recent or manufactured? Maybe ok. Your computer’s RAM is 190 MB, is this correct? If so, this is great.

I got a Celeron Compaq computer, only at 1.1 GHz. I also got two other computers and they are both Pentium 4. The OS on all is Win2000.

The Compaq Computer remained booted as FAT32 due to the Celeron main board and I felt performance maybe an issue if I changed it to NTFS. I could do it; I’d rather leave it is. The 2nd drive is NTFS.

The other computers are booted as NTFS and recently noticed an improvement on one of them as I was forced to re-format the drive in an emergency and decided to change from FAT32 to NTFS.

It is better now ever since and more secure. This proves NTFS is a better filing system and great for large video files. It is also more reliable, almost error free and stable. I am very happy with it.