NTFS and FAT32

[ukb007]

Hi.

Can I have mixed filing systems under one OS?

Specifically:

If I am running WinXP from my C-drive (FAT32),

a) Can I have a prtition under NTFS and read/access data from or write on it?
b) Can I just format my FAT32 D-drive to NTFS and use it ?

Thanks and regards.

[BJ_M]

a) yes
b) yes

you can have both types

[Mr. Dweezel]

For the B part of the question I think once you convert to NTFS
you can't go back to FAT32, using Microsoft (on the C partition).

Maybe that's changed since the older operating systems.

[p_l]

For the longest time I did what you want to do - run XP on your FAT32 C-drive and other drives as NTFS. I figured I should just leave my FAT32 OS drive alone and not try to convert it to NTFS. It worked, but after a few nasty crashes I went ahead and converted it -not format, but convert- to NTFS, and I've gotta say, it's been a lot more stable. Hasn't crashed once since.

Of course the best thing is to format to NTFS and reinstall everything, as I'm sure others will jump in to recommend, but if you really don't want to reinstall everything yet want the added stability of NTFS for your OS drive too, this has worked well for me.

[bevills1]

NTFS has more efficient storage and is theoretically more stable although I've had no stability problems with FAT32. FAT32 is needed if any data is to be shared with WinMe and earlier Windows, but NTFS is better way to go otherwise.

[BJ_M]

actually fat32 can be more efficient storage in terms of access .. but its a moot point as otherwise NTFS has fat32 beat ...


fat 12 or 16 is even better in fast multistream access - why it is used in commercial media servers with embedded linux (like all the xiva servers)

[ukb007]

Thanks, PROs. Your responses have been educational.

p_I has said: "I went ahead and converted it -not format, but convert- to NTFS"

How do you "convert" a drive (containing a lot of data) from FAT32 to NTFS without formatting?

Can you do this converting to the C-drive, too, which contains the OS (WinXP)?

Regards.

[BJ_M]

Standard Windows utility that is called CONVERT serves this purpose

Just go to the Command Prompt and execute the command:

C:\> CONVERT C: /fs:ntfs

Where C: is a name of the drive you want to convert.

After machine re-boot conversion process will start and you'll have your FAT32 converted to NTFS without of data loss.

[Dv8ted2]

For the B part of the question I think once you convert to NTFS
you can't go back to FAT32, using Microsoft (on the C partition).

Maybe that's changed since the older operating systems.

To quote Msoft - It is a one way conversion.

[p_l]

Just as BJ_M says,

1. Click Start, point to All Programs, point to Accessories, and then click Command Prompt.

2. At the command prompt, type the following, where drive letter is the drive that you want to convert:
convert drive letter: /fs:ntfs
For example, type the following command to convert drive E to NTFS:

convert e: /fs:ntfs

Note: If the operating system is on the drive that you are converting, you will be prompted to schedule the task when you restart the computer because the conversion cannot be completed while the operating system is running. When you are prompted, click YES.

3. When you receive the following message at the command prompt, type the volume label of the drive that you are converting, and then press ENTER:
The type of the file system is FAT.
Enter the current volume label for drive drive letter

4. When the conversion to NTFS is complete, you receive the following error message at the command prompt:
Conversion complete

5. Quit the command prompt.

[guns1inger]

Once you complete the conversion, run a defrag as it can leave the drive in a mess. Once defragged, all should be well.

As to efficiency, FAT32 is more efficient for smaller drives with a lot of small files on them. For larger drives with larger files, NTFS wins out. That is without mentioning the extra security features that NTFS has.

[bevills1]

What was meant by NTFS has more efficient storage is that NTFS uses smaller clusters on large drives and can therefore store more data on a drive's capacity for storage.

[ukb007]

My WinXP is on C.
I want to convert E.

Do I type

C:>CONVERT e: /fs:ntfs

or

E:> CONVERT e: /fs:ntfs

?

Regards, and thanks for your patience.

[BJ_M]

CONVERT e: /fs:ntfs is what you type ...


the C:> is already the command prompt

[ahhaa]

What was meant by NTFS has more efficient storage is that NTFS uses smaller clusters on large drives and can therefore store more data on a drive's capacity for storage.

semi-OT ...
brings up something I was wondering about. Defrag always shows my audio WAV archive & most video (OMFI) as solid red- fragmented. Never quite got that cluster business as it relates to vid editing & such. Are there optimum settings for capturing or anything that make a diff?


BOT- just fyi, if you ever want to try Linux sometime, it needs a FAT32 partition; until very recently its could read NTFS but not write to it.

[gadgetguy]

semi-OT ...
brings up something I was wondering about. Defrag always shows my audio WAV archive & most video (OMFI) as solid red- fragmented. Never quite got that cluster business as it relates to vid editing & such. Are there optimum settings for capturing or anything that make a diff?

Video files are BIG and usually take a while to capture. This leads to fragmentation. When running defrag it is often difficult to locate a contiguous available section of the drive to defrag to. As long as the the file is fragmented, even if there are only 2 segments, the entire file shows 'red'. Check the report after analyzing and see how many segments the segmented files are in. If it's just a few per file it's no big deal, but if you have files with large numbers of segments, then you should defrag to improve performance.

[CrayonEater]

For the OP -
Some may disagree, but I've found I get much, much better performance under FAT32, and it also is much more secure since you don't have to worry about Alternate Data Streams, which allows data to be hidden (this is, of course, contrary to Microsoft's claims that NTFS is more secure.)

I think your proposal gives the best of both worlds - leave your boot drive FAT32, and keep a second partition NTFS to handle large files. For security reasons, though, I would go a step further and create the NTFS partition such that it is just large enough to hold the largest file you plan on storing, and no more. The reason for this is that, should any malware open an ADS, either it will run out of space or you will quickly notice your available storage space shrinking.

[AlecWest]

In my case, my computer has 2 hard drives. One drive is partitioned right down the middle - Win98SE (FAT32) on one partition, WinXP (NTFS) on the other. The 2nd hard drive is just an empty NTFS drive I use for capture purposes only. This dual-boot scenario (giving me a choice of environment) has worked fine for me. I actually spend most of my time (like now) on the Win98SE side ... only using XP (and the 2nd drive) when I do Hauppauge MPEG2 captures and/or other DVD work. To me, it's the best of both worlds.

[bevills1]

I have dual boot Win98SE and Win2K, but the only thing I use Win98SE for is older games because they either don't run in Win2K or run better in Win98SE. I use Win2K for everything else because I have far too many crashes in Win98SE whereas Win2K never crashes.

[funnel71]

I would NOT convert from FAT32 to NTFS without a format. Doing so will work, but response time will be noticeably slow. Your best bet is to wipe the drive, format to NTFS, then install everything again.

[AlecWest]

I have dual boot Win98SE and Win2K, but the only thing I use Win98SE for is older games because they either don't run in Win2K or run better in Win98SE. I use Win2K for everything else because I have far too many crashes in Win98SE whereas Win2K never crashes.

You're correct about the Win98SE tendency to crash. It does happen to me sometimes but not that often. My reason for sticking with it is primarily because I'm used to the OS. But, I also have a few utilities (some no longer made) with drivers that like Win98SE but don't seem to like XP. And, there's one added benefit. As XP becomes more of an institution, people who write viruses or worms will tend to code them to affect that OS specifically. So, by being obsolete, the OS gets gradually safer from those threats over time.

[ukb007]

Thanks very much guys. These are heavy doings.

Regards.

[CrayonEater]

I am forced to use XP for a number of reasons, but I still prefer 98SE. One other advantage of it - it's a piece of cake to harden the OS, so it's capable of being EXTREMELY secure.

[ahhaa]

These days, I fondly remember the ROM software on my M100 Tandy. Now that was secure! Startup/shutdown times- 1 second!