FAT vs NTFS

[BigBadBob]

i am getting a new 7200 rpm D740X and am wondering if FAT32 is better for video capturing and editing. an y help wil be greatly appreciated.

Bob

[SatStorm]

Fat 32 has limitations which NTFS don't have
Use NTFS if you can

[Whoosh25]

More info...

"Windows XP supports the old FAT and FAT32 file systems from Windows 9x/Me, but it also supports the newer NTFS file system from NT/2000, which adds better security, support for encryption (Pro only) and some journaling features. If you are ever prompted to upgrade your file system to NTFS during Setup, remember that NTFS is incompatible with Windows 9x/Me. So if you need to dual boot with another Windows 9x install, you shouldn't use NTFS. And if you think there's any chance you're going to be uninstalling XP and going back to your previous OS, you will lose this option if you upgrade the file system. My advice, then, is to not upgrade the file system to NTFS during Setup."

"You can always convert the file system to NTFS later, however. Windows XP includes a command line utility, convert.exe, that will convert a FAT or FAT32 drive to NTFS. Open a command line window and type convert /? for details."

Paul Thurrott

[zedolfblack]

A drive/partition formatted by W2K (&XP??) setup as NTFS format will have a default cluster size of 4K.

A FAT32 partition converted to NTFS by Disc Manager will have a cluster size of 512 bytes.

The potential performance loss inherent with the 512 bytes cluster size is open to discussion. If indeed there is such a loss - it could be 99% theory and 1% practice.
However, whe're dealing with video capture. The 4K cluster size format must be preferable to a FAT32 converted to 512 byte NTFS format.

I upgraded from W98 to W2K and converted my FAT32 partition.
Then, after a while, reinstalled afresh with 4K cluster size NTFS.
Only done basic tests but the 512 byte partition converted from FAT32 now formatted with 4K clusters is averaging 5 or 6 Mb/s higher throughput...

Martin.

[Greg12]

u can go back to FAT32 by formatting the disk right?

[zedolfblack]

To convert an NTFS back to FAT32, delete the NTFS partition and reformat to FAT32 with a W98 startup floppy and fdisk.exe then format.exe
You of course lose all data on the drive/partition...

Alternatively just run W2k (or XP) setup and you get the same options to delete the NTFS and create a FAT32.

The procedure depends on what OS you're going to install after the reformat.

3rd party software may allow you to do the conversion back to FAT32 without data loss. Search for Partition Magic et al.

Martin.

[BigBadBob]

i thought NTFS was better, but wasnt sure. I am using NTFS now on a 5400rpm 10gb and am getting great results. Thanks for the replies. you really cleared up my confusion.

Bob

[TheInformer]

There is a program called NTFS for Win98 that allows Win98 users to access an NTFS partition.

I have it installed right now, and it works like a champ. The NTFS partition is accessible just like the FAT32 one is from Win98.

Just my two cents...

[Boltman]

Isn't NTFS slower? I just bought an 80gig 7200rpm Seagate HDD. I wanted only 1 partition, but didn't want to use NTFS (cos i was under the impression it was slower), so I had to partition the drive into 32gig partitions (cos that is FAT32's limitation).

I kept 1 partition NTFS and 2 FAT32. (I have 3 partitions). A benchmark program told me the following results, (based on a sequential read file of 500Meg)

NTFS: 15MB/S
FAT32(1): 18MB/S
FAT32(2): 24MB/S

I really don't know why one FAT32 partition is quicker than the other, but I'm pretty sure NTFS is slower.

Can anyone comment? Please do.

BOLTMAN

[Tommy]

Fat 32's Limit is not 32 gb its 4TB. Your problem is probably with your bios. 8)

[therick]

@Boltman - that is really weird. I have an IBM Deskstar and my speeds went up when I formatted to NTFS...I was getting something like 32 MB/sec with FAT32 and I get near 39 MB/sec with NTFS...on with the strangeness of PC hardware...

[zedolfblack]

Don't quote me, i'm only running the drive speed tool with Nero...

My 11GB NTFS averages 27 to sometimes 30Mb/sec, depending on current disc usage and fragmentation. (It's 90% empty at times)

The remaining partition on the same 20GB drive ~8GB (full of archived stuff) averages 20 to 24 Mb/sec. (Thats NTFS also).

This is a 20GB Seagate ATA100, fully supported by motherboard.

Also have an ATA33 2GB Samsung (All NTFS) and it averages 9 to 12 Mb/sec. (It hosts my pagefile - comments welcomed).
The Samsung performed say 10% better with FAT32 & Windows 98.
The Seagate's performance is the same as when it was FAT32.

So i for one will stick to NTFS.

Martin.