Does Filesytem Type matter?

[greg]

Sorry for the slightly off topic question but I've gotten lots of useful
info from this group.

A general question, I loaded Windows 2000 Professional on my new system
and used the NTFS option, does it matter which file system type I should
use? I will be connecting to another computer that use FAT32, can I
still copy files?

Thanks for the guidance,
Greg

 

[Egil Solberg]

Sorry for the slightly off topic question but I've gotten lots of
useful info from this group.

A general question, I loaded Windows 2000 Professional on my new
system and used the NTFS option, does it matter which file system
type I should use?

It does matter. NTFS was the best choice, so congratulations on that one.

I will be connecting to another computer that use
FAT32, can I still copy files?

yes you can.

 

[Highlandish]

It does matter. NTFS was the best choice, so congratulations on that
one.


yes you can.

fat32 cant read ntfs without ntfs-pro or a similar 3rd party program on a
network, ntfs is faster, less prone to errors and conserves more physical
space on a hdd and it doesn't fragment as badly. it is more secure, allowing
for encryption and can access more ram. and if you sacrifice a lamb on
Sundays you will be thrice blessed.

 

[Egil Solberg]

fat32 cant read ntfs without ntfs-pro or a similar 3rd party program
on a network,

I strongly believe that a shared folder on a NTFS volume on a computer
running Windows 2000 will be visible to other computers on the network
running Win98.
The problem you describe only takes place if the Win98 installation and
Win2000 reside on the same computer, then Win98 will not be able to see the
NTFS volume without 3rd party tools.

 

[Rob Stow]

fat32 cant read ntfs without ntfs-pro or a similar 3rd party program on a

Bullshit. FAT32 is a file system - it can't read *anything*. A
file system is like an index to a book: the person looking
something up in the book needs to know how to use the index, but
the index itself is not capable of doing anything - it is just
words on paper.

Operating systems and applications are what read/write to drives
and partitions and they are the things that need to know how to
deal with file systems.

W2K, W2K3, and XP (all variants) can read both FAT32 and NTFS
partitions just fine - no third party tools required.

NT can handle NTFS partitions, but needs third party tools to
deal with FAT32 partitions.

WinME, Win98, and Win95B can read FAT32 partitions but need third
party tools to deal with NTFS partitions.

network, ntfs is faster, less prone to errors and conserves more physical
space on a hdd and it doesn't fragment as badly. it is more secure, allowing
for encryption and can access more ram.

NTFS is a *file system* for hard drives. It has nothing to do
with idiotic concepts like "access more ram".

And NTFS actually leaves less free space on a partition than if
you had used FAT32 with clusters the same size.

As well, using NTFS is seldom faster than using FAT32. All the
benefits of NTFS are not without a cost, and that cost is that
using NTFS is virtually always a little slower than FAT32.

 

[Centurion]

fat32 cant read ntfs without ntfs-pro or a similar 3rd party program on a
network

WTF? Since when does the underlying file system have anything to do with
"*NETWORK* sharing" compatibility?? I've got a couple of offices using
reiserfs (you've probably never even heard of it), UFS and ext2/3 over
network shares; according to the windows clients, they are talking to a
windows server; totally unaware of the underlying file system that acutally
STORES the data.

I suggest you do some study on the OSI Model and specifically stuff in the
upper layers with presentation etc.

To the OP - NTFS is the best choice for post-WinME versions of Windows, and
YES, you will be able to read FAT32 partitions over the network without any
problems.

James

 

[Joe Doe]

W2K, W2K3, and XP (all variants) can read both FAT32 and NTFS
partitions just fine - no third party tools required.

NT can handle NTFS partitions, but needs third party tools to
deal with FAT32 partitions.

WinME, Win98, and Win95B can read FAT32 partitions but need third
party tools to deal with NTFS partitions.

So if you have applications developed for Win98 that you would like to
use on an NTFS formatted drive is the probability that it works
application specific? (may work if the application also supported NT?)

For example I have a program called Cineplayer editor made by ravisent
(edits Mpeg1 files very easily). This program is no longer sold or
supported by the original vendor and is an orphan. If I migrate to XP
with NTFS is it likely/unlikely it will work?

Roland

 

[Rob Stow]

So if you have applications developed for Win98 that you would like to
use on an NTFS formatted drive is the probability that it works
application specific? (may work if the application also supported NT?)

The usual way is for the OS to handle the file systems, and then
the OS provides an interface through which apps can access files
and folders. That makes the file system irrelevant to the apps:
the only need to know how to deal with the OS.

However, there are some apps that do work directly with the file
system - or ignore the file system completely - rather than going
through the OS. Included in that are disk imaging tools,
partitioning tools, and tools for recovering data from bad
drives, and even some defragging tools.

And then there are third party tools, such as those from
Winternals and its sister site SysInternals that can add support
for FAT32 to NT and add support for NTFS to older OSes like Win9x
and DOS.

For example I have a program called Cineplayer editor made by ravisent
(edits Mpeg1 files very easily). This program is no longer sold or
supported by the original vendor and is an orphan. If I migrate to XP
with NTFS is it likely/unlikely it will work?

If the app runs at all on XP, then XP will shield it from needing
to know anything about the underlying file system. Surely you
have a friend or relative with an XP system that you can test
this app on ?

 

[abc]

So if you have applications developed for Win98 that you would like to
use on an NTFS formatted drive is the probability that it works
application specific? (may work if the application also supported NT?)

For example I have a program called Cineplayer editor made by ravisent
(edits Mpeg1 files very easily). This program is no longer sold or
supported by the original vendor and is an orphan. If I migrate to XP
with NTFS is it likely/unlikely it will work?

Roland

If it works/doesn't work it will be nothing to do with NTFS, buy XP
compatability.
We are talking about functions at an OS level. How the files are stored on
the HDD are usually tranparent to an application.

 

[Nickeldome]

Sorry for the slightly off topic question but I've gotten lots of useful
info from this group.

A general question, I loaded Windows 2000 Professional on my new system
and used the NTFS option, does it matter which file system type I should
use? I will be connecting to another computer that use FAT32, can I
still copy files?

Thanks for the guidance,
Greg

No problem. In fact, I have NTFS and FAT32 partitions on one drive.
As long as you use Win200x/Xp it will work. If you use Win98 on
the FAT32 system you will not be able to access the NTFS partitions
on the Win2000 machine. There are however, utilities that will enable
you to work with NTFS under Win98.

Nickeldome

 

[Robert Hancock]

So if you have applications developed for Win98 that you would like to
use on an NTFS formatted drive is the probability that it works
application specific? (may work if the application also supported NT?)

For example I have a program called Cineplayer editor made by ravisent
(edits Mpeg1 files very easily). This program is no longer sold or
supported by the original vendor and is an orphan. If I migrate to XP
with NTFS is it likely/unlikely it will work?

Roland

It's unlikely that sort of application cares what file system it is
running on..

 

[Joe Doe]

Joe Doe wrote:

If the app runs at all on XP, then XP will shield it from needing
to know anything about the underlying file system. Surely you
have a friend or relative with an XP system that you can test
this app on ?

Thanks for the input. Actually, I have XP spare drives and all the
stuff I need if I wanted to try it out. I just have been a luddite with
my personal PC because until recently the grief of migrating to XP
(never ending "critical" updates over dialup modem) and the potential of
having to search for replacements for programs that are old but did what
I wanted far outweighed any potential benefit. I simply did not want to
spend a weekend installing and testing numerous programs. I will
probably eventually be forced to migrate but this has not yet happened.

Thanks again.

Roland

 

[DD Gamer]

Thanks for the input. Actually, I have XP spare drives and all the

stuff I need if I wanted to try it out. I just have been a luddite with
my personal PC because until recently the grief of migrating to XP
(never ending "critical" updates over dialup modem) and the potential of
having to search for replacements for programs that are old but did what
I wanted far outweighed any potential benefit. I simply did not want to
spend a weekend installing and testing numerous programs. I will
probably eventually be forced to migrate but this has not yet happened.

If you can, and want to do this, once you get the basic install of your OS
and some security software (antivirus, spyware blocker and so on), try to
find a friend with high-speed internet who will let you hook up your machine
to their network (or directly to the modem or whatever connection device
they use) to do all of your updates. I reccomend updating the protect-ware
first, and then the OS.

Note: go to http://www.blackviper.com or some similar site beforehand and
print up a copy of their instructions for disabling all of the "security"
crap that SP2 installs and turns on by default.

 

[DD Gamer]

To the OP - NTFS is the best choice for post-WinME versions of Windows,
and

YES, you will be able to read FAT32 partitions over the network without any
problems.

In truth, you won't. The computer on which the FAT32 partitions reside will
read the data and provide it to the requesting machine, in any networked
environment. The file system is only relevant at all on a local machine, and
to most applications even that doesn't matter due to abstraction, most apps
don't even "know" what a file system is.

 

[Ben Pope]

In truth, you won't. The computer on which the FAT32 partitions reside will
read the data and provide it to the requesting machine, in any networked
environment. The file system is only relevant at all on a local machine, and
to most applications even that doesn't matter due to abstraction, most apps
don't even "know" what a file system is.

Don't confuse the thread just because of slightly-off wording.

He will be able to read files residing on a FAT32 partition (or any
other partition type) on another machine, over the network.

Ben

 

[Jay T. Blocksom]

[snip]

Thanks for the input. Actually, I have XP spare drives and all the
stuff I need if I wanted to try it out. I just have been a luddite with
my personal PC because until recently the grief of migrating to XP
(never ending "critical" updates over dialup modem) and the potential of
having to search for replacements for programs that are old but did what
I wanted far outweighed any potential benefit.

[snip]

You're better off without it.

Above and beyond the usual MS "stuff" applicable to virtually all versions of
Windows, WinXP is a huge Pandora's Box of problems, many of which have no
known or practical solution, beyond simply "Just Say NO to XP"... Far too
much to go into here; but see:

<http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm>
or <http://www.futurepower.net/microsoft.htm>

and (read all three):
<http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/03/14/11winman_1.html>
<http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/03/21/12winman_1.html>
<http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/03/28/13winman_1.html>

and finally:

I will
probably eventually be forced to migrate but this has not yet happened.

[snip]

There's absolutely no reason you should *ever* be "forced" into XP. There are
(and presumably will continue to be) many viable alternatives.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet02[at]appropriate-tech.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.

 

[Ben Pope]

[snip]

Thanks for the input. Actually, I have XP spare drives and all the
stuff I need if I wanted to try it out. I just have been a luddite with
my personal PC because until recently the grief of migrating to XP
(never ending "critical" updates over dialup modem) and the potential of
having to search for replacements for programs that are old but did what
I wanted far outweighed any potential benefit.

[snip]

You're better off without it.

Above and beyond the usual MS "stuff" applicable to virtually all versions of
Windows, WinXP is a huge Pandora's Box of problems, many of which have no
known or practical solution, beyond simply "Just Say NO to XP"... Far too
much to go into here; but see:

<http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm>
or <http://www.futurepower.net/microsoft.htm>

Thats out of date and scaremongering.

and (read all three):
<http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/03/14/11winman_1.html>

Big deal. And the only supporting evidence is a broken link.

<http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/03/21/12winman_1.html>
Speculation.

<http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/03/28/13winman_1.html>

No, you DON'T have to use Windows Update, you can just download the
patches from their website.

and finally:
<http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html>

Yes, well, breaking copyright was never really legal in many countries.
So it's hardly a suprise that there are ways to stop you doing it.

I will
probably eventually be forced to migrate but this has not yet happened.

[snip]

There's absolutely no reason you should *ever* be "forced" into XP. There are
(and presumably will continue to be) many viable alternatives.

XP SP2 is the most stable OS MS have ever produced. Excepting perhaps,
Server 2003, but I haven't tried that. If you want to go MS, you may as
well get XP - it's actually quite stable.

If you don't want to go MS, then get Linux, or BSD, or OS X or
OpenSolaris or something. Those articles are hardly an incentive to
move away from Windows / MS.

Bill Gates isn't all bad, did you know he has currently donated more
money to charity then anybody else, ever?

Ben

 

[Kylesb]

|
| Bill Gates isn't all bad, did you know he has currently donated more
| money to charity then anybody else, ever?
|
| Ben

Although I never take exception with any of your comments Ben,
consider this: a man with a very shady public image and more money
than anyone else in the business might just be fully aware that a
little PR goes a long way to bolster the image of his company as well
as himself. Even if he gave away 95% of his wealth, his fortune would
still be in excess of the wildest dreams of most any mortal man.

Just because someone does a few good things does not render the
immoral, unethical, evil or illegal acts socially palatable.

 

[Jay T. Blocksom]

Jay T. Blocksom wrote: [snip]

Above and beyond the usual MS "stuff" applicable to virtually all
versions of Windows, WinXP is a huge Pandora's Box of problems, many of
which have no known or practical solution, beyond simply "Just Say NO to
XP"... Far too much to go into here; but see:

<http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm>
or <http://www.futurepower.net/microsoft.htm>

Thats out of date

[snip]

Oh, really? Has MS ceased shipping WinXP?

and scaremongering.

[snip]

Can you cite any *factual* basis for this assertion? If so, then why did you
not heed the author's advice, posted on the page in question:

--> Notify the author of corrections. If you find a mistake in this
--> article, please write the author at the address at the end so that it
--> can be corrected. On December 29, 2002, for example, someone mentioned
--> that there was a mistake in wording in a section of a former version
--> of this article. He also asked a question about something that was not
--> well documented. Corrections were made and 14 new paragraphs were
--> added the same day. Not all corrections and additions are made this
--> quickly. However, the article has been revised and extended more than
--> 50 times since it was first published.

OTOH, if you cannot cite any *factual* basis for your assertion, then...?

Big deal.

[snip]

If you are at all concerned about privacy, then yes it most certainly is.

Speculation.

[snip]

How so? By my read, The author is reporting behavior that is either
well-documented in a variety of venues, or that he personally witnessed.
Exactly what is it that you are characterizing as "speculation"? Please
provide specific citations.

No, you DON'T have to use Windows Update, you can just download the
patches from their website.

[snip]

Where exactly does the author state that "you ... have to use Windows Update"?

Your strawmen are showing.

Yes, well, breaking copyright was never really legal in many countries.
So it's hardly a suprise that there are ways to stop you doing it.

[snip]

And again you (deliberately?) obfuscate point and attempt to misdirect the
discussion. The issues raised in that article have little or nothing to do
with "breaking copyright". The fundamental issue is invasion of privacy and
loss of control over your own systems and data. To the extent that copyright
is involved, it primarily in the context of preserving the users' existing
"fair use" rights (which the TCPA/"Palladium"/NGSCB scam attempts to
steamroller out of existence).

Here's another reference you should read:

I will
probably eventually be forced to migrate but this has not yet
happened.

[snip]

There's absolutely no reason you should *ever* be "forced" into XP.
There are (and presumably will continue to be) many viable alternatives.

XP SP2 is the most stable OS MS have ever produced. Excepting perhaps,
Server 2003, but I haven't tried that. If you want to go MS, you may as
well get XP - it's actually quite stable.

[snip]

Can you say "Damning with faint praise"?

WinXP indeed may be "stable" (FSVO that term). But that pales by comparison
to it's other _deliberately_designed_in_ problems.

Pop Quiz: What percentage of your income is derived, directly or indirectly,
from the sale of Microsoft products?

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet02[at]appropriate-tech.net

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this domain is expressly prohibited under
47 USC S227 and State Law. Violators are subject to prosecution.

 

[notritenoteri]

x-no-archive: yes

have you tried mineral oil? I hear it is great for your apparent problem.
message : Jay T. Blocksom
: --------------------------------
: Appropriate Technology, Inc.
: usenet02[at]appropriate-tech.net