FAT32 is for file storage, NTFS is for windows installation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jrefactors
  • Start date Start date
J

jrefactors

Should we use FAT32 for file storage, and NTFS should be used for
windows installation ONLY? I want to put data files in different
partition. The question is should I use NTFS or FAT32 file system for
file storage? When I do the partition, I can still use NTFS for file
storage. But FAT32 cannot be used for windows installation? Does it
make any differences? What are the advantages?


please advise. thanks!!
 
NTFS is the only way to go. Microsoft has placed limits in XP for FAT32.

Here are the most noticeable ones:

1) FAT32 partitions are limited to 32GB, when formatted directly in XP.
2) Files must have a file size less then or equal to 4GB. Problems will
occur when a files is greater than 4GB (I do not know since I do not have
any file greater than 4GB and all my partitions are NTFS).

The only advantage of using FAT32 is if you still multi-boot with an older
Windows 9x / ME version. You will then be able to "shared" the data between
the different Windows version since Windows 9x/ME do not access NTFS
partitions.
 
NTFS is the native file system of Windows NT/2000/XP/2003 and is always
recommended.


--
Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

| Should we use FAT32 for file storage, and NTFS should be used for
| windows installation ONLY? I want to put data files in different
| partition. The question is should I use NTFS or FAT32 file system for
| file storage? When I do the partition, I can still use NTFS for file
| storage. But FAT32 cannot be used for windows installation? Does it
| make any differences? What are the advantages?
|
|
| please advise. thanks!!
|
 
In
Should we use FAT32 for file storage, and NTFS should be used
for
windows installation ONLY?
Click to expand...


In my view NTFS is the more robust file system and should always
be used when you have the choice.

I want to put data files in different
partition. The question is should I use NTFS or FAT32 file
system for
file storage?

NTFS.


When I do the partition, I can still use NTFS for file
storage. But FAT32 cannot be used for windows installation?
Click to expand...


No, that's not correct. You can use either. The only restriction
on FAT32 is that Windows XP can not create a FAT32 partition
larger than 32GB (however it will happily use one if you first
create it externally).

Does it
make any differences? What are the advantages?
Click to expand...


To me the only good reason for using FAT32 is in a situation
where you have to locally share the drove/partition with a
non-NTFS-aware operating system.
 
Give this a go.

http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/NtfsWindows98.html

--
Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

:
<snip>
As you may know, W98 cannot see NTFS partitions so that will figure
| in to what you are trying to do.
<snip>
| --
| Regards
|
|
| Ron Badour, MS MVP for W98
| Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour
| Knowledge Base Info:
| http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo
|
|
|
| | > Should we use FAT32 for file storage, and NTFS should be used for
| > windows installation ONLY? I want to put data files in different
| > partition. The question is should I use NTFS or FAT32 file system for
| > file storage? When I do the partition, I can still use NTFS for file
| > storage. But FAT32 cannot be used for windows installation? Does it
| > make any differences? What are the advantages?
| >
| >
| > please advise. thanks!!
| >
|
|
 
Just a small correction on your post.. your second point is not a limitation
that Microsoft has put in Windows XP for FAT32, it is a limitation of the
file system regardless of what OS FAT32 is used under.
 
In
Gary Tsang said:
Just a small correction on your post.. your second point is not
a
limitation that Microsoft has put in Windows XP for FAT32, it
is a
limitation of the file system regardless of what OS FAT32 is
used
under.
Click to expand...


And another correction: It is not true that "Problems will occur
when a files is greater than 4GB." You simply can *not* create a
FAT32 file larger than 4GB.
 
Should we use FAT32 for file storage, and NTFS should be used for
windows installation ONLY? I want to put data files in different
partition. The question is should I use NTFS or FAT32 file system for
file storage? When I do the partition, I can still use NTFS for file
storage. But FAT32 cannot be used for windows installation? Does it
make any differences? What are the advantages?


please advise. thanks!!
Click to expand...


Personally, I wouldn't even consider using FAT32 when NTFS is an
option. FAT32 has no security capabilities, no compression
capabilities, no fault tolerance, and a lot of wasted hard drive space
on volumes larger than 8 Gb in size. But your computing needs may
vary, and there is no hard and fast answer.

To answer your questions without getting too technical is
difficult, but has been handled quite well by the late Alex Nichol in
the article here:

FAT & NTFS File Systems in Windows XP
http://www.aumha.org/a/ntfs.htm

Somewhat more technical information is here:

Limitations of the FAT32 File System in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/directory/article.asp?ID=kb;en-us;Q314463

Choosing Between File Systems
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/tr...prodtechnol/winntas/tips/techrep/filesyst.asp

NTFS file system
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ntfs/


--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:



You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once. - RAH
 
windows 98 can be installed on FAT32 and NTFS?

and Windows 2000/XP can only install on NTFS?

so the conclusion is NTFS is better choice, no matter for file storage,
or for operating system installation??
 
Win98 fat16 or fat32

Windows NT4 fat16 or NTFS

Windows 2000/XP/2003 fat16 or fat32 or NTFS

--
Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

| windows 98 can be installed on FAT32 and NTFS?
|
| and Windows 2000/XP can only install on NTFS?
|
| so the conclusion is NTFS is better choice, no matter for file storage,
| or for operating system installation??
|
 
windows 98 can be installed on FAT32 and NTFS?
Click to expand...

Windows 98 cannot see an NTFS partition. Win98 systems can use any
variant of the FAT system (FAT12, FAT16, FAT32).
and Windows 2000/XP can only install on NTFS?
Click to expand...

Windows 2000 and Windows XP can handle any file system that Win98 can,
and they can also use NTFS.
so the conclusion is NTFS is better choice, no matter for file storage,
or for operating system installation??
Click to expand...

If you're using Win2000 or WinXP, then NTFS is available to you. It's
a much superior file system, especially for the enormous disk drives
that are available today. If you're multibooting an NTFS-capable OS
with Win98 or WinME, you'll need to have a FAT partition for the older
system to boot from and use. If you're using Win2000 or WinXP and not
multibooting, use NTFS.
 
We have a mix of computers on FAT32 and NTFS, probably more on FAT32. I
don't notice any real difference in robustness, both perform with good
reliability. However, if a computer does develop a serious fault, it can
corrupt an NTFS disk just as easily (and as totally) as a FAT32 one, depite
the journalling.

One niggle with FAT32 is the failure to report free-space correctly. This
seems to crop-up a lot, though it's easily corrected with scandisk.

NTFS is more efficient in terms of space-utilisation on very large disks,
however the penalty is that it's demonstratably slower then FAT32,
particularly on anything less than cutting-edge hardware.

The main indicator for using NTFS is the need for user-permissions.. If
you've got multiple user-accounts on the same (local) computer, and you need
to separate their data, then you need permissions. We work on a one computer,
one user basis, which I suspect is the case in the majority of non-corporate
firms.
 
Hi, taken from here http://mywebpages.comcast.net/SupportCD/XPMyths.html

Myth - "The FAT32 file system is better than NTFS."

Reality - "NTFS is the better file system with many advantages over FAT32.
NTFS features: Built-In Security, Recoverability, Alternate Streams, Custom
File Attributes, Compression, Object Permissions, Economical Disk Space
Usage using a more Efficient Cluster Size and Fault Tolerance. Windows 2000
and XP come with NTFS version 5 which includes even more advanced features
such as: Encryption, Disk Quotas, Sparse Files, Reparse Points, Volume Mount
Points. None of which is available with FAT32." - Comparison Chart

Performance
NTFS is built for speed with impressive disk I/O performance on large
volumes (Over 400 MB). NTFS uses a binary tree structure for all disk
directories, which reduces the number of times the system has to access the
disk to locate files. This system is best for large directories, and NTFS
easily outperforms FAT32 in these situations. In addition, NTFS
automatically sorts files in a folder on the fly. NTFS gains an edge over
FAT32 by using relatively small disk allocation units (cluster sizes) for
NTFS volumes. Smaller clusters prevent wasted disk space on volumes,
especially those with numerous small files. Because NTFS uses small clusters
better and has a more efficient design, its performance doesn't degrade with
large volumes, in contrast to FAT's. As the number of files and volume size
increases NTFS performance is not effected but FAT32 continually gets
worse. - Gaming Performance

Reliability
In addition to its extensive memory and application protection features,
NTFS is a reliable file system. When storing data to disk, NTFS records file
I/O events to a special transaction log. If the system crashes or encounters
an interruption, NTFS can use this log to restore the volume and prevent
corruption from an abnormal program termination or system shutdown. NTFS
doesn't commit an action to disk until it verifies the successful completion
of the action. This precaution helps prevent corruption of an NTFS volume.
NTFS also supports hot-fixing disk sectors, where the OS automatically
blocks out bad disk sectors and relocates data from these sectors. This
housecleaning happens in the background. An application attempting to read
or write data on a hot-fixed area will never know the disk had a problem. I
only recommend and use NTFS with Windows 2000 and XP." - Source
 
No matter what the numbers say. I find fat32 faster in real terms than ntfs
on all machines where I've tried both.

It may well be that the tradeoff occurs on hardware better than mine in both
disc capacity and speed of hardware.

The other plus is that of course, if you need to, data on a disc made with
fat32 can be seen by win 98, as per, for instance, in a dual boot system.
I've found this tremendously useful,Now if someone made an ntfs read/write
module for 98, I'd think again after what you posted.

Brian
 
I don't know why you are posting marketing drivel here. But XP has NTFS 3.1

C:\Program Files\Support Tools>fsutil fsinfo ntfsinfo
Usage : fsutil fsinfo ntfsinfo <volume pathname>
Eg : fsutil fsinfo ntfsinfo C:

C:\Program Files\Support Tools>fsutil fsinfo ntfsinfo c:
NTFS Volume Serial Number : 0xbe3845b03845690b
Version : 3.1
 
Every story has two sides- you've carefully selected certain generalised
things here- I take it you are a politician or in sales and marketing.
 
Greetings,


Actually, I recommend using NTFS Reader utility to access NTFS system
in DOS or win 98\me. That is a really useful utility, it never failed
me before. Give it a try. It is located on a data tools set, Active@
Boot Disk image, that also includes extremely powerful utils for data
resotre, erase and backup.

http://www.ntfs.com/boot-disk.htm
 
Back
Top