[RZetlin]

Currently I have three paritions that uses the FAT32 file system. (The main parition is on NTFS for my Win XP Pro OS)

In the past with Win 9x, if the operating system messed up I could always insert a DOS boot disk and access my drives this way.

Of course with NT OS you can't do this in the same manner.

I have been using Win XP Pro for months now and I'm thinking covering more of my paritions to NTFS.

Do you guys recommend the NTFS over the FAT32? If so why?

 

[Kane]

I use NTFS on all my drives, simply as I don't use a Win98 boot on this machine.
NTFS is faster, less prone to fragging, can handle larger drive sizes and appears to be less prone to data loss. It also supports on-the-fly compression (in Fat you have to use Diskspace which is a real chore and causes innumerable problems) and encryption.
If XP fecks up on me, I just call my system partition (6 gigs) a dead loss. My machine is set up in such a way that as long as I don't break my other partitions, my essential data, favorites, stored forms, passwords, etc are all saved when I re-install.

 

[Viper_Viper]

My comp at home is runnin Win XP home. When for some reason, after failing to install an HP printer, Win XP would no boot up, even in safe mode. I was freekin out beacsue all of my HomeWork was saved on it. I slapped in a Win98 boot disk, formated a small partion on my 120gb HD and installed Win98. Using some random program I found on the web which allowed me to access NTFS formated drives in win98, I copyed my imported them on to the FAT32 partion. Then over the lan backed them up on my dad's comp. This let me compleatly format the entire drive and reinstall windows perfectly. I did not loose one importent file, but never tryed to install that printer again...

 

[Foxfyre]

ntfs has never given me any problems....even recovered pretty much all my important files after an accidental format and only had about 3 small files corrupt on me.

 

[Sampah]

it seems like FAT32 perform faster on smaller size of HDD than NTFS, but I wonder a 40GB HD is consider small or large...

http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm

 

[Kethinov]

I recommend ext3...

 

[moomoomoo]

I recommend ext3...

Cheers for that contribution, but at what point did he mention linux?

 

[Kethinov]

The subtle point being made is that neither Windows FS is particularly well designed and frankly any well informed person wouldn't take either of them seriously. Both are just as big an unnecessary risk with your data.

But hey. It's your data.

 

[Grv]

FYI, there are more people using these filesystems without a problem than there are *nix users on a global scale. As for NTFS and FAT not being well-designed, these are proprietary and anything but open, making their only disadvantage that you don't even know how it was designed. If you mean performance-wise, there are better ways to convince people than by just saying that something is. References help for people who have never tasted both sides.

Kethinov, there are people who consider some of your posts flamebait in an anti-microsoft kind of way. If you want to come across as helpful, then providing credible sources/references for your claims would help you achieve that. As a fellow member, I ask you to keep excessive windows-bashing to yourself unless asked for. I ask you this, because I am a well-informed (and formally educated) user who enjoys the best of both worlds. You are implying that I am not.



EDIT:

Will you all STFU.

Fine. I'll PM him my reply/advice then.

 

[Kethinov]

You call that a well informed statement? NTFS and especially FAT have been in existence for many years; plenty of time for anyone to know exactly how they were designed. In fact, both filesystems have been reverse engineered. You can even write to them from unix systems with a proper configuration.

That said, I know exactly what I'm talking about when I say the filesystems are crap--because they are. NTFS sucks and FAT32 sucks more. Make your choice accordingly.

Kethinov, there are people who consider some of your posts flamebait in an anti-microsoft kind of way. If you want to come across as helpful, then providing credible sources/references for your claims would help you achieve that. As a fellow member, I ask you to keep excessive windows-bashing to yourself unless asked for.

Perspectives are funny aren't they. I consider much of this entire forum's threads flamebait in a Windows fanboy community kind of way. No, my comments at large are neither excessive nor inappropriate and I'll thank you for respecting my free speech and opinions. Maybe somebody here might even learn something from my dissenting commentary.

 

[RZetlin]

You call that a well informed statement? NTFS and especially FAT have been in existence for many years; plenty of time for anyone to know exactly how they were designed. In fact, both filesystems have been reverse engineered. You can even write to them from unix systems with a proper configuration.

That said, I know exactly what I'm talking about when I say the filesystems are crap--because they are. NTFS sucks and FAT32 sucks more. Make your choice accordingly.

Even though this discussion was about Windows XP and not on Linux.

Can you give me some source information that proves that EXT3 is better than NTFS?

 

[WindHydra]

The subtle point being made is that neither Windows FS is particularly well designed

Subtle? :lol:

I consider much of this entire forum's threads flamebait in a Windows fanboy community kind of way. No, my comments at large are neither excessive nor inappropriate and I'll thank you for respecting my free speech and opinions.

Can you at least give ANY reason for why NTFS and FAT32 are crap? I used FAT16, FAT32, NTFS, and ext3 and none had any problems, so how do YOU know which one is better?

All these people who just say something's crap but they don't know why themselves :???:.

 

[Kane]

Will you all STFU.
Keithinov: This isn't about Linux. He asked which was better FAT32x or NTFS. He didn't ask for your 2 penneth on why Linux is better, so just can it. It's not relevant and thus is essentialy SPAM.