FAT32 sv NTFS?

I'm just beginning to tinker with Win 2k on a machine set aside for tinkering. No problem if I screw things up. My first install, I selected NTFS for file alloc. table. Seems to work fine, runs a little slow w/ 64mb ram, though.
I'm going to wipe it out and install w/ FAT32 tonite, just cause I can. It's a stand alone machine right now.
What are some of your thoughts about when to use FAT32 and when to use NTFS. Does it depend on what kind of network you will be using? Does it matter on a stand alone?
<IMG SRC="smilies/rolleyes.gif" border="0">

Scooter, this is a good ??? i would like to know this as well..... i was usinf fat 32 when i upgraded however it has been messed since then so i clean formtted with ntfs just cuz it sounds cooler and i hve haers it to be a more stable more tidy buisness like operating system... CMT

CMT..Just finished install w/ FAT32, went somewhat smoother, could be just because it was second time around. So far, I'm likin FAT32 better, seems a little less twitchy, a little faster as a stand alone, perhaps. Could be a whole different story networked to an NT or 2000 server though.

As I understand, some of the computer management functions cannot be done in FAT32. I don't know how true it is, but I tried it in FAT32 when I upgraded from Win98. It only lasted a week before I started with a clean install and NTFS. I have heard of many horror stories of Win2K running on FAT32 that I wouldn't reccomend it, that's all.

had ntfs on my system ,untill recently ,

went back to fat32 , because at least i can SEE my drive when i boot from a floppy/cdrom

... and NTFS is pi$$ slow.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Outcoded:
<STRONG>... and NTFS is pi$$ slow.</STRONG>

---

Did u say slow?

Been running FAT32 for few couple days now. I dropped another 128mb ram in to bring it to 192mb. Machine runs very well. Only problem I have found is that once Win2k boots, my remote power and reset buttons don't work anymore. They're ok while posting. When I shut down Win2k, I have to turn off the power supply to shut down.
Anyone have a headsup on that? <IMG SRC="smilies/smile.gif" border="0">

Win2k Pro seems to run better with FAT32 when in a Pre-SP1 state. Once SP1 or SP2 is installed you will see a huge performance difference with NTFS. NTFS is preferred and will be utilized better by the NT kernel. I had most of my drives set to Fat32 before SP1 came out. After that I have had much better success with fragmentation and overall performance with NTFS. I run Win2k Pro on 5 machines at home and ~300 machines at client locations with the same result.

Thanks 4nik. I'm running SP-1 right now on FAT32. Everything's good except for the button problem mentioned above. Now that I've gotten used to it, I'll probably reload with NTFS this week and try it again w/ the extra ram. Got a couple of laptops to setup first. Overall, I like Win2k the best so far, will probably install on all my new machines. ME seems a little spastic.

Both NTFS and FAT32 have their strengths and weaknesses. NTFS is a secure file system and is generally faster than FAT32 under Win2k on larger file partitions. However, unlike NTFS4 FAT32 is compatible with Win9x as well and is plenty fast on smaller drives. My recommendation would be to use NTFS if you are only running Windows 2000 on your computer, but if you are dual-booting with Win9x or Linux, you have to have at least one of your partitions set to FAT32.


Check this link out for a full in depth look at NTFS5 Vs FAT 32
http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/I...ArticleID=8294

Papa smurf, that's a good article you found. I do disagree with one statement in the article as it assumes something. You can, and I have in the past, dual boot Win2k on one drive with another os, linux in my case, on a separate drive. Dual booting on the same disk is where Fat32 becomes an option, but when you have more than one hard drive, you can still run Win2K with NTFS.
Coincidently, I eventually removed Linux because Win2K gave me much of what I was looking for in Linux and I hadn't found enough apps to make me stay with it.

NTFS is better if you wish to make use of the security features, like locking your directories, etc. It also implements transaction logging, so in theory at least, data is less likely to be lost. Win2K likes to wallow in memory, however, so 64MB is really not going to satisfy it's ravenous hunger. With more memory and a fast CPU, though, 2000 is much more stable

I have two Fireball HDD in my pc and back my System HDD up once a month with Symantec Ghost (I only have a 56k modem and can't see myself installing all the bloody service packs again!). I normally boot the pc with win98 boot disk to get a nice dos prompt and then run Ghost. I have read somewhere that you can make a NTFS boot disk, if I get that somewhere, might convert to NTFS...
When in doubt, whip it out... <IMG SRC="smilies/biggrin.gif" border="0">

whel about securety. win9x, dos and linux do not regornise ntfs. if you want to protect your system files. make 1 partition whit ntfs to put win2k and the oder with fat32. by doing this you now other os can srew up your win 2k. if you want to make a dualboot system. its best to make your 1st partition fat32. large enough to install any programs and games. the rest you can make ntfs. whene some one starts your computer he can play some games and use normel programs. on the moment you want to work whit your system reboot in 2k and you can see every harddisk partition. also the ntfs. to store your "privit" info that you won't share with other. (childeren, wife, frends, and the internet.)

Just to add my 2 cents worth...
NTFS is a more efficient file system as it uses smaller cluster sizes than FAT32. In addition, you are able to partition a large hard drive (over 32 gigs) as one partition. FAT32 won't support single partitions over 32 gigs (I believe it's 32...it's somewhere close to that). With the low cost of hard drives, this may be a big bonus.

I've just recently upgraded from FAT32 to NTFS (I just installed a 40 gig HD that I wanted as a single partition). I don't notice any major speed or reliability differences between the two. Win2K in general under either file system is very stable on my systems.

Scott

Somewhat related question: Does the choice of file systems affect the speed at which other client computers can access it?

I have a 2000 machine setup as a sort of test server, and lately I've been testing a program called TrackIt, a help desk app that runs over SQL server. One of the things we've noticed is that Win98 machines trying to run the TrackIt client on the box seem to have very slow performance. 2000 clients don't seem to have this problem. The test server is setup for NTFS, and I'm wondering if NTFS might be a problem for 98 machines?

Or, maybe the Trackit client just runs better on the W2K OS? The file system should be completely transparent across the net.