No matter what the numbers say. I find fat32 faster in real terms than
ntfs on all machines where I've tried both.
both disc capacity and speed of hardware.
fat32 can be seen by win 98, as per, for instance, in a dual boot system.
module for 98, I'd think again after what you posted.
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Post by ChrisCHi, 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
Post by IanWe 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.