Off Topic: FAT32 Vs. NTFS

[LilCerberus]

The other day, I sent a letter to Kim Komando involving a computer issue. After hitting the "Submit" button, I noticed the fine print noting that she gets thousands of emails every day, meaning it's not likely that I'll be hearing her thoughts on it any time too soon.

So I decided to repost my letter here figuring that I'd be more likely to get some type of reply, even if it's just a lighthearted crack at the overwhelming magnatude of my simplitude.

My story goes as follows:____________________________________________________________

"Dear Kim,

I was listening to your show recently and heard you recommend to a caller that he should use a 250+ GB hard drive for editing home videos.

As capturing & editing digital videos is one of my hobbies, I intend to graduate from a standard 80 GB to one of these super sized drives. I do, however, have one concern about file system formatting.

The short version of this story is that my last few hard drives were purchased following some typical variety of crises. In the last two cases, I was completely unsuccessful at loading Windows XP onto a blank hard drive, even in one case in which the drive was already formatted.

What I ended up doing was formatting one partition FAT 32 & installing Windows ’98, then using the Windows ’98 partition to install Windows XP (NTFS uncompressed) onto the second partition.

Getting back to the issue of video capturing & editing; I’ve noticed since installing my last hard drive, that all of my video & picture files, as well as the programs that they use, tend to load a little bit faster & run much more smoothly on the FAT 32 partition than they do on the NTFS partition.

What my question is, “Is it possible to install & run Windows XP on a FAT 32 formatted hard drive, & if so, is it safe?”
What exactly are the pros & cons of FAT 32 Vs. NTFS?"__________________________________

Well, I'm not sure how many Gurus we have on this board, or what kind of jokes this is going to inspire, but I'm sure that many of you will understand that having a properly functional machine with adequate storage capacity is highly critical to my exploration of bad taste & low budgets, as well as the analysis of them.

Especially if I ever get around to writing that review for Santa Claus (1959).

[ulthar]

My impression of Kim Komando is that she is very good at letting Google answer questions for her, so to speak.

NTFS vs FAT 32: the big thing is that FAT32 does not have all the security stuff that NTFS has.  These include file permissions and ownership and stuff, necessary for multi-user environments.  Since XP is NT 5.1, a multiuser OS, it probably won't like FAT32 much at all.  Of course, the NT tree OS's CAN read/write FAT32, but there are limitations.

Also, there are disk size/data storage limitations in FAT32 that make using with newer high cap drives considerable less efficient.

Not to be a smart alek, but you might try Google for FAT32 vs. NTFS (or add qualifiers like 'high capacity drive') to see more specifics. IMO, that's all KK would do.  ;)

Here's one to get you started (pay attention to cluster size, it means data storage efficiency!):

FAT32 vs NTFS

Good luck.

[Neville]

I use NTFS and works great, it is far more efficient when it comes to larger harddisks, and tools like defrag or Scandisk work much more faster (a couple of hours each for my 200 GB disk).

Only problem I can think of if you use NTFS is that other operating systems, like all Linux variants, won't be able to access data in that partition.

[AndyC]

I've been running XP on a FAT32 drive for a couple of years, without any trouble. This was because I saved a few bucks by buying an XP upgrade disk, which installed XP over top of an existing Win 98 OS. I'm a cheapskate, OK?

Recently upgraded my hard drive to 200GB and intended to switch to NTFS, but it turned out that the disk cloning software I used  (I ain't doing a fresh install of everything if I don't have to) insisted on using the same format as the original drive (I got to wait for it to format twice, yay). So, I'm still using FAT32, with no apparent loss of performance. I really don't notice a difference in my own personal application.

However, I have been thinking about converting, because NTFS is supposed to be better. The problem there is that there are issues with the Windows conversion utility setting the cluster size ridiculously small, with a corresponding loss of performance, if things are not just right. There are third-party utilities that will realign the drive for NTFS conversion to avoid this problem, but I think I'll probably end up buying a disk management program that allows me to set my own cluster size when I convert.

Right now, I'm more interested in finding the money for a second big drive, so I can get my backup running again.

[odinn7]

lilcerberus: Is it possible to install & run Windows XP on a FAT 32 formatted hard drive, & if so, is it safe?

Kim Komando: You're talking to me?

lilcerberus: Is it safe?

Kim Komando: Is what safe?

lilcerberus: Is it safe?

Kim Komando: I don't know what you mean. I can't tell you something's safe or not, unless I know specifically what you're talking about.

lilcerberus: Is it safe?

Kim Komando: Tell me what the "it" refers to.

lilcerberus: Is it safe?

Kim Komando: Yes, it's safe, it's very safe, it's so safe you wouldn't believe it.

[Scottie]

Is it safe?

[trekgeezer]

Convert it to NTFS because it is a far more stable file system.  A lot of the problems with Window 95 & 98 can be attributed to the file system they use.

If you decide to do it just click Start>Run> then type cmd to get the command prompt. Then type in help convert and it will tell you the parameters to use.

[Mr_Vindictive]

I'm with the rest of the guys.  When it comes to Win 2000 or XP, always go with the NT File System.

The owner of the ISP that I work for always formats machines with FAT32 because it's the only thing he's ever known.  He's against NTFS, out of lack of experience with it.  He has been complaining about slow speeds with his current computer, so I convinced him into letting me buy parts.

I just bought a Shuttle barebone system for him, and installed everything.  I of course used NTFS.  He was recently raving about how he's never had a computer work so well.........

Aside from that, FAT32 is also very unsecure.  Stick with NTFS.

[ulthar]

Neville Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Only problem I can think of if you use NTFS is
> that other operating systems, like all Linux
> variants, won't be able to access data in that
> partition.

Not quite.  Linux can read NTFS disks/partitions just fine.  It's writing that's an issue.

[ulthar]

AndyC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> However, I have been thinking about converting,
> because NTFS is supposed to be better. The problem
> there is that there are issues with the Windows
> conversion utility setting the cluster size
> ridiculously small, with a corresponding loss of
> performance, if things are not just right. There
> are third-party utilities that will realign the
> drive for NTFS conversion to avoid this problem,
> but I think I'll probably end up buying a disk
> management program that allows me to set my own
> cluster size when I convert.
>

Just a nitpick: It's my understanding that FAT32 can set the cluster size too large (not too small).  The minimum unit of storage on a hd is one cluster; with a large cluster size, say 32 kB (which FAT32 may default to with a large cap disk) is that then 32 kB will be your minimal file size ON DISK. A file 33 kB will take up 64 kB, etc.  You end up with a lot of wasted space.

One reason NTFS is 'better' is that FAT32 has no mechanism for file permissions or ownership.  If you are on a network, for example, there is no way to limit access to certain files.  For example, with NTFS, you can set specific files that you own as read only by others (they can read but not change) or not readable at all.  This is very important on a multi-user OS such as any of the NT tree Windows.

(Incidentally, the single user versions of Windows, like 95, 98 and Me are just that...single user; when you 'log on' to a Windows 98 computer, you are only providing a set of credentials for IDENTIFICATION on a network.  You can 'log on' to that computer without any valid username or password, and access every file on that computer; MS created the 'illusion' of security on these OS's with that little logon box, but I digress.  The file systems for these versions of windows, FAT16 and FAT32, had no use for file ownership or permissions, and therefore these file systems are completely unsuitable for any version of Windows NT, including 2000 and XP.  NT tree versions are compatible with FATxx file systems, but they are not meant to use them for primary data storage).

Finally, one more general comment.  If you happen to run your computer in a true multiuser environment (multiple users connected/logged in simultaneously), don't waste your time 'defragging' the disk.  It's pointless in this environment, and the prevalence of the defragging mentality shows the result of MS design flaws for true multiuser (ie corporate/enterprise) computing.

[trekgeezer]

Increasing the size of clusters on a large drive improves the performance, but like Ulthar says it wastes an awful lot of space.

[Scottie]

Trek wrote:

"Increasing the size of clusters on a large drive improves the performance, but like Ulthar says it wastes an awful lot of space."

>
>
>

Yes, but is it safe?

[trekgeezer]

It's safe, just a waste of disk space. It comes down to whether you want the drive to be fast or do you want the maximum storage space.

NTFS is definitely safer and faster.

[AndyC]

Actually, I was talking about the NTFS conversion utility and how it sets cluster sizes. Normally, NTFS uses 4k aligned clusters. However, if the conversion utility included with XP is not able to set it up this way because of the way the FAT32 disk was formatted, it will default to 512-byte clusters, with a loss of performance. Being that it can't convert back, I'm in no hurry to try it.

For my own use, I'd actually like to set the cluster size larger, if and when I convert the drive, since I handle a lot of large files, and I have room to spare. Would like to see if the added performance shaves any time off of video rendering. Been shopping around for software that will give me flexibility in how I convert the drive.

My point, originally, was that if lilcerberus thinks NTFS is what he needs, it's much better to set it up that way in the first place. I should have, but back then, I was less aware of the differences between the two. And since I was upgrading from 98, I was kind of stuck with FAT32 anyway. But, as I'm running XP on a 200G FAT32 drive right now, with no trouble, there's no dire need to use NTFS unless one wishes to do so.