FAT32 vs NTFS

hi ed,

do you know of any reasons why one shouldn't use ntfs? the reason i'm asking
is because i remember reading that you could store more data on a drive in
ntfs format than one that is fat32.

thanks
indera



"Ed Bigelow" wrote in message
ink.net...
It's much easier to convert to NTFS than from NTFS to FAT32.

Recovery programs (unless I'm out-of-date) aren't happy with NTFS.


"Tuncel Sunar" wrote in message
news
I have an Acer TravelMate 800LCI Centrino 1.3 GHz, 40GB w/ 512MB Ram.
XP-Home and XP-Office are installed. I have set up my home network w/
belkin
router between the laptop w/ mentioned configuration and a desktop w/
AMD
Athlon 800Mhz, 20GB, 512 MB Win98 SE connecting wireless and wired
respectively.

Laptop's HD is currently formatted as Fat32. I am considering to convert
to
NTFS since Windows help states that it is a better one.

Just wondering if anyone w/ FAt32 converted to NTFS. Windows help says
files
will remain intact after conversion, however I want to be sure of it.

Are there any disadvantages of doing so? Do I have to set up network
again?
etc...

Any insight is highly appreciated.

Thx,

--
Tuncel Sunar
PS: To send email, REMOVE "NOSPAM" from the email address.

Dr. Indera wrote:

hi ed,

do you know of any reasons why one shouldn't use ntfs? the reason i'm asking
is because i remember reading that you could store more data on a drive in
ntfs format than one that is fat32.


Detailed FAQ he

http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=63

Phil

IF an NTFS drive gets screwed up, repairing it can be extremely
difficult to impossible.

I've seen people locked out of their own computer with an NTFS drive
when nothing was wrong but when the password was simply forgotten or
somehow inadvertently changed. NTFS securty is very good (hard to
break, that is) and that's fine in applications in which you need that
security, but on a "home" system that can become a two-edged sword.

NTFS proponents will argue that things "go wrong" with NTFS drives less
frequently. That's an arguable point, I'm not sure that I buy it.

As to storage efficiency and speed, those depend too much on the
applications involved and the types applications being used and files
being stored. In any case neither difference is significant in either
direction.

I use NTFS when I need the security (encryption and/or access
permissions), or where I need either large files (greater than 2 gigs)
or large partitions (greater than 32 gigs). Otherwise I use FAT32.


Dr. Indera wrote:

hi ed,

do you know of any reasons why one shouldn't use ntfs? the reason i'm asking
is because i remember reading that you could store more data on a drive in
ntfs format than one that is fat32.

thanks
indera



"Ed Bigelow" wrote in message
ink.net...

It's much easier to convert to NTFS than from NTFS to FAT32.

Recovery programs (unless I'm out-of-date) aren't happy with NTFS.


"Tuncel Sunar" wrote in message
news
I have an Acer TravelMate 800LCI Centrino 1.3 GHz, 40GB w/ 512MB Ram.
XP-Home and XP-Office are installed. I have set up my home network w/

belkin

router between the laptop w/ mentioned configuration and a desktop w/

AMD

Athlon 800Mhz, 20GB, 512 MB Win98 SE connecting wireless and wired
respectively.

Laptop's HD is currently formatted as Fat32. I am considering to convert

to

NTFS since Windows help states that it is a better one.

Just wondering if anyone w/ FAt32 converted to NTFS. Windows help says

files

will remain intact after conversion, however I want to be sure of it.

Are there any disadvantages of doing so? Do I have to set up network

again?

etc...

Any insight is highly appreciated.

Thx,

--
Tuncel Sunar
PS: To send email, REMOVE "NOSPAM" from the email address.

wow phil,

this is great info!

thank you so much.


"Phil" wrote in message
...


Dr. Indera wrote:

hi ed,

do you know of any reasons why one shouldn't use ntfs? the reason i'm
asking
is because i remember reading that you could store more data on a drive
in
ntfs format than one that is fat32.


Detailed FAQ he

http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=63

Phil

barry,

this is very interesting.
i do remember once that all of a sudden i didn't have rights to any of the
web site files that i built even though i am the only user and am using the
administrator logon account. it took a while to figure out what the problem
was.
i never had that problem under fat32. hmmmmm,

being the only user, i'm not sure that i have a need for any security
features, unless it helps keep hackers away smile

the most robust packages that i use are visual studio.net, photoshop and
dreamweaver. some of my ms word documents are 20 mb i write technical
documentation with screen shots

thank you.
this is very informative.
indera


"Barry Watzman" wrote in message
...
IF an NTFS drive gets screwed up, repairing it can be extremely
difficult to impossible.

I've seen people locked out of their own computer with an NTFS drive
when nothing was wrong but when the password was simply forgotten or
somehow inadvertently changed. NTFS securty is very good (hard to
break, that is) and that's fine in applications in which you need that
security, but on a "home" system that can become a two-edged sword.

NTFS proponents will argue that things "go wrong" with NTFS drives less
frequently. That's an arguable point, I'm not sure that I buy it.

As to storage efficiency and speed, those depend too much on the
applications involved and the types applications being used and files
being stored. In any case neither difference is significant in either
direction.

I use NTFS when I need the security (encryption and/or access
permissions), or where I need either large files (greater than 2 gigs)
or large partitions (greater than 32 gigs). Otherwise I use FAT32.


Dr. Indera wrote:

hi ed,

do you know of any reasons why one shouldn't use ntfs? the reason i'm
asking
is because i remember reading that you could store more data on a drive
in
ntfs format than one that is fat32.

thanks
indera