jjaaskel
Which one I should use: FAT32 or NTFS?
At least in win2k FAT32 seems to be faster (for me and many others said same) in normal use, but what is situation in Windows XP?
Br, juha
At least in win2k FAT32 seems to be faster (for me and many others said same) in normal use, but what is situation in Windows XP?
Br, juha
Participate on our website and join the conversation
This topic is archived. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast.
Responses to this topic
Brian Frank
NTFS is more secure, so if that's a concern, NTFS is the only way to go. I've tried both methods and I can't tell a difference. NTFS slows things down very little, but not enough that you can tell at all.
FAT32 is fine too. For home usage, NTFS is unnecessary, but businesses or places requiring security, NTFS is a must.
FAT32 is fine too. For home usage, NTFS is unnecessary, but businesses or places requiring security, NTFS is a must.
FatFish
NTFS is the way to go.
It supports file size over 2G, compression, encrption, NTFS permission...etc
It supports file size over 2G, compression, encrption, NTFS permission...etc
Deviant
Yes ,I agree ...
NTFS Rulez
NTFS permission
No need to run scandisk at all
.
.
.
Regards
D.
NTFS Rulez
NTFS permission
No need to run scandisk at all
.
.
.
Regards
D.
AndyFair
That's the clincher - NTFS is a more stable filesystem than FAT, and it's more difficult to screw the whole hard drive as the result of a crash - so I always use NTFS, even on my home PCs, for safety's sake!
AndyF
AndyF
isochar
One thing that people DO NOT mention is that NTFS is a hard drive hog. It easily brings IDE drives to their knees, and even occassionally shows my X15-36LP who's boss.
Other than that, it's excellent.
Other than that, it's excellent.
clutch
I have never found it to be a hog myself. And in fact, I have preferred its performance over FAT32 in speed and durability. The MFT does take up a fair amount of space (like 12% by default) though, but that's never been an issue for me either.
