Which is fastest, NTFS or FAT32?
This is a discussion about Which is fastest, NTFS or FAT32? in the Customization Tweaking category; Hi I believe I have heard that NTFS(for win2k) is slower than fat32, but then I suddenly stumble across , Which states that NTFS is faster than FAT32? Now which is right? Anybody that knows? plz, Im soon on my way to reinstall my system due to a new harddrive, so It would be nice info.
Hi
I believe I have heard that NTFS(for win2k) is slower than fat32, but then I suddenly stumble across www.twead3d.net/tweak/win2kmem/2.shtml ,
Which states that NTFS is faster than FAT32?
Now which is right? Anybody that knows?
plz, Im soon on my way to reinstall my system due to a new harddrive, so It would be nice info.
I believe I have heard that NTFS(for win2k) is slower than fat32, but then I suddenly stumble across www.twead3d.net/tweak/win2kmem/2.shtml ,
Which states that NTFS is faster than FAT32?
Now which is right? Anybody that knows?
plz, Im soon on my way to reinstall my system due to a new harddrive, so It would be nice info.
Participate in our website and join the conversation
This subject has been archived. New comments and votes cannot be submitted.
Apr 2
May 3
0
16 minutes
Responses to this topic
Well of course I made a mistake:
first posting the question, then remebering that "search-thingy"
Sorry guys...found a few tips, though some say ntfs is faster, and some say the opposite.
/Turbo Grunkamoj
first posting the question, then remebering that "search-thingy"
Sorry guys...found a few tips, though some say ntfs is faster, and some say the opposite.
/Turbo Grunkamoj
i read that same article and i changed my win2k partion which is only 1.5gb to NTFS and left my programs and MP3s on a 7gb FAT32 partion. i noticed a large improvement in system proformence. I use diskeeper to defrag and it says 0 file fragments in my FAT32 partion and only 4 temp files on my win2k partion are fragmented. i think its pretty sweet plus the drives being SCSI helps
Nice to know....if anyone else have similar or totally different experiences, feel free to fill in...
You can never have to much info....
/Turbo Grunkamoj
---------------------------------------------
You could do it that way, but its not right.
---------------------------------------------
You can never have to much info....
/Turbo Grunkamoj
---------------------------------------------
You could do it that way, but its not right.
---------------------------------------------
I would use NTFS, I installed 2K on my comp, 2 partions both fat32, one 98 the other 2K.
It ran good for about 6 hours, when I rebooted it returned a non system disk error, then booted up in 98, which was on my second partition. 2K was no where to be found. After I did 1 NTFS partion for 2K and fat32 for 98, since I have not had a problem
It ran good for about 6 hours, when I rebooted it returned a non system disk error, then booted up in 98, which was on my second partition. 2K was no where to be found. After I did 1 NTFS partion for 2K and fat32 for 98, since I have not had a problem
I have a 10GB(well more lke 9.5GB) and I have a 6GB an a 3GB partition, i formatted c 
the 6gb) and installed win2k, w/NTFS
when I did so, i had unbearably delays when doing file management operations, I.E. the right click menu took about 1min to come up, when loading a folder with many files, it would take a long time(almost 2x as long as it would on drive D: a fat32 drive). i got so tired of it, and i couldnt remedy it, that i finally reformatted as Fat32 and installed win98 an win2k, dualbooting between them.
the 6gb) and installed win2k, w/NTFSwhen I did so, i had unbearably delays when doing file management operations, I.E. the right click menu took about 1min to come up, when loading a folder with many files, it would take a long time(almost 2x as long as it would on drive D: a fat32 drive). i got so tired of it, and i couldnt remedy it, that i finally reformatted as Fat32 and installed win98 an win2k, dualbooting between them.
That doesn't sound good.
Now I have a doubt... :I
Now I have a doubt... :I
My 2 machines (PC and Laptop) are both NTFS only.
I have no performance issues here, everything is really fast.
My right-click menus open instantly, no delays there.
I tuned my system a little with TweakUI, I removed all file-entries for the NEW selection, disabled all the fancy fading effects and animations etc.
It never was a question for me to use NTFS once I changed to Win2000 only on my system.
------------------
DocSilly members.bigfoot.com/~albern
I have no performance issues here, everything is really fast.
My right-click menus open instantly, no delays there.
I tuned my system a little with TweakUI, I removed all file-entries for the NEW selection, disabled all the fancy fading effects and animations etc.
It never was a question for me to use NTFS once I changed to Win2000 only on my system.
------------------
DocSilly members.bigfoot.com/~albern
Well I went ahead and did my reinstall, mainly cause my C:-partition was to small before...so I put ntfs on that, and I dont know if I can make any decrease or increase but why the hell not
On the down-side, I make q3-maps on the side and during the reinstall I "forgot" my map-file so that is screwed...
But hey, **** HAPPENS...so get used to it, and since I cant blame anyone else but me and my stupidity, thats all there is to it.
/Turbo Grunkamoj
On the down-side, I make q3-maps on the side and during the reinstall I "forgot" my map-file so that is screwed...
But hey, **** HAPPENS...so get used to it, and since I cant blame anyone else but me and my stupidity, thats all there is to it.
/Turbo Grunkamoj
that will teach you to back up your work
As I said, I cant blame none but my own stupidity....
Because of the way NTFS stores the directory structure it is extremely fast at indexing (locating and reading individual file headers) and is therefore only of real use on large partitions. NTFS partitions also have better recovery information should a failure occur.
Try a find files on a NTFS and compare that to a FAT32.
Try a find files on a NTFS and compare that to a FAT32.
NTFS IS BETTER.
I have to agree - NTFS is more stable, faster, better for indexing, and just much happier full stop.
My opinion is that you can't feel any difference in speed, but you can without a doubt hear a diffrence. The NTFS partitions make a lot more noice than FAT 32 partitions. I know this might sound strange, but I always thougt my disk made a lot of noice compared to one of my friends that had the same sort of drive. In the end the only difference between us was the file system, so i changed mine to FAT 32 and the sound level droped a LOT.
NTFS is the better system, but it has a big prob: if you want to change it u must use win2k...yesterday i reinst win2k (i got a geforce, yay) and there was no way exxcept to repartition the hd and kill everything on it...big mess ( i almost fried my floppy but it's k now.
anyway, i made my c 2gb, only for windows, and fat32. the other partitions i made ntfs. win2k is in the memory when you use the pc, so i don't think it matters much on a 2gb partition, and besides, now i can reinst without killing all the data
------------------
If it doesn't work, PLUG IT IN!
anyway, i made my c 2gb, only for windows, and fat32. the other partitions i made ntfs. win2k is in the memory when you use the pc, so i don't think it matters much on a 2gb partition, and besides, now i can reinst without killing all the data
------------------
If it doesn't work, PLUG IT IN!
You should put your data on a different partition. Doing so makes backups and disaster recovery alot easier. Some might say FAT32 is better for your data parition but I prefer NTFS just for the extra features it gives you.
The main differance between FAT32 and NTFS is security. FAT32 can be accessed by any OS which supports FAT32, say a Win98 boot disk. NTFS has security features which can be changed to make it so that only a particular user has access to the files/folder/partition. This can make it a real pain if your OS gets hosed though.
As for speed... there really isn't much diffrence between FAT32 and NTFS. NTFS is slightly faster.
As for speed... there really isn't much diffrence between FAT32 and NTFS. NTFS is slightly faster.
NTFS is by far a superior file system. FAT32 is a hacked together peice of crap. They are in NO way even similar. FAT32 stores everything in what is known as a Linked List. It has a begining and an end, like this;
File1 - File2 - File3......FileN.
To get to FileN, the computer starts at File1 and follows the list down. This is very slow.
NTFS, however, stores files in what is known as a B-Tree. This stores files in a tre structure like this;
File1
/ \
File2 File3
/ \ / \
File4 File5.......
This makes accessing files very fast because the problem size is cut in half at each level of the list.
So, to answer the question, NTFS is far superior.
File1 - File2 - File3......FileN.
To get to FileN, the computer starts at File1 and follows the list down. This is very slow.
NTFS, however, stores files in what is known as a B-Tree. This stores files in a tre structure like this;
File1
/ \
File2 File3
/ \ / \
File4 File5.......
This makes accessing files very fast because the problem size is cut in half at each level of the list.
So, to answer the question, NTFS is far superior.
I agree with the sound issue. I just installed W98 in dual-boot config and it is much quieter. Anyone knows what the reason could be? I use an IBM 7200 RPM 13 Gigs BTW.
Fat32 has been noisier for me. Not to mention much slower to work with at larger partition levels (I have 8, 12, and 16GB partitions that I use at work and home). NTFS just kicks a$$. Just make sure to keep an eye on fragmentaion. The free version of Diskeeper that comes with Win2K works pretty well, and I have used the full versions (4 and 5.0) for the last 1.5 years. NTFS is faster, more stable, more secure.
------------------
Regards,
clutch
------------------
Regards,
clutch
