NTSC vs. FAT32

Message

xnjselfdestructx · #1 Post by **xnjselfdestructx** » Tue Mar 14, 2006 11:16 pm

Im running FAT32 and I was wondering which should i run? I have windows XP on a t23.

GIFF · #2 Post by **GIFF** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:21 am

Well I know that having (in the past) a FAT32 file system has saved my butt a few times. because you can run knoppix or another bootable linux distro and modify the the files. wereas you cannot do that in a NTFS. But right now I am currently using a NTFS.

BruisedQuasar · #3 Post by **BruisedQuasar** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:27 am

xnjselfdestructx wrote:Im running FAT32... which should i run? I have windows XP on a t23.

For some reason my factory refurbished Win 2000 Pro T23 came formated with FAT32. FAT32 is inefficient with space compared to NTFS, which by the way stands for Windows NT File System. I find it is a good idea to run NT core Operating systems on a NT formated hard drive. My system was rather unstable until I reformated it to NTFS format with a full install Win 2000 Pro SP3 CD. Here is the inefficiency problem FAT32 saves data in segments of a set size, I believe 32K (or something like that) regardless of how small the file or file segment. For example, a 33k file will consume 64k, 32k for the first 32k & another entire 32k segment for the remaining 1k. NTFS is much more efficient.

Its sort of like the difference between a phone service that charges in 3 minute segments, meaning a call that lasts 3 minutes & 1 second, will be charged as 6 minutes amd a service that charges in five second segments, meaning the 3 minute, 1 second call is charged as 3 minutes & and five seconds.

Lastly, dual booting Windows and a Linux distribution is a little trickier on a NTFS formated drive but it certainly can and is done. The easiest way is to partition the drive into lets say 'C' and 'E' virtual drives. Format 'C' NTFS and 'E' FAT32. Install Linux on the 'E' partition.

danage · #4 Post by **danage** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:34 am

ntfs is much more reliable than fat. i have had no data loss on ntfs as long as i've been using it, something i cannot say about fat. plus, data is stored much more efficiently, fat loses a lot through the fixed block size. recommended read: wikipedia.
newer linux distros have ntfs writing capabilities (new ubuntu for example), whereas older could mostly only read. microsoft does not disclose the ntfs specs so it had to be reverse engineered.

aabram · #5 Post by **aabram** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:48 am

danage wrote:ntfs is much more reliable than fat. i have had no data loss on ntfs as long as i've been using it, something i cannot say about fat. plus, data is stored much more efficiently, fat loses a lot through the fixed block size.

Actually NTFS also has fixed block size but it is much smaller by default and you can set it yourself when formatting (not while installing though). For average Windows system this means much less wasted space. On the other hand, if you regularily store and access huge chunks of data (like several hundred MB files) FAT32 is a wee bit faster accessing those

And yes, NTFS is much more resilient to power failures or other random errors resulting data corruption. Plus you get increased security options which FAT doesn't have AND you can have system level file compression which comes handy when you need to store data which you only rarely or occasionally access. Also NTFS is less prone to fragmentation slowdown (it does get fragmented but that doesn't affect the performance as much).

For me it would be a no-brainer: NTFS all the way unless I really need FAT32. Which I haven't for past 5 or so years now.

#6 Post by **Kyocera** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 7:23 am

BruisedQuasar
which by the way stands for Windows NT File System

NTFS = New Technology File System.

t20user · #7 Post by **t20user** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 8:48 am

Well I know that having (in the past) a FAT32 file system has saved my butt a few times. because you can run knoppix or another bootable linux distro and modify the the files.

I had the same issue recently and Knoppix was there to the rescue. But rather than reload windows (the real source of the problem) I just loaded Knoppix full time to the HDD, no reason not to. Knoppix is an excellent way to prove to yourself (if) you really do not need windows. And its only getting better!

Nolonemo · #8 Post by **Nolonemo** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 9:43 am

GIFF wrote:Well I know that having (in the past) a FAT32 file system has saved my butt a few times. because you can run knoppix or another bootable linux distro and modify the the files. wereas you cannot do that in a NTFS. But right now I am currently using a NTFS.

There are plently of utilities that will run from a bootable CD and read/write NTFS volumes (some have an interface sort of like the old Norton Commander for DOS).

Website · #9 Post by **tfflivemb2** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 10:20 am

Kyocera wrote:
BruisedQuasar
which by the way stands for Windows NT File System
NTFS = New Technology File System.

Funny, I never really thought about what the NT stood for. I assumed that it was a weird acronym for something. MS is full of them.....my favorite is HoTMaiL (HTML)

JHEM · #10 Post by **JHEM** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:04 pm

tfflivemb2 wrote:Funny, I never really thought about what the NT stood for. I assumed that it was a weird acronym for something. MS is full of them.....my favorite is HoTMaiL (HTML)

NTFS = NT file System

See: http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm

HTML = Hyper-Text Markup Language.

Regards,

James

danage · #11 Post by **danage** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:13 pm

NTFS was developed for Microsofts Server Operating System: Windows NT, which stands for Windows New Technology. Thus, NTFS stands for New Technology File System. Eventually, NT was renamed Windows 2000, which later became the base for Windows XP.

NTFS supports software RAID. For example, you can span one volume across multiple physical media, which is great when you move files around and also enhances performance. Software redundancy is also possible.

Website · #12 Post by **tfflivemb2** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 12:21 pm

JHEM wrote:
tfflivemb2 wrote:Funny, I never really thought about what the NT stood for. I assumed that it was a weird acronym for something. MS is full of them.....my favorite is HoTMaiL (HTML)
NTFS = NT file System

See: http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm

HTML = Hyper-Text Markup Language.

Regards,

James

Yeah, I knew what HTML stands for. What I meant was that MS came up with Hotmail's name came from the letters HTML, as some sort of pun.

JHEM · #13 Post by **JHEM** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 1:41 pm

tfflivemb2 wrote:Yeah, I knew what HTML stands for. What I meant was that MS came up with Hotmail's name came from the letters HTML, as some sort of pun.

OK, I hadn't heard that.

Regards,

James

#14 Post by **Kyocera** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:02 pm

NT File System still equals New Technology File System.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTFS

smugiri · #15 Post by **smugiri** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:48 pm

JHEM wrote:
tfflivemb2 wrote:Yeah, I knew what HTML stands for. What I meant was that MS came up with Hotmail's name came from the letters HTML, as some sort of pun.
OK, I hadn't heard that.

Regards,

James

Atleast one part of this is true, the name Hotmail does derive from HTML but it was started by Jack Smith and Sabeer Bhatia who sold it in 1997 to Microsoft for a reported $400m

Here is Hotmail's history.

Website · #16 Post by **tfflivemb2** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:55 pm

OK, I thought that it was Microsoft's concoction. Then again, I didn't start my hotmail address until late 1997 or early 1998.

GIFF · #17 Post by **GIFF** » Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:11 pm

Nolonemo wrote:
GIFF wrote:Well I know that having (in the past) a FAT32 file system has saved my butt a few times. because you can run knoppix or another bootable linux distro and modify the the files. wereas you cannot do that in a NTFS. But right now I am currently using a NTFS.
There are plently of utilities that will run from a bootable CD and read/write NTFS volumes (some have an interface sort of like the old Norton Commander for DOS).

Yeah I'm behind on the times.........

xnjselfdestructx · #18 Post by **xnjselfdestructx** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:35 pm

Ok so now how do i format my computer to get it to NTSF.

#19 Post by **Kyocera** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 6:15 pm

NTSC = National Television System Committe

NTFS - New Technology File System

I use Partition Commander

xnjselfdestructx · #20 Post by **xnjselfdestructx** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 9:33 pm

anything i dont have to buy?

#21 Post by **Kyocera** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 9:46 pm

Try Reading This

And This

xnjselfdestructx · #22 Post by **xnjselfdestructx** » Thu Mar 16, 2006 9:57 pm

OK i tried to do this and this is what came up "Convert cannot run because the volume is in use by another process. Convert may run if this volume is dismounted first. ALL OPEN HANDLES TO THIS VOLUME WOULD THEN BE INVALD. Would you like to force a dismount on this volume? (Y/N)

What does this mean?

#23 Post by **Kyocera** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 7:27 am

Do this:

This issue occurs when there are files that are being used on the volume that you are trying to convert. This includes files that are accessed by users over the network.

To resolve this issue, use one of the following methods: • Quit all the programs that are using the files on the drive, and then type y at the command prompt to convert the drive to NTFS.
At the command prompt, type Y.

You receive the following error message:
Convert cannot gain exclusive access to the drive letter drive, so it cannot convert it now. Would you like to schedule it to be converted the next time the system restarts? <Y/N>
Type Y at the command prompt. The volume or drive is converted to NTFS the next time that you start your computer.

There is one thing you should think about also when doing anything with your HD back it up first, at least stuff you can't afford to lose like a calendar, or some files with no copies anywhere.
Hope that helps

xnjselfdestructx · #24 Post by **xnjselfdestructx** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:58 pm

Quit all the programs that are using the files on the drive,

How do I do this.

#25 Post by **Kyocera** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:49 pm

Quit programs, if you have any programs running like i.e, word, whatever, shut it down.

xnjselfdestructx · #26 Post by **xnjselfdestructx** » Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:13 pm

Kyocera wrote:Quit programs, if you have any programs running like i.e, word, whatever, shut it down.

Awsome worked perfectly. Thanks for your help and everyone who helped contribute

BruisedQuasar · #27 Post by **BruisedQuasar** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 1:58 pm

danage wrote:ntfs is much more reliable than fat. i have had no data loss on ntfs as long as i've been using it, something i cannot say about fat. plus, data is stored much more efficiently, fat loses a lot through the fixed block size. newer linux distros have ntfs writing capabilities (new ubuntu for example)

That was another reason I reformated my Win 2000 T23, weird data losses. Since I reformated from Fat32 to NTFS, I get significantly more efficient Hard Disk data storage and more reliable storage and retreival.

Does the newer Linux Distro shift to NTSF mean dual partitioning of a Win 2000 or Win XP installed Hard Disk to include Linux is a less dangerous process now? Or, should Windows users still exercise extreme caution using a major Linux Distro CD to dual partition and add a Linux install to their Hard Disk?

I am seriously impressed with the 16 new Live CD Linux distros I recently obtained and tested. What improvements in auto-detect and auto broadband Internet access, especially the new Ubuntu live CD. The newest Knoppix Live CD is also impressive.

I find myself loading and using live CD Ubuntu so much now on my main desktop that I have been wondering 'why not just install right over Win XP professional?" This live CD auto-detects and loads Ubuntu Linux so efficiently that I am up and running with it faster than I can cold boot and be ready to go with my installed Windows XP. And there is not the long wait for Firefox 1.5 or Konquerer to load, connect and be ready for surfing as there is in XP for any non-Windows Internet Explorer browser.

I am long fed up with Microsoft propropetary actions that back seat user needs and desires.

BruisedQuasar · #28 Post by **BruisedQuasar** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 2:06 pm

Kyocera wrote:
BruisedQuasar
which by the way stands for Windows NT File System
NTFS = New Technology File System.

Thank you for the correction. I obviously misunderstood a technical article. It meant the Windows NT file system when referencing the NTFS (New Technology File System) I took the author to mean that NTFS means N.T. File System.

By the way, Windows "NT" does not stand for "New Technology", by any chance?

dr_st · #29 Post by **dr_st** » Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:23 pm

BruisedQuasar wrote:By the way, Windows "NT" does not stand for "New Technology", by any chance?

It does.

davidspalding · #30 Post by **davidspalding** » Thu Apr 20, 2006 8:11 pm

JHEM wrote:
tfflivemb2 wrote:Funny, I never really thought about what the NT stood for. I assumed that it was a weird acronym for something. MS is full of them.....my favorite is HoTMaiL (HTML)
NTFS = NT file System

See: http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm

Thanks for this, James. I was wonderng what would be a faster, more efficient file system for a 2nd HDD for video editing. FAT32 might be good if the files were really huge, but I'd forgotten that FAT32 is only good for HDDs smaller than, say a dozen GB. Today's huge volumes really work better with NTFS.

NTSC vs. FAT32

NTSC vs. FAT32

Re: NTSC vs. FAT32

Who is online