Thinkpads Forum

I was just about to install a new HD in my TP600. I will be using Acronis to clone my old one to the new one. But, the new one is formated to NTFS and the old one is FAT32. Can I still do it or do I have to format the new HD to FAT32?

I am going to search on it now, but thought I would ask the question now in case I can get a quick answer as I am trying to do the swap now.

Thanks very much

I think I found the answer. Apparently, Acronis true image formats the new drive anyway, so it doesn't matter what it is formatted to right now.

But, if I want the new HD to be NTFS, can I chose that as a format option and still clone from the FAT32 HD? Or do I have to do the clone as is in FAT32 and then change it to NTFS after?

Thanks.

I don't know what Acronis can do, but I do know you can convert your partition post-clone by using the convert.exe utility included in Windows.

Also see also this info: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/libr ... 89a48.aspx

Acronis will make the new one the same format as the old one. You get no choice.

carbon_unit wrote:Acronis will make the new one the same format as the old one. You get no choice.

OK. Thanks. So would there be any benefit to converting to NTFS after the clone or should I just leave it alone?

From a safety standpoint, I would convert the cloned drive from FAT32 to NTFS and if anything goes wrong, you would STILL have your original drive.

edit: After re-reading the entire thread, if your concern is whether there's any benefits or drawbacks between the two file systems, then maybe this will help:

http://www.theeldergeek.com/ntfs_or_fat ... system.htm

Thanks for the link. So, I will clone the drive first, then I can have it as a back-up, then convert the new drive to NTFS. Gotcha. Thanks.

One more quick question. Are there minimum requirements for a computer to convert to NTFS? For exapmle, since my TP is low on processor speed & Ram (relatively speaking), will converting slow it down? I am just wondering if I should just leave it alone once the clone is complete? I just don't know if the NTFS uses more resources?

Thanks again.

Don't know the answer to that. I can say that I'm running 500Mhz 600X systems with Windows XP and NTFS and it's not that slow. Currently the 600Xs have a full load of memory (576MB) but I've run them with as little as 320MB and they did seem slower, but I'd attribute that to XP itself, rather than my choice of file systems.

You may want to turn off the Indexing Service once you convert to NTFS. Here's something from the horse's mouth:

Working with File Systems - Microsoft

Choice of a filesystem is really a trade off between functionality and performance.
NTFS has some great features like flexible security, file compression, auditing, better reliability and performance on large partitions than other filesystems like FAT/FAT32 - but these do come with a hit on performance. This is negligable on newer hardware, but having said that I have had a 755cx Pentium 1 75Mhz with 40mb Ram and a 1Gb hard drive running NT3.51 on an NTFS partition without noticing a huge performance loss over FAT.
The key is to ensure you do not utilse features such as Auditing and file compression, unless you really need to, and to ensure you select an appropriate cluster size and Analyse/defragment the partition on a regular basis (this is a lot easier since a defrag tool has been included with windows - was an expensive additional 3rd party application pre W2k). Discussions arround cluster size could go on all day - check out the numerous articles on the Web.
Personally I would choose NTFS over FAT everytime.