fat32 or ntfs

[AgEnTsMiTh]

You truley show how little you know of the difference in file systems. I suggest that you read up on NTFS and FAT32 and FAT16 for that matter. Untill then, please resort to posting information you have more of a clue about.

Not trying to bust your nut but honestly you have no idea what your talking about.

If you want to use FAT32 have at it knock yourself out no one cares, but for gods sake dont comment that its better when fact is it is not. Anyone who knows anything regarding this subject will also confirm that NTFS is better.

[RomeoXP1.0.8.6.]

Originally posted by AgEnTsMiTh

You truley show how little you know of the difference in file systems. I don't know sh*t and won't shutup. Inform me if have more of a clue about it. Not trying to bust my nut but honestly I have no idea what I'm talking about.

If I want to use FAT32 have at it knock myself out everyone cares, but for good sake dont comment that its not better when fact is it is. Anyone who knows anything regarding this subject will also confirm that FAT is butter.

Damn, whiny little B*tch. You can't respect anyone having an opinion other than your own. See here in the USA, people are free to voice an opinion. So I will not stop presenting mine. As I am certain you won't stop farting your's out of your butt. So leave well enough alone already.

And yes FAT32 is better, maybe not for you, but for me and many others it is.

[Joel]

Can anyone give a reason why FAT32 would be better than NTFS?

Please no "Windows9x/linux can read it".

Because if not, I agree with AgEnTsMiTh's comments. Too much has been said in this thread that is just plain WRONG. Repeatedly saying that FAT32 is better doesn't make it right.

[AgEnTsMiTh]

I would 100 percent agree with you and what your saying but I am not presenting my opinion I am stating a well known fact. Again your post shows not only how unintelligent that you really are by comments about farting out opinions etc, but stating that FAT32 is a better file structure. AGAIN if that floats your boat have fun, I am talking about facts here, NOT opinions. Grow up next time you post.

I also suggest you think about how you post, starting a flame war via vulgar insults is a good way to get in trouble. Keep that in mind for the future.

[thollian]

just switched to ntfs a week ago, and like it better then fat32, it faster, and I got more space after I converted, and the sytem boots allot faster!! and my system now defrag 100% now, on both hd

[RomeoXP1.0.8.6.]

Originally posted by AgEnTsMiTh

I would 100 percent agree with you and what your saying but I am not presenting........a well known fact. FAT32 is a better file structure. AGAIN if that floats your boat have fun, I am talking about farts here, NOT onions. I grow up next time you post.

I also suggest you think about how you post, I started a flame war via insults that is a good way to get in trouble. Keep that in mind for the future.

Punk, you started insulting me. Just cause you can't handle it crybaby, does not mean someone else isn't presenting facts. I have also presented facts as well as opinion. Opinions are often based on facts. I see how unintelligent you are.

I suggest you not insult people just cause you can't handle their opinion or fact. Whether insults are "vulgar" or not, it is still wrong. So if you bite, prepare to be bitten. Keep that in mind for the future.

[RomeoXP1.0.8.6.]

Originally posted by joshguy180

just switched to ntfs a week ago, and like it better then fat32, it faster, and I got more space after I converted, and the sytem boots allot faster!! and my system now defrag 100% now, on both hd

Good for YOU!;)

[RomeoXP1.0.8.6.]

I hope by now our Flame War is over.

As it is, there are reasons to NTFS. Then there are reasons to stay FAT32. I have used NTFS and do not see much improvement in performance (as well as many others). In fact since I have a multi-boot system, it behooves me to keep things FAT32. And in that respect, FAT32 is better. NTFS offers things that FAT32 does not, and FAT32 offers some things NTFS cannot. So to say one is better than the other is only opinion, all be it one's view of facts. Shurely you have the intelligence to understand that.

[darkmark327]

the bottom line is this:

definitely use NTFS unless

a) you need a 9x OS on the same machine to access this data (over the network will be translated) or

b) you have a very small partition/drive

NTFS is faster, more secure, more robust, better in every way. FAT32 is marginally faster on small partition

[darkmark327]

lol these FAT32/NTFS discussions are as heated as Mac/PC and AMD/Intel...

AMD is cheaper but Intel has better performance

Macs look nice but have no practical advantage over PC...PC's on the other hand do have more apps and hardware options, and have gaming capabilities

NTFS is better in every way unless you dual boot to 9x or have a small drive

[AgEnTsMiTh]

I would appreciate if you would not modify my posts when you quote me. And who is crying? you seem to be the only cry baby here. I stated FACTS not an opinion. And everyone here has said the same thing.

[RomeoXP1.0.8.6.]

Originally posted by AgEnTsMiTh

I would appreciate if you would modify my posts when you quote me. And am I crying? Cause you seem to be the one cute baby here. I started FARTS not an onions. And everyone here has said the same thing about me.

So you do want to continue the WAR. Okay.:) POINT IN FACT, EVERY POST YOU DO YOU STATE OPINION. TRULY YOU ARE NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO REALIZE THAT FACT.

As it is, NTFS offers some security feaures, disk usage, fault tolerance that FAT32 does not. On the other hand, FAT32 allows greater compatibility, file recovery, easily fits on small partitions, and still uses small cluster sizes to 4kb. As for speed, VERY large drives, say 80gig or higher would have some speed over FAT32 if they were NTFS. And in that case NTFS would be a better choice. Otherwise, for most people who have partitions of 10gig or less, FAT32 can be a bit faster. These FACTS are from MICROSOFT. You can dispute them if you want. But the FACTS PROVE THAT MY STATEMENTS OF FACT ARE VALID, ERGO MY OPINION ESTABLISHED THEREUPON IS ALSO VALID.

Now whining ony part of the story to support your BELIEF that NTFS is better does show your lack of intelligence, how much of a crybaby you are, and that you are stating just OPINION, although it be based in half the FACT.

CLEARLY PUT NTFS IS ONLY BETTER IF YOU USE THOSE FEATURES THAT FAT32 CANNOT PROVIDE. EQUALLY SO, FAT32 IS BETTER IF THOSE FEATURES YOU USE NTFS CANNOT PROVIDE.

TO SAY ONE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER IS JUST STUPID.

[wired57]

Bleh Bleh Bleh

just use ntfs and shut up.

[RomeoXP1.0.8.6.]

Originally posted by wired57

just use ntfs and shut up.

Yeah Smith.:p

[darkmark327]

Originally posted by RomeoXP1.0.8.6.

So you do want to continue the WAR. Okay.:) POINT IN FACT, EVERY POST YOU DO YOU STATE OPINION. TRULY YOU ARE NOT INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO REALIZE THAT FACT.

Oh yeah?

..."On the other hand, FAT32 allows greater compatibility, "

granted

"file recovery, "

bzzt! ntfs is far more recoverable than fat

"easily fits on small partitions,"

granted

"and still uses small cluster sizes to 4kb."

bzzt! only for small drives...most of the time you will wind up with 32k...hello, slack space. NTFS allows for any cluster size, and partition size. Don't forget compression too

" As for speed, VERY large drives, say 80gig or higher would have some speed over FAT32 if they were NTFS. And in that case NTFS would be a better choice. "

that's not very large these days, and it's more like 30-40 gig, not 80. The difference is barely noticable anyway

"Otherwise, for most people who have partitions of 10gig or less, FAT32 can be a bit faster. "

again, granted

These FACTS are from MICROSOFT. You can dispute them if you want. But the FACTS PROVE THAT MY STATEMENTS OF FACT ARE VALID, ERGO MY OPINION ESTABLISHED THEREUPON IS ALSO VALID.

"Now whining ony part of the story to support your BELIEF that NTFS is better does show your lack of intelligence, how much of a crybaby you are, and that you are stating just OPINION, although it be based in half the FACT."

too bad half your facts are wrong

CLEARLY PUT NTFS IS ONLY BETTER IF YOU USE THOSE FEATURES THAT FAT32 CANNOT PROVIDE. EQUALLY SO, FAT32 IS BETTER IF THOSE FEATURES YOU USE NTFS CANNOT PROVIDE.

again only small drives and compatibility

TO SAY ONE IS BETTER THAN THE OTHER IS JUST STUPID.

again, NTFS is better in every situation except small drives and dual booting to 9x

[RomeoXP1.0.8.6.]

Originally posted by darkmark327

Oh yeah?

dual booting to 9x

Well I can see you have an OPINION. Although it is ignoring the facts given out by MS. And similiarly unintelligent, the post was for Agentsmith not you. But try these links FOR FACTS.

1. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...b;en-us;Q100108

2. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...US;q154997&File

Recovery?

Ever delete a file on NTFS and wish you hadn't? Cause that's all you can do. With FAT32 you can recover deleted files. Cluster size? Me does the same damn thing. Good for only small drives? As long as your definition is that anything smaller than 80gigs is small.

I did not take the time to read all of your crap. You just have an anger problem. You should go see a therapist. SERIOUSLY.

Is that bzzt stuff a fairy thing? Do u dress up in women's clothes?If you are female, might wanna stop the bzzt stuff anyway.

[RomeoXP1.0.8.6.]

Originally posted by darkmark327

Oh yeah?

..."On the other hand, Bleh bleh bleh bleh. Bleh bleh bleh dual booting to 9x

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by wired57

Bleh bleh bleh

just use ntfs and shut up.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah.

[AgEnTsMiTh]

Now your starting a flame with another member making rude comments, guess your going to have to learn the hard way. I like how you slam people for NTFS FACTS and then you say this is USA we can ALL have an opinion yet you are doing exactly the opposite. You have an attitidue problem and no one here wants to listen to your droll and read your constant spam.

Again the only reason to use FAT32 is for small drives and for dual booting with a previous version of Windows. No one is slaming you for using FAT32, we dont care. You can think what you like do what you like. Now stop the attacks on other members when they correct your statements and they are not doing it with hate, unlike you and your rude hatefull childish postings.

[arsekicker]

I think RomeoXP has some issues.

#1 - calls himself Romeo

#2 - runs windows me

#3 - changes quotes

#4 - believes FAT32 is a superior filesystem to NTFS

#5 - insults people because he cannot disprove their facts.

#6 - his posts are just ****ing annoying warm cuddly **** towards outdated technologies.

[RomeoXP1.0.8.6.]

Originally posted by arsekicker

I think RomeoXP has some issues.

And you are a Real genius. I mean to actually have a thought...Cause you sure as hell can't read for sh*t.

1. It's just a name. arsekicker? You certainly kicked arse with that post.

2. It's just an OS. You obviously don't know how to use

3. So what? It's my post.

4. I don't believe I ever said FAT32 is superior. You can't read, that must be a problem

5. maybe so. In your opinion (demented and hostile that it is).

Issues? Probably almost everyone does. It is part of being human. Oh, I think you might not be quite human. Sorry.

Me outdated? Not yet. 98se is though.

[configure Veteran]

Please continue the discussion in a calm manner. No one will stop you from debating on NTFS vs. FAT32 but all I ask is just some little decency and try not to offend other member because then it will no longer be a discussion of NTFS vs. FAT but rather a discussion of who's a bigger idiots.

[AgEnTsMiTh]

Thank you Configure.

[Steven]

Originally posted by RomeoXP1.0.8.6.

Well I can see you have an OPINION. Although it is ignoring the facts given out by MS. And similiarly unintelligent, the post was for Agentsmith not you. But try these links FOR FACTS.

1. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...b;en-us;Q100108

2. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...US;q154997&File

Recovery?

Ever delete a file on NTFS and wish you hadn't? Cause that's all you can do. With FAT32 you can recover deleted files. Cluster size? Me does the same damn thing. Good for only small drives? As long as your definition is that anything smaller than 80gigs is small.

I did not take the time to read all of your crap. You just have an anger problem. You should go see a therapist. SERIOUSLY.

Is that bzzt stuff a fairy thing? Do u dress up in women's clothes?If you are female, might wanna stop the bzzt stuff anyway.

Yeah facts that about 10 years old :right: :rolleyes: :dead:

Notice that the document talks about NTFS in NT 3.1, and NT4 :s

The NTFS thats in 2000 and XP is far more advanced than that of the old.

[RomeoXP1.0.8.6.]

Originally posted by configure

Please continue the discussion in a calm manner. No one will stop you from debating on NTFS vs. FAT32 but all I ask is just some little decency and try not to offend other member because then it will no longer be a discussion of NTFS vs. FAT but rather a discussion of who's a bigger idiots.

Good idea. It was fun though.

[aco Veteran]

Originally posted by RomeoXP1.0.8.6.

Good idea. It was fun though.

I won't respond the idiot before this post.

That's the whole idea, don't call people idiots. You may disagree with what they say but don't attack them personally. You're lucky xStainDx is a moderator.