AgEnTsMiTh Posted October 13, 2002 Share Posted October 13, 2002 There you go again!! LOL!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Posted October 13, 2002 Share Posted October 13, 2002 If you look at the proper one, you'll realize that the http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...b;en-us;Q100108 article was created in June of 1993, which was the one i was refering too. The one you post about FAT32 is recent. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Posted October 13, 2002 Share Posted October 13, 2002 Originally posted by xStainDx If you look at the proper one, you'll realize that the http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...b;en-us;Q100108 article was created in June of 1993, which was the one i was refering too. The one you post about FAT32 is recent. :) Coming into the discussion way late. I was going to point the obvious out, but xStainDx beat me to it. The other link that was posted is dated Aug 19 1996 12:00AM. So both are pretty old. I give my vote for NTFS hands down. FAT32 doesn't hold a candle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmark327 Posted November 7, 2002 Share Posted November 7, 2002 (edited) Originally posted by darkmark327 <br /><b>Oh yeah?<br /> <br /> dual booting to 9x </b> <br /><br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 1. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...b;en-us;Q100108<br /> 2. http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?...US;q154997&File <br /> <br /> Recovery? <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> 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. Well first, don't bother with recovery console; just set aside a 2GB partition and install a 2nd copy of windows there. As for Romeo: a) your FACTS are obsolete b) you can indeed recover from NTFS partitions, moreso than FAT32. I have experience with this (I recovered dozens of gigabytes from a messed up partition c) Cluster size is not irrelevant, and you cannot use small cluster sizes on any partition size, the FAT has a maximum size. Bigger disks will get 32k cluster sizes which sucks ass because you get a crapload of slack space. d) Me is the worst OS. Ever. e) FAT32 is only marginally faster on drives < 32 GB, and with small files NTFS is faster. The tangible difference when FAT32 is faster is all but irrelevant; NTFS's features are not. Running out of space? Compress your drive. Power failure (XP wouldn't crash on you, of course :cool: )? Big deal, your drive won't have errors. Running a web server? NTFS ACL's will keep you secure. Have files you only want you to access? Forget FAT32. I'll say it again. There is only one reason, not even a very good one any more, to use FAT32, and that is to dual boot to 9x (which is all but unnecessary anyway because 99% of software works on XP) or you could install NTFS drivers for those OS's which do exist, and then make FAT32 completely and totally irrelevant. Since you don't even read whole posts and resort to personal attacks, your comments are all but irrelevant anyway, but NTFS IS BETTER. Romeo, if you're going to have diarrhea of the mouth, at least back it up with relevant facts that aren't a decade old, not just mindless flaming. The fact that you didn't even read my post shows that you're just a troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted November 8, 2002 Share Posted November 8, 2002 (edited) People still think FAT32 is better than NTFS? Frightening. All I can say is refer to this anandtech.com article which gives a fine rundown of the differences between FAT32 and NTFS. NTFS > FAT32 Vlad Edit: Oops. Fixed URL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polishrob Posted November 8, 2002 Share Posted November 8, 2002 NTFS is much safer but FAT32 run games better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zivan56 Posted November 8, 2002 Share Posted November 8, 2002 I would use FAT32 if you plan to use to use other OS's on the same computer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Spaceman Posted November 8, 2002 Share Posted November 8, 2002 I use NTFS on my primary, and FAT32 on my secondary. This is due to me dual booting with Linux. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RomeoXP1.0.8.6. Posted November 9, 2002 Share Posted November 9, 2002 Fat32 is better for gaming and multi-booting. If you do those things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted November 9, 2002 Share Posted November 9, 2002 Fat32 is better for gaming and multi-booting. If you do those things. Actually, you should say "multi-booting with a non-NT based OS" and your comment about gaming is supported by what? Information so old is says NT 3.51? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ss1 Posted November 9, 2002 Share Posted November 9, 2002 Does Fat32 really loads games faster than NTFS? I guess the only reason I would use FAT32 would be if I wanted to dual boot with Linux since NTFS support is only read-only at the momment. ss1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japlabot Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Lightfast, you should be using the recovery console from the XP cd to fix any problems. How the hell do I use recovry console? I've got into it before but It doesn't work like MS-DOS so how do I use it? :no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigfoot Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 (edited) Lightfast, you should be using the recovery console from the XP cd to fix any problems. How the hell do I use recovry console? I've got into it before but It doesn't work like MS-DOS so how do I use it? :no: before the bootup screen show up press F8 ... then it will show you some stuff Like : Safe mode Recover cosole, Chose it then press enter .....i think thats it . :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Japlabot Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Lightfast, you should be using the recovery console from the XP cd to fix any problems. How the hell do I use recovry console? I've got into it before but It doesn't work like MS-DOS so how do I use it? :no: before the bootup screen show up press F8 ... then it will show you some stuff Like : Safe mode Recover cosole, Chose it then press enter .....i think thats it . :cool: I can get into it but how to I actually use it? what are the commands? how do I execute a program from it? :no: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Lightfast, you should be using the recovery console from the XP cd to fix any problems. How the hell do I use recovry console? I've got into it before but It doesn't work like MS-DOS so how do I use it? :no: before the bootup screen show up press F8 ... then it will show you some stuff Like : Safe mode Recover cosole, Chose it then press enter .....i think thats it . :cool: I can get into it but how to I actually use it? what are the commands? how do I execute a program from it? :no: Type 'HELP' at the command prompt to see the list of commands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobbe Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 I've heard that some people lose their NTFS partitions because the power just disappears and then they switch to FAT32. But, if NTFS locks itself due to power loss, isn't it possible to unlock it through repair console? It must be! (I use Win2k) I've used the console before but I'm not familiar with the commands. :( If NTFS has the same performance or better, then I will switch to NTFS next time I format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Critin Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Fat32 is better for gaming and multi-booting. If you do those things. Actually, you should say "multi-booting with a non-NT based OS" and your comment about gaming is supported by what? Information so old is says NT 3.51? Gosh, you should not tell people what or how to say things. Although the information on gaming is inaccurate...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joel Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 Fat32 is better for gaming and multi-booting. If you do those things. Actually, you should say "multi-booting with a non-NT based OS" and your comment about gaming is supported by what? Information so old is says NT 3.51? Gosh, you should not tell people what or how to say things. Although the information on gaming is inaccurate...... I said that because it is more accurate, FAT32 is not needed for multi-booting everything, just Win9x. And that's only if you want your Win9x to see files on the other boot OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmark327 Posted November 10, 2002 Share Posted November 10, 2002 even with 9x multibooting, there are NTFS drivers you can find for said OS's other than that NTFS is better in EVERY WAY...unless you have small (<32 GB IIRC) partitions in which case FAT32 is marginally faster. But NTFS is faster on large partitions and with small files, plus the cluster size isn't dependent on disk size...FAT32 partitions on large drives suck up slack space REALLY quick. Plus, NTFS gives you transparent (with slight performance loss...use it on infrequently accessed files) compression, and you can't beat the stability. For the most part, it doesn't suffer from any errors on unplanned shutdowns (not that the NT OS's crash anyway) and if you run web services the security is a must. Want to keep files private on FAT32? Too bad. With NTFS it's a simple matter to set up the ACL's. There is absolutely no reason to use the dreaded FAT unless you need backwards compatibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.Critin Posted November 11, 2002 Share Posted November 11, 2002 even with 9x multibooting, there are NTFS drivers you can find for said OS'sother than that NTFS is better in EVERY WAY...unless you have small (<32 GB IIRC) partitions in which case FAT32 is marginally faster. ?But NTFS is faster on large partitions and with small files, plus the cluster size isn't dependent on disk size...FAT32 partitions on large drives suck up slack space REALLY quick. Plus, NTFS gives you transparent (with slight performance loss...use it on infrequently accessed files) compression, and you can't beat the stability. For the most part, it doesn't suffer from any errors on unplanned shutdowns (not that the NT OS's crash anyway) and if you run web services the security is a must. ?Want to keep files private on FAT32? Too bad. With NTFS it's a simple matter to set up the ACL's. ?There is absolutely no reason to use the dreaded FAT unless you need backwards compatibility. Okay, maybe so. I still am not convinced. Anyway, I do boot with Windows Me. Not just one but two versions. It's a private story. But The one helps me understand the other. And if I run into problems in XP, Me does come in handy to trouble shoot. Like a recent problem I had. Additionally, I don't need to install every program that I need/want on XP. The fewer the better, only what I need/what keeping it to a minimum. Things run better, easier to manage that way. Anyway I am tired of the poo. NTFS IS BETTER THAN FAT32. NOW EVERYONE CAN JUST SHUTUP ABOUT IT ALREADY. I still believe it's an individual thing. It's not better for everyone, certainly not me. I mean Me too. You know what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epton Posted November 11, 2002 Share Posted November 11, 2002 you told a guy not to tell people how to say things, but now you tell us to shut up. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGMW Posted November 11, 2002 Share Posted November 11, 2002 How many more of these "FAT32 v. NTFS" threads must there be?! By the way NTFS is better all around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selecta Posted November 11, 2002 Share Posted November 11, 2002 i use every of them, thats better :) :alien: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DREN Posted November 11, 2002 Share Posted November 11, 2002 Anyway I am tired of the poo. NTFS IS BETTER THAN FAT32. NOW EVERYONE CAN JUST SHUTUP ABOUT IT ALREADY. I still believe it's an individual thing. It's not better for everyone, certainly not me. I mean Me too. You know what I mean. I have to agree. This debate is stupid. It should not continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xpfreak Posted November 11, 2002 Share Posted November 11, 2002 yup imho ntfs is the best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts