FAT 32 Or NTFS For New PC's Second HD ?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Robert11, Nov 17, 2004.

  1. Robert11

    Robert11 Guest

    Hello:

    Just ordered a new PC (finally) with XP

    Have it coming with a SATA 160 GB HD.

    Will be putting in a second SATA HD myself, as I like
    the idea of two, for backups, video, etc.

    Not too sharp with this stuff.

    Do I want to format the new disk as FAT 32 or NTFS ?

    Why ?

    What are the major differences, please ?

    Thanks,
    Bob
     
    Robert11, Nov 17, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Robert11

    Lisa Guest

    You sound like a bit of a newbie. I vote FAT 32. Everyone can give you
    different advice on this.
    Fat32 - bootable on standard win 98 diskettes and can move around in "Dos"
    if necessary

    There's definite valid and strong arguments you're going to be likely to
    hear for NTFS.

    "Robert11" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hello:
    >
    > Just ordered a new PC (finally) with XP
    >
    > Have it coming with a SATA 160 GB HD.
    >
    > Will be putting in a second SATA HD myself, as I like
    > the idea of two, for backups, video, etc.
    >
    > Not too sharp with this stuff.
    >
    > Do I want to format the new disk as FAT 32 or NTFS ?
    >
    > Why ?
    >
    > What are the major differences, please ?
    >
    > Thanks,
    > Bob
     
    Lisa, Nov 17, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert11

    Robert11 Guest

    Hi,

    Thanks for help.

    Can I format a HD as big as 120 GB with FAT 32 ?

    I "heard" that you couldn't use it for formatting over, I think it was,
    about 32 GB ?

    Also, why do you like it better ?

    Bob
    ----------
    "Lisa" <> wrote in message
    news:G0Imd.25407$...
    > You sound like a bit of a newbie. I vote FAT 32. Everyone can give you
    > different advice on this.
    > Fat32 - bootable on standard win 98 diskettes and can move around in "Dos"
    > if necessary
    >
    > There's definite valid and strong arguments you're going to be likely to
    > hear for NTFS.
    >
    > "Robert11" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Hello:
    > >
    > > Just ordered a new PC (finally) with XP
    > >
    > > Have it coming with a SATA 160 GB HD.
    > >
    > > Will be putting in a second SATA HD myself, as I like
    > > the idea of two, for backups, video, etc.
    > >
    > > Not too sharp with this stuff.
    > >
    > > Do I want to format the new disk as FAT 32 or NTFS ?
    > >
    > > Why ?
    > >
    > > What are the major differences, please ?
    > >
    > > Thanks,
    > > Bob

    >
    >
     
    Robert11, Nov 17, 2004
    #3
  4. Robert11

    127.0.0.1 Guest

    "Lisa" <> wrote in message
    news:G0Imd.25407$...
    > You sound like a bit of a newbie. I vote FAT 32. Everyone can give you
    > different advice on this.
    > Fat32 - bootable on standard win 98 diskettes and can move around in "Dos"
    > if necessary
    >
    > There's definite valid and strong arguments you're going to be likely to
    > hear for NTFS.
    >


    heh, why would anyone want to use win 98 diskettes? Bart PE is the current
    recovery/boot CD.
    my weakest argument for using NTFS: FAT32 is outdated. if you have a new
    updated PC, then it makes common sense to use NTFS.

    -a|ex
     
    127.0.0.1, Nov 17, 2004
    #4
  5. In article <iVKmd.1945$> 127.0.0.1 <get.rooted@localhost> wrote:
    >
    >"Lisa" <> wrote in message
    >news:G0Imd.25407$...
    >> You sound like a bit of a newbie. I vote FAT 32. Everyone can give you
    >> different advice on this.
    >> Fat32 - bootable on standard win 98 diskettes and can move around in "Dos"
    >> if necessary
    >>
    >> There's definite valid and strong arguments you're going to be likely to
    >> hear for NTFS.
    >>

    >
    >heh, why would anyone want to use win 98 diskettes? Bart PE is the current
    >recovery/boot CD.
    >my weakest argument for using NTFS: FAT32 is outdated. if you have a new
    >updated PC, then it makes common sense to use NTFS.


    Life is a bridge. Cross over it, but build no house on it.

    >-a|ex


    Rotating two electric microsigularities at high speed, we are able to
    create and modify a local gravity sinusoid thereby replicating the
    affects of a Kerr black hole.

    --
    Lady Chatterly

    "And while you're at it, pull your head out your ass, since, judging
    from the know-it-all, smug, pseudo-intellectual and arrogant tone of
    your posts, that's where it's been for a long time" -- Ed
     
    Lady Chatterly, Nov 17, 2004
    #5
  6. Robert11

    Ron Martell Guest

    "Robert11" <> wrote:

    > Hello:
    >
    >Just ordered a new PC (finally) with XP
    >
    >Have it coming with a SATA 160 GB HD.
    >
    >Will be putting in a second SATA HD myself, as I like
    >the idea of two, for backups, video, etc.
    >
    >Not too sharp with this stuff.
    >
    >Do I want to format the new disk as FAT 32 or NTFS ?
    >
    >Why ?
    >
    >What are the major differences, please ?
    >
    >Thanks,
    >Bob


    Is Windows XP the only operating system you are going to install on
    this computer?

    If so then I suggest that you use NTFS on the new drive.

    1. NTFS is more robust and much less likely to develop data structure
    problems (lost clusters etc) than FAT32.
    2. Windows XP will not create or format FAT32 partitions larger than
    32 gb, although it will use them once they have been created and
    formatted by some other means.
    3. The practical limit for FAT32 partitions is 128 gb (4.1 million
    total clusters with a 32K cluster size). Larger partitions, while
    possible, can be problematic for most disk recovery tools including
    Windows 9x Scandisk and Defrag, and also Norton Utilities.

    Good luck


    Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
    --
    Microsoft MVP
    On-Line Help Computer Service
    http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

    "The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
     
    Ron Martell, Nov 17, 2004
    #6
  7. Robert11

    Lisa Guest

    I totally agree with all that NTFS is superior. But...for a newbie or
    novice...I still recommend FAT32 - as ease of recovery in failures in
    increased (ie the persons 15 year old kid has a friend who can make a boot
    disk so you can copy off the vital word DOC that you need for tomorrows
    meeting). Surely for anyone of technical savvy, or corporations/networking
    environments, NTFS is a no brainier.


    "Ron Martell" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Robert11" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Hello:
    >>
    >>Just ordered a new PC (finally) with XP
    >>
    >>Have it coming with a SATA 160 GB HD.
    >>
    >>Will be putting in a second SATA HD myself, as I like
    >>the idea of two, for backups, video, etc.
    >>
    >>Not too sharp with this stuff.
    >>
    >>Do I want to format the new disk as FAT 32 or NTFS ?
    >>
    >>Why ?
    >>
    >>What are the major differences, please ?
    >>
    >>Thanks,
    >>Bob

    >
    > Is Windows XP the only operating system you are going to install on
    > this computer?
    >
    > If so then I suggest that you use NTFS on the new drive.
    >
    > 1. NTFS is more robust and much less likely to develop data structure
    > problems (lost clusters etc) than FAT32.
    > 2. Windows XP will not create or format FAT32 partitions larger than
    > 32 gb, although it will use them once they have been created and
    > formatted by some other means.
    > 3. The practical limit for FAT32 partitions is 128 gb (4.1 million
    > total clusters with a 32K cluster size). Larger partitions, while
    > possible, can be problematic for most disk recovery tools including
    > Windows 9x Scandisk and Defrag, and also Norton Utilities.
    >
    > Good luck
    >
    >
    > Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
    > --
    > Microsoft MVP
    > On-Line Help Computer Service
    > http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
    >
    > "The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
     
    Lisa, Nov 18, 2004
    #7
  8. Robert11

    Dick M. Guest

    What cluster size is best for NTFS?
    Dick


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    If so then I suggest that you use NTFS on the new drive.

    1. NTFS is more robust and much less likely to develop data structure
    problems (lost clusters etc) than FAT32.
    2. Windows XP will not create or format FAT32 partitions larger than
    32 gb, although it will use them once they have been created and
    formatted by some other means.
    3. The practical limit for FAT32 partitions is 128 gb (4.1 million
    total clusters with a 32K cluster size). Larger partitions, while
    possible, can be problematic for most disk recovery tools including
    Windows 9x Scandisk and Defrag, and also Norton Utilities.

    Good luck


    Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
    --
    Microsoft MVP
    On-Line Help Computer Service
    http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

    "The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."
     
    Dick M., Nov 18, 2004
    #8
  9. Robert11

    mhicaoidh Guest

    Taking a moment's reflection, Dick M. mused:
    |
    | What cluster size is best for NTFS?

    It's generally accepted that 4k is best for civilians. ;-)
     
    mhicaoidh, Nov 19, 2004
    #9
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ilmc
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    455
  2. Ralph Wade Phillips

    Re: Installing/Converting Windows NT 4.0 Fat OS Onto NTFS HD

    Ralph Wade Phillips, Aug 7, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    480
    chino2
    Aug 7, 2003
  3. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,020
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  4. Peter

    Re: Fat lenses can be fat targets

    Peter, Jul 3, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    561
    David Kerber
    Aug 10, 2010
  5. Robert Coe

    Re: Fat lenses can be fat targets

    Robert Coe, Jul 4, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    426
    John McWilliams
    Jul 4, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page