do i choose NTFS or FAT 32

Page 2 of 3 [ 45 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

gamefreak
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Dec 2006
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,119
Location: Citrus County, Florida

11 Jan 2009, 6:16 pm

Keith wrote:

It's better to do FAT32, NTFS can be read by Ubuntu but with some attributes set, sometimes writing to or modifying anything on that hard drive can be troublesome or not bother. NTFS and FAT have their advantages and dsadvantages

FAT
1) Any OS can read it (except Windows 95A and lower)
2) There are no limitations
3) 4GB maximum file size
4) It's standard format by most manufacturers, such as SanDisk and Memory Stick
5) minimum cluster size is about 2Kbytes but increases according to partition type which is ideal for many larger files

NTFS
1) Good security
2) Compression enables more space
3) Encryption is possible
4) Minimum cluster size is 512bytes

Bad points
FAT
1) Not secure
2) Anyone can read the filesystem
3) Unstable, corruption usually leads to loss of files
4) Limited size at 2TB with 64Kbyte cluster size this would increase to 4TB

NTFS
1) Security usually leaves restrictions to other operating systems
2) Older operating systems can't read it, DOS based Windows (1 through 4.10.3000)
3) Corruption appears to recover file, but can only recover the remains, the contents are garbled

There are more points for each, but I can't remember them all

Using third party software you can switch between the two without loss. Depending on the operating system you use, I would set it up for that. If you use Linux, I would recommend ext* or similar. For Mac OS, I would suggest whatever filesystem that uses and so on. If you are using it cross platforms, I would recommend FAT. Depending on size, it could be FAT32 or FAT32

Its also faster to boot up Windows XP w/ Fat32 than NTFS on the same hardware. Watched a Youtube video about it.

xxrobertoxx
Raven
Raven

Joined: 6 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 121
Location: Ohio

11 Jan 2009, 6:32 pm

Orwell wrote:

gamefreak wrote:

Use NTFS, It is a lot more efficient and it can handle file coping easier.

NTFS is better, but the issue is in compatibility- Linux and NTFS do not play nice, whereas FAT has been around for so long that everyone supports it, even if it isn't the best thing out there.

The newer versions of Ubuntu can both read and write to NTFS just fine.

lau
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,798
Location: Somerset UK

11 Jan 2009, 7:31 pm

xxrobertoxx wrote:

Orwell wrote:

gamefreak wrote:

Use NTFS, It is a lot more efficient and it can handle file coping easier.

NTFS is better, but the issue is in compatibility- Linux and NTFS do not play nice, whereas FAT has been around for so long that everyone supports it, even if it isn't the best thing out there.

The newer versions of Ubuntu can both read and write to NTFS just fine.

... until Microsoft decide to arbitrarily change their definition of NTFS.

_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer

pakled
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,015

12 Jan 2009, 1:21 am

Had me going for a sec; you missed a '32' on the FAT part. I've installed OS's since Dos 2.1, but that was FAT, which is quite different from FAT 32 (I seem to remember it couldn't recognize more than 2 Gig...but that was a lot back then.

No big woop... back to the discussion.

xxrobertoxx
Raven
Raven

Joined: 6 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 121
Location: Ohio

12 Jan 2009, 1:29 am

gamefreak wrote:

Keith wrote:

Its also faster to boot up Windows XP w/ Fat32 than NTFS on the same hardware. Watched a Youtube video about it.

I don't believe that, NTFS is faster and more efficient than FAT32 and there is no way a computer with everything exactly the same as the other except for FAT32 vs NTFS that FAT32 would boot faster than the NTFS one would. NTFS is way better and there are two versions of it also, NTFS v4 and NTFS v5 which is the one that supports encryption and compression I believe. You need Win XP SP2 or above to do NTFSv5 and Vista and Windows 7 use NTFSv5 by default.

Keith
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,321
Location: East Sussex, UK

12 Jan 2009, 2:17 am

There are numerous different FAT versions
12
12B
16
32
32X

And probably a few more. Nearly everything can read the very common FAT16 and lower

lemon
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Aug 2006
Age: 57
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,113
Location: belgium

12 Jan 2009, 11:26 am

oh, i got a lot to read here, thanks for the input ! !

(My old Ubuntu 7.04 Feisty doesn't want to put any files on the NTFS, but Ubuntu 8.04 Hardy has no trouble with it)
so first i thought this NTFS seems interesting, if I ever want to store video, but at the same time the moment I'll decide to throw myself into video editing, I'll probably need a new disk to store it anyway.

so that makes me go back to FAT 32.
(sorry lau, the page about EXT2 is Chinese for me)

I still don't understand what exactly happens when 'one looses data',
what does that really mean?

Seb
Blue Jay

Joined: 29 Dec 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 83
Location: England

12 Jan 2009, 11:27 am

Ubuntu waited for the read and write NTFS driver to become stable, and it has been built into Ubuntu since the Gutsy Gibbon October 2007 release. Since Gutsy we have had Hardy Heron and Intrepid Ibex. It's great how many distros come out with a new version every six months. With Ubuntu it's April and October (, unless a delay which only happened once).

lau wrote:

http://ext2fsd.sourceforge.net/

Yes or http://www.fs-driver.org there seems to be at least one more, because last year I found something, but never tried it and can't remember it's name now, but I could find it again I guess.

With these Windows Ext3 reading drivers they turn off any built in distro/filesystem security, as a result you should be very careful not to delete an important system file, if using one of these drivers. Just like people that are using the NTFS reading and writing driver from Linux on the Windows partition, should be careful not to delete one of it's important system files.

_________________
Please don't use Internet Explorer!
http://dmiessler.com/writing/dumpie/

The Ubuntu Linux Distribution OS is a very good Windows alternative!
http://ubuntu.com http://kubuntu.org http://xubuntu.org http://edubuntu.org

t0
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 726
Location: The 4 Corners of the 4th Dimension

12 Jan 2009, 12:23 pm

lau wrote:

And no one has pointed out... FAT32 is a standard, but NTFS is a proprietary format, supported only by Microsoft, and subject to change at their whim.

I don't believe the last part is true. Due to the Justice Department lawsuit, MS had to document NTFS (among other things) and give said documentation to third-party vendors at a price mandated by the court. Changes also have to be documented and reported so that such vendors can release new versions of their software in step with new versions of Windows.

It's also quite unlikely that MS would change NTFS in any dramatic fashion as it would break previously formatted NTFS drives.

lau
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Age: 76
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,798
Location: Somerset UK

12 Jan 2009, 2:02 pm

t0 wrote:

lau wrote:

And no one has pointed out... FAT32 is a standard, but NTFS is a proprietary format, supported only by Microsoft, and subject to change at their whim.

I don't believe the last part is true. Due to the Justice Department lawsuit, MS had to document NTFS (among other things) and give said documentation to third-party vendors at a price mandated by the court. Changes also have to be documented and reported so that such vendors can release new versions of their software in step with new versions of Windows.

It's also quite unlikely that MS would change NTFS in any dramatic fashion as it would break previously formatted NTFS drives.

(my emboldening).

Note that Linux is not a "vendor".

I do rather think you eventually agreed with what I was saying.

Although it is unlikely that MS would break THEIR formatted drives, there is no guarantee of that.

E.g. they could suddenly decide that a single bit in a directory entry for a file, which is currently clear, now means:

NTFS clever bit wrote:

This file must be authorised as an approved Microsoft file, resident on on a genuine Microsoft approved storage medium, while running a properly registered version of Windows 7, with the Microsoft website, and will be deleted for being in violation of the new NTFS policy if said checks are not performed by January the first, 2010.

_________________
"Striking up conversations with strangers is an autistic person's version of extreme sports." Kamran Nazeer

falcorn
Blue Jay

Joined: 28 Oct 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 89

12 Jan 2009, 5:43 pm

ntfs of course why is this even a question?

mixtapebooty
Deinonychus

Joined: 25 Dec 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Female
Posts: 381
Location: Richmond, Va

12 Jan 2009, 6:30 pm

Does anyone else have a crush on Mark Shuttleworth?

Anyway, NTFS if running Ibex. I did a dual boot with XP and Ibex. f**k FAT32. Now I'm Ibex solo, and never returning to the days of OS cold wars.

The wall separating your partitions must fall.

Keith
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,321
Location: East Sussex, UK

13 Jan 2009, 3:42 am

Why do you think many storage devices are already formatted in FAT32 ? For compatibility with pretty much everything that's going to use it.

Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

13 Jan 2009, 4:37 am

Its interesting to note that the larger thumb drives, such as xD cards are not using ntfs. Anyone know why?

_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.

Keith
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,321
Location: East Sussex, UK

13 Jan 2009, 7:18 am

As I stated, it's for compatibility and for ease of use. There are no standards to adhere to, and pretty much everything will be able to read it without having to worry about encryption, etc. Which, isn't really needed

Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

13 Jan 2009, 7:30 am

No i meant the larger sized ones all seem to require a USB interface device because they use a proprietary file system rather than ntfs. The small ones, as you said are FAT16 or FAT32.

_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.

Page 2 of 3 [ 45 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

do i choose NTFS or FAT 32 Post Reply New Topic

do i choose NTFS or FAT 32