NTFS vs FAT32

This question pertains to Windows 2000 Professional. Should the HD always be converted to NTFS when using 2k as the OS? The computer in question is for home use only. Passwords and additional security are not important. It is my understanding that if the HD is rather small, the file structure should remain as FAT32. My number one concern is performance - nothing else. Is there a rule of thumb when a HD should remain FAT32 or should all HD's be converted regardless of size. Thanks.

 

Hello jackpan,

Keeping in mind that my experience is with XP, I dual boot two XP installations, one NTFS, 40 gig drive, the other FAT32, 80 gig drive. Also have USB connected data drives, all of which are NTFS - from 20 gig to 40 gig. No problems or issues if you're worried about NTFS and small HD's

My experience is that the NTFS volume fragments much less and that files of roughly equal size seem to take less room, though I can't quantify that because the files are never exactly the same size.

The other consideration is that from my reading about the two file systems, overall, NTFS has less probability of developing file errors/corruption. I haven't ever experienced those kinds of problems with FAT32 personally.

Regards - Charles

 

I really can't recommend FAT32 for any partition over 8GB because past that point, the NTFS cluster size remains at 4kb but FAT32 increases as the partition size increases which makes less of your drive available to you. Basically, a cluster is the smallest chunk of drive space a file can use so if any part is used, the entire cluster is marked as unavailable. This means that if a file occupies 1 byte of a cluster, the rest is not available so if you are losing 8kb chunks it is less efficient than if you are losing 4kb chunks and 16/32 is even worse.

Code:

Partition Size     Cluster Size 
NTFS - any size       4KB

FAT32
less than 260MB      512 Bytes 
260MB through 8GB     4KB 
8GB through 16GB      8KB 
16GB through 32GB    16KB 
32GB through 2TB     32KB 

I personally don't use FAT32 at all regardless of partition size since I find NTFS more stable and less affected by fragmentation in addition to being more secure.

I honestly don't know which is 'faster' though.

 

Much thanks to both Charles and Newt. Great information. It's funny how an answer can generate a new question. I'm convinced. The small laptop will use NTFS. Now the new question. My desktop has been running Win98SE flawlessly. Not an ounce of trouble. Would an upgrade to Windows 2000 be worth while? The desktop has an 800 MHz processor, 20GB HD with 512MB RAM. If I upgraded would I notice a difference in performance? Thanks again to you both.

 

98 -> 2000 - hmmmm. Yes, no, maybe.

Yes only because Microsoft support for 98 isn't great and will be getting worse. Security patching especially. There are a few things you cannot protect a DOS based system against and 98 is purely a GUI running on top of DOS. 2K uses the NT engine and there isn't a bit of DOS under there anywhere.

I like W2K myself and am running it on a laptop that isn't quite robust enough for XP. I'd expect performance to be about on par with 98. Possible exception would be if you have any old (old) DOS based apps. Several database products but mostly games. Some will simply not run on any NT based system due to the way they were written. Uncommon but it happens.

I'd say that at some point in the not too distant future you will have to get rid of 98 but as of right now, you don't. That being said, some of our die-hard 9X fans have switched and seem happy with the results.

 

You are correct - an upgrade is in order sometime in the near future. What I fear the most is the upgrade not installing smoothly. On my laptop I ran a clean install - fdisk, format c:, etc. The install went great. The desktop on the other hand will be an upgrade. Can you point me in the right direction for specific instructions on how to upgrade safely? The desktop is a Hewlett Packard Vectra 400. The HP support page is one of the best websites I have ever visited.

http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsuppor...odSeriesId=32853&prodTypeId=12454&swEnvOID=20

I want to upgrade using NTFS however I want all programs to remain intact. If some don't work after the upgrade, it's no big deal. What I need is a set of logical steps to follow starting perhaps with a BIOS upgrade. I would really appreciate any tips or recommendations you can provide.

 

Hi Jackpan,

A link to Arie's page for XP installation, both for upgrades and clean installs:

http://www.helpwithwindows.com/WindowsXP/setup.html

Regards - Charles

 

I'm looking for upgrade info for Windows 2000. Nothing on the page you suggested pertains to a 2k upgrade.

 

Hi Jackpan,

Right - not used to posting in wk2 section, I'll see if I can track down one specifically for wk2.

EDIT: misread your post - so used to XP.

Regards - Charles

 

Ok, found one. Looks to be thorough: http://www.dewassoc.com/support/win2000/upgradewin2k.htm

Regards - Charles

 

jackpan - while I usually recommend clean installs, the upgrade from 9X to 2K is pretty well bullet proof and would have the advantage of your programs and files functioning fine after the upgrade.

I really don't remember if you are offered the choice of NTFS or FAT with this sort of upgrade but if not, no problem. Just make sure you have 2000 installed and then SP4 loaded. In fact, if the 2000 install CD is not already loaded with SP4, I'd suggest upgrading to 2000 while retaining FAT32, installing SP4, then doing as shown below.

After that, a click on start -> run -> cmd (which will open a cmd window that looks like your old DOS stuff but really isn't) and from the command prompt

Convert c: /FS:NTFS and within a very few minutes, you will be running NTFS with no loss of anything.

 

The installation CD I own is the 2000 Pro with SP3 included, not SP4. The install process does indeed allow you to choose between keeping the FAT format or converting to NTFS. In your message you stated,

"Just make sure you have 2000 installed and then SP4 loaded. In fact, if the 2000 install CD is not already loaded with SP4, I'd suggest upgrading to 2000 while retaining FAT32, installing SP4, then doing as shown below. "

I'm lost on this one. What is so important with SP4? In other words why should I install with FAT and then convert to NTFS after the installation? You got me on this one.

 

Convert c: /FS:NTFS

In my research, it appears that 'Convert c: /FS:NTFS' may work 99%+ of the time, but I was in the one percent in which my drive contents really got hosed. I ghosted the partitions beforehand so I didn't loose anything, but it took me several hours to reinstall my apps since I still wanted NTFS. Unless you are satisfied with those odds, I would highly recommend acquiring a copy of Partition Magic to do an NTFS conversion. Just a thought ...

Good Luck
Top Dog

 

Thanks for the info. I'll definitely keep that in mind. Reinstalling my apps would take me an eternity.
I've created a new thread entitled, "Windows 2000 Home Use ". I'd appreciate it if you good folks would take a look.
I do believe we can put this thread to bed. Thanks to all.