+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: NTFS vs FAT32

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,510

    NTFS vs FAT32

    More info taken from the Encyclopedia:

    When introducing Windows NT, Microsoft needed a faster and more stable file system than FAT. NTFS uses clusters to store data as well but the clusters can vary in size minimizing the loss (FAT's clusters is locked to a specific size).
    NTFS splits the drive into four theoretical parts. The first part, MFT (Master File Table), contains important information about the files, free space and so forth. Then comes an area that can be used for storage, until we reach the exact middle of the drive. Here a copy of the first 16 MFT-files are stored again, and then we have another area where you can store data.
    NTFS can contrary to FAT, compress and encrypt data stored on the drive. It also has a much higher fault tolerance then FAT. NTFS has gotten a bad reputation as a rather slow file system. The truth is that it is rather memory reliant, so on system with 512 memory and up NTFS gets significantly faster. Unfortunately only NT-based Windows can read NTFS.

    FAT exists in basically two flavors: FAT16 and FAT32. FAT16 holds cluster information based on 16 bits of information, and FAT32 uses 32 bits to manage the storage space. As a result, FAT16 can manage 65535 clusters and FAT32 can handle a maximum of 268435456 clusters, for a maximum storage capacity of 2GB and 2TB respectively. FAT16's maximum file size is 2GB while FAT32's maximum file size is 4 GB.

    There have been going around a rumour that FAT would actually be faster than NTFS. This was true as long as your system was very poorly equipped with RAM, which happened at about the launch of Windows XP. Not only did the OS itself require a lot of RAM, 128MB, to run ok, but to be able to play games and such you needed at least twice that and NTFS had to take a lot of the fault for that. However as long as you use 256MB RAM and up NTFS is just as fast and even faster when you get past 512MB, which most people most likely have today
    There is a good table at ntfs.com that also shows why there really is no reason what so ever to use FAT anymore.
    "I'm sort of a postmodern vegetarian, I eat meat ironically"
    "You are our Swedish superhero "

    Forget everything, knowledge is your enemy, it's only going to make you second-guess yourself."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3
    NTFS fs is much better than FAT32, but them both are not so progressive like Linux ext3

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,510
    Indeed, but there are several other file systems like ReiserFS that are also in constant development. If I'm not mistaking they're working on version 4 at the moment.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReiserFS

    //Andreas
    "I'm sort of a postmodern vegetarian, I eat meat ironically"
    "You are our Swedish superhero "

    Forget everything, knowledge is your enemy, it's only going to make you second-guess yourself."

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    23
    Om mjag minns det rätt så är FAT snabbare på mindre diskar än vad NTFS är (dock ingen större skillnad). En fördel med FAT som jag tycker missas här, är att det går att komma åt ifrån DOS. Det är väldigt praktiskt att ha C: som en FAT32 partition, när windows får fel. Då kan man enkelt boota på en CD eller diskett och kopiera in den trasiga filen eller a backup på annan data.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    4,510
    Say what? :bgrin:

    //Andreas
    "I'm sort of a postmodern vegetarian, I eat meat ironically"
    "You are our Swedish superhero "

    Forget everything, knowledge is your enemy, it's only going to make you second-guess yourself."

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Stockholm, La Suede
    Posts
    1,739
    Hahahaha.
    Man, or woman, or both?
    Grandis spiritus, sanctus diavolos

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    3
    hehe ~~!I have to say looks very good ..
    have a nice day!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    550
    Use FAT for USB keys and such and stick to NTFS for hard drives in a Windows environment.

    For other OS's, whatever is native to that OS.
    AMD AMD Phenom II 955 BE w/ Xigmatek S1283 Red Scorpion HSF, Gigabyte GA-MA790XT-UD4P MB
    8GB DDR3 1600 G.Skill NQ RAM, 64GB G.Skill Falcon SSD, 1.5TB Samsung Silencer Series HDD, ATI Radeon HD4850 w/ AC Accelero S1 Cooling + 92mm fan
    Coolermaster Sileo 500 Case + Corsair HX520W Modular PSU

    Whisper Quiet Computing.....

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    156
    mjw21a: agreed.

    I formatted my external to NTFS so the only thing i have that "runs" FAT32 now is my 1 GB stick :P
    E6750 @ 3500 MHz 24/7 ~ P35-DS4 rev2 ~ 2GB PC6400 Cas4 ~ 500W FSP Bluestorm II
    <img src=http://folding.extremeoverclocking.com/sigs/sigimage.php?u=399950&c1=7d91a0&c2=dee3e7&c3=dee3e 7&c4=FFFFFF&c5=7d91a0>

Similar Threads

  1. Missing system32\drivers\ntfs.sys
    By Delmy in forum General hardware
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-16-2007, 04:30 PM
  2. Fully functional NTFS support with Linux
    By in forum News archive
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-16-2006, 05:57 PM
  3. Tip of the day! - Convert FAT32 to NTFS
    By in forum News archive
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-31-2005, 12:17 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts