Before I installed Windows XP, I was told by my computer guru not to use NTFS and to stick with FAT32.
He said while NTFS would provide better performance, if a problem with the hard-drive were to crop up that I would have a tougher time recovering data.
Any thoughts from you wizards out there?
Posted by Mark Smith (Member # 298) on :
I'm no file system guru - but I do know that NTFS has security features FAT32 is lacking.
While this may seem exciting to the paranoid (i.e. you can block access at the folder level) it also means that every disk read has accompanying security overhead - and therefore FAT32 would be faster.
[ March 18, 2002, 07:46 AM: Message edited by: Mark Smith ]
Posted by Miles Cullinane (Member # 980) on :
Glenn I am far from a wizard when it comes to these things but my computer guru (everyone should have one!) set up my system with the NTFS and I have been running it since I got XP which is about 8 months ago. No problems. Posted by Mark Smith (Member # 298) on :
I should add that I too am using NTFS - with Windows 2000 - quite successfully. However, when I do my annual reformat (about a week from now) I will switch to Fat32 and see.
Posted by Curtis hammond (Member # 2170) on :
For the most part.. its easier for the average guy to run FAT 32 on yer HD's The performance difference is not that noticeable. While NTFS is more secure it also has with it added knowledge requirements to maintain it.
Did you know that in some cases that win 98 SE operates faster than XP? did you know that in other cases that win 2K is faster.
If i were to go back to XP then i would use fat32. But that is only since my 1.7 gig P4 machine (the unit I won through a PC testing program) is fast enuf to keep me happy for a long time.
![[Cool]](cool.gif)