Changing XP's NTFS file structure back to Fat32 question ??

There are some who believe Fat32 would be a better option for certain reasons.

I am not aware of any such reasons, with the single exception of certain multi-boot configurations. Even for such cases it is much better to have XP run on a system partition that is NTFS-formatted.

One poster says that "data recovery from a system boot failure is more stubborn if a user does not have the domain knowledge of hard disk drives and FS structures. For this reason I would recommend your FS be FAT32".

I cannot make any sense of this statement at all. True, FAT32 filesystems do have the "advantage" of self-destructing after some finite time, so if this is what you are after, and if you enjoy rebuilding your operating system on a regular basis then, yes, FAT32 is for you. There is no other conceivable reason to prefer FAT over NTFS that I can imagine.

When I did a clean install of XP (from ME), I didn't convert to NTFS...I left it as FAT32.

Now I'm reading that NTFS is better than FAT32 for stability reasons, and it's best for those who have more than 32 GB HDD on the computer (I have XP Home).  My question is:  What are the advantages/disadvantages of NTFS?

Would appreciate some input.  Thanks!

~lmb59
Dell Dimension 4100
933MHz/P-3
128MB SDRAM @133MHz
8x/4x/32x CDRW
Conexant HCF V.90/56k RTAD Speakerphone PCI Modem
40GB Ultra ATA HD
Logitech Internet Keyboard
12x Max Variable DVD ROM
WinXP, SP1 (Home)
NAV 2002

The Cluster size for NTFS is only  4KB  whereas the FAT32 for 32GB partition (max XP) is 16KB.
Cluster size : the smallest amount of Partition space used for a file.
Thus a 4KB file on an NTFS partition would take  4KB  but a 4KB file on FAT32 partition would take 16KB.
FAT32 for 32GB uses multiple of 16KB & NTFS uses multiples of only 4KB.
Therefor you can store more files on a NTFS partition.

 Microsoft info refers;
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/Windows/XP/all/reskit/en-us/prkc_fil_lxty.asp

Message Edited by gryjhnhpe on 03-10-2004 11:37 AM

There is no reason to be using FAT32, NTFS is much better. There was a huge debate about this on a different forum and the NTFS supporters "won" the debate.

To the best of my knowledge, Microsoft only recommends FAT32 if you are going to be dual booting with a Win9x OS. Otherwise, NTFS is recommended.

---

@Hydralisk00222 wrote:

There is no reason to be using FAT32, NTFS is much better. There was a huge debate about this on a different forum and the NTFS supporters "won" the debate.

To the best of my knowledge, Microsoft only recommends FAT32 if you are going to be dual booting with a Win9x OS. Otherwise, NTFS is recommended.

---