NTFS vs. FAT

Kairo

Oké…I’m in the process of building up a PC (the rest of it should be here by tomorrow ) and more than likely I’ll be sticking Windows XP onto it.

I noticed while installing it on a friend of mines computer that you were given the option of using either an NTFS or FAT file system. I was just wondering what are the main differences and advantages/disadvantages of each.

Also, I’m setting up a little home network as I hear XP is network friendly, and was wondering would NTFS be suited to me…I know there’s a ‘Network’ in that acronym. (I’m guessing it’s the NT part)

dahamsta

As far as I know, NTFS representd "Windows NT FileSystem". And, again as far as I know, NT stands for "New Technology". So taken literally, it's "New Technology FileSystem". I think.

I know vaguely the differences, but I couldn't explain it in a fit. This seems to be a pretty good explanation, or try this query on Google for more results.

adam

JustHalf

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4843
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5031

Boston

NTFS is more stable, its slightly quicker(but dont quote me), and it shouldnt get as many errors as fat32, on the flip side you have the lack of compatibility. Not a factor unless you use win me or below. i dont know about Unix based systems

SickBoy

Go with NTFS. The main difference between the 2 is that NTFS can address higher partition sizes and NTFS has better security options. As for what NTFS means, its New Technology File System.

P.S.
Its great for networking, look up network bridges... sweet!

sceptre

N stands for New

XP - good for network (like 2000) obviously, XP Home can't log on to a domain if that makes any difference (probably not if you're just doing a home network)

SUggest you look at at least the top three links below for an overview of NTFS

FAT is rubbish - partitions can't be bigger than 2gig for one thing. FAT32 and NTFS don't have this limitation so you'll be choosing between these two. The bottom line for you may be that there is no security wrt files with FAT32, something you can have with NTFS (but only if the disk is NTFS when you install it - converting to NTFS later and putting security on files and folders is too much hassle)

Choosing between NTFS, FAT and FAT32
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/en/server/help/default.asp?url=/windows2000/en/server/help/choosing_between_NTFS_FAT_and_FAT32.htm

FAT and NTFS performance
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ntfs/index3.html

"Inside NTFS"
http://www.winntmag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?IssueID=27&ArticleID=3455

Limitations of FAT32:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;Q184006

Overview of FAT, HPFS, and NTFS File Systems
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;Q100108

Free Space Required to Convert FAT to NTFS
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;Q156560

dahamsta

on the flip side you have the lack of compatibility. Not a factor unless you use win me or below. i dont know about Unix based systems

Can't speak for BSD or other variants, but if you want to mount Widows partitions on Linux, you should probably go for FAT. FAT partitions can be mounted easily by default in Linux. AFAIK, NTFS can be mounted too, but it's a lot more difficult.

adam

TacT

main differences being with ntfs you get file-level-security, only v.useful if you have a network and need to enforce policies right down to file level as opposed to folder level with fat16/32.

ntfs is faster.

if you have a win9x machine or lower then that/them com's will need fat16 partitions to be able to communicate with your ntfs partitions.

of course I need not tell you this as your busy studying all the v.useful links the lads have been so kind to provide you with eh

Shinji

If the option is there, use NTFS - unless you plan to use Linux and want to be able to access your Windows files from it.

Your OS partition should certainly be NTFS, simply because of cute stuff like journalling, file security and enhanced speed. Data partitions, it doesn't matter much on.

beaver

Can't speak for BSD or other variants, but if you want to mount Widows partitions on Linux, you should probably go for FAT. FAT partitions can be mounted easily by default in Linux. AFAIK, NTFS can be mounted too, but it's a lot more difficult.

It can be mounted pretty much without difficulty (IIRC - it's been too long ) Read support is fine, but the last time I was playing with it write support was experimental, i.e. use if you don't value your data. Could be improved now though... not sure.

FAT is most likely still safest in that respect.

Typedef

I think you might find that under linux win2k ntfs partitions can be mounted only read-only though maybe there is a way around this?

only the first bit is relavent

WhiteWashMan

by the way, as far as i know, the N doesnt stand for new.
thats a common myth that NT stands for new technology.
not that i am going to prove it or give you any other information which you might find useful.

on the fat v ntfs debate, what are you using your pc for?
if its just games, pron and internet browsing, then no need to bother with ntfs, just install win2k with fat. not much difference unless you havea pc which is regularly used by others and you want to lock down some files or folders.
ntfs is slightly faster, but not that much due to cluster size. wont really make many differences.
but if you have any interest in o/s's and stuff 0putting ntfs on is fun and then you can have lots of joyful moments putting security settings on files.
now, wont that just make your day

dahamsta

by the way, as far as i know, the N doesnt stand for new.
thats a common myth that NT stands for new technology. not that i am going to prove it or give you any other information which you might find useful.

LOL. That sounds like one of my posts on the Politics board!

adam