NTFS v FAT32

FAT16 was obsoleted by HPFS which in turn was obsoleted by
NTFS. FAT had numerous problems. In the meantime, Microsoft
needed a larger filesystem on a temporary basis for Win 98SE.
They created FAT32 only to enlarge the filesystem and made no
effort to fix so many problems with FAT - because FAT had long
been obsoleted before FAT32 was created.

Why use a filesystem that can even erase files on disk due
to a power loss? The answer is so one sided that few would
even bother comparing the two filesystems. Use NTFS and don't
even look back.


<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?IssueID=27&ArticleID=3455" target="_blank">http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?IssueID=27&ArticleID=3455</a>

Dave wrote:
 > I'v been looking for the pros and cons of both and which to use but
 > can only find stuff on how the HD sectors are made up just looking
 > for a simple explantion on this or website
 >
 > Thanks
 > dave<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: NTFS v FAT32 

w_tom <w_tom1.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3FFD099B.EF7AFB94.DeleteThis@hotmail.com>...
 > FAT16 was obsoleted by HPFS which in turn was obsoleted by
 > NTFS. FAT had numerous problems. In the meantime, Microsoft
 > needed a larger filesystem on a temporary basis for Win 98SE.
 > They created FAT32 only to enlarge the filesystem and made no
 > effort to fix so many problems with FAT - because FAT had long
 > been obsoleted before FAT32 was created.
 >
 > Why use a filesystem that can even erase files on disk due
 > to a power loss? The answer is so one sided that few would
 > even bother comparing the two filesystems. Use NTFS and don't
 > even look back.
 >
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?IssueID=27&ArticleID=3455</font" target="_blank">http://www.win2000mag.com/Articles/Index.cfm?IssueID=27&ArticleID=3455</font</a>>
 >
 > Dave wrote:
  > > I'v been looking for the pros and cons of both and which to use but
  > > can only find stuff on how the HD sectors are made up just looking
  > > for a simple explantion on this or website
  > >
  > > Thanks
  > > dave

If you want to share the files with linux then Fat32 is probably best.
I've got Fat32 but I want NTFS. I heard that it does get fragmented.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: NTFS v FAT32 

 > FAT had numerous problems.

What?

 > Why use a filesystem that can even erase files on disk due
 > to a power loss?

No file system is exempt from data loss.

 > The answer is so one sided that few would
 > even bother comparing the two filesystems.

Well, I for one use largely FAT32. This is because its quicker to load the
OS, as another poster said completely compatible with linux which is such a
good thing when you are multi-booting with non-windows. Obviously if you
aren't bothered about it stick with NTFS, but since you're asking do what
I've done - I'm very happy with my set up - several partitions - some fat32,
some ntfs.

I've found that win2k boots more slowly and takes ages to recover when doing
a checkdisk which if you system is unstable and crashes a lot would benefit
a lot from having fat32 as the os partition instead.

Ultimately its up to you. There's uses for everything. None of the
filesystems are awfully bad.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: NTFS v FAT32 

On Thu, 8 Jan 2004 12:26:13 -0000 Sat down laughing as it's habit to
keep on crying then "-" <nospam.TakeThisOut@nospam.com> wrote :

  >> FAT had numerous problems.
 >
 >What?
 >
  >> Why use a filesystem that can even erase files on disk due
  >> to a power loss?
 >
 >No file system is exempt from data loss.
 >
  >> The answer is so one sided that few would
  >> even bother comparing the two filesystems.
 >
 >Well, I for one use largely FAT32. This is because its quicker to load the
 >OS, as another poster said completely compatible with linux which is such a
 >good thing when you are multi-booting with non-windows. Obviously if you
 >aren't bothered about it stick with NTFS, but since you're asking do what
 >I've done - I'm very happy with my set up - several partitions - some fat32,
 >some ntfs.
 >
 >I've found that win2k boots more slowly and takes ages to recover when doing
 >a checkdisk which if you system is unstable and crashes a lot would benefit
 >a lot from having fat32 as the os partition instead.
 >
 >Ultimately its up to you. There's uses for everything. None of the
 >filesystems are awfully bad.
 >

Ditto.More data is lost by,"Pilot Error" than file systems :O



--
Free Windows/PC help,
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html</a>
email shepATpartyheld.de
Free songs download,
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm" target="_blank">http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: NTFS v FAT32 

w_tom wrote:

 > FAT16 was obsoleted by HPFS which in turn was obsoleted by
 > NTFS. FAT had numerous problems.

Such as?

--

Stacey<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: NTFS v FAT32