Well NTFS can store a file as large as the disk space availale (well currently at least... the maximum size of a file is like 2^64 bytes, and I dont see one of them drives commin a long for a while), while FAT32 is limited to 4GB (cant say I ever saved a file as large as a 120GB drive lol)

Generally, NTFS on larger size drives/partitions is faster. While, FAT is faster on smaller drives. Faster, being the aaccess time to the file on the drive.

Another thing, more important, is the cluster size between NTFS and FAT. As you increase the volume or partition size in a FAT32 system, the cluster size also increases. The cluster size ranges from 4K to 32K. You reach the 32K maximum with drives larger than 32 gigabytes, at least according to Microsoft. FAT can have large minimum cluster sizes that reduce the usable storage space on the volume. The largest NTFS cluster size is 4KB, even on volumes larger than 2GB. Because NTFS uses small clusters better and has a more efficient design, its performance doesn't degrade with large volumes, in contrast to FAT's. Remember, if a file is lets say 3 k, on an NTFS volume you are only wasting 1k of space, on the other hand on a FAT volume with the clusters at 32 k you waste a lot 29k for that one file is lost (on a drive 32GB and >).

Thanks to all who replied. This has been quite an eye opener - imagine a 120gig drive not being as advertised by the manufacturers. So now after installing my second 120 drive (formatted in NTFS, of course) , there will only be 222 gigs of storage - oh well will have to make do. :)

@[SiN]
Thank you for your in-depth reports on data storage and NTFS, they were truly informative.

Sin - very nice piece of information there... really help me to recap my polytechnic days.

really need to consider a switch over to NTFS now... for better managed file system.

Thank you.. I too wish to switch over to NTFS on ALL my drives when I get back to school..

Though FATxx makes it easier to go in and fix something with a DOS boot disk.

how does NTFS cluster size affect raid arrays? i'm going to buy 2 120gb drives in a few weeks and put them in a raid0 array, my first array so this should be interesting, lol

My 40GB shows only 37.2GB and accordingly yours should show 37.2GB*3=111.6GB
I'm not that concerned about loosing space on my 40GB, and you're talking about over 100GB!!! lol