Hi brethren,

in a couple of days I'll get me a new machine (going from 1ghz to something in the line of 3). I'm using xp-pro and plan to install this on the new machine too. Until now I'm running under fat32 and I really have to admit, that neither the os nor the filesystem gave me any trouble (at least not any, I hadn't asked for one way or another). I wonder now, if I should choose ntfs, when I'll install my new machine.

I know, the standard answer to this, but I'm scared, because I remember seeing some ppl opting for ntfs quite fiercly, who after a while reported the strangest phenomena ... like boot failures, vanishing files, file operations getting slower the longer the system is in use, unaccessible files, problems with ghosted images etc.

I really don't need this right management stuff ntfs is capable of, nor do I whish to compress my partitions and I don't see the delights of indexing. All I want from a filesystem is, that it performs operations on files in a quick and reliable way - it shouldn't start to 'forget' stuff I stored. Anyhow, when I did some searches for 'ntfs' and 'problems' or 'shortcomings' I got the impression, that my feelings on ntfs might be more in the line of superstition than rational.

So, what do you think, should I stick with my trusty fat32 or what?

greetz, micha

If you don't need the security features of NTFS, why bother?

I actually also believe that there may be something wrong with the version of NTFS in XP. Never before have I seen so many people with the problems you describe then when XP came out. It never seemed to be a problem with windows 2000.
I could never figure out if it was a coincidence because so many people were switching to XP, or if there was definatly something wrong with NTFS 5.1.

I have to admit, I seem to hear a lot less about it now. Maybe something has been fixed since the first release through an update or the service pack.

Not only do I not need the security features, I dual boot with 98 and I also like the comfort of knowing I can get to my stuff easily through DOS in an emergency.
(If it ain't broke, don't fix it).
Dave

Only reason I even used ntfs is because files cant be bigger than 4gb in fat32.

Only normaly have files that big that are dvds but normally even they are split up so not really a problem.

Not using ntfs at all atm btw. I'll more than likely stick with fat32 until i switch to longhorn and use winfs.

More boot failures in NTFS partitions? That's quite surprising to hear. From what I have learnt, NTFS is capable of not screwing up your booting files due to accidental shut downs of your machine.

No matter how many times you Reset or Power-Off-then-On your computer (while you are doing work), Windows 2000/XP is able to load in my computer - I strongly believe it is because of the NTFS partitions. Windows 95/98 fails to boot if I try this couple of times to the computer.

Although I haven't explained this more technically, I hope somebody else can describe it clear with reference to Master Boot Partition etc.

Cheers,
McoreD

I never had any problem with NTFS ;)

Hi,

I think someone is spreading bad info about NTFS. I have been running the NTFS file system since I first started using NT 4.0 in 1999. Even after progressively upgrading to W2K and now WXP, I have never had any failures or problems with this file system. It seems to be very robust, fast and secure. Because I have collected a number of utilities that allow me to work on/with NTFS partitions outside of Windows, I don't have any problems or fears of losing anything of importance (oh, and also making regular backups ;-). Make a backup of your FAT32 installation (you should do this anyway) and convert to NTFS. I think you will like it.

Tomboy

I got tired of seeing the "Your computer was shut down incorrectly" messages with FAT32, the lost info and disappearing files, corrupt FAT tables and generally shitty performance. I made the change when Win2k came out and havent looked back, even if you don't need the added securrity of the NTFS system you may appreciate the increased performance and stability it provides. I haven't had any problems like those you described with NTFS, the only thing i found i needed to do was find a bootable Recovery CD wich supported the NTFS file system so i could perform recoverys after i killed an OS (Something i do on a regular basis-one wrong tweak is all it takes ;) ).

If you have a large drive try partitioning it and having a 50\50 mix, that way you can move data from one to the other when you decide to stick with NTFS :D

I recently gave ntfs a try and did not find any increased performance or stability while using it. In fact, I found it to be slower in comparision to FAT32. I also don't need the security features and will be sticking with good old FAT32 for my system.

I prefer NTFS for my system

There is no need to have to repair the partition all the time with scandisk/chkdsk
It is more stable and file copy operations seem faster

I've always used NTFS since moving to WinXP several years ago.

The only problem I ever had was during the install using the long fromat of NTFS would not work on one of my rigs, but the quick format would. :unsure:

Never did figure out why, don't really care... found the would around.

:lol: NTFS Quick Format

From a tehnical perspective NTFS is superior. Even if you don't use the bonus featues, NTFS is better becuase it tends to get fragmented a lot less than FAT32, and due to it's design it's almost impossible that all the directory structures will get corrupted.

I've used NTFS almost the same amount of time as I've been using FAT32. With FAT32 on a few occassions something scrwed up with the FATs and I lost EVERYTHING on that disk. On NTFS I've never had any problems (except two disks which physically failed). From what I hear future MS operating systems are unlikely to function properly with FAT33, so it looks like FAT is being phased out. Go for the upgrade.

I'm sorry to be so lakonic for now, but since a new machine needs some work, let me just say thanks for your input for now. I'll come back to you with a more elaborate posting, promised. For now I have two small Fat32 (C: and swap:) and two bigger ntfs partitions.

New machines make tired users :)

cheers, micha