fat32 v's ntfs

[fr33ze]

does anybody know which filing system gives better performance for benching, i've been told ntfs steals a bit of cpu power but i dont know how true this is.

[SPQQKY]

For your AMD rig, you'll want to run win2k, so use the ntfs file system.

[sjohnson]

I stay with FAT32 on my Win2k systems. No large HD's here, and I can boot to DOS and still access my drives. Never a problem.

[SPQQKY]

I like to use a dual boot between winxp and win2k with my AMD rig, so there is no doubt what I would use. If you are using any hard drive over 80 Gigs, I would go with the ntfs.

[fr33ze]

i'll be running a dual boot anyway, one with xp for everyday use and then about a 5gb partition for win 2k. if the partition is only 5gb should i still use ntfs

[SPQQKY]

Yes, file transfers from one partition to the next are going to be a snap with ntfs. I would install win2k first and then winxp, even if the win2k is on the second partition, installing win2k seems to buger up winxp when installed.

[sjohnson]

Over 80 gb, ntfs all the way.

You can install XP to FAT, believe it or not.

Main objections I have with NTFS: Can't access the data except through NT, Win2k or XP, slightly less available space.

Main kudos with NTFS: ACL's, current support from MS, slightly faster than FAT32, supports large drives.

No fan of either, I use both at work. At home it's still FAT32.

[Soulburner]

Originally posted by SPQQKY
Yes, file transfers from one partition to the next are going to be a snap with ntfs. I would install win2k first and then winxp, even if the win2k is on the second partition, installing win2k seems to buger up winxp when installed.
The cause for this is:

The boot files are overwritten with 2k versions. 2k can read XP boot files but XP cannot read 2k boot files. Don't ask me why.

The fix:
Copy NTLDR and NTDETECT from XP (in C: ) to a seperate folder.

After you install 2k and get into it, copy these files back. This way the XP versions will be preserved and you will be able to get back into XP.