Forum: The Classroom
Topic: quick! NTFS of FAT?
started by: CatKnight

Posted by CatKnight on Apr. 30 2001,23:24
which one is faster / more appropriate for a gaming rig?
Posted by Vigilante on Apr. 30 2001,23:35
FAT32 I s'pose, especially if you want to play older games as well...
Posted by CatKnight on May 01 2001,00:00
good thats what i did. i wasnt sure if ntfs was faster or something for win2k or not.
Posted by DuSTman on May 01 2001,00:23
Well I think syf0ns comment was more about not using win2k as a games pllatform.. but anyway,

I don't know which is faster, and i doubt there's much in it, but ntfs has some features that FAT doesn't (support for compressed folders, encyrpted folders etc.)

On the down side, ntfs is not compatible with win9x, so if a dual-boot is a possibility you might wanna choose FAT..


Posted by RenegadeSnark on May 01 2001,03:01
NTFS is superior to FAT32.
Posted by CatKnight on May 01 2001,03:47
in what way is it superior? im not really worried about playing older games or dual boot, nor am i concerned about encrypted folders. what other differences are there? unfortunately i already downloaded most of the win2k service pakcs and crap which took all night, and i dont wanna start all over, unless ntfs is better.
Posted by DuSTman on May 01 2001,03:57
It wouldn't really be necessary to start over, there's a format conversion utility.

err, ntfs supports hard links, there's that.. difference in cluster size.

But if you're not planning on using any of NTFSs fancy features then i doubt there'd be much in it, especially as hard disk performance is only incidentally contingent to overall system performance (ie, double your hard disk speed, and you'll have about a 10\% faster system.)


Posted by askheaves on May 01 2001,04:36
At work, all computers are Win2K with NTFS. It's mostly for security and stability purposes, and there are probably slight speed advantages. Indexing, encrypted folders, individual security sets on folders... etc.

For a home computer, I'd recommend FAT32. For one, you have dual boot. Also, you're not protecting proprietary documents. And, in the event of catastrophic failure, you can get your data out of a FAT32 disk much easier than an NTFS disk. It's just a matter of making your life easier.

I use NTFS at home on my drives because I'm super-l33t. But, that's just me.


Posted by CatKnight on May 01 2001,04:56
ah crap now i wish i did use ntfs.
Posted by DuSTman on May 01 2001,08:07
You can switch formats. Go to win2ks command prompt and type

help convert

it'll tell you about the file system changer util...


Posted by DeadAnztac on May 01 2001,08:22
Yeah, when I had a NTFS partition and a FAT32 partition the NTFS partition was very, very much faster for indexing, that's about all I got out of it though ;-) Linux couldn't see the NTFS partition, and win98 couldn't see it, then later when I swtched back to WinME I needed Partition Magic to convert the drive back to FAT32....
Posted by Observer on May 01 2001,11:27
quote:
Originally posted by DeadAnztac:
...needed Partition Magic to convert the drive back to FAT32...

I was going to mention that. I've heard that Win2k can convert your drive back to FAT32, but that if you do, only Win2k will be able to read it.

Speaking of Partition Magic, has anyone ever tested which method is faster?

From an empty drive (no partitions):


  • Partition Magic: Create partition with formatted filesystem all at once.
  • FDISK: Create partition then format in Windows.

Ignoring boot time.

------------------
A good programmer is someone who looks both ways on a one-way street


Posted by jim on May 01 2001,11:28
NTFS is far superior in every way. There NO reason to use FAT32 unless you are dual booting to Windows 9x AND you need to access files stored on the Win2k partition.

So please explain why FAT32 is better on a gaming box considering it has NO advantages over NTFS..... *taps foot and waits*

------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >


Posted by jim on May 01 2001,11:33
quote:
Originally posted by Observer:
From an empty drive (no partitions):
  • Partition Magic: Create partition with formatted filesystem all at once.
  • FDISK: Create partition then format in Windows.

Never done it completely ignoring boot time, but from what I can tell, if you have an empty drive, no partitions, your best bet is to just boot from the Win2k Disk and let it do all the work. Also, are you assuming that Partition Magic is already installed on this empty drive?!?!

PS. For anyone still questioning NTFS5 vs FAT32, < read this >


------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >

This message has been edited by jim on May 02, 2001 at 06:33 AM


Posted by Observer on May 01 2001,11:43
Um, how can PM be installed on the drive if it's empty?

The last time I tried something like this, I was using PM (v6) from a pair of boot floppies (I do hope to make a bootable CD with DOS PM and Drive Image on it eventually). I had to set up a 20-gig drive with an extended partition enclosing a logical NTFS partition. Partition Magic does the verification, partition creation, and formatting all at once. While I imagine the other method would let the formatting be done with 32-bit access.

But since you mentioned it, let's consider then that PM is being run on a separate drive from within Windows.

------------------
A good programmer is someone who looks both ways on a one-way street


Posted by jim on May 01 2001,11:48
quote:
Originally posted by Observer:
Um, how can PM be installed on the drive if it's empty?

That was my point!

I doubt either method would be convincing faster. I would just go with whichever is more convenient.

------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >


Posted by CatKnight on May 01 2001,12:10
boh okay i guess im switchin to NTFS once i get my puter settled.
Posted by Greasemonk on May 01 2001,12:37
Games will work under NTFS5 but you mostly likely will have to download alot of "compatibility" patches to get them to work. Each system is different and since NTFS is better with cluster stuff you might want to do NTFS. My system freaked out in windows 2000 with FAT32 when i tried games so I cant really tell you what to do. You will just have to test it out.

------------------
All that I know there was no God for me
Force that shatters all, absence of mortality


Posted by jim on May 01 2001,12:44
quote:
Originally posted by Greasemonk:
Games will work under NTFS5 but you mostly likely will have to download alot of "compatibility" patches to get them to work.

These issues are with the OS itself, not the file system.

------------------
jim
Beauty is in the eye of the Beer Holder
< Brews and Cues >


Posted by Dark Knight Bob on May 01 2001,12:48
i have harddrive it is fast

(now you know why ya should've stuck this on the geek forum)

------------------
what do you mean vodka isnt an officially recognised AMD coolant


Posted by CatKnight on May 01 2001,13:00
"the system cannot be converted because the drive is in use. do you wish convert to automatically run the next time you restart? (Y/n)"

win2k is so cool.

also i like how it pretty much installs itself with no intervention.


Posted by kuru on May 01 2001,20:12
i have 2 drives, one that's FAT, and one that's NTFS. i've never really had problems with either of them, except that getting rid of NTFS when i switched the smaller drive was a big pain in the ass.

partition magic probably would've made life easier. NTFS is pretty stable, but when it takes a dive (mine never has) i've heard it's nasty miserable. personally, i like it. but i don't game, so i couldn't tell you how it does for that stuff.

------------------
kuru
'dancing is the vertical expression of horizontal desire.'
-robert frost


Posted by L33T_h4x0r_d00d on May 02 2001,14:06
quote:
Originally posted by syf0n:
but still...FAT32 is better for gaming :\

Um ....in my country.... your file system has no connection to how compatable you OS is. NTFS is a more structured file system, allowing file level security and different clustering. But this is where you get fucked in the ass with personguy's dick. If you have an OS fubar, and you need to retrieve data, unless you have another NT machine you cant do it.....unless....<Whips out of ass> < http://www.sysinternals.com > </Whips out of ass> you go there and download the 98/me patch that lets you read an NTFS file system. The freeware lets you read it and if you pony up the ฮ you can have it write to it too.(which is how I run NTFS on a 98 gaming box that r0x0rs anything that dumbass syf0n is running on his shitty fat32 criznap) If you just need to rescue some data befor you blow the partition away and start fresh its your best bet. Also On one of my other boxes I run PHAT64 c4u53 1m ju57 l337 7h47 w4y. ph34r m33....1 0wn j00..h4w h4w h4w....

------------------
Decaffinated coffee is like unleaded fuel, it tastes like shit.

This message has been edited by L33T_h4x0r_d00d on May 03, 2001 at 09:07 AM


Posted by Dark Knight Bob on May 02 2001,15:09
my harddrive isnt FAT its just big boned

------------------
homer as Krusty episode:

lil kid: STOP IT STOP IT he's already dead!


Posted by ASCIIMan on May 02 2001,19:53
Okay... NTFS is faster for pretty much all file operations hands down, except if you're writing a whole bunch of really little changes -- then it sucks it up because it's journalling (protects it from errors if the system crashes, reboots unexpectedly, etc.) ends up adding more overhead to the writing than the actual changes to the files do. There is NO compatability problems in games due to using NTFS vs. FAT, NT/2k vs. Win9x maybe, but not NTFS vs. FAT. If your game uses virtual memory, NTFS is likely to be better; if not, NTFS and FAT are likely to be about the same because most of the game info will be in system memory where HDD file read/write times won't matter. I would still recommend NTFS, though, as the rest of your system is likely to run a little bit faster and your games might load a little more quickly.

For those who were discussing the ease of recovering data from an NTFS partition vs. a FAT partition, I would say that FAT is easier if you already have a dual-boot OS installed - but not by much. True, you can boot right into WinDOS or Linux and get stuff out of the FAT partition, but if you set up the recovery console in Win2k to be able to copy files, it's just as easy (if not easier). If the recovery console is set up correctly, you can boot from the installation CD, select recovery console, and enter the Administrator password. From there you have access to a Win2K command line including chkdsk, copy, fdisk, format, etc. Check out < these > < links > for more < info >.


Posted by KL1NK on May 03 2001,00:46
< http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/05/02/0612242 >
Powered by Ikonboard 3.1.4 © 2006 Ikonboard