Looking for some input.
I just bought a 1TB Mybook which comes formatted as Fat32.
True, Fat32 is readable by non NT OS, but aside from that - your thoughts on
FAT32 vs NTFS cluster size. I also have a 500mb Mybook drive (NTFS now) and
I'm thinking one will be for Multimedia - all my pictures / videos etc and
the other for data / backups. On each I'll have some very big files and
lots of small files.
I currently have a few XP boxes and will upgrade one to Windows7 if that
matters.
So - more overhead in FAT32 vs NTFS: What would you do ?
Make them both NTFS ? leave as-is ? and why ?
Thanks

"- Bobb -" <bobb@noemail.123> wrote in message
news:%23fVSMz6bKHA.2164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Looking for some input.
> I just bought a 1TB Mybook which comes formatted as Fat32.
> True, Fat32 is readable by non NT OS, but aside from that - your thoughts
> on FAT32 vs NTFS cluster size. I also have a 500mb Mybook drive (NTFS now)
> and I'm thinking one will be for Multimedia - all my pictures / videos etc
> and the other for data / backups. On each I'll have some very big files
> and lots of small files.
> I currently have a few XP boxes and will upgrade one to Windows7 if that
> matters.
> So - more overhead in FAT32 vs NTFS: What would you do ?
> Make them both NTFS ? leave as-is ? and why ?
> Thanks
>
>
>
>

Hi
See Here

http://www.theeldergeek.com/ntfs_or_...ile_system.htm

and
http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm

chas2209

- Bobb - wrote:
> Looking for some input.
> I just bought a 1TB Mybook which comes formatted as Fat32.
> True, Fat32 is readable by non NT OS, but aside from that - your thoughts on
> FAT32 vs NTFS cluster size. I also have a 500mb Mybook drive (NTFS now) and
> I'm thinking one will be for Multimedia - all my pictures / videos etc and
> the other for data / backups. On each I'll have some very big files and
> lots of small files.
> I currently have a few XP boxes and will upgrade one to Windows7 if that
> matters.
> So - more overhead in FAT32 vs NTFS: What would you do ?
> Make them both NTFS ? leave as-is ? and why ?
> Thanks

Format them NTFS, there are several reasons why but the simple fact that
FAT32 has a 4GB file size limit is reason enough to use NTFS instead of
FAT32. Video files and back ups can easily surpass this size which
makes FAT32 unsuitable for this type of storage.

John

On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 16:58:42 -0500, "- Bobb -" <bobb@noemail.123>
wrote:

> Looking for some input.
> I just bought a 1TB Mybook which comes formatted as Fat32.
> True, Fat32 is readable by non NT OS, but aside from that - your thoughts on
> FAT32 vs NTFS cluster size. I also have a 500mb Mybook drive (NTFS now) and
> I'm thinking one will be for Multimedia - all my pictures / videos etc and
> the other for data / backups. On each I'll have some very big files and
> lots of small files.
> I currently have a few XP boxes and will upgrade one to Windows7 if that
> matters.
> So - more overhead in FAT32 vs NTFS: What would you do ?
> Make them both NTFS ? leave as-is ? and why ?


As far as I'm concerned, NTFS is considerably better than FAT32, and I
wouldn't use FAT32 on anything unless I needed to access it on a
Windows 9x computer.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"4GB file size limit" seems to be the winner - I hadn't thought of that.
NTFS it shall be.
( just wanted to check prior to removing the FAT32 factory format)
Thanks very much


"John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:OYVlx66bKHA.1592@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>- Bobb - wrote:
>> Looking for some input.
>> I just bought a 1TB Mybook which comes formatted as Fat32.
>> True, Fat32 is readable by non NT OS, but aside from that - your thoughts
>> on FAT32 vs NTFS cluster size. I also have a 500mb Mybook drive (NTFS
>> now) and I'm thinking one will be for Multimedia - all my pictures /
>> videos etc and the other for data / backups. On each I'll have some very
>> big files and lots of small files.
>> I currently have a few XP boxes and will upgrade one to Windows7 if that
>> matters.
>> So - more overhead in FAT32 vs NTFS: What would you do ?
>> Make them both NTFS ? leave as-is ? and why ?
>> Thanks
>
> Format them NTFS, there are several reasons why but the simple fact that
> FAT32 has a 4GB file size limit is reason enough to use NTFS instead of
> FAT32. Video files and back ups can easily surpass this size which makes
> FAT32 unsuitable for this type of storage.
>
> John

You're welcome.

John

- Bobb - wrote:
> "4GB file size limit" seems to be the winner - I hadn't thought of that.
> NTFS it shall be.
> ( just wanted to check prior to removing the FAT32 factory format)
> Thanks very much
>
>
> "John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:OYVlx66bKHA.1592@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> - Bobb - wrote:
>>> Looking for some input.
>>> I just bought a 1TB Mybook which comes formatted as Fat32.
>>> True, Fat32 is readable by non NT OS, but aside from that - your thoughts
>>> on FAT32 vs NTFS cluster size. I also have a 500mb Mybook drive (NTFS
>>> now) and I'm thinking one will be for Multimedia - all my pictures /
>>> videos etc and the other for data / backups. On each I'll have some very
>>> big files and lots of small files.
>>> I currently have a few XP boxes and will upgrade one to Windows7 if that
>>> matters.
>>> So - more overhead in FAT32 vs NTFS: What would you do ?
>>> Make them both NTFS ? leave as-is ? and why ?
>>> Thanks
>> Format them NTFS, there are several reasons why but the simple fact that
>> FAT32 has a 4GB file size limit is reason enough to use NTFS instead of
>> FAT32. Video files and back ups can easily surpass this size which makes
>> FAT32 unsuitable for this type of storage.
>>
>> John
>
>

- Bobb - wrote:
> Looking for some input.
> I just bought a 1TB Mybook which comes formatted as Fat32.
> True, Fat32 is readable by non NT OS, but aside from that - your
> thoughts on FAT32 vs NTFS cluster size. I also have a 500mb Mybook
> drive (NTFS now) and I'm thinking one will be for Multimedia - all my
> pictures / videos etc and the other for data / backups. On each I'll
> have some very big files and lots of small files.
> I currently have a few XP boxes and will upgrade one to Windows7 if
> that matters.
> So - more overhead in FAT32 vs NTFS: What would you do ?
> Make them both NTFS ? leave as-is ? and why ?
> Thanks

Why would anyone even ask this question? NTFS is faster, has built-in
security features, reliability, space utilization, and is self-healing. Plus
other, more arcane, features such as journaling.

Being faster is irrelevant on a USB external drive, but it's nice in
general.

On 11/27/2009 6:38 PM On a whim, HeyBub pounded out on the keyboard

> - Bobb - wrote:
>> Looking for some input.
>> I just bought a 1TB Mybook which comes formatted as Fat32.
>> True, Fat32 is readable by non NT OS, but aside from that - your
>> thoughts on FAT32 vs NTFS cluster size. I also have a 500mb Mybook
>> drive (NTFS now) and I'm thinking one will be for Multimedia - all my
>> pictures / videos etc and the other for data / backups. On each I'll
>> have some very big files and lots of small files.
>> I currently have a few XP boxes and will upgrade one to Windows7 if
>> that matters.
>> So - more overhead in FAT32 vs NTFS: What would you do ?
>> Make them both NTFS ? leave as-is ? and why ?
>> Thanks
>
> Why would anyone even ask this question? NTFS is faster, has built-in
> security features, reliability, space utilization, and is self-healing. Plus
> other, more arcane, features such as journaling.
>
> Being faster is irrelevant on a USB external drive, but it's nice in
> general.
>
>

Well for one, if a user has a multi-booting workstation with
Win98/Me/W2k/XP/Win7/Linux, and shares the data, like myself. I will
soon retire the 2 oldest ones, so then the data drive will be converted
to NTFS. The internal backup data drive is NTFS already.


Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

"chas2209" <chas2209@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
news:O5K$C46bKHA.4884@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> "- Bobb -" <bobb@noemail.123> wrote in message
> news:%23fVSMz6bKHA.2164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> Looking for some input.
>> I just bought a 1TB Mybook which comes formatted as Fat32.
>> True, Fat32 is readable by non NT OS, but aside from that - your thoughts
>> on FAT32 vs NTFS cluster size. I also have a 500mb Mybook drive (NTFS
>> now) and I'm thinking one will be for Multimedia - all my pictures /
>> videos etc and the other for data / backups. On each I'll have some very
>> big files and lots of small files.
>> I currently have a few XP boxes and will upgrade one to Windows7 if that
>> matters.
>> So - more overhead in FAT32 vs NTFS: What would you do ?
>> Make them both NTFS ? leave as-is ? and why ?
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> Hi
> See Here
>
> http://www.theeldergeek.com/ntfs_or_...ile_system.htm
>
> and
> http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm
>
> chas2209

Your second reference has at least one error. It says "You are obliged to
use NTFS if you need support for files over 4G in size, hard drives over
137G in size, and/or you need to implement some of NT's security management
that devolves down to NTFS."

I have a SATA 1.5 GB Seagate drive which I installed in a external USB
housing; Windows XP has been purposely crippled to prevent its formatting of
drives larger than 32 GB, but I have no idea what the purpose of that
crippling is. XP can access all the content that now approaches 1.4 GB.

-Paul Randall

"HeyBub" <heybub******.com> wrote in message
news:uICpcP9bKHA.2184@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>- Bobb - wrote:
>> Looking for some input.
>> I just bought a 1TB Mybook which comes formatted as Fat32.
>> True, Fat32 is readable by non NT OS, but aside from that - your
>> thoughts on FAT32 vs NTFS cluster size. I also have a 500mb Mybook
>> drive (NTFS now) and I'm thinking one will be for Multimedia - all my
>> pictures / videos etc and the other for data / backups. On each I'll
>> have some very big files and lots of small files.
>> I currently have a few XP boxes and will upgrade one to Windows7 if
>> that matters.
>> So - more overhead in FAT32 vs NTFS: What would you do ?
>> Make them both NTFS ? leave as-is ? and why ?
>> Thanks
>
> Why would anyone even ask this question?

TO get feedback on compatibility vs. faster/better ONLY on machines that
read NTFS.

Paul Randall wrote:
> "chas2209" <chas2209@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:O5K$C46bKHA.4884@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> "- Bobb -" <bobb@noemail.123> wrote in message
>> news:%23fVSMz6bKHA.2164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Looking for some input.
>>> I just bought a 1TB Mybook which comes formatted as Fat32.
>>> True, Fat32 is readable by non NT OS, but aside from that - your thoughts
>>> on FAT32 vs NTFS cluster size. I also have a 500mb Mybook drive (NTFS
>>> now) and I'm thinking one will be for Multimedia - all my pictures /
>>> videos etc and the other for data / backups. On each I'll have some very
>>> big files and lots of small files.
>>> I currently have a few XP boxes and will upgrade one to Windows7 if that
>>> matters.
>>> So - more overhead in FAT32 vs NTFS: What would you do ?
>>> Make them both NTFS ? leave as-is ? and why ?
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Hi
>> See Here
>>
>> http://www.theeldergeek.com/ntfs_or_...ile_system.htm
>>
>> and
>> http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm
>>
>> chas2209
>
> Your second reference has at least one error. It says "You are obliged to
> use NTFS if you need support for files over 4G in size, hard drives over
> 137G in size, and/or you need to implement some of NT's security management
> that devolves down to NTFS."
>
> I have a SATA 1.5 GB Seagate drive which I installed in a external USB
> housing; Windows XP has been purposely crippled to prevent its formatting of
> drives larger than 32 GB, but I have no idea what the purpose of that
> crippling is. XP can access all the content that now approaches 1.4 GB.

Windows XP limits the size of FAT32 volumes that it can format to 32GB
but it can mount larger FAT32 drives prepared by other tools or
operating systems. When Windows 2000 was released an arbitrary limit of
32GB was set on the operating system's ability to format FAT32 volumes
because FAT32 is extremely inefficient on large volumes and 32GB was
seen as an acceptable cutoff point before the volume became too inefficient.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/m...fidential.aspx
Windows Confidential: A Brief and Incomplete History of FAT32

John

Paul Randall wrote:
> "chas2209" <chas2209@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:O5K$C46bKHA.4884@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>> "- Bobb -" <bobb@noemail.123> wrote in message
>> news:%23fVSMz6bKHA.2164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>> Looking for some input.
>>> I just bought a 1TB Mybook which comes formatted as Fat32.
>>> True, Fat32 is readable by non NT OS, but aside from that - your thoughts
>>> on FAT32 vs NTFS cluster size. I also have a 500mb Mybook drive (NTFS
>>> now) and I'm thinking one will be for Multimedia - all my pictures /
>>> videos etc and the other for data / backups. On each I'll have some very
>>> big files and lots of small files.
>>> I currently have a few XP boxes and will upgrade one to Windows7 if that
>>> matters.
>>> So - more overhead in FAT32 vs NTFS: What would you do ?
>>> Make them both NTFS ? leave as-is ? and why ?
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Hi
>> See Here
>>
>> http://www.theeldergeek.com/ntfs_or_...ile_system.htm
>>
>> and
>> http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm
>>
>> chas2209
>
> Your second reference has at least one error. It says "You are obliged to
> use NTFS if you need support for files over 4G in size, hard drives over
> 137G in size, and/or you need to implement some of NT's security management
> that devolves down to NTFS."
>
> I have a SATA 1.5 GB Seagate drive which I installed in a external USB
> housing; Windows XP has been purposely crippled to prevent its formatting of
> drives larger than 32 GB, but I have no idea what the purpose of that
> crippling is. XP can access all the content that now approaches 1.4 GB.
>
> -Paul Randall

There is a utility for formatting FAT32 partitions larger than 32GB. Try here.
(You don't have to let Microsoft spoil your fun.) My C: drive was formatted
with this. My copy of Partition Magic wouldn't do it, so I used
this instead.

http://www.ridgecrop.demon.co.uk/ind...at32format.htm

Paul

Terry R. wrote:

>>
>> Why would anyone even ask this question? NTFS is faster, has built-in
>> security features, reliability, space utilization, and is
>> self-healing. Plus other, more arcane, features such as journaling.
>>
>> Being faster is irrelevant on a USB external drive, but it's nice in
>> general.
>>
>>
>
> Well for one, if a user has a multi-booting workstation with
> Win98/Me/W2k/XP/Win7/Linux, and shares the data, like myself. I will
> soon retire the 2 oldest ones, so then the data drive will be
> converted to NTFS. The internal backup data drive is NTFS already.
>
>

Ah, good point. I forgot about the Luddites. Thanks for the correction.

"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message news:heslka$bod$1@aioe.org...
> Paul Randall wrote:
>> "chas2209" <chas2209@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:O5K$C46bKHA.4884@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> "- Bobb -" <bobb@noemail.123> wrote in message
>>> news:%23fVSMz6bKHA.2164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> Looking for some input.
>>>> I just bought a 1TB Mybook which comes formatted as Fat32.
>>>> True, Fat32 is readable by non NT OS, but aside from that - your
>>>> thoughts on FAT32 vs NTFS cluster size. I also have a 500mb Mybook
>>>> drive (NTFS now) and I'm thinking one will be for Multimedia - all my
>>>> pictures / videos etc and the other for data / backups. On each I'll
>>>> have some very big files and lots of small files.
>>>> I currently have a few XP boxes and will upgrade one to Windows7 if
>>>> that matters.
>>>> So - more overhead in FAT32 vs NTFS: What would you do ?
>>>> Make them both NTFS ? leave as-is ? and why ?
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hi
>>> See Here
>>>
>>> http://www.theeldergeek.com/ntfs_or_...ile_system.htm
>>>
>>> and
>>> http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm
>>>
>>> chas2209
>>
>> Your second reference has at least one error. It says "You are obliged
>> to use NTFS if you need support for files over 4G in size, hard drives
>> over 137G in size, and/or you need to implement some of NT's security
>> management that devolves down to NTFS."
>>
>> I have a SATA 1.5 GB Seagate drive which I installed in a external USB
>> housing; Windows XP has been purposely crippled to prevent its formatting
>> of drives larger than 32 GB, but I have no idea what the purpose of that
>> crippling is. XP can access all the content that now approaches 1.4 GB.
>>
>> -Paul Randall
>
> There is a utility for formatting FAT32 partitions larger than 32GB. Try
> here.
> (You don't have to let Microsoft spoil your fun.)

A Windows Me boot disk will format partitions larger than 32GB's as FAT32
also :-)

My C: drive was formatted
> with this. My copy of Partition Magic wouldn't do it, so I used
> this instead.
>
> http://www.ridgecrop.demon.co.uk/ind...at32format.htm
>
> Paul

"John John - MVP" <audetweld@nbnot.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:Oz6aGtIcKHA.2188@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Paul Randall wrote:
>> "chas2209" <chas2209@invalid.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:O5K$C46bKHA.4884@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>>> "- Bobb -" <bobb@noemail.123> wrote in message
>>> news:%23fVSMz6bKHA.2164@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>>>> Looking for some input.
>>>> I just bought a 1TB Mybook which comes formatted as Fat32.
>>>> True, Fat32 is readable by non NT OS, but aside from that - your
>>>> thoughts on FAT32 vs NTFS cluster size. I also have a 500mb Mybook
>>>> drive (NTFS now) and I'm thinking one will be for Multimedia - all my
>>>> pictures / videos etc and the other for data / backups. On each I'll
>>>> have some very big files and lots of small files.
>>>> I currently have a few XP boxes and will upgrade one to Windows7 if
>>>> that matters.
>>>> So - more overhead in FAT32 vs NTFS: What would you do ?
>>>> Make them both NTFS ? leave as-is ? and why ?
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hi
>>> See Here
>>>
>>> http://www.theeldergeek.com/ntfs_or_...ile_system.htm
>>>
>>> and
>>> http://cquirke.mvps.org/ntfs.htm
>>>
>>> chas2209
>>
>> Your second reference has at least one error. It says "You are obliged
>> to use NTFS if you need support for files over 4G in size, hard drives
>> over 137G in size, and/or you need to implement some of NT's security
>> management that devolves down to NTFS."
>>
>> I have a SATA 1.5 GB Seagate drive which I installed in a external USB
>> housing; Windows XP has been purposely crippled to prevent its formatting
>> of drives larger than 32 GB, but I have no idea what the purpose of that
>> crippling is. XP can access all the content that now approaches 1.4 GB.
>
> Windows XP limits the size of FAT32 volumes that it can format to 32GB but
> it can mount larger FAT32 drives prepared by other tools or operating
> systems. When Windows 2000 was released an arbitrary limit of 32GB was
> set on the operating system's ability to format FAT32 volumes because
> FAT32 is extremely inefficient on large volumes and 32GB was seen as an
> acceptable cutoff point before the volume became too inefficient.
>
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/m...fidential.aspx
> Windows Confidential: A Brief and Incomplete History of FAT32

Thanks for the link. I found it interesting.

I find this quote are especially silly from a WXP point of view: "Long
before you hit the theoretical maximum volume size, you will reach the
practical limits."
I don't see any problems using MY 1.5 GB FAT32 USB drive; it has only a few
thousand files, mostly video files, none greater than 2 GB.

The article also states: For a 32GB FAT32 drive, it takes 4 megabytes of
disk I/O to compute the amount of free space. I assume this means my 1.5
TB drive would require 1500GB/32GB times as much I/O, or about 187
megabytes, which goes pretty fast with USB 2.0.

My thoughts are, the engineers crippled Window's formatting capability of
FAT32 systems because they could not envision that computer speeds would
increase or memory prices decrease in the future like they had in the past.
Or they were just too lazy or harried to think about it. And besides, 'At
some point you have to say, "Enough is enough"', even if it is at the wrong
point.

Uff da!

I'm glad Norton Ghost's Gdisk.exe which runs under DOS, partitions and
formats my big fat32 drive to my liking. I see no downside to fat32.

-Paul Randall