Ed,
When I upgrade to W2K and my 20GB drive I'll be starting from scratch. Jerry tells me that I could fire up with a W98 boot floppy if I had Fat32 but not with NTFS, which he says leaves me unrecoverable after a big crash. This is my home machine so security is less important than for some other people.
But I'm thinking the answer to that is having a good backup. I'll probably be doing that by copying to the smaller drive (Fat32) each night for now.
Advice?
>>In the "SCSI or ATA" thread I picked the FAT32 version of Win 2000 Pro SP1.
>>
>>Does anyone think I really should go with NTFS?
>>
>
>I do; NTFS offers better granularity of access control, uses a smaller unit of allocation, is more robust. There are a few things under Win2K that require the use of NTFS. It outperforms FAT under random access - FAT is faster doing sequential I/O moving forward in a file; FAT uses a single linked list data structure to manage directories and tracking file allocation where NTFS implements a tree structured double linked list. Swap files on FAT perform marginally better than on NTFS, but the difference in performance there is negligible. If you dual boot the system, something I don't recommend, Win9x can read/write FAT partitions; you'd need a third party driver to access a local NTFS volume; Win95 OSR 2/Win98/ME can directly access a FAT volume.
>
>You can always set up one drive NTFS and the other FAT32 and do some benchmark testing if that worries you.
>
>I use NTFS whenever it's available as a choice. I use FAT16 on my 1GB Jaz cartridges. If you start using FAT and later decide to switch to NTFS it can be done without reformatting and reinstalling; once you switch to NTFS, the only way to convert it back to FAT is reformatting, or the use of a third-party product like Partition Magic.
Previous
Next
Reply
View the map of this thread
View the map of this thread starting from this message only
View all messages of this thread
View all messages of this thread starting from this message only