Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

NTFS - FAT32 - partition/format

Jun 8, 2005 9:08AM PDT

NTFS - FAT32 - partition/format

I recently installed a 2nd HD (80 gig - non formatted/non partitioned - as of yet)...my original system is running XP on a 40 gig FAT32...

1. Is it in my best interest to convert the FAT32 to NTFS...and format/partition the new 80 gig to NTFS or run the 40 as is and run the 80 as NTFS?

2. When/if I convert the FAT32 to NTFS, should I just use the XP convert ''tool'' since I have the OS/programs/files on the drive? Or should I backup the drive and format? Benefits/Drawbacks?

3. I am in search of a way (if possible) to backup my operating system and programs so I do not have to reinstall everything from scatch...(if not the best idea...suggestions?)

Background Information:

System will eventually have an external HD to use as a backup of drive #2, while drive #1 strictly runs OS and Program files.

Thank You!

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Keep the FAT
Jun 8, 2005 10:32AM PDT

Don't convert anything. NTFS is supposedly more secure, have better error checking ability, and faster on large volumes, but from experience, I know this isn't true. FAT is visibly faster than NTFS on the same hard drive. NTFS is just newer, nothing more. Don't risk converting your drives with data on it, and risk potiential problems.

- Collapse -
Hard Drive Format Q's
Jul 8, 2005 11:00AM PDT

What type of issues have you been having with the different format's? Anything I should specifically keep my eye on? Thanks for your assistance.

- Collapse -
ntfs vs fat
Jun 8, 2005 10:45AM PDT

I don't believe you can convert from fat to ntfs without loosing all your info.
Ntfs will read fat but not the reverse.
You may want to install windows on a ntfs partition on the new drive as master, with the old fat drive set as slave you can now transfer all the info to the new ntfs partition on the new drive. With that done you can format the old drive as desired.

- Collapse -
Actually, you can...
Jun 8, 2005 11:23AM PDT

You can convert from FAT to NTFS in windows easily, but there are risks involved. It's possible to loss all the data. To convert from NTFS to FAT, you'll need extra software, like Partition Magic. Windows does not allow you to convert back to FAT.

Just leave it. FAT is better anyways...

- Collapse -
use partition magic
Jun 8, 2005 2:03PM PDT

I have a lot of experience with both formats. There is NO difference in speed that you can tell. The only difference in speed I have noticed, is that you can defrag in minutes and not hours in NTFS. NTFS is definitly the way of the future. So, why wait? Another good reason is NTFS uses smaller cluster sizes on the drive and there is almost no wasted drive space. I have converted from fat32 to NTFS and NTFS to fat32 numerous times to learn the differences,using partition magic. Never did a backup and, never had a problem. Skip

- Collapse -
FAT is faster...
Jun 8, 2005 4:47PM PDT

I disagree. FAT is definately faster. I download/upload via file sharing networks all the time. FAT have significantly shorter file hashing time compared to NTFS.

- Collapse -
Better/Faster!!
Jun 9, 2005 12:31AM PDT
- Collapse -
NTFS.com?
Jun 9, 2005 4:27AM PDT

I've seen that before. NTFS would obviously look better according to something called NTFS.com -_-

Trust me, FAT is visibly faster, if nothing else...

- Collapse -
Your opinion.......
Jun 9, 2005 3:29PM PDT

Wrong!

Q: How does NTFS compared to FAT32 in Windows XP, and which is faster?
A: NTFS has much more built-in features than FAT, so generally it is a bit slower.

However it depends on many factors such as cluster size, average file size, etc.

For example, NTFS can keep small files inside MFT entry, so if the file size is less than cluster size, most likely it will be accessed much faster on NTFS than on FAT.

Generally speaking the performance of NTFS on large volumes is higher than performance of FAT32. NTFS performance on small volumes is lower than performance of FAT/FAT32.

- Collapse -
Yes I know...
Jun 9, 2005 5:31PM PDT

That was from NTFS.com... -_-

- Collapse -
How to Decide
Jun 10, 2005 12:42AM PDT
- Collapse -
its a fact, not fiction.
Jun 10, 2005 12:14PM PDT

No matter who wrote it.

- Collapse -
Great...
Jun 10, 2005 1:03PM PDT

That "expert" is from Microsoft. They created NTFS. It's their newest pride, do you expect them to say it's bad?

One of my 2 harddrives is 160 GB, not big by today's standards, but not small either. NTFS is slower on it.

- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) by how many miliseconds?
Jun 12, 2005 12:14AM PDT
- Collapse -
(NT) (NT) exactly!!!
Jun 12, 2005 3:47AM PDT
- Collapse -
probabaly because
Jun 12, 2005 3:46AM PDT

you like celerons. hehe!

- Collapse -
Gah...
Jun 12, 2005 6:01AM PDT

I swap a lot of files via bittorrent...

The difference in speed is noticable, or I wouldn't have said that there are any at all. Hash checking files, and estimating total volume of a very large folder, NTFS takes much longer than FAT. The only time where NTFS is faster is while defragmenting and scandisk. Who needs these?

And about Celeron, you're just jealous that I can build a computer for $600, a year ago, and it runs Far Cry and HL2 at a comfortable rate of around 40fps, while you spend many times that amount and end up with lag.

- Collapse -
HD
Jul 8, 2005 11:07AM PDT

Thanks Skip...anything I should be on the lookout for or keep my eye on?