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

question about FORMATTING the hard drive

May 30, 2005 3:53PM PDT

I had xp on my computer and it crashed because of some stupid virus program that i installed...i want to format the hard drive and re-innstall xp...

but i am not sure if i should choose fat or fat 32 or ntsf for file system....

which one should i choose? thanks.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Format options
May 30, 2005 4:23PM PDT

1: Fat - you cannot event use this DOS and Win95
2: Fat32 XP will limit the drive to 32 GIGs
and it is not as stable as NTFS
3: NTFS is the native format to use, use this one.

- Collapse -
FAT v. NTFS
May 30, 2005 9:03PM PDT

FAT would be ever so slightly faster because of lower overhead, but it lacks the security and efficiency in terms of disk utilization that NTFS has.

So, unless you have some specific reason for using FAT, use NTFS.

BTW, FAT no more or less stable than NTFS. If anything, it's more stable, since the original, FAT12, was created way back when so that DOS could access floppy disks. Since then the basic structure of FAT hasn't changed, it's just been altered to be able to use larger and larger disks. NTFS didn't exist until NT came into being, and by that point, FAT had already been around for around 10 years. FAT is also far less complex than NTFS, since it doesn't support permissions like NTFS, and now NTFS also supports transparent compression and encryption, which FAT doesn't. Still, despite all that, NTFS is the better choice. Just wanted to correct the other responder, and was too lazy to make another post.

- Collapse -
FAT is unstable.
May 30, 2005 9:13PM PDT

With FAT32 you see machines constantly running chkdsk on startup due to limititions in that file system. You see lost clusters and it can lose a file.

NTFS has an error resistant design.

At over 10 years old, this FAT issue was never addressed. Why? It's from another era.

Bob

- Collapse -
That's not unstable
May 30, 2005 10:45PM PDT

That's unreliable, which is a totally different problem. And NTFS's "error resistance" is often greatly exagerated. It's only does about half of what a typical journaled filesystem does. Better than FAT to be sure, but still your typical half-assed job from MS.

- Collapse -
Just one question.
May 30, 2005 11:32PM PDT

Why would you use this?

- Collapse -
Who is it that was "too lazy"
May 31, 2005 3:54AM PDT

And why did another post need to be made?