New xp install, FAT32 or NTFS?

O

oboyco

Gawd
Joined
Apr 11, 2005
Messages
533
Right now I'm running winME on my c drive. I have a new wd 80gb wd drive coming with new xp pro. My plan is to install xp on a 18gb partition. My existing usage on c drive is only about 6gb, so space shouldn't be a problem, I'll probably create a new partition or so after xp is installed on the 80gb.

I will use my existing c drive as a slave to the new drive, (making it d drive). My question is can I use the existing drive with ME on it to use as a backup if I format the new c drive in NTFS? In other words, can I copy and paste files betwen the two drives reguardless of the file system. Files are files, correct or no?

Say for example, for some reason I need to reformat and reinstall xp, I can use the files I backed up to d drive without any problem? Still a little confused about file systems, and actual files. I have no intention to dual boot btw.

I also plan to backup to cd or dvd on a regular basis as well. Any suggestions or comments are appreciated. Flames too for that matter :eek:
 
go NTFS... not quite as fast, but more secure and more up to date...


-=R=-
 
NTFS...

I didnt even know people still used FAT32. Yuck.

You are moving away from a 9x platform to a NT platform. Use NTFS...
 
I understand NTSF is the way to go, however I just want to make sure I can tranfer files between the two drives without a problem. From all I've read I think I can, just wanted to make sure. After all d drive will be used as a storage device right?

And yes I'm finally entering the 21st century. Hell I'm even planning to upgrade mb, case, psu and cpu, etc, in the near future as money allows so I'm sure I'll have a lot more questions
 
Yes you can transfer the files between the 2 fine.

I mean, if you can transfer files from a PC - Both Fat32 and NTFS to a Mac (HFS+) then you surely can transfer files between 2 windows drives :D
 
Thanks, that's exactly the answer I was looking for :cool:

I guess the confusion comes from the booting ability between the two systems. Hope I said that right
 
Just read this from another forum, looks like FAT32 can't detect a NTFS format, so I'm assuming that the xp NTFS wouldn't detect the ME FAT32 format. In which case, my old d drive wouldn't be seen by xp, and my plan wouldn't work?

quote:


I had a Windows XP setup with a 120gb secondary HD that had just data on it (no OS). Long story short, that computer is gonna be out of commision for a while, and I need to get to the data on that secondary HD.

Now, the only other computer option I have is my girlfriends, which is an older Dell Dimension 8100 with Windows Millenium on it (I know I know). I went ahead and put the 120gb HD from my computer into hers, got the jumpers set properly, etc. The HD shows up in the BIOS, but it doesn't show up when I go into "My Computer" on the Dell. Only the boot drive (C drive) shows up, but the data only drive I pulled from my computer doesn't show up.

I need to get into this second HD without re-formatting it, since I need the data on it.

Am I just SOL here or is there something I'm missing?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Was the harddrive formatted in NTFS? Me wont be able to detect an NTFS formatted harddrive, only FAT32 afaik.
 
Just an example.

I have one machine with an 80gb Maxtor partioned in half; 40/40gb. It's old. So years ago before XP the drive was formatted to FAT32 both Partitions.

When XP arrived, I formatted C: to NTFS and installed XP Pro. The other, or D:, is still FAT32 and I can read transfer all files stored there.

Don't know if that helps you but....If that's what you're asking?

gl :)
 
Looks like some of you are confusing things here a bit and/or have bad information.

XP can use FAT32 or NTFS formatted disks regardless of how you formatted your OS install.

Example, if XP is installed on a FAT32 partition, you can still read other disks formatted as NTFS, likewise if your XP install is on NTFS, you can read other drives formatted as FAT32.

What is not common knowledge to average users is that there are times when you take a drive from one system and place it into another, you may need to go into disk management and either import foreign disk or assign that drive a drive letter in order for it to show up in Windows Explorer.


The above is not to be confused with the fact that MS operating systems prior to Windows 2000 cannot read NTFS natively (e.g. Windows 9x and ME)
 
Papa and number, yes that answers the question, in terms I understand :)
I've googled this thing to death, and finally got some specific information as to what I want to do, here on this forum.

Thanks a bunch all
 
So SJ you are saying that xp will detect but not necesarily, automatically assign my old drive a letter, therefore making it inacessible through explorer?

Sounds strange, but that's very good to know.
 
I didnt even know people still used FAT32. Yuck.
Click to expand...

There is nothing "yuck" about Fat32, its a perfectly viable file system. All of my drives are Fat32 and will remain so. I have no need for the NTFS security features. Fat32's 4Gb file size limit does't concern me and neither does cluster size. As already stated, Fat32 is generally faster than NTFS, which is another plus.

Deciding which system to use is a personal choice, nothing more.

(But you would need to drag me kicking and screaming to NTFS. :D )
 
oboyco said:
So SJ you are saying that xp will detect but not necesarily, automatically assign my old drive a letter, therefore making it inacessible through explorer?

Sounds strange, but that's very good to know.
Click to expand...

Yes. under certain circumstances (primarily when moving NTFS drives), you may need to go into the disk management console and either "import foreign disk or simply assign the drive a drive letter.
 
01101001 said:
There is nothing "yuck" about Fat32, its a perfectly viable file system. All of my drives are Fat32 and will remain so. I have no need for the NTFS security features. Fat32's 4Gb file size limit does't concern me and neither does cluster size. As already stated, Fat32 is generally faster than NTFS, which is another plus.

Deciding which system to use is a personal choice, nothing more.

(But you would need to drag me kicking and screaming to NTFS. :D )
Click to expand...


FAT32 is also a good idea if you run linux, that way you can access your files on yuor windows drive
 
If you are new everything, I highly suggest NTFS. It's more stable and more fuctional. Also more compatible for file sharing among others. NTFS is the large majorities choice, so just do NTFS.
 
Oboyco,

Do you wish to preserve your ME install?

Or, do you wish to only preserve some files you have stored there on your current ME hard drive?


EDIT: The reason I'm asking is I'm thinking dual boot. You're already half way there since, the older operating system is installed first * ME * your current OS, then the newer * XP* last. You can certainly install XP on the second partition using FAT32.

To further clarify, your new HDD can be set to slave for storage and you can begin a file system there to save all your favorite files. Something like that.

:)
 
Altec, my system is 4 years old now, AMD Thunderbird 900, 256mb pc133, QDI mb.
I decided to do a gradual upgrade as cash allows, so eventually I'll have a new case w/ psu Antec 3000slk, mb MSI rm480 and AMD64 939 3000 cpu, and a dvd burner. The OS and new drive seemed priotity now as I don't know if this existing Maxtor is going to suddenly die at any minute. Sometimes I think it's been living on borrowed time, as have the rest of the components. My hd data is irreplaceable, (my life for the past ten years on it), but the other parts are. This is why I'm so anal about the backup.

So yeah, it's about time to try and get up to speed on the latest. NTFS being part of it. I can see FAT32 being obsolete in the not to far future, and as you can tell, I don't like to upgrade until I really need to, been there with the upgrade once a year thing, and it's too hard on the pocketbook for what you get, lol.

The advantage I see for NTSF is the decrease of fragmentation, and efficiency of the file storage system. I have no need for file encryption though and actually have heard the horror storys of crashed systems and the user not backing their private keys. All is lost then.

But then again I'm open to any and all suggestions as to why FAT is better.

Papa, I definately want keep ME on a separate drive until I get xp up and running good for a while, in the event I totally botch the xp install or screw something up, at least I have a working OS, as poor as it may be. After that I don't care about ME.
 
Well Papa, I'm confused enough without the dual boot option. As long as NTFS can read FAT32, I should be good to go with XP, NTFS as master, and ME FAT32 as slave. I do plan on creating another partiton on the new c drive after install and making sure xp sees and assigns my old drive a d letter, so my drives are in the proper letter sequence, not that it really matters, but I'm just used to the slave being d drive

Thanks for the idea, I'll ponder on it.
 
Komataguri said:
FAT32 is also a good idea if you run linux, that way you can access your files on yuor windows drive
Click to expand...
this is the main reason i have fat32 partitions on my hd. heck, its prolly the only reason i have fat32 partitions. although fat32 has its advantages, for your situation i suggest using ntfs whenever you can. basically anything you want to be accessed from either os, put it into a fat32 partition.
 
Papi, hopefully SP2 is included with this version of pro I'm getting. If not I'll download it as recommended. I've gone thru just about every install guide google has to offer, so I think I could do it in my sleep........maybe.

oO. not a bad idea to make a FAT32 partion, if for no other reason than to be able to access DOS if needed for some kind of disk utility or another. Plenty of room on this hd, for my needs anyway.
 
01101001 said:
There is nothing "yuck" about Fat32, its a perfectly viable file system. All of my drives are Fat32 and will remain so. I have no need for the NTFS security features. Fat32's 4Gb file size limit does't concern me and neither does cluster size. As already stated, Fat32 is generally faster than NTFS, which is another plus.

Deciding which system to use is a personal choice, nothing more.

(But you would need to drag me kicking and screaming to NTFS. :D )
Click to expand...
On small drives FAT32 is faster, but on drives in todays world, NTFS is much faster. ;)
 
SJConsultant said:
The above is not to be confused with the fact that MS operating systems prior to Windows 2000 cannot read NTFS natively (e.g. Windows 9x and ME)
Click to expand...

That's were I got confused. Thanks.
 
01101001 said:
There is nothing "yuck" about Fat32, its a perfectly viable file system. All of my drives are Fat32 and will remain so. I have no need for the NTFS security features. Fat32's 4Gb file size limit does't concern me and neither does cluster size. As already stated, Fat32 is generally faster than NTFS, which is another plus.

Deciding which system to use is a personal choice, nothing more.

(But you would need to drag me kicking and screaming to NTFS. :D )
Click to expand...


While Ranma already addressed this to some degree, I feel that further explanation may be need as to why fat32 can be a bad idea.

fat32 is indeed a viable file system. It does what it was designed to do, and does it fairly well. However…

NTFS is generally faster than FAT32. FAT32 can be faster for small volumes but it doesn’t scale up as well as NTFS. If your drive size is over 20GB, you are probably better off using NTFS, at least from a performance standpoint.

As for the security features of NTFS, there are cases where they are not needed, but that’s uncommon (IMHO). I can understand someone not needing user quotas or encryption, I don’t use those normally, but access control lists (ACLs) are the foundation of much of the security with the OS itself. If Windows is running from a FAT32 partition, you have effectively removed\disabled all security systems within the OS. That alone does not make the OS vulnerable to an exploit, but it means it’s much more important to have the firewall enabled and all updates installed since there is a greater chance of an exploit leading to system compromise. What’s more, you must take extra care to update any applications which use the network in any way.

For example, say you have an ftp server installed and that ftp server has an unpatched vulnerability. Normally that server should\would be run under an account with limited permissions, so the OS would enforce limitations on the process, even if that vulnerability was exploited. When running on a system partition that does not support security ACLs, there is no way for the OS to prevent a compromised server process from compromising the system itself.

So…
Because I believe in defense in depth, and I take care with the security of the systems I own\use, I would not use FAT32 partitions for the boot or system partitions for any of my systems. There are cases where I use FAT32, but only when necessary. And I can only recommend that end user do the same.


Not trying to be an alarmist here, but I take system security very seriously…
…there are even those that call me a little paranoid :), but I take it as a compliment.
 
Komataguri said:
FAT32 is also a good idea if you run linux, that way you can access your files on yuor windows drive
Click to expand...

actually you can access NTFS too these days with any modern kernel
I mostly employ Suse9 (Novell) Personal & Pro, But also Astaro Security Linux

[MS] all good points ;) there is really no reason to use FAT32 unless your running DOS aps
I wont run any FAT32 aside from flashdrives & floppies (FAT16)

advanced conversion issues
http://aumha.org/win5/a/ntfscvt.php

and additional "alignment" info
http://msd2d.com/newsletter_tip.aspx?section=exchange&id=34da9c65-6b0c-4904-83ca-9f553b4b8b08


number69 said:
NTFS can see fat32, fat32 can't see NTFS.
Click to expand...

natively
NTFS for Windows 98 is a NTFS file system driver for Windows 95 and Windows 98. Once installed, any NTFS drives present on your system will be fully accessible as native Windows 98 volumes. This version provides read-only capabilities. (freeware)

read and write costs
http://www.sysinternals.com/ntw2k/freeware/ntfsdospro.shtml
 
There is some software called Mount-Everything! (lol) that allows some backward(and forward) compatibility between different filesystems. http://www.paragon-gmbh.com/

It's cheap and useful if you really don't want to just set up some small shared partition (there is a maximum size fat32 partition that WinXP will read. I can't remember what it is).
 
velusip said:
There is some software called Mount-Everything! (lol) that allows some backward(and forward) compatibility between different filesystems. http://www.paragon-gmbh.com/

It's cheap and useful if you really don't want to just set up some small shared partition (there is a maximum size fat32 partition that WinXP will read. I can't remember what it is).
Click to expand...
XP will read and write to any size FAT32 partition. It just wont let you create a fat32 partition bigger then 32GB. But if you make a fat32 partition bigger then that using a win98 boot disk, Windows XP will see it just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top