I have ran into this issue a few times, and I have yet to find any legitimate resource that answers this question....

Does it slow does a computer that is FAT32 if you defragment using a NTFS defragmenter?

Here is an example I have ran into a few times now:

User has XP and has two drives; one is NTFS, and one is FAT32. Both drives are fragmented, and appear to slow the system down. Should the said user use the default XP defragmenter to defrag both drives? Or is a FAT32 defragmenter needed?

I would assume the defrag tool shipped with XP is designed to defrag NTFS. Therefore, defraging a FAT32 with XP's defrag tool would actually order the files in the way that NTFS would utilize the drive rather than the way it should be organized, to utilize it's FAT32 native file architecture.

I meant to say....

Does it slow down a computer that is FAT32, if you defragment using a NTFS defragmenter?

I don't think there is such a thing as a FAT32 vs. NTFS defrag tool. Defragmenting a drive is the process of rearranging bits and pieces of files that belong together, as opposed to being scattered all over the drive. The only difference in one over the other, as far as fragmentation is concerned, is the default cluster size of NTFS is most likely much smaller than FAT32. I'm pretty sure the included defrag tool in XP isn't tweaked for NTFS.

I have useed the XP degrager for both NTFS and FAT32 never had any problems, i use Raxco perfect disk http://www.raxco.com/
to derag my drives now, it seems to do a MUCH better job than the XP one..

that wont make a diffrence i dont think. all a defrager does is take the blocks of data and arange them so all data is in a continus block. the process is a bit like a shuffle to get all the data in order. some times a disk might need a couple of defrags to get everything exactly grouped. i think this is due to the method being a bit crude since its a more of a shuffle.
i think trying to rember back to university a operating system has a table that links all the data together and aslong as the defrager can read that table and find the blocks it will work. i dont think there is anyting specific about theses file systems which would cause problems. as for tweeks i dont think there is such a thing. but some defragers do work better and faster than others. the one thats in the os is a bit poop but its free!

all text needs typos. There there for the reader to find,to distract them from the total lack of content.
google it! wasnt the answer to the question i asked so dont be dense and give me that repl

actually i think Lordmanhammer is right, but what i meant about Raxco was that it does the job quicker and well the general concenus on the xp one is that it is poop as you said, and this one does do a decent job, and yes again it is sometimes neccessary to run it more than once, sometimes i run it 3 or 4 times before it put everything in order. but i can definetly say its better than the xp one, and its not free unfortunetly :( but you can download a trial one. i defrag once a week, maybe a little excessive but atleast when i run the defrag it doesnt take hours anymore, its worth it in my opinion.

suspect, what makes you think there is a difference in the defrag utility based on file system?

Life's more painless for the brainless.

oh carefull with the weekly defragging.
this cause wear on the drive. since a drive has a finite nimber of times it can write to the disk.

all text needs typos. There there for the reader to find,to distract them from the total lack of content.
google it! wasnt the answer to the question i asked so dont be dense and give me that repl

#7 is very much "opinion". Google around....

The most informative articles I've read over the years have come down in favour of the idea that defragging could even "increase" HD life because it reduces subsequent head movements.

some other bloke...

#7 is wrong. If you defrag regularly, there will be less to defrag every time, and the defragmenter will wind up it's job quickly. There is no such thing as 'overdefragging' because if there is nothing to defragment, then the defragger is not going to start moving data around merely for kicks.

I personally think automatic defragmentation is the coolest because the user does not need to determine whether to defrag, and waste time running a defrag manually or scheduling one. With automatic defrag, the software can do everything in the background with barely a hit on system resources.

I think most commercial defragmenters work on both NTFS as well as FAT, but are optimized for NTFS. Some of the more exotic features of these defraggers such as file system optimization may work only with NTFS though.