NEW 1TB HDD what format would you use

Gigabyte / M61pme-s2p
January 26, 2011 at 11:18:50
Specs: Windows XP, 2.712 GHz / 1983 MB
I know how to format my drive but it is either going to be NTFS or Fat32, and I want to get the most available space out of it that I can. I don't like NTFS because of the difference in compression methods of files, but if I can get more user space over Fat32 I may go with it.

Anyway what format would you use, or recommend.

See More: NEW 1TB HDD what format would you use

Report •

January 26, 2011 at 11:22:49
NTFS always except for some flash keys. Its a 1tb HD your talking about saving a few megs maybe even a gig with FAT32 but you are sacrificing security and speed. But seriously its a terabyte with the cost of storage today i would not be worried about space at all.

Report •

January 26, 2011 at 12:36:08
Your are probably right NTFS does have a lot of advanced features over FAT32 and a extra gigabyte really wouldn't matter much it's not like I'll run out space. It's a SATA drive too so I probably want speed more than extra space.

Report •

January 26, 2011 at 13:22:21
I don't like NTFS because of the difference in compression methods of files

What compression?

You can turn compression off if you don't like it and even then it only compresses files that you tell it to.

If you format 1Tb with FAT32, and you are going to need third party tools to do it, there is going to be an awful lot of slack space and it will be slower than NTFS.

Why do you think Microsoft restricted FAT32 to 32 Gbs. Not just for the fun of it and not to "force" people to use NTFS either.

It was stop ill informed people from doing silly things like using a file system that has its roots back in the 1970s when 100 Mbs was a huge amount of disk space, let alone 1TB

Have a read of this. If you can be bothered reading it all scroll down to the end where is explains what happens when you format Tb drives with Fat32.


Report •

Related Solutions

January 26, 2011 at 13:30:26
I would only ever consider exfat or ntfs. Who on earth still needs to boot to windows 95? If you do then you may want to keep fat, otherwise your only choice is ntfs.

Why did it take me over a year to phone in a problem to ATT?

Report •

January 26, 2011 at 23:51:47
Oh I just found out forget NTFS and Fat32 I am going with exFat known as FAT64 why use obsolete formats if you don't have to.

Report •

January 27, 2011 at 00:50:30
The Issue with compression on NTFS is the whole problem with it, it's because NTFS uses compression automatically when it formats your drive and when storing files, Fat = No Compression, NTFS uses built in Compression aside from the additional compression that you can turn on or off. When your only using NTFS drives you'll never notice but working along side FAT32 NTFS uses a compression for storing files that can't be turned off.

Essentially what I am saying is that you can't or rather should not use Fat32 and NTFS drives together all your hard drives should be using the same format.

Why do you think Microsoft restricted FAT32 to 32 Gbs. When did that happen I never heard of it, I've always formatted my FAT32 drives with DOS who ever uses the windows format program that thing barely formats a floppy disk let alone anything else. DOS 7 or Win98 DOS supports FAT32 Drives up to 500gigs. Microsoft forgot about DOS.

Report •

January 27, 2011 at 02:15:17
NTFS is journaled, has built-in security controls, allows sparse files, etc., etc. Why would anybody not use it?

I believe that your assertion that "NTFS uses compression automatically when it formats your drive and when storing files" is pure hogwash. NTFS compresses files only if you specifically ask it to. Do you have a reference for your assertion?

Report •

January 27, 2011 at 07:27:46
I think Obsolete you are getting yourself totally confused.

Compression in NTFS is optional. You can tell when a file is compressed as it appear in Windows Explorer with a different colour, blue by default. The only files that a compressed automatically are the update files that are downloaded via Microsofts Update site.

Using FAT32 and NTFS in the same system is not a problem, not in the least. People do it all the time. There is absolutely no reason at all why you cannot mix them.

Supporting a file system and creating it are two different things. All version of Windows after Windows 95 support FAT32 greater than 32 Gbs, Creating it via format is a different thing altogether.

MS-DOS is a 16 bit operating system and therefore can only use FAT 16 which is restricted to 2 Gbs.

DOS 7 and Win98 DOS are enhanced version to support 32 bit operating system like Windows 98

If you formated FAT 32 greater than 32Gbs then you used a third party tool as I mentioned in post #3. You have admitted not using Microsoft format becasue if you did you would know all about the 32 Gb limit.

As mentioned by Ijack, NTFS has so much going for it, it is silly not to use. That is if you understand what a journaled file system is. That alone put NTFS head and shoulders above FAT32. With all the other attributes , FAT32 barley comes up to the ankles. 1970s technology v 1990s technology.

To add: Reading the description of ExFAT it appears it is just another kludge to accommodate specific circumstances. Unless those circumstances arise there is no benefit in using it.


Report •

January 27, 2011 at 14:04:56
Yeah it may be I never turned off the Compression on NTFS or just used compression by default, when I had used it before, journaled file system does that have something to do with Linux that is the only place I ever heard of it being used.

I just haven't kept up with all the technology, I didn't even know about exFAT before yesterday, I don't even know what raid is in my bios or if I should enable it, I am using my sata drive as an IDE. I am going to try this exFAT but if I don't like it I'll probably use NTFS I don't think you can install XP on exFAT even though it can read it with an update from Microsoft, during setup it probably won't see the drive. Eventually I am going to replace my current 500gb with this new drive as the primary drive. But am waiting because I'll be upgrading to windows 7 before long. It's already in the mail.

Thanks for all the advice, I am going to read up on NTFS and exFAT and try to get a better understanding of them before I change over to windows 7. Best Regards.

Report •

January 27, 2011 at 14:12:51
Just for info, journalling means that the file system can easily recover from most crashes. The file system keeps a record (or journal) of changes made and if something goes wrong it can roll them back to get to a consistent state. With 1,000 GB of data to lose a journalling file system is a great benefit. It is quite uncommon for an NTFS partition to get so corrupted that it cannot be recovered something that is not true of any FAT partition.

Report •

January 27, 2011 at 19:09:40
Compression has been a great way to speed up many computers. Any bugs were worked out like 15 years ago.

NTFS is the normal XP choice.
An add-on allows some features of exfat on xp but not native so don't use it for a boot drive and you can't use it for large files support yet.

Windows 7 fully supports a newer version of NTFS that is better. W7 also has almost full support for exfat. One would still be wise to choose ntfs on windows 7 but may wish to look at their file uses for thinking about exfat. I use virtual machines on exfat partitions sometimes.

The next version of Windows may well support booting from exfat and it may be a good choice for some situations in the future.

"The era of big government is over," said Clinton 1996

Report •

Ask Question