Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
I am going to take out my win 98 HD out of my computer and replace it with a WD 120 Gid HD and install win xp pro. The WD is brand new and has never been formatted. I have never done this with win xp so my question is do I use the software that comes with the HD or does the win xppro
disk has its own partioning software? I would like this to work without a bunch of problems.
Also should I use fat 32 or ntif?...thanks for your time....JLJLowery169
Xp takes care of the partitioning and format process, just slap the disc in to start the installation.
NTFS is better than FAT.
There is only one satisfying way to boot a computer.
0 
NTFS is better than FAT and more so particularly when you plan to use XP Pro to take advantage of its EFS and other security features...
i_XpUser
0
NTFS stinks in my opinion.
You may want to add some more memory before going the XP route. 256MB is a bit on the shy side.
The WD tools will work to format the drive just fine but the XP installer is esentally the same.
Jimi_l
0
>> NTFS stinks in my opinion <<
Try formatting anything over 32 Gbs with FAT32 and you will soon find out why NTFS is better. That is providing you understand what is meant by slack space. Lost clusters are almost unheard off with NTFS plus the fact that the larger the hard disk, the more eficcient NTFS gets while FAT32 begins to slow down quite a lot.
Stuart
0
suggest you use the winxp install disk to set up at least two partitions. install xp on the first (10 GB should be enough) and keep your data on the second. when you have installed everything to your liking make a ghost image of C: drive and save it on D: drive. if you ever mess up your windows installation you just restore it from the ghost image on D: - takes 10 minutes instead of 10 hours.
0
I was hoping to avaid this discussion but I suspected some back yard guru would just have to debate it in the open to prove his self worth.
I format large drive FAT style all the time. They are neither slower, less efficent or any other term you read about online.
The usual rebuttal from NTFS fans is that this graph or that Website shows it is a billionth of a second faster than a FAT drive which may be true on paper but cannot be seen by end users or any real world application.
Try rescuing data from a corrupt NTFS drive sometime. They fail in the field at about twice the rate of FAT drives do and have about 1/10 the recovery tools available.
And you may want to build a few systems for yourself before you talk down to people who do it for a living.
Jimi_l
0
Jumi_l
>> I was hoping to avaid this discussion <<
Well don't make such sweeping bigoted statements like you did. Or if you do, be prepared to support it.
A FAT32 drive of 32Mbs has a cluster size of 16 Kbs, getting progressively larger the larger the disk gets. NTFS has a cluster size if 4Kbs all the way up to 2 terabytes. Thats what is meant by efficiency, efficient use of disk space.
4 Gbts is the maximum file size for FAT32. Not so large in these days of video editing where files sizes are measured in 10s if gigabytes.
I have never had a lost cluster on an NTFS drive nor have I lost any data from an NTFS drive. Not something I can say about FAT32.
Last data on an NTFS drive or more likely to be caused by a hardware failure than a software failure.
FAT32 is based on a technology designed in the early eighties do drive floppy disks as small compact hard disk hadn't yet been invented. It has since been hacked to allow it to use bigger and bigger hard disks.
I would sooner use something that was designed specifically for large disks.
Oh yes Jimmi, I have built quite a few system myself, the first one in 1990.
Stuart
0  |
 |
 |
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
