FAT or NTFS?

No real difference speed wise. I've personally stuck with NTFS when using NT, 2000 or XP.

The only problem with FAT 32 in XP is that it does not support partitions larger than 32Gb in size.
 
c9-2001 said:
under xppro my system drive is fat32, my audio drive is ntfs...
Click to expand...

now thats the strangest setup i've heard why would u have ur system drive fat 32 and audio drive ntfs? ntfs is supposedly slower for audio(how much slower who knows) and fat 32 is more prone the corrupt the system software...

anyway i'd say go for NTFS its supposed to be more stable, and i even heard some say its sounds better then fat 32...now that may be stretching but who knows...
 
Teacher said:
now thats the strangest setup i've heard why would u have ur system drive fat 32 and audio drive ntfs? ntfs is supposedly slower for audio(how much slower who knows) and fat 32 is more prone the corrupt the system software...
Click to expand...
after building a good 400 computer... ntfs isn't that much slower and with this drive its actually faster and 2x as stable.. i have a western digital 120gig drive with 8mb cache... i get a much better track count with this drive ntfs vs fat32....

my system drive, its fat32 right now b/c it came out of one of my other machines...i didn't feel like backing up everything at the time and my new tape backups weren't even setup... though they are now.. so i canbackup this 40gig drive then make it ntfs if need be... but the system works perfect.. my track count is crazy so until i have a problem its gonna stay fat32
 
You could always just run convert and cross your fingers! :)

I also wasn't able to demonstrate much of any speed difference between FAT32 and NTFS in multiple large file processes. Usually one would come out ahead but the winner seemed almost arbitrary.

A file system has no sound. Whoever told you that needs to be eliminated so his moron gene will not continue to spread through our modern gene pool. You don't have to kill him, just lock him up. Give him an old record player, that should keep him fascinated for 50 years or so.

Slackmaster 2000
 
I moved back to fat12 because, IMO it's smoother sounding. Hard to describe. Vintage like ya know?



:D
 
c9-2001 said:

after building a good 400 computer... ntfs isn't that much slower and with this drive its actually faster and 2x as stable.. i have a western digital 120gig drive with 8mb cache... i get a much better track count with this drive ntfs vs fat32....

my system drive, its fat32 right now b/c it came out of one of my other machines...i didn't feel like backing up everything at the time and my new tape backups weren't even setup... though they are now.. so i canbackup this 40gig drive then make it ntfs if need be... but the system works perfect.. my track count is crazy so until i have a problem its gonna stay fat32
Click to expand...

Makes sense, those 8mb cache WD drives are the shiznit huh?
 
I know you were kidding, I was just fishing for a smile or two out there..
It did bring back a fond rememberance of my old VIC-20 an C-64, and cakewalk 1 on a C-128.
 
Toki987 said:
I know you were kidding, I was just fishing for a smile or two out there..
It did bring back a fond rememberance of my old VIC-20 an C-64, and cakewalk 1 on a C-128.
Click to expand...

ah ok. heheh. Cakewalk 1!! I never did any recordings on those machines but I did own a TRS-80. :)
 
I have heard some people say that NTFS is slower for audio, but I have never actually seen any official documentation from any software or MS about it. I used FAT32 for a while, but when I got my 30 and 60 gig drives, I switched to NTFS and found no difference whatsoever. If there is one, I was unable to notice it. get fast (7200 rpm) drives and go NTFS.
 
There was a time when NTFS was a tad slower - by design it does have more overhead. However, along with NT itself, NTFS has grown up considerably over the past couple years - and so have ATA hard drives and controllers!

The whole "NTFS is slower" myth will continue to exist for many years into the future...just like disabling video card acceleration....running in 256 colors....defragging once a week...fixing the pagefile size...disabling networking....etc etc.

Slackmaster 2000
 
That article cited by Mr. Argo sums it up pretty well. Each file system has it's benefits and weaknesses.

I used to stick with FAT32 just because I like to be able to boot up from a floppy and access the hard drive in case of a problem. Most boot floppies can't read NTFS partitions. Howver since I started using a driver that fixes this issue (see http://www.homerecording.com/bbs/showthread.php?threadid=59973&highlight=NTFS ) I now would lean towards using NTFS. But perfomance wise, it's a wash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top