Fat32 or NTFS

well, I'm not qualififed to answer this, but that has never stopped me before. From my understanding, NT can't use FAT32, only FAT16. And I read somewhere, maybe on prorec, that NTFS wasen't so good for recording. Maybe Slackmaster2K could shed some light on this subject.

So in conclusion, my unqualified answer....FAT16.

OR...you could bypass NT altogether, switch to Novell and record on Lotus Notes. It's more stable :rolleyes:
 
I'm not too qualified either, but here I go...from what I have read, heard, or dreamed, NT can use fat32 if you install some fat32 drivers so NT can actually see the files on that file system. Windows 95/98 can use this as well. I think but am not sure, that the OS can search in this file system faster than using a FAT (or FAT16 as its also called) file system, which is an old system used by DOS, and those early windows 3.1 etc. OS's. You can still use it with any of the windows OS's, but when you compare it to NTFS (which only NT can use) I believe it has more advantages than dissadvantages in our day and age. NT can use either FAT or NTFS, but also FAT32 if you got the drivers, and need to dual boot on one disk drive so you could read data with both OS's.
FAT is good for drive sizes of 500MB or less, which would make sense 5 years ago, anything bigger than 1G, I guess the search times for files gets a lot slower than compared to NTFS. If you have a large hard drive, NTFS can fit on the whole thing I think (20G or less I think?), with FAT you will have a bunch of 2G partitions to work with. But the main thing is the speed of the search times of the files in the file system, and from what I've read NTFS is supposed to be faster, and this is what would be good for digital recording I would imagine. It also has a feature that is supposed to give security to files in a case where, for instance, the power goes out or something.
FAT32 can also fit on a large disk drive too, but I don't know the pro's and con's of that compared to NTFS, but its probably better and faster than FAT.
If you got just NT on the whole computer, it looks like NTFS is the best option.

But then, we better let someone else reply to you because I am a very confused man on a sugar high right now.
howd i do?
 
Ok, there's way to much thinking going on here :)

FAT32 -> Used by windows95/98 and supported by NT5 (win2000). Good for large drives, fairly efficient. Can't be used by NT4 or lower without 3rd party drivers. NT4 CAN'T be INSTALLED on FAT32, even with proper drivers. For the most part you can assume that FAT32 partitions can be of any size.

FAT16 -> Older filesystem but still kind of the old standby. Partition sizes are limited to 4GB in NT and 2GB in Win95 or less. Not as efficient on today's drive sizes. NT and 95 can both be installed on FAT16...any MS OS can be installed on FAT16.

NTFS -> NT File System. Relatively efficient file system (of course). Has added benefit of security which has nothing to do with the power going out :) File security is implemented via "permissions", very much like a unix filesystem. You can restrict access to users or groups of users. This feature is rarely if ever used on a home computer using NT. NTFS partitions can be large, though there are some problems with pre service pack 3 in that the NT installer won't recognize partitions over 8GB. I've never seen this though. You can pretty much say that NTFS partitions can be as big as you want them without shooting yourself in the foot :) Can't be seen by Win98 or less without 3rd party drivers.

If your system is going to be NT only, use NTFS. If it's going to be Win95/98 only, use FAT32. If it's going to be a mixture, then you're in for headaches. The EASIEST way, in my opinion, is to install 98 to one drive and NT to another. And install each on its native file system (NTFS, FAT32). If you're installing both to the same drive, then it gets sticky and there are many routes to take. I recommend using FAT32 drivers for NT and installing NT on a small FAT16 partition. I can discuss that more if necessary.

Slackmaster 2000
 
I think I like the Novell on the NTFS :)

I plan on using NT only so NTFS sounds like a good choice, but right now I am using two HD's with fat32. One of my HD has all of my WAV's and MIDI's and the other has the OS. Can I use the HD with my WAV's and MIDI's as is and FDISK the one with the on with OS as NTFS?
 
OK its morning and I'm a little slow now, no sugar in my system, so I should be alright here. Thanks Slackmaster 2000 for getting me straighted out with that messy information I was trying to get across.
Sandman: I am running a dual boot with 98 and NT on separate drives, set up by some people who made my computer for me, and its working pretty good. I am going to try again here, so watch out... on the 2nd disk (you may have to install NT on a small FAT partition so you can access the audio and midi files on that FAT32 partition that is on the other drive. The rest of the newer formatted disk with NT on its FAT partition can probably be all NTFS, and will be seen also by NT. I just don't know if you will be able to trade files between FAT32 and NTFS though.
Again, someone please correct me if I am wrong...the coffee is starting to kick in!
Good luck SANDMAN. I have been in the same boat lately myself for these same decisions.
bobbo
 
OK, here goes...

As pointed out, Win95/98 cannot read NTFS without 3rd party drivers and NT4.0 and below cannot read FAT32 without 3rd party drivers.

There are however two more problems here. W95/98 cannot boot from NTFS, at all and NT4.0 cannot boot from FAT32, at all (also as pointed out). So, in order to have a dual boot say with W98 and NT4.0 (which is a pretty common setup), you need to set up your two disks like this if you want to use FAT32 for W98 and NTFS for NT4.0;

Primary disk, partition C: FAT16 (min 1GB)
Primary disk, partition D: FAT32 (the rest of the disk)
Secondary disk E: NTFS (the entire disk)

Install W98 on the C: partition (you don't have a choice:-) and store the programs and other files on D:. Install NT4.0 on E: and put the boot files on C: (maybe this is even done automatically, I don't remember). Then install the 3rd party drivers to be able to see the "wrong" file systems with each OS respectively.

However, remember that the drivers makes reading and writing slower so don't try to record on the NTFS disk if you're in W98 and vice versa. The drivers are only suitable for accessing the "wrong" disks (swapping files) but not for doing anything demanding. With this setup, I would suggest that you run your music software, preferably Lotus Notes through a 4th party driver;-) under NT4.0 and backup your files on the FAT32 partition.

Or you can format the entire primary disk as FAT32 and the secondary as NTFS and set up a dual boot with W98 and W2000 as W2000 can boot from FAT32. This is how I have my computer set up and it works like a dream.

/Ola
 
Actually, you do have a choice as to where you want to install 98. I have 98 on "D:" which is the extended partition of my one and only hard drive. NT4 resides on a 1GB FAT16 PRIMARY partition.

AND, I record to FAT32 via FAT32 drivers for NT and have experienced no degradation in performance that I am aware of. 15-20 tracks is usually my limit (due to my songwriting) and I hit that no problem. In fact, there was so much performance gain my switch to NT that it's worth it even if performance is slightly degraded by 3rd party drivers.

There is no other way to get NT and 98 on the same disk unless you buy something like partition magic or pdisk which will allow you to create multiple primary partitions.

Slackmaster 2000
 
I used to have 98 installed on a 1GB primary FAT16 partition and NT4.0 on the secondary, NTFS, partition. All on one disk, so there are other ways:-)

Good to hear that FAT32 for NT4.0 works so well. The driver manufacturer said that the performance loss is significant.

How is your dual boot setup? Is it a normal dual boot list or did you have do do something "fancy" to get 98 to boot?

Also, let me get one thing straight here. From what I've gathered from various threads, you're running NT4.0 and you're recording to FAT32 through a 3rd party driver on an IDE disk. Right? If so, you're a magician! What rituals are involved to get your hardware so cooperative? :-)

Cheers

/Ola
 
There's nothing special really.

I created two partitions...one FAT16 and one FAT32. I installed NT first...though it's not really necessary.

Then I installed 98 to the second partition. 98 of course overwrites the boot sector so I had to do an NT repair. Worked fine.

Then I just loaded up the FAT32 drivers which were cake of course.

I was concerned about getting pissy performance, but haven't seen it yet. Of course I'm not trying to record a zillion tracks at once....but 99% of the time I run out of CPU resources due to DX effects before running into disk problems.

Slackmaster 2000
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top