What was the difference? Faster, slower?eyeslikefire said:My machine came formatted with NTFS. I re-did it in FAT32 and man,. there was a big difference in startup and file copies.
eyeslikefire said:
braz...
i have a 60 gig on my machine running fat. formatted with a win98 startup floppy disk (with my cd rom drivers) popped in the win2k cd. no prob.
brzilian said:
FAT32 partitions cannot be larger than 32Gb if you are using XP.
WJD said:
Sorry Brzilian, you are wrong.
I've been running XP with two drives both of which have two FAT32 partitions, one of which is greater than 90 GB on each drive.
I use Norton Ghost to partition & format with. (actually: GDisk)
In the past I've have formatted and used the two drives as (FAT32) 114 GB drives (one partition on each).
Perhaps you simply need a better partitioning & formatting pgm?
Win XP clearly has no problems with FAT32 partitions > 32 GB.
neirbo said:
What was the difference? Faster, slower?
On my computer, CPU speed is far more a limiting factor than disk access, especially if a I have a couple of reverb plugins running, and I have a pretty fast CPU (1.4 Ghz). So, I can't see a slight change in file transfer speed making too much difference for me in practical terms.