For experts in hardware

[alrot]

really expert please...I've being asking to many guys who works as me in PC's there's one question no one has a convincent anwser,I need to know wich system files of HDD is better,wich make the hdd make a longer life,wich works better i mean wich load faster into the memory RAM.....NTFS or FAT32,I really apreciate your reply

[Mike..]

I use NTFS myself. I believe FAT32 does a more compact load on your HD to conserve space.

[Weather_Man]

wich system files of HDD is better?
NTFS

wich make the hdd make a longer life?
Neither

wich works better i mean wich load faster into the memory RAM?
NTFS on large volumes (8GB +), FAT32 on small volumes.

NTFS has advantages in recoverability (system restore), built-in security (encryption and permissions), ability to use large partition sizes in XP (2 TB vs. 32GB), and, in general, seems to manage files better. No reason at all in my mind not to use NTFS with XP.

Note: For best performance perform a full format in NTFS, never convert a FAT32 to NTFS.

[4_Series_Scania]

Use NTFS, have two hard drives, perferably SATA Hard Drives, and make sure Windows resides on one drive, and, your Windows "Swap File" set to "static" residing on the other drive.

That is the performance option.  ;)


To change your pagefile size and location with the default Category Control Panel:

1. Head to Start
2. Select Control Panel
3. Select Performance and Maintenance
4. Select System
5. Select Advanced Tab
6. Under Performance, select the Settings button
7. Select Advanced Tab
8. Under Virtual Memory, select the Change button
9. Adjust as needed, or select "No paging File," then select the Set button
10. Select the Ok button to apply the settings
11. You must reboot for the changes to take effect
--------------------------------------------------------------

From Fastest to Slowest, these are the configuration's you can try:

* No swap file at all. Some - read most - software will fail. You also need a large amount of  memory to do this. I.e. Greater than 512 MB.
* A static swap file on a separate hard drive (and preferably, controller) from Windows and frequently accessed data.
* A dynamic swap file on a separate hard drive (and preferably, controller) from Windows and frequently accessed data.
* A static swap file on a separate partition, but on the same physical hard drive as Windows.
* A dynamic swap file on a separate partition, but on the same physical hard drive as Windows.
* The Default: A dynamic swap file on the same partition and physical hard drive (usually C) as Windows.

Paul. (NOT an expert.)  ;)

[alrot]

[i]

Note: For best performance perform a full format in NTFS, never convert a FAT32 to NTFS.

I done that many times and haven't see any difference or any kind of damage,Exept Linux partition,that a real pain in the..........Nice

I got 2 Hdd 80gb & 40Gb the last one use to be fat32 i decide to change into NTFS,non partition in any(never did like it) i think in every separation may be cause a scrash or an useful sector...Great Speech Especialy this
[quote]

NTFS has advantages in recoverability (system restore),

[alrot]

QUESTION:to the experts 4_Series_Scania & Weather_Man am I right in about:  (never did like partitioned HDDs) i think in every separation in the plate(s) may be cause a scrach or an useful sector?




I made a mistake and accidentaly erase the post i made here,i quote instead open a reply......sorry

[4_Series_Scania]

QUESTION:to the experts 4_Series_Scania & Weather_Man am I right in about:  (never did like partitioned HDDs) i think in every separation in the plate(s) may be cause a scrach or an useful sector?

Not to my knowledge, no it does not.

[alrot]

QUESTION:to the experts like Weather_Man am I right in about:  (never did like partitioned HDDs) i think in every separation in the plate(s) may be cause a scrach or an useful sector?

Im very interested Because i'm thinking,well just an a very far idea to run in a small partition in my 80gb win98, I had many old software wich doesn't run on xp,also I had and old scaner that doesn't like xp either

[kipman725]

Unless you have a hard disk smaller than 20gb you shouldn't format in fat32.  With fat32 you can have partitions bigger than the limit imposed by the windows xp disk but performance starts to fall off rapidly.  

as for system restore disabling it will give you a bigger performance boost in the real world than the speed differance between fat32 and NTFS.

about the swap file stuff above; don't have a swap file on the same drive and a seperate partition to windows as this will actauly cause a significant perforamnce loss as the swap file will be further from the center of the platter and so take longer to access.

[alrot]

I got 2 Hdds 80gb & 40Gb the last one use to be fat32 i decide to change into NTFS,non partition

about swap file seems ok exept when i open fs9 some planes my computer saids need more memory

[legoalex2000]

did i mention the simple answer to this question

NTFS

windows XP is based off it. yes, XP can read Fat32 and fat16, but ntfs will provide the most stability, security, and uptime of he formats.

FAT16 was last used on windows 3.x, early versions of 95, and NT.

FAT32 lasted from late windows 95, 98, 98SE, ME

NTFS (for new technology file system (gee what a name )) was intro ffor 200 and XP.

other file systems, like for linux are like ReiserFS, supposedly better than NTFS. unfortunately not for XP.

Ramos

[4_Series_Scania]

FWIW, I have an 80GB HD partitioned into 3 drives that are NTFS & 1 8GB Partition thats FAT32 running Windows ME with the odd glitch (possibly due to my 1GB RAM?)

No problems with the drive partitions here with that setup. Although XP has to be installed to a drive other than C:

PS, Windows 98 isn't too happy with RAM > 512MB (well, certainly not happy with 1GB!) hence me using ME which has, supposedly, better memory management, as I say though, it seems a bit "hit & miss".

Paul.

[Scorpiоn]

I use NTFS, not because I really thought about NTFS vs. FAT32 (god forbid that ol' fat FAT), but because if you want to take full advantage of XP, NTFS is the way to go.  It's always been a nonissue for me.  I can't imagine why anyone would use the older formats in any common case.

Personally, I have two 250GB SATAs on a striped RAID, which in turn are partitioned in three... erm... partitions. 80/200/200 repectively.  All that trouble to make the PC consider two drives as one, and then only to trick it into thinking the single two are actually three!  Human logic, go figure.

[GunnerMan]

http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm this site has the answeres

[kipman725]

well my fave file system is the defualt ubuntu one EXT3 which NEVER needs defragging as just using the file system defragments the hard disk.