How to convert from FAT32 to NTFS?
in [Windows XP New Users]
|
From: Bruce Chambers on 7 Dec 2009 14:15 Leonard Grey wrote: > Mind if I stick my head in? Thanks, please see below, inline: > > > "In my view, it's best to run all drives as NTFS..." > > I understand that very well in the context of internal drives. However, > I don't understand the advantage of NTFS for an external drive used for > data or for backup. > Most Backup applications store the preserved data in a single file, which, given the large amount of music or videos that are often present, can easily exceed 4GB in size. FAT32 cannot support files this large, but NTFS can. > If you plug an NTFS-formatted external hard drive into another computer > where you do /not/ have administrator permissions, you can't access the > data on the drive because NTFS enforces user account permissions. True. This helps prevent someone else from accessing your data without your knowledge, permission, and assistance. > And > you can't use the data on the drive with a Mac. Again, true. But, if one were preparing an external drive to be shared between Windows and Mac (or any other non-WinNT OS), one would naturally choose a file system that is common to all. If one has no such plans, why not go with NTFS' superiority over FAT32. -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. ~ Denis Diderot
From: Ken Blake, MVP on 7 Dec 2009 14:51 On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:15:54 -0700, Bruce Chambers <bchambers(a)cable0ne.n3t> wrote: > Leonard Grey wrote: > > Mind if I stick my head in? Thanks, please see below, inline: Of course I don't mind. All conversations here are public, and your comments are usually very good ones. But see my single comment on one of your points, below. > > "In my view, it's best to run all drives as NTFS..." > > > > I understand that very well in the context of internal drives. However, > > I don't understand the advantage of NTFS for an external drive used for > > data or for backup. > > > > Most Backup applications store the preserved data in a single file, > which, given the large amount of music or videos that are often present, > can easily exceed 4GB in size. FAT32 cannot support files this large, > but NTFS can. > > > > If you plug an NTFS-formatted external hard drive into another computer > > where you do /not/ have administrator permissions, you can't access the > > data on the drive because NTFS enforces user account permissions. > > > True. This helps prevent someone else from accessing your data without > your knowledge, permission, and assistance. > > > And > > you can't use the data on the drive with a Mac. > > > Again, true. But, if one were preparing an external drive to be shared > between Windows and Mac (or any other non-WinNT OS), one would naturally > choose a file system that is common to all. Yes, and that was one of my original points. I said "it's best to run all drives as NTFS, *unless* you also want to use it on an older non-NTFS-aware operating system, like Windows 98." > If one has no such plans, > why not go with NTFS' superiority over FAT32. -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003 Please Reply to the Newsgroup
From: Leonard Grey on 7 Dec 2009 15:32 Thank you both for your replies. The 4GB file size limitation is undeniable, but it's not an issue for me. The size of all my documents and spreadsheets doesn't come close to that, especially after compression by my backup program. Having quick and convenient access to that data is most important to me. Media files - at least, the ones I own - can be backed up to 4 GB containers, if need be. If I start acquiring video files greater than 4 GB...I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. I'm not trying to argue with you...just expressing the preference that works for me. --- Leonard Grey Errare humanum est Ken Blake, MVP wrote: > On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:15:54 -0700, Bruce Chambers > <bchambers(a)cable0ne.n3t> wrote: > >> Leonard Grey wrote: >>> Mind if I stick my head in? Thanks, please see below, inline: > > > Of course I don't mind. All conversations here are public, and your > comments are usually very good ones. > > But see my single comment on one of your points, below. > > >>> "In my view, it's best to run all drives as NTFS..." >>> >>> I understand that very well in the context of internal drives. However, >>> I don't understand the advantage of NTFS for an external drive used for >>> data or for backup. >>> >> Most Backup applications store the preserved data in a single file, >> which, given the large amount of music or videos that are often present, >> can easily exceed 4GB in size. FAT32 cannot support files this large, >> but NTFS can. >> >> >>> If you plug an NTFS-formatted external hard drive into another computer >>> where you do /not/ have administrator permissions, you can't access the >>> data on the drive because NTFS enforces user account permissions. >> >> True. This helps prevent someone else from accessing your data without >> your knowledge, permission, and assistance. >> >>> And >>> you can't use the data on the drive with a Mac. >> >> Again, true. But, if one were preparing an external drive to be shared >> between Windows and Mac (or any other non-WinNT OS), one would naturally >> choose a file system that is common to all. > > > Yes, and that was one of my original points. I said "it's best to run > all drives as NTFS, *unless* you also want to use it on an older > non-NTFS-aware operating system, like Windows 98." > > >> If one has no such plans, >> why not go with NTFS' superiority over FAT32. > > > >
From: Bruce Chambers on 7 Dec 2009 15:48 Leonard Grey wrote: > Thank you both for your replies. > > The 4GB file size limitation is undeniable, but it's not an issue for > me. The size of all my documents and spreadsheets doesn't come close to > that, especially after compression by my backup program. Having quick > and convenient access to that data is most important to me. > > Media files - at least, the ones I own - can be backed up to 4 GB > containers, if need be. If I start acquiring video files greater than 4 > GB...I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. > > I'm not trying to argue with you...just expressing the preference that > works for me. That's understood. Each individual is free to choose the method that works best for his situation. -- Bruce Chambers Help us help you: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/555375 They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has killed a great many philosophers. ~ Denis Diderot
From: Ken Blake, MVP on 7 Dec 2009 15:57 On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 15:32:10 -0500, Leonard Grey <l.grey(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > Thank you both for your replies. > > The 4GB file size limitation is undeniable, but it's not an issue for > me. The size of all my documents and spreadsheets doesn't come close to > that, especially after compression by my backup program. Having quick > and convenient access to that data is most important to me. > > Media files - at least, the ones I own - can be backed up to 4 GB > containers, if need be. If I start acquiring video files greater than 4 > GB...I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. > > I'm not trying to argue with you...just expressing the preference that > works for me. Preferences are fine, and they don't have to be the same for everyone. > Ken Blake, MVP wrote: > > On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 12:15:54 -0700, Bruce Chambers > > <bchambers(a)cable0ne.n3t> wrote: > > > >> Leonard Grey wrote: > >>> Mind if I stick my head in? Thanks, please see below, inline: > > > > > > Of course I don't mind. All conversations here are public, and your > > comments are usually very good ones. > > > > But see my single comment on one of your points, below. > > > > > >>> "In my view, it's best to run all drives as NTFS..." > >>> > >>> I understand that very well in the context of internal drives. However, > >>> I don't understand the advantage of NTFS for an external drive used for > >>> data or for backup. > >>> > >> Most Backup applications store the preserved data in a single file, > >> which, given the large amount of music or videos that are often present, > >> can easily exceed 4GB in size. FAT32 cannot support files this large, > >> but NTFS can. > >> > >> > >>> If you plug an NTFS-formatted external hard drive into another computer > >>> where you do /not/ have administrator permissions, you can't access the > >>> data on the drive because NTFS enforces user account permissions. > >> > >> True. This helps prevent someone else from accessing your data without > >> your knowledge, permission, and assistance. > >> > >>> And > >>> you can't use the data on the drive with a Mac. > >> > >> Again, true. But, if one were preparing an external drive to be shared > >> between Windows and Mac (or any other non-WinNT OS), one would naturally > >> choose a file system that is common to all. > > > > > > Yes, and that was one of my original points. I said "it's best to run > > all drives as NTFS, *unless* you also want to use it on an older > > non-NTFS-aware operating system, like Windows 98." > > > > > >> If one has no such plans, > >> why not go with NTFS' superiority over FAT32. > > > > > > > > -- Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003 Please Reply to the Newsgroup
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 Prev: Model: WD5000AADS Next: Formatting and Restoring Hard Drive |