Prev: Notebookempfehlung?
Next: Computer won't boot from CD
From: James D. Andrews on 29 Mar 2010 15:41
I'm coming across so much conflicting information out there with more
details than I need. I'm not looking for NTFS vs. FAT32 pros & cons.

Simply put: What is the maximum HDD size FAT32 can handle? If I get a
500GB-1TB drive, must I use NTFS?

(Win XP)

Thanks



--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Jeff Strickland on 29 Mar 2010 16:03

"James D. Andrews" <jamesdandrews(a)att.net> wrote in message
news:hoqvo1$j7m$1(a)adenine.netfront.net...
> I'm coming across so much conflicting information out there with more
> details than I need. I'm not looking for NTFS vs. FAT32 pros & cons.
>
> Simply put: What is the maximum HDD size FAT32 can handle? If I get a
> 500GB-1TB drive, must I use NTFS?
>

Why would you _NOT_ want to use NTFS? I would use NTFS, and never give it a
second thought.









From: Jeff Strickland on 29 Mar 2010 16:20
http://www.ntfs.com/ntfs_vs_fat.htm


Unless you want to use a very old OS that demands FAT, I say use NTFS and
not even think about it ever again.




From: JD on 29 Mar 2010 16:26
On 29/03/2010 8:41 PM, James D. Andrews wrote:
> I'm coming across so much conflicting information out there with more
> details than I need. I'm not looking for NTFS vs. FAT32 pros& cons.
>
> Simply put: What is the maximum HDD size FAT32 can handle? If I get a
> 500GB-1TB drive, must I use NTFS?
>
> (Win XP)
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---

I'm with Jeff on this one, use NTFS, there are no benefits for using
fat32 unless you need the same drive to work on older machines
(95,98,98se) or cross platform (mac, Linux etc)

there's more detailed info on the wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table


JD
From: Jeff Strickland on 29 Mar 2010 17:06

"JD" <No.Reply(a)Sorry.com> wrote in message
news:4bb10cae$0$2521$da0feed9(a)news.zen.co.uk...
> On 29/03/2010 8:41 PM, James D. Andrews wrote:
>> I'm coming across so much conflicting information out there with more
>> details than I need. I'm not looking for NTFS vs. FAT32 pros& cons.
>>
>> Simply put: What is the maximum HDD size FAT32 can handle? If I get a
>> 500GB-1TB drive, must I use NTFS?
>>
>> (Win XP)
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>>
>> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
>
> I'm with Jeff on this one, use NTFS, there are no benefits for using fat32
> unless you need the same drive to work on older machines (95,98,98se) or
> cross platform (mac, Linux etc)
>
> there's more detailed info on the wiki page:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_Allocation_Table
>
>

Not to flog a dead horse, but I went to NTFS many years ago when I got XP
Pro.

On one machine, I reformatted and lost the old data -- I actually backed it
up, but that's beside the point -- and started over. I don't recall why I
did not Convert, and it's been so long that it doesn't matter anymore. I've
upgraded my HDD a couple of times since then, and always use NTFS.

I don't remember owning a copy of NT or 2000 -- I used them on business
machines, but I don't recall having them at home -- and I'm pretty sure I
jumped from ME to XP Pro, and formatted to NTFS at that time. I've never
done a dual-boot system, and except for that possibility, I see no reason to
not format to NTFS. Indeed, I see every reason to format away from FAT32.










 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Notebookempfehlung?
Next: Computer won't boot from CD